ML20059H106
| ML20059H106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/27/1993 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9311090294 | |
| Download: ML20059H106 (113) | |
Text
M444444nnntn%%%%WA%%%%%n%%%%%%%%%Af%%%%ggf:figg
}
e i
g I
Occurent Centrol Cest, 015 Phillips
,3
- A?!5MIT AL TC:
s
)
'0VANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Occm
/o [# 9 b 3 5
CATE:
M h,
F3CM:
SECY Correspondence & Recorcs Branen 2
M i
M Attacnec are ecoies of a Cennission meeting transcript anc relatec meeting E
1 3
- ccument(s ). They are being forwarced for entry on the Daily Accession List and g
3 placement in the Public Occument Room.
No other cistribution is recuested or g,
recuirec.
4
=
c b
NR bM-
/Le-<h+o As h
"eeting
Title:
di r
p h
Nre d - b~ ya (
xA h'
~
1
/O 7N 3 Open N Closec Meettne Cate:
5 g
E1 ene M
u E
- tem Cescriptien*:
Cecies 3
i:
Advanced DCS 8
to POR
- Ccoy, 31 j
a l1. TRANSCRIPT
'E,
1 1
oi/C m-m A >
l; cl C
1 E!
2.
e
- i in E
e
~%
3-
==
=
==
=a:
=a e
w E
a
?,
Tjg s.
yb 9311090294 931027 i!
PT9.7 0~30063
/
i' L
?
f
- DER is advanced Cne Copy Of e!CD dCCument. !WO Of each SECT paDer.
L g
C1R Eranen files the original transcript, with attacnments, withcut ECY
- g cacers.
i) i 1/RK nwMwhmnMMmwhwNtWKKKKHKKKKWNKKhn-n,n1 11-x
-1
>'"n""nn'i nnnnnnnnnnnnrmnnnnnnnnn x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION
Title:
BaIEnso on unc atsEAncH Paocains on HIGH-LEVEL WASTE LOCatiOD:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND D3(6l OCTOBER 27. 1993 PageS:
67 PAGES NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
C O L' R T REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest l
Washington, D.C.
20005
{
l (202) 234-4433 e
I DISCLAIMER i
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on i
October 27, 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.
i e
The transcript is intended solely for general t
informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR a.103, it is i
not part of the formal or informal record of decision of I
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 l
the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
l l
NEAL R. GROS $
cover aweems A e rainsemens
)
1313 RNoet ISLAND AvgMUt, M.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASMessf0N. DL 20005
' (202) 232 4 000
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING ON NRC RESEARCH PROGRAMS ON HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland l
Wednesday, October 27, 1993 The Commission met in open
- session, pursuant to
- notice, at 10:00 a.m.,
Ivan
- Selin, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
l IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner FORREST J.
REMICK, Commissioner E.
GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner 1
I l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W l
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i 2
?
STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
SAMUEL J.
CHILK, Secretary KAREN CYR, Office of the General Counsel l
I t
JAMES TAYLOR, Executive Director for Operations l
ERIC BECKJORD, Director, Office of Research 4
ROBERT BERNERO, Director, NMSS l
t FRANK
- COSTANZI, Deputy
- Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, RES j
MELVIN SILBERBERG, Chief, Waste Management Branch, RES J
(
I t
I i
i i
?
l l
1 l
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
a (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 23335 (202) 2344433
i 3
i 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S l
2 10:00 a.m.
f 3
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Good morning, ladies and l
4 gentlemen.
j 5
The Commission is meeting at this time to 6
receive the latest in our series of briefings from the i
7 Research and Program offices on a major research area.
8 Today's will be the high-level radioactive waste 9
research program.
j i
10 As I'm sure you know, the NRC has the 11 responsibility of reviewing the Department of Energy's 12 future application for a high-level waste repository.
I 13 Although this is far in the future, there are a great t
l 14 number of things that have to be accomplished before I
15 we'll be in a position to do that and much of this I
i 16 activity is carried out under our high-level i
17 radioactive waste research program, which is designed 18 to develop the licensing tools as well as the 19 technical basis necessary to judge the adequacy of any l
20 license application to ensure sufficient independent 21 understanding of the basic physical processes that 22 would take place at a geological repository and, not 23 incidentally, to maintain a limited but nevertheless 24 robust independent confirmatory research capability 25 under NRC's auspices.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20305 (202) 234-4433
.l 4
t 1
Commissioners, would you have any remarks?
i 2
Mr. Taylor, would you -- I'm sorry.
)
1 3
There's one other thing, Mr. Bernero.
I 4
hope that during this discussion you're able to put t
l 5
some of the research programs into the context of l
l 1
6 timeliness and the appropriate level of effort that we f
j i
7 should be putting into the preparation for this 1
8 application given that its perspective date has l
l l
9 slipped considerably in the future since we first f
i 10 started this program, f
I 1
11 Mr. Taylor?
12 MR. TAYLOR:
Good morning.
f 13 With me are members of the office of l
14 Research and NMSS.
t i
1 1
15 As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there are i
j 16 a number of technical issues in planning for the l
I
(
j 17 ultimately licensing of the DOE geologic repository.
1 2
18 One of the unique things, of course, is the time span 19 considered for the repository and its performance is
}
j 20 unprecedented in our regulatory experience.
So, I'm
]
21 meeting this challenge.
l I
i
)
22 The high-level waste research program i
d j
23 involves a broad range of technical and scientific d
24 disciplines, from metallurgy to rock mechanics, from 25 geochemistry to hydrology.
As you're aware, most of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 23305 (202) 234 4433
}
i 5
l t
]
1 the research is being carried out through the Center I
l 2
for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses and I believe l
i 3
some of the members from there are here -- from the i
4 senior staff are here today.
l 5
Frank Costanzi from the Office of Research t
6 will start the formal presentation.
7 MR. COSTANZI:
Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
f s
i 8
As you stated, Mr. Chairman, the objective l
9 of the high-level waste research program is to provide 10 the tools and data to support the licensing assessment 1
11 of DOE's demonstration of compliance against 10 CFR I
12 Part 60 and the EPA high-level waste standard.
13 (Slide)
May I have page 2, please?
l 14 The activities that the research program 15 is undertaking can be broadly categorized in three r
i 16 areas.
One is to address what the staff has 17 identified as the key technical uncertainties, to 18 provide technical bases of support for future j
)
19 identification of uncertainties as DOE progresses in I
20 its development of the repository, and to further 21 refine existing identified uncertainties, and of 22 course to provide the tools, models, technical support 23 and limited data for the development and use of 24 performance assessment, in particular the iterative 25 perf ormance assessment procenn which is ongoing today.
NEAL R. GROSS
)
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200:5 (202) 234 4433
6 1
(Slide)
Next slide, please.
2 With regard to performance assessment, I 3
wanted to mention particularly that that's kind of the 4
glue that holds the program together, that all the 5
programs, all the elements in this program are related i
J 6
in one fashion or another to performance assessment.
7 Either they are developing models which will be used 8
in performance assessment or models in which we'll do 5
9 calculations to review DOE's demonstration of 10 compliance.
Or they're developing the technical 11 support to choose among competing models for 12 describing various processes which should be ongoing i
13 at the Yucca Mountain site, or they're developing 14 limited data sets against which we can test and 15 evaluate competing models.
1 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just before we leave l
17 that, I wonder if you would say a little bit about the 18 iterative aspects of performance assessment.
19 MR. COSTANZI: The interactive perf ormance 20 assessment is an exercise which the staff, under the 21 leadership of the licensing staff, is undertaking now.
22 It's essentially running through actual performance 23 assessment and to make sure that we have the 1
24 capability of -- not only the capability of doing the 25 performance assessment, but will we understand exactly 1
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
7 i
1 what the pinchpoints are in a performance assessment, 2
what is going to be controlling in terms of the 3
repository performance over time, what particular 4
things we need to pay atterition to in doing our 5
license review assessment.
6 I think the licensing staff probably would 7
be in a better position to answer any particular I
8 questions in the IPA itself and where they are and the 1
j 9
like.
j 10 MR. BERNERO:
Excuse me.
If I could add f
4 11 to that, we're actually on the second stage of the 12 performance, our second iteration, and we envision 13 several in the course of it.
It's really the ultimate l
14 licensing compliance assessment against what we expect i
15 to be the EPA standard at the time, which will be part 16 of our regulations.
What we learned from the l
17 iterations is, as Nick said, the pinchpoints, what are 18 the key technical issues that have to be addressed and I
19 resolved, whether it be carbon-14 emissions or some f
20 geotechnical issue about solubility or rock retention 21 or fracturing or something like that.
22 We thereby get the information needed to 4
23 say more is needed here or there to focus site s
l 24 characterization or site investigation.
It is our 4
25 independent check of what DOE is doing.
DOE now does
.d NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1
3 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 234-d433
t 8
1 and must do iterative performance assessment 2
themselves for the same reasons.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I guess what 4
I'm curious about is just how the research and the i
5 performance assessment are actually linked together, t
6 how those two are working exactly as you say you'd 7
like to see them work.
To what extent has the 8
research program thus far, for example, if we are in 9
the second iteration, in fact been influenced by the 10 fact that we're in the second rather than the first 11 go-around on that.
12 I'd like to see how that's working because 13 that seems to me very, very important that we, in 14 fact, have feedback from the performance assessment 15 iterations into the research program rather than the I
16 research program somehow or other been initially 17 defined as important things to look at and then it 18 just runs on.
19 MR. BERNERO:
Perhaps so.
20 MR.
COSTANZI:
- Well, as Mr.
Bernero 21 mentioned, the IPA is a continuing process.
The 22 definition of the research program, the things that 23 the research is looking at, has both been shaped as I
24 well as has helped to shape the identification of the 25 issues.
As we run through and do performance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
+-y 7,
y- - -
,yye---
,-,-w g-y w
tw w w
9 1
assessments, it helps us further define what are the 2
important things to look at in terms of our research 1
3 program and where to focus our efforts.
4 There are certainly many more questions 5
than one could possibly dream up to ask than we would 6
have resources to focus on.
So, the task of the IPA 7
is to make sure that we've identified those issues 8
which are critical to the performance and to those i
9 which require research for addressing, that the 10 research program does indeed address it.
It's an 11 ongoing process.
It's a continual review and a l
12 looking back of what we're doing and how we're doing 13 it.
14 can't point to a specific task in the i
15 program that tays relate findings of IPA to research l
16 program becaust there is no such specific task.
It's 17 an ongoing effort.
It's something that we can I
18 continually do.
19 It occurs in large part because many of 20 the same people are doing both things among the i
l 21 research staff.
They're managing the individual 22 research projects.
They're also participating in the 23 IPA exercise. Researchers at the center are doing the 24 same thing.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I have difficulty NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
1 envisioning a continuous process.
l 2
MR. BERNERO:
Okay.
Let me suggest that 3
perhaps --
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
To me it's 5
inherently discontinuous.
6 MR.
BERNERO:
-- what you need is an l
7 example.
I believe in the second phase of performance 8
assessment one of the technical examples of program 9
guidance or program sensitivity that is coming out of l
10 it is our ability to discern calculation of individual 11 risk on a
limited pathway model.
One of the 12 characteristics of a dry site is that although it
]
13 might be very good for overall release standards, that 14 is total curies released to the accessible biosphere, 15 it may have what few curies come out, coming out one 16 little rivulet of water.
17 That is a major issue in the National 18 Academy of Science consideration of should you have a 19 health risk-based standard or a release standard.
I 20 believe there is an exaraple where our own analysis is i
21 able to focus on the calculation of individual dose, 22 what would be entailed and what would be the quantity 23 in that little rivulet, that one small stream.
That 24 can be very significant to us now in the program.
25 That's just an example of a thing that can come out.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
11 1
The carbon-14 is another I mentioned earlier.
I 2
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, why don't you i
3 just proceed?
