ML20012G771

Transcript of 930309 Briefing on Activities of CNWRA in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-56.Related Documentation Encl

ML20012G771
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/09/1993
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9303160109
Download: ML20012G771 (70)

Text

MM88848%4%%%%%%W6%%%%%%%%%'dTi/d%%%4fQ3hgggggg;gg f

h 016 Phillies

___ Occument Control Cest, e

3

• AMSMIT~AL TC:

a The Public Occument Occm G

3 2.DVANCED CCPY TO:

3 8/// [ 9 3

2

ATE:

3 SECY Correspondence & Recores Branen g

FROM:

5 h

h Attacted are copies of a Cemnssion meeting transcript and relate 3

5 g

3

ccument(s ).

No other distribution is recuested or 5

placement in the Public Occument Roem.

=

recuirec.

M L A /// M OJ N/IL det eeting

Title:

~

w l5 u J r 2 m m L % m & lO6J K &

j

/9/9 C;en X

_ Closec "eeting Cate:

5c 5

4 3

3 Ccoies C

DCS "g

Item Cescriptien*:

Advanced

• 8 to POR Cg k

12 1

g:-

k 1

1. TRANSCRIPT k

g h)! A$nmuhJ u

x 2.

3 ii5 h

xE f

2.

6

=5 I

f

g:-

4*

3 a

6 5.

E

~

l

^ '

q 15000G i

[

• DDR is acvanced ene copy of each document, two of each SEC bg 0

&t

acers.

fofh{930309 3

d 'R '

P PT9.7 PDR

- " " " " ~1suw m..., __

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION O

k6 BRIEFING ON ACTIVITIES OF Tile CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSIS (CNWRA)

LOCatiOD:

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAIG Dats:

MARCH 9. 1993 Pag 6S:

56 PAGES NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC.

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.

20005 (202) 234-4433 5

DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on March 9, 1993.

in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding 'as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.

HEAL R. GROS $

Ct.'URT REPoRTTRS AND TRANSCRittRS 1321 RHoDt ISLAHO AYTHUt. M.W.

(202) 234-4433 wASHtHGToH, D.C. 20005

' (202) 232 4 600

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REuGLATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING ON ACTIVITIES OF THE CENTER FOR' NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSIS (CNWRA)

PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission one White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Tuesday, March 9, 1993 The Commissiun met in open

session, pursuant to notice, 'at 10:00 a.m.,

Ivan

Selin, Chairman, presiding.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner FORREST J. REMICK, Commissioner E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

i 2

s STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:

SAMUEL J.

CHILK, Secretary MARTIN MALSCH, Deputy General Counsel

?

JAMES TAYLOR, Executive Director for Operations E

ROBERT BERNERO, Director, NMSS JOE YOUNGBLOOD, Director, Division of HLW Management, NMSS I

WES PATRICK, CNWRA t

BUDHI SAGAR, CNWRA t

h I

i r

i t

i i

t i

?

?

y i

i r

NEAL R. GROSS j

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 236 4433 '

WASHfNGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 t

+

i 3

1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S t

2 10:00'a.m.

3 CilAIRMAN SELIN:

Good morning, ladies and 4

gentlemen.

5 Today we're meeting to receive a briefing

~

5 6

on the activities of the Center for Nuclear Waste 7

Regulatory Analysis.

The Center is operated by the-8 Southwest Research Institute under contract with NRC.

9 It's an NRC federally funded research and development 10 conter.

Its purpose is to provide the NRC staff and 1

through the staff the Commission with strong and t

12 independent technical and scientific support for our 13 high-level waste program.

14 The nation's high-level waste program is 15 a one of a kind effort which presents enormous 16 challenges, demands knowledge and skills of the 17 highest quality.

The Center plays a vital role in i

18 this program by assisting the NRC staff in addressing 19 these technical challenges and by doing so with 20 personnel and management who are free from any 21 conflict of interest with NRC licensing matters.

22 It was initiated with a five year contract 23 awarded in October 1987.

Since that time the high-24 level waste program has changed-and natured 25 considerably.

The Center has also evolved to its

(

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 2344 433 l

1 i

4 1

present form.

I 2

The Commission is quite interested in 3

hearing directly from the Center of the current

{

4 problems and issues being faced and the prospects for 5

resolution.

It's especially appropriate that we i

6 receive timely information now, just as the DOE site 7

characterization program is gaining real momentum.

I 8

assume that the meeting this morning will concentrate 9

on the substantive work of the

Center, not 10 administrative and management points.

11 Commissioners, do you have anything you i

12 care to say?

13 Mr. Taylor?

14 MR. TAYLOR: Good morning. I'11 note that

[

t 15 this is the seventh briefing provided to the j

16 Commission on Center activities and issues.

To

[

17 present the briefing, Bob Bernero from NMSS and Joe j

18 Youngblood are on my right.

To my left are Wes 7

19 Patrick, President of the Center, and Budhi Sagar, the i

20 Center's Technical Director.

21 I would like to note that also here with 22 us but sitting in the audience is John Latz, who has

(

part-time basis with respect to 23 elected to go on a 24 Center activities and has been replaced as the Center 25 President by Wes Patrick, f

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

.j

t 5

1 With those opening remarks, I'll ask Bob

[

2 Bernero to continue.

)

3 MR.

BERNERO:

As you requested, Mr.

i 4

Chairman, we will not dwell on the administrative 5

matters.

We want to focus this briefing on the 6

current and significant technical issues so that the 7

Center can speak to the Commission on them.

i 8

Just in passing, I would like to note that 9

the Center currently has 52 core Center staff on board 10 by the end of this second quarter.

They are r

11 approaching the 54 projected by the end of the next i

12 quarter and things look pretty good in that.

In that l

{

13 slide you have summary status.

There is also an 14 important note that they are currently underrunning at 15 about 35 percent of the budgeted funding.

It i

i e

16 basically would indicate that there's a programmatic f

17 lag as the staff came up, but also there has been a l

18 due amount of caution and there hasn't been full i

19 utilization of contractors or subcontractors beyond

{

20 consultants and the like.

We hope to take advantage 21 of this.

We're right now exploring in light of the 22 recent budget marks how to best take advantage of this

{

23 situation for the program.

i 24 So, with that, I would like to turn it

?

25 over to Wes Patrick and Budhi for the technical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 t

6 1

issues, i

2 MR. PATRICK:

(Slide)

Slide 3, please.

3 I certainly appreciate the opportunity to l

4 provide you with this briefing today.

What we're 5

going to do in the next few minutes that we have 6

together is first to lay out the

basis, the 7

methodology that we use for identifying the issues and P

8 we're going to cover that very briefly so that we can 9

get to the heart of the matter and discuss the issues 10 themselves.

Then, for each of the five issues that 11 we've identified, we'll give a brief statement of our 12 perception of the issue.

We'll then progress to i

13 indicate how we are making progress toward the address 14 of that particular issue and finally just make a few f

15 brief remarks on what our perspective is on the l

16 outlook for resolving that particular issue.

l 17 (Slide)

Slide 4, please.

j 18 We use a five element methodology as t

19 indicated in slide 4 to identify what we typica ly

[

20 call uncertainties.

What might also be characterized i

i 21 as concerns or issues within the program.

I would

'i 22 note at the outset that the NRC staff has a role in 23 each one of these five areas.

That role varies. 'In 24 some cases they are the principal technical 25 participant in such things as prelicensing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i

I

t 7

1 interactions and the Center has a secondary role in 2

those cases.

In other cases such as research h

3 activities, we are the lead and they function as 4

project managers.

So, there's quite a range of staff 5

interactions between the Center and the NRC in the 6

conduct of these areas of activity which we use to t

7 identify and then seek resolution of the particular 8

issues that are arising within the program.

9 (Slide)

Slide 5, please.

10 Today we're going to focus, as I indicated l

11 before, on five broad issues.

These are not the only 12 issues that have been identified, but we've selected l

13 them because of their potential impact on the full f

14 breadth of the program.

Budhi and I will be working 15 back and forth to discuss these to set the stage for i

16 the issue and describe our progress toward it and I

i 17 resolution as we go through our briefing this morning.

18 (Slide)

Slide 6, please.

4 i

19 The first issue that we've identified l

20 deals with the matter of data and models of the 21 processes and conditions that exist at the site.

