WVfIv R~Cord Fle

zzvs

NfRFC/BWIP PROJIECT MfNiAd3ENT iiEET-IN43--

fAUGUSTI 4,f 1986 Z-J4 _.___ ./

HI CHLANE WfASH ING-TfON ,_

hTTEl-\1Dl-' ES

AH list ot attendees ar-id their or-ganizattional affiliations isiattatcl-hed aks Enclosur;e 1l

Bf-4iC ::T3ROUNhD

The mreeting followed the topics outlined in the agenda (EncloSFur-e2). Copies of viewgratphs and handoLuts used by the Depiartment ofEnergy-Ri chl and Operations Office (DOE/,,L) aFnd the Nucl earRegulatcor-y Commission (NRC) are attac:'lhed as Enclosuires 31 & 4.

The NFRC objecti ves rfor the meetingrig were. PrFesentattion of the NRCfive year- plan identi fi cati on and agreement on sign:i.ficantpre-Site Characterization Plan (SCR) itechnical conceirns andNRC/DOE int,-er-atctions needed to address these -on c-rn-ns, anddisi cussiorin of specific aspects of the site specific proceduralagqreemient inncl:uding 'i. mel y rel ease of datat, pl anni ng aindconductinrig meet:i ngs and Aippendi 7 assignments.

VJ]ID 0R 1\I\I i2r-iT IOTlN

DOE:-J/RL and RocIkwell1 Hanforid Oper-at:i.ons (F,'HO) pr-esenteddes~cr-i ptions of their respective organizations. Rockwel. haisunder-gone at ma- ijor- restructturinig of the or-ganization reflecting Etgreater emphasisi on site charac terizatti on as opposed to apre-selection mode of operatio:n. (See Enclosur-e .3 handouts for-mor e specific details.)

NRC/WA-STE MA.NAGEMENT ORGANI ZA TI ON

The NRC presented a description of the Division of WasteMzxarn-agement organization. As a maizitirix, the Repositor-y Pr-ojectsbr anch di rects and integrates repository r-eli-ated activities withsupport pr-ovided by the Geotechnical, EngineeF-irig, and Policy andProgram Control braniches. Techni caL support is also prcovided atthis ti.me by numerous techniczal assistaince contraictors. AI soinvolved in thhe program ar e the Office of the Generatl Counsel,Inspecti on aind Enfor-cement and Research together with thePidvi sory Coaimmittee on Reactor Siafeguards..

E610010120 660805PDR WASTEWm-lo PDR a2OO7

NRC P::LANS

The N R C pr eser- ted its f j. VE ye ar p la-Rn Rin d t he status of bC3t hgeneric and site speci fi c planning efforts. Basicaal ly the fiveyear plan lays out the NiFRC's strategy and obj ectives fromi nowuntil the tfiling of the license application. The primaryobj ective of the plan is to provide for an aggressi ve programf3cuRsed on those activities necessary to provide sufficientl iCcens:in.FIg gUidaniice to the DOE and sufficient interaction with theDOE, States, Indian tribes and other agencies in order toidentifyv and., to -the e-tent possible, resolve as many l:icensinngopen items as possible prior to the :I.icensing hearing.

The NRC believes this open item identification and resolutionprocess si-houLAId start now ratlher than waiting until after the SCPhas been sissued. The DOE: observed that consi der i ng thEir limitedmanpower arnd aggressive program to meet programmatic milestones

rind sc:h-dules specified by the NJuclear Waste Folicy Act (NWPA)they may rnot have timr~e to meet as frequently prior to release ofthe CrP as proposed by the NRCC. Additional lv, -the DOE maydisagree with the NRC over the significance of particularconcerfns. The NRJRC responded that it is the DOE:'s call as towhether we have interactions early on or after the SCP. Waitinguntil1 after the SCP may have, more of an impact on their programsince the amendment to i(-)CFR Part 6O will require the DOE toconsider the NRFC's comments on the shaf't portions of the SCFprior to starting shaft construction. However, DOE :intendsl< toprovide NRC di screte draft chapters of the SCP prior to releaseof the assemfl:B ed SCP document to facilitate their review.

Thre NRC also pointed out that they are developing technical.positions on acceptabl:e methodologies as an addi tional mechanismfor resolv:i.ng open items but thtat they were not precluding thepoftential o-f ru-le making as an additional resoluti on proces=s..The DOE asked if the rule mak:-ing pr-ocess would be negotiated.The NRC responded that they are considering all options at thistime but thiat any rule makirirg process would 0not go forwardwithout the support of the DOE.

The primary f)ocus of the NRC site specific planning exercise hasbeen to identify significant technical concerns which the NRC andDOE need to worI.: towards resolution pr-ior to S3C issuance therebyavoiding potential major review and construction delaifys. Al. isting of sig nifi.cant Pre--SC:' ttechnical concerns and proposedinteractions for resolving these concerns was presented anrdd i s cussedJ (See EnclosuLre 4. i It was pointed out by -the NRCthat this listing does not contain all concerns but areconsi.dered to be those which should be addressed and, to theetxtent practicable, resolved prior to issuance of the SCPa T-heDOE agreed th-,at interactions iln the form of workshops are neededin the areas of hydr ol ogy and performance assessment.

2D

They turther questiconed the logi stic:s of having so manyinteractions; i.n1 sUch a short period of time. The NARC requestedthat the DOE review the concerns and proposed Ji.nteractio.ns Fan dprovide feedback as .Lo what interacti.ons they will be able tosupport. DOE: agreed to do this in coordination with DOE-HO. TheNFRC al so indicated that they need to k.nciw t'he DOE 's mi l estonesand s5chedu.Les to more effecti vely plan interactions that DOE wi].Lbe ready to parti ci.pate in.r

The DOE indicated that they need to be informed of what the NRCactivities and milestones are in the areaR of guiidance documentpreparation. Thte NRC stated that they are currently completing anew system which will provide for this type of information andagreed tto send copies to DOE on a regular basis.. This system

should be completed in the near future.

The NRC requested feedbackA from the DOE on GT :'s that are beingiSssued.. The DOE indicated that several GTP' s are ULnder review atthe pres ent time and that comments would be forwarded viaheadquarters as they are completed.

The N'4RC emphasiized the need for identifying resolution ofe-xisting NRC concerns that have been ralised through pastinteracEtc-Lionrs and rev:iews of the Site Characterization Report(SCR) 5 Draft Environmental Assess-ismient (DEA,) and various otherdocumherIts. Thie DOE noted that some issues icdentifieci in the pastmay no longer be val i d. The. NR11l\C noted that these concerns shouldbe identified arid agreement reached by all participants thatthese concerns have or have not been r esolved.. The DOE respondedthaDt such a review of concerns is desirable and will be addressedfor resol uti on during site characterization.

BWID PLhhNS (SCP)

The DOE presen ted the current SCP schedule which now proposesissuance to the public in March L9B7. DOE indicated that draftscould be ma(ie available to the N'lIRC, after the second draft stagewhich reflects DOE/RL, DOE/HQ and Roclk.well review (See Enclosure3. ) The second drafts are scheduled to be released between midOctober and the ffirst of December 1986.

The site characterization semiannual document is envisioned bythe DOE to be a progress report showing changes being made inlest plans ardi overall progress to date. They do not plan toprovide actual page changes to the SC' itself. There wasa-greement by the DOE and NRC that additional discussion isnecessary concerning the scope, and content and timing of theCIoc::L.lmtent.

The DOE presented an expl iinati on of its issue resolution strategyprocess which provides the mechanism for identifying issues andresolving the-em.. (See Enriclosure 3.. ) The NRC noted that theapproach to issue resol Luti on was to use 1 ogi. ca scenarios rather

*tbhn conservative scenarios. The N 4RC made the observation thiatthis type of approach may put the DOE at risk: if the scenariosare incorrect. DOE responded that there is riskl involved nomatter what approach i s taken. The NRC consi ders it needs toreview what DOE considers to be 1ocgi cal and provide feedback toDOE as to its appropriatel-nesS. DOE indicated that a first draftof the docUmfjCen--t is scheduled for releaise by the end of September-1.986, and it miay be possible to release it to NRC at that time.

Additional ly, the sample ].icenrsing strategy for Issue No. i.-4seeEnc lo.sure .) ]i Sted severial des:i.gn assumptions whichi may notr-ef].act unceyrtainties. NRC consideare this could potentiall y leadto arn i nsuffiicient testing scop:)e to provide bases for *futuL1reassessment metliodol ogi a s. In this regard. *the NRC di.d notnecessarily agree with the design assumpti ons as presented inth i. s e> amp 1 a.e

REL-EASE: OF' D)-,TY) A-D DOCUMENTAT I ON

DOE presented a description of the Basalt Records ManagementCeniter (BRM-,C) (see Enclosure 3). DOE noted that its center wouldnrot have all the recorded informiation pertinent to the project,but some irformation generated outside the DOE sponsored wor kwould be contained in Ea reference l ibrarv.

DOE noted that onj.y project produced reports are identified inthe DocuM:lment Aiccessi OnS Li st; however.1 most records created byRock.sIwe}ll. are sent to the FiRMC for storage . Contractor records,for exwample, data concerning instr-ument calibration, is notstor-e~d in the BRIIC, but should be p present in individualc(onmtractor records systems.

DOE noted thiat draft documents, which are early revisions tofinial dcruments in the BMRC, and other information pertinent tothe creation of any given final document (for example, commentsand pertinent review comment records) are retained in B11RC andcan be madce ?ava:i lable up:on requlest of a program participiant oncea f i na].al document i s i sued.

Th e avail abilivty of draft documerints prior to completion of thlefinal was noted by NRC as a desirable condition to aL1low earlyreview ianc:l feedback to DOE. DOE noted that such feedbackS: wouidbe disruptive arid did ncot in general corncur with the desirabilityof mal:ing draft docurments avai labJ.e for NRC review other than tot he OR.u

NRC noted theat availability of drafts for- NRC staff review underAippend i 7 and general avai lability for retent i on would be thesubjject of a f+u ttur-e NRC DOE/HQ meetxiring on NIRC/DOE interactions.

