project management procedures manual, basalt waste

RH1O-8W4A17

C

Rockwell International PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL

Rockwell Hanford operations BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECTRichland. WA 993S2

k.2RAED QUALITY ASSURACE

Penaring Org. Issue Oate 'Rev. Numef 1Paig

SCIENCE AND z1;^t'EERING 02/25/87 0 4-121 l 3 2 !.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .of

1.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of this procedure is to describe the process bywhich the Basalt aste Isolation Project (BUIP) will apply and controla Graded Quality Assurance (QA) program. The applicai.Ion of thisprocedure results in the assignment of a quality assurance level (qAL)and associated requirements to project structures, systems, componentsand activities. It also results in the designation of certain itemsas important to safety, to waste isolation or to retrievability asdescribed in 10 CFR 60 (ref. 1) paragraph 60.2.

2.0 APPLICABILITY

.This procedure is applied by the Integrating Contractor (IC), andfollowing general project review the results are incorporated in theappropriate interface documents to ensure project-wide consistency in

; identification and treatment of included items. The procedureaddresses Section F, RHO-QA-UA-3 (ref. 2). When additionalrequirements are imposed by or through the contracting officer, theyshall govern this procedure and ancillary documents shall be reviewedand modified as appropriate.

Graded QA shall be applied to itemns. Activities which *.'dressLitems shall be controlled as a minimum in a manner commens!t-;-:_ wivththe assigned quality assurance level of the item. Data acquiredthrough such activities shall be similarly controlled. By thisinterpretation, grading of activities and data is a corollary productof the grading of items.

3.0 DEFINITIONS

Definitions in the glossary of reference 2 apply. The followingdefinitions are unique to this procedure.

8801070533 870709PDR WASTEWm-10 PDR

--.-rEC ::' 2 .' : T7-s :rcce-ure is e ec-ive '>arc.i 1, 1237.

.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-EW-MA-17

Number: Rev: Issue Date: Page4-121 0 02/25/87 2 of 39

3.1 QUALITY EVALUATION BOARD

A Quality Evaluation Board (QEB) is a formally appointed andtechnically qualified group required to implement designated provision ofthis procedure in the assignment of quality requirements to selectedproject items and activities. A QEB is typically identified with but notrestricted to a series of items and activities of related function and/ordiscipline. Several QEBs will be formed to implement this procedure.

3.2 LEVEL OF EXPERTISE

The designated level of expertise of QEB members required bysection 5.3, shall be based on the following criteria:

* Level 1 - irect personal practical experience plus applicableprofessional/technical training (e.g., B. S. MechanicalEngineering plus experience in design and operation of mineventilation systems).

* Level 2 - Related practical experience plus applicableprofessional/technical training (e.g., B. S. MechanicalEngineering, plus experience in design of building ventilationsystems).

Level 3 - Applicable professional/technical training; no relatedexperience (e.g., B. S. Mechanical Engineering, no ventilationexperience).

* Level 4 - Related practical experience, or related professional/technical training (e.g., engineering training, or experience inoperation and trouble-shooting mine ventilation systems).

* Level 5 - Related casual experience or training (e.g., on the jobtraining or experience in facility operation).

3.3 INITIATING EVENT

An initiating event is the phenomenon by which a failure sequencecan start, which may adversely impact an item or activity.

3.4 CONDITIONS FOR ASSIGNMENT OFQUALITY REQUIREMENTS LEVELS

The conditions for assignment of quality assurance levels are givenin Table 1.

A 6000-104 2 '3-86)

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-BW-MA-1 7

Number: Rev: issue Oate: Page

4- 121 0 02/25/87 3 of 3

Table 1. Selection of Quality Requirements Level.

If an Initiating Event

ConditionA

_ or _

ConditionB

_ then _

QRL is

A RadiologicalImpact on thePublic oruncontrolledEnvironmentin excess ofacceptable*limits*

(fig. 1) can credibly and

Program delays orcapital commitments

* whose costs mayexceed $10,000,000.

typically result in:

"None of the above."

-.4. .4. 4.

Worker injuries* OSHA Reportable

(ref. 9)* MSHA Reportable

(ref. 10)* 10CFR20 Reportable

(ref. 11)

-4

1 2 3

*Reference 1, Paragraphs 60.111 and 60.112.

4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1 DIRECTOR - BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT

Designate a cognizant organization to address each project issue andobligation. Approve and transmit derived documents to U.S. Department ofEnergy-Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) for their action as appropriate.

4.2 DIRECTORS - IRECT REPORTS TO THEPROJECT DIRECTOR

Response to request for assignments f qualified personnel to QualityEvaluation Boards (QEBs) and other designated review groups.

4.3 DIRECTOR - SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Designate and direct the cognizant organization to implement technicalrequirements or profect quality management. Aoorove requests forassignments (sec ion 4.4) crossing directorate lmits of responsibility.

A-60OO.104.2 2.86,

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-BW-MA-17

Number: Rev: Issue Date: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 4 Of

4.4 MANAGER - COGNIZANT ORGANIZATION

Initiate request through appropriate management authority-forpersonnel assignments to QEBs and other review groups, including assignmentof a cognizant person to be responsible for coordinated group actions.

4.5 COGNIZANT PERSON

Initiate or support as necessary the preparation of requests forassignment of qualified personnel to a designated review group. Conductthe group activities including documentation of actions and resolutions,and author required reports.

4.6 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT

Determine the applicability of change control (section 6.8) andimplement as required.

4.7 MEMBERS - QUALITY EVALUATION BOARD

Implement the applicable provisions of this procedure and ofadditional instructions approved by the irector, Science and Engineering.

5.0 REQUIREMENTS

5.1 APPLICABILITY OF CRITERIA

1. Criteria in this procedure refer to the eighteen criteria ofreference 5 as represented in reference 2.

2. The initiating assumption is that all criteria apply. Thosewhich do not apply shall be determined for each item on a casebasis. Justification for each exclusion shall be documented.

3. Criteria , 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are considered to applyto all items and activities and QRL's. However, implementingprocedures can provide for differences, such as audit frequenciesfor Criterion 18. '

- i~~~~~~~~~~~~.

A.000-1t04.. 3 861

SWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL R HO-8W-MA- 17

Numoer: Rev: Issue Oate: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 5 of 39

4. For criteria 3, 4, 7, 10, and 13, when applicable, the elementsof the criterion can be selectively applied, e.g., designatingthat only the Basic Requirements of NQA-1 (ref. 7) should beconsidered, or that conditions normally reserved for thelicensing processes apply to a QRL-2 or QRL-3 item. For example,the major elements of criterion 7, "Control of Purchased Itemsand Services" are:

* Planning* Source evaluation and selection* Bid evaluation

Supplier performance evaluatione Control of supplier-generated documentsX Control of changes* Acceptance of items or services* Commercial grade items.

For the purchase of a QAL-1 commercially available, off-the-shelfitem (e.g., an anchor bolt). The requirements may only beportions of No. 8, while a complex QAL-3 item (e.g., dieselgenerator) may require implementing most or all of items No. 1-7.

5. For all criteria other than those identified in paragraph 4,above, all the elements (individual requirements) of applicablecriteria as described in section 6.5 herein shall apply.Procedural differences based on QRL may still be assigned, suchas audit frequencies, review participation, and the involvementof the independent Quality Assurance organization.

5.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE CRITERIA

5.2.1 Integrating Contractor

For the IC, the Quality Assurance Administration Procedures ofRHO-OW-MA-17 are identified in Appendix B of reference 2.

5.2.2 Delegation

When implementations of the quality requirements are delegated, thedelegating authority is required to ensure that appropriate implementingdocuments are incumbent on the designee. If the designee has a BWIPapproved quality assurance program for the delegated implementation task,the designee is required also to have appropriate implementingcapabilities. Verification of this by surveillance and/or audit is aresponsibility of the integrating contractor.

. oo 14 2 3 as


Number: sev: issue Dare: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 6 of 39

5.2.3 Work Instructions

The IC requirement that quality affecting items and activities mustmeet the conditions of reference 2 shall be controlled for application toparticipating contractors and subcontractors as follows:

1. Direct funded contractors are normally provided direction by thecontracting offices regarding quality requirements. The IC shall:

* Verify the extent to which the quality requirementsstipulated in the direct funded contract support the ICrequirements.

* Provide task-specific, recommended contract modificationsto the contracting office to supplement the basic contractrequirements.

2. Subcontractors shall be provided explicit instructions regardingthe quality program to be implemented. There are two basic waysto do this:

a. Designate in the procurement documentation the requirementsof the IC quality program which the subcontractor isexpected to implement.

b. Designate in the procurement documentation the detailedinstructions necessary for the subcontractor to meet the ICquality program requirments.

To meet the conditions of 5.2.3, step 2 (a), the subcontractorshall be required to develop and submit to the IC a QA programincluding implementing detailed instructions. The IC shallprovide guidance on such program submittals and shall approve theprogram prior to commencement of affected work.

To meet the conditions of 5.2.3, step 2 (b), the IC shall haveincluded every necessary procedure, instruction, drawing or otherspecification of requirements necessary to supplement thesubcontractor's documented commitments.

3. The Graded QA documentation shall include a recommendation ofthe appropriate organization to have such program responsibility,i.e., the responsibility to convert the regulatory and otherrequirements language to detailed instructions. The designatedorganization shall document any delegation or abrogation of theassigned program responsibility.

4. The IC QA organization shall provide appropriate monitoring ofand reoorting on these requirements.

A-6000-104.2 3*aS)

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-sW-MA-17

Number: Rev: Issue Date: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 7 of 39

NOTE: For some criteria it will not be possible to isolate programresponsibility. Criterion 1, Organization, for example, mustbe implemented at every level in the project hierarchy. See5.1-3 for other such Criteria.