I think I'd like to just see how it 4
seems to be shaping up.
j 5
MR. COSTANZI:
All right.
6 (Slide)
May I have the next slide, I
7 please?
8 The way I would like to proceed this 9
morning with the presentation is first to identify the 10 issues of regulatory significance which the research 11 program is addressing and briefly describe what 12 research is that's addressing the issue, what end 13 products we anticipate from that research and how we 14 anticipate that those products will be used.
l 15 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Before you start, Mr.
16 Costanzi, you've got some engineering stuff at the end 17 2 hat I'm quite interested in and you have a very large 18 number of issues and you have a fixed amount of time.
19 So you might take all that into account as you --
20 MR. COSTANZI:
Okay.
21 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
-- allocate those --
22 MR. COSTANZI:
(Slide)
All right.
Okay.
23 The next slide.
24 I've divided this presentation into 25 dealing with issues related to the site, issues NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W-1, (202t 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
)
12 1
related to engineering.
That's what's going to be 2
done at the site and finally what I call the source j
3 term issues which really that's the mathematical 4
characterization of the in place waste that's used to 5
test the compliance against the Part 60 performance 6
objectives and EPA high-level waste standard.
7 The first group of site issues can be 8
described, I suppose, as reading the geologic record.
9 How do you do that?
And the uncertainties that we're 10 focusing on there put in -- phrased as questions. The 11 first one, what measurement techniques are appropriate 12 f or determining the geologic properties and parameter 13 values?
Secondly, what measurement techniques are 14 appropriate in determining hydrologic properties and 15 parameter values?
16 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
17 With regard to that first question, the l
18 research that we've done and are
- doing, we've 19 conducted previous experiments and investigated i
20 techniques such as down-hole tomography and core-21 logging, and present experiments are examining other i
22 methods of determining geologic properties and 23 parameters.
24 I might mention here that the bulk of this j
25 work is being done at the center and, in fact, all the l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20305 (202) 2344433
i 13 i
1 work in this presentation would be considered as being
)
2 done at the center unless it's explicitly noted 3
otherwise.
4 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
Page 7.
)
5 What we anticipate in terms of products or I
l 6
evaluation of site characterization techniques that j
7 DOE would be using at Yucca Mountain and we would a
8 intend to use those, of course, in evaluating the 9
appropriateness of DOE's site characterization 2
10 program, whether they're using the right techniques to 11 go after the right data to get the right story.
12 (Slide)
Page 8, please.
1 13 The related issue on hydrology, what j
14 measurement techniques are appropriate for determining 1
j 15 hydrologic properties, again we have done some 16 previous field work that was done at Arizona to 17 determine local hydrologic properties.
Current 18 research at Arizona is continuing measurements of 19 hydrologic properties of a site very similar to Yucca 20 Mountain.
That's namely an unsaturated fractured 21 tuff.
j 22 (Slide)
The product is field data which 1
23 has been developed using demonstrated techniques from 24 a well-characterized site.
So, we will have done some 25 site characterization.
We will understand what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS s
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W G02) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 23305 (202) 2344433 i
14 1
successes and failures are of site characterization 2
and that will, of course, put us in a favorable 3
position to review the hydrologic data that DOE 4
develops at the Yucca Mountain site, techniques and 5
also the way they analyze that data.
6 (Slide)
On page 10 we begin the second 7
part of the story.
Now that we've read the geologic d
8 record we need to understand what it means.
What is 9
the nature of the processes, the tectonic processes 10 operating in the central basin and range? That's the 11 geological area in which the site is located.
What 12 are the characteristics af fecting groundwater flow at 13 Yucca Mountain?
What are the characteristics 14 affecting radionuclide transport at Yucca Mountain?
15 (Slide)
With regard to the tectonic 16 processes operating in the basin and range, we're 17 perf orming geodetic observations, those are being done 18 by Cal Tech, and analytical studies at the center 19 using existing data of tectonics in the central basin 20 and range.
The outcome of this research will be 21 models with appropriate supporting data of what the 22 major tectonic processes and significant features are 23 of the Yucca Mountain
- area, in particular the i
24 deformation rates which, of course, relate to the l
25 stability at the site.
2 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
j 15 1
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
How is this different l
l 2
from the research that DOE itself must be doing 3
because they have to answer the same questions?
4 MR. COSTANZI:
Indeed, they are going to f
5 be answering the same questions and doing the same i
6 sort of research.
This is part of the independent 7
base for evaluation of what they're doing, I
8 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Are we ahead of them in 9
this or have they done much of this work and we're 10 confirming it?
What's the relative timing of the 11 licensee's work?
12 MR. COSTANZI:
That's my understanding, 13 it's parallel efforts.
They're doing the same thing
)
1 14 now as we are doing.
We have been trying to develop 15 the understandings of what's going on so that we can 16 interpret the results of their investigations.
17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Is there a sharing of j
\\
18 information as we go along or do we wait for a certain 19 time and then disclose what we have found?
20 MR. COSTANZI: There are periodic meetings 21 which the licensing staff conducts with DOE for 22 exchanging of information.
They're under the 23 agreement that we have with the Department of Energy.
24 MR.
BERNERO:
But we don't have a
25 coordinated plan.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REFORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
. ~.
16 i
1 1
MR. BIRCHARD:
I can answer this question 2
directly.
The DOE is focused specifically --
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Would you identify l
4 yourself for the record?
5 MR. BIRCHARD: Hello.
I'm George Birchard i
6 of the Office of Research.
7 The DOE is focused specifically on the 4
i 8
Nevada test site and is conducting geodetic 9
measurements on that test site.
The Cal Tech program 10 is coordinated with the geological survey.
It was 11 conducting those measurements for the test site, so 12 there is communication at the investigator level.
We i
l 13 are going from the test site across to the Sierra 14 Nevada range to understand the broader context to be 15 able to model the regional processes to make sure that 16 the DOE has not in some way overlooked come important 17 process.
18 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Okay.
Thank you.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Could you just say 4
20 what you mean by model here?
Is this a computer 21 model?
Is this a conceptual model?
22 MR.
COSTANZI:
The first stage is 1
i j
23 conceptual.
.t 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
What is a model?
25 MR.
COSTANZI:
Yes.
Well, all of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 J
l 17 1
above.
Initially it's a conceptual model, trying to 2
identify and understand what processes are operating.
3 To the point where we will actually assess the 4
information rates it will be a mathematical model, be 5
quantitative to allow us to do calculations.
6 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
I'd like to just 7
follow-up on the Chairman's question too.
If where 8
you're headed is diverging or is dif ferent from where 9
DOE is heading in terms of results, how do you know 10 that?
Do you know when you've reached a point where 11 your data tell you something entirely different from 12 what they're telling DOE?
13 MR. COSTANZI:
Well, certainly we'd know 14 that when the license application comes in.
l l
15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Yes. That's way 1
i 16 down the road.
17 MR. COSTANZI:
Hopefully we'd know that 18 before.
19 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: I mean are there 20 any ways in which you find that out along the line?
21 MR. COSTANZI: The periodic exchanges, the 22 periodic meetings that we have with DOE we do tell 23 them what the results of our work is, and they also 21 tell us what the results of their work is.
So, there 25 is a transfer of information back and forth and I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
i 18 1
think -
was it the matrix fracture fluid is a good 2
example of a case where we, through our research, 3
assess that fracture flow is very significant in the 4
type of rock that exists at Yucca Mountain.
That 5
information was related back to DOE and they have 6
since focused their program more to examine fracture 7
flow than they had to that point.
8 MR. SILBERBERG:
In fact, when DOE issued 9
its site characterization plan that the staff 10 reviewed, that in effect laid out their process of 11 what they were going to in effect their study 12 program, how they were going to proceed.
They also 13 come out periodically with study plans which are more 14 details for the staff to look at on how they're l
15 proceeding.
16 In the site characterization plan they 17 immediately came out with -- in there showed the 18 concepts they were using, except for models of the 19 hydrology, and the staff noted that very early on, as I
20 Nick says from our own work, but the comments back to 21 DOE were put on record that, in fact, alternative 22 conceptual flow models would have to be looked at, 23 that what they had was not sufficient.
24 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
So 25 there's a good enough exchange that there shouldn't be NEAL R. GROSS 1
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
]
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W-(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20305 (202) 2344433 a
w-
---w-w "9
19 l
1 some big surprises when the applications come in.
2 MR. SILBERBERG:
Certainly.
3 MR. COSTANZI:
That's our hope, yes.
4 (Slide)
The next site issue is what are i
5 the characteristics af fecting the groundwater flow at 6
Yucca Mountain on page 13.
The research that we're i
7 doing there are analytical studies both at the i
8 University of Arizona and primarily at the center 9
assessing the use of stochastic techniques to develop 10 large-scale hydrologic models of unsaturated flow in 11 fractured, porous tuff. What all that means really is 12 we're trying to determine how one takes into account 13 the tremendous variability in hydrologic properties
+
14 from location to location within the Yucca Mountain 15 region.
16 What the results of that research will be i
17 is identification of appropriate modeling techniques, 18 which is essentially algorithms, computer algorithms 19 for taking into account the variability of hydrologic 20 characteristics.
The use, of course, would be to 21 evaluate DOE's description of the hydrology at the 22 Yucca Mountain site and in particular how they treat 23 the spatial and temporal variations in those 24 hydrologic properties.
25 (Slide)
On page 16 we ask a similar NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20035 (202) 2344433
20 a
1 question with regard to the characteristics of 2
radionuclide transport.
The field research, the 3
research that we're doing includes field research at 4
Peha Blanca Analogue and laboratory studies to i
5 determine the controlling mechanisms of radionuclide i
6 transport in tuffaceous rock.
The result will be 7
kinetic and thermodynamic models and data of 8
radionuclide speciation and movement in the tuff and 9
the use again is evaluation of DOE's geochemical model 10 of the Yucca Mountain site.
Of course, supporting 11 data and also DOE's use of natural analogues that they 12 intend to use as well to help support their evaluation 13 of the site.
14 (Slide)
We've read the geologic record 15 and we think we've understood it.
What does it tell 16 us about what's going to happen there in the future?
17 That's what the next four issues relate to.
First is 18 how will the heat from the high-level waste that's in 19 place at the site affect the local hydrology and 20 geochemistry?
What is the credible range of future 21 climates that may affect a repository? How likely are 22 volcanos at the site and what effect may they have on 23 the repository, the geology, the hydrology and, of 24 course, the emplaced waste?
25 (Slide)
And lastly, on page 19, what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 8
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W l
(202) 2344433 WASHfNGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
21 j
1 effect does seismic activity in the region have on the 2
hydrology of the Yucca Mountain site.
3 (Slide)
With regard to the heat from the 4
emplaced waste, the work we're doing in natural 5
analogue
- studies, primarily the Oklo study and 6
laboratory experiments in geochemistry and repository i
7 thermal hydraulics.
The products would be s
8 identification of the key heat-driven mechanisms that i
9 affect hydrology and transport close in to the i
10 repository and a model of the effect of heating on 11 local geochemistry and hydrology.
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
How do you do those 13 studies without knowing what the expected design of 14 emplacement will be?
I mean you don't know what the 15 heat sources are really going to be in that site until 16 that's been decided and it hasn't been decided yet.
17 MR. COSTANZI:
Well, that's right.
What 18 we are trying to do is right now understand how heat 19 affects these various elements, the local hydrology 20 and the geochemistry.
The heat loading of the 21 repository will affect both the time duration and the 22 temperature that the repository will receive.
So, the 23 objective is to have the understanding of the physics 24 of the situation so that when we know the parameters 25 of the situation we'l. simply be able to evaluate the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
22 1
consequences using the same physical models.
2 Obviously the --
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, my impression 4
is that some of these models are very complex.
5 MR. COSTANZI: They are extremely complex.
6 They also don't have -- many of them do not have 7
extremely broad ranges of applicability.