DOE-22 is going to be required to present in their license 23 application a

very coniprehensive and thorough t

24 description of all of those processes and conditions j

25 that now exist and that might evolve over the l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS M23 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

-,----n--

8 1

millennia to come that could affect performance. It's j

2 going to take not only a good deal of acquired data, 3

but an exercise of professional judgment and I

4 interpretation of the data that have been acquired and i'

5 to cast those data into the context of what we call L

6 conceptual models and then eventually mathematical 7

models.

8 Recognizing that there's no prior 9

experience with the 10,000 yeir licensing period that l

t 10 is of interest to us here for the repository program, 11 we recognize that there's a

need for objective

[

12 criteria for determining how much is enough. Have you 13 acquired enough data? Have you analyzed it thoroughly 14 enough so that you have some degree of assurance that 15 you understand both the current conditions of the site 16 and also how those conditions might evolve with time i

17 in what we call scenarios, the future states of the 18 repository setting.

19 Delays in the site characterization i

20 process to date have raised some concerns and some 21 issue that there may not be sufficient time for i

22 certain of these data to be acquired and analyzed and l

23 used in the design process and in the performance 24 assessment process as time goes on.

In particular, i

25 our concern goes to those coupled processes that take

~

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20305 (202) 234 4433

1 9

1 place in the near field of the repository which, by 2

the very nature of the materials involved, take very 3

long periods of time.

I speak, for example, of things 4

such as heat flow and moisture migration in the i

5 unsaturated zone of the repository.

6 There are difficulties that are i

7 fundamental or inherent in forecasting the evolution I

8 of these systems and those are-at the very heart of i

9 this particular issue that we're dealing with. One of 10 the concepts in geological investigation that comes 11 into play here is the notion of alternative conceptual i

12 models where any given set of data could be j

i 13 interpreted in a host of ways.

Those are some of the 24 elements of this issue that we're addressing, the key

-l 15 being how does one obtain reasonable assurance with 16 regard to the performance of the geological 17 repository.

18 DOCTOR SAGAR:

I'll talk very briefly 19 about the progress that we are making at the Center in 20 resolving this issue.

Very briefly I'll talk about-21 the three examples listed on slide 6.

l l

22 The very first one deals with the field 23 experiment that is NRC sponsored near Las Cruces, New 24 Mexico.

The experiment was designed to investigate 25 the effect of alternating. perceptual models and'also l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

t 10 t

1 to judge the worth of data for forecasting the shape 2

of a contaminant plume in the unsaturated soils.

i j

3 In the analysis of the data that we 4

performed over the last two years, we found that even l

5 when we used the state-of-the-art mathematical models l

6 to predict the shape of the plume, that the exact 7

shape could not be predicted.

However, the news l

8 wasn't all that bad because we were able to reproduce l

6 9

certain integrated characteristics such as we were 10 able to reproduce the central height of the plume

/

11 reasonably well and we were able to reproduce the 12 dispersion about the central height of the plume.

i 13 This study is continuing to evaluate the effects of 14 data density.

That is to try to sensor the large 15 amount of data that's available at the site to see how t

16 much is enough.

This would be a site specific study, 17 obviously, and I'm not quite sure if we would be able i

18 to answer the generic question how much is enough at j

19 the end of the study.

20 The second study I want to briefly talk

[

t

?

21 about is about the nickel alloy A-25, which is a l

22 candidate waste container material that DOE has r

23 selected. The particular concept we wanted to test in

{

24 the lab was the sensitization of this particular t

25 alloy.

When we did the experiments we observed the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 132; RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

P 11 i

i sensitization at 600 to 800 degrees C.

However, the i

i 2

conclusion we came to was that if we wanted to study l

3 the same process at realistic temperatures of the i

4 repository that a much longer test, such as ten years i

5 or longer, would be required, which pertains to --

}

6 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Wait.

Say that again, t

I 7

Doctor Sagar?

i t

8 DOCTOR SAGAR:

If we wanted to study the 9

sensitization issue at temperatures that would be 10 prevalent in the repository, which is 200, 250 degrees i

11 C, that a much longer time test, such as ten years or j

12 longer, would be needed.

i 13 CHAIRMAN SELIN: We were briefed last week i

14 by the Department of Energy's own advisory committee I

15 and they were discussing some possibilities of, in l

T 16 fact, storing the materials at higher temperatures 17 than had previously been considered.

How would that i

18 affect your analysis?

19 DOCTOR SAGAR:

For this particular

[

[

20 phenomenon, the higher the temperature the shorter i

21 would be the test, f

22 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Sort of a conservation of i

23 energy?

24 DOCTOR SAGAR:

Right.

{

f 25 MR. PATRICK:

But also the greater the I

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 t

f A

1 impact is the implication of that, sensitization i

2 occurring much more rapidly in the real repository 3

conditions.

I 4

DOCTOR SAGAR:

I guess the point we al r

5 trying to make is that depending on the design and 6

whether this is going to be hot repository versus cold 7

repository, the test span, the length of time that you 8

need would vary.

Therefore, if

+he site i

9 characterization of the design phase delays, you would

[

r 10 have to add more time to carry out the test.

i 11 CHAIRMAN SELIN: But let me go to the next 12 step.

If this is not known to us which approach the

[

13 Department of Energy is going to take, would you have

{

14 to do both experiments?

Could you do the one and 15 extrapolate to the other or would you need to have 16 both a hot and a cold temperature experiment to answer 17 your questions in advance?

18 DOCTOR SAGAR:

I think the only way we

+

19 could extrapolate would be if we understood the 20 phenomenon.

If it was empirical, you have to do both

{

21 tests. And there's quite a distance between those two i

22 concepts, just extrapolating based on experimental i

f 23 data versus mechanistic understanding of the phenomena 24 which you could then extrapolate.

But both would I

25 require considerable amount of experimentation, in my-l NEAL R. GROSS f

COJRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

.[

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHitdGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

~

13 1

view.

l 2

CHAIRMAN SELIN:

So that would suggest 3

that we try to get an authoritative answer from the i

Department of Energy about which approach before we

/

'ar into f airly expensive experimentation which, if V you correctly, when you said, "Unless we

'r nd the phenomena," I understand the 8

1r.

,1 c,

'e're not going to really understand i

9 nd therefore we would have to repeat 10 he aperature basis switched.

11 1 "'

SAGAR:

That's correct.

4 12 s

"AN SELIN:

Is that correct?

13

'ONER REMICK:

Would you see the 14 NRC doing story tests in this area or would you

.m i

carry out the tests?

15 expect 1E i

i 16 R. PATRICK:

Well, I think the phenomena l

17 are poorly enough understood with current state-of-l 18 the-art that the NRC would have an interest in an area l

19 as fundamental as this.

We're dealing with the issue 2

1 20 of containment of the waste and the lifetime of the i

21 container that at least some limited confirmatory j

l 22 testing would be in order.

j i

23 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

So, are you answering i

i 24 Commissioner Remick to say both, you would expect DOE

~j 25 to do the test and that we would also do a

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

]

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(PO?) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (702) 2344433

14 1

confirmatory test?

1 2

MR. PATRICK:

Yes, sir.

Our view has I

3 always been that NRC and the Center and serving them 4

should not be in the role of developing any major 5

component of the database, that the role there is to 6

both confirm those studies which the Department has 7

conducted and carried forward in. their license 8

application, and second to explore some of the fringes 9

of performance which perhaps DOE has not investigated 10 but which, in fulfilling its safety responsibilities 11 the NRC would have a vested interest in making some 12 assessments.

13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Without putting you on 14 the spot, Mr. Bernero, do you basically agree with --

15 MR. BERNERO:

Yes, indeed.

16 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

I'm putting you on the 17 spot.

18 MR.

BERNERO:

Yes, indeed.

Wes is 19 reflecting the view that we have of the role of the l

20 NRC and the role of the Center.

We want to select 21 those crucial points.

Systematic independent 22 performance assessment has been one of them.

Then 23 going into the database, selecting those crucial 24 points where to have an independent opinion we have to 25 be sure that DOE has done a thorough job and getting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

3 15 i

1 on the edges, looking for key uncertainties that could 2

contribute.

3 But again, I think Wes put it and we have I

4 discussed this many times, the burden of proof is 5

DOE's.

