lss advisory review panel * opening remarks (john hoyle ... · claudia newbury acting team leader,...

LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL

MEETING AGENDA

2:00 P.M. SEPTEMBER 9. 1994

* Opening Remarks (John Hoyle, NRC, Panel Chairman)

* Status Report of LSS Administrator (Moe Levin, NRC)

* Status Report of DOE (Claudia Newbury, DOE)

* Discussion of Formation of Technical Subgroup (PanelMembers)

* Topical Guidelines Update (Chip Cameron, NRC)

* Future Agenda Discussion

K> K>

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

0CRwMIV

___ YUCCA MOUNTAINSITE CHARACTERIZATION

PROJECT

RECENT DOE ACTIVITIES RELATED TOLSS DEVELOPMENT

PRESENTED TO

LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL

PRESENWED BY

CLAUDIA NEWBURYACTING TEAM LEADER, TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS

SEPTEMBER 9, 1994

Outline

* Operation of the LSS

* OCRWM Organizational Changes

vw Proposed Program Approach

* LSS Working Group

LSSCNB2.PPT.12519-7-94

KJ

Operation of the LSS

* OCRWM is currently evaluating optionsfor funding LSS operation

* Results of evaluation will be presented atnext LSSARP meeting


K)

OCRWM OrganizationalChanges

* Responsibility for records management andLSS has been transferred from Headquartersto Yucca Mountain Site CharacterizationProject Office (YMSCO)

* Assistant Manager for Suitability and 5i-se V-Licensing is now responsible for LSS


OCRWM Organization

\K)f

Reorganized Yucca MountainSite Characterization

I AssistantManagerforEngineering & Field Operations

William Simecka

K>,

Assistant Manager forSuitability and Licensing

mas >

PerformanceAssessment

TBD - LeadE. SmistadG. Undenbura

A. Gil - Lead' . Hanlon

L.BJerstedtJBD

J. Summerson -Lead

T. BjerstedtC. Newbury

Systems &Requirements

D. Royer - LeadK. ElderJ.C. De la GarzaD. Harrison

ProjectControl

V. lorli - LeadJ. MukherjeeB. HutchinsonTBD

Owkv"'PPANRCSP.1251746.94

K)

Impact of Reorganization onLSS

* Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensinghas chartered a working group to assess LSSstatus and direction

* LSS will be funded and managed by the YMSCO

* DOE LSSARP representatives report to'Assistant Manager for Suitability and Licensing

LSSCNB6.PPT.125/9-7-94

ma,

YMSCO LSS Contacts

Assistant Manaaer for Suitability and Licensing

Steve Brocoum

LSSARP Representatives

Claudia Newbury

John Gandi


Proposed Program ApproachOverview


K-i K>~1

Alternative Program Strategies

* Two alternatives were evaluated:- A program restructured for management efficiency operating

within existing legislative and regulatory framework(assumes availability of increased funding)

- A resource-constrained program operating within existinglegislative and regulatory framework (assumes level fundingoutlook)

* DOE is moving forward with further evaluation ofrestructured program within existing legislative andregulatory framework (Proposed Program Approach)

AFPINTLB9.125.NWTRB/5-17-94

Comparativ 'Schedules- - .. - - - - -

SCENARIO

100%REVENUEFUNDING

PROPOSEDPROGRAMAPPROACH

LEVELFUNDINGOUTLOOK

94 . 95 gq" j 97-o1X8: IN 1 0 I 01_1 CM]0601 01213141:1. I I. . .

4 ; i.

E SSE

DSGN DLVY DE

HLFs HFs 3

;N0'-S E iSSE

IS~-A10 ;FeSqR

SSE SRR .DEIS FEIS LA

I i V T

CA i .-- A# ' ! .

