ML20059L102

Transcript of 940125 Meeting Re Briefing on Activities of CNWRA in Rockville,Md.W/Related Info.Pp 1-53

ML20059L102
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/25/1994
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9402030155
Download: ML20059L102 (67)

Text

MNb8WWW86WWn%WiVWW6%%WWWW6'tVtVWAnd;V;VW;VgygGgygygggg k!

Document Control Dest, 016 Phillips j

3

At! SMIT AL T :

The Public Document Goem 5

• 0VANCED COPY '0:

//2(o/4

ATE:

/

h FROM:

SECY Correspondence & Recorcs Branen f

j 6

.' N Attacnen are ccotes of a Comission meeting transcript and relaten meeting f'

3 h

document (s). They are being forwarced for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room.

No other cistribution is recuested or g

g

(

recuireo.

/ b 4 % d M Ia d d M+Ld b b-d m b Meeting

Title:

5 3,,. N n b L1 tc 8 - alk k, l W w / h t)GJ A M h

/h.577d Open I

Closeo Meeting Date:

3 E

3 5

Copies Item Cescriotten*:

g Advanced DCS 5

sf 8

to POR C3 5g

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 n ) lla w-vrut) u'

,e..

~

l:

2.

zu C,

b C

g.

-p' y

=i:

E' I g O

g_

}

4 5:

3!

k

q

k

~.

q w.

c 0100!:2

!i

$J L

g; g

• DDR is advanced one copy of eacn document :wo of each SECY paper.

E$

CER Branen files the original transcr1pt, with attacnments, withcut SECY

. ::g

acers.

L d f J!

9402030155 940125 A

PDR 10CFR

~

uns PDR.

PT9.7 u n u u m.u.......................................................- ---...........----..> = = n

'I UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMIS SION1

)

io

{

i i

a

.i

.l Titl6:

BRIEFING ON ACTIVITTES OF.THE CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSIS (CNWRA)'

LOCatiOD ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND l

.If bob 6 JANUARY 25, 1994 33 FAGES Pages:

t L

-i t

f i

NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC.

COUkT'. REPORTERS AWD TSANSCRIBER$

l'323 Rhode Island-Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.

20005-

)

(202) 234-4433 l

F f

i

.e.

]

-i.

a:

DISCLAIMER i

~l i

~

9 This is an unofficial ~ transcript of-a meeting.of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission -held on 1

January 25, 1994 in the ' Commission's office at. One j

White Flint ' North,, Rockville, ' Maryland.

The meeting.was a

open to public attendance and observation.- This= transcript i

has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and. it ~

l may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript -is intended - solely for general j

i informational purposes.

As_provided by 10 CFR 9.103,'it is g

not part~of the formal or informal-record-of' decision of the matters discussed.-

Expressions of opinion' in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final ' determination 3

'i or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper may be ' filed with

.t the Commi.ssion in any proceeding 'as : the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained.herein, i

i except as the Commission may authorise..

i a

t l

. ~.

- g,-

.j HEAL R. GROS $

j cower neooetens AMe raANSC999R$

1813 ANoet MLAND AVENUG, N.W.

<=> m.um w A n sNevo n. o.c.

=> m m. -

1

~

,r-

.. ~.

F 1-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

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

PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Tuesday, January 25, 1994 The Commission met in open

session, pursuant to

notice, at 1:30 p.m.,

Ivan

Selin, Chairman, presiding.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C.

ROGERS, Commissioner FORREST.J. REMICK, Commissioner E.

GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner 9

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

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

2-STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:

ANDREW BATES, office of the Secretary STUART TREBY, Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle HUGH THOMPSON, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards & Operations Support ROBERT BERNERO, Director. NMSS WESLEY PATRICK, CNWRA BUDHI SAGAR, CNWRA t

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

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

3 1

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

-2 1:30 p.m.

3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Good afternoon, ladies 4

and gentlemen.

5 The Commission is pleased to welcome 6

re resentatives from the Center for Nuclear Waste 7

Regulatory Analysis to brief ' us on the status.'and 8

activities of the center.

Mr Taylor will introduce-9 the speakers for us -- oh, Mr. Thompson will introduce -

10 the speakers for us in just a moment.

i 11 MR. THOMPSON:

You've got to watch us..

12

. CHAIRMAN SELIN:

Right.

Well, you've met' 13 one EDO, you've met them all.

14 MR. THOMPSON:

Oh, no.

15 CHAIRMAN SELIN:

The Southwest Research 16 Instituted has operated the Center in support of our, 17 high-level waste management program for more than six-18 years.

We are relying on the ' Center to ' provide -

19 technical assistance, including support'of regulatory 1

20 development review of'the ongoing 'high-level. waste 21 management disposal program license application review i

22 capability and performance'of high-level ~' waste.

i 23 The Commission is pleased to support this

[

24 technical organization.

I understand-the staff has-25 recently-completed a'six month periodic performance j

NEAL R. GROSS l

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

(202) 2344433 WASHfNGTON. D.C. 20005 -

(202) 234 4433

'j

4 1

' evaluation of-the1 Center-vhich was rated excellent.

j W

2 So, I-congratulate you on that. We're looking forward 3

to hearing about your most recent activities and-4 accomplishments.

~

5 But, Doctor Patrick, I think it would be 1

6 useful if you could try to tie these in a little more 7

closely than sometimes has.been the cese with 8

activities that are. going on in the-high-level waste 9

program itself.

The implications are at least as 10 interesting as the research itself.

11 Gentlemen?

Gall?

12 MR. THOMPSON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman,.

13-Commissioners.

14 This is the eighth briefing that the I

15 Center has given to the Commiss~ ion on the activities.

16 out there.