So, the body of the database, the fullest 6

range-of what is needed is DOE's responsibility and l

7 we're here to affirm that or to deny it and we need a E

8 certain degree of independence to do that.

9 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

To accept somebody's 10 description in a different -- they can deal the cards, l

11 but we want to make sure we cut them before.

I 12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

On this question of j

t 13 understanding the phenomena, how much will the f

14 possibility of understanding will depend upon the I

15 physical and chemical characteristics - of where the l

I 16 waste packages are being emplaced?

Not just l

17 temperature environment, but the actual material l

18 that's adjacent to the packages. Presumably that's an l

1 19 issue here.

20 DOCTOR SAGAR: If you're talking about the

~

21 environmental conditions, that strong waste package,-

i 22 those are exceedingly important and they are 23 heterogenous because of the geology in which they 24 reside.

In fact, the recent work we did shows that 25 even in a hot repository the containers can stay wet.

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERf., AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

{

i 16 1

It can be ' aqueous conditions even at very high 2

temperatures because of the way pressure, depression 3

and so on, some other phenomenon that occurs.

So, 4

yes, that's indeed an issue that needs to be studied.

5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, I guess the 6

question I have is whether you can do an experiment 7

that's meaningful, either hot or cold, without having 8

data as to exactly what the environment is in which 9

the packages are going to be placed.

10 MR. PATRICK:

Commissioner Rogers, one of 11 the things that we have done in what we call our 12 integrated waste package experimental program is to 13 take a very careful approach to experimental design

[

i 14 using some of the factorial experimentation concepts 15 to test a range of high and low values of each of the r

16 parameters that we believe would be present in a Yucca 17 Mountain-like repository.

We know enough about the 18 chemistry of the rock that using some geochemical 19 modeling techniques we can develop a

range of 20 geochemical conditions for the water that is likely to i

21 come in contact with the packages.

We've taken that 22 factorial approach to in this interim period to try to i

23 bound the range of conditions that might eventually be 24 of interest, depending on which design is, in fact, 25 selected.

r NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f

1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

[

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20305 (202) 234-4433

17 1

COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Okay.

2 MR. PATRICK:

That's about the best you 3

can do at this stage of thinking and development of 4

the repository.

5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Yes.

6 DOCTOR SAGAR: The third example, the last 7

example regarding this particular issue relates to the 8

iterative performance assessment which is jointly 9

undertaken by the NRC staff, Research and NMSS, as 10 well as the Center, to study what particular data is 11 more critical than some other set of data.

For i

12 example, in the iterative performance assessment phase 13 2,

which is continuing at this time, we find that if 14 there was one single parameter that was driving the 15 performance of the repository, that was the 16 infiltration rate.

That was the depercolation rate.

17 That is the most uncertain at this moment. That needs 18 to be studied both in the field as well as in a 19 numerical sense.

20 The NRC idea team plans to do an analysis 21 in the phase 3 on that particular issue.

We believe 22 that the two major programmatic documents which are 23 being developed by the NRC staff, with some assistance 24 from the Center, would make significant contributions 25 towards resolution of this particular issue.

Those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(20?) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

18 i

1 two documents are the format and content regulatory f

I 2

guide and the licensing application review plan.

i 3

These documents, together with the prelicensing 1

I 4

interactions with the DOE and their contractors, we 5

believe would provide some definition of what data l

i 6

models and interpretations are to expected from DOE at 7

the licensing time.

l 8

Ultimately the resolution of this concern, 9

we believe, would be to focus on the impacts of t

10 various phenomena and models and data on performance.

t 11 That is the only test we can identify that would tell 12 us how much is enough.

13 (Slide)

Slide 7, please.

[

f 14 The second issue we selected for 15 discussion is the validation issue, validation of i

i I

16 models and validation of submodels.

The models would 17 be used in the predictive performance in the long-term t

18 and we believe that the space scales and.the time i

i 19 scales in the repository are so large that there would i

l 20 be no true validation in the scientific sense.

Yet we l

21 do require some sort of

testing, some sort of f

22 confidence building to arrive at a

reasonable 23 assurance during the licensing process.

That,.we f

I 24 believe, is an issue that would be there when we

?

25 review the license application.

-I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 f

r- - - --

J l

4 19 l

1 The Center and the NRC staff and the other 2

countries that are involved in the high-level waste i

3 management have designed international programs.

The j

f 4

Center and the NRC staf f are participating in at least 5

two of them, the INTRAVAL program, whose aim it is to 6

validate the models of hydrologic flow and transport, 7

and the DECOVALEX program which is dealing with 8

decoupled models of terminal mechanical and hydrologic i

9 processes.

We have selected two analog sites and we i

10 believe natural analogs do provide an opportunity to i

11 study the phenomena at the scales of the repository, 12 both space and time, and that they could be helpful in 13 the model validation exercise.

14 The fourth site is Chihuahua, Northern t

I 15 Mexico, which is the host rock there is tuff and the j

I 16 climate and the hydrologic regime and other factors

?

i 17 are remarkably similar to those at Yucca Mountain.

I 18 Further, the site hosts a uranium ore body which 19 contains uraninite, which we believe could be a very i

20 good analog to the spent nuclear fuel.

The uranium 21 migration is being studied, is being measured.

It's 22 a fractured tuff rock, so we could try to figure out f

23 the partition between the fractures and the matrix as 4

24 to how migration occurs in such a medium.

And the i

i 25 project is about a

year old and we expect a

l r

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l

t

20 i

i considerable amount of'information to come out in the 2

future.

t 3

The second site is on the --

l 4

MR. PATRICK:

Commissioner de Planque?

l 5

COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

I think you're 6

going to answer it.

I didn't hear where.

i 7

DOCTOR SAGAR:

The second site is in 8

Santorini, an island in Greece, and that's under t

9 investigation as a potential natural analog site.

i 10 This is an archeological site.

It has been excavated I

11 since about 1967.

The attraction on the site is that i

12 the dates on which a particular geologic event

't 13 happened, which is a volcanic eruption, is quite well 14 known.

It's about 3600 years old.

So, we have the 15 initial conditions sort of fixed in this particular 16 site, which is the hardest thing in natural analog i

17 projects.

There are some metal artifacts that had 18 been discovered and there are plumes that one could 19 study what happened in the last 3600 years.-

l t

20 A variety of further lab and field studies 21 are also in progress on model validation.

Again, we j

22 believe that the resolution of this particular issue 23 is both in the DOE's hands and NRC's hands in the

+

24 sense of NRC trying to define what the expectation i

25 would be regarding the validation of models as they i

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

.(202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

21 1

are presented by DOE.

2 (Slide)

Slide 7, please.

3 CHAIRMAN SELIN' : Did you get your question i

~

4 answered?

5 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Yes.

6 MR. PATRICK:

Slide 8.

i 7

The next issue deals with the use of early 8

site characterization data.

As the Chairman-9 indicated, the momentum has begun.

DOE has now 10 obtained all the necessary permits.

They've launched i

11 their field studies.

They are preparing-their ramp 12 areas to begin tunneling at the site-and we believe 13 now that that portion of the program is behind them, 14 getting ready, that it's now time to turn some f

i 15 additional attention toward the sequential use of the

?

16 acquired data as these excavations take place and as j

l 17 the studies are themselves conducted.

This is true 18 not only of-the subsurface investigations, but the i

19 surface investigations as well.

l 20 And here again, both DOE and NRC have a 21 need and role to play in the sequential use of this 22 data as it begine to be acquired.

I've noted there on I

23 the slide just a few of the uses-that that data needs 24 to be put to, some of the early designs, the early l

25 decision making processes that will be taking place, j

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TAANSCRIBERS

.l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

b 1

use of that data and iterative performance assessment 2

so that NRC can begin to make some judgments, I

3 targeting back to one of the earlier issues, as to 4

whether the program that DOE is conducting is heading 5

in the right direction, whether they.are, in fact, 6

launching a program that is providing data that is 7

adequate to the task from a regulator's point of view.

8 Those early sequential decision making processes, we 1

9

feel, are very important and need to be given 10 considerable attention at this point.

{

11 We feel also that as the excavations 12 begin, as the surface and subsurface data begin to be P

e 13 acquired that things will be learned that could lead l

14 to changes in testing strategies as well as changes in 15 design activities.

Those are things that need to be 16 done in a sequential basis.