So, we are 8
looking at a number of models to determine what their 9
limits of the applicability are over the various 6
10 ranges. Whatever the final internal parameters of the 11 repository might be, we will be able to select 12 appropriate models to again test what DOE's 13 demonstration of compliance is.
j 14 MR.
TAYLOR:
Did you want to say 15 something?
16 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
I just wanted to add, 17 Commissioner Rogers, I believe you have heard the 18 briefing on the subject of the hot hole concept out at 19 Livermore.
That concept is very strongly entrenched
+
20 in the DOE design right now.
It focuses on the near-21 field ef fect of having calibrated heat content keeping 22 the excavation right around the canister above the 23 boiling point of water for a very long time.
But the 24 f ar-field or mid-field ef fect where the mountain could 25 turn into a
heat pipe by starting some rather NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
1 (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
J l
23 i
l 1
macroscopic flow condensation and capillary return, l
l 2
that's extremely important because that could be an r
I 3
issue that would have a very great impact on the 4
entire design of the facility from the outset.
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Right.
6 MR. BERNERO:
Very, very important, this 7
information. And frankly, from what I've seen so far, I
l 8
I'm not sure that DOE's program has enough focus on i
i 9
that.
10 MR. COSTANZI:
The implications for the 11 performance of the repository of obtaining those high 12 temperatures the closer to the waste package are i
13 pretty profound.
The regional or the hydrology at 14 least on the scale of the repository itself could be l
l 15 altered quite dramatically to what the amount of water 16 that was initially considered to be available for 17 dissolution and transport may increase significantly 18 owing to the fact that what we have observed appears 19 to be a concentrating of water near the dry-out zone i
20 in some of our laboratory tests.
If that's the case, 21 the hot dry repository might actually attract water to 22 it.
Once the temperature starts to recede, then the l
j 23 amount of water available may actually be more than 24 the current design anticipates.
25 But these are the sorts of questions which i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
1 24 I
we're trying to examine in our program.
1 i
l 2
COMMISSIONER REMICK: Frank, how pertinent I
j 3
is the Oklo study results to the local hydrology l
1 1
4 studies and so forth?
Is CEA still doing research at 5
Oklo?
i G
MR. COSTANZI:
Yes, CEA is still doing a 7
good deal of research there.
With regard to the 8
hydrology, I don't know that we know an answer to that i
9 right yet.
I do know with regard to the geochemistry, i
10 the transport, it's very clear.
There is a -- close t
11 to one of the reactors there is an intrusive dike that 12 occurred some time after -- I don't remember the exact 13 number of thousands of years, but the alteration of i
14 the rock and the thermal effect is clearly visible 15 there in terms of what effect it has had on the i
16 migration of the fission products and actonides from i
17 the reaction.
i 18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I could see where i
19 maybe the geochemistry -- I wasn't quite clear how it r
20 would help in the local hydrology studies.
21 MR.
SILBERBERG:
But the presence of a 22 dike is, in f act, one possible scenario that one might 23 have under potential volcanic conditions at the site.
)
24 So, looking at intrusion from a volcanic source is 4
25 something that's looked at within performance i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(?02) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 l
l m
l
25 1
assessment.
2 MR. COSTANZI: One of the things, the real 3
benefits of doing the IPA exercise is that when you i
i 4
take a piece of a model there, the piece that talks 5
about geochemistry and the piece that talks about i
6 hydrology and the piece that talks about engineering j
7 and combine them altogether you start to get a 8
limiting set of parameters.
It starts to constrain 9
the problem and you have to start looking for 1
10 consistencies.
We found that, in fact, in studying 11 the natural analogues that the conglomerate deposit is 12 a good example of how we were able to learn a lot 13 about the hydrology from the geochemistry just by 14 demanding consistency of the models and we would 15 anticipate that that kind of thing will just continue l
16 as we keep doing these performance assessments.
It 17 will help constrain and give us a more realistic 18 picture of what's going on because to avoid 19 internal contradictions.
1 l
a 20 MR. SILBERBERG:
I would just also note, l
21 Commissioner Remick, that the CEA is doing that in 22 conjunction with the Commission on European i
23 Communities and along with us in the field of 24 countries.
l 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Good.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2(KiO5 (202) 234-4433
26 1
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
There was some 2
discussion of a natural analogue site in Mexico.
Is 3
that being used at al;?
4 MR. COSTANZI:
Pena Blanca?
5 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes.
6 MR.
COSTANZI:
Yes.
Oh,
- yes, very 7
definitely.
8 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Oh, I didn't 9
remember the name of it.
10 MR. COSTANZI:
I believe we'll talk a bit 11 more about that later.
12 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
13 MR. COSTANZI:
(Slide)
I'd like to turn 14 to page 22 now.
The next question we wish to address 1
15 is what is the credible range of future climates.
16 This largely has to do with precipitation, water 17 infiltration, how much water could get into the 18 repository.
Methods to assess water infiltration 19 field side have been examined and future work will 20 focus on a possible range of climates at Yucca 21 Mountain.
We've done some work in that area already.
22 We've, in fact, had an expert elicitation exercise 23 that NMSS conducted with regard to the climates.
24 What we will be doing in terms of the 4
25 product is that we will evaluate the methods of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
27 1
treating infiltration that have been developed and 2
looked at by the University of Arizona and this would 3
be work be done at the center.
We'll address the i
4 consequences of range of potential climates as well.
5 If water balance increases by a factor of two or a j
6 factor of four, how does that -- given our current 7
understanding of what the repository looks like, how 8
will that affect the performance? And again, all this l
9 is to evaluate DOE's treatment of future climates.
l 10 The last or, I guess, an ultimate question 11 in this set is how likely are volcanos at the site and 12 what affect may they have on the reposito.ry, the 13 geology, the hydrology and, of course, the emplaced 14 wastes themselves.
15 We're doing analytical studies of using 16 field observations, assessing volcanism in the basin 17 and range.
We're anticipating to developing a model 18 which will give us an idea of the likelihood as well f
l 19 as the characteristics and the consequences of all l
l l
20 that volcanic eruptions in the repository area.
21
- Again, the use will be to develop 22 interpretations of the regional data that DOE is now, i
23 of course, developing at the site and interpretations 24 of the likelihood and the location and characteristics 25 and consequences of volcanoes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 W ASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
28 1
1 The last site issue that we'll address is i
2 what effect will the seismic activity in the region 3
have on the hydrology of Yucca Mountain?
The work 4
we're doing to -- analysis and interpretations of 5
existing historical and field data relating to changes 6
in the regional hydrology to seismic activity.
This 7
is being done at the University of California in a 8
site out in California where there is some large --
9 the seismic activity is fairly frequently and fairly 10 large magnitude and work that has been done and is now 11 in the final process of analysis at the center, field 12 work at the Lucky Friday Mine.
13 We will be developing a model which 14 relates regional hydrologic changes to the seismic 15 events.
In particular, the kinds of things that we 16 have observed is that the local core pressures change i
17 and they change in odd ways as a result of seismic 18 event.
First of all, there are some cases where there 19 are delays.
The seismic event precedes the changing 20 core pressure or pressure in a fracture by some time.
21 In some fractures pressure goes up as a result, in 22 some fractures pressure goes down.
Sometimes some 23 observations it's taking a long time before pressure 24 goes back to its ambient state and sometimes it's 25 taken a very, very long time.
Sometimes it's rather NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
29 3
quick. We don't really understand all the mechanisms.
2 Obviously it has to do with the opening and closing of 3
fractures.
But to relate that kind of information as i
4 to what will happen in a repository is what we're 5
trying to do now.
6 Again the use of this will be to review 7
DOE's treatment of potential perched water zones as 8
well as some of the steep hydraulic gradients which 9
appear to be near the Yucca Mountain site, will an 10 earthquake essentially end up flooding the repository i
11 and delivering a
lot of water into the waste 12 emplacement area.
13 (Slide)
Now I'd like to turn to the i
l 14 engineering questions.
I have two sets of questions i
15 related to the repository engineering itself.
- One, 16 will the waste emplacement drifts and boreholes at j
\\
I 17 Yucca Mountain remain open during the retrieval period 18 and will they be stable in the post-retrieval period?
19 And
- secondly, how long will the shafts in the 20 boreholes remain sealed at the site?
21 (Slide)
With regard to the first 22 question, the research that we're doing consists of 23 field and laboratory experiments, as well as 24 analytical studies evaluating the ef ficacy of rock 25 mechanics models that are used for predicting tunnel l
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE.. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
30 1
stability, actually reviewing the models and doing 2
some laboratory experiments in testing the predictions 3
of the models against what's observed.
4 (Slide)
What we will end up with as a 5
product are, of course, a review of several of the 6
rock mechanics codes against field observations, both
~
7 the University of California and the center work, and i
8 laboratory observations of rock joint behavior.
This 9
is being done at the center, as I mentioned.
10 (Slide)
The use of this product will be 11 the development of methods for the review of DOE's 12 assessment of repository response to earthquakes, 13 stability, the opening themselves and thermal 14 mechanical stability of underground excavations.
Of 15 course when DOE places the wastes in the repository 16 the heat is going to put thermal stresses on the rock 17 itself and will change the -- the change in the stress I
18 fields will, of course, be reflected in the -- could i
19 be reflected in stability of changes in the stability a
20 of the excavations themselves.
21 (Slide) The next engineering issue is how I
22 long will the shafts and the boreholes remain sealed?
23 We've had a laboratory program investigating the 24 effectiveness of various techniques for sealing the 25 shaf ts and boreholes. This was done at the University NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202J 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433 1
i i
31 I
of Arizona.
The product is data on the effectiveness l
l i
f 2
of various techniques and designs for sealing shafts j
3 and boreholes and unsaturated fractured tuff. We have i
4 a pretty good idea at this point of what the design i
5 parameters for a good seal are.
Good in this case t
6 however is defined only to what makes the seal hold j
7 right now.
The long-term performance is something f
8 which we really don't have a good handle on and that j
i 9
would be the subject of future research.
The use, of 3
10 course, of the work from this program is to assess the.
j i
11 suitability of DOE's sealing program at the site.
f I
12 (Slide)
The next set of engineering i
13 questions focus on the waste package
- itself, 5
14 particular how long will the waste package contain the I
15 high-level waste, and the next question being how l
16 confidently can you extrapolate the short-term tests i
17 that are being conducted in the laboratory today to i
l i
18 the long-term performance of the waste package.
We 19 have in the laboratory, at best, and opportunity for l
l 20 maybe a few decades of experiment.
Certainly field 21 observations of the behavior of various metals gives 22 us maybe a century or so worth of data, but the waste j
23 package themselves don't maintain themselves from the 24 order of tens of centuries.
So, the question is how l
25 confidently can you extrapolate the short-term data to NEAL R. GROSS j
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20"JJ5 (202) 2344433
32 1
the long-term performance?
2 (Slide)
With regard to how long will the 3
waste package contain waste, expect a performance in 4
the waste package. We have an experimental program to 5
identify the corrosion mechanisms of the various 6
metals that DOE has been examining in the repository
~
7 environment.
The product has been correlation of 8
dominant corrosion types and rates with environmental 9
parameters. We've looked at pitting corrosion. We've 10 just about finished our work on that. The question of 11 internal corrosion, that's the interaction of the 12 waste itself on the waste package or canister.
We're 13 now in the midst of looking at stress corrosion h
14 cracking of the waste materials, waste package j
i 15 materials.
i i
16 (Slide)
The use, of course, will be to 17 assess whether DOE has identified the controlling 18 waste package failure mechanisms, employed 19 appropriately conservative models in assessing the t
20 waste package performance, and confirm the suitability 21 of waste package material to meet the containment 22 requirement.
f 23 (Slide)
The next question of engineering 24 issues is how confidently can a short-term laboratory t
25 test be used to predict long-tern performance.
The i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202)2344433 WASHING 7DN. D C. 20305 (202) 2344433
i
(
33 l
1 research that we have underway is continuing i
2 laboratory program of testing waste package materials 3
under a range of potential repository conditions.