One of the key elements that I remember 17 when I first took over as the Director of the Office 18 of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards- 'is the 19 selection that we made for the Center.

So, I've seen-20 it with certain pride grow from a small outfit up to-21 its present state of. robustness which we will hear 22 some of the results today.

1 23 Bob Dernero will start today's briefing 24 with G general overview.

Wes' Patrick and Budhi Sagar.

25 will~give us the details and.I would like to note in ~

l NEAL R. GROSS l

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

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

i

t

'S l'

the ' audience is Martin Goland,' who is the Pre'sident of' 2

'the Southwest ~ Research-Institute.

He has been f

3 committed to support of the Center since its-inception 4

and again-he continues to do-that.and I appreciate his l

5 support for this effort.

6 Bob?

7 MR. BERNERO:- Thank you.

6 8

You asked for briefings on a number of 9

subjects really.

First of' all on. current andj 10 significant technical issue =

and the Center is 11 prepared to brief you on that today.

You also.

12 requested a

briefing on systematic regulatory j

13 analysis.

We are scheduling a separate briefing on-2 14 that.

We're working with the agenda planning right 15 now.

It appears to be about the first week of April.

16 I'm not sure of a date on it yet, f

17 As Hugh said, the Center was selected some.

q 18 years ago and they have now essentially reached the

l 19 core professional staff level.

They ' re.not. 'quite 20 there.

They're almost at the projected level of 54 I

21 and they are expected to be there shortly because.of 22 recruitment activities that are going on-and they have 23 a limited term employee on base.now, a geochemist.

24

~The funding of the Center is fairly

-l 25 significant.

This is our. federally funded research

~

=)

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

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005

_.(202) 2344 433

6 c1 and. development center for-high-level waste.

This 2

year's funding is approximately $15 mil' ion.. Of that, 3

$9.7 is the high-level' waste program and the overhead, 4

of course, for maintaining the Center, and $5.6 is 5

research work placed at the' Center.

The Center'in 6

their expenditure and management control is running a 7

little bit less than ten percent under spent, but that 8

is within reasonable fluctuations.' and I

think:

- I 9

everything will be on target for the fiscal year.

So,.

10 basically, the Center is being a well managed and very -

11 significant technical resource for the program.

12 Now I'd like to turn it over to Wes 13 Patrick to cover the issues of thefday.

14 DOCTOR PATRICK:

(Slide)

Okay.

'If we

'}

15 could move directly to slide 3 and get'into the core 16 of the briefing.

17 We do want to take an issues-based 18 approach with you in our briefing this year, as we did 19 in the last briefing.

That provides us with an 20 opportunity to not only identify the issues, but also 21 to indicate to you the progress we've made toward 22 resolving those at the staff level.

As the Chairman l

23 pointed out, those activities headed in the direction'

~-

24 of resolution include not only research but a good 25 deal-of technical assistance activities as well.

NEAL R. GROSS j

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

0 02) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344 433

J 7-1-

Slide' 3 indicates a grouping of al'l-of the 2

work of.the Center.

It can-be broken down into fives 3

basic areas.

Now, ~ the ~ first three o'f those are 3

4 primarily the sources-of identification of-5 uncertainties or issues as we'll call them for-the 6

purpose of the briefing today.' Although the last two, 7

development of our analytical capabilities, which is.

8 done-as. a technical assistance activity in the.

9 Division of High-Level Waste Management, and then of-10 course the research topics, although those also lead.

11

-sometimes-to ' identification of

issues,

.they. are 12 primarily geared toward closure of

issues, of i

13 resolving those problems, those what we ' call key-14 technical uncertainties that have been-identified

'-i 15 throughout the program.

We'll be addressing aspects l

16 of each one of these as we go through the presentation 17 today looking at a total of six particular-issues.

18 I would just as starting out though note-19 that the systematic regulatory analysis which Bob 20 spoke to a moment ago you were going to get a special-21 briefing on has been an area of.

some -rather 22 significant accomplishment and progress this past-

~

23 year.

It's an area where we worked veryLclosely with

~

24 your staff, teaming with them in the.developmentvof-t 25 several' key documents, the foremost of which is-.the

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

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

G

1 licen~se ' application. review plan.

Those.' activities,

'l particularly the development ot ' key. technical-2 3

uncertainties which form the oasis for the issues 4

we'll talk about today, has been a substantial staff 5

effort this year and we will soon be seeing the 6

publication of the Revision 0

of. the. license' 7

application review plan.

j

~

8 I'd also note here, and we'll pick up in-9 9

some detail as we go along, the second phase of the; 10 iterative performance assessment which is a - j oint 11 NMSS, Research and Center activity.

It's focused on 12 developing the tools that the staff will - use for I

13 reviewing the actual license application when -it 's -

b 14 received.

ns Doctor Sagar wil'1 indicate in his

~

15 remarks a little bit later on,

-it also provides 16 several key pre-licensing roles, among which 'is'to 17

' conduct sensitivity analyses which give us indication 18 of those areas which-we need to focus our activities l

19 and our endeavors on.

20 I would note also the importance of pre-21 licensing activities be'cause those give us keen 22 insights into what the Department of Energy is doing, l

23 how they are progressing on their program, what their-24 study plans are, what the results.of.those studies 25 have been to date as reported in. topical reports ~and NEAL R. GROSS a

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W.

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

(202) 2344433 i

j 9

.I 1.

also in'.just'some of the normal'. technical reporting 2

'that'goes onl.in the course'of their work.

.i 3

We have currently a total of'13 research

.=

i 4

projects underway and we will:not;be-focusing'on'each.

i

~ weaving into! the.

j 5

'one in. particular, but '. we ' ll be 6

discussion of the issues as wo - progress particular:

l l

7 areas where we've made progress in' addressing issues.