Our own experiences.on 17 projects has been that one gets so wrapped up in the 18 acquisition of the data that sometimes one forgets 19 that there's an analysis process and a utilization of l

20 that-data that needs to be taking place as well and we 21 need to turn our attentions to that.

f i

22 Interestingly, this.isn't really.an area l

23 where Npr ntaff can be particularly proactive and 24 forrvioi in terms of driving the availability of the 25 date.

bW., the data are becoming available through the i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

23 1

normal prelicensing process.

The semi-annual updates 2

to the site characterization plan, for instance, the 3

participation that DOE is very good about and the 4

various public fora dealing with high-level waste as 5

well as the broader scientific agenda, those give us 6

access to a significant quantity of their data. Using

[

7 that, we have begun to exploit some of the data that 8

are currently available and Budhi will speak to three f

9 particular areas that we feel are noteworthy at this 10 particular stage.

l 11 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Before you move on, Mr.

i i

I 12 Patrick --

E 13 MR. PATRICK:

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

i 14 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

I'm pleased to hear you l

15 saying -- noting the limitation in our role here.

I'm 16 sure everybody understands this, but just in case I'd B

17 like to be quite clear.

Our considerations, on the 18 one hand, are not to sandbag DOE, to let them know 19 well in advance what we think we'll need to do our job 20 when it comes up, but not to run their program or take l

21 charge of their program.

It's up to them to decide

{

22 how to gather the data.

It's up to them to decide 23 what they need for their own purposes.

The amount of 24 cooperation is not to clear things in advance, but 25 just to make sure that there are no technical f

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l

i 24 I

I surprises.

So, your statement of restraint about what i

2 we can and should do is highly desireable.

l 3

MR. PATRICK:

Thank you.

4 DOCTOR SAGAR: The first example I want to 7

5 talk about is the capability of geometrically modeling-6 the geological structures and stratigraphy at Yucca l

7 Mountain.

We acquired that capability and then 8

acquired as much of the early site data as we could 9

and tried to model that to see what kind of 10 stratigraphy do we expect.

This one you go back to.

l 11 the beginning of time and try to see if_we could

[

12 reproduce the structure as we see it today.

f 13 One of the results of this particular

{

14 study was that we expected, given the geometry as we 15 know it today, that there should be a fault in the 40 i

t t

16 mile wash at the site, which is not in the present

{

t l

17 maps.

The recent earthquake at the Little Skull i

18 Mountain seems to confirm that, but that needs to be

(

19 further investigated if indeed it is such.

Our 20 understanding is that DOE would indeed undertake some l

21 studies to examine this particular issue.

i 22

-We have undertaken some studies'in the f

23 geochemical area.

We want to explain the sorption 24 processes mechanistically through ion exchange studies 25 and so on, and we have undertaken some basic NEAL R. GROSS j

COURT REPORTERS AtJD TRANSCRIBERS h

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

[

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l

.~

i e

35 1

experiments to try to verify existing thermodynamic 2

databases and fill in some gaps that we see in those 3

particular databases.

We have made a study of the C-t I

4 14 transport issue recently and we have found that j

t 5

partitioning of C-14, carbon-14 in the gas and the h

i 6

liquid and the solid phases causes a significant i

7 amount of retardation that needs to be studied.

t 7

8 Tiie third example I want to talk about is 9

the volcanism issue.

We have research projects j

i 10 undergoing in this particular topic.

The most recent 11 study on this issue was to study the probability of a 12 volcanic event happening in the vicinity of the site.

1

)

13 The issue was whether the Poisson kind of probability i

14 distribution used by DOE was appropriate or the non-15 homogeneous Poisson process will relate varied with i

i t

16 the space, with the distance from the center was the 17 mc 9 appropriate model to be used.

i 18 The conclusion that we reached from this 19 preliminary study was that a non-homogeneous poisson 20 process was more appropriate to study the probability

[

21 and we did estimate the probabilities of a volcanic f

22 event.

23 Again, the --

i 24 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

How does the parameter l

25 vary with distance of the center?

Is there an l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTE.RS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20305 (202) 2344433 l

26' r

1 equation or ~ is it just a set of values that you 2

determined --

i 3

DOCTOR SAGAR:

It's a set of values that i

4 you determine based on what you know about the number j

i 5

of events that had happened at different points in 6

space, and you find that as you go away from a certain 7

central

location, a crater or a cone, that the 8

probability decreases as you move away.

The greater 9

the distance, the lesser is the probability which t

i 10 would create a non-homogenous Poisson process in 11 space.

12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Are you just fitting a 13 curve to a bunch of data?

j 14 DOCTOR SAGAR:

Yes.

Yes, we are fitting

{

15 a curve.

It's not a mechanistic :nodel, if that's the 16 question.

i 17 MR. PATRICK:

But this is one of those j

l 18 early areas where you can use some of the early data l

19 to begin to get some notion of spacial distribution 20 and it's important because it begins to address the 21 natter of where are the trends in these volcanic j

I 22 processes.

If you begin to couple the first area that 23 he spoke about, the structural geology, with the third 24 area that he spoke about, these trends in volcanism, 25 you begin to work mechanism into the basic

}

NEAL R. GROSS i

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202)2344433

27 1

observations of where volcanic events seem to be i

2 trending.

You begin to address-a little more the 3

issue of why might they be trending there based on I

4 structural geological considerations.

5 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Next time you get a 6

tremor, do you get a violently different distribution?

i 7

How stable is this equation as a predictor of what 8

happens?

9 DOCTOR SAGAR:

Well, the stability of the 10 equation is dependent upon how many data points from 11 the past did you use.

Now, some of the past data 1

12 itself may be suspected, maybe meaning something 13 different and the equation will change.

The question 14 was the project that we were doing was to take so-15 called accepted data from the past that has been 16 accepted by most of the investigators and 17 reinterpreted it through a different model.

So, the i

18 equation will probably change in the future.

19 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

I was very leery about j

20 fitting curves when you don't understand the 21 underlying mechanism to try to estimate both the form j

22 of the distribution and the parameters within the l

23 distribution.

24 DOCTOR SAGAR:

Right.

1 25 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

You can always fit a i

i NEAL R. GROSS i

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

j 902) 2M-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

)

28 1

curve to any number of figures, but how good a 2

predictor it is is the -- okay.

3 DOCTOR SAGAR:

I accept the comments.

I 4

cannot say that this equation is the ultimate equation 5

that will give you the probably, but it's an attempt 6

to try to understand the data again.

7 The key element of resolution for this particular issue is the timely release and utilization 8

9 of data both by DOE and by NRC and the Center in 10 making decisions.

11 (Slide)

Slide 9.

12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Before you get off that, 13 what is DOE doing on these questions?

Again, we're 14 doing confirmatory research.

Are we taking their 15 models and testing to see if they're okay or are we 16 going off independently and we're going to have two 17 different models of how the earth behaves? What's our 18 role compared to DOE's role?

19 DOCTOR SAGAR:

In any research project 20 that we have undertaken at the Center, the very first 21 step has been to review all the literature, including 22 DOE's models.

So, it's not independent in the sense 23 that we don't know what DOE has done.

It's 24 independent in the sense that we try to look for 25 alternative interpretation of modeling aspect to see NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

39 1

that it's not -- as you said, if you don't understand L

2 mechanistically what's going on, then there'are more 3

changes of interpreting it alternatively. The idea is 4

4 to see which one maybe --

5 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Do we have a process' five 6

years from now when we sit down with our results and 7

DOE sits down with theirs and we try to reconcile r'

8 them?

Where does this come together?

9 MR. PATRICK: One of the things that takes 10 place as part of an ongoing dialogue, there are 11 provisions for the NRC Center staff to meet with the 12 Department of Energy staff.

In this particular area, 13 two weeks ago we were in the field with the leading 14 volcanologist on the Department of Energy's team, 15 Bruce Crowe and others, with our own volcanologist, to 16 address early on some of these differences and 17 interpretation at the staff level.

Not to try'to 18 resolve issues in any ultimate sense, but to address' I

19 them at the staff level to try to understand why-our 20 interpretations of those same data might be different.

21 So, in addition to the formal published literature, 22 there's this informal dialogue that continues to go 23 on.

24 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Are these ' dialogues 25 available to the State of Nevada's volcanist?

l I

NEAL R. GROSS f

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 ~

(202) 2344433

30 1

MR. PATRICK:

Yes, sir.