5.2.4 Documentation of Delegation

1. Delegation actions shall be fully documented and shall include aclear description of the interface controls. Delegation mediainclude but are not limited to statements of- work, letters ofinstruction, purchase orders, work orders, specifications, andcombinations of these and other such media.

2. In section 6.3, a tentative assignment of program responsibility isrequired. This assignment is simply the delegation of theresponsibility to have and to implement, or to further delegatethe designated quality requirements as described in section5.2.3. The controlling (program) organization for each item andactivity, and for each aspect of their life cycle shall bedesignated (fig. 3) to establish responsibilities for thepurpose of assignments of interface control.

3. The designation regarding program responsibility triggers tworesponses:

* The contracting officer or his technical representativeshall initiate any necessary assessment of, and actionassignment to, the designated participant organization toensure that they have the quality requirements program inplace prior to exercising the responsibility.

* Upon receipt of instructions from an authorized source, thedesignated participant organization initiates whateveraction necessary to ensure a competent auditable program,followed by preparation of the proper direction to theimplementing contractor.

5.3 QUALITY EVALUATION BOARD MEMBER QUALIFICATIONS

The qualifications of QEB members shall be identified as a measure ofthe board's competence for decision responsibilities. The formal trainingdescribed by "level of expertise" (section 6.2.1, steo 4) shall bedocumented in project records. Formal project documentation of thequalifications of the QEB shall also include training in the use of thisprocedure. Ad hoc membership to provide specialized support (i.e., subjectmatter experts) requires briefing (by the QEB) rather than formal trainingto the procedure.

A-6000.104.2 (3-88;

-

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-8W-MA-17

Number Rev: Issue Date: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 8 of 39

5.4 OPTIMIZING QUALITY COMMITMENT

Items and activities shall be identified at the least stringent QALwhich satisfies the imposed criteria through the item or activity lifecycle.

* Each QAL 1 and 2 item shall be examined to determine what aspectof the item or activity has made it such level.

* If appropriate, the item or activity shall be subdivided to permitassessment of QAL of the subdivisions if the "driver" impactcan be prevented or mitigated.

a Each subdivision of an item or activity shall be examined as anew, separate item, to include all appropriate documentation.

Example: The hoist system may appear to be in QAL 1. Byexamining subsets of the hoist system it could perhaps be shownthat the brakes were the aspects of the system which drove itinto QAL 1. Other components of the hoist system might beadequately handled as QAL 2 or 3.

5.5 ESTABLISHING THE QUALITY EVALUATION BOARD (The letter request for personnel support for the QEB shall include:

* The number of persons required

The identification of item(s) included for assessment by a QEB

* The qualifications of each type of person including descriptionof required documentation, and/or description of the items andactivities to be reviewed

* The scope and relevant special instruction for the task

* The anticipated commitment of time, and the charge account forsuch work

* The objective/application of the derived information (e.g.,Advanced Conceptual Design).

A secial purpose board may require ther informational support.

;-3000.104.2 3.867

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHOBW MA-17

I Number: Issue Oate: Page( 4-121 0 02/25/87 9 o 39

6.0 PROCEDURE

6.1 REQUIRED ACTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 4 illustrates the sequence of actions required to implementthis procedure. The Director, Science and Engineering, shall direct theinitiation of quality requirement assessments, including the designation ofa cognizant manager for preparations for and initiation of the necessaryaction.

6.1.1 Cognizant Manager

Provides the requirements, such as a list or series of lists ofitems or activities requiring QEB action.

* Identifies a cognizant person to conduct the assessment ofquality requirements for one or more lists of items oractivities.

* Approves the letter requesting assignment of personnel t the QEBor the Technical Review Board (TRB) (ref. 3) which will be formed

( | to review QEB Reports.

Ensures that all project items and activities in his purviewwhich require review have been assigned to one or more QEB's forassessment and report.

6.1.2 Cognizant Person

* Supports the manager in preparation of documentation relatedto the assigned QEB task.

Where instructed by the cognizant manager, prepares the letter(s)(section 5.5) requesting personnel support for QEB and TRBactions.

Conducts QEB activities.

6.1.3. Review Actionee Manacement

e Assigns qualified personnel to support the designated technicalreview teams.

e Documents assignments as necessary.

* Provides for availability of the necessary objective evidence ofthe qualifications of assigned personnel.

_. OQO0104.2 '3-8a

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-BW MA-17

Number: Rev: Issue Oate: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 10 of 39

* Confirms organizational role as assigned in the letter for theconduct of the assessments and reviews including, whenapplicable, statements of review independence from authorship,dependent funding, etc.

* Provides documentation as required by procedure or as requestedfor these support roles.

6.2 DETERMINE QUALITY ASSURANCE LEVELS

6.2.1 Quality Evaluation Board

1. Based on the requirements or lists provided by the cognizantmanager, prepares numbered list(s) of items and activities to begraded by the QEB. Compatible packages, such as those with samediscipline requirements, should be considered. Attach theappropriate list to a Matrix of Interaction (fig. 1), as page 2of the matrix.

2. Prepare a matrix identifying the kinds of off-normal initiatingevents which will impact each item and activity. Use formatshown in figure 1. Identify on the Matrix of Interactions form (an appropriate item-group category or title and an identificationof the unique number given the list.

3. Complete at least one Narrative Work Sheet (NWS), figure 2, foreach item or activity. The cognizant person may request onefrom each board member, or prepare a consensus NWS. Continuationsheets may be necessary. Detailed instructions for completion ofthe form will be provided with the task-specific workinstructions.

4. initiate a Consolidated Evaluation Form (CEF), figure 3, foreach item or activity, individual, or consensus, consistent withstep 3 above. Detailed instructions for completion of the formwill be provided with the task-specific work instructions.

5. Using table 1, section 3.4, identify in the CEF space providedthe QAL for conditions A and .

6. A designated BWIP Q-List is required. Items or activitiesidentified as QL-1 shall be compared with Q-List assessments.

* Items or activities identified as QAL-1 herein and not on oralready assessed for the BWIP Q-List shall be subjected tothe special instruction (figure 5) used to establish the-Q-List, and incorporated (section 6.7), or rejectedaccordingly. Enter "yes" or "no" in Q-List space on theappropriate CEF.

A 6 OM-704.2 3.66

SWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHo-sW-MA-17

Numoer: Rev: Issue Date: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 11 Of 39

s Items or activities identified on the BWIP Q-List shall besubject to the quality requirements of QAL 1 unless re-subjected to the instruction of figure 5 using revised andvalidated information which produces a different answer.

* The grading process shall be applied to the identifiedQ-List items and activities as appropriate.

Quality Assurance Levels will be identified in the ConfigurationManagement Summaries.

6.3 SELECTING CRITERIA TO BE EXCLUDED

On the CEF, the criteria which do not have to be considered require anentry addressing justification for exclusion. The justification. maybe entered on a continuation sheet.

The QEB shall:

* Consider each criterion, using NQA-1 (Reference 7) BasicRequirements (fig. 6) as a key to applicability

* State justification for each exclusion,

6.4 IDENTIFYING PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITY

The QEB shall designate on the CEF (Program Responsibility) theproject participant who should prepare the procedures (directions) wherebythe criteria/requirements language is changed to an implementation (use)method. For further discussion/explanation refer to section 5.2.

6.5 EXTENT OF CRITERIA APPLICATION

The requirements of reference 2 are assigned as follows:

* QAL-1: All the identified requirements

* QAL-2: The identified requirements of NQA-1, basic andsupplementary (ref. 2, secion E, Atzachr-ent )

* QAL-3: Requirements of QA-1, basic (IBID) or other identifiedstandard practice.

X43COa104.: 3.86;

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-sW-MA-17

Number: Rev: Issue Oate: Page I

4- 121 0 02/25/87 12 of 39. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

Exceptions to these requirements shall be documented includingjustification. The exceptions intrinsic to section 5.1-5, herein,-are basedon the importance to clarity of project operations when one comprehensiveway of performing a task works efficiently for all QALs without any realpenalties. The end-to-end costs for project document control will be farless costly if clerical processing doesn't include the sorting and separatemaintenance of documents by QAL, notwithstanding some added cost forstorage.

6.6 REPORT

The analysis ocumentation developed from implementation of thisprocedure shall be assembled, issued and maintained as one or moresupporting documents (ref. 4). The material shall include but is notlimited to the following:

REPORT OF QUALITY EVALUATION BOARD FOR(ITEM/ACTIVITY GROUP CATEGORY)

a Table of Contents

* Introduction - Describe the scope of the document and therelation of the material covered to the facility of which it is a-part. A single document will typically cover one or more listsof compatible items and/or activities item-group category withina facility.

* Technical Support - Describe the technical staff involved in theimplementation of the procedure. Identify the location ofqualification and training records.

* Report of Results - Document the QEB actions, includingappropriate narrative description. Include:

- Consolidated Evaluation Forms, each followed by theappropriate, indexed continuation sheets

- Narrative Work Sheets - (also followed by continuationsheets)

- Matrix of Initiating Events

- Other appropriate information to fully explain the actionsand conclusions of the QEB.

m Apoendices as approoriate.

the resulting suoorting document shall be identified in.the projectdescriDtion base.

A-60001O04.2 3 86i

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RH-BW-MA-1 7

Numrer: Rev: issue Date: Page4-121 0 02/25/87 l3 f 3

6.7 Q-LIST REPORT

The Q-List document shall be revised, as appropriate, and reviewed inaccordance with the review requirements of section 6.9 and issued andmaintained as a supporting document in the project description base.

6.8 CHANGE CONTROL

The supporting documents resulting from implementation of thisprocedure shall be changed only after a fully documented reassessmentin accordance with the applicable provisions of this document and, whenapplicable, after approvals as required by the provisions of reference 6.