We i
4 had planned to supplement this with observation of 5
buried metal objects at the Akrotiri site, which is an l
6 archeological site, and also long-term observation of f
7 waste package materials.
We still have not yet f
i 8
formulated exactly what we're going to do on that, but 9
we have been considering the possibility of burying l
T 10 the waste package materials in tuffaceous
- rock, i
11 heating it and just letting it sit and cook in the i
12 laboratory for a couple of decades.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
How long have those 1
14 metal objects been buried at Akrotiri.
j l
15 MR. COSTANZI: Thirty-five hundred years.
i l
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Thirty-five hundred f
17 years.
I 18 MR. COSTANZI:
(Slide)
The product of l
19 this research will be an assessment of the mechanistic 20 corrosion models for correlating the short-term 21 laboratory tests, long-term in situ tests and field a
22 observations.
The use, of course, will be to review 23 DOE's demonstration of compliance with the containment l
24 requirement in 10 CFR Part 60.
25 (Slide)
The last issue --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(2:2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 23:05 (202) 2344433
-,... - _ -.. ~
-. - - -. _.,. -.. -. -. -. =.,. -
. -. -. l
34 1
CHAIRMAN SELIN: Before you come off this, 2
Mr. Costanzi --
3 MR. COSTANZI:
Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
The other topics really 5
have to do with the site or some sort of major civil 6
engineering around which there aren't a huge number of 7
alternatives.
But when you get to waste packages, the 8
number of different kinds of materials that might be 9
used seems quite large.
Is this a continuing process?
10 Are we going to be looking at ceramics as well as 11 metals or some other --
12 MR. COSTANZI:
Well, what we are doing 13 generally
15 investigating metals.
They have looked at titanium, il i
16 carbon steel, mild steel to a certain degree, copper j
j 17 to a certain degree, nickel alloys which seems to I
18 be right now they're their favorite candidate 19 material and we've essentially been following them, 20 looking at materials which they have been observing 21 and trying to determine what are the degradation A
22 mechanisms characteristic of that material in 23 repository environment and trying to understand how we 24 could ascertain over the short-term what the long-term
)
25 performance might be.
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE GLAND AVENUE. P4 W (20?) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 7344433 I.
35 1
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
The license application l
2 would assumably be amendable later on if they decided l
l 3
after the observation period to change the materials l
4 or is that fixed for once and for all?
What's the --
i l
5 MR.
COSTANZI:
I assume that it's 6
amendable until they actually start putting the waste l
7 in and even then I suppose they could pull it out.
8 MR. BERNERO:
One of the things that has 9
a potentially very great impact on this is this i
10 concept of multipurpose canister that is now afoot i
11 where among other things DOE might be able to some l
12 degree to uncouple the waste package from the spent 13 fuel package and just use the concept of an over pack, 14 that you have a handling package that comes along, 15 maybe an alloy steel or something, and then have a 16 pure and simple waste package sleeve that goes over it 17 and really have two packages in one and thereby 18 uncouple and be able to handle a variety of things 19 within it.
I I
20 DOE also has other waste forms than just 21 spent fuel and there are a variety of spent fuel forms 22 and waste forms that they have to deal with.
This 23 might give them greater flexibility. But therein also 24 lies a much more difficult problem for us.
Many of 25 the concepts like the multipurpose canister can and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE GLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
36 e
I l
1 may very '-ml1 make the shaf t bigger, the seals bigger i
2 and so we really need to have a good knowledge of how i
3 that would affect the reliability of the repository.
4 MR. SILBERBERG:
And about five years ago l
5 DOE had a much larger candidate selection, a number of 6
array of candidates which they have narrowed down in i
i 7
the last five years and I think they need to narrow it 8
down within again the next few years, narrow it down i
9 further as well as select the design with regard to l
10 the thin canister or the more robust design, as Bob f
11 Bernero noted.
12 But nevertheless, the licensing process l
i 13 allows for what they call a license application design 14 that they will have to cume up with.
I think it's I
15 like 96.
They have a process that they're going over I
16
- now, what they call the alternative conceptual 17 designs.
I think by 96, as I recall, they're supposed 18 to fix on the license application design, as I 19 understand it.
20 MR. BERNERO:
Something of that order.
i 21 MR. SILBERBERG:
Something like that.
22 MR. BERNERO:
That's part of the issue I
[
i 23 want to say a few words about, about the program i
24 progress and what happens when.
i 25 MR. COSTANZI:
(Slide)
The last issue i
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 2xrDS (202) 2344433
37 I
relates to the source term, simply at what rate will 2
radionuclides enter the -- be released from the waste 3
package and be available to enter the groundwater
[
t 4
system.
Here again our national analogues come into 5
large play, those field observations of the actinide 6
and fission product migration at Oklo and Pena B3anca j
7 where we're looking at the actual transport of 8
material away from the ore bodies, the reactors at i
9 Oklo and the ore body at Peha Blanca.
r 10 The data which will be product in the 11
- models, spent fuel leaching and radionuclide i
12 speciation and transport in an actual geologic l
j l
1 13 environment.
That's what we're going to get out of l
14 these studies and their use, of course, will be to l
15 confront the results of laboratory experiments on 16 radionuclide speciation and mobility.
17 I might mention that some of the things 18 that we've already determined is that under an 19 appropriate set of potential repository conditions 20 iron makes a great getter for uranium.
It likes to 21 bind up with the uranium and that also we've 22 identified under what conditions the leaching of 23 radionuclides from a waste glass would be controlled 24 by essentially silicon chemistry which makes the 25 problem of demonstration compliance a
bit more NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
,e.
=
i I
38 1
tractable.
It makes the geochemical modeling a bit j
i i
2 simpler.
l i
3 That concludes my prepared remarks.
t 4
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank you.
f 5
Should we go on to Mr. Bernero's remarks 6
and then questions?
1 l
7 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
Let me just say a few 8
words about program approach and resources and what's 9
going on in the program today.
10 I'm sure the Commission recalls that we a
i 11 have divided the work in the program for-a long time i
12 into reactive and proactive work, reactive work being 13 reacting to what they find in site characterization, 14 that that rock is different than you expected or l
L 15 there's more water here than you expected or something i
16 like that, that also is reactive to design.
I mention 17 the multipurpose canister.
That is an extremely 18 important piece of reactive work that's now on the 19 table because it can have such a profound effect on 4
20 the entire repository approach, the hot hole, whether i
21 or not they can manage or control the thermal loading j
t 22 precisely and so forth.
23 The proactive work is something -- well, i
24 in fact, Nick Costanzi used a very good example of 25 scientific proactive work, that fracture flow may be 1
'l' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOftTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) 234-4433 W ASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 a
.., _.. _. _., _. _ _ ~. _. _., _ _.
39 1
far more important than people envisioned, you know, 2
based on some research.
Or proactive work can be 3
quite specific in what does it take to make a
4 licensing finding about containment or package 5
lifetime, something like that.
6 We have had for quite some time a strategy 7
for characterization and for regulation, licensing, 8
that we would focus early on the most important issues 9
whether reactive issues like carbon-14 release or 10 proactive like what is substantially complete 11 containment or what is a 1,000 year package when 12 you're talking about 15,000 or 20,000 packages and l
13 each holding different materials.
14 Now when we look at what's going on in the 15 program today, the DOE Yucca Mountain program, there 16 is a lot of talk.
They haven't announced yet, but 17 there is a lot of talk that they'll do what they did 18 in 1989 and move the date out, and we ought to look 19 very carefully at what that date movement means.
Is 20 it simply rescheduling a previously well-known thing 21 or is it recognizing that the critical path takes 22 longer than you left time for?
23 The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 24 has been criticizing the DOE program for some time now 25 for not having within their planning horizon enough NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE., N W.
l (20h 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200C5 (202) 234 4433
.~
40 I
time to complete or to conduct sufficient span of 2
geologic testing. Certain testing aspects should take 3
longer according to that.
i 4
I think what we will see in the three l
5 months or four months is, you know, perhaps a mission 6
plan amendment that may indeed do what happened in
]
7 1989, a several year change in overall schedule, but i
8 I think it will be more in the character of what the 9
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was saying, that i
10 you haven't recognized that the critical path will 11 take longer than you now have in your books.
12 Nevertheless, a program like the High-J 13 Level Waste Program, all you have to do is listen to
.i l
14 the regulatory utility commissioners or anyone else 15 that watches the cash flow.
If you have large 16 resources going out year after year after year for l
17 decades, the numbers are mind boggling.
You can just 18 pile up billions of dollars and the only way you can 4
19 deal with that is by careful planning.
And remember j
20 what the focus is.
If it's not a good site, find out i
21 early.
Get the important issues on the table early.
22 Now DOE has a very great responsibility in 23 their mission plans, in their site characterization i
24 plans, in their study plans, to iterate those, to do 25 those again and again, to review those again and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 2344433
._ - - _ _. _, _ _ _.. _. -.. _ _ ~ _._ _ _ _... _. - _ _.. _
l 41 1
again, and I presume they're doing that right now and j
i 2
that will be the basis of whatever reschedule they
}
I 3
come out with.
f 4
At the same time, we have to do the same l
4 5
thing here. At the NRC we have an internal management j
i l
6 plan for the High-Level Waste Program.
We have a l
7 high-level waste research plan and we must look at i
8 those, in my view, every budget cycle, and certainly 9
now when we're taking a fresh look at the five year 10 plan.
We've got to look at those to say, "Do we 11 really need to do this now? Do we really need to have 12 these resources now?" It's a difficult issue, but you 13 have that tension and I think it's very important to 14 understand.
If in past years it slipped from 1989 to 15 1998 to 2001 and now the application may slip another 16 several years, is that a simple rescheduling of a 17 predictable thing or is it recognition that you 18 couldn't get there from here?
19 I think the program has to focus on a J
,1 20 responsible use of resources in doing what needs to be 4
21 done this year, next year and the year after, so we 22 are doing that and we will come to the Commission 23 certainly in the five year planning process that we're 24 going to be doing this winter, but our management plan 1
25 has to reflect a very careful look at that issue.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
j l
i 42 i
i 1
CHAIRMAN SELIN: Well, that's a discussion i
2 with which one cannot differ.
It's interesting, j
3 because at least for me a couple of things have fallen 4
into place.
1 5
One is I'd like to congratulate you, Mr.
I 6
Costanzi, and your team on putting together really a l
l 7
very nice bottom-up discussion of what you're doing 8
and why you're doing it and in smaller sessions 9
dif ferent Commissioners might want to f ollow-up on how 10 you're doing it, but that's clearly a much greater j
i 1
11 level of detail, but some feeling for the lead times l
i 12 there and the fruitful interaction between the 13 licensing people, the preapplication people and the 14 research people to identify the topics l
15 So clearly you've put your finger on a 4
l 16 number of long-term objects.
On the other hand, we
[
17 could get so far ahead in the licensing part that
- 8 every time DOE changes the program a little bit we've l
I l
19 wasted a fair number of resources and have to go back l
i 20 and do that and we clearly don't want to do that.
I'm i
21 not thinking so much of research resources as program 1
22 resources.
i 23 Commissioner Rogers?
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, a couple of 25 observations.
i i
j a
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202)2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
...,-_,..,mm.m.,._
...c_.,.
,_,,.m,,._,-,.
m,
,,c.,_r--.-
T
l 43 1
One is I didn't see in the briefing slides 2
and, although you did say some words about it, I don't 3
really see exactly how it is that you're making 4
decisions on research topics that essentially 5
duplicate an area that DOE is dealing with, just 6
exactly how you manage that question of are you simply 7
repeating something that somebody else has done, what i
8 do you expect to get out of it that is going to be of 9
assistance in the future.
I think that that really 10 isn't clerr from your presentation today.
I think 11 it's very important that be done.