2 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Question about 3

the data that DOE is acquiring.

If my understanding 4

is correct, the core samples that are being taken are 5

not being totally archived.

Do you anticipate that 6

that's going to present any problem down the road?

7 DOCTOR SAGia:

My understanding is that 8

since they started a recent QA program and approval 9

was approved, that they are indeed archiving all of 10 the core.

That's my understanding, that in the past, 11 the core that they had collected would probably not be 12 qualified and that the information will not be used in 13 licensing arena.

14 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: At what point in 35 time did you see that change?

16 DOCTOR SAGAR:

Wesley might know better, 17 but my understanding is about two years ago.

18 MR.

YOUNGBLOOD:

For sure

t. cf're 19 archiving the cores.

The samples they are, but not 20 the --

21 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

It's my 22 understanding that when they take a core and a 23 researcher uses that core for his or her work, that 24 there is not necessarily a quarter or an eighth or 25 whatever of each core section that's archived.

It can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.

[232) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

l 31 I

be destroyed or used up in the process, although it

'2 wasn't quito clear to me what was and what was not 3

being done in archiving.

4 CliAIRMAN SELIN:

Mr. Bernero, will you go 5

and --

+

l 6

MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

7 CllAIRMAN SELIN:

Not necessarily by lunch T

8 time, but will you check that out?

-j 9

MR. TAYLOR:

Get the answer.

10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

By dinner.

11 MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

This is something --

12 my understanding from the origin of what they call the i.

13 sample management facility was that a segment of the 14 core was to be archived as well as samples.

l l

15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: We don't need to

!i 16 debate it here.

17 CllAIRMAN SELIN:

Calculating what reality i

18 is, but try to --

l 19 MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

We need to track that j

f 20 down.

21 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

And my question 22 is, if that's not being done, does that present a 23 problem for us later down the line?

f 24 MR. PATRICK:

Yes.

Without the practice 25 of doing core splits, as they're called, in place, NEAL R. GROSS COURT RtPORTERS AND TRANSCR$LRS' 13?3 RHODE ISLAND AVE NUE N W. '

(207) 7344433 WAGHINGTON. D C, F0006 902) F344433

32 1

then the issue of being able to replicate --

f 2

COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Right.

3 MR. PATRICK:

-- previous results becomes.

+

4 moot because without additional drilling that could be I

5 a programmatic issue.

1 6

Anything else on that?

. [

p 7

(Slide)

Turning then to the slide 9, the s

8 next issue that we'd like to discuss with you is also

. i 9

a very interesting one for the repository program

{

10 because of some of its peculiarities.

That issue is 11 the use of expert judgment in the licensing process, 12 in the regulatory arena.

Certainly the future 13 performance of the repository is going to be greatly 14 dependent upon not only an understanding of the l

15 current conditions, which we spoke to earlier, but.

16 also the evolutionary changes in those conditions 17 which would define the boundary conditions and the 18 forcing functions that exist on the repository. Those 19 would include not only the normal natural processes 20 that are playing out, but some of the more disruptive 21 things that one might imagine in terms of a scenario 22 developing.

23 All of those things, tectonics, volcanics, 1

24 the hydrologic, geochemical, climatic processes and i

25 events that are going on will require data i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20305 (202) 2344433 x i

i I

33 i

1 acquisition, but wi?1 also require some interpretation 2

of those data and undoubtedly some use of expert 3

judgment in defining what the most likely models are, i

4 the appropriate sets of models for defining how those 5

processes, how those conditions are going to play out i

6 over time.

A large dose of expert judgment should be 7

expected to be used and is a natural part of projects 8

of this sort that deal with the earth.

9 The question is not so much as to whether 10 to use expert judgment but the way in which that 11 expert judgment should be used, the processes, the 12 procedures for formalizing the use of expert judgment.

13 Qualification of experts is a particularly 14 interesting issue here because of the long time 15 periods involved.

If you take a literal definition, i

16 there are no experts because there are no people that 17 have made projections over these kinds of periods of 18 time.

So, the skills that we anticipate would be used 19 are much the same as those geological skills that have 20 been used to do what we call post-dicting in the 21 geological environment where you make observations 22 today and you use expert judgments to try to determine 23 based on those observations what must have gone on or 7

24 vhat might have gone on in the past.

t 25 In this first-of-a-kind effort, we've

[

NEAL R. GROSS i

CO'JRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 W?IHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 I

34 1

taken a three prong approach to begin to try to get i

2 our arms around the processes and procedures for using i

3 expert judgment in the regulatory environment and 4

possibly addressing the need for some technical t

l 5

guidance in this area.

6 DOCTOR SAGAR:

The first one of those 7

three is an assessment of the current state-of-the-art t

8 in the area of expert judgment with the help of 9

academic experts from outside the Center.

We 10 undertook the study to see if we could come to some 11 conclusion regarding validity of expert opinion that 12 is based on the past use of expert opinion if we could 13 figure out how well those expert opinions were found j

14 to be correct later on.

15 We found a few things. One is that -- and

[

16 this is, I think, both of the conclusions we reached t

t 17 are somewhat obvious.

The first one is that the i

18 expert opinion cannot be, should not be a substitute 19 for real data if that data could be obtained, that you

[

20 use expert opinion only where such data is either 21 impossible to obtain or it's economic issue sometimes 22 in the industry. The second one is that the selection 23 of the experts is really -- or how we define experts 24 is really the most crucial element in using expert 25 opinions and expert judgments, that consensus is no?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

35 1

really something -- is not really as fruitful as 2

trying to discover why experts differ on a certain 3

issue.

That gives us a better understanding of the 4

issue that you are trying to explore through the 5

expert judgments.

6 We are also undertaking a study to study 7

how, to see how geotechnical experts make judgments 8

since they have been doing that in the industry, for 9

example, for many, many years and there's real money 10 involved in those decision making, that they may have 11 developed some way of how expert judgments are to be 12 used.

That study is not complete yet.

13

Thirdly, we're undertaking an actual 14 elicitation as part of the iterative performance 15 assessment task.

We have selected climatology or 16 climate, future climate at Yucca Mountain to be the 17 topic and we are trying to set up an expert panel that 18 we would elicit formally to basically learn what 19 p3 cfalls there are in doing such an expert elicitation 20 and see if these three studies would eventually lead 21 us to some conclusions as to how -- first if NRC needs 22 to provide guidance to DOE on how to use or what is 23 acceptable to NRC on expert judgments and, secondly, j

24 if we-do get to the point where indeed NRC ought to

(

s 25 provide some guidance, what that guidance should look NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

36 I

like.

We hope at the conclusion of these three 2

studies that we might be able to recommend some 3

aspects of this tning to the NRC.

4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Just on this issue 5

of how to use. experts, do you - think that it makes 6

sense to try to deal with this question once and for f

7 all in a generic way or do you think that really the i

8 particular issue that arises that can only be 9

addressed through the use of expert judgments has to 10 dictate exactly how you use them?

Do you have a 11 feeling about that issue of whether it's wise to try 12 to anticipate beforehand all the ways in which experts 13 might be brought into an issue and come to some i

14 conclusions of how they would be used or to allow the 15 flexibility of deciding that issue on a case by case 16 basis because the nature of the question may dictate 17 how you use the experts?

Do you have any feelings 18 about that?

j 19 DOCTOR SAGAR:

From these studies that we 20 have seen in literature, a large part of the expert 21 elicitation issue is generic.

How to select experts 22 is more or less independent of what question you're 23 trying to get answered.

The way whether you would 24 want to get the consensus or you would want to study i

25 the reason for differences of opinion is a generic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

. ~..

?

t 37 1

issue.

Eventually the nature of the -- or how you 2

would use the data. and the nature of the data 3

obviously depends on case by case.

It depends on what 4

subject matter you're dealing with.

But again it's my

{

5 belief that quite a bit of this issue is generic and l

~

t 6

can be settled in a generic sense.

7 MR. BERNERO:

Commissioner Rogers, I'd i

8 like to interject.

There is a good deal of importance I

9 to the context of the use of expert judgment.

As the 10 Commission is aware, we have looked at seismo-tectonic l

r 11 issues in the past for how one can forecast the next i

12 40 years for reactor integrity.