47i tREdEIVE

LAST LA iWASTE CLOtCLOSI.I

1203B9;2064

LAST LAWAsT CLO CLOS

210 2110

Na1

HL~s UPDALA

- | D ! $ i 1

\RECEIVEWASTE

L4CJPCIN D VY S E

I SdE

1wLEGEND:

NOI - NOTICE OF INTENT FOR MGDS EIS SCOPINGSSE - SITE SUITABILITY EVALUATIONHLFs - INDIVIDUAL HIGHER LEVEL FINDINGS (SITE SUITABILITSS - TECHNICAL SITE SUITABILITYSRR - SITE RECOMMENDATION REPORTLA - LICENSE APPLICATIONUC - LICENSE FOR FULL OPERATIONS (RECEIPT AND EMPLACEMENT)DEIS - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTFEIS - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTMPC - MULTI-PURPOSE CANISTERDSGN -DESIGNDATES - FISCAL YEARS

I.

SCNBSECS.PPT.12918-22-94

iK>

Planning Assumptions

* No changes to legislative and regulatory framework -make use of inherent flexibility

* Increased funding in FY95 and assured funding inout-years

* Waste acceptance and near-term storage issuesaddressed by delivery of MPCs to utilities startingin 1998

* Restructure site characterization program based onavailable information to focus on most significantissues for suitability and licensing

* Retrievability maintained for up to 100 years

INEVPSDP7.PM4.1 25.NWTRB/7-8-94

K>~

Basis for Proposed Program Approach

* Responds to Congressional expectations to showdemonstrable progress at reduced cost

* Consistent with original intent of NWPA and 10 CFR60 regarding sequencing of DOE and NRC decisions

* Reflects some of the recommendations of the NASReport, "Rethinking High Level Waste"

* Responds to suggestions from NWTRB and othersregarding the need for effective management of a wellfocused technical program

TPLSTRGY6.PM5.12914-22-94

Summary of Proposed Top-Level Strategyfor Repository

* Make formal suitability findings in a stepwise manner* Initiate the NEPA process as soon as possible* Provide sufficient information in LA to support NRC's

reasonable assurance finding- Ensure safety of repository operations- High confidence in waste package containment for at

least 1,000 years- Bounding/conservative analyses relevant to radionuclide

releases and total system performance for 10,000 years- Testing programs to focus on supporting design (construction,

operations, waste package performance) and bounding!conservative analyses

- Additional information to confirm basis for assessment oflong-term performance provided under post-LA performanceconfirmation program

* Involve stakeholders and public prior to makingkey decisions

TPLSTRGYI.PMS.129/4-22-94

Proposed Program ApproachImpact on LSS

* Impacts the LSS implementation schedule -must be operational well before licenseapplication is submitted, if site is suitable

* LSS design and implementation will bepursued aggressively


K)y

a A

Backup

-I

KEY MILESTONES

Project Summary Milestones

81YgIF1.

?SSIDEIS FEIS LA-

&RR

- -- . ..... L

LA

SITE SUITABILITY

Site Suitability Process

NEPA

Repository

Rail Spur-

LICENSING

Issue Resolution

LA Annotated OutlinePERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Total System PA

WP Subsystem PA

GWTT Subsystem PA

EBS Subsystem PA

-----O _ _ _HLPs HLPS HLF's TSS ~RR

SUPPLEMENW

~'I-. -- IS'PEIS-ROD

-- PR-IJCENSINO ISSUE -LA FOML SU -SLUIN INTERACIOSRESOLUTION I INTERACTIONS

A04 ~A05 SAO076 :A0o7=ko-=k A08AO LA&'ATED~lLA

(tilf and)