.4

NMEE_'T I NG S

The NRC :indi.nc:ated that it was imprortant to have managementmrceeti nrgs at regul ar intervals. DOE agreed that a quacfrct erly timeframe i. s a good target. It was proposed by the NRC that ageneral type of agenda be developed for the mianagement meetingssi mi ] ar to w-,-t t-e Sa lt Reposi tory PIoj ect Office (SRFO)proposed at their last management meeti ng. This would allow forcontinuity and c onsistency of such- interactions. DOE indicatedthat they would cons:ider the proposal. DOE indicated that it wastheir posi ti on that., dependinrig on thie agenda. there is no reasonwhy so-me maz-nagement meetings canint be cLosed . This should beconsi dered on a case--by--case basis. The NRC concurred that theremnav be a need at times for- limited par-ti ci oati on at managementmneet i ngs.

The NRMC stiated that technical meetinrg agendas should focus on:i denti fyi ng and work:ing towards resol uti c:n of specific concerns.This may :i.nclude reaching total resoluLition, or agreeing to neededfol] ow-up acti vi ties that will. lead to resol uti on. 'Techni calmeet:i.,-ngs sho1uld co-nsist of more of a workshop atmosphere withl ess emrphasi s o-n l arge-scal e, broad presentati ons. Pre-meeti ngmaterials should be prepared ai:s far in advance of the meeting aspossible to allow all participants a chance to provide input tother.S agenda-t topics. The NRC suggested that attempts should bemcrade to make the meeting minutes more understandabl e, perhaps ina narrative form, cl earl y indicating agreements. di sagreements,and thiose activities required to reach resoluti on. The DOEobserved that this may not be practical for technical meetings.

Discussions were held concerning involvemeint by NRC and DOEhead quarters i-maniagemenit in meeting agreeements. The NRC statedthat presently the Director of the D:i. vision of Waste Manacgementre.vilews the meeting summary and diiscusses the meeting with theinvolved NRC staff immediately fo l 1 owin rg the meeting. Th e DC Eobservved that --.ome mechanism should be developed to assure uppermanage(r~ment concurr-ence in meeting agreements since often thosepeople signing -the minutes do not have the iauthority to mak::ecommi tments.

The NRC' a].so introdLuced the concept of briefings as anotheririteraction option. Biriefings would be used for selected toplic:sreqC1uir ing atn overview of a particular program area. Thev wouldconsist of a one or two hour presentation to the NRC staff by oneor two DOE' technical staff. Only questionrs for- clarificationwould be entertained. These briefi igs would be open andannounced w:i.th an agenda provided as for technical meetings.

ri ief -=ummari es would be prepared conisisting of an attendeEeslist, agenda, and copies of vieewgra-:phs and handouts, It i.se> xpected that the scope of bri ef i ngs W(oUld be si mi l ar to theb~riefi.nrg DOE--Hg gave to the NRC; staff on the decision aidingmethodol ogy. The DOE concurred that the concept was valid but

-

- >

questi oned whether- one or two DOE individuals coLdld provide anadequate technical presentati on on such broad topi cs.

AfPPEND I X 7 ASS I CNEIMrs

In response to the number of Appendixi 7 assignm-rents proposed bythe NRCF durin7g the site specific planning presentation (seeEnclosuL.re Li4. the DOE responded thhat they ccOuld not sLupport thatmany interactions due to the disruption it would cauWse.Addi.tionall y, the DOE stated that they had not envisionedAppemi(Jix 7 to allow for short term attachmTients to the NRC On-siteRepresentati. ye s (OR s) office. The DOE believes that activitiesof this nature would require a revision to Ahppendix 7.. Theyex.prec..;sed concern that NRC is circumvent:i.ng the data reviewconcept which allows states ancd tribal participation. The DOEfurther indicated that data reviews may be a better vehicle foraccompl ishi ng the types of interactions presently being proposedunder Appendix 7 assignments.

TEC-HN I COhl. COMMUN I CATORS

The DOE provided a revised listing of technical communicators forthe project. The NRC indicated that. because of their monitoringrole within the organizati on, techriical] coQmMn1r1:i.cato~rs many timescannot provicde immediate answers to NRC technical staff duringtelephone conversations. The lRC sLugge.sted that perhapssecondary contacts consisting of senior tecchniical contractorpersonnel siimilar to Nevada's technicaJ. communicator networl. I. mayex.pedi te the tranrsfer of technical information. The NFRC asl.:edfor feedback; from the DOE' as to h-ow their communicators perceivethe situation". The DOE responded that thley would have to tal.::e aha-rd look at the si tuattion before determining whether a change ofthis natur-re is warranted.

2AG!CREE MENTS-

1.. DOE will provide NRC organizational relationship chartsidentifying the QA chain of command for Ro;::wel arnd DO3E-RL-/HlD..

2. DOE wi 11 provide NRC an updated 1 ist of technical andl.icensinng communicators for Appendi.. 1 of the Site SpecificAcgr eement..

3., NRC will provide DOE with a list of all NRC ERWIP Team members,indic.ating their relationship to functional and project branches.

4.l NRC wil1L provide DOE with its planning document fordevel]opment of Generic Technical Fosi t ions (GTP' s) andSi te--Speci if i c Techni cal Positions *1FSSTP s) when available..

5. It was agreed that DOE and NRC should hold pre--SCPF wor-.::shopson perfor-inace assessment methodology and geo--h-ydrology andi abriefing on performance allocation.a

6. DOE agreed to review the NRC 1 iEt of concerns and addi ti onalproposed i nteract:i. ons ,see Enc OS-ure 4) and obtain concurrence ofDOE HQ. in any future interactions.

7. DOE will provide NRC with the 1.isting of Site CharacterizationAinal ysi s commients and issues with r-esol Lti on StatLtS from the SWIDtra:king system by the end of PlUgLlSt 195)..

B. DOE agreed to revie.-*w the abstract secti cn of the ()ccessi onsList and for future listirngs provide additional informationcon(cernijng scope and purpose of li sted documents per theaogreemen-t ,. in the Site Specific Procedural Agreement

9.. NRC agreed to provide DOE a copy of the Audit Report of S:iteSpecific Fo--cC-edC.fral Agreements wher it is finalized in September,1955.

1t. It was agreed thcat the next iii-maagement meeti:ng date woitid bemtutal ly dertermi ned wi thin two weeks between DOE (Mecca) and NRC(li. 1 denbrzcnid)

OPE:NI IT EMS-

1. The definition for- "anticipated processes and events, " and"unantic:ipate-d processes and events" is to be Ciscussed betweenDOEf/H-O arid NIRC to resolve differences in the interpretations ofthese terms, for example, where are ex.pected and unexLDected humanindutced events covered when such events arle not humfian intrusioninto the repository?

2. T he s c ope, content and timing of site characterizationsemiannual docurment requires definiti on

3.. A consi. stent program-wfiwide approach to Appendix 7 interactionsmTLLst be developed by NRC and DDE/HO0.

- J§-4- 4G4John J'. L.i. rehan, NRC/WMRF' -4 1 Olson, Di rector

U- I ID/ision Basalt Waste Isolation

Paul F:. Hildebrand, NRC/WVMRP e Mecca. Chiefensirng, Environmental and

, k'L-afety Branch

I

J/

AGENDA

NRC/DOE BWI DIVISION MANAGEMENT MEETING

AUGUST 4, 1986, RICHLAND, WA

20 min. Introductions DOE/NRC

Opening Remarks DOE/NRC

Objectives DOE/NRC

20 min. BWI Division Organization DOE

20 min. NRC/Waste Management Organization NRC

60 min. NRC Plans NRCSummary of 5 Year PlanStatus of Generic-PlanningStatus of Site Specific Project Planning

SummaryPreliminary Significant IssuesTechnical Meeting Topics

90 min. BWI Division Plans (SCP)

o History, Milestones And Schedule DOE

o Issues/Resolution - Strategies DOE

o Pre SCP Meetings Topics/Timing DOE

60 min. Release of BWI Division Ddt6a DOEAnd Documentation

120 min. Planning and Conducting Meetings NRC/DOEManagement MeetingsTechnical Meetings

30 min. Planning and Conducting NRC/DOEAppendix 7 Assignments

Preparation of Meeting Minutes NRC/DOE

SWI

ORGANIZATIONmrCC;

WI

J~ / c n~ rev ;p '-

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

DOE-RLMANAGER

M.J. LAWRENCE

OFFICE OF OFFICE Of PLANSEXTERNAL AFFAIRS a BUDGETS

S.H. LEROY K.W. BRACKEN

I

OFFICE OFI CHIEF COUNSEL

_ _ E.E. PRIDE

I

OFFICE OF CIVILIANRADIOACTIVE WASTE

MANAGEMENT

B.C. RUSCHE, DIRECTOR

OFFICE OF GEOLOGICREPOSITORIES

W.J.-PURCELL, DIR.

IIIIIII- ______ _____ � .. X

ASSIST. MGR. FORADMINISTRATION

R.M. ROSSELLI

ASSIST. MGR. FOROPERATIONS

J.L. RHOADES

ASSIST. MGR. FOR BASALT WASTE ISOLATIONCOMM. NUC. WASTE DIVISION

A DIRECTO R

J.H. ANTTONEN II O.L. OLSON I

ASSIST. MGR. FORSAFETY AND SECURITY

T.R. FITZSIMMONS

I r -- IZZ -QUALITY SYSTEMS GEOSCIENCE AND

BRANCH TECHNOLOGY BRANCH

R.P. SAGET. CHIEF D.H. DAHLEM - CHIEF

IENGINEERING AND

CONSTRUCTION BRANCH

R.A. HOLTEN - CHIEF

.... _

-I

LIC./ENVIR./SAFETYBRANCH

J.E. MECCA - CHIEF

l ILe sotho__. ((U"e

NEAR TERMNRC MEETINGS

* GEOHYDROLOGY SEPT/OCT

* PA PROGRAM AND SCP CONTENT NOV/DEC

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT ORGANIZATION

DIRECTOR MANAGEMENTD.C. GIBBS ASSOC. AND INTEGRATION

DIRECTOR R.A. JOHNSONL.R. FITCH 78000

QUALITY ASSURANCE * -

R.T. JOHNSON 1EGAL/7 k

(I-

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

I--P.K. BUSSEY

I R.M. CARTER I j

PROJECT OPERATIONSADMINISTRATION AND TEST

J.R. KIRKENDALL, ACT. L. CONNELL72000 71000

LABORATORIESPBM A.F. NOONAN

J.R. KIRKENDALL 71100

NSTF AND EXPLORATORYINFORMATION SHAFT OPERATIONS

MANAGEMENT P.L. BLAIR

J.W. TRITZ 7120072100

| SITE CHARACTERIZATION|PROJECT ASSURANCE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

I kin TVfll Amhkr' _ Wi Li Dflfllt

CONSTRUCTIONN.M. HUTCHINS

73000

EXPLORATORY SHAFT

CONSTRUCTIONH.W. BRANDT

73100

PROJECT ENGINEERSERVICES

K.C. BURGARDCONSTRUCTION CONTR

R.I. WATKINS, ACT.