Here it's a

13 substantially different context. We're looking at the 14 same geology, but now we're forecasting for millennia.

15 That's very important.

There's very high interest in

{

16 this and in this context for the use of expert i

17 judgment in the international community as well.

At i

18 the OECD Radioactive Waste Management Committee, very 19 strong interest in this.

It's a worldwide perception, 20 I'd say, that we really need to do this because, as 21 Budhi said earlier, you can't really validate the 22 models in the conventional sense of the word.

j 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, we'11 wait and

[

t t

24 see how it all comes out.

25 MR. PATRICK:

(Slide)

Slide 10, please.

i NEAL R. GROSS 3

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005

-(202) 234-4433 i

f 38 1

The final issue that we'd like to address

~!

?

2 with you today is a rather broad one and it deals with l

3 the subsystem and total system performance objectives 4

which are delineated in Part 60.

In particular, the 5

total system performance objective that's laid out in l

6 the EPA standard, which is currently in remand and 7

about to be repromulgated.

This is really the most 8

fundamental of issues. It has programmatic aspects to 9

it as well as the technical aspects that we'd like to 10 address.

11 From a technical perspective, there's i

12 really a concern here not only in how these subsystem 13 and total system performance objectives fit together 14 in a licensing context, but there also arises a 15 technical concern regarding the level of detail and i

16 modeling these various phenomenon.

We know that the 17 processes and conditions are very complex. That would 18 be true of any geological repository site.

We feel

[

f 19 though that there has to be some additional detail and 20 associated attention paid to some of these near field 21 phenomena which are among the most complex that would 22 be taH.ng place.

Therein we see that'the need to do 23 some additional detailed modeling with respect to, 24

say, waste package performance, release of 25 radionuclides from the engineered barrier system, may r

l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i

1 39

-l i

be appropriate, whereas in a total system performance 2

context one would need to use greatly simplified 3

models just to be able to accommodate the current i

4 limitations in one's ability to compute processes such 5

as this.

~

6 From the outset, the programmatic issue or i

7 the regulatory issue is identified using the technique 8

that we call systematic regulatory analysis.

You've' 9

been briefed on that area in the past as a Commission.

i 10 As we did that

study, we identified several i

11 uncertainties that bore on this particular issue. One t

12 of them I've spoken to briefly and that is how do the 13 subsystem requirements fit into the total system 14 performance area. Other ones deal with such issues as 15 the validity, the appropriateness of some of the 16 subsystem requirements such as groundwater travel 17

time, the containment of the nuclides for a

18 substantially complete period, 300 to 1,000 years, and 1

19 then finally the gradual release of nuclides from that 20 environment.

21

.Although some of those things are 22 regulatory issues, we have been able using iterative 23 performance assessment, two aspects of iterative 24 performance assessment in particular, to begin to 25 address the technical aspects of the problem. We know NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, t

(202) 2344433 WA$dlNGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

40

~

1 from our total system performance assessments, those 2

are assessments done by both the staff at the Center 3

and the staff at the NRC, that we can identify those 4

areas which are most crucial to performance and we can 5

calculate those using models which have been 6

appropriately simplified to be able to handle the 7

range of phenomena, the range of conditions that are j

8 of interest.

But we've also found in that process 9

that some of these phenomena need greater attention.

10 So, we've done what are called auxiliary analyses in 11 our parlance where we've looked specifically at such l

1 12 things as transport of carbon-14 in the gaseous phase 13 as well as in the liquid phase.

These auxiliary l

14 analyses have also extended to such matters as the 15 effects of volcanic intrusions here, stepping aside 16 from the issue of whether we can project or predict 17 where those are going to occur and when they are going 18 to occur, but to parametricelly evaluate what would 19 happen if they occurred with certain frequencies, 20 spacial distributions and sizes.

21 So, these auxiliary studies have enabled 22 us to look at some of these particularly important 23 effects of phenomena that could affect groundwater 24 flow or transport of radionuclides.

25 We feel there are several actions that.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(232) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

.i 41 I

need to be taken to bring ultimate resolution to this 2

particular area and that those actions are really j

l 3

going to be taking place against the backdrop of a r

4 much larger regulatory issue, and that is specifically 1

5 whether there is a need, a desire, a regulatory drive 6

to have a unique nexus or connection between the 7

subsystem requirements and the total system 8

performance requirement.

At the Center, based on the 9

studies we've conducted so far, it seems to us that if i

10 the subsystem performance objectives are viewed l

i 11 strictly as a means to ensure or to mandate that 12 multiple barriers are used and that they are used at f

13 particular minimum levels of performance, then there's l

14 really no need for there to be a nexus in the sense of f

'I 15 a

perfect connection between the subsystem 16 requirements and the total system requirements.

But 17 it is, at its heart, a policy matter as to whether one i

18 feels there needs to be a nexus.

What'a nexus would 3

19 bring on the positive side of the ledger is the i

20 potential for a single regulatory performance measure j

l 21 to be dealt with in the licensing arena.

t 22 NRC staff and ourselves are currently j

23

, wrestling with that issue.

But within that broader f

24

backdrop, some of the specific things that we're-l 25 looking at is to complete some evaluations that we l

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 23444:s3 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202)2344433 1

42.

1 have ongoing now and to complete those within the next i

2 several months with regard to specific rulemakings and i

3 staff guidances that we feel may be appropriate to 4

provide some information to the Department of Energy l

5 regarding how to treat subsystems and total systems.

i 6

Second, we feel that the need for the 7

staged or the phased performance assessments need to 8

continue and they need to continue to get increasingly 9

thorough and increasingly more realistic as time goes 10 on.

Again, there is a balance there to be struck l

11 between what one can calculate from a total system

[

12 perspective in some of the more detailed aaxiliary

{

13 analyses that will undoubtedly be needed to enable us 14 to understand some of the particular phenomena that i

15 are of regulatory interest.

16 Once these are available, the results of 17 the performance assessments we feel can be put to 18 timely use both by the regulator and certainly DOE l

19 will be putting those to use as part of their i

20 performance assessment calculational exercises.

i 21 Those conclude our remarks.

We'd be 22 pleased to entertain any further questions that you 23 would have.

24 CHAIRMAN e Commissioner. Rogers?

[

i

~

I 25 COMMISSI F"'ERS:

Well, just coming

' N S.

G.SS COURT REPORTL MfBERS 1323 RHOT 9 02) 234-4433 WASF h.

9 02) 234-4433

-.._~ _ -

43 J

1 right back to the point you've just

left, this l

2 ques'clon of subsystem performance, is it possible that j

t 3

our own regulations which focus on subsystem i

l 4

performance can result really in a suboptimal overall 5

performance rather than the best possible performance 6

of a potential repository?

It seems to me that.it's 7

conceivable that that can be the case.

We know that 8

in another context by emphasizing unduly one

+

9 particular aspect of a complex system you ultimately f

a 10 reduce the performance of the overall rather than i

i 11 improve it.

I wonder if there's a similar possibility j

12 here that can arise through dictates of our own 13 regulations and whether you have any thoughts on that 14 matter.

15 MR.

PATRICK:

Well, we do have some

-I 16 thoughts on it.

One, to be able to sit here and i

i 17 assert that it can't possibly be having such an 18 untoward of fect of causing a suboptimum solution to be j

}

19 found is not something that I think anybody could do 20 at this point.

But I would point out that the history i

21 of the development of those subsystem performance

-l 22 objectives, as they're referred to, does give t

t 23 considerable latitude.

Going back and looking at the 24 discussions that took place at the time, certainly it 25 would bear examining those again in light of how the 1

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 9 02) 2344433 AS I t TON, D C 2 (707) 2344433

1 44 1

state-of-the-art has moved forward over this last F

2 dozen years or so.

3 But as we go back and look at those, it 4

was very clear that the Commission over and over again 5

would say, "It appears that it may be possible for i

'6 this level of achievement to be obtained, but we want 7

to set the minimum standard here."

We show that the 8

minimum standard will have a positive beneficial i

9 effect on total performance.

If the applicant wants 10 to drive for the higher level of performance, they're 11 certainly encouraged to do so.

We see that in the 12 rulemaking record.

We see that in NUREG-0804 13 specifically that deals with some of these particular 14 issues.

i 15 The other thing that we feel very strongly 16 about is the rule already has in place a provision i

17 that at a particular site that there could be changes 18 in those subsystem requirements, number one, and in 19 fact there could be additiopr,1 requirements put in f

20 place as might be appropriate.