I 8

(Slide)

Slide 4 indicates--six ' broad-9

. issues which we intend to discuss-with you today. The

~

i 10 first five are probably familiar with'you.

They.were i

11 the subject of our briefing last' year.

I : want.. to '

12 point out that.although the issues remain the same, 13 we're going to' focus today not on the discussion of.

j 14 the issues so much but the areas where~ substantive 15 progress has been. made to bring you~up to date-on j

16

.that.

17 The sixth area, multiple. purpose' canister, j::

18 we've added this year because of its potential impact

,q 19 on several elements of-the program and our support to

.l 20 the NRC.

21 Slide 5 indicates the'first of the issues 22 that we'd like' to discuss..with you' today, ' data and 23 models of the processes and conditions.-that woul'd be j

24-expected to be working, operating at the repository.

25 We' find that 'the sufficiency of data. and; the

-[

)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

'1 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433

- WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 '

(202) 2344433 -

-. ~

10-1 credibility - of ;the models that are used ; to -: predict-2

- repository performance; are probably. the - two most-

.j 3

critical factors in the licensing of a high-level

-l 4

waste repository.

One of the complicating f actors is '

5 that most geological investigations are, by their very 6

nature., disruptive to the site.

They require the

[

t 7

. boring of holes, the sinking of shafts, the driving of.

8 tunnels.

So,-

there has to-be some sort of a

9 compromise between acquiring - all the. data that one 10 might want and yet not having an untoward affect on 11 the performance of the repository.

As

a. result ~of 12 that, we' anticipate that repository licensing.will

~

13 proceed with a measure of data, but that that data 14 will be somewhat more sparse then perhaps'what.the 15 ideal'might be.

Consequently, there will be a need 16 for introducing expert judgments in'the elicitation' of' 17 those judgments.

18 This issue could really be summarized'in

^i 19 two very simple questions, how much data is enough and 20 what level of detail is appropriate for.the'modeling 21 of these very complex aspects of performance.

22 We have found that the site investigations ~.

I 23 that have been ongoing to date-at the Yucca Mountain i

24 and.its vicinity, like most geological investigations 25 are indicating that they're going to be alternative l

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

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

4 11 1

conceptual models developed ' for how that

~ ite will s

2 perform and how the various processes will take place.

3 Some of those alternative hypotheses are going _to be 4

equally credible and that's going to introduce another 5

level of complexity to the program.

We'll, of course, 6

be needing to count. on reasonable assurance for 7

performance as being a measure of the adequacy of 8

those investigations and evaluations that take place.

9 I'd like to focus in on now just two of 10 the four areas of progress that we have indicated on 11 the slide to give you an indication more specifically 12 of some of_the activities that have been ongoing at 13 the center.

The first of th'ose in the area of 14 alternative conceptual models of unsaturated' flow' 15 deals with an analysis we conducted using-data'from 16 two bore holes which the Department of Energy sunk ~at.

17 the Yucca Mountain site.

We-and a number of other 18 investigators studied the flow of groundwater as.it

'19 was expressed in the moisture profile along those bore 20 holes.

21 We found that the rate of infiltration l

22 that could result in the observed profiles depended on

?

-23 three things predominantly.

One, 'whether one 24 considered fracture flow or only matrix flow occurring 25' at the site.

Second, whether the flow was consider 6d NEAL R. GROSS COURT FIEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

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

f.

t

-1 in

one, two or three dimensions, the higher 2

dimensionality allowing flow out of the plane of;the-q 3

bore. hole..

And finally, whether one'could assume the r

4 existence of a very thin geological' layer in' the f

5 profile which was assumed to be. some measure of L

6 barrier to the flow of groundwater from the ' surface to 7

the lower levels.

.f 8

We believe that as the site 9

characterization proceeds, analyses like these are 10 going to be needed to be conducted in parallel'with 11 the selection of further studies for the site so that 12 the number of credible conceptual models that might be 13 proposed can be limited to some reasonably manageable

.]

14 set.

15 If we could have the photo 5-A and move to 16 a second point here.

17-COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Excuse me, Wes.

.i 18 DOCTOR PATRICK:

Yes, t

19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I was anxious to

'i 20 hear what the results were of that study where:you 21 used the bore holes and the data.

22 DOCTOR PATRICK:

One of'the very I think.

23 nothing short of profound results was that the. wide' 24 range of models that-could be-used to obtain 25 essentially the same moisture profile. That indicates NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

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

.I

?

1 h

-5

+ - - -

I 13.

I to'us that the common measure that's used, or used'to 2

date anyway, to calibrate these models to determine i

3 their

adequacy, their

validity, is probably.

j 4

insensitive.

So, monitoring the profile of moisture

~

5 in bore holes is very likely not going to 1ead to any.

-t 6

discrimination between the various alternative models 7

that might be available. Now, the various researchers 8

involved used wide ranges of infiltration.

Some used 9

fracture

flow, some did not,-

different-10 dimensionalities of the problems were used and so 11 forth:.

But we did not find a

great deal of I

12 discrimination amongst the different models based'on 13 moisture content as a function of depth along those e

14 bore holes.

15 MR. BERNERO:

Wes, isn't it fair to add j

16 that that research did not include significant thermal ~

'l l

i 17 effects as a

driving force which-will.further 18 complicate it?

19-DOCTOR PATRICK:

'That's correct.

It 20 assumed strictly an isothermal case as exists.in:the 21 field unperturbed along these two bore holes.

4 22 Any other questions-before we proceed?

23' COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Yes.

Just on the t

24 importance of coupled processes.

Does' that comment 25 refer to also what you've just been talking about, the i

NEAL R. GROSS y

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

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

l'4 - different types of flows, or are you talking-about-2 something' quite different-here in the way of 3

processes?