PREREQUISITE PLANA.A. FAZIO

SCIENCE ANDENGINEERING

G.W. JACKSON, ACT.77000

L CHIEF SCIENTISTM.D. VEATCH

W.G. KELTNERmm 72010

1 "

I .ml. rni.Lb

j 71300

ACQUISITION ANDPROCUREMENT

am MANAGEMENTA.E. DUNNING

72020

SYSTEMS ENGINEERINGG.W. JACKSON, ACT.

77100

PERFORMANCEASSESSMENT

J.A. THEIS77200

SITET.A. CURRAN

77400

ENGINEERING AND

DESIGNG.T. HARPER, ACT.

77300 -

CONFIGURATIONMANAGEMENT

G.W. JACKSON, ACT.77010

_ SENIOR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORD.J. BROWN

f Li

I SYSTEMSK.R. FECHT

78100

[ L2WASTE PACKAGE

R.L. GILCHRIST78200

L3jSITE CHARACTERIZATION|4 G.S. HUNT

78300

L4REPOSITORY

-4 R. SCHLOSSER78400

g ~L51t REGULATORY AND-| INSTITUTIONAL (LICENSING)

J. GRAHAM78500

L6EXPLORATORY SHAFT4 T.M. WINTCZAK

78600

RESOURCEMANAGEMENT

- J.R. KIRKENDALL, ACT.72030

L7FACILITIES.4 G.S. DINTSCH

78700

-I L9PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

R.A. JOHNSON78900 1

ffi _ _ z

BWIP

MAJOR CONTRACTORS

DOE-RL SUPPORTSERVICES

Li.,i rcQ ~

C- .e .. 1 71~

__ IN_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ROCKWELLHANFORD KAISER ENGINEERS WESTINGHOUSE BATTELLE PACIFIC

OPEATON PASOS RINERFFMORRISON KNUDSEN HANFORD (HEDL) NORTHWESTOPRTIN NPRSN BIKEOF CONSTRUCTION WAT'ACAE- LABORATORY (PNL)

TCNCL/QUAKE & DOUGLAS MANAGER WATESTINAG -ZWASTE PACKAGETCNCLA/E TSIGDEVELOPMENT

-- INTEGRATION_ _ _ _ _ _ _

SUBCONTRACTORS SUBCONTRACTORS 9J

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..._r

I _ I _ l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~vx. 1

KAISER ENGINEERS PARSONS BRINKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.

KE/PB BWIP ORGANIZATION

KE/BP POLICY BOARD

PROJECT DIRECTOR

C. WILLIAMS

. _ __

I . _'I_

TECHNICAL AREA PROJECT TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTIONR DESIGN PROJECTCONSULTANTS n MANAGERS PUBLICATIONS ESTIMATORS SUPERVISORS SPECIALISTS

MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC.

M-K BWIP ORGANIZATION

CORPORATE LABOR DIVISION MANAGER CORPOIRELATIONS D.L. BACKUS R.D. KL

J.M. BRENNAN

PROJECT DIRECTORE.E. HERSHBERGER

IATE OA.ULCHAK

BOISE HOME OFFICEa M a tmm .mu mInam

PROJECT

SAFETY & SECURITYSUPERVISOR

R.C. DICE

GA/ENVIRONMENTALMANAGER (OPEN)

OA/RECORDS ENGINEER

J.F. BORESOA MANAGER

R.G. PRATTLPROJECT SECRETARYD.H. WALTERS

__ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _.1_ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __I_ __ _ _ _ I_ _

I ISUBCONTRACT

ADMINISTRATION MANAGERL.R. BINGHAM

PROCUREMENT SUPERVISORW.A. WILSON

ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGERR.D. LOWREY

IPROJECT ENGINEERING

MANAGERR.R. ROMMEL

IGEOENGINEERING ANDHYDROLOGY MANAGER

(VACANT)

IGEOLOGISTSJ.J. KEATING

GL KASZA

I

CONSTRUCTION MANAGERJ.A. CURL

IGENERAL SUPERINTENDENT

R.J. MORRIS

TECHNICAL COMMUNICATORS

TOPIC BWI COMMUNICATORS NRC

PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOHN KOVACS PAUL HILDENBRANDJIM MECCA

ENVIRONMENT/ STEVE WHITFIELD BILL LILLEY EtpTRANSPORTATION JIM MECCA

GEOCHEMISTRY MARV FURMAN DAVID BROOKS ifJOE KRUPAR

-tGEOLOGY DAVE DAHLEM HAROLD LeFEVRE WfJIM MECCA

k'DRILLING ART LASSILA

HYDROLOGY MIKE THOMPSON MICHAEL WEBER 6(1

JIM MECCA

PERFORMANCE TONY KNEPP JOHN LIBERT PA'ASSESSMENT JOHN KOVACS

REPOSITORY DESIGN BRUCE NICOLL JOHN BUCKLEY {AJOHN KOVACS

WASTE PACKAGE PHIL LaMONT KIEN CHANG £4JOE KRUPAR

QUALITY ASSURANCE PIERRE SAGET JAMES KENNEDYJOE KRUPAR

HISTORYAILESTONES

ANDSCP SCHEDULE

HISTORY - COMMERCIAL HIGH LEVELRADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE EVALUATION

PROJECT SALT VAULT - LYONS, KANSAS

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF BASALT & BEDROCK FORDISPOSAL OF DEFENSE WASTES

LYONS FEDERAL WASTE REPOSITORY

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS ANALYSIS

RETRIEVABLE SURFACE STORAGE CONCEPT

TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES DOCUMENT

NATIONAL WASTE TERMINAL STORAGE PROGRAM

CARTER NONPROLIFERATION STATEMENT

BWIP OFFICE ESTABLISHED

GEIS ISSUED

NWPA WAS SIGNED INTO LAW

DOE IDENTIFIED 9 SITES IN 6 STATES AS PAS FOR 1ST REPOSITORY

1955-1957

1963-1967

1968-1972

1970-1972

1972-1975

1972-1974

1975-1 976

1976-

1977

1977

1980

1983

1983

HISTORY - COMMERCIAL HIGH LEVELRADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMS (CONT.)

NAS ISSUED - "A STUDY OF THE ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR GEOLOGIC 1983DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES."

DOE IDENTIFIED 17 STATES WITH CRYSTALLINE ROCK FORMATIONS 1983FOR THE 2ND GENERATION OF GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY SITES

DRAFT MISSION PLAN ISSUED 1984

NINE DRAFT EAs ISSUED FOR COMMENT 1984

FINAL SITING GUIDELINES ISSUED 1984

FINAL MISSION PLAN ISSUED 1985

DOCUMENT ISSUED COVERING EVALUATION OF DEFENSE AND 1985COMMERCIAL WASTES IN SAME REPOSITORY

SEVEN STATES IDENTIFIED AS PROPOSED POTENTIALLY 1986ACCEPTABLE SITES (12 BLOCKS OF GRANITE)

FINAL EAs ISSUED (MAY 1986) 1986

RECOMMENDATION & NOMINATION OF 3 SITES FOR DETAILED SITE 1986CHARACTERIZATION (MAY 1986)

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT

NEAR TERMPROGRAMMATIC MILESTONES

MILESTONES

E ISSUE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

* SITE NOMINATION AND RECOMMENDATION

* PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL OF SITES

* ISSUE SCP TO PUBLIC

e START WASTE PACKAGE ADVANCE CONCEPTUALDESIGN

° START REPOSITORY ADVANCED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

* START ES CONSTRUCTION

6237-2 P44 4

5/86

5/86

5/86

3/87

1/87

1/87

8/87

et 5C7M

ISSUE RESOLUTION STRATEGY PROCESS

e Types of issues

o Resolution methodology

o Performance allocation

o Example issues

TYPES OF ISSUES

o Performance

0 Design

e Characterization

KEY ISSUES

1. Postclosure performance

2. Preclosure radiological safety

3. Environment, socioeconomic, and transportation

4. Design, cost, technical feasibility

�fl -

ST MDESCRIPTION

I REGULATIONS 1I

ISSUESI .

Nv '

LICENSING STRATEGYI. . ..

OSURECRITERIA

. 4,INFORMATION NEEDS

DESIGNOBJECTIVES PARAMETERS

.I

DESIGN TESTPROGRAM PROGRAM

. I

CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, STUDIES, TESTINGP6so07-48

w

s

I Issue Number: _s I Control Numbor: I Page I of

BACKGROUND:

_ _ _ o z _ A . _ _ _ _ .

CLOSURE CRITERIA:.(Goals azA izAicatioaB of c.nIiaenc.)