21 So, I

guess to sum that all up, 22 Commissioner Rogers, I feel if we have a basic rule j

23 that sets minimum standards to ensure that the 24 multiple barrier concept is implemented appropriately 25 and then allow those to move that will above that to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 23W33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l

45 1

drive to an optimum, a best possible performance 2

within the existing technological limitations and site 3

limitations, always being certain to minimally meet 4

the EPA standard, I think we do have very close to if 5

not the best of both worlds in that regard.

A r

6 personal view on that.

7 MR. BERNERO:

Commissioner Rogers, I'd 8

just like to add a thought to that.

In one area we 9

have a weaknesses.

That is the site geology.

The 10 pre-emplacement groundwater travel time is really not 11 that rigorous an index of performance.

We don't have i

12 a better index of performance.

We've struggled for a f

f 13 long time to find one and there is a weakness therein.

14 But I

don't think that tends to lead us into 15 suboptimal sites because ultimately the overall 16 performance criterion will ensure site acceptability.

17 MR. PATRICK:

And to tag on to your tag-18 on, that is an area that the Center is specifically

[

19 addressing where we have a

study. underway, a

t 20 calculational study not a paper study, to examine 21 other ways that one might be able to evaluate the i

22 goodness of the geological component of the total 23

system, j

24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

I guess the area 25 that concerns me the most is one that you didn't dwell i

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i

46 l

1 on at any great length, but it seems to me is-going.to 2

be a difficult -- could be very difficult one, and I

3 that is the validation of the process models, either 4

through the use of expert judgments or through the use i

5 of data, because it certainly is conceivable that one l

i 6

can challenge a model rather easily with respect to f

7 its validity 10,000 years from now in terms of its 8

ability to span that full extension of time.

}

9 I don't expect you to give us an answer of i

10 how that's all going to be solved, but I have a it has a potential for 11 feeling it's going to be l

12 being a very sticky issue to settle.

I would like to l

13 hear more about how you propose to do that as time

+

14 evolves.

I don't know that -- I'm sure we can't do it 15 today, but it does seem to me that that's going to be i

16 a very, very important question, I think, although i

17 sometimes these things break in a way that everybody f

r 18 agrees that a model is an adequate representation and 19 they feel quite confident.

But it does relate to how i

20 you select expert <; and it does seem to me that there 21 is a sticky question of the outlier expert and how you j

4 22 include them in the picture because they have l

23 credentials, very often very important credentials and r

24 yet their points of view may be quite different from 25 a

collection of experts that you may be very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D,C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

_.=.

47 l

I comfortable with.

2 How to include that possibility of at f

3 least those people's views somehow being if not 4

exactly included in the final result, that their views 5

can be used to challenge the experts, the other l

i l

6

experts, because it seems to me that that's the I

7 important thing in using experts.

IJot that you can i

8 find a collection of people who all agree, but that f

i 9

there is a reasonable challenge to the basis for their i

i 10 agreement that establishes their validity. -These are

[

11 issues that I think are going to be very important in f

12 the use of experts.

I'm not so sanguine about how 13 they're all going to come out.

[

14 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Did you have other i

15 comments?

t 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

No.

No.

17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

In your discussion

[

18 of expert judgment, I assume you're talking about 19 experts used to develop data where data might not i

20 otherwise exist or interpreting the data 21 mathematically and not in the adjudicatory sense of

[

22 expert witness.

23 DOCTOR SAGAR:

No.

We were talking about 24 actually --

25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Okay.

The NEAL R. GROSS j

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (20?) 2344433 WASH!NGTOtt D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 j

48 t

1 systematic regulatory analysis is something I've had B

2 a lot of interest in since you developed that.

I was 3

wondering as a result of this -- let me digress a f

4 minute and say that certainly one of the more 5

interesting, perhaps more useful use of the i

6 probabilistic risk assessment is in the design of, f

7 let's say, a power plant or something else where you j

8 can look at alternatives and see what effect they have l

i 9

on the risk.

10 As a

result of your study of the 11 systematic regulatory analysis, is there any skeleton t

12 that you've developed or a template that might be used l

l 13 as a write regulations in the future of things to 14 check to see that the thing hangs together, that all 15 the pieces are there?

Is there anything out of this that one could use in that l

16 process that shows 17 sense, of a check list or a template in developing 18 future regulations to make sure that all the pieces 19 are there that should be there?

20 MR. PATRICK:

It's not so easy as to put 21 a template together.

I guess I should start by 22 remarking that that has not been a charge.

23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Yes.

I understand.

24 MR. PATRICK: We've not tried to take that s

25 broad a sweeping of a view.

But it is not so easy as I

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433'-

, ~ _ -

49 i

l

+

1 putting a template together.

But we do feel that the i

2 procedures that have been developed and, in fact, are l

3 still under development do help one to focus one's I

4 attention on some of these most critical and most I

5 crucial issues.

Our staff had the opportunity to be I

6 of some small help to the people in working up the

}

7 rulemaking for the monitored retrievable storage 8

system.

I certainly can't speak for how useful they

[

~

9 found the exercise to be, but some of our staff 10 members actually "did the SRA" on those particular l

11 modifications that were underway to search for 12 uncertainties that might be introduced as a result of 13 amending a rule or modifying a rule.

14 We're doing a similar thing with a pending f

15 rulemaking that the staff is currently ' evaluating 16 within Part 60 to look at how 60.122 dealing with the i

17 potentially f avorable and adverse conditions at the

[

18 site might be better structured so that they interface l

19 with the performance objectives, f

20 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I see.

That's what t

21 I had in mind.

22 MR. PATRICK:

And that's a specific task 5

23 that we undertook to be sure that in the process of l

t i

24 making a change to resolve one set of uncertainties 25 you don't generate a bunch of other ones.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

[

(20?) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l

50 1

. COMMISSIONER REMICK: That's. interesting.

2 Thank you.

3 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Just to -- were 4

you finished?

5 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I'm finished, yes.

6 Thank you.

7 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Just two 8

questions.

On the subsystem versus total system 9

concept, you may not have this information at the tip 10 of your fingertips, but couldn't you tell us how other 11 countries, like

France, U.K.

and

Japan, are I

12 approaching that from a strategy point of view?

l 13 MR. PATRICK:

Sure.

14 DOCTOR SAGAR:

As a matter of fact, none 15 of the other countries that we know about how the 16 subsystem quantitative requirements.

They all have 17 qualitative requirements, but none of them have 18 that's what I know.

19 MR. BERNERO: Yes. The one exception, for 20 years Sweden has had this hot isostatically pressed 21 copper container.

If you ever try and pin them down, 22 it's really not all that definitive as a packaged 23 specification. They have it sometimes and other times 24 don't'have it.

Their principal focus in the program 25 is binary.

They have activity on the package and they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D,C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

)

51 i

1 have their principal focus on the rock l

2 characterization or site characterization activity.

i 3

So, they are the closest ones, I'd say, to someone in i

(

4 a national program overseas that has at least one i

I 5

subsystem specified.

t 6

COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

But the others 7

are mainly looking at total system performance.

8 MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

i 9

MR. PATRICK:

Well, they take an approach 10 that's not -- correct me if I'm wrong, but not too t

11 dissimilar from what the EPA standard says. There are 12 numerical criteria in the remanded EPA standard, but 13 then there's a Section 191.14, as I recall, that deals 14 with what are called assurance requirements.

So, you 15 say, "Yes, I want to have multiple barriers, but I'm i

16 not going to put specific numerical quantitative f

17 criteria with regard to their performance.

I will i

c 18 feel assured if you've got a good waste package, if i

19 you've got a slow groundwater travel time, if you've f

4 20 got good geochemical conditions and so forth, but as 21 a

regulator they've not specified those in

-[

22 quantitative terms.

They're still there as intrinsic i

23 measures that build assurance in the hearts and minds 24 of the regulators and the public, but not to quantify 25 them.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

}

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(20?) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

52 1-COMMISSIONER de-PLANQUE:

Okay.

2 DOCTOR SAGAR:

But there are other major 3

differences, like they don't have the 10,000 year time 4

frame either.

[

i, 5

COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Right.