4 DOCTOR PATRICK:

This particular study, i

5 looked only at the isothermal conditions, looking.

6 simply at the flow of the infiltration of moisture and 7

the resulting moisture profile that would occur.

Our 8

anticipation would be that as we go to the more 9

complex processes where, as Bob had alluded to, you.

10 have thermally driven conditions, the' possibility of 11 buoyant forces coming into play,.that it could become 12 even more complex.

13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, how far have 14 you gone on coupled processes?

15 DOCTOR PATRICK:

The second bullet there 16

'in particular_ deals with a much' broader study of 17 coupled processes than what was alluded to in the 18 first two bore holes.

We started from the basics with 19 our coupled processes study conducting a very thorough i

20 literature review. One of the things that we've found I

21 is that the processes that are important, the degree 22 of coupling between the processes that are important, 23 varies depending on the time period that's involved.

24 More specifically, we've found that during W

25 the preclosure phase of the repository most of the I

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 g

15-1-

processes of interest could be most of :the-2 couplings could be eliminated or avoided in the.

I 3

' analyses.

4 The key thing that needs to be focused on

}

^

5 during that period of time are the thermo mechanical 6

couplings because those are most important'to near-7

_ field bore hole and drift stabilities that' are of 8

concern during the operational period.

Once. closure-i 9

has occurred and long-term performance comes into play.-

[

i 10 under the particular provisions of 10 CFR-Part 60, 11 then more complex couplings there looking at ~ the 12 chemical hydrological and thermal couplings become the l

13 most important.

-[

14 We.have-specific research projects:that-15 are ongoing in each of those areas.

Nothing really 16 conclusive to state.at this time other than to say 17 that.our specific efforts at qualifying-.the computer' 18 codes that do exist are indicating that.there are a-1 19 number of shortfalls for the codes in each of these 20 areas, both for the mechanical. processes and also:for

-l 21 the thermal' hydrological processes that exist.

It's 22 an area for a good deal,of additional research and i

23-then once that research is completed,. there may be 24 some areas where staff guidance is. going.-to' be 25 appropriate in these areas.

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

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 '

'(202) 234 4433 f

-16

.1 I'~would note that the staff has prepared 2

-a staff technical position.

. The. 'NRC staff ~ has 3

prepared a staff technical position dealing with the 4

effects of coupled modelings during design processes

~

5 that DOE should be cognizant of.

There-the focus is 6

predominantly

.on design,.

but of course the..

.l 7

implications for performance are obvious.

8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:.

All right.

Thank-9 you.

10 DOCTOR PATRICK:

Anything else before we 11 proceed?

12 (Slide)

If I could have the photo,' the-13 site photo of 5-A up,.please.

1.4 One of the other areas that we.have spent 15 considerable effort in investigating this past year is t

16 estimating the probability and the consequences of 17 volcanism.

If one stands in the desert and.looks.

j 18_

toward, as indicated in the figure'here, the Yucca 19 Mountain crest, it's fairly obvious why volcanism is 20 of some concern to the NRC.

There are several i

21 volcanic cinder cones that are evident in the area and 1

i

~

22 both the Department of Energy and ourselves have been; i

23 conducting investigations to determine where. those -

24 might occur, when any renewed volcanism may occur and

, ]

25 equally, if not more important, what the consequences-I

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

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 -

(202) 234-4433 -

s

-y

17 1

of that volcanism might be to repository performance.

2 We have.done several things this past' 7

3 year.

We started with a very comprehensive review of 4

the literature looking at two things.

First, the 5

understanding of the volcanological processes that 6

exist in geographical and geological areas similar to '

t 7

Yucca Mountain, focusing in on basin and range 8

province volcanism.

And

second, what kind of 9

techniques exist and how accurate are they for 10 indicating the age of these volcanic events.

The 11 Department of Energy published a major report during 12 this period of time, a Los Alamos National Laboratory 13 report reviewing the last 10 to 12 years of 14 volcanological research in this area.

We reviewed 15 that report in detail and found several areas that 16 were of concern to ourselves and NRC staff and we've 17 challenged some of DOE's assertions, namely that the 18 volcanism is waning, that it's dying out with' time, 19 that DOE's indication that there's a low water content 20 and consequently a very benign sort of effusive 21 volcanism that may occur at the sight, were it.to 22 occur.

We have questioned the dates on the volcanic 23 events.

Some of the ranges on those events are so 24 large that they are nearly the same as the mean age 25 for the events.

And finally we've challenged the use NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 '

r m

i 18' 1

of ' their : approach to predicting where. the. volcanic -

f

'2 events might occur.

Namely, their view is.that.theyi

-]

3 are spatially homogeneous in a statistical sense.

l i

4 We are looking at non-homogeneous models j

'I S

and finding that treating statistically non-i 6

-. homogeneous occurrence of those events does make a

.t 7

difference from the-standpoint of probability of l

8 eruption that could disrupt the repository.-

More i

9 importantly, we're trying to take it the next step and 10 that is to get away from simply a statistical point of

.j 11 view and-to begin to.. introduce structural aspects to l

a 12 the occurrence of volcanism and the prediction of that f

13 occurrence.

t 14 One of the tools that we are using' to 15 specifically look at the consequences of volcanism is i

16 to look at very modern volcanic systems,'those that i

17 are erupting now or have a historical record of 18 erupting.

We want to use what we observe there to 19 give us an indication of what might occur if volcanism 20 were.to be renewed in the Yucca. Mountain area and 21 specifically what consequences the existing volcanism 22 may have had during the period of active. eruptions.

23 As I'd indicated

before, we're i

24 aggressively involved in prelicensing interactions 25-with the. Department of Energy.

We see that as being-NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

)

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE; N W.

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

(2tT/) 234-4433

i E g:

l 1 ~

a very important element of. our ability to make 2

progress toward resolving this issue.