INFORMATION NERDS AND ANALYTICAL TOOLS:

Coetrol Number: Page 1 of

INFOnMfiTION NEED/RNRLYTICRL TOOL:

BIRCKGROUND:

PORRHETEflS/OESIGN OBJECTIDES:tsoa and IniNcelons of mnfidenct)

I NFORll- flT1ON NEEDS I I/PinflAMETEfl NEEDS:

Permieter Cool (Iio5ctad flncel ladicetin of Cofandenco ogo Cal

PMEPfED BY: lIPPROUED fly:

DOTE:

PERFORMANCE ALLOCATION

-

Issue

1.1

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.10

EPA

' WP

EB

PWE

DOE

Technical criteria

Cumulative release

Container lifetime

Release rate

Groundwater travel time

Higher level findings

Constraint

10,000

300-1,000

1 <1 00,000

1,000

100,000

- --

I ISSUe Num5er: 1.4 - I I Control Number: 071066 I Page 1 of

ISSUE:

Waste Package Container Lifetime

BACKGROUND: 10 CFR 60.113a

Anticipated Processes & Events - Substantially Complete Containment for 300-1,000 years

LICENSING STRATEGY;

A. 1,000 year container - H.I.C.B. Hydrostatic Loads & CorrosionC. Essential No Lithostatic LoadsD. Reducing Environment

CLOSURE CRITERIA:(Goals and Indications of confidence)

Substantially Compete Containment for 300-1,000 years with High Indication of Confidence

INFORMATION NEEDS AND ANALYTICAL TOOLS:

1. Corrosion Behavior of Container Material 5. Container Loading due to Packing2. Temperature History 6. Container Material Specification3. Hydrostatic Loading 7. Design Description4. Rock Mass Deformation Modes & Characteristics

PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:DATE:

BVID SCP SCHEDULE

NI7 = 1 st Draft

\-7= 2nd Draft

�1�, = Release

1 986 1 1987

AUG SEP OCT NOV i DEC JAN FEB MAR

8.3.3/Seal SystemProgram

8.3.4/Waste PackageProgram

8.3.5/PerformanceAssessmentProgram Plan

8.4/Planned SitePreparationActivities

8.5/Milestones,Decision Points,

and Schedule

8.6/Quality AssuranceProgram

8.7/Decontamination& Decommissioning

Release

1986OCT

I 1987

FEBAUG MAR

8.2/issues to beResolved andInformation

RequiredDuring SiteCharacterization

8.3.1 .1/Overview

8.3.1 .2/Geology

8.3.1 .3/Hydrology

8.3.1 .4/Geochemistry

8.3.1 .5/Climatology

8.3.1 .6/ResourcePotential

8.3.2/RepositoryProgram

1986 I 1987

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

1/Geology 1

2/Geomechanics 1

3/Hydrology . < 7

4/Geochemistry 1

5/Climatology &Meteorology

6/Conceptual Design '7 37of a Repository

7/Waste Package N7 N7

8.0/Introduction \7

8.1/Rationale for \i7Planned SiteCharacterization

Program

* _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __I

9

I I ;.II

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECTI"

(BWIP)

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENTr SYSTEMS

(EMS)

Fi. E. MAY,MANAGEnI

ENGINEEniNG MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSBASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECTROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS

BASALT RECORDS MANAGEMENT CENTEII(BRMC)

PUnPoSE: SERVES AS TME SINGLE ENTITY, WITIlIN mWIp, ron ADMINISTRATIVELY CULLEC-I ING,

PROCESSING, AND CONTnOLLING DOCUMENTATION/RECORDS. ALSU SERVIES AS FOCAL rUINttonR TFE PUBLIC RELEASE SYSTEM.

BASALT RECORDS MANAGEMENT CENTE--1(BRMC)

PUFIPOSE: PnOVIDES OVEnALL MANAGEMENT, COOnDINATION AND CONTllOL orl IWIP DOCUMENTAT ION/nECORDS

GOVEllNING nEOUIREMENTS/PnOCEDUREs:* 10 CFtn 5i/10 crn 60 * nEG. GUIDE 1.28o UOE OFRDER 6700-lA * ANSI/ASME NOA-1 - 1983

e DOE ORIDER 5700-OA * DWIP RECOnDS* PFIO(FIAM GUIDANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

TO NWTS PROJECTS ITSI (SU-BWI-AP-U01)

* OAIPP 17-101, "t3WIPIECOWIDS MANAGEMENtSYSI EM"

* IJATA MANA(EMENT DESKINS I IIIJ(' I IONS -VOLUMES 1 AND 2

i I

*Q OPP 17-102. "111'-COi)INGDATA run OA RECOR[)SfnECont)s ConnEcTION"

.ESS E L OWw

COMPUt Ell

IIT YnEPof0i7 s InFCOt3SlOATA

.Iimwmwmwmm Immm M.. ,jv,�Zffi -.- I...

HECORDS/DOCUMENTATION/DATAINTEGRATION OVERIVIEW

DOCUMENTATION S t OllAGE/IIE I IlF VALsoUrcES

(i(vr CiOVT, INDUStlnY, TRADEEtC J JOUIINALS, ETC

INCOMING1QUTGOINf;C E.C t-CORfRESPONDENCE ntran rs, ETC

f l O Sr NUMfrlllED DOC'S ANDCIIANGES tilEnlEtO

rDtlAWINGS/SrEC'S AND CHANGES(01-S I( .N III LEASE WI G~lt

C PtlOCED ADMIN ) POCEIDUIES

( JIILLINO/LAnS P CORE/PIlOtOGlAPlIS/LOGS/ _ANALYSES. ETC

( tUES1GN tII VIEWS ) REVIEW IlEPtITS ______

nlEviEw JEPUhlTS

, ( E~n EVIES )- nEviEw nEpunTS

INTEttNAI conrrSIONDENCE/( AUT~llOFS ) MEETING MINUTES/ETC -

(UI''LI1TlS/VENl)OllSS VENDOIn DATA SUBMITTALS -

*INIDFX*INV EN 1uFlY

rUIINISII 71ON , t i H

I IAIIIJUOPYt'ILE

COJMPUI1~11

III I'fIO:r,!;S

VAUI I.

UUmI'u IIrf11

a tit.:('I PT* I NDE XeMICiorii-MOSTO(IAAr-e[IETIIIEVAL

C.

BRMC PUBLIC RELEASE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES

PURPOSE: PROVIDE PIOGRAM PARTICIPANTS AND TIIE GENE-IAl. iPJtILICWIIIIDOCUrMENIS/IwECOIIDS NECrsSAAY 10 MONIIOn AND PAITICIIAI E IN 1 III BWIPICIIAlACTERIZATION AND DESIGN PROCESS.

GOVERNING PnOCEDUnES:

*AG 4-101. 'CLEARANCE OF DWIP DOCUMENTATION Fon EXIERNAL IJISIIIIIIIJIIIONAND PUBLIC ACCESS"

*AG 4-102, "DWIP DOCUMENT ACCESSIONS LIST MAINTAINANCE ANI) CON I ROL"

j�s5rio�1

PUBLtIC hEADING 1`100M

11EohrsEST)I1 [C(J(III '5

P110CESS IIEOUriSTlEauE502B

P1ocESS ItEuuFrS

*;,is i~~ v &J I').(LW . "'WiiA V it! ~ i 0C.-WI S Z i.0

~WipDCUMErS

lACC:SS IS,we

Bar~

DOCUMENTS ACCESSIONS LISTX MARCH 1985

nOCKWELL "AUFOMD OPERATIONSP.O. EloX 800

RICHLAND, WA 99352

Published byBWIP Engineeting Management Systems

I --

I'llilro.t.

* I -fj1, 110VIDt- plloc;l

�AQ.-;-SS It, 1""?4

it)AVI 17IJL.

is AL(:j i'11

Icjg~GI~tg~ft~~PULS

16. - A

fw7whila. VW,

I

BWIP DOCUMENTS ACCESSIONS LIST CONTEIITS

I

I

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION! Pvnoicr rnociurr ACCVESpI(1?1 LzsTQ2UARTER-LY RlEPORlT PERIOD ENVINC 03/25/115

*a NEW/RiEVISED ACCESSIONS PA;(E 200

R~EPOSITORlY v IA -

ENGIEERING STUt)Y/11:POlRT *I203t I

sD-nwrJ-fr-oo3SHit 0072TnTLEt

REV, 0-0

REC NOMz022376VATr - T5/163/ 1.9nJCART/FtAIE: 10113/ 0410

DESIGN PrVIE¶4 PEPORT FORl COllC01rUAtDESION OF SUI3SURE'ACE VEI'rnLATIon sysTEtt1114113

ORNtaiDAVTS 3JH ORa/CO28WIP

-"I1I---

SM)I I I') flyfiND FUNC I ION

- )IV'Ixofl[ y.t -IDIC I MAttlEIIwi r~n II[ Its D~ot. NIJMIit-1.lIIVINISON, DAT I ri 11ASDM lY or r tiis IimcIll .-CMID NO. AND mlCitrit~m(CAll I 1111)MW AND r DIAME NO.Will1,1 It WVS ACIUAL

lIDU 'I I I I U D(C.0110IN'A I)MI AND011G(ANIZAI WN

-FI'MmIli 1. I) DM(IC's 111I1111 I l1 CLAIIIVICAI IONor CON I I:N t

ARSTRACr,THlE VEDTILATIONI SYST~tH DNSIG" U!MTE FORt TIME COMl(EPT(JArDF.SIMS OF THlE NUCLEAR WA-STE HErOSITO11Y V? VAIALT 1sDESCRIBIED IN DrrAIL. ALL CflITI.tIA AtPR VT-FSCP.3Fl1) C Dl)ESIGtfSOLtrrONS APE VETAtLED WtT11 SUiruRTrIM; CAL.CULAvUO?35 &ASSlJJIPTIbOZW TO ENABLE GOOD COST EST.iIATE 'To ar. withE' y1

A*STFIIISK V*)I'llIICEt)ING -

DOC. NO. INDICA 1 ESI US AN AUlDI IIONIlUM PIIEVI(US

ACCESSIONS LIST

*--SD -BWt -E-007SIMT 034TITLEs

P."ViAOOORTEC fl0tflCS0046

DATE t(II/(4/ 1.9t115CMIrT/FTAHE i 13 22/ 215 2

m

LAIRGZ SHAFT DEVELOI'HEm SITUDtYO1I1I0,MOUNNEY SH Ona/ca ,fWim'-flr;

ADSTRTAMtTHlE PURPOSE OF Th115 STUDY IS TO mrErmiJir THRE I~LATH.FrrDIA11rnTEfl SJIAMr THAT CAUI Mi DITILL.t AT 11AIFOI1D JI.ZDMILLING irupit cumu~ETrrLY (iN-SITE, 1II A SIN1GLE PASS,WJITH REASONABLE ASSURANlCE OF SUCCESS.