The requirements for change control of QAL designations byparticipating contractors shall be included with the QAL assignmentsimposed through the work instruction documents.

6.9 DOCUMENT REVIEIW

6.9.1 Requirements

The documents resulting from use of this procedure shall be reviewedusing the technical review process (ref. 3) unless directed otherwise bythe cognizant manager.

The instructions to the TRB shall be explicit and shall include as aminimum the following objectives for the TRB:

Review for completeness, interval consistency, and clarity.

. Documentation including qualified explanation of any exceptionstaken to the QEB actions or conclusions

* Designation of acceptable resolutions to any exceptions taken.

Recommendations for augmentation of the QEB Report, or in thecase of substantive disagreement for peer review action.

The QEB cognizant person shall take action to resolve TRB exceptions.Actions may include but are not limited to:

* Returning the QEB Report to the QE3 for reconsideration

* Recommending issuance of the QEB Report, and flagging of excepteditems for resolution during document revision upgrade.

4--3cO-iO4.2 .86;

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-BW-MA 17


4-121 0 02/25/87 14 f 39

e Referring the exceptions for an alternative assessment, such aspeer review or management escalation and recommending issuance ofthe QEB Report without the excepted items/activities.

6.9.2 Technical Review Board

The Configuration Management member of the TRB (ref. 3) shall confirm,or discuss and resolve with the-cognizant person, augmentation of teammembership as necessary to ensure a balanced review.

The following shall be included in the reviewing group:

* QEB cognizant persona Document author* BWIP Quality Assurance Departmenta SWIP Configuration anagement* Safety# Independent reviewer for each represented discipline items.

NOTE: Hlore than one QE3 Report may be considered by an established TRB.

In addition to those identified above, the following shall be includedin the notice of review distribution, with attachments, and if not included |above may request (in writing) formal assignment to the review team and/or 'submit written comments in the manner prescribed by review procedure:

* Project Licensing department* Direct Reports to the Director, BWIP* BWIP Information Management* Cognizant organization* Architect/Engineer* Construction anager* DOE-RL.

The TRB Report shall include participant review comments andresolutions and review concurrences. Organizational signatures documentedduring the review process need not be repeated for the supporting documentrelease process. The supporting document shall reference the reviewdocumentation packages which document review concurrences.

6.10 SIGNATURES

The supporting documents developed from ilementation of thisprocedure shall be signed as a minimum by the following:

A o000-104.2 '38a6

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-BW MA-17

Nu mber: Rev: ssue Oa te:page

4-121 002/ 25/87 15 f 39

6.10.1 Approval

* Engineered System cognizant manager* Director - Science and Engineering.

6.10.2 Concurrence

* Manager - BWIP Quality Assurance.

7.0 RECORDS

The following documents result from application of this procedure andwill be submitted to BR*IC in accordance with the provision of reference 12.

* Report of Quality Evaluation Board* Q-List Reporta Technical Review Report.

8.0 APPLICABLE DOCUM.IENTS

1. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, "Disposal of High-LevelRadioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories; Licensing Procedures",(sections 1.0; 3.4; figure 5, section 6.7)

2. RHO-QA-MA-3, Basalt Waste Isolation Project Quality Assurance ProgramRequirements Manual, (sections 2.0, 3.0, 5.1-2, 5.1-4, 5.2.1, 5.2.3,

3. RHO-BW-iA-17, Project anagement Procedures anual, Basalt WasteIsolation Project, PMPtI 2-102, "Technical Document Review",(sections 6.1.1, 6.9.1, 6.9.2)

4. RHO-BW-MiA-17, Project l1anagement Procedures anual, Basalt Wasteisolation Project, PPt,1 8-106, "Control of Supporting Documents",(section 6.4)

5. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of.Production and Utilization Facilities," Appendix B, (section 5.1-1)

6. RHO-BW-M1A-17, Project ranacement Procedures anual, Basalt WasteIsolation Project, PP11 5-101, 'Change Prooosal Processing",(section 6.8)

A6ooo.104.2 3 86)

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHo-SW-MA-17

Number. Rev: Issue Oate: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 .16

7. ANSE/AS[1E-NQA-1, 1983, "Quality Assurance Program Requirements forNuclear Facilities," (section 5.1-4, 6.3, 6.5, figure 6)

8. OGR/B-3, "Office of Geologic Repositories," Quality Assurance Planfor Hih-Level Radioactive aste Recositories, Supplement 3, July1986, (Figure 5, section 3.0, 6; 6.0; 6.2; 6.3; 6.4)

9. Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, "Occupational Safety and HealthStandards" (Parts 1910 and 1926) (section 3.4)

10. Title 30 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 57, "Federal Health andSafety Standard, Metal and Non-Metallic Underground ines,"(section 3.4)

11. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20, "Radiation ProtectionStandards," (section 3.4)

12. RHO-BW-MtA-17, Project Management Procedures anual, Basalt WasteIsolation Project, P1PN 8-103, "IP Records Management System"(section 3.4)

* (~~

A- ^C00-04.2 :385}

CY

C-.

mC)-4

MATRIX Of INIERACIONS5

ITEMS hoaim nuacIbejged list. madked) toil e _ - - 2

- -IIIAIJD~ll1t4IVhI~lS - - _ _ j J . _ _ _> 6 __4 to II It 54 n

* {O~ul~illlSI~l§ __ __ __ _ __ __ n 2

* IOMW(UDJkl.t Om~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ _°,",A,°___,_____, _ _ _ _ __ = _ = = =

.* SINO

e ~~~~~ *4liUWlbtIINAI)O Io 0 ~~~~SAMUS41

> _ ... .. . .. . _ -__ _ _ _ _ _ _... ._._ (D ~ *AMitAS lOW&Nsi~ibivdlUVui4iAU

C-' c

N')

o 0 ASM(UAI I £MAIII~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A P4)Jp vb

d3 .- _.--- _- __. ___ _._ __ -_ .... .. __ __ ___ _____ ___ .___. _ O g

kt-I...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

'-4

( 4 t -ntlcys~t *,u w .4 st1 - ,ttgd ti isnt tbibbCquci.Ib*i.

_3 _~ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ , __ °0 -

. - .- - -- --- -- I---- --------2c30

-.

I-

NARRATIVE WORK SIIEET

WJiSe;Iteuma: -- pd9O cio

to

r_

-I(I

-1

(A

ED

SIEWV. AIEI Al II j(ENW16~h MIALSSI$I Ol MiIMAi I VIHI# 110S )"&A A 6.0110 JaII

AI WISAI t1AfbE~1 (AN IASI IS ((ilk) (CiMMN IOMU it(I U

SSE.JEMAVSIS IOJEAP

WASAI (.ANS Ji SEE ISISEEVI~if I

WISI (N S 15)11 54) Dl~tAIILEJE~tJSJ.Il.I lItI M&

X

_0

:1)0C.-m3C)-A

2

C)

-4-u

:0000C)

2C

I-

0m

-A

r

0

LI-

02-A

Si,000

0

1.)

0)0)

A (iw UUJMEtIIj

00

.5 ____________

2C3a

I-

I.b-

CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION FORIM

fin t - _ lvel of l 7 ] Eli 11111 Ei1I j i 4 S

Iteom.

COUtDll I ION A, AII I I IkSIGJAI&

C~mlNIJII(N '1' IAUSI I - tEVEL

'-I

to

0

0

Cal

rr

Clt

0

-10-I

laeishilvaided lt iatg eaei Aa,.slyil is follows:

CRIIIRIA

OHGA14JAI(ON

QOIIAM IS ASSIIHAIJCE

4 PRIOCOIIMMI ICIMLIJ IOCIWNIS1O

I, )OCOMMDI C~bIIlhO1

COMIHOI. Of P10101IAS0 SI,1VIISVICES

ss l.lt 11liSCARlON Awl COIS WOWS~t

I I itANl*JCmt. 1llGi NI~lS~f

14 IlJS.C1101J. IaI. ANSI 011RAUNG1

IS~ COM I1101. (II JICOtJSOIM1IJ6

lb6 (OHIlC llVF ACIN

I I QIIAIIIY( ASSIMAIJU~iISCOJIS

Ia AIIIIIJI

JHSllICA ION ISItjliIlIID

_____________________ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I

_ _ - _* ________ _ _ _ - ________ .

SEE CONINJUAlIONPICROGRAM RESPOIStIl ITY PAGE

'D

11

C3

ZI

0iu

uu

-D

-u

04-m

-i

2

C)m

In2-4-u:1300

Cm

C

:0

-J

. - ------------

::J,

a0

I)T4

.. _ _ _ _

A 6iUt *i)J4 85.1

_ _ . _

-.1

C

aft

4-.

I'\)I-

C-1'p

-0-S0

t

0

I

Ct

I',l3agerL 0antai5ns ier. _ > Cii- c-1 participatioli plana

_ . :,JJaltLrsc~n

1

0

C)

1

-D

0

coO)

C)O '

_,I

OJ

-u-u0C-m0-:

2C)m

m

-g

X

0

C-)

m

ClC

M

0

m

62

KC

r

:Dax iPdo

:E.

-- rlkt ; Itl a)!,wlatis .cLlan o coin-

:.:vi- ^1*j:1.::-4il u -i Ili u e :; --l

1-

C00O.

a

C-

14

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHOBW-MA-17

I Number: Rev: Issue Oate: Page !4-121 0 02/25/87 21 of 39 '

i

INSTRUCTIONS FOR Q-LIST ASSESSMENTUSING MODIFIED PROBABILISTIC ANALYSES

1.0 PURPOSE

This instruction is for development of the BIP Q-List.

2.0 APPLICABILITY

The process described herein represents the minimum acceptable analysesto identity Q-List items.

3.0 APPLICABILITY

I Items: Used in this instruction to include structures, systems,components, and/or activities.