Issues of the 3-sort of I' mentioned, particularly-in volcanism, the-4 issues regarding the different kinds of models that

~

5 might be presented for flow and transport are crucial' 6

to the' performance of the repository and those are-7 best addressed by the technical staf f interacting with 8

one another on a regular basis.

9 We-do, of course, have anticipation. of 10 finalizing over the coming months and years two very 11 important guidance documents, the format and content I

12 regulatory guide which indicates to~ the Department of 13 Energy the levels of. detail that are expected-with.

t 14 regard to thrtir ~ data and models. of processes and 15 conditions and.also the license application review 5

16 plan, which is more of an internal document indicating 17 how the staf f would review and judge th'e acceptability.

18 of the data and the models that are presented in the l

19' license application.

')

20 Budhi?

i t

21 MR. SAGAR: The next feature we talk' about

=!

22 is the validation of models.

Because of time and I

23 space scales involving the repository system of-

~

l 24 predicted mathematical' model, models would be the

-25 primary tool'that we believe would be used to show NEAL R. GROSS h

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

~

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

20 K

1

' compliance with the safety standards.

From the'NRC's 2

point of view, the issue is what ' criteria should:be 3

used to determine the. degree of. confidence in these' 4

4 models.

~

5 What complicates this, the resolution of.

6 this issue, is that it's not always possible -to' 7

differentiate between deficiencies..in'models and the 8

deficiencies in data against which these-models are 9

evaluated.

10 The staffs of_the NRC and the Center have 11 participated in a recently concluded international 12 program known by its name of INTRAVAL.

The focus of-13 this program was to study 'the issue.of model 14 validation primarily in the. context of flow and 15 transport models, not in the context ' of the - total.-

16 systems performance assessment.

17 There was: ' fair - agreement ~ in this : group 18 that while it may be possible to make assumptions 19 regarding the adequacy of models,.it's impossible to 20 fully validate, and those are in quotations,-these 21 models in the scientific sense.

A post-INTRAVAL 22 international project to study this issue-.further is 23 being planned.

24 Other aspect of model validation we are 25 studying through the study of natural analogues NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.

(202) 2344433 WACHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433'

al.

'important 1.

because ' natural analogues can' provide 2

information'on processes at the scales, at the space i

3

'and time scales of the repository.

We have selected A

4 the Pena Blanca site in Chihuahua, Northern Mexico and 5

an archeological site on the Greek Island of Centerini 6

as two natural analog sites for study.

Both of-thel 7

sites will be studied in the context of long-term 8

migration of contaminants.

The.Peha Blanca site, and 9

we have a picture that we brought with us, exhibits 10 geologic and climatic regimes that are very similar to 11 that of Yucca Mountain and the advantage of studying 12 the site is that there is a built-in source term-from 13 an existing uranium ore body.

14 Preliminary analyses that we have 15 performed indicate about three things that I want to 16 mention here, that the most-recent migration episode, 17 migration of uranium oxide that is, occurred about 18 50,000 years ago.

This is based on the' age dating 19 that we did.

The important thing to keep in mind 20 while looking at this conclusion is that 'in sites like-

^{

21 Yucca Mountain which are in arid

climate, that.

l 22 migration of contaminants may occur not

-as-a.

t 23 continuous process but as pulses in time.

24 Number two-thing that we concluded ~from 25.

this -is that migration of uranium was limited -to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 234-4433

. WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

22 1

within about.25 meters from the ore body.

All that' 2

tells us is that the migration rate is pretty slow 3

and, number

three, that migration is greatly 4

. influenced by the fractured nature of the tuff.

We do 4.-

5-see a preferentiel migration part following the 6

fractures.

7 Data from Centerini, which is the second 8

natural analog

site, has established that -the 9

transport properties of the volcanic tuff are similar 10 to those at the proposed repository horizon at Yucca 11 Mountain and.the good thing about centerini is that we.

12 know quite ~ precisely how old that site is and 13 therefore the time at which the source term was 14 created is well known.

15 Further investigations hopefully would 16 reveal the pattern of migration.

It's quite clear 17 that confidence in models will be obtained through the 18 application to a variety of situations that span the 19 scales evident in the repository system.

Most of the 20 scientific community involved in the high-level waste.

21 disposal is of the view that validation'is probably 22 the incorrect term for this process. Other terms such 23 as confidence building or model testing would be more 24 appropriate.

Thus, it may become important for!the.

25 repository process to develop appropriate guidance on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

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

. _ - - _ - _ ~

.__7

-b j

23 l

i i

this issue.

In.this regard, the staffs of the NRC and l

2 the CNWRA and the Swedish regalatory agency SKI are 3

currently ' developing: a position paper. on -.'model.

4 validation from the prospective ; of the. regulators.

5 This position will be presented at-the '94 symposium l

6

.that is scheduled to occur in October of this year.

7 MR. BERNERO:

Budhi, I wonder.if I could I

8 interject here.

This is a very sensitive problem, 9

this matter of model validation or code validation and

!l 10 there's a lot.of international interest in it.

We 4

j 11 often cite a former Chairman.of the Commission who

.i 12 spoke of the assurance in ' high-level. waste is ' not 13 proof in the ordinary sense of the word.

People are 14 also~saying this is validation but not validation.in' 15 the ordinary sense of the word.

16 There is a great deal of concern about 17 terminology, but a fact remains.

In modern society N

18 there are many models that are so" complex that-you t

19-can't really validate them..Further. complicating the-20 models in high-level-waste is the time scale, their.

21 processes which are so slow that it makes it' even more

.22 difficult.to model.

23 There are models, we have these very 24 exotic

aircraft, very.. exotic structures 'where f

25 ultimately you can validate the model by building'it-

-NEAL' R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS I.ND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W:

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

=.