12 You've said all the right words about the 13 philosophy of your research and so on and so forth, 14 but I guess what I'm uncomfortable about is how you're 15 arriving at very dif ficult decisions as to essentially 16 repeating a piece of research to get a kind of feeling 17 about whether -- what the problems are and what the 18 expertise is that one must have to make judgements on l
l 19 that particular subject as distinct from what are the l
20 difference -- you know, what can you really add to l
21 this, in a certain sense, that's helpful for us other 22 than a general level of comfort in our ability to make 23 decisions.
24 I wonder if you can go one more step i
25 beyond the sort of general arguments in favor of a NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
)
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202; 234-4433 W ASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 N
44 1
particular piece of research to more specifics with 2
respect to what extent particular uncertainties are 3
dealt with or questions are raised about the validity 4
of a particular approach, something of that sort.
I 5
don't get any feeling about that from what I've seen 6
so far and it seems to me that there is a question of 7
resources.
There is a question of how you make your i
L 8
research decisions and of course the extended time 9
frame of this whole project makes those things very 10 difficult decisions to make.
11 But I personally don't feel I've gotten 12 much help in my concerns about how you do this from 13 the presentation today or from what I've seen so far 14 and it seems to me that these are absolutely 15 fundamental to justification for anything that we do, 16 in a certain sense.
We can't just do something 17 because it has some pretty good-- it gives us sort of 18 a good feeling that we've done that and we have some 19 comfort level.
I 20 Now I'm being a little bit superficial 21 here in this, but I think you understand what I'm 22 saying, that somehow you've got to go one more step 23 beyond that as to the justification for particular 24 pieces of work as to how far to go and when to stop.
25 These are very tough questions.
They're not easy NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202)2344433
45 l
1 questions at all and they fly somewhat in the face of 2
the natural inclination of researchers to pursue l
j 3
things because they do fit together in some way and 4
they represent a considerable intellectual challenge, 5
and so this is a very difficult area to deal with in 6
managing applied research and I guess I haven't really 7
gotten a feeling from what I've heard today of how 1
l 8
you're doing that and what the level of resources are.
9 These are all interesting topics and yet, 10 when I look here and what I've heard so far, I don't 11 know how much you're getting a lot of resources and l
12 how much you're getting a little resources and how 13 expensive and what the time frames are in which some j
1 14 of these things are being done, so I don't have any 15 feeling about that.
+
l 16 In other words, I don't have a context, a i
17 framework on which to hang this program that gives me
)
18 some feeling about relative importance and how 19 priorities are being set with respect to the 20 assignment of resources, financial and FTE type of 21 resources.
That wasn't part of today's briefing.
22 Maybe it was by design not to be, because maybe you 23 didn't think it was appropriate.
But I think it is i
24 appropriate, so I'd like to get a better feeling about 25 how this whole thing fits together from that point of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
b 46 i
1 view.
2 MR.
COSTANZI:
Let me address your 3
question by, one, giving an example with regard to 4
what we look at.
We have been aware for some time 5
that DOE had been pursuing in the area of geochemical 6
modeling the so-called "KD approach" or " partition 7
coefficient approach,"
a very simple geochemical i
1 8
model.
We undertook to examine the thermodynamic 2
9 database for various mineral species and their action 10 with actinides -- uranium, neptunium, for example --
11 to determine just how good an approach that would be, i
12 how robust it would be, where it would work and where 13 it wouldn't work.
We have to a large extent finished i
14 that geochemical program and we're just wrapping it up l
l 15 now and we do have a very good idea of under what 16 conditions how complex a geochemical model really does 17 need to be to give us adequate comfort in the i
18 geochemical description of the site that DOE may 19 derive.
J l
20 What we do in the future we're not sure J
21 yet. Clearly the temperature is still a large unknown 22 and the possibility of the hot dry or the hot hole i
23 model would require us to do some additional thinking 24 as to what kind of geochemical model is appropriate.
25 The mechanism by which we do this really inputs from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
,--,..-----n
-. -.. ~ -..
- - - -,... ~.. - -. - - - -. -A
47 1
several areas.
2 One, of course,'is just knowing what the 1
3 DOE program is and keeping track of that.
)
i 4
The other one is, in collaboration and 5
consultation with the users, the licensing office as 6
to what they view as being the critical things which 7
they will be looking at from this vantage point in the s
8 licensing assessment, those have recently been 9
articulated in the set of uncertainties called " key l
10 technical uncertainties" which we're now using, I
11 would guess, as our most prominent assessment tool for s
12 assessing our program, and this is the identification I
13 of those things which must be resolved or addressed i
14 some time between now and the actual granting of the l
15 license or the license review.
Some of those have 16 been identified as requiring research, either to 17 develop models or data or both, and that is what the 18 licensing staff has indicated to us also in terms of 19 their priorities and so we reflect, given our own i
20 judgement as part of that input, in our research i
21 program.
22 With regard to -- I can show you a cartoon 23 which gives you kind of an idea of where everything 24 kind of fits together.
25 (Slide)
If I can have the 1-B backup, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
l
i 48 4
I please, this is kind of a complicated chart and I was t
2 kind of hesitant to put it up because a lot of lines 3
at least confuse me.
I 4
But I think the essence of this --
i S
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Have you ever seen 4
6 the severe accident closure program?
7 MR. COSTANZI:
Yes, as a matter of fact, t
8 I have.
9 MR. BERNERO:
There are no heads on the l
10 arrows.
l I
11 MR. COSTANZI:
I think the essence of this 12 is that it is a complex process.
It's an iterative 13 process with a lot of feedback.
It's a loop in which 14 the staff is actively involved to try continually, as 15 Mr.
Bernero said, review our priorities and the
.i 16 direction of our program every budget cycle.
j l
17 MR.
BERNERO:
I wonder if I
could 18 interject here.
There is a rather simple and to me a j
19 significant example that Nick covered in the briefing sr I
20 on pages 24 and 25, volcanism.
i 21 I think you've all been on Yucca Mountain.
)
22 You just look around and you see volcano cones.
From 23 a program point of view, I can't envision licensing a 24 repository at Yucca Mountain without dealing with the 25 question, can those volcanos effect it.
But you get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
49 1
into some very simple pragmatic issues.
Is there i
2 something we can realistically do?
Can we even get 3
volcanology specialists?
How much would it cost?
4 What could we do?
]
5 And so really what we're looking for is a 6
sufficient degree of independent judgement to be able 7
to judge the bulk of the work which DOE has to do, and 8
Research has a modest but I think realistic and 9
sufficient program to develop that degree of l
10 independence.
It's certainly not an example of 11 research sufficient to support licensing of Yucca 12 Mountain.
It's not a replacement or a redundancy for 13 the DOE program, but it's what we need because here's 14 a program issue I can't walk away from.
I can't 15 ignore those cones.
]
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, it seems to me 17 you're touching on something I wanted to mention and 18 didn't, and that was that it seems to me that what we 19 need to be able to do is to be able to ask the right 20 questions and we have to also be in a position to be 21 able to evaluate whether the answers are reasonable or 1
22 not, not to supply the answers but to know whether an 23 answer is a reasonable answer or not.
Now, you know, 24 that's a fair level of sophistication.
25 One level is to be able to ask the right NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 I
I I
i 50 1
questions.
That's pretty high.
But then there's a 2
second level that's even deeper, to know whether those 3
answers are reasonable answers or not without having 4
done all the work ourselves.
We can't do that.
And 5
so it's that kind of a judgement that has to be made 6
as to where to stop, how far to go, to know that you 7
can ask the right questions, what they are, what the 8
right questions are to ask, and then what's the basis 9
on which you can judge whether an answer you get to 10 those questions is a reasonable answer or not from a 11 technical point of view.
And so it seems to me that's 12 what has to drive our approach here.
Once we feel 13 that we can do that, then that may change, of course, 14 because the questions may change because of the 15 iterative nature of this business, but that's what I'd 16 like to have some feeling about, how that works.
17 I don't want to pursue this too much 18 further, but I would like to ask you if you could j
19 comment on the recent DOE decision to not emplace 20 waste in WIPP because they didn't feel that this --
21 well, what I've read is they didn't feel that they 22 would learn as much by doing this as they would from 23 laboratory experiments.
I don't know the WIPP 24 situation that well, but, to me, I was a little bit 25 surprised by that rationale because there's nothing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234M33 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4 33
_.._=
t 51 1
like hard data about a specific site and, you know, a 2
laboratory experiment is not the same thing as working l
3 on a site with all of its dirty aspects.
4 I'm not familiar enough with the 5
particulars of the WIPP project to be able to comment 6
on it in any way, but, I wonder -- that question of 7
laboratory studies versus on-site studies it seems to 1
8 me is something that's important for our judgements i
9 here as well and, if you could, comment very briefly, l
l 10 or if you choose not to that's fine, on what was the 11 basis for DOE deciding that actually doing studies on-l 12 site at WIPP with some waste emplaced as an experiment l
13 are not -- would not yield as much information as 14 doing laboratory studies. And I understand that there 15 was some question from advisory committees that this I
i 16 was a better way to go, and so--
17 MR. BERNERO:
Well, Commissioner Rogers, 18 the WIPP tests when they were originally postulated, 19 the bin tests or you might call them " package tests,"
l l
20 they became a subject of discussion about a year and l
a half or two years ago in the Yucca Mountain Program 21 22 as, is there anything to, you know, test emplacement 23 in the strategic planning sense and there was 24 discussion at that time.
25 I think the essential question that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C, 20005 (202) 234-4433
I 52 1
technical commenters commented on and which led to the 2
decision is the tests were really focused on bins and 3
the waste reaction with the bin rather than the waste 4
reaction with the salt and the repository WIPP was 5
providing simply an environment to hold the bin and 6
therefore you could do that under just as well a 7
control in a laboratory, and I think that was the i
8 essential thing.
9 In all of our dialogue on the strategic 10 planning, we did not see relevance of those tests.
I 11 Remember, they have what is essentially unprocessed 12 waste, unpackaged waste, and so it's a different issue 13 they*re looking at.
14 MR. TAYLOR:
Commissioner, continuing in 15 your line of questions, Nick has a slide here on the 16 distribution of resources.
It gives you a rough idea 17 and we can give you actual numbers.
l 18 MR. COSTANZI:
May I have the bar graph, 19 please?
o 20 MR. TAYLOR: Not that one. The other one.
21 MR. COSTANZI:
May I have the bar graph?
22 (Slide)
This is a further breakdown of 23 our program in terms of the various technical 24 disciplines in which we're working.
25 Just to draw your attention to two things, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHfNGToN, D C 20005 (202) 2344433
l 53 1
the bulk of the work that we're doing is in the area i
2 of hydrology, geochemistry and geology.
Those, of 3
course, are the things which deal directly now with 4
site characterization, which is what DOE is doing.
5 We're doing a little bit of work on 6
containment and engineered systems.
1 i
7 We're not doing anything on what we call 2
8 controlled release, which is really the waste form i
9 studies.
At this point DOE is -- well, one, has not 10 selected a waste package material, so our containment 11 study is kind of an overview sorts of studies right t
i l
12 now.
It's ongoing sorts of things.
Just due to l
13 budgetary limitations we feel that it's more l
14 appropriate to put our resources in those areas in 15 which DOE is now conducting activities, namely site 16 characterizations.
So, the site-related properties l
17 are the ones in which we're putting the bulk of our 18 money.
l 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'd just like to say l
20 that I share Commissioner Rogers' observation that it 21 was not clear to me either how we make the research 1
1 22 decisions and it came to mind to me in a specific 23 example when you were talking about we're doing 24 research on borehole sealing because my memory tells 25 me that 12, 15 years ago a considerable amount of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (2W) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
I l
l 54 l
l I
effort was done by international experts on borehole l
2 sealing and a lot was published and so forth.
The 3
thought went through my mind, and I realize we use the 4
term "research" very loosely.