~bti#~E ?IAA

UNDE ~ UBFINAL.- I~A

&OSERVATiVE ~UNDED AA

IPM0 IN"i I&MAM3

Date Dli 1OCT33Pwpa. Stan 3OCT33Pfai.d FWAui 20OCT10

4c3 P~buvrar Spilown. Ino

I -7.3 Af 9U.4apown

b.~O Co a-

-- I. %. -SCj0 01 WI i.3. h ft*.0t

Yucca Mountain Site Charaterization ProjectProposed Program Approach

Master Schedule

SUMMARY ACTMTY-.- f FY0 W05IY0 riY0IFY9IYO(IF~fO2-IFYC 9S-rYo6FYOrrFY0orrY9 rFY

SITE INVESTIGATIONS

3-D Geologic Description

Climate Description

Postclosure Tectonics Description

UZ/SZ Geochemistry Description

UZ Hydrologic Description

SZ Hydrologic Description

Thermal Effects Description

ESF CONSTRUCTION

7.8 Kilometer Loop

Calico Hills

REPOSITORY / WASTE PACKAGE

Repository

Waste Package

RAIL SPUR

YUBFINAL N9FINAL a'DAILD

& ~SERVATIVE &~ONDED .iLBFINAL'

&ONDED 3BOUNDED ~JBFINAC

D BOUNDED&UFINAL.

. JBFINAL

&UBFNAL7

- PNAL

- . .. 0 UNDED :,BOUINDED

UNED ~16INAL

COMPLETE 7.8K LOOP

[o GDF

EVAL CH IMPLEMENT CH

ACCESS(SL DRLIEXC) DECISION (SL DRiJEXC)

2CD %TLEI iTLE 11 CONSTRLICTJO

OPERATION'

FA8RICAT1iOZCD f~TME I 1ITLE It RLfitI/PROTOTYPE

Rail Spur ROUTEANALYSIS/CD

STARTTITLE I

0 <TITLE I TITLE It CONST

as.. DM.. 9OCT93 L. ... _ Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project _ _.41.1 *"" dl w -PF.d *Joe No OCT13 I P.. S --0 80 NwlnCokd Ap e

P=ured FWOst 2ooCTPo ' " o.'ww * Proposed Prram ApproachEfi~Master Schedule ::.

, h t ..-w __um .... , ,. _. .,

K>11

Differences Between Current Program andProposed Program Approach for Repository

Key Elements Current Program Proposed Program Approach

Site suitabilityevaluation

* Interim evaluations* Design basis-Title I

* Individual interim findings* Design basis - ACD* Technical site suitability

determination bySecretary- 1998

EIS * Draft 2003* Final 2005* Final supports site

recommendation* Final accompanies* Design basis-Title I

* Draft 1998* Final 2000.* Same

LA * Same* Design basis - ACD

Site Recom-mendation

* 2005* Design Basis-Title I

* 2000* Same

AFPINTLB1 1 .125.NWTRB/5-17-94


(Continued)

Key Elements Current Program ProDosed Procram ADmraoch

Licensing

Technical andScientificStudies

* 2005 LA* Design basis-Title 11

for items importantto safety and wasteisolation

* Full scope of studiesproposed in SCP,with appropriatemodifications,to reflect prioritiesand budget

* 2001 LA* Design bas - Title I for

repository, Title 11 forwaste package

* Narrow the focus- totechnical issues mostimportant to suitabilityand licensing

* Make effective use ofrequired performanceconfirmation program


K>/


(Continued)

Key Elements Current Program Proposed Program Approach

Retrievability * 50 years after startof emplacementoperations

* 1 00 years after start ofemplacement operationsor when results fromperformance confirmationprovide adequateconfidence to proceedwith closure application


Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OperatingContractor

TRW Environmental SafetySystems Inc.

C al~- "~ r'A, XAfV

OVERVIEW OF LSSWORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES

Presentation to theLicensing Support System, Advisory Review Panel

K. Michael ClineSeptember 9, 1994

B&W Fuel CompanyDuke Engineering & Services, Inc.Fluor Daniel, Inc.

INTERA Inc.JK Research Associates, Inc.E. R. Johnson Associates, Inc.