,(

5 24 F

1-and discover failure that way, but you can't do that t

2 with a repository.

So, the point I would make is

~

.3 that the international-community, just last week the i

1.

f 4

Radioactive Waste Management Committee at OECD

~

5 discussed this at some length.

There is-a concern 6

about the terminology.

The intent.is as Budhi says, j

7 to go as far as.we can to get an understanding and to.

8 validate or build confidence or whatever we would call.

9 it, but being very careful about what we call it too-10 so that we don't mislead..

But it is-not validation in 11 the ordiTary sense of the word..

i 12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

I assume that the.

l 13 pulse nature of the migration of.the ore body in_the i

14 Pena Blanca site is due to changes in precipitation,-

15 through climatic changes and so forth?

s 16 MR. SAGAR:

That's the reason we expect,

' 17 yes.

But.it's also because the precipitation is not i

i 18 the average. quantity that-you say.

It's'only-one 19 millimeter a year.

It does occur in episodes and'that 20 influences the migration pattern.

21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

What you mentioned t

22 in migration was about 25 meters, am I correct?

But, t

23 do you know if that was with one episode or that's-the ~

[

t 24 cumulative effect of perhaps a number of episodes?

[

.. t 25 MR. SAGAR:

That is the cumulative, the

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

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

~

25 1

total that we have observed.

2 The next issue that we would like to bring 3

forth here is the effectiveness by which we.can-use 4

the early site characterization data tnat has started 5

coming in.

In addition to the surface based site i

6 characterization activities, especially in the past 7

year, DOE initiated construction of.its-underground 8

experimental facilities.

Real time analysis and 9

reduction of the early site data by DOE to evaluate 10 site suitability and to assess the testing strategies 11 for the future and analysis by the NRC to review 12 repository and engineered barrier design and therefore t

13 draw inferences on suitability of data will be vital, 14 we-believe, to-the success of this project.

t 15 We also know that this is - not an area 16 really where the NRC and the CNWRA can be particularly 17-proactive.

The principle actions to be taken are 18 DOEs.

These include providing prompt-access to the 19

data, publication, of DOE's topical and periodic 20 reports and publication of DOE's iterative performance 21 assessment, and to conduct technical exchange meetings 22 with the NRC.

23 Nonetheless, we are beginning to explore 24 currently available data.

Three specific' areas I'd 25

_like to focus your attention'to.

The CNWRA staff has i

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

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

l 26 1

entered into its geographic information, computerized 2

geographic information system database several? levels f

3 of data related to structural geology and we have a

~

i 4

picture that.I'd like to project at this time.

The-

i 5

data includes stratigraphy, fault

geometry, 6

topography, hydrology, geochemistry, et cetera.

Some 7

of this data was obtained from the USGS in the digital and some of the data was 8

form and the other 9

digitized from maps.

We now have the capability of 10 examining three dimensional geometry of any of these i

11 geologic structures. The map that you see is produced 12 from this GIS database and we can rotate it, we can 13 look from whichever angle we want to,.and we. can 14 produce three dimensional hard copy maps which have 15 select attributes.

We can ask to choose certain 16 attributes and plot only those.

17 Through such data interpretation we expect 18 to determine what correlation'if any' exists between J

if various structures.

I might point out that the NRC 20 staff is also acquiring the same facilities here. - So,

21 they would be able to manipulate the same database.

22 In FY

'93, the Center started a new 3

23 research project related to the understanding-of 24 hydrologic controls on the scale of the Death-Valley 25 region and again.I brought a picture with us to show i

NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

-]

1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(20?) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 t

27 1

you the region that we are studying.

In this project 2

we would ntrive to systematically examine the 3

hydrology and geochemistry data to determine which 4

geologic structure controlled the overall hydrology of 5

the region, including identification of recharge and 6

discharge areas.

The main point is that in the next 7

10,000 years, whether the repesitory will get flooded 8

because the water table can rise up or by how much 9

would the recharge or discharge change, that's what we 10 want to look at.

This is one step in determining the 11 effect of the future climate and potential future 12 reconfiguration of geologic structurer on the water 13 table in the region.

14 Doctor Patrick has already spoken about 15 the third item, so I will not spend much time on it.

16 It relates to the studies we have done on the magmatic 17 activity of volcanism. The key elements of resolution t

la cf this concern are timely release and acquisition of' 19 such data by DOE and timely evaluation and use by both 20 00E and the NRC staffs in their decision making 21 processes.

22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Just looking at one 23 of your pictures there, it looked like the volcanic 24 cones were in a line.

Is that true?

25 MR. SAGAR: The tree that you see, and you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

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

28 L

1 can -- yes, you can. draw a'line through them,'yes.

4'I 2

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

But you don't know 3

if structurally that's the reason they're not --

f 1

4 DOCTOR PATRICK:

That's correct.

i 5

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Yes.

{

6 DOCTOR PATRICK:

As I had alluded tio; 7

before,-that's one of the things that-needs to be 8

investigated, and investigated not just at this site.

l 9

With so few cones, it's very difficult to'get good' 10 statistical information.

It's also difficult to get i

11 good structural control information.

So, we're l

1 12 looking at not only this volcanic field but-four other 13 volcanic fiel$s to try tr examine things : just.like r

14 that.

15 Another common piece of. wisdom, if you 16 will, is that volcanism is topographically controlled, 17 but we have already found that there are'particular.

i i

18 fields in the basin and. range where that sort of.

l 19 control does not seem to be evident under rigorous 20 statistical testing.

.[

21 MR. SAGAR:

(Slide)

I'd lih to move over ~

-j 22-to slide 8,

which deals with the use of expert.

L 23 judgment.