6 DOCTOR SAGAR:

They are talking of risk, i

7 maximum risk whenever that might happen,. a million-8 years after the repository is closed and so on and so 9

forth.

So, we have quite a bit different regulation.

f i

10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Okay.

Back on l

11 the issue of expert judgment, I don't know how new l,

f 12 this concept is to the public, but can you tell us

'I 13 have there been studies done to figure out public 14 reaction to that concept and it being used in a i

15 regulatory framework?

16 DOCTOR SAGAR:

I think there are very few 17 studies that exist that we could put our hands on that f

l l

18 are in the laboratory area.

-We tried to get to the j

i 19 EPA to see how they handle their air permitting and i

20 waste injection kind of processes.

Most of the

[

21 studies we saw were in business area where they were 22 trying to predict what the demand would be 30 years 23 from now.

But none of the studies that we came across 24 had the long time frames that we have in the high-25 level waste.

It's very difficult to answer this NEAL R. GROSS i

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20D05 (202) 234 4433 i

53 1

question and that's how we started.

We wanted to l

2 validate expert opinion., see how well people have done t

i 3

in the past.

4 The conclusion was we could not come to a 7

i 5

single conclusion that said under these circumstances 6

it succeeds and under these circumstances it doesn't,

'[

7 which is what we set out to do.

So, I don't think I l

8 have an answer to your question.

9 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Well, that t

10 addresses whether or not experts believe in ' expert j

11 judgment.

I'm more concerned with how will the public 12 react to the use of expert judgment in this context i'

13 and it sounds like there hasn't been a lot of studies i

14 done.

t 15 MR.

PATRICK:

There haven't been, but

(

16 specifically although there are some beginnings 'in 17 that area.

I think one of the things that's relevant 18 with regard to that is that the public has a bit of a l

?

19 problem with being told to believe someone because 20 they are an expert.

I think we touch here on the i

21 whole area of public knowledge, public awareness, i

22 public perception regarding an entire industry, if you 23 will.

)

24 I

think personally, not the Center's

~

25 opinion, I think personally that there has to be a NEAL R. GROSS n$oYsIove r,

-s _.mm -

54 I

great deal of work done in that area in the coming 2

years if the public is going to be comfortable, and I

3 that's really what it comes down to, to be comfortable 4

with these kinds of decisions made over these long 5

periods of time by experts, by people who have not 5

themselves lived 10,000 years to see whether the 7

performance of their prediction is adequate.

So, I 8

think that's an important

element, is public l

9 awareness, public education.

10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Okay.

Thank 11 you.

12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

I'd just like to close i

13 with a couple comments.

14 First of all on the expert opinion, it's 15 important to remember this is a regulatory process and 16 the stress that I think you've laid and I hope you 17 continue to lay on experts making known the process by 18 which they draw their conclusions is a lot more 19 important than just somebody saying, "36" and closing 20 it up at that point.

21 There's a story I've told a number of 22 times about Norbert Weiner going up to the blackboard 23 and putting up a complicated integral, looking at it 24 and says, "2 pi."

Somebody else said, "Well, how did 25 you get that?" and he erased the 2 pi and looked at it NEAL R. GROSS i

f COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

6 55 1

again and he wrote, "2 pi," and he said, "See, I did 2

it a different way."

He was an expert but you still 3

have to know the process.

4 4

Okay.

A couple of -- there's a point in 5

that story.

It will take a few weeks to figure it 6

out, but there's a point.

7 I'm struck by a couple of things.

First, B

in spite of Doctor Patrick's disclaimer, you are 9

clearly taking a look at the overall question and 10 saying, "What other holes are there to fix?" not just 11 what are the answers to the three or four questions 12 that we're doing, and I think that's useful.

I 13 believe -- my own personal opinion is that over the 14 five or six years that the Center has been helping us 15 that you have established a

reputation for l

16 independence and for common sense, for not going off 17 on too many wild goose chases.

18 That leads to a second observation and 19 that is that we just have a lot more sources of 20 independent advice on the high-level waste question I

21 than we did have five or six years ago and perhaps the i

22 Commission will have to sit back and figure out how 23 much of this is complementary and how much of this is 24 redundant.

But I believe that the breadth and depth 25 of your observations are both salutary for us to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 s

56 1

consider as we look at.this question.

2 So, we thank you very much for the 3

presentation and look forward to your continuing work.

4 Thank you.

5 MR. PATRICK:

Thank you.

6 (Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m.,

the above-7 entitled matter was concluded.)

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005

.(202) 2344433

'I i

l' CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:

j TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON ACTIVITIES 0F THE CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSIS (CNWRA)

PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

~f DATE OF MEETING:

MARCH 9, 1993 l

were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription

}

?

is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the i

transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.

j t

h p

1 Reporter's name:

Peter Lynch j

q i

1 l

i l

f t

i i

7 i

L

?

i i

l NEAL R. GROSS

[

COURT BSDORTERS AMO TRANSCRISERS 1323 AMODE ISLAND AVtWUt. N.W.

(20P) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DL 20005 (202) 232 4 000 f

a

[

4

i Ll 4

4 CURRENT ISSUES IN THE HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM i

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses March 9,1993 Briefers: R. Bernero, NMSS I

W.- Patrick, CNWRA -

B. Sagar, CN'WRA

Contact:

M. Knapp, NMSS Phone:

504-3324 Slide 1 e

..x' 2

L

l i

i i

SUMMARY

STATUS CNWRA i

STAFFING

• Planned Staff of 52 l

• Current Staff 49 Plus 2 Limited Term

• Ultimate Staff of 54 1

i SPENDING

• Current Underrun of 35%

i of CNWRA Funding

)

i Slide 2

~

l l

J i

n-w --....,..

i t

t SCOPE OF BRIEFING

• Basis for Selecting issues

• Analysis of Issues l

-Statement of issues

-Progress on Addressing

-Outlook for Resolution l

Slide 3

?

1

i

?

i i

i i

BASIS FOR SELECTING ISSUES

• Systematic Regulatory j

Analyses j

alterative Performance l

Assessment l

~

1

• Development of Analytical Capabilities

• Research

• Prelicensing

. j interactions j

}

Slide 4

.I I

i i

- f

.l

.i 4,

SELECTEDISSUES

• Data and Models of Processes and Conditions

• Submodel and Model Validation

'Use of Early Site Characterization Data

• Use of Expert Judgement

• Subsystem and Total System Performance Slide 5 S

9

- - _ _ -. _ _ - ~ - ~ - - _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - -

t

?

i

,i i

i 1

DATA AND MODELS OF PROCESSES AND CONDITIONS ISSUE

• Objective Determination

• Timely Acquisition 3

• Differing Opinions PROGRESS

• Unsaturated Flow

• Materials Degradation i

• lterative Performance 1

Assessment RESOLUTION

• Prelicensing Guidance l

• Focus on-Performance I

Slide 6-

.j l-i I

o

-q

'~

I

i SUBMODEL AND MODEL-VALIDATION ISSUE

• Time & Space Scales

• Complexity PROGRESS elNTRAVAL

• DECOVALEX

• Natural Analogs

• Laboratory & Field Studies l

RESOLUTION

'i

• Control Expectations

• Technical Basis for Guidance Slide 7 4

S 9

i l

)

e i

E USE OF EARLY SITE-CHARACTERIZATION DATA ISSUE

• Use in:

l

-Design j

-Decision-Making

-Testing Strategies.

PROGRESS 1

• Structural Geology.

• Geochemistry

[

• Volcanism / Tectonism a

RESOLUTION j

• Timely Release j

• Timely Use

'll Slide 8 i

i

.f

}

~

=

i USE OF EXPERT JUDGEMENT i

i ISSUE

)

• Time & Space Scales

• Complexity of System

• Qualification of Experts PROGRESS l

• Current Practice i

• Use in Other Industries j

• Trial Use RESOLUTION

• Technical Basis for l

Guidance

• Public Confidence in I

1 Process Slide 9 t

I

~

i a

1 I

~

t e

- f

/

SUBSYSTEM & TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ISSUE

• Relationship of Regulatory.

Requirements

• Level of Detailin Modelling PROGRESS

• Systematic Regulatory Analysis

• Proposed Rulemakings alterative Performance Assessment RESOLUTION

• Complete Rulemakings '

• Performance Assessments l

Slide 10 l

I i

- l i

s'

?

?

.