Are we doing i
5 independent research or are we evaluating a lot of l
6 that work that has been done and has been in journals 7
and so forth, done for DOE admittedly and so forth?
f 8
But are we doing independent borehole sealing or are 9
we doing evaluation of research that has been done and 10 reported in the literature and so forth?
l 11 MR. COSTANZI:
The work that I discussed I
l 12 here is independent work and not been done before.
i 13 The material is unsaturated fractured tuff.
It's 14 material which -- it's rock which usually doesn't host 15 anything of resource value.
So, there is not a whole 16 lot of interest in looking at it, certainly not in 17 sealing it.
It's not a typical material in which you 18 drill holes to -- through which you drill holes to l
19 obtain oil or water or other resources that then 6
20 require sealing.
21 So, there was really no body of directly 22 applicable literature on sealing fractured tuff and 23 what work we had done was to determine what kinds of 24 designs and what kinds of procedures that you can 25 develop competent seals in this kind of material.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
55 1
That just had not been done before.
2 MR.
OTT:
I'm Bill Ott, also from the
]
3 Office of Research.
One other aspect is that the 4
regulations require us to seal according to the 5
permeability of the rocks in place.
A lot of 6
traditional sealing work was just done to make certain 7
that there was not gross leakage, but we had to seal 2
8 those things to essentially very tight, very high 9
permeability work.
So, it really is state-of-the-art i
10 work which has not been traditionally done in the l
11 past.
l 12 COMMISSIONER REMICK: So you're saying the l
13 work that was done over a decade ago and so forth, 14 quite extensive, had no applicability to the tuff?
l 15 MR. OTT:
There may have been some work 16 that was done, but there's a large body of knowledge 17 of work on sealing in the industry and petroleum 18 industry and places like that, which was not really 19 applicable.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK: No, I'm referring to 21 work that was specifically done for Department of 22 Energy.
23 MR. OTT:
I'm not certain whether that was 24 done to seal to the permeability. The individual that 25 we have working or had working on the program, Jack NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 203D5 (202) 2344433
56 1
Daemen, is an internationally recognized expert and is 2
thoroughly familiar with the field.
We're confident 3
that what he is doing did not essentially -- just 4
looking at other work, it was new work that hadn't 5
been done before.
He had also done work in salt and 6
in basalt before and his latest work was in the tuff
~
7 area itself.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
I was 9
referring to some of the work, I think, that Russ Roy 10 did and I think work at University of Arizona and so 11 forth in the past is quite extensive.
l l
12 MR.
OTT:
Yes, Jack Daemen was at the I
13 University of Arizona and he was aware of Russ Roy's 14 work as well.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
Good. -Okay, i
16 Those that are looking at the hot hole i
17 concept, are they also looking at what effect this 18 might have on the waste form? Because I also remember 19 a decade or so ago the findings that borosilicate 20 glass at elevated temperatures and pressures fragments 21 quite easily, increasing the surf ace area for leaching l
22 and therefore if a canister fails, why there's a 23 concern. Are they looking at those aspects? Is there 24 a coupling between those who are looking at the 25 hydrology and so forth and those that are looking from NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
t l
57 I
leaching from waste form and --
2 MR. COSTANZI:
I don't know that there is.
)
3 There may be.
I'm not aware that there is any cross i
3 f
1 4
talk there.
In fact, you point out something which is J
5 a very concern to us that it's not simply drying out--
6 the effect is not to simply dry out the area next to 7
the waste package.
The effects of high temperatures f
I a
8 in the repository are far reaching.
They change the 9
local mineralogy, they change the local hydrology and, 10 as you point
- out, they change the leaching 11 characteristics of the waste form.
12 We are not addressing yet in an integrated 13 fashion that question.
We're still trying to attack 14 this problem in terms of the pieces.
15 MR. SILBERBERG:
The center has done some 16 initial modeling actually starting with NMSS and 17 something that we can use that we'll be looking at in a
18 the research program.
Given the fact that there might 19 be this dryout effect, there also can be locally a 20 concentration of minerals and minerals which, in f act, 21 being lef t behind could attack the waste package.
So, 22 the modeling in terms of how it might impact the waste l
23 package, we've started looking at that at the center.
24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Good.
25 MR. BERNERO:
I wonder if I could add to i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
58 l
1 it, Commissioner Remick.
Our program in the research 2
program is not spending any significant resources on 3
waste form and there's a major regulatory reason why.
4 Originally in the high-level waste program there was 5
going to be a form specification because it was 6
presumed all would be reprocessing waste and it would 7
be vitrified to some specir'ied process and to certain 8
waste form performance criteria.
What we have now 9
instead is a need for DOE to characterize what the 10 form of the waste is and the forms are many.
Some is 11 vitrified waste, some is ordinary power reactor spent 12 fuel, some is N reactor spent fuel, some will -- you 13 know, whatever it might be.
14 So, we're in the mode of expecting and 15 telling DOE that they have to characterize it and they 16 do have to consider that in order to understand what 17 credit, if any, can be attributed to the waste form.
18 In our present licensing requirements, we 19 have overall performance. The package should not leak 20 for about a thousand years and then when it does leak 21 it shall leak slowly, very slowly.
So, that's when 4
22 you would take into account the waste form.
But I 23 don't know of any specific work that DOE has right 24 now.
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS 3
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202)2344433
i 59 1
One other observation.
I agree with l
l 2
Chairman Selin when he said that the presentation was j
l 3
a good explanation of what you're doing and why you're 4
doing it.
The one area that I thought was missing i
5 would have been of interest and I hope sometime we 6
hear and that is results.
You must be getting some 7
results and we have not talked about results of what 1
8 we are doing, and that obviously is missing from the 1
9 presentation and would be of interest, realizing some 10 of this is ongoing research, but some of it's been l
11 going for some time.
We must have some things that --
r 12 being an engineer, that always stimulates me rather i
l l
13 than plans.
i 14 MR. SILBERBERG:
In fact, annually in the l
15 Office of Research we collect for Mr.
Beckjord a i
16 listing of, if you will, peer reviewed products, l
17 amongst
- others, that are done in the research 1
l 18 programs.
But we have actually compiled that this 19 past year for the high-level waste program and with a 20 large preponderance of the products coming from the 21 center.
I think it's a rather impressive list of 22 products and that in itself will, I think, make l
23 another presentation.
So, what have we learned so 24 far?
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
Thank you I
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W i
(202) 234-a433 WASHINGTOtt D C. 23305 (202) 2344433 1
i
I l
60 t
I very much.
l
]
2 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner de Planque?
j i
3 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes.
I would
)
I d
4 agree with Commissioner Remick.
Researchers also l
l l
i 5
yearn for what's the bottom line, what do you know.
i I
6 But we realize the constraints on the timing for this i
7 briefing.
L 7
8 I have a couple general questions.
Can i
9 you tell us if and how you're interacting with the i
10 National Academy of Sciences on their work right now?
11 Are you going to these meetings? Are you plugged into i
12 what they're doing?
l t
13 MR. BERNERO: We're actually -- we have an 14 observer representative, Margaret --
a 15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
For Research?
16 MR. BERNERO:
No, no, no, from the NRC.
t 17 Margaret Federline is actually, if you could say, an 18 NRC representative or liaison with that activity and l
19 we have tracked that activity very closely.
I expect 20 to attend their December meeting which is here in 21 Washington and speak to them at that meeting.
But we s
I 22 are doing it collegially, as an agency, not separately 23 as Research.
24 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
But Research is l
25 in the loop on what's going on?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISL%ND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
l 61 l
l 1
MR. BERNERO:
I believe so.
1 2
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
It's 3
obvious that a lot of work is being done in the 4
international community on waste and I didn't hear too 5
much about that other in the analogue studies, the 6
natural analogue studies.
Could you just give us 7
briefly some of the ways that the NRC staff is plugged
)
I 8
into the international work?
Not necessarily 9
contractors, but the NRC staff, in research.
l 10 M R..
COSTANZI:
Okay.
In anticipation of i
11 my answer, my colleague has put on the slide. This is
)
12 a
list of groups with whom we're involved in 13 international research in the waste area.
It spans 14 everything from looking at hydrologic and transport I
i 15 models and methods to gain confidence in the 16 appropriateness of those models, doing what they say 17 they're supposed to do, looking at the thermal 18 response and mechanical response of the host rock to 19 the emplaced waste.
That's the DECOVALEX, so-called 20
- THMC, thermal mechanical
- chemical, hydrologic 21 couplings.
22 Of course the Oklo study itself, which I 23 talked about earlier and the CEC-run organization, 24 National Analogue Working Group, which looks at the 25 suitability and opportunity to use natural analogues NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
I (20?) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 23335 (202) 2344433
l
^
62 t
1 throughout the world in again assessing processes and 2
models describing processes operating in a repository.
3 We estimate that I
think f
2 i
4 conservatively, that in our interactions in the 1
j 5
international community looking at this problem i
6 probably in effect doubles our resources.
4 I
]
7 MR. SILBERBERG:
I would just add that if
,i 8
you look at the lower set of bullets, if you look at 9
each one of those multi-national programs, we have a 10 staf f member in the branch who is intimately involved q
11 in every one of those programs, either serving on the 12 managing board or the advisory committee within the I
i 13 program and our staff are in attendance at all of 1
4 14 those principle meetings.
And in fact, I have an j
15
- impact, important impact on the international 4
1 16 programs, while also receiving peer review from them.
17 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
18 MR. COSTANZI:
I also might mention that 19 the nature of the agreements run from cooperative 20 research -- we give you our results, you give us your
[
21 results -- to international exercises where we're 22 sitting down and working problems and each member 23 country has problems they work on and then we compare 24 the answers that we get by employing various n
i 25 techniques that try and get some feels.
Again, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 1
63 1
range of application of perfect range of 2
application of various models that are out there that 3
people are exploring to try and assess performance of 4
a repository.
5 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: I don't know all r
6 the acronyms up there and you don't need to tell me, 7
but any IAEA work that you're plugged into?
8 MR. BERNERO:
Actually, the way it works 9
out in high-level waste, the OECD has a radioactive 10 waste management committee.
I'm the NRC member of 11 that committee and they have subcommittees such as the l
12 performance asnessment advisory group and things like 13 that.
The IAEA has participated with that activity.
14 Also, the IAEA has its own RAWS, radioactive waste 15 standards, and we have some direct interaction with 16 them on that.
But that's not focused as much on high-17 level waste as it is more on low-level waste.
18 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes, I know.
19 Yes.
Okay.
20 You talked about resources earlier and I 21 think the budget calls for a reduction in FTEs in this 22 area.
How are you going to deal with that?
What 23 impact is that going to have?
24 MR.
BERNERO:
Which budget are you 25 referring to?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASH!NGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
I 1
64 1
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Well, you 've got
.2 sornething like seven in
'93, four in '94 listed in I
3 this area.
)
4 MR. BERNERO:
We have had the '95 budget 5
is up now and then the future ones are the ones I was a
6 referring to where we're in that agonizing reappraisal 7
as part of the management plans, the research plans i
8 and the five year plan.
)
i 9
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
He't talking most about 10 NMSS.
i 11 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes.
I 12 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
Well, if you look at J
'k 13 the budgets, remember that the high-level waste j
l i
14 budget, the nuclear waste fund origin budget includes 15 OGC, LSS, Research, ourselves.
It's a whole program.
16 It has to be looked at integrated.
1 i
17 COMMISSIONLP de PLANQUE:
Okay.
I 18 MR. BERNERO:
But I can't tell you right 19 now how those cuts will be taken.
20 MR. TAYLOR:
More to come on that.
i i
21 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Right.
Okay.
22 I want to ask you a big picture question.
23 It's obvious that a lot of the kinds of research that i
24 you're doing should yield results eventually, should l
25 yield answers eventually.
But are there any key 1
1 NEAL R. GROSS A
j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 3
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W f
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 4
l i
65 1
issues where it looks difficult, if not impossible, to 2
get the answers that you think you'll need? Are there 3
any issues in that category?
i 4
MR. COSTANZI: I think that certainly some i
5 areas the answers are more difficult than others.