Logicon RDAMorrison Knudsen CorporationWoodward-Clyde Federal Services

K)-

DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS

* SCENARIO 1: Current OCRWM records management system

- NOTcompliant with Subpart J

* SCENARIOS 2-7: features common to all:- Compliant with Subparj J compliant- Use scanned images for records storage and to produce OCR'd

full text for documents- Have on-ine searchable headers to support retrieval of documents

- Have ontline searchable full text to support retrieval of documents

- Provid~,for transmittal of hard copy image by mail or fax per LSSuser request

* SCENARIOS 2-7: Differences:- Image available anty m o cenarios 2 3

- On-line transmission of electronic images (Scenarios 5, 6)

- Human-corrected'OCR'd full-text (Scenarios, 2, 3, 5) versusmachine-corrected (Scenarios 4, 6, 7)

919194 1

K>

RESPONSIBILITY

With the responsibilityYucca Mountain Siteelected to undertakeconsidering:

of the LSS within DOE transferring to theCharacterization Office (YMSCO), it has

a re-evaluation of the LSS concept

- An improved understanding of Program and- New milestones and constraints imposed

Program Approach (PPA)- Advancements in system components

LSS ARP needsby the Proposed


Briefing # LSS005 9/9,94 2

K-)

WORKING GROUP

* YMSCO directed the OCRWM M&O to establish a working group,under the oversight of the Assistant Manager of Suitability andLicensing, to undertake an evaluation with the objectives of:

- Re-evaluating all key elements of the LSS as it currently isenvisioned.

- Modifying or developing a strategy that:-- is consistent with the PPA-- optimizes new technologies-- minimizes cost

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement System 9/9/94 3

Management & Operating Briefng I LSSOO3

Contractor

WORKING GROUP(cont'd)

* The Working Group is made up of interdisciplinary team of seniorprofessionals from Washington, DC and Las Vegas.

* The Working Group has been tasked to:

- Conduct a comprehensive review of the LSS concept thataddresses:

-- Development history-- Statutory and derived requirements-- Identification and evaluation of viable options

-- Analysis of capture and dissemination page volumes

-- System capabilities and options-- Cost drivers and development/implementation costs

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement System BrIeing N LSS005 919194 4

Management & OperatingContractor

WORKING GROUP(cont'd)

Products of the Working Group will be:- Evaluation of the requirements, and an understanding of the

derived requirements with respect to their applicability underthe PPA.

= Development ofleedul for LSS Developmentand Implementan

- Enhancement of the cost model and comparison to the costanalyses.

- Development and evaluation of viable options utilizing a setof evaluation criteria.

O f a proposed preferred option.Fina rep rt with recommendations for implementation of theLSS ell

Civilian Radioactive WsqManagement SystemManagement & Operating Briefing ISSOOS 9/994Contractor

WORKING GROUP SCHEDULE

* Initiation of Working Group - May 1994

* Status briefing to DOE - June 23, 1994.* Draft Requirements Analysis available for review - June 30, 1994.

* Status briefing to DOE - July 14, 1994.

* Cost estimate for planning purposes - July 30, 1994

* Briefing to DOE on LSS strategy - August 24,1994* Summary Briefing to DOE on Working Group Conclusions and

Recommendations - September 23, 1994

* Draft report to DOE - September 30,1994* Prepare DOE briefing to LSS ARP - October 1994

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement System Briefing # LSS0O5 91g/94 6


WORKING GROUP STATUS

* Completed Requirements Review* Developed detailed option descriptions and is in process of

selecting proposed preferred option* Developed developed better understanding of the LSS

functionality considering statutory and derived requirements

* Continue to refine cost-model for evaluating LSS costthrough 2004

* Established milestones for LSS development andimplementation

* Developed proposed recommendations for DOE to presentto the LSS ARP and for continued work toward developmentof the LSS

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement System 919194

Management & Operating Briefng # LSSOO5Contractor

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS OF WORKING GROUP

* Need to revise System Requirements Document* Volume estimates consistent with earlier studies* Cost savings can be achieved by:

- improved technologies-- disaggregating costs-- not overdesigning system-

* Identified seven scenarios driven by means of text andimage dissemination


Briefing # LSS005 919/94 8

(dO y&(A(-S

§p$ 02 /

Development of the LSS is a critical elementlicensing application milestone of 2001.

for meeting the

FYI 95 96 197

9SS

98 IDEIS

V99

FEIS

VI00SRR

V01

LA

V94

_I I I _ _ * * _

LSSanalysis& budgetplanning

PreparesystemrRequir:Docume~ntand submitto LSSAFIP

LSSDevelop-ment

I

Implemen-tation

LSScertification

I.