.1f.,X1101w .1 P

TYPES OF DATA/DOCUMENTATIONNOT ON ACCESSIONS LIST

*ONE-OF-A-KIND DATA

-CORE-rADIOGRAPHS/X-RAYS-STRIP CHARTS-COMPUTER TAPES-NEGATIVES-COLOR P1IOTOGRAP2IS-MULTICOLOR MAPS-MAP OVEnLAYS

* MAPS-GEOLOGIC/HYDROLOGIC

*CORRESPONDENCE

* DESIGN DRAWINGS/CHANGES THERETO

*PERSONNEL RECORDS

* NON-BWIP DOCUMENTS

eADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES/PROCEDURES

* SCHEDULES

* FINANCIAL RECORDS

* PURCHASE REQUISITIONS

*WORK ORDERS

* MEETING MINUTES

*TRIP REPORTS

*TRAINING RECORDS

MOST OF THE ABOVE ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON-SITE

TYPES OF DOCUMENTS ON ACCESSIONS LIST

PAGE NO. 0000107/22/85

RECORDS RETENTION PnS DOCUMENT TYPE LIST

TYPE CODE

01430312200220032010201620192020203120322036203720472050205120522053205520562062207020732110

DOCUMENT TYPE

SUBCONTRACTOR DATA/REPORTSAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTACCEPTANCE TEST PROCEDURETEST REPORTCONCEPTUALDESIGN REPORT/PLANCORE TEST VIEPORTDATA PACKAGEDESIGN CALCULATIONENGINEERING STUDY/REPORTENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/EVALUATIONFORMAL REPORTDESIGN CRITERIAPROJECT PLANSPECIFICATIONSPEECH/ARTICLESTRESS ANALYSISSYSTEM DESCRIPTION DOCUMENTTEST PLAN/PROCEDURE/PROPOSALTRADE STUDYSITE CHARACTERIZATION DOCUMENT/REPORTTECHNICAL INFORMATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTCOMPUTATIONAL BRIEF

Q^/NQa0aa000

a

a0.a000.

$ a00

a0

00

m W-7

BWIP WORKING FILES

* END FUNCTIONS MAINTAIN INTERNAL WORKING FILES FOR DAILY USE/REEflENCE

PURPOSES. COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE BRMC FILES WITH THE

EXCEPTION OF:

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

-TRADE JOURNALS

- INDUSTRY CODES/STANDARDS

-GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

-RAW DATA (MAINTAINED IN THE TECHNICAL DATA BASE)

-ETC.

BWIP DOCUMENTS ACCESSIONS LIST

PURIOSE

e INTENIDJE) 10 PROVIDE PROGRAMPARIICIPAHIS ACCESS TO

P'ERI INENV DOCUiMENIS AVAI LABLEFOR REVIEWi IN SUPPORF (or I1:IREFFORTS IN MONIlORING BWIP'sPROGRESS

* ACCESSIONS LlIS IS ALSO PROV'IDED10 PUBLIC REAI)NUG ROOM FORGENERAL PUBLIC ACCESS

_ LISTING OF DATA ACQUISITIONPACKAGES (DAP's)

PUBLIC NOTICESUPERSEDESEDES PUBLIC I DATE:NOTICE DATED: I

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECTRECORDS MANAGEMENT

THE ATTACHED IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES. THIS LIST DEPICTSDATA ACQUISITION PACKAGES AVAILABLE FROM THE BASALT WASTE ISOLATIONPROJECT (BWIP).

ONE-OF-A-KIND DATA/INFORMATION, I.E., DRILLING CORE, STRIP CHARTS,RADIOGRAPHS, ETC., ARE RETAINED AT THE ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONSBASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT FACILITIES LOCATED IN RICHLAND,WASHINGTON. THIS DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON-SITE UPON FORMALREQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-RICHLAND OPERATIONS BWIP PROJECTOFFICE.

DATA ACQUISITION PACKAGES CAN BE PROVIDED, LESS ONE-OF-A-KIND DATA,UPON REQUEST. AS THIS DATA IS CONSIDERED RAW DATA, REQUESTORS/USERSARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THIS DATA CAN ONLY BE CONSTRUED AS SUCHRAW DATA.

DISTRIBUTED BY:BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECTINFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DEARTMEN'TBASALT RECORDS MANAGEMENT CENTERROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONSP. 0. BOX 800RICHLANID, WA 99352

Supplement

PUBLIC NOTICE

PAGElDAR/DAP REPORT PERIOD ENDING 05/05/86

DOCUMENT NO. TITLE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This Supplement to the Basalt Waste Isolation Project's (DWIP) Document/Data Accessions List has been compiled to provide visibility of raw datagathered from various tests performed by the BWIP. This data, uponevaluation, will become a formal published document and entered into themain body of the Accessions List. Concurrently, the applicable raw dataform will be removed from this list.

Presently this list contains Data Aquisition Packages/Records(DAP's/DAR's). The following definition applies:

Data Acquisition Package

The DAP's are collections of raw data outputs from engineering, testing,and site characterization data acquisition activities for inclusion inthe project technical data base and the Basalt Records Management Center(BRMC). The DAP's ensure that SWIP data is consistently identified,that it is traceable to the criteria applying to its collection, that itis traceable to the science or engineering plan describing therequirements/methods for the data acquisition activity, and to theresources, procedures, and personnel used in the acquisition process.

The DAR's are those document types typically included in the DAP. DAR'sinclude, but are not limited to, data sheets, strip charts, shiftreports, geophysical logs, geologic logs, user calibration records,tables, laboratory notebooks, field notes, maps, etc., which documentthe results of tests, engineering analysis or site characteristicstudies. Material samples and one-of-a-kind items (e.g., core sections,water samples, computer tapes, radiographs, etc.) are also collected asDAR's. However, in these cases the item itself is not physicallyattached, but is referenced in the DAP.

In requesting any of the listed data, Program Participants should askthemselves:

* Will the raw data be useful and/or interpretive withoutassistance from the data gathering contractor(s)?

DAP-02-00107PAGES 0087

DAP-02-00117PAGES 0010

DAP-02-00118PAGES 0005

DAP-03-00001PAGES 0005

DAP-03-00002PAGES 0328

DAP-03-00003PAGES 0219

DAP-03-00004PAGES 0359

DAP-03-00005PAGES 0039

DAP-03-00006PAGES 0214

DAP-03-00007PAGES 0745

DAP-03-00008PAGES 0040

LABORATORY DATA FOR HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY SUPERSEDES PAGES62 THRU 152 OF B056773

NON UNIFORM PENETRATION OF WROUGHTSTEEL SPECIMENS OXIC ENVIRONMENT

WHC FY 1983 & 1984 WORK CONDUCTEDFOR OWIP HYDROIHERMAL TESIINGCARTRIDGES & I BOX DISKETTES

DAILY SHIFT REPORTS WITH REMARKSREGARDING ACTIVITIES MATERIALS USEDDEPTH DRILLED CASING INFORMATIONDATED 01/14-17/1986 CABLE TOOL RIG

BOREHOLE INFORMATION SHEETSBOREHOLES HYDRAULIC HEAD

WATER LEVEL DATABOREHOLES HYDRAULIC HEAD

PRESSURE DATA BOREHOLES HYDRAULIC HEAD

BOREHOLE INFORMATION SHEETSPERIOD ENDING 06/30/1985BOREHOLE HYDRAULIC HEAD

WATER LEVEL DATA PERIOD ENDING06/30/1985 BOREHOLES HYDRAULIC HEAD

PRESSURE DATA PERIOD ENDING 06/30/1985BOREHOLES HYDRAULIC HEAD

BOREHOLE INFORMATION SHEETSPERIOD ENDING 06/30/1985BOREHOLES HYDRAULIC HEAD

WATER LEVEL DATA PERIOD ENDINGDAP-03-00009

DATA ACOUISITION PACKAGE (DAP)

.rr VAR ColEt 'n 9|COLLECTIONS

OF RAW DATA OUTPUTS

plan peq. 28ta FROM ENGINEERING, TESTING, AND SITE

|______________ tan

CHARACTERIZATiON DATA ACQUISITION

\ u

ACTIVITIES. DAP'S ENSURE THAT DATAIS TRACEABLE TO Ti4E CRITERIA APPLYING

reollso iiTO

ITS COLLECTION,. THAT IT IS TRACEABLE

5p te~liA ==

|TO THE SCIENCE OR ENGINEERING PLANDESCRIBING THE REQUIREMENTS/METHODS

5~aupt* d

'l =

=FOR THE DATA ACQUISITION ACTIVITY, AND

oR info

TO THE RESOURCES. PROCEDURES, AND- of -3

PERSONNEL USED IN THE ACQUISITION

e d re" ,jgTdatle) _

PROCESS.¢ D~ * tttsrkh es e s a nry a.b~ontruCt t)

rcipti.fl otkf

o th~e e W~tY) rot,'I E"J3 i n Ic. co'lce Ott~~rcdtand the final Report.

t2 Ntt f ~acmlmen" to VRtIA

SLtt , ! o qor Fina; l RC0 or t (Three voumps t, i

\

A 1nsr1Stt' t$ m __ Orq.

___________| tewre~~s~igasr nature=ILvIo e) Approva3 l,

i ~'iouA j dtid tio% jom t 0 n~d tibt10t

| and Revet la,,

jloL d or

MEETING OBJECTIVES

O PRESENT NRC FIVE YEAR PLAN

p IDENTIFICATION OF AND AGREEMENT ON SIGNIFICANT PRE-SCP TECHNICAL CONCERNS

a IDENTIFICATION OF AND AGREEMENT ON NRC/DOE INTERACTIONS NEEDED TO ADDRESS SIGNIFICANT PRE-SCP CONCERNS

O REVIEW ASPECTS OF SITE SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL AGREEMENT

PH/86/07/30/0 86/07/31

NRC DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAMFIVE-YEAR PLAN FY 86 - FY 90

NRC-DOE BWIP MANAGEMENT MEETINGAUGUST 4, 1986

JOHN LINEHAN

I

FIVE YEAR PLAN - HIGH LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY PROGRAM

0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

AGGRESSIVE PROGRAM FOCUSED ON ACTIVITIES NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LICENSINGGUIDANCE TO DOE AND SUFFICIENT INTERACTION WITH DOE, STATES, INDIAN TRIBES, AND OTHERAGENCIES IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY LICENSING OPEN ITEMS AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF RESOLVINGTHEM.