* Q-List: Used in this instruction to mean a listing of the itemswhose failure could result in a dose of 100 mrems at the siteboundary or make retrieval impossible or impractical.

* Q-List Board (QLB): A formally appointed and qualified,technically representative designate (one or more persons)required to implement some or all of the provisions of thisinstructions as provided for in a letter of instructions toeach member of the board.

* Threshold Probability: (Pthreshold in figures 7 and 8) - Anaccident initiator or accident sequence probability P is lessthan the threshold probability if the best estimate of the valueof P is less than 10-7/year or if P can be established to be lessthan 10-5/year with 95vo confidence. Reference 8 asks for athreshold probability of 10-5/year plus some factor ofconservatism.

Figure 5. :nstructions for Q-List Assessment Using flodifiedProbabilistic Analyses. (sheet I of 11)

A-OOO.104.2 :3-86j

SWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL R HO-SWMA- t7

Number: IRev: Ssue Dae: Page

4-121 1 0 02/25/87 22 of 3

o Performance Information Data Base: The record of reliability of,and availability of performance experience for, an item. Where noperformance records are available, technical judgment shall beexercised and documented.

* Threshold Consequence: (Cthreshold in figures 7, 8, 9). Anaccident sequence consequence equal to 100 mrem to an individuallocated at or beyond the nearest boundary of the Repositoryunrestricted area. The threshold consequence identified inreference 8 is 500 mrem exposure to an individual located at thesite boundary, but DOE-HQ guidance (ref. 8, p. 25, section4.2.1.6) has suggested that,-at this stage of repository design,BWIP use an additional factor of conservatism to assure thatpotentially important items receive appropriate Quality Assurance(QA) attention.

a Methodology A: The methodology defined in reference 8 for thedetermination of Q-List items important to public safety.

* Methodology : The methodology defined in reference 8 for thedetermination of Q-List items important to the capability toretrieve emplaced waste.

* 1ethodology C: The methodology defined in reference for thedetermination of Q-List items important to waste isolation or tothe prediction of waste isolation performance.

* SCP - CDR: The Site Characterization Plan - Conceptual DesignReport.

4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

* Project Director - BWIP: Identify cognizant director and issuerequest for action. Approve and transmit derived documents toDOE-RL for their action as appropriate. Approve inter-directorate requests for support action.

* Director, Science and Engineering: Designate and directcognizant organization to implement technical requirements forQLB. Approve requests for support action between BWIP functions.

Figure . instructions for Q-Listi Assessment Using ModifiedProbabilistic Analyses. (sheet 2 of 11)

:A ooo00.042 3 86i

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL R HO-BW-MA-1 7

Numcer: Rev: Issue ate: Page

( 4-121 0 02/25/87 23 of 39

e Manager - Performance Assessment Oeoartment (PA): Initiaterequests through appropriate management for personnel assignmentsto QLB and Review Teams (RT). Designate and approve theprescribed task letters of instruction, and confirm theacceptability of the personnel provided.

* Manager - Repository Licensing Group: Provide support,direction, coordination, and interface with the TechnicalCoordinator.

* QLB Technical Coordinator: Prepare requests for assignment ofqualified personnel to the QLB and RT. Coordinate the QLBactivities including authoring required reports. Documentactions and resolutions of QLB and Review Teams.

* Members - QLB: Implement the applicable provisions of thisinstruction.

Members - Review Team: Implement the applicable provisions ofthis instruction.

- I 5.0 REQUIREMENTS

* Qualifications of QLB Members.

Each participant shall be qualified by profession and/orexperience to participate. Task documentation shall identify thelocation of or include the individual qualification records and arecord of training in the methodology of developing this versionof the Q-List, including use of this instruction.

* One or more letters of instructions to the participants shall beprovided, sufficient to describe the necessary actions to achievethe purpose of this document.

When requests for personnel support are necessary, the requestshall specify:

- Number of persons required- A description of the type of work to be required- The professional qualifications required- The anticipated commitment of time- The objective/application of the task product- A valid charge code.

Figure 5. Instructions for Q-List Assessment Using ModifiedProbabilistic Analyses. (sheet 3 of 11)

aooo* 00 4.2 -6i

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHo-sW-MA-17

Numbter |Rev TIssue ate:Page!

4- 121 0 02/25/87 2 o '39

s The Manager, PA shall identify the Technical Coordinator whoshall:

- Provide and document direction and guidance to the QLBparticipants.

- Accumulate the records required or developed by the Board* effort

- Prepare the report documentation and provide support asrequested in the preparation of the final report

- Ensure transmittal of accumulated records to BRMC.

6.0 PROCEDURE

The work flow for Methodology A of the "Guidance for Developing theSCP-CDR and SCP Q-List" (ref. 8) is illustrated in figure 7, forlethodology B (bid) in figure 8, and for Methodology C in figure 9. Thenarrative for Methodology A is contained in sections 6.1 through 6.5,following. The special considerations for Methodology B are given in (section 6.6 herein. Section 6.7 herein, addresses post-closureconsiderations-and Methodology C. intil such time that sufficient designdetail is available to support a quantitative assessment, Methodology A forsurface facilities is addressed and documented only in qualitative terms.For subsurface facilities, quantitative analytical techniques are used.

6.1 REPOSITORY DESIGN DATA BASE

The analysis will be conducted mainly at the repository system andsubsystem level of detail. For each relevant design item, collect thefollowing to the degree reasonably achievable:

* Design data

* Applicable assumptions

* Anticipated specifications

Figure S. :nstructions for Q-List Assessment Using odifiedPro.babilistic nalyses. (sheet 4 of 11)

A-60O0O.104 3-86:

OVUM 002n IF Ct ~ ~ lrvsnrr~n or AAA Al .--- 1A. I. ID¶A~fO Our Av A Atl A ~IC. I JId 4rn4ULCLJMriQ MANUAL RHO-BW-MA-17


4-121 0 02/25/87 25 Of 39

e Definition of role/interface with the waste and/or waste processfor both emplacement and the retrieval

* Performance Information Data Base which will provide theoccurrence probability for each identified item failure includingdocumentation of the source.

When a documentable occurrence probability does not exist andtechnical judgment is required, a value shall be established byconsensus judgment of at least three qualified persons. Eachjudgment shall be fully documented.

This data base will be augmented during the event tree analysis asnecessary.

6.2 DETERMINE ACCIDENT INITIATORS

The initiating events to be considered for potential impact onrepository items are to be identified. Reference 8 identifies a minimumset of initiating events for consideration, and this should be augmented asnecessary with site-specific events.

For each initiating event, a probability of occurrence should beidentified in a referenceable manner.

Initiating events should be considered separately for emplacement andfor retrieval. Where event occurrence probability is less than thethreshold probability, it need not be considered.

Initiating events which may affect post-closure repository isolationshall be assessed for impact as described in section 6.6.

6.3 EVALUATE REPOSITORY RESPONSE

For each subsurface pre-closure initiating event (section 6.2, herein),develop an event tree whereby the repository response to this initiatingevent can be evaluated. The event tree results in a set of repositoryresponse states which then require an evaluation of consequence. Figure 7provides the flow logic of sections 6.3 to 6.5 herein, for the developmentof the Q-List for ethodology A.

Figure S. Instructions for Q-List Assessiment Using ModifiedProbabilistic nalyses. (sheet of L)

la-6000-104.2 3 6)


Number: 4 | Rev: Issue Oate: Page.

4-121 0 02/25/87 26 39

An example is provided in reference 8.

* Enter each identified system or component failure into thePerformance Information Data Base (section 6.1, herein),including documented estimate of occurrence probability.

Enter assigned occurrence probabilities for each event tree .state. If the combined probability of a tree sequence is lessthan the threshold probability, terminate the branch analysis.

6.4 RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCE ASSESSMENT

Each significant event tree sequence (i.e., not eliminated on thebasis of being below the threshold probability of occurrence) requires:

1. Determination of the potential for the generation of aradioactive source, together with its potential for breach ofcontainment or loss of confinement.

2. Determination of the radiological consequence for each potentialsource:

Quantity () of radionuclides released (

* Type of radionuclides released*

Systems (other items) affected by the unmitigated scenariodevelopment

* Physical limits of radionuclide deposition.

Radionuclide distribution shall be based on ORIGErI-2 analysis of spentfuel fission product inventory for 60,000 tMWD/tlTU burnup and a 5 yearcooling period (ref. 8).

Ficure 5. nstructions for Q-List Assessment Usina ModifiedProbabilistic Analyses. (sheet 6 of 11)

A 60004104 2 3 86)

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RH0-BW-MA-1 7

Number: Rev Issue Oate: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 27 o 39

6.5 Q-LIST DETERMINATION

* For all significant accident sequences, estimate the siteboundary dose.

* If the site boundary dose for an accident sequence exceeds thethreshold constraints, the event tree shall be modified by designassumption acceptable-to the design activity to appropriatelymodify the consequence or the probability.

e Those items for which credit is taken to reduce the consequencesof an accident sequence (i.e., event tree branch) below thethreshold consequence or to reduce the probability of thesequence below the threshold probability are put on the Q-List.If for a given accident sequence there are several possible Q-List items, any of which is sufficient to mitigate or prevent,the choice will be made on the basis of design, construction, oroperational feasibility and the rationale for the choice will bedocumented.

6.6 RETRIEVABILITY Q-LIST DEVELOPMENT

The work flow for Methodology B is shown in figure 8. The procedurefor Methodology is the same as that for Methodology A with twoexceptions:

e The consequence screening is done on the basis of technicaljudgment whether the initiating event or the event sequence(taking preventative/mitigating systems into account) rendersretrieval impossible or impractical

* The selection of preventive and mitigating systems may bedifferent when considering the impact of an event sequence onretrievability.