24 The future performance of the repository 25 is greatly dependent upon the evolutionary changes'in i

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND "*NSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEwUE, N W.

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

29:

1 its boundary conditions-and forcing f unctions.

These 2

in turn are controlled by

tectonic, volcanic, 3

hydrologic, clinatic and other procasses.

The main 4

point to note is that expert judgment, in_one form or 5

another, is expected to be-included in various 6

interpretations of these processes and events.

The 7

matter of acquisition and extent to which s'ubjective 8

expert judgment can be used in the regulatory process 9

are matters of concern.

In particular, definition of.

10 disruptive scenarios and associated probabilities that 11 are used to drive the performance estimates of'the 12 repository are currently accomplished largely through -

13 subjective means through the use of expert judgments.

14 Being a

first-of-a-kind

endeavor, 15 qualifications of experts, who are the experts in the 16 case of a 10,000 year structure, especially those who 17 are unbiased, is uniquely difficult in this project.

18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Is - any expert 19 unbiased?

20 MR. SAGAR:

Yes.

That's.probably a dead-21 expert.

22 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:' I think the~ last 23 time you briefed us--on this issue, I believe I asked'-

24 if there had been much work done in.the-scientific 4

25 community on the acceptance of expert judgment on the' j

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

l I

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

~ $

.O

.~

30 1

part of the public.

I be.lieve,there wasn't too much 2

known. at that time.

Has anything happened in the 1

3 interval?

Is anybody looking at that?

4-MR. SAGAR: Well,.we did the. study through 5-the use of consultants to look at the history of 6

expert elicitation and how accurate were those proved.-

7 Obviously, most of those are in the business world 8

where the short-term predictions were made.

Sports,

'9

betting, for example.

Climate is another -- L the 10 weather is the other one. And'the results were mixed.

11 Some were proved right, some were proved wrong..

I 12 gucca that's not a conclusive evidence of anything.

13 There have been studies, psychological 14 studies as to what kind of expert opinion gets' 15 accepted by the public. We haven't delved deeply into

[

16-those.

17

./MMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

One can just 18 imagine that in a very public process like ours, that-19 that is a question that's of some interest.

~

20 MR. SAGAR: There is some opinion from the _

21 OGC'that we have discussed which is that so long'as 22 they can put the-expert on the stand and. question I

23

them, that that -becomes acceptable -in the public.

j l

24 forum.

But this being a long drawn out process, it's j

25 not quite clear how that would get accomplished.

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

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

31 l

1 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Yes.

2, HR. BERNERO:

But there is the separate 3

5 3

forum.

In the' media discussions are made and experts-i 4

are extracted by one means or another to speak at the 5

different polls.

Just last week, I believe it was, 6

McNeil-Lehrer had something on the high-level waste 7

where the program was criticized for constructing the-8 repository without the proper QA.

I don't know if you 9

saw the program.

10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

I saw it.

I saw 11 it.

12 MR. BERNERO:

You know, completely false-13 accusation, missed the point of site characterization, 14 but it's the way they -- and that's a very good-e 15 program, very good reporting.

But if you draw almost 16 at random, that's What you get and that's the expert 17 opinion the public often listens to.

They're'not

[

18-familiar with the one on the stand who's testifying.

i 19 DOCTOR PATRICK:

We found that, and Budhi 20 will speak to that next, the rigor and the. very -

't 21 specific form of the process-that--you follow ~for the 22 elicitation or the selection of experts and then their 23-elicitation seems to be crucial to their credibility.

24 Not just from a;public perception point of view,'but-25-al'so from the perception of the. peers.

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

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

-32 1

that's a good deal of what happens during a licensing 2

process, is, "My expert says this' and your expert says 3

that.

Now, where lies the truth?"

4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

The Agency has had 5

some experience and learned some lessons:in the use of 6

expert judgment in the development of NUREG-1150.

7 Since this is one Agency, I assume that the Center is 8

aware of that experience and the. lessons learned.

9 MR. SAGAR:

Certainly, yes.

10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: 'It pleases me to see 11 you shaking your head.

12 MR.

SAGAR:

In. fact, we used the 13 instructions in that NUREG to do a study, which I want 14 to report here.

A main idea for us to do this was to 15 gain some understanding of the elicitation process and 16 see how the process actually applies to a real 17 problem.

Also, we thought through this process we 18 might get some data that is not available from' site 19 characterization at this time and that could be used 20 in the next phase of the' iterative ' performance 71 assessment.

22.

We conducted an expert elicitation on one b

23 subject and that was related to the future climate at 24 Yucca Mountain.

Five experts selected through peer 25 ranking, which I believe for the first time-in-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 33 1

sense that we formally asked their own peers to select 2

these five people, that to me was unbiased, of course--

3 they were~ biased technically speaking, but they were i

t 4

not biased towards the project in any sense of the

~

5 word that we could determine.

6 So, we selected those five experts through 7

peer ranking and the questions posed to them were 8

related to-the future precipitation for the. next -

.1 9

10,000 years and the possible temperature changes at-10 Yucca Mountain.

Careful records of the elicitation, 11 including ~

videotapes, were kept.

Experts were-12 providing information relevant to the site. They were 13 given a tour of the vicinity and they were asked to 14 prepare technical rationales for their opinions.. They j

15 actually went back and spent a few weeks to actually 16 look at the data and used.their best knowledge to_

17 figure out what answers to give.

18 All five experts -- and these are the 19 results we got from them.

All five experts agreed 20 that the main factor that would control future climate-1 21.

at Yucca Mountain is the physiography.

That is the 22 existence of the range shadow effect because of the

• ~

23 mountain range.

While experts produce different 24 probability curves for future precipitation and 25 temperature, the extremes, if we. considered all the NEAL R. GROSS 1

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

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

(202) 234 4433

e.