AGGRESSIVE PROGRAM THAT STRIVES TO ASSURE A FORMAL RESOLUTION OF LICENSING OPEN ITEMSPRIOR TO THE LICENSING HEARING, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE.

DEVELOP AN INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL CAPABILITY TO REVIEW DOE'S LICENSE APPLICATIONWITHIN A 3-4 YEAR TIME FRAME.

IDENTIFY AND ELIMINATE, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IMPEDIMENTS TO MEETING NRC'S STATUTORYTIME FRAME FOR LICENSE PROCEEDING AND IDENTIFY AND IMPLEMENT EFFICIENCIES IN THELICENSING PROCESS.

2

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE FIVE YEAR PLANNING APPROACH

O PROACTIVE AS OPPOSED TO REACTIVE.

O FOCUS THE PROGRAM ON THE KEY LICENSING DECISIONS THAT MUST BE MADE WITH RESPECT TO10 CFR 60 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND SITING AND DESIGN CRITERIA.

O OPEN AND DOCUMENTED PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE AND EARLY IDENTIFICATION,PRIORITIZATION AND RESOLUTION OF OPEN ITEMS. SCP/SCA PROCESS IS PRINCIPAL FORM.

O PROVISION FOR EARLY AND FULL INVOLVEMENT WITH DOE, STATES, INDIAN TRIBES.

O DEVELOPMENT OF A FORMAL MECHANISM FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

3

EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND CLOSURE OF OPEN ITEES

O OPEN ITEM IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION.

O DEVELOP MECHANISM TO FOCUS DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE AND NRC/DOE INTERACTIONSON FORMAL CLOSURE OF OPEN ITEEIS.

4

OPEN ITEM IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION

O GENERIC COMPLIlANCE DEP'ONSTRMATION ISSUES

O SITE SPECIFIC OPEN ITEMS

O CONSULT WITH DOE. STATES AND TRIBES

O PRIORITIZATION

- DETERMINE WHERE GUIDANCE AND WORK ON OPEN ITEII RESOLUTION IS MOST NEEDED- MOST CONTENTIOUS OPEN ITEDS- CRITICAL TO EARLY PHASES OF PROGRAM- LONG-LEAD TIME ITEMS

-TIMING WITH RESPECT TO OVERALL PROGRAM SCHEDULES

5

MECHANISMS FOR FORMAL CLOSURE

O FOCUS NRC/DOE INTERACTIONS ON RESOLUTION OF OPEN ITEMS

- AGREE ON CONSULTATION POINTSDOE, STATES AND TRIBES

- DEVELOP AGENDAS THAT FOCUS ON DEVELOPMENT OF APPROACHES FOR RESOLVINGISSUES

- EFFECTIVE STATE AND TRIBAL PARTICIPATION

- MINUTES THAT REFELECT PROGRESS TOWARDS OPEN ITEM RESOLUTION, AGREEMENTS,DISAGREEMENTS, AND IDENTIFY ACTIVITIES NEEDED TO ACHIEVE RESOLUTION

6

MECHANISMS FOR FORMAL CLOSURE (CONTINUED)

0 FORMAL AND DOCUMENTED TECHNICAL POSITIONS.

- MECHANISM TO ESTABLISH AND DOCUMENT CONSENSUS ON AGREEMENTS REACHED ATMEETI NGS

- VENTILATE POSITIONS TO ESTABLISH TECHNICAL CONSENSUS

PEER REVIEWPUBLIC COff(NTTARGET GROUPS

- DOCUMENT CONSENSUS/AGREEMENTS IN FINAL TECHNICAL POSITIONS

DOE, STATES AND TRIBES

- TYPES OF TECHNICAL POSITIONS

STRATEGIES - DEVELOP CRISP BASELINE/GROUND RULES.E.G., HYDROLOGIC TESTING

METHODOLOGIES - IMPLEMENTATION OF EPA STANDARD.

7

MECIANISMS FOR FORMAL CLOSURE (CONTINUED)

0 RULEMA(ING

IDENTIFY TOPICS FOR RULEMAKING

- CRITERIA

RIPE, WELL VENTILATED, MATUREMOST CONTENTIOUSLONG LEAD TIME

- POSSIBLE TOPICS

DISTURBED ZONEME-RiODOLOGY FOR IMPLEUENTATION OF EPA STANDARD

8

DEVELOPfENT OF INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW CAPABILITY

0 ESTABLISH REVIEW CRITERIA AND REVIEW APPROACH

- FOR EACH COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION ISSUE- FOR VARIOUS PHASES OF THE PROGRAM

SCPSCP UPDATESLICENSE APPLICATION

- MODELING STRATEGY DOCUMENT

9

MAP 0 7 1986

MEMORANDUM FOR: Malcolm R. Knapp, ChiefGeotechnical Branch, OWM

John T. Greeves, ChiefEngineering Branch, DWM

FROM: John J. Linehan, Acting ChiefRepository Project Branch, OWM

SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF FIVE YEAR PLAN

On January 29, 1986, WM presented a briefing to Mr. Davis on the DiviSion's HLWStrategic Plan for the next five years. The Five-Year Plan, as approved by Mr.Davis, is attached. The plan sets forth the major goals and actions for theDivision in'the HLW area and focuseson the formal resolution of licensingissues.

In order to begin implementing the plan, it is necessary that work plans bedeveloped that detail the process for formal resolution of the specificcompliance demonstration issues (key licensing findings that must be made byNRC) contained in 10 CFR Part 60. Each work plan should include all activitiesrelated to resolution of the issue in question (e.g., development of GTP's;development of review capability for SCP's, bi-annual SCP updates and licenseapplication, including development or use of models and codes; and any directinteractions with DOE, States, Tribes and peer review groups needed to supportthese activities) and a schedule for completion, as required, prior to thesubmittal by DOE of the license application in 1991. Also, each work planshould provide milestones intended to assure that products are well scoped outand coordinated at both staff and management levels at an early stage andthroughout product development and that in all activities, appropriateattention is paid to technical integration throughout. The first activityunder the WMRP systems integration task will be one of assuring thatappropriate interfaces are maintained in these work plans. The required workplans and lead responsibility are as follows:

Work Plan Lead Responsibility

1) Pre-Closure Protection Against Exposures John Greevesand Releases

2) Retrievability John Greeves3) Containment of HLW within Waste Packages. John Greeves4) Radionuclide Release Rate from Engineered John Greeves

Barrier System5) Pre-Waste Emplacement Groundwater Travel Time Malcolm Knapp6) Post-Closure Groundwater Protection Malcolm Knapp7) Post-Closure Individual Protection Malcolm Knapp

SC/86/02/282-

8) Post-Closure EPA Containment Standard John Linehan9) Systems Integration John Linehan10) Quality Assurance John Linehan11) Format and Content Guide For License Application John Linehan12) Standard-Review Plan For License Application John Linehan

In addition to the above work plans, each Branch Chief needs to identify otherkey compliance demonstration issues that need to be formally resolved prior toreceipt of the DOE license application. In developing and identifying yourwork plans, please show the relationship of each additional issue to the keylicensing findings of Part 60 listed above.

In developing the work plans, focus on the milestones and schedules required.Resource needs must also be considered and developed. Each branch should alsoidentify points of contact in their branch for all of the above work plans.Development of these generic work plans should be closely coordinated with theongoing activity by RP's project managers and project team members ofdeveloping work plans and activities for the three project teams (see attacheddocument, HLW Site-Specific/Project Planning) and issues which are currentlybeing identified by your staff through the Pilot Project Task Group inpreparation for input into the Open Item Tracking System. A draft set of openitems for NNWSI in the areas of waste package and seismology have beencompleted and will be distributed by the task group next week for review.

A planning session for development of these work plans will be held next weekfor Branch Chiefs and involved staff to coordinate the objectives and approachand to assure appropriate interaction is achieved. Please prepare and submitwork plans for the activities identified above and a listing of additional workplans to be developed to me (w/cc to R. Browning) by March 21, 1986. £ willreview the twelve work plans and prioritize proposed additional work plans byMarch 28, 1986, and schedule briefings on this activity for Mr. Browning andfor Mr. Davis during the following week.

Do a -4 , - - .

John J. Linehan, Acting ChiefRepository Projects BranchDivision of Waste Management

Enclosures:1. Five-Year Plan2. HLW Site- Specific/Project Planning

- -Ii,;4W

HLW 5-YR PLAN/DUP-1-

DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENTHIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM

FIVE-YEAR PLANFY86-FY90

MISSION:

NRC's mission in the National High-Level Waste Program is derived from theNuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). A key element of the NWPA isto have the first licensed geologic repository available to begin permanentdisposal of spent fuel and high-level waste by 1998. As directed by the NWPA,DOE has lead responsibility for siting, designing, constructing, and operatingthe repository, with full participation by affected States and Indian Tribes.NRC is responsible for licensing the repository (its construction andoperation) in accordance with its licensing criteria contained in 10 CFR Part 60.According to the NWPA, NRC must reach a licensing decision within 3-4 years ofreceipt of DOE's license application, during which time NRC will be on thecritical path of the national program. According to DOE's latest publishedestimates, a license application for the first repository (out of two currentlyplanned) will be submitted to NRC in 1991 and the repository will beginaccepting high-level waste in 1998, the date specified by the NWPA. The majorparties to the NRC licensing hearing will be the NRC, DOE, the host State andaffected Indian Tribes.

As part of its mission to license the repository, NRC's activities in thenext five years will be based on developing licensing guidance for DOE;resolving, to the extent practicable, licensing issues prior to the hearing;developing the staff's independent licensing assessment capability; andidentifying and implementing ways to make the licensing process moreefficient. All of NRC's activities will be carried out in an open manner,assuring the necessary interaction with affected States, Indian Tribes andother agencies.