Figure 5. nstructions for Q-List Assessment Using ModifiedProbabilistic Analyses. (sheet 7 of 11)

aa 000..104.2 3-86)

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-BW-MA-1 7Numoer: Rev: Issue Oate: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 28 of 39

6.7 POST-CLOSURE Q-LIST DEVELOPMENT

The post-closure portion of the Q-List consists of barriers importantto waste isolation, and the activities that must be controlled to assurethat those barriers will satisfactorily inhibit radionuclide release to theaccessible environment. It will be developed as follows:

* Identify the barriers-which must be relied upon to meet theperformance objectives of 10 CFR 60.112 and 60.113 (ref. 1).Barriers shall be chosen conservatively such that all barrierswhich may potentially be required are included. Where necessaryto identify particular barriers based upon current design andperformance assessment/performance allocation considerations, itshall be by technical consensus of at least three qualifiedpersons.

* Identify the activities that must be properly conducted toassure that the barriers will perform satisfactorily inservice, to include performance assessment activities wherethey are necessary to demonstrate satisfactory performance.Consideration must be given to potential pre-closure andretrieval activities and events as they might effect post-closure isolation.

6.8 SURFACE FACILITY Q-LIST DETERMINATION

Surface Facility Q-List Items will be determined using aqualitative analysis of surface facility systems, accident initiators,and their interactions. The logic of this qualitative assessment willbe identical with the sequence of steps identified in 6.1 through 6.5,herein.

Figure 5. Instructions for Q-List Assessment Using RodifiedProbabillstic nalyses. (sheer 8 of 1)

A-6000-1042 3.86i



4-121 0 02/25/87 2 9 of 39

7.0 REVIEW

The Q-List Board Final Report and supporting documentation shallrequire review. The draft document shall be submitted through theConfiguration anagement Group to the following organizations withrequest for written comments on Review Comment Record (RCR) forms:

* BWIP M&I Waste Package Project# BWlIP 1&I Systems Project* BWIP ri&I Site Programs BWIP ri&I Repository Project* BW4IP rI&I Licensing Department* BWIP SUE Site Department* BWIP S&E Performance Assessment Department* BWIP S&E Engineering and Design* BWIP S&E Systems Engineering* BWrP S&E Configuration anagement Group* BWIP Project Administration* BWIP Construction* BWIP Operation and Test* Safety* BWIP Quality Assurance.

The manager of each organization shall assign a qualified person toperform the review and shall provide comments appropriate to theirorganizational responsibilities and related expertise.

Records identified for the task which are not included in the draftsupporting document shall be made available to the review personnel. The,QLB Technical Coordinator shall coordinate the review and shall chair thereview meeting if one is required. All comments shall be resolved andRCR's signed off prior to release of the Q-List Board Final Report andSupporting Document.

Figure 5. instructions for Q-List Assessment Using lodifiedProbabilistic Analyses. (sheet 9 of 11)

I

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL R HO-BW-MA-1 7l Number:

4-121Rev:

0

Issue Oars Page

30 of 39i;02/25/87

8.0 APPROVAL

The completed records of review during and subsequent to the conductof the task shall constitute technical approval of the Q-List Board FinalReport. The Final Report shall require the following approvals.

* Director, WIP - Verifying that the signature approvals reflectthe appropriate staff activities to validate the document.

* Director, Science and Engineering - Signifying acceptability ofthe designated Q-List and its impact on their organization.

* Director, Construction - Signifying acceptability of thedesignated Q-List and its impact on their organization.

* Director, Operations and Testing - Signifying acceptability ofthe designated Q-List and its impact on their organization.

* Manager, BWIP Performance Assessment - Signifying that theappropriate technical standards have been addressed and satisfied.

a Manager, BWIP Licensing - Signifying that the appropriateregulatory requirements have been addressed and satisfied.

* Manager, BWIP QA - Signifying that the appropriate project qualityrequirements have been met by the document.

9.0 RECORDS

The results of the initial Q-List Board effort will be documented byissuance of a Q-List Board Final Report. A formal BP Supporting Documentwill also be prepared and issued for incorporation in the BWIP descriptionbase in accordance with the requirements of the procedure for GradedQuality Assurance of which this instruction is a art.

Figure . Instructions for Q-List Assessment Using locifiedProbabilistic Analyses. (sheet 10 of 11)

IA o000-104.2 3-8#3s


Number: ev Issue Oare: Page

4-121 s e 02/25/87 31 of 39

An administrative record of the business of the Q-List Board will bemaintained. It will include as a minimum:

Letters of instruction to participants

* Letters issued to and in the task force

* Mlinutes of meetings of the task groups (QLB)

s Participant qualifications (traceability is sufficient)

* Initiating event selection (section 6.2i herein)

* Design Base, including all items identified (section 6.1, herein)

* Event trees (section 6.3, herein)

* Radiological consequence assessment (section 6.4, herein)

* Event selection, design base, event trees, and impact uponmaintenance of retrievability - used to implement Methodology B.

* Identification of natural and engineered barriers important towaste isolation and identification of Site Characterizationactivities which may degrade those barriers or which will be usedto improve the predication of waste isolation performance of therepository (i.e., ethodology C).

* Q-List

* This instruction and applicable procedures

* Technical Document Review Report.

Figure . Instructions for Q-List Assessment Using odifiedProbabilistic Analyses. (sheet 11 of 11)

A-6000-104.2 3-M61


Number: R fev: |Issue are: |Page i9

4- 121 1 0 1 02/25/87 1 . of . 9

* I

II BASIC REQUIREMENTS I

The otrw,unj $-tre. rumm mimamuii-

U-vices ffe'Z.% -irl Nave :wv

43 'ici ;ratml ~ m"a. m~enotna C

sau1.11~s3 3.L1iry:roiems viraugf 4tuzvna zran-

i -ithie3 --ri :wt=n :..WUQZM ulm cn

-ju fantz4:: :uno:: ocFtr 3-i au~ ziUh xS~ -

.oU s.azl ezar : a mafaijmen: !vet SU4 =a1

:AImainl Surfeant Incemfice¶C P' ml 4-1z3.14 SI4~cwa

A zcu,¶enu imowy ssnas -eoaui ulAL b.e

;Qadu¶d. MU3ICV'ieJ4. ;AM -nt3JAS4 . W43fAJCS

una evUmuio.nt or we ZACn iunia n~O4iam it aalino ct~lmn i or-, o :1avr UUe oirz auzorm

,-io 3 ie - =SC z o ;zuIicas at-az1

%MsCL* zirUl... n =ina ns ,zwrv "Zz1Sn -;4LU&Ueowz 3 Sg~f .C ~y

The zroanrn utul ro'" z rw n ecz onrass. :rtoCCUe :!St Y¶Cilrmm. :ZC4J . 14 'gii : .=3u Zs iO.

3uit94 3U"aCY A=. fr ~81 t3.0fl 01 CUICV.

The ravwm VIZ4 ray'al far iraawmllcn ra'ru aI veU u or O*?.Cl~ftel erfrmmit¶ :ovcUts

aer3Ivm 3:..Cv "S.61 Za SICOI valw Il'

.24tCv iusr~rl :ro-grov. zf O-r.corn .!criewo: .%a1141~ t ZZV*OU9V o : :jZ oe VZ o r-i

'he 3M~Smut~ Z* =Tnta. *9C7r010. ulcs vertlmtAamicazte Oeuln mzutz ..n,4 os iczrcrlauty sm4:2ed

anl a umluy 303=1 Ina :ol-lCV rlnuzu &mca zeulm

.Zm .a Zes AzC*OC.W7'*102 ze ~C14'4 V :efbulmZme 72n wta~~ocr flec -:2 rLU. :ewv8) C.-Wis.

lflaues Zzmrmernsus . :=0m .Aoied *.3:

4 ;llCC;Xt Ew1 :c LMNT =1N -CL.

Aosi~olt cwstg aml 1210 oC=er UrI~fU¶~I

WV '. Wre zIa~lu 3U-14cy vitau za nQcaze 3

sevicir. .o e2 ?.0 1 rssar..:rtve1 Ocus-

pz~mml zw.S¶:n -t ?Uo zzz.33.04 mfLUemm 1

.21 0* tn%:~i~ o r-Vla : n

.d.** o.. 0iJ12i2V~ AZ.121 Oe : R%21080 :;Z121

*Ref 7

Figure 6. I Basic Requirements. (shee 1 of 3)

.0a-.001042 '3-86,


Numtuer: | Rev: Issue ate: Page

4-121 1 0 02/25/87 33 of 39

IItIIA1M 0A. - IsU le._

bro~*oures :r t--evv ot I Wy0e =2orlIL4 .: --. cr.

cams1c&1 ng%4 =; tfl¶LI uwlJ iuwe of refe5!cIe

J' r C, I 4 =. -Ct ;u0 L O~t* ~

.ccav -.%Lv ~euvemnu ar :riet,o~

A% :%;"c u- :.%lzve3. = :ot.;.-Z.

CF -i ".-t -- '-

:Al ntrvetf 2! I~saI le~-,Cez!z ~Lz=, .

%rcwzAs:s l :. esolzsau In SU ?UZ1 vZLIZ1

3f -iezvo mxnO C! M 4240y 'unif4 .tI -.. .- U*-

3octer.t =U Aa imon ;Ulit .a cm. Z f w-

'c trcesU2A~ aolver or~M~ =n *ft oru'.i

I:: :N 191 FICA71.1 :O. :?OCSU1.'iTZ VO~:O I .eetp

zanrrt Z..cs1-1U oa 2. ve -.5a:.m.

'*yj5 : :a cCCnaT e-8.4uz t".0CIOW 'Of U%.fl

.Z8 08 =szi :v :W1 Q!O =-%I ?Or tflG2?

ss"j nzwg. : arf zz iMrcft 3 i cam Z

eicucz cluuasmtaz .A 3. O'M. = &tll .