I 6
think in terms of modeling, for example, it's very 7
dif ficult to dea) successfully with the variability of l
)
8 the hydrologic parameters at a site.
But to say that i
l 9
we don't think that we're going to get an answer, I l
10 don't think I can say that.
I think we are pretty i
11 confident that the lines of research we're pursuing l
t 12 are going to pay off.
We've had some successes.
We i
13 are chipping away at some of these major 14 uncertainties, but I can't say, "Yes, everything's in I
15 the bag."
But on the other hand, I have no reason to 16 be pessimistic.
i l
17 COMMISSIONER de pLANQUE:
There's nothing 18 that you go to bed at night saying, how are we ever l
j 19 going to get this answer given the requirements that I
a 20 you're anticipating?
21 MR. COSTANZI:
No.
DOE may go to bed at l
22 night saying that since they ultimately do have to 23 supply the answers and we, as Commissioner Rogers 24 pointed out, have to make sure that the answer makes 25 sense.
But no, I don't see anything like that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D O. 20005 (202) 234 4433
t 66 I
j 1
DOCTOR BECKJORD:
Yes.
I think that the j
i
+
l 2
predictions about performance far into the future get
[
J
]
3 extremely difficult.
The legislation calls for this 4
kind of thing.
I just don't feel myself that you can
)
5 say that this is going to do this over the next 10,000 j
6 years with high confidence.
The further out that
{
t 7
people want to know the performance, the less the 8
confidence will be and I think we have to face that.
t 9
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Are we facing r
10 that?
l 11 DOCTOR BECKJORD: Well, a lot of it has to 12 do with legislation, Commissioner.
j 13 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
I know.
i 14 JOCTOR BECKJORD:
I think that the L
15 technical people are f acing that.
I think if you have i
l l
16 a face to face discussion with the people who are j
t
)
17 working on the job, they recognize the problem.
i
)
18 MR. TAYLOR:
Bob, do you want to --
i i
j 19 MR. BERNERO:
I think there's something
[
t j
20 that should be added here.
It's not so much a 21 question of can you get an answer, but can you get the 2
=
r I
22 right answer or an acceptable --
i i
23 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Or the 1
24 acceptable uncertainty.
I
)
25 MR. BERNERO:
An acceptable answer and i
NEAL R. GROSS 9
COURT HEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20035 (202) 234-4433 l
._-.-r.,
,__,w-_..e g
I 67 1
perhaps carbon-14 is the most dramatic current example 2
of that.
There has been a lot of work on modeling and 3
analysis of carbon-14 released from Yucca Mountain and l
4 on its face it appears that it constitutes a release l
5 in excess of the EPA standard.
So, yes, we can get an 6
answer, but what do we do with that answer and that is 7
one of the crucial issues the National Academy is t
8 looking at, a release standard where there is no I
9 individual risk ever with the high confidence to say 10 that and yet it's an exceedance on its face.
It 11 appears to be an exceedance of the standard.
So, one 12 can have many cases perhaps where the answer is t
13 obtainable, but then the question is what do we do j
14 with it.
15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Doesn't match 16 with the requirements.
17 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes.
Okay.
19 Thank you.
Excellent briefing.
20 MR. TAYLOR:
That concludes it.
Thank 21 you.
22 (Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m.,
the above-23 entitled matter was concluded.)
l 24 i
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 2344433
J CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting 1
of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON NRC RESEARCH PROGRAMS ON HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PLACE OF MEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
OCTOBER 27, 1993 l
1 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, i
,/
,i
/1 L OxW1/% (
l
()
v
]
Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch i
1
!i l
l l
t i
l
[
l 1
I J
1 1
.I d
l 2
i 3
NEAL R. GROSS count amoersas me vaAuscamens ta n an oes a m e A V D8WE. M.W.
< sori zu-uss wAsension,or sooos tsari as:4eco i
STAFF BRIEFING ON THE HIGH LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE RESEARCH PROGRAM f" ""%
p A
OCTOBER 27, 1993 FRANK A. COSTANZI l
Contact:
Frank A. Costanzi i
Phone:
492-3760 i
l
-_-..-,._.__m.
m.--m
. u m--
_-. _ _. _. _ _..__..,_.-----,.__.sm__.__w_-__m_m
--- m m.
a
..e-g-
---e ee e
,r
- +.+.---
v- - -
g w
w
--,+r v e-
.*w-
HIGH LEVEL WASTE RESEARCH PROGRAM OBJECTIVE PROVIDE TOOLS AND DATA TO SUPPORT LICENSING ASSESSMENT OF DOE COMPLIANCE WITH 10CFR PART 60 AND EPA HLW STANDARD 1
I i
i
. = _ _ -...
= _ - -._,. _ _ _.--
. - -. _. -.. _. _. - - -........ _.. ~. -.. -. -..
l l
HIGH LEVEL WASTE RESEARCH PROGRAM i
ACTIVITIES ADDRESS KEY TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR FURTHER IDENTIFICATION / REFINEMENT OF KEY TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES PROVIDE MODELS, TECHNICAL SUPPORT, AND LIMITED DATA FOR DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF ITERATIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 2
i l
1 k
4
e 1
HIGH LEVEL WASTE RESEARCH PROGRAM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IS THE INTEGRATING ELEMENT OF THE NRC'S HLW PROGRAM EACH ELEMENT OF THE HLW RESEARCH PROGRAM IS TIED TO PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF:
MODELS, TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE SELECTION OF MODELS, OR LIMITED DATA TO TEST AND EXERCISE MODELS 1
1 a
i 3
s._
i 4
i
e OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
- TECHNICAL ISSUES OF REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE
- RESEARCH ADDRESSING ISSUES i
> ANTICIPATED PRODUCTS
- ANTICIPATED USE I
i 4
1 i
SITE KEY TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO SITE CHARACTERIZATION METHODS e
WHAT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR DETERMINING GEOLOGIC PROPERTIES AND PARAMETER VALUES?
8 WHAT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR DETERMINING HYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES AND PARAMETER VALUES?
5
SITE ISSUE--WHAT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR DETERMINING GEOLOGIC PROPERTIES AND PARAMETER VALUES?
> RESEARCH PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTS INVESTIGATED TECHNIQUES SUCH AS DOWN-HOLE TOMOGRAPHY AND CORE-LOGGING (U OF AZ, ETC.)
i l
PRESENT EXPERIMENTS ARE EXAMINING OTHER METHODS OF DETERMINING GEOLOGIC PROPERTIES AND PARAMETERS, SUCH AS AGE DATING FAULT OFFSETS I
4 ll l
6 4
?
4 4
m.
+
m
+
SITE ISSUE--WHAT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR DETERMINING GEOLOGIC PROPERTIES AND PARAMETER VALUES?
(CONTINUED)
> PRODUCT EVALUATION OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNIQUES BEING USED BY DOE AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN (CY 96)
> USE ASSESS DOE'S GEOPHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM 7
i 4
4 f
+
e SITE ISSUES--WHAT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR DETERMINING HYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES AND PARAMETER VALUES?
> RESEARCH PREVIOUS WORK FIELD TESTED METHODS TO DETERMINE LOCAL HYDROLOGIC PRFPERTIES (U OF AZ)
CURRENT RESEARCH (U OF AZ) IS CONTINUING MEASUREMENTS OF HYDROLOGIC i
PROPERTIES OF A SITE VERY SIMILAR TO YUCCA MOUNTAIN--UNSATURATED FRACTURED TUFF 8
i
-......-.m
=__-,-_mm
. - - + -
w-
-e
~
SITE ISSUES--WHAT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR DETERMINING HYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES AND PARAMETER VALUES? (CONTINUED) i
> PRODUCT HYDROLOGIC FIELD DATA DEVELOPED USING DEMONSTRATED TECHNIQUES FROM A WELL-l CHARACTERIZED SITE (U OF AZ, FY 94)
> USE EVALUATE METHODS DOE EMPLOYS TO INTERPRET REPOSITORY-SCALE HYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES FROM LOCAL MEASUREMENTS k
9 l
i
- - ^ "
~
' ~ " - ~ ~
.__.__m.
e SITE I
KEY TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE J
e WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE TECTONIC PROCESSES OPERATING IN THE CENTRAL BASIN AND RANGE?
l e
WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING GROUND WATER FLOW AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN?
WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN?
i l
10 4
l l
l
SITE ISSUES--WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE TECTONIC PROCESSES OPERATING IN THE CENTRAL BASIN AND RANGE?
> RESEARCH GEODETIC OBSERVATIONS (CAL TECH), AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES USING EXISTING DATA, OF THE TECTONICS OF THE CENTRAL BASIN AND RANGE
> PRODUCT MODELS WITH SUPPORTING DATA 0F: MAJOR TECTONIC PROCESSES, SIGNIFICANT FEATURES, AND DEFORMATION RATES OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN AREA (CY 96) 1 11 4
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - -
s.
SITE ISSUES--WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE TECTONIC PROCESSES OPERATING IN THE CENTRAL BASIN AND RANGE?
(CONTINUED)
> USE EVALUATION OF DOE'S ASSESSMENT OF TECTONIC PROCESSES AND RELATED VOLCANISM AT THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE 12 4
t SITE ISSUES--WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING GROUND WATER FLOW AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN?
> RESEARCH ANALYTICAL STUDIES (U OF AZ AND CNWRA)
ASSESSING THE USE OF STOCHASTIC TECHNIQUES TO DEVELOP LARGE-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODELS OF UNSATURATED FLOW IN FRACTURED, POROUS TUFF 13 i
l l
i o
l SITE ISSUES--WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING GROUND WATER FLOW AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN? (CONTINUED)
- PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR MODELING GROUND WATER FLOW AT THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE (CY
- 95) AND DEFINING THE RANGE OF HYDROLOGIC MODELS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN AT THE SITE (CY 97) l i
14 4
.m
= = _
SITE ISSUES--WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING GROUND WATER FLOW AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN? (CONTINUED)
> USE REVIEW OF DOE'S QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN HYDROLOGY, DOE'S TREATMENT OF SPATIAL VARIATIONS OF THE HYDROLOGIC l
PROPERTIES OF THE SITE, AND DOE'S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVOLUTION OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN HYDROLOGY OVER TIME i
\\
15 I
9 l
a E
A l
SITE ISSUES--WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN?
> RESEARCH FIELD (PENA BLANCA NATURAL ANALOGUE) AND LABORATORY STUDIES TO DETERMINE THE CONTROLLING MECHANISMS OF RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT IN TUFF
> PRODUCT KINETIC AND THERMODYNAMIC MODELS AND l
DATA OF RADIONUCLIDE SPECIATION AND MOVEMENT IN TUFF (CY 95) 4 16 1
o l
SITE ISSUES--WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN? (CONTINUED)
> USE EVALUATE DOE'S GEOCHEMICAL MODEL OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE, SUPPORTING l
GEOCHEMICAL DATA, AND DOE'S USE OF NATURAL ANALOGUES IN DEVELOPING ITS i
GEOCHEMICAL MODEL i
i i
17 i
i e
e SITE KEY TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO FUTURE STATE OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE e
HOW WILL THE HEAT FROM THE HLW AFFECT THE LOCAL HYDROLOGY AND GEOCHEMISTRY?
i e
WHAT IS THE CREDIBLE RANGE OF FUTURE CLIMATES AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN (PRECIPITATION AND WATER INFILTRATION)?
i e
HOW LIKELY ARE VOLCANOS AT THE SITE AND WHAT EFFECT MAY THEY HAVE ON THE REPOSITORY (GEOLOGY, l
HYDROLOGY, AND EMPLACED WASTES)?
4 i
18 l
i
=.... -.... _.. _
i SITE KEY TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO FUTURE STATE OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE (CONTINUED) e WHAT EFFECT WILL SEISMIC ACTIVITY IN THE REGION HAVE ON THE HYDROLOGY OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN?