MAJOR FIVE-YEAR GOALS:

In five years from now, NRC's high-level waste program should be in a positionwhereby all necessary licensing guidance has been provided to DOE; majorlicensing issues have been adequately ventilated among all parties involvedand resolved, to the extent practicable; and the NRC staff has the technicalcompetence and ability to conduct a thorough review of DOE's licensing

HLW 5-YR PLAN/DUP2

application and complete its licensing hearings within the mandated 3-4year time frame. In order to achieve this strategic position withinfive years, NRC has the following major goals:

1. Develop and maintain an aggressive program focused on activities necessaryto provide sufficient licensing guidance to DOE and sufficient interaction6with DOE, States, Indian Tribes, and other agencies in order to identifylicensing issues and begin the process of resolving them.

2. Develop and maintain an aggressive program that strives to assure theformal resolution of licensing issues prior to the licensing hearing,to the extent practicable.

3. Develop the staff's technical capability to review DOE's licensingapplication within a 3-4 year time frame and to adequately defendNRC'.s position on all licensing issues.

4. Identify and eliminate, to the extent possible, impediments to meetingNRC's statutory time frame for completing its licensing proceeding andidentify and implement efficiencies in the licensing process.

OVERALL FIVE-YEAR STRATEGY

o Focus the program on the key licensing decisions that must be madewith respect to 10 CFR 60 performance objectives and siting anddesign criteria.

o At least 70% of the staff's effort will be devoted to the formalresolution of licensing issues and in developing an independentcapability to conduct the licensing review and hearing withinthe NWPA-mandated 3-4 year time frame.

o In the event of year-to-year schedule delays in the DOE program(e.g., in the issuance of Site Characterization Plans), NRC resourcesdevoted to activities dependent on DOE's schedule (no more than30% of the staff's effort) will be freed up and diverted to formal issueresolution.

HLW 5-YR PLAN/OUP-3

ACTION PLANS:

GOAL 1: Provide sufficient licensing guidance to DOE so that its licenseapplication will be complete, comprehensive, and of high qualityand assure sufficient interaction with DOE, States, Indian Tribes,and other involved agencies in order to identify licensing issuesand initiate their resolution.

Action Plans:

A. Provide guidance to DOE and identify licensing issuesthrough reviews of site characterization plans, environmentalassessments, and other DOE plans and reports (generic andsite-specific).

B. Provide guidance to DOE on an acceptable quality assuranceprogram and conduct audits of DOE's implementation of itsquality assurance program.

C. Provide guidance to DOE on format and content of licenseapplication documents.

B. Review DOE's site characterization activities at thethree candidate sites.

C. Initiate resolution of licensing issues, both generic andsite-specific, through documented technical meetings,workshops and data reviews.

D. Maintain continuing liaison with State and Tribalrepresentatives to keep them informed of NRC activities.

E. Develop and implement specific processes and procedures topermit affected States and Indian Tribes to participate, asappropriate, in the NRC pre-licensing and licensing processes,without adversely affecting schedules and responsibilities.

HLW 5-YR PLAN/DUP- 4 -

GOAL 2: Develop and maintain an aggressive program that strives to assurethe formal resolution of licensing issues prior to the licensinghearing, to the extent practicable.

Action Plans:

A. Continue the development of staff technical positions(generic and site-specific) on acceptable methods, tests,and design characteristics for meeting Part 60 performanceobjectives and siting and design criteria.

A. Establish and implement a procedure and process for formallyresolving site characterization and licensing issues throughrulemaking or other feasible alternatives.

B. Establish and implement a procedure and process forsystematically managing and tracking the identification andresolution of licensing issues.

C. Establish and maintain a priority list and schedule ofissues to be resolved through rulemaking or other formalizedprocess.

0. Implement rulemaking or other formalized process forselected, prioritized issues.

GOAL 3: Develop the staff's technical capability to review DOE's licensingapplication within a 3-4 year time frame and to adequately defendNRC's position on all licensing issues.

Action Plans:

A. Ensure that the technical staff remains abreast ofdevelopments in the disciplines involved in high-levelwaste disposal.

B. Review and verify existing models and codes forassessing long-term performance of a geologic repositorysystem and its subsystems, in relation to Part 60performance objectives and EPA standards.

C. Develop selected models and codes for assessing long-termperformance.

0. Develop a standard review plan(s) for NRC's licensing review.

HLW 5-YR PLAN/DUP- 5 -

GOAL 4: Identify and eliminate, to the extent possible, impediments tomeeting NRC's statutory time frame for completing its licensingreview and hearing and identify and implement efficiencies in thelicensing process.

Action Plans:

A. Systematically examine NRC's licensing process toidentify impediments.

B. Work with DOE to develop an integrated network of aLicensing Information Management System to supportNRC, DOE, States and Tribes during discovery; and establisha system for interim use.

C. Establish a Federally Funded R&D Center to alleviatecontractor conflict of interest with the DOE program andto assure continuity in technical expertise

D. Review NRC's current system for handling allegationsand adapt it to NRC's NWPA program, for both pre-licensingand post-licensing application.

HLW 5-YR PLAN/DUP-6

ASSUMPTIONS:

o Resources will be available to carry out NRC's responsibilities underthe NWPA.

o A license application to construct a high-level waste repository willbe submitted in 1991.

o In the event of year-to-year schedule delays by DOE, NRC will stillbe required by the NWPA to complete its licensing review and hearingwithin 3-4 years.

o The high-level waste program will continue to be highly contentious.

MAJOR LICENSING' ISSUES:

o Performance Issues

Before Permanent Closure:

- safe emplacement of HLW- retrievability of HLW

After Permanent Closure:

- containment of HLW within waste packages- release rate of radionuclides from engineered barrier system- pre-waste emplacement groundwater travel time

o Site Issues

- geology- waste package- hydrology- geochemistry- design/rock mechanics- environment- performance assessment- quality assurance

o Institutional/Policy Issues

- State/Tribal- oublic

1986 HIGH-LEVEL WASTE SITE-SPECIFIC/PROJECT PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT OF 1986 HLW SITE-SPECIFIC/PROJECT PLAN

The 1986 HLW site-specific/project plan should be developed in the following-manner. Using the broad and specific objectives, general planning assumptionsand project planning assumptions provided identify for each project anddiscipline area* a plan which consists of the following:

1-I) Significant issues to focus pre-SCP activities (specific objective 1)2) Activities/Products for each significant issue (developed from specific

objectives 2-10)3) Identify the specific objectives which the activity/products support4) Lead staff member.5) Support staff members6) Contractor support7) General schedule of activities/products

The attached standard format (Enclosure 1) is a convient way to show the aboveseven planning items. Enclosure 2 illustrates on hypothetical example of howthe format could be used to present planning items. The plan should identifyall the significant issues and associated activities and products that shouldbe done to support the objectives.

*Discipline areas include: geology/geophysics, hydrology, geochemistry, wastepackage, design/rock mechanics, environment, performanceassessment/integration, and quality assurance.

2

Planning is expected to be conducted in three steps: 1) explanation ofplanning approach to section leaders and teams; 2) informal discussions anddevelopment of the above seven planning items (including integration withgeneric items and project items in other disciplines) by team members, inconsultation with PM's, SL's, and; 3) meeting for each discipline with teammembers, SL, PM, for agreement on each discipline plan (i.e., seven planning--items).

Planning steps should start the first week of March and agreement meetingsshould be held during the third and fourth weeks of March.

BROAD OBJECTIVES

1. Prepare for and review the FEA2. Prepare for SCP review.

SCP preparations, including interactions with DOE should not be toreview, comment or agree with the entire SCP in draft form before itis released. NRC will conduct it's comprehensive review of the SCPand supporting information when the SCP is released, in subsequentSCP updates and ongoing reviews during site characterization. SCPpreparations should consist primarily of selective reviews for chosensignificant issues where early NRC attention and initiation of issueresolution is judged to be needed in order to prevent major changesor delays in DOE's program because of NRC comment. Significantissues can include such items as 1) topics for which there iscontention or disagreement between parties (e.g., NRC/DOE,DOE/states, technical community, etc.), 2) topics with associatedlong lead times, 3) topics central to the performance of a site, or4) topics with associated testing/analysis or constructionmethodologies that are unique and new.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

Review FEA

1. Prepare to review FEA following FEA Review Plan2. Review FEA and prepare comments following FEA Review Plan

Prepare for SCP Review

1. Identify significant issues related to characterization of the site andSCP designs (see broad objective 2)

2. Identify, review and comment on new data/analyses results from DOE/OCRWMprograms and determine if there are any new issues

3. Identify, review and determine applicability to site characterization andsignificant issues of existing and new data and information from non OCRWMprograms (e.g., WIPP, foreign, state, and industry)

3

4. For significant issues related to testing/analysis strategies forcharacterizing a site, develop and reach agreement with DOE on technicalposition (e.g., BWIP STP 1.1 on Hydrologic Testing) and develop internalreview criteria.

5. For significant issues related to design, develop and reach agreement withDOE on technical positions and develop internal review criteria. -:

6. Review and comment as needed on field and lab test plans/procedures forstudies to be conducted/initiated before SCP release and review (e.g., SRPSurface-based Test Plan, SRP/PNL waste package lab testing)

7. Develop staff assessment capabilities for reviewing SCP information on keyissues (e.g., develop range of conceptual models, scenarios, developcapability to review numerical models/codes, and develop/apply independentanalytical or numerical modeling methods)

8. Review and comment as needed on preliminary SCP material provided by DOEand at DOE request (e.g., issues heirarchy and associated informationneeds list, preliminary performance allocations, and draft test plans.Attention to issues/information needs and performance allocation may benecessary to do before full attention is given to test plans)

9. Support external QA activities (e.g., observe DOE audits, prepare for andconduct NRC audits)

10. Conduct technical meetings, appendix 7 visits and prepare letters to DOEneeded to support the above objectives.

11. Interact with NRC's on-site representative and DOE's points of contact tothe extent needed to support the above objectives.

12. Conduct routine project activities (see list on Enclosure 2) consideringthat all of these are necessary to support activities related to the aboveobjectives.

GENERIC PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

1. Current FEA release date is April 1986, therefore preparations to reviewthe FEAs should be completed by April 30, 1986.

2. FEA review period will be two months during the April to July time frame.No pre-SCP interactions will occur during the two month review period.