£zeC~ftO.Zi~g~sa~ :o Oct. % : .,ac-¶ooi

to -8 ernzialot8 CU 7*sc. 51 !r..lC snati:

LU 4WI*In&MC '41A.2 `Zr 44=11UCS &re': :aja;Zi a

Os aonoaiao~o :s .eode ?tfooi zz.. z il 2

?t14f5"3aJQf of ,..o~is iSawl 08 =Awr zrf~ OC3ti

Mth S1051 3i Lo:C~i 51 t =,Iuecs uul

;Cougg 1_82 ZA -18 i=M Cl ;A CO6UCW!85'Jfl

: . 1 :1S .fI8?r8i, ;s racessw -53ALf8-- MOO2Lzf8

3550a naw At OU~ fl!14 ru5.wnz iE We.T fl1511v atir mat8 018-er2fa Ids=4. 4sa z itUCar

UA :viU itt 545 Ul8?J*¶U -1fl1U54. s..8. =Vf 0rs

sus. :Soas gu r5=4sC1 r*F %ruSZ mawsr. it

S.aT5O1, ;rz Cf z;;aS OfCII sio. ISOI Saw1'r 'Cfve CISO5 5514~w~ ~T521 cze1 .2 .Ii'&2.

SV'Iitn O.1 =-Icamencs j 5C .Lt' n018u CO Ul- c1. ;

7- 'TCl.. C F 14CNCZ.N4FC ZS c :'T.'sS

tur1 %n -Z mil z0510555 :~ .0 025t1

5.144i :-8 zznllfilIO tz tvris SlcSf5

550 cc'

w3d. C.35¶t: 1.IU :fc.'cs :Cl zxnui4;'OR. ;O!"ti,.%1uAJl cvalc Qft. wMM"441 -MCAf ;?0i.-4 :is-

Oouuan o 4i GC5C0m. r ,5?I5 i510 2?f [email protected] CZ

Figure 6. ;. asic Requirements. (sheet 2 of 2)

I .6 000.104C 2 ~ -ae ~

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-BW.MA-17

Number: Rev: ssue Date: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 34 39

J.JSiAI(NCA.1 5~£u

to ¶U-rr J¶~4l n~a 2Cz - .e U1

s~il: 4 jOI .O;LLA 4vce."

is~~~~~~~~~~Z!%

In~R a4 %rlmlwa ;"~ wiza tv Z82lofllg o

anU 2tovlm aJ4 tz ~U:1twtn* s cl 'veneu. 7.1o

eiruu 1-Ma,ci o o!u aavsa e

mllS be 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ no Z :at :Ae

(

Figure 6. II Basic Requirements. (sheet 3 of 3)

(E.

A-3a-IC4.: -38E3)

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL R HO-8W-MA-1 7


4-121 0 02/25/87 35 of 39

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

| REPOSITORY DESIGN OA A ASE

V

OETE-J-INE A\CCID'ENT INITIATORS I] . ~~~~7

ESTABLISH INTIATOR IREOUCENCY

< ¢* ELIMINATE INITIATORSCE(N 1,NIIATORS _<---> ,RCM 'UR

CONSiCE.RAI1IN

, ~ ' mres.ncId

[ [email protected] O CED iSwLE ; NI T IATCPS

i

EVALUATE REPOSITORY RESPONSE

IES7A=LIH 7APPRCAH 7S0 O T; 1 IMA7 CNSSECUENC_C N'EOCUECE (UNNITiGATED).-ANIALYSiS7

ALIMNATE EVENTSCREc-?N ON C NSEUc NC-- ' f

t-~~~ - J CjSiCEAI3oIJ hre srnaid

3U5ZJ-w-,7 0 C315L_ EVEN-S|

E 3 AwL! S H PREV J ./1, IGA, VE SYT7>ES.

Figure 7. Flow Logic for flethodology A. (sheet 1 of 2)

A.600O-tO4.2 386!

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-BW-MA-17-- .,


4-121 0 . 02/25/87 36 of 39 .2

.7r

-C 'EVELOP EVENT TREESI

ES TALIH EET TFRE-'UECI£ES

.7

C CqE EN EV EN TS)< p L1rzoid I--L i;'1Ii I

I C NS i £A I R~ A'!

2. .

thresnaldE

ISUBSET OF CREIBLE EENTS |

4|F : TIMATE CCNSECUENCEEi

-1

0-LIST SYSTE ,-(S)RESPONSicLE ORRE;DUCT ION EELOW

THRESOLED(

F > < C IELIMINATE EVENT~~.~ f Ce2E. thCNcUEI.) reshold > FCM FURTHER

|~~ mr-. -. SCREEION CONECUENC~ FP- UTE

CONSiDERATION I

-y_ ~

thrssnaid

U -S15 -1 TCF I Gn 5 - l C A N C; c E S|

| 57A3LI i S, ACO I TIONAL PREVENTI VE/ITIC-ATIVE 3-Ya7=E'!`

-7

C-LIS StSTE?1>(S)R E 5P 0NS Z EL E FRREDUC INC4 C OW

T, PE -iLD

Figure 7. Flow Logic for iethodology A. (sheet 2 of 2)

t

' 2OO0-104.2 3a6,


Number Rev: Issue Oate: Page

4- 121 0 02/25/87 37 of 39. ~~~~~~~I ---

EPOSiTCR'f CEiGN 0A7A BASEj

'p

1.DETERMINE ACCIDEINT INITIATORSI~~~

7

|ESTABLISH INTIATOR FRECUIENCY

< E'Lml r"EI"IA T E N i ATOR(C P, EEN NI71ATORS 7 ?.;C# F Ct1 :2THE

CO-NS iDcR ION I

7 2 Ptires~ld

I ; L'BEET OF CRED I 8LE I N I T I ATOSa

EVALUATE REPOSITORY RESPONSE

17

ESTIMIATE IMPACT ON POSSL8ILITYAND PRACTICALITY CF RETRIEVASILITY

(UNI ITiGATED)

-7w4_: i i_ _, _:4| i i~,,-X ! ;z

t~~~~~~~~~~ 11 Ir__,tl <>r s1 -rrl nI~~ 1 P C S~~iS L E O R i'I'ACT IA L ?I YESIT

- 7~- { Q I'-- C FeC EDi BLE EVENT1S II . .

I E LIMINATE E VEN I --- 5I D E~ A T I C N r ;z E

9 | C^N~~~~~iDE~~~nsTIA7CM I

,Il I . . d I -

-3 T .AL!r PREVENTi'J ri IG ATIVE SSTE>" |

\ .

Ficure 8. Fiow Logic for Methodology . (sheet 1 of 2)

A-6000104.2 86


Nurnizer: |Rey: Issue Dam: Page

4- 121 0 02/25/87 38 of 39

"7

DEVELOP EVENT TREES

7

Z5TAaLIH EVENIT FIE4C I-|ESTAL r4

SCREEN EVENTS ( P',rPsnot|E: r1IN, EN\7

FRCM FURTH'ER I

CONSIDERATiON

1 2 Lhres. ald_IT

SUBSET7 OF CREDIBLE EVENTS I

IT

Q-LIS7 SYST7EM(S)RESPONSIELE FORREDUCTION BE'OW.

THRESHO.LD4

ES11AT IPACT ON POSSIBILITY ANDlOPRACTICALITY OF RETRIEVABILITY

DGES THE. EVENT MAKE RETRIEVAL NO EL__CNAT EVE.TIMPOSSIBLE OQ IMPRACTICAL FO CM FURTHER

I .CN'IDER O

IYES '

ISUBSET OF HIGH SIGNIFICANCE EVENTS I

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

| 0 A LISH A C 7OIThONAL PREVENTVE/' II r' 1 1 GA 7 IVE SY STESI

C-LISTC SYSTEM(SiRE5PONSiEL- FOR

rMAKING RETRIEVALPOSS I 8AL A.ND

PRACT I CAL

Figure 8. Flow Logic for sIethodology S. (sheet 2 of 2)

A-600O-14.2 '3-a6)

BWIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL RHO-BW-MA17

Numoer: Rev: issue Date: Page

4-121 0 02/25/87 39 0f 39

Identi f lcation ofE ngie redBarri ers

i :por-tnt to 'asta

I6sciatlon

identification of.4atu ralBarriers

1=0ortant to 8#steIsclaicn

Oasc. tPcn c, IteICharacteri zatlon Acti#1tlas

Related to thes.e arriers I

Identlfy thosa Actaittles ta-:may Impact t.hose arriers for which

Waste Isolation cred1t Is being 'TakenI

Identlfy tse AivitVes h1c. afectWaste Isolation Parforrance Assessment

I

-_'- s: t e I car.:iflac arriars andActlyvtles

Figure 9. Flow Logic for ethodology C.

A-4000-104.2 t3-86;

PDE6-01I RevD

-rtza, Letter m b 6Ilnteran-

September 18, 1986 77000-86-034

..... - , .... ... .. I , -.... .. ..=..-..I..I.............. .. ..

G. W. Jackson D. C. GibbsJ. A. Thies Basalt Waste Isolation Project

COC-2/3C006-3695

Project Directive - Q-List Task Force

This directive confirms the formation of a Q-List Task Force under thepurview of the Acting Director, Science and Engineering, and thespecific direction of the Manager, Performance Assessment. Specificinstructions to achieve the Task Force objectives are attached forimplementation.

As described in the attached instructions, extensive support fromproject resources will be required. By copy of this directive, allBasalt Waste Isolation Project managers are requested to provide timelysupport on request by the Manager, Performance Assessment, or hisdesignated Task Force Leader.

A report of the actions taken to implement this directive including theQ-List product is requested for my approval by December 5, 1986.