19 l
l l
1m l
l SITE ISSUES--HOW WILL THE HEAT FROM THE HLW AFFECT THE LOCAL HYDROLOGY AND GEOCHEMISTRY?
> RESEARCH NATURAL ANALOGUE STUDIES (OKLO--CEA) AND LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS IN GEOCHEMISTRY AND REPOSITORY THERMOHYDRAULICS
> PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION OF THE KEY HEAT-DRIVEN MECHANISMS THAT AFFECT HYDROLOGY AND TRANSPORT CLOSE TO THE REPOSITORY, AND A MODEL OF THE EFFECT OF HEATING ON LOCAL GEOCHEMISTRY _(CY 96) AND HYDROLOGY (CY 94)
J 20
.____.__._.m__
SITE ISSUES--HOW WILL THE HEAT FROM THE HLW AFFECT THE LOCAL HYDROLOGY AND GEOCHEMISTRY? (CONTINUED)
> USE DATA AND MODELS TO TEST DOE'S ASSESSMENT OF THE ANTICIPATED WASTE PACKAGE ENVIRONMENT OVER TIME i
i t
21 4
a SITE ISSUES--WHAT IS THE CREDIBLE RANGE OF FUTURE CLIMATES AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN (PRECIPITATION AND WATER INFILTRATION)?
> RESEARCH METHODS TO ASSESS WATER INFILTRATION HAVE i
BEEN EXAMINED (U OF AZ)
FUTURE WORK WILL ADDRESS EFFECT OF CHANGING CLIMATE ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN l
REGION i
I i
l i
22 i
\\
i
(
SITE ISSUES--WHAT IS THE CREDIBLE RANGE OF FUTURE CLIMATES AT YUCCA MOtJNTAIN (PRECIPITATION AND WATER INFIf.TRATION) ? (CONTINUED)
> PRODUCT METilODS OF TREATING INFILTRATION AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED--
THESE WILL BE EVALUATED ON REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONAL SCALES--MODELS ADDRESSING THE CONSEQUENCES OF A RANGE OF POTENTIAL CLIMATES WILL BE DEVELOPED (CY 96)
> USE EVALUATION OF DOE'S ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF FUTURE CLIMATES AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN 23 1
_-m c
SITE ISSUES--HOW LIKELY ARE VOLCANOS AT THE SITE AND WHAT EFFECT MAY THEY HAVE ON THE REPOSITORY (GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, AND EMPLACED WASTES)?
> RESEARCH ANALYTICAL STUDIES USING FIELD OBSERVATIONS ASSESSING VOLCANISM IN THE BASIN AND RANGE
- PRODUCT MODELS OF THE LIKELIHOOD, CHARACTERISTICS, AND CONSEQUENCES OF VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS IN THE CENTRAL BASIN AND RANGE (CY 96) 24 2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ -.. - ~ -. - -,,... - - - - - _. - -
- -. - -.., ~.. - - -. ~,...
o i
f J
SITE ISSUES--HOW LIKELY ARE VOLCANOS AT THE SITE AND WHAT EFFECT MAY THEY HAVE ON THE REPOSITORY (GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, AND EMPLACED WASTES)?
> USE DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF REGIONAL DATA, AS TO THE LIKELIHOOD, LOCATION, CHARACTERISTICS, AND CONSEQUENCES OF VOLCANOS IN THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REGION, TO EVALUATE DOE'S ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL FOR AND EFFECTS OF VOLCANISM AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN 25 4
4 1
" " " ' " ~ ~ *
- ' " - - ~ - ' ' " - ' - ' ' * - ' ' ~ ^ ' ' ' ^ '
~~ "
- ~ - ~ " ' '
SITE ISSUES--WHAT EFFECT WILL SEISMIC ACTIVITY IN THE REGION HAVE ON THE HYDROLOGY OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN?
- RESEARCH ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS OF EXISTING HISTORICAL AND NEW FIELD DATA RELATING CHANGES IN REGIONAL HYDROLOGY TO SEISMIO ACTIVITY (U OF C AND CNWRA)
> PRODUCT MODEL RELATING REGIONAL HYDROLOGIC 1
CHANGES TO SEISMIC EVENTS (CY 95) 26 i
i I
i
[
SITE ISSUES--WHAT EFFECT WILL SEISMIC ACTIVITY IN THE 4
REGION HAVE ON THE HYDROLOGY OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN?
(CONTINUED)
> USE REVIEW DOE'S TREATMENT OF POTENTIAL PERCHED WATER ZONES AND STEEP HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS NEAR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE i
l 27 1
4 I
1 i
I i
f ENGINEERING KEY TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO REPOSITORY ENGINEERING WILL THE WASTE EMPLACEMENT DRIFTS AND BOREHOLES AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN REMAIN OPEN DURING THE RETRIEVAL i
PERIOD, AND WILL THEY BE STABLE POST RETRIEVAL l
PERIOD?
HOW LONG WILL THE SHAFTS AND BOREHOLES REMAIN I
SEALED?
4 J
1
)
28 i
4 i
ENGINEERING ISSUES--WILL THE WASTE EMPLACEMENT DRIFT 5 AND BOREHOLES AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN REMAIN OPEN DURING THE RETRIEVAL PERIOD, AND WILL THEY BE STABLE POST RETRIEVAL PERIOD?
j
> RESEARCH FIELD AND LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES EVALUATING EFFICACY OF ROCK MECHANICS MODELS USED FOR PREDICTING TUNNEL STABILITY AND RESPONSE TO EMPLACED WASTES AND TO EARTHQUAKES i
I 4
i 4
4 i
29 l
4 1
ENGINEERING ISSUES--WILL THE WASTE EMPLACEMENT DRIFTS AND BOREHOLES AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN REMAIN OPEN DURING THE RETRIEVAL PERIOD, AND WILL THEY BE STABLE POST RETRIEVAL PERIOD? (CONTINUED) i
> PRODUCT REVIEW OF SEVERAL ROCK MECHANICS CODES AGAINST FIELD (U OF C CY 96, CNWRA CY
l 30 i
o E
ENGINEERING ISSUES--WILL THE WASTE EMPLACEMENT DRIFTS i
AND BOREHOLES AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN REMAIN OPEN DURING THE RETRIEVAL PERIOD, AND WILL THEY BE STABLE POST RETRIEVAL PERIOD? (CONTINUED) i
> USE DEVELOPMENT OF METHODS FOR REVIEW OF DOE'S ASSESSMENT OF REPOSITORY RESPONSE 4
TO EARTHQUAKES, AND THERMOMECHANICAL i
STABILITY OF UNDERGROUND EXCAVATIONS i
4 31 I
4
9 i
ENGINEERING ISSUES--HOW LONG WILL THE SHAFTS AND BOREHOLES REMAIN SEALED?
- RESEARCH LABORATORY PROGRAM INVESTIGATING EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS TECHNIQUES FOR SEALING SHAFTS AND BOREHOLES (U OF AZ)
> PRODUCT DATA ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS TECHNIQUES AND DESIGNS FOR SEALING SHAFTS AND BOREHOLES IN UNSATURATED FRACTURED TUFF (CY 94)
- USE REVIEW OF DOE'S SHAFT AND BOREHOLE SEALING PROGRAM i
n 32 i
4 I
..m..
v
~
ENGINEERING KEY TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE OF WASTE PACKAGE e
HOW LONG WILL THE WASTE PACKAGE CONTAIN THE HLW?
8 HOW CONFIDENTLY CAN SHORT TERM LABORATORY TESTS BE USED TO PREDICT LONG TERM PERFORMANCE?
I l
33 k
i
~
i l
ENGINEERING ISSUES--HOW LONG WILL THE WASTE PACKAGE CONTAIN THE HLW?
> RESEARCH EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY WASTE l
PACKAGE CORROSION MECHANISMS THAT CAN BE EXPECTED IN REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENT i
- PRODUCT CORRELATION OF DOMINANT CORROSION TYPES i
AND RATES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS i
(PITTING CORROSION-CY 93, INTERNAL CORROSION-CY 95, AND STRESS CORROSION-CY 95) i 34 t
1
t l
ENGINEERING ISSUES--HOW LONG WILL THE WASTE PACKAGE CONTAIN THE HLW? (CONTINUED)
> USE ASSESS WHETHER DOE HAS IDENTIFIED l
CONTROLLING WASTE PACKAGE FAILURE MECHANISMS, EMPLOYED APPROPRIATELY l
CONSERVATIVE MODELS IN ASSESSING WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE, AND CONFIRM l
SUITABILITY OF WASTE PACKAGE MATERIAL TO MEET CONTAINMENT REQUIREMENT i
35 4
j i
x ENGINEERING ISSUES--HOW CONFIDENTLY CAN SHORT TERM LABORATORY TESTS BE USED TO PREDICT LONG TERM PERFORMANCE?
> RESEARCH CONTINUING LABORATORY PROGRAM OF TESTING WASTE PACKAGE MATERIALS UNDER A RANGE OF POTENTIAL REPOSITORY CONDITIONS WILL BE t
SUPPLEMENTED WITH OBSERVATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECTS AT AKROTIRI NATURAL ANALOGUE SITE, AND LONG TERM (YEARS) OBSERVATION OF WASTE PACKAGE MATERIALS i
36 1
i I
i
s ENGINEERING ISSUES--HOW CONFIDENTLY CAN SHORT TERM LABORATORY TESTS BE USED TO PREDICT LONG TERM PERFORMANCE?
4 i
> PRODUCT ASSESSMENT OF MECHANISTIC CORROSION MODELS FOR CORRELATING SHORT TERM LABORATORY TESTS, LONG TERM IN SITU TESTS, AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS
> USE REVIEW DOE DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE I
WITH CONTAINMENT REQUIREMENT 4
i 3
4 37 i
SOURCE TERM KEY TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO RELEASE OF WASTES FROM WASTE PACKAGES 8
AT WHAT RATE WILL RADIONUCLIDES ENTER THE GROUND WATER SYSTEM?
38 I
I
i SOURCE TERM ISSUES--AT WHAT RATE WILL RADONUCLIDES ENTER THE GROUND WATER SYSTEM?
> RESEARCH FIELD OBSERVATION OF ACTINIDE AND FISSION PRODUCT MIGRATION (OKLO AND PERA BLANCA NATURAL ANALOGUE STUDIES)
> PRODUCT DATA ON AND MODEL OF SPENT FUEL LEACHING, AND RADIONUCLIDE SPECIATION AND TRANSPORT IN A GEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT (CY 95)
> USE CONFIRM RESULTS OF LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS ON RADIONUCLIDE SPECIATION AND MOBILITY 1
39 i
NRC IILW RESEARCII INTERNATIONAL INTERFACES e
Bilateral Agreements Switzerland (NAGRA)
France (CEA)
Sweden (SKI)
Japan (JAERI)
Multi-National Programs INTRAVAL ARAP/ASARR DECOVALEX Oklo (CEC /CEA)
NAWG (CEC) i
-~
RELATIONSHIP OF NRC HLW RESEARCH TO LICENSING PROGRAM l
LICENSE APPLICATION REVIEW PLAN j
l REGULATORY W COMPLIANCE 4
COMPLIANCE E
l REQUIREMENTS +---
DETERMINATION DETERMINATION f l
STRATEGY METHODS j
h KEY TECHNICAL I
l UNCERTAINTIES
,_____________________________________g___________________________
USER NEEDS ANALYSIS METHODS g
ANDIPA RESEARCH PROGRAM PLAN l
A RESEARCH PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
=
4 9
s c
a.
DISTRIBUTION OF HLW RESEARCH FUNDING (FISCAL YEAR 1994) b 35-0 0
30-ca 25-7 o>
Containment Hydrology Geology Controlled Release Engineered System Geochemistry Perf. Assessment PLANNED DISTRIBUTION OF FY94 FUNDS
i b
/
ta 1
l i
m