3. Current SCP release dates are:

BWIP - December 1986NNWSI - December 1986Salt - April 1987 (one year after recommendation of the site)

4. Pre-SCP activities should focus on the Hanford, Yucca Mt., and Deaf Smithsites unless DOE recommendations change these sites

PROJECT SPECIFIC PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS (example)

1. During the March to May time period SRPO will be completing their projectplanning and redirection activities. During this time period they willnot request meetings with NRC. Also during this time period they will be

4

completing their planning networks including identifying milestones andschedules and SRPO/NRC interactions.

2. Two meetings that SRPO may request before other meetings will be on SRPO'sissue hierarchy and data needs and draft performance allocations for thesite. These will not occur before summer.

3. During the March and April time period the salt team should focus itsactivities on:

a. refinement of our own plans based on review of SRPO networks, reviewof draft documents while on Appendix 7 visits to Columbus. Eachtechnical lead and others as appropriate should arrange an Appendix 7visit to Columbus.

b. prepare for FEA review - complete preparations by April 30.

4. During the May and June time period the salt team should focus.itsactivities on a scoping review of non-OCRWM programs (e.g., WIPP, WestGermany, etc.).

tI~5LL~~%

1418(. HLVI SITE-SaPECII~c/ PR.OJET PLAN

DISCQPLINE el

s - 4 i CDJA+x f.11TI*espeatiC

objectiveC 0O rAc.4i;Ay / PradAKA LeoocLS4o14

SL&PPOV + CeYLPVC, 4-

I

I

I

0Vwr:r.T 6. b%15&%vuNF.

Pp4reE 06 SIC V.&"t4

Merck .I Api;l I~ oul I I JO'Y I 4AIe&4~~ I *~ ore4An a , jUtI i i i

IIIIIIIII

I

II

I

i

I

I

I

I

II

ii

II

II I

I I I

I I II I

I I I

I I II I

I I

.1 II I

I J

II I I

___jb

Erv'dus.'"~ z7-

?f WECT 10,

0 ISO PL I N S. otPP49 :

I*84O "rLV4 SlTE-',ECtf4(-/ PROJEcT PLANt

gYPOTAOUTCAL ~EXAMPLE.-

s - 4 i CO.Al�11_1=11.x S.U sObj~tWC Arwiv'4y J Pr~dmc-+IV+ $t.&poV 4 I

I I

.0Dly li-tv

2.0 --

q1.o &_q~A l( ('

6. o ru l; Jt .

I C(j Li -I

i'

Y-2

K" j. --~

FC I

f~t~ ( 2.-z

'41Devt4 p rov\,,( !, C. �',a �l

, , I I IvIA %,(, ( - --� t'. I 1. "I ,J c 'I i -'AI %-\

I IL 'r4~ t,% 'k.('Q '.v .L 44 " \,J 1A l -) N . ( I l.Ii.Z.-

I) j0.

TO J i . "- III ..

1 '. It

e."I1-� DA,, -, - I ( I'I) 411N, (I o( '. t, ' LI(d I \ 81

'1I *''.

I l . .

Li.O LO(4

0 All

* ~'.II-' i( '4 ..

'.8

. / I *i

" i ,

-r

5, I Ft 1.4 \4 'O \.) 4 4 '. . C. 'L ()It (I � I, , 1'-.,

S' J I< 4SJI.*,~ & *, ~. ( I ~X,, .

l

-t�

FWKT 0

pect:um

A -pr ~u~" e

~~ (AX ), Ira

E&Awge-

Ht-h . I Apv;l I may I J Ov I A,4&i8 I i , OcAl8v %1444"k , L- ,6L .UI II I

-

I I

II

i.

II

I

I

ll

I II

I. . ,

I II I

II I

I I

I -

III

II

I

I

i

I

.1

iIiI

i

Il

AiIII

I

I

I II I

I

II

II

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II1. I

p -I

I a p. .r AL 4 - ¢4, cl(I ,; Io t,8

IIl I

II

Ii

III

S

Enclosure 3

ROUTINE WORK

1. Search, acquire, and place in DCC any non OCRWM new documents relevant tothe project. Note that under the RP document review procedure OCRWMdocuments are distributed from DOE directly to NRC's Docket ControlCenter.

2. Maintain cognizance of new data (by using DOE data inventories and/or NRCdata inventories, NRC OR and DOE points of contact).

3. Conduct scoping reviews of each new document (see document reviewprocedure).

4. Maintain cognizance of key project activities, products, milestones,meetings (project or DOE, industry, State, other federal, foreign society)program changes, etc., using aids such as SRP/ONWI Catalogue, DOE planningdocuments, NRC/OOE technical contacts, OR's, society meeting lists).

S. Identify and recommend to PM new activities/products or changes to ongoingwork with emphasis on identifying where timely guidance is needed to DOE.

6. Work with PM, SL to plan activities/products as needed.

7. Provide PM, OR, and team periodic work status reports as needed.

8. Attend weekly team meetings.

9. Respond to quick turn-around requests from PM of about 2 hours or less.

10. Maintain cognizance of NRC/RES projects relevant to project technical areaof responsibility.

11. TA contractor interactions.

PRE-SCP SIGNIFICANT.AREAS OF CONCERN FOR DESIGN/ROCK MECHANICS

O EXPLORATORY SHAFT STUDY PLAN

- RATIONALE AND BASIS FOR PROPOSED TESTING PROGRAM- IMPACT OF ADVANCE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ON PROPOSED TESTING PROGRAM

O SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SUPPORTING ES AND FACILITY DESIGN DECISIONS

ACTIONS: APPENDIX 7 TO REVIEW BOREHOLE TEST DATA, REVISED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, DRAFT STUDY/TEST PLANS, AND DRAFTSCP CHAPTER 8

MEETING TO DISCUSS CONCERNS _ ON PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR THE ES AND ESFACILITY

MEETING TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC STUDY/TEST PLANS WHERE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.

PH/86/07/30/0 607386/07/31

SIGNIFICANT PRE-SCP CONCERNS FOR HYDROLOGY

O APPROACH TO DETERMINING GWTT

- ADEQUACY OF DATA BASE- ASSUMPTIONS USED IN APPLICATION OF MODELS

O HYDROGEOLOGIC TESTING STRATEGY

- OBJECTIVES- PROCEDURES- TESTING METHODS QA PROCEDURES

ACTIONS: APPENDIX 7 ASSIGNMENT TO REVIEW DRILL CORE, TESTING DATA, REVISED HYDROLOGIC STRATEGY AND TEST PLAN TOASSIST STAFF IN PREPARING FOR MEETING ON HYDROLOGIC TESTING, DRAFT SCP CHAPTER 8.

MEETING TO CLOSE OUT OPEN ITEMS ON HYDROLOGIC TESTING STRATEGY.

PH186/07/30/0 86/07/31

SIGNIFICANT PRE-SCP CONCERNS FOR WASTE PACKAGE

O PERFORMANCE

- How DOES PROPOSED TESTING COVER THE PROJECTED RANGES OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENT

o SUSCEPTIBILITY OF STEEL CONTAINER TO NON-UNIFORM CORROSION MECHANISMS.

o EFFECTS OF NEAR-FIELD GEOCHEMICAL REACTION KINETICS ON CONTAINER PERFORMANCE

o EFFECTS OF ENTRAPPED MOISTURE ON PACKING PERFORMANCE AND OVERALL WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE

ACTIONS: APPENDIX 7 ASSIGNMENT TO REVIEW TESTING DATA, DRAFT STUDY/TEST PLANS AND PROCEDURES, ADVANCED

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, PRELIMINARY RELIABILITY ANALYSIS AND DRAFT SCP CHAPTER 8

MEETING TO DISCUSS REVISED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE CONCERNS

PlI8I7/~OO86/07/301 86/07/31

SIGNIFICANT PRE-SCP AREAS OF CONCERN FOR GEOLOGY/GEOPHYSICS

O PROPOSED TESTING ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS, WHICH WILL BE UTILIZED DURING SITECHARACTERIZATION

- CAPABILITIES OF METHODS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION

O SEISMOTECTONICS

- CHARACTERISTICS OF MICROEARTHQUAKE SWARMS AND IMPACT ON PRE-CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PERFORMANCE- FAULT ACTIVITY AND ITS IMPACT ON PRE-CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PERFORMANCE

ACTION: APPENDIx 7 ASSIGNMENT TO REVIEW SEISMOTECTONIC AND FIELD MAPPINGAND TECTONICS; DRAFT STUDY/TEST PLANS, AND DRAFT SCP CHAPTER 8.

MEETING TO RESOLVE SPECIFIC CONCERNS RELATED TO PROPOSED SURFACEMICROSEISMIC ACTIVITY,

DATA; SEE FIELD EVIDENCE OF FAULTING

GEOPHYSICAL TESTING, MACRO AND

PH/86/07/30/0 86/07/31

SIGNIFICANT PRE-SCP AREAS OF CONCERN FOR GEOCHEMISTRY

O CHARACTERIZATION OF PRE AND POST EMPLACEMENT ROCK CHEMISTRY/MINEROLOGY/PETROLOGY

O CHARACTERIZATION OF PRE AND POST EMPLACEMENT GROUND WATER CHEMISTRY

O CHARACTERIZATION OF PRE AND POST EMPLACEMENT REDOX CONDITIONS

O CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIONUCLIDE SOURCE TERM AND RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT

ACTION: APPENDIx 7 ASSIGNMENT TO REVIEW DOE's DATA NEEDS ASSESSMENT, TEST DATA, DRAFT STUDY/TEST PLANS ANDDRAFT SCP CHAPTER 8.

PH/86/07/30/0 86/07/31

SIGNIFICANT PRE-SCP CONCERNS FOR PERFOFWANCE ASSESSMENT

O OVERALL PERFORMANCE ALLOCATION APPROACH AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION FOR EACH SYSTEM

O PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PLAN/SYSTEMS INTEGRATION PLAN

- STRATEGY AND APPROACH FOR IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSAL FOR ACHIEVINGCONTINUITY BETWEEN VARIOUS TECHNICAL AREAS

ACTIONS: BRIEFING AT NRC ON SITE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ALLOCATION

MEETING ON BWIP PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOCUSED ON SPECIFIC CONCERNS.