D. C. Gibbs, DirectorBasalt Waste Isolation Project

DCG/DFH/jlp

Att.

cc: BWIP ManagersBWIP DirectorsLB/File/BDIC(2) 001/E-106

fI-rrnafl Letter I.'- PD36-011 Rev

PO1(w,<1 International

I . I . s

G. W. Jackson.J. A. Thies

_; , . .. . . . . I .9, , *' t 4

D. C. GibbsBasalt Waste Isolation ProjectCDC-2/30006-3695

.Project Directive - Q-Llst Task Force

This directive confirms the formation of a Q-List Task Force under thepurview of the Acting Director, Science and Engineering, and thespecific direction of the Manager, Performance Assessment. Specificinstructions to achieve the Task Force objectives are attached forimplementation.

As described in the attached instructions,.extensive support fromproject resources will be required. By copy of this directive, allBasalt Waste Isolation Project managers are requested to provide timelysupport on request by the Manager, Performance Assessment, or hisdesignated Task Force Leader.

A report of the actions taken to implement this directive including theQ-List product is requested for my approval by December 5, 1986.ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

D. C. Gibbs, DirectorBasalt Waste Isolation Project

OCG/DFH/jlp

BRMC Record Copy ofConcurrence perSection 6.2, PMPM 1-110Rev. 0

Att.

cc: BWIP DirectorsBWIP ManagersL8/File/SRMC(2) OO1E-1Q 5/ ..L. Connell < C owaxX ,/Fi.?t

Director Ceruarions & esting

L. R. Fitch -

Associate Director, BWIP

N. M. Hutchins

G. W. Jackson

R. A. Johnson

R. T. Johnson

J. R. Kirkendall

hi-Oto ,/1/Director, Construction

A g 0 tOrScience Engineering

Di cr, angement/& ntegration

-ADDS ~~1,14,4Ma t WP QA

- -44z a n 4AA2t n anager, Project Administration

PD86-OIj RevO

PROJECT DIRECTIVE - -LIST TASK FORCE

1. Purpose

This directive will be used for the development of the -List forincorporation by reference in the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) andthe Site Characterization Plan - Conceptual Design Report (SWP - CDR).

2. AtlcahbllU

This directive applies only to the task described in Purposesabove. Subsequent maintenance and revision of the -List will becontrolled by Basalt Waste Isolation Project (EWIP) procedure.

3. etions

o II=: Used In this directive to include structures, systems,components, and/or activities,

o C-LIST.: Used in this drective'to mean a listing of theItems whose failure could result In a dose of 100 mrems atthe site boundary or make retrieval mpossible orimpractical.

O Q-Llst Task Force CLTF* A formally appointed andqualified, technically representative designate (one or morepersons) required to implement some or all of the provisionsof this directive as provided for in a letter ofinstructions to each member of the task force.

o Threshold Probability: (P hr shold in Figures & 2 - anaccident Initiator or accident sequence probability P sless than the threshold probability f the best estimate ofthe value of P s less than 10- /year or f P can beestablished to be less than l0-5/year with 95 confidence.Reference asks for a threshold probability of 10-5/yearplus some factor of conservatism.

o Performance nformaticn Data Base: The record ofreliability of, and availability of performance experiencefor, an item. Where no performance records are available,technical judgment shall be ,exercised and documented.

PD86-0 1 1 Rev O

o Threshold Cnsaguenne! (Cthresholp n F ures , Aaccident sequence consequence equa to 10 mrem w e odyor any organ to an individual located at or beyond thenearest boundary of the Repository unrestricted area. Thethreshold consequence identifled in Reference is 500 mremexposure to an individual located at the site boundary, butDepartment of Energy - Headquarters (DOE -H.) guidance hassuggested that, at this stage of repository design# BWIP usean' additional factor of conservatism to assure thatpotentially mportant Items receive appropriate QualityAssurance (CA) attention.

O M*±Mthodglog The methodology defined n Reference I forthe determination of Q-List tems Important to publicsafety.

o Methodology Re The methodology defined n Reference forthe determination of -List items mportant to thecapability to retrieve emplaced waste.

O Mathgdology.C The methodology defined n Reference 1 forthe determination of Q-List items Important to wasteisolation or to the prediction of waste solationperformance.

O SCP - CR. The Site Characterization Plan - ConceptualDesign Report.

4. Rsponsih:1l1tlaq

Prnect Directer - SWTP Identify cognizant director and issuerequest for action. Approve and transmit derived documents toDepartment of Energy - Richland (DOE - RU for their action asappropriate.

Director. Sclenca and Engineering. Designate and directcognizant organization to implement technical requirements forCLTF.

Manager - Performance Aaessmant Qeaartmant (PA* Initiaterequests for personnel assignments to QLTF and Review Teams (RT).Designate and approve the prescribed task letters of instruction.and confirm the acceptability of the personnel provided.

Manager. RPaggitor Lensing Grup. Provide Management & - -

Integration (&I) funding suppor direction, coordination, andinterface with the Technical Coordinator.

PD86- 0 1 1 Rev

5oa /7

OLTF Technclral Coordinaor. Prepare requests for assignment ofqualified personnel to the CLTF and RT. Coordinate the LTFactivities including authoring required reports. Documentactions and resolutions of LTF and Review Teams.

Members - QLTF. Implement the applicable provisions of thisdocument.

Memhers - Review Team: Implement the applicable provisions of thisdocument.

5. RaquIrements

o Qualifications of LTF Members

Each participant shall be qualified by profession and/orexperience to participate. Task documentation shallidentify the location of or include the individualqualification records and a record of training in themethodology of developing this version of the -List.including use of this directive.

o One or more letters of instructions to the participants shallbe provided. sufficient to describe the necessary actions toachieve the purpose of this directive.

o When requests for personnel support are necessary, therequest shall specify:

- Number of persons required.

- A description of the type of work to be required. or

- The professional qualifications required.

- The anticipated commitment of time.

- The objective/application of the task product.

- A valid charge code.

o The Manager PA shall Identify the Technical Coordinator whoshall:

- Provide and document drection and guidance to theparticipants on their task.

- Accumulate the records required or developed by thetask effort.

PD86-0 11 Rev O

C~O$/7

- Prepare the report documentation for taskassignment and provide support as requested n thethe preparation of the final report.

- Ensure transmittal of accumulated records to BRMC.

6.0 Prneadure

The work flow for Methodology A of the "Guidance for Developingthe SCP-CDR and SCP G-List (Reference 1) is illustrated n Figure 1.for methodology B (Ibid) n Figure 2 and for Methodology C in Figure3. The narrative for methodology A is contained in Sections throughS following. The special considerations for methodology B are givenIn Section 6.6. Section 6.7 addresses postclosure considerations andmethodology C. For the surface facilities methodology A s addressedand documented only in qualitative terms. For subsurface facilities.quantitative analytical techniques are used.

6.1 Repositnry es1n Oa t aL

This analysis will be conducted mainly at the repository systemand subsystem level of detail using the conceptual design andfunctional design requirement as found in the SCP-COR (90% DesignReview version). For each relevant design item. collect the followingto the degree reasonably achievable:

o Design data

o Applicable assumptions

o Anticipated specifications

o Definition of role/interface with the waste and/or wasteprocess for both emplacement and retrieval.

o Performance Information Data Base which will provide. theoccurrence probability for each identified tem failureincluding documentation of the source.

When a documentable occurrence probability does not existand technical judgment is required. a value shall beestablished by consensus judgment of at least threequalified persons. Each judgment shall be fullydocumented.

This data base will be augmented during the event tree analysisas necessary.

PDe8- 0 1 1 Rev C

7o0c /7

6.2 Oetarmine Acident Tntiators

The initiating events to be considered for potential mpact onrepository Items are to be Identified. Reference identifies aminimum set of nitiating events for considerations and this should beaugmented as necessary with site-specific events.

For each initiating event, a probability of occurrence should beIdentified in a referenceable manner.

Initiating events should be considered separately for emplacementand for retrieval. Where event occurrence probability is less thanthe threshold probability, it need not be considered.

Initiating events which may affect postclosure repositoryisolation shall be assessed for mpact as described in Section 6.6.

6.3 Evaluate Repaltory ReponMe

For each subsurface preclosure initiating event (Section 6.2)develop an event tree whereby the repository response to thisinitiating event can be evaluated. The event tree results in a set ofrepository response states which then require an evaluation ofconsequence. Figure provides the flow logic of sections 6.3 to 6.5for the development of the -List for methodology A.

An example Is provided n Reference 1.

o Enter each identified system or component failure Into thePerformance Information Data Base (Section 6.2) ncludingdocumented estimate of occurrence probability.

o Enter assigned occurrence probabilities for each event treestate. If the combined probability of a tree sequence isless than the threshold probability, terminate the branchanalysis. Refer to Section 6.5 second bullet.

6.4 Radik1l6teal Conseguang Asessment

Each significant event tree sequence (i.e. not eliminated on thebasis of being below the threshold probability of occurrence)requires:

a. Determination of the potential for the generation of aradioactive source together with its potential for breachof containment or loss of confinement.

PD86-0 1 1 Rev O

b. Determination of the radiological consequence for eachpotential source:

- Quantity S) of radionuclides released

- Type of radionuclides released*

- Systems (other tems) affected by the unmitigatedscenario development

- Physical limits of radionuclide deposition

6.5 5-Lt Daerminatian

o For all significant accident sequences. estimate the siteboundary dose.

o If the site boundary dose for an accident sequence exceedsthe threshold constraints the event tree shall be modifiedby design assumption acceptable to the design activity toappropriately modify the consequence or the probability.

o Those items for which credit is taken to reduce theconsequences of an accident sequence (i.e. event treebranch) below the threshold consequence or to reduce theprobability of the sequence below the threshold probabilityare put on the -List. If for a given accident sequencethere are several possible Q-List items, any of which Issufficient to mitigate or prevent, the choice will be madeon the basis of design. construction, or operationalfeasibility and the rationale for the choice will bedocumented.