Brefing I LSS005 9/94 9

VOLUME ESTIMATES

* Objective:- Estimate the total number of pages to reside in the LSS

assuming DOE receives a license to receive and possessradioactive waste (FY 2010).

* Assumptions:- Estimates include contributions from DOE, NRC and

Stakeholders- Estimates are based in part on historical records system

data


Briefing # LSS005 9194 10

A K>

VOLUME ESTIMATES

* Volume Input and Projections- Senior participant, professionals canvassed to estimate

volume input- Volume estimated based on annual volume inputs and

existing records data* Volume is estimated to be less than previous analyses* Considerable uncertainty exists and will continue to exist with

the estimates of volume (capture and dissemination)


Briefing # LSSOOS 9/9/94 11

K>2

Relative LSS Volume1 -

0.8 -

0u 0.6 -co

iL

0.4

0.2 a |

. _

-

... ,...

I .1998

Fi

0 - --1994 1996

4- L[-X Il l

2000I 1 = - F-[2002 2004ical Year

4

2006 2008-I -1 - 1

2010

.r

09106

'K>

COST ANALYSIS

* Cost analysis has become more sophisticated as the workinggroup has evolved in its understanding of the LSS.

= The costevaluatedthe actual

elements of the LSS were disaggregatedto better understand what they represent andcosts of the LSS are.

andwhat

- It is assumed that the DOE Records Management system will, to electronic imaging for its data base/


9/9/94 13Briefing # LSSOO5

K>1 K)

KEY DOE COST DRIVERS

* Data Volume, i.e. the number of pages that will be processedthrough the records system

* Human verification of text, and OCR accuracy- Scenarios defined with and without human verification- Analysis of sensitivity to OCR accuracy performed.

* Dissemination cost (an LSS cost) for varying page volumes


Briefing # LSS005 9/9194 14

<KJ

COST ANALYSIS

* Disaggregating of costs revealed cost elements not attributableto the LSS development and implementation.

* A more sophisticated cost model better addresses costsensitivity and the cost profile through 2004.

*Over 0 ar period costs for LSS may be less than 100 milliondollars.',

' CL 0


Briefing # LSS005 919194 15

K>- K>/

PURPOSE OF LSS OPTIONS

* Seven (7) Options/Scenarios identified to:- Differentiate among operational concepts

- Text dissemination-- Image dissemination-- Human verification

- Differentiate among attributes-- User friendly-- Response time

- Identify operational cost drivers- Provide the DOE with various cost options for development

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement System B S9/94 16


i,

LSS SCENARIOS CONSIDERED

Network [Scenarios 2-7]

Electronic Copy Human VerifiedNo Yes

4,6,7 2,3,5/.

TextDissemination

Network

Electronic Copy

[Scenarios 5, 61

3icenarios 3, 7]

[Scenarios 2, 4](Default forall scenarios)

ImageDissemination

Hard Copy

I


Briefing # LSSOO5 919194 17

KJ

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

* DOE must proceed with development and implementation of theLSS without further delay.

* The DOE must become more proactive with the LSS ARP.

* The recommendations of this working group will assure that theLSS is in compliance with all regulatory requirements and inconsistent with the philosophy of the PPA in cost and inschedule.


9/9/94 18Briefing 4 LSS005

lss advisory review panel * opening remarks (john hoyle ... · claudia newbury acting team leader,...

Documents