6.6 Retrievahility -tict eveliprment

The work flow for Methodology B is shown In Figure 2. Theprocedure for Methodology is the same as that for Methodology A withtwo exceptions: a) The consequence screening s done on the basis oftechnical judgment whether the initiating event or the event sequence(taking preventive/mitigating systems Into account) renders retrievalImpossible or impractical. and b) the selection of preventive andmitigating systems may be different when considering the impact of anevent sequence on retrievability.

Radionuclide distribution shall be based on ORIGEN-2 analysis ofspent fuel fission product Inventory for 60 000 MWO/MTU burnup and a 5year cooling period.(Ref. 1)

PD86- 0 1 1 Rev O

9o7

6.7 Postlsasure <-Lst Oevelepment

The pstclosure portion of the Q-list consists of barriersImportant to waste isolations and the activities that must becontrolled to assure that those barriers will satisfactorily nhibitradionuclide release to the accessible environment. It will bedeveloped as follows:

o Identify the barriers which must be relied upon to meet theperformance objectives of 10 CFR 60.112 and 60.113.Barriers shall be chosen conservatively such that allbarriers which may potentially be required are Included.Where necessary to identify particular barriers based uponcurrent design and performance assessment/performanceallocation considerations* it shall be by technicalconsensus of at least three qualified persons.

o Identify the activities that must be properly conducted toassure that the barriers will perform satisfactorily inservice, to nclude performance assessment activities wherethey are necessary to demonstrate satisfactory performance.Consideration must be given to potential preclosure andretrieval activities and events as they might effectpostclosure solation.

6.8 Surface Fael tt1y &ftst Determinatitn

Surface Facility -List Items will be determined using aqualitative analysis of surface facility systems. accident nitiators*and their nteractions. The logic of this qualitative assessment willbe identical with the sequence of steps identified in 6.1 through 6.5.

7. Review

The -List Task Force Final Report and supporting documentationshall require review. The draft document shall be submitted throughthe Configuration Management Group to the following organizations withrequest for written comments oan Review Comment Record (RC) forms:

BWIP M&I Waste Package Project

SWIP M&I Systems Project

BWIP M&I Site Program

SWIP M&I Repository Project

8WIP M&I Licensing epartment

BWIP S&E Site Department

PD86-011 Rev

SWIP SE Performance Assessment Department

SWIP S&E Engineering & Design

SWIP S&E Systems Engineering

SWIP S&E Configuration Management Group

BWIP Project Administration

SWIP Construction

SWIP Operation & Test

Rockwell Safety

SWIP Quality Assurance

The manager of each organization shall assign a qualified personto perform the review and shall provide appropriate comments. Thereviewer qualifications shall be auditable.

Records identified for the task which are not included n thedraft supporting document shall be made available to the reviewpersonnel. The LTF Technical Coordinator shall coordinate thereview and shall chair the review meeting If one is required. Allcomments shall be resolved and RcR's.signed off prior to release ofthe (I-List Task Force Final Report and Supporting Document.

8. Approval

The completed records of review during and subsequent to theconduct of the task shall constitute technical approval of the Q-ListTask Force Final Report The Final Report shall require the followingapprovals:

Manager SWIP Performance Assessment

- Signifying that the appropriate technicalstandards have been addressed and satisfied.

Manager WIP Licensing

- Signifying that the appropriate regulatoryrequirements have been addressed and satisfied.

Manager WIP - Signifying that the appropriate projectOA quality requirements have been met by the

document.

PDE6 -01 1 IRev O, C ,7

Director WIP

01rectorScience &Engineering

DirectorConstruction

DirectorOperations &Testing

Verifying that the sgnature approvals reflectthe appropriate staff activities to validatethe document.

Signifying acceptability of the designatedQ-List and its impact on their organization.

SignifyingQLst and

SignifyingOHList and

acceptabilityits mpact on

acceptabilityits impact on

of the designatedtheir organization.

of the designatedtheir organization.

9. Reen rds

The results of this Q-List Task Force will be documented byissuance of a Q-List Task Force Final Report. Subsequently. a formalSWIP Supporting Document will be prepared and issued for incorporationin the WIP technical baseline.

An administrative record of the business of the CL-List Task Forcewill be maintained. It will include as a minimum:

o letters of nstruction to participants

o letters issued to and n the Task Force

o Minutes of meetings of the task groups (CLTF)

o Participant qualifications (traceability is sufficient)

o Initiating event selection (Section 6.2 of "Procedure")

o Design Base. ncluding all items Identified (Section 6.1 of theProcedure)

o Event trees (Section 6.3 of the Procedure")

o Radiological consequence assessment (Section 6.4)

o Event selection. design bases event trees, and impact uponmaintenance of retrievability - used to mplementMethodology B.

PD86- 0 1 1 RevO

a Identification of natural and engineered barriers Importantto waste solation and identification of SiteCharacterization activities which may degrade thosebarriers or which will be used to Improve the predication ofwaste isolation performance of the repository Ci..,Methodology C).

o Q-LIst

o This directive and applicable procedures

o Technical Document Review Report

10. eforeneas

1. "Guidance for Developing the SCP-CDR and SCP -Lists."prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. for S. Department ofEnergy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

ft

PD86-o I Rev O

,3 or /7

FLOW LOGIC FOR METHODOLOGY A

REPOSITORY DESIGN DATA BASE

|DETERMINE ACCIDENT INITIATORS

ESTABLISH NTIATOR FREQUENCY

Rt s<ld E LIMINATE NITIATOFSCREEN INITIATORS FROM FURTHER

CONSIDERATION

- ; 2 P~~~~~~~~~~Treshold

SUBSET OF CREDIBLE INITIATORS

EVALUATE REPOSITORY RESPONSE |

ESTABLISHAPPROACH TO ESTIMATE CONSEQUENCECONSEQUECE (UNMITIGATED)

ANALYSIS/ - > C C , £T ~EIMINATE EVEN9T

|SCE£NONCONSEQUENCE1d FROM FURTHERk J ~~~~~~CONS1IDERATION

SUBSET OF CREDIBLE EVENTS

ESTA8LISH PREVENTIVE/MITIGATIVE SYSTEMS

A

?igwra - eet 1. o. 2

PD86-OI 1 -Rev

A DEVELOP EVENT TREES

ESTABLISH EVENT FREQUENCIES

SCREEN EVENTS |

2 Pth

ELIMINATE EVENT- .FROM FURTHER

CONS I DERATION

Inid _._


ESTIMATr -- N CE STIMATE CONSEQUJENCE

0-LIST SYSTEM(S)RESPONSIBLE FORREDUCTION BELOW

THRESHOLD

(C -NSQUEC ELIMINATE EVENT

SCREEN ON CONSE < c m FROt FURTHER .CONSIDERATION

ISUBSET OF HIGH SIGNIFICANCE EVENTSG-LIST SYSTEM(S)RESPONSIBLE FORREDUCTION BELOW- THRESHOLD

IESTABLISH ADITIONAL PREVENTIVE/

MlTIGATIVE SYSTEMS I

FigLs . - et 2 a 2

PD86-O I Rev O

/5oA' /'7

FLOW LOGIC FOR METHODOLOGY 5

REPOSITORY DESIGN DATA BASE

DETERMINE ACCIDENT INITIATORS

ESTABLISH INTIATOR FREQUENCY

<- ELIMINATE INITIATOISCREEN INITIATORS FROM FURTHER

CONSIDERATION

1 ' tZihoid

SUBSET OF CREDIBLE INITIATORS|

LEVALUATE REPOSITORY RESPONSE

ESTIMATE IMPACT ON POSSIBILITYAND PRACTICALITY OF RETRIEVABILITY

(UNISTIGATED)

DOES THE EVENT MAKE RETRIEVAL ELIMNATEIMPOSSIBLE OR IMPRACTICAL? CONSIDERATION

YES


ESTABLISH PREVENTIVE/MITIGATIVE SYSTEMS

T4 -ire 2 -- -. eel 1 2

PDB6-01 1 Re v

i * /,.¼

" 7L I DEVELOP EVENT TREESI

4[ESTABLISH EVENT FREQUENCIES

. .

C SCREEN EVENTSELIMINATE EVENT

* FROM FURTHERCONSIDERATION

_4.w 2 PUrhold

0 SUBSET OF CREDIBLE EVENTS

_ .~~~

O-LIST SYSTEM(S)RESPONSIBLE FORREDUCTION BELOW

THRESHOLD

IESTIMATE IMPACT ON POSSIBILITY AND

PRACTICALITY OF RETRIEVABILITY I. .i D T NO ELIMINATE EVENT

DOES THE EVENT MAKE RETRIEVK AFROM FURTHERtIMPOSSIBLE OR IMPRACTICAL ? CONSIDERATION

I -.YES

pI _______________________________________________________________________

| SUBSET OF HIGH SIGNIFICANCE EVENTS

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ l

Q-LIST SYSTEM(S)RESPONSIBLE FOR

MAKING RETRIEVALPOSS5LE AND

PRACTICALESTABLISH ADDITIONAL PREVENTIVE/

I 0 MITIGATIVE SYSTEMS I

:ig5re 2 - _.ee. 2 O 2

PD86-011 RevO

/72 /7

FLOW LOGIC FOR METHODOLOGY C

Identiflcation ofEngineeredBarriers

Important to WasteIsolation

Identification ofNaturalBarriers

Important to WasteIsolation

I

Description of SiteCharacterization ActivitiesRelated to those Barriers

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IIdentify those Activities that

may Impact those Barriers for whichWaste Isolation credit s being taken

IIdentify those Activities which affect

Waste Isolation Performance Assessment

th Iified Barriers and

-Lst the Ientified Barrlers andActivities

Figure 3,