34-l'

'five experts,-and-looked-at the. extreme' values they 1

.2' gave us, the extremes indicated'at most'a-doubling.of 3

precipitation.

That's the 100 percent increase.in 4

precipitation over the 10,000 years and tLa degrees in 5-average temperature of three degrees 'in 10,000 'yeara.

6' They did consider-for the short-term the carbon-7 dioxide, greenhouse effects.

8 We would use the results of the study and-9 plan to produce a guidance document on the subject in 10 the FY

'94.

Some of the preliminary conclusions from-11 the expertielicitation were, number one,-the expert j

12 elicitation, however well done, and this is.important 13 and is emphasized by NRC several times, is not to take 14 the place of the data that can be collected on-site 15 without endangering sites isolation capabilities. So, 16 you do not not do the site characteriz 4 tion activities.

ij 17 and just move to expert opinions.

I 18 Number two, the unbiased selection of 19 experts is critical

.and, number

three, full' 20-documentation to the. extent that results-can be' 21 reproduced if needed is essential.

22 (Slide) Moving to the next slide, we talk 23 about the subsystem and total system performance. The' 24 subsystem and total' system performance requirements 25 contained in 10 CFR Part 60 provide the-regulatory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

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

35:

?-

foundation for. repository safety assessments.

There-2:

are two concerns on the-subject.

Number one, that'the 3

' performance requirements are stateo clearly and 4

-unambiguously, and number two, that the subsystem 5

requirements do.indeed provide additional: assurance' 6

regarding safety of the system. These issues may have 7

to be revisited after the National Academy of Sciences 8

finishes its review and after. the Environmental' 9

Protection' Agency develops its standards that will be 10 applicable to the civilian repository at Yucca 11 Mountain.

12 An additional question is the amount.of 13 detail that must be included in the subsystem and 14-system models which Doctor Patrick also touched 15 earlier.

Currently we are examining matters for 16 resolving technical uncertainties which we did through 17 the application of the-SRA process,'the systematic-i 18 regulatory analysis process.

But there-are two that 19 we are specifically working on.

The number' one is the 20 groundwater travel time requirement.

Number two is 21 the substantially complete containment requirement and

, these two are -- they are in 10 CFR 60.113.

23 The third thing we'are working on is the 24 extent to which meeting the - subsystem requirements 25 adds to the overall confidence in the safety of-the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 PHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344 433.

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

s 36 1

repository, some sense for that additional confidence i

cc 2

that's provided by meeting the subsystem performance 3

requi:*ements.

4 The main problem in the groundwater travel

^

5 time' requirement is the difficulties in defining the-6 phrases, fastest part of likely radionuclide travel ~

7

.that exists in that rule and the disturbed zone in a 8

technically meaningful way.

We are at this time 9

looking at defining them in the-alternate method and 10 we are doing some numerical simulations. to see -if 11 those alternate words or phrases would indeed be.

12 acceptable.

13 The technical meaning and-means of 14 assessing substantially complete containment has been 2

15 the subject of ongoing study by CNWRA and-NRC staff.-

16 The current Center perspective is that, number one, 17 the regulatory record is clear with respect - to the-18

.substantially complete containment, applying th'e word -

19

" substantial" to actual performance.

And number two, 20

'that it specifies really zero failures under-t 21 anticipated conditions. Number three, the f ailure may-22 be conveniently defined for purpose of_ this regulatory.

23 requirement as any ~ through-wall. penetration.

This 24 topic, by the way, I should point out is still under 25 discussion between'us, between the Center staff'and-t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAMSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

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

'(202) 234-4433 -

t 37 1

the NRC staf f and it's not completely resolved at this 2

time.

f 3

As Doctor Patrick said, we heve compleced, 4

together with.the staff of NRC Office of NMSS and

~

5 Office of Research, the second phase of the iterative 6

performance assessment.

The report has been writtan..

7 but is under management review at the NRC and at the-8 Center at this time.

So, I'm not presenting any 9

results here.

But the things that we have learned, at 10 least two or three things that we have learned from

. 11 that phase of the IPA, one of them is that time of 12 container failure has a direct ;orrelation.

We were 13 trying to see if the subsystem performance 14 requirements were directly correlated to the EPA 15 requirement in 191. The time of container failure has 16 a direct correlation we found when we calculated both 17 of them with the cumulative release, but we could not!

18 find a direct straight correlation.between the_other 19 two requirements, which is the groundwater travel time 20 and the gradual release rate requirement and _ the 21 subsystems.

22

_MR.

BERNERO:

Excuse me.

That's a very 23 significant indication.because we've known all along.

24 that the groundwater travel time is a. weak surrogate 25 for radionuclide. transport.

But I for one didn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.

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

38 Y.

1

-realize that slow leakage was a weak or non-direct 2

controller, that the package lifetime seems to be the-3 dominant one'of the subsystem performance.

-4 MR. SAGAR: The resolution.of these issues

~

5 may have to be revisited, as I've ' stated before, af ter G

the EPA formulates its standard for Yucca Mountain.

/

7 In

addition, we believe that

.the interactive 8

performance assessments, along with their auxiliary 9

detailed analysis, are extremely important toolsfor 10 examining the site and design data on a real time 11 basis.

We recommend that these exercises'should be 12 continued by both.the NRC and the DOE.

13 DOCTOR ' PATRICK:

The first five issues 14 that we've examined then'are ones that we've been 15 working on and have been a core component of. our -

16 program for the last several years.

17 The last item we'd like to discuss with 18 you is one that's newly identified this year.

Namely, 19 the. use of multiple purpose-canisters which the

.]

20 Department of.

Energy currently has under 21 consideration.

These are inner containers, if you-22

will, which could be -over packed to provide for-23 storage at a reactor at'an interim storage facility-24 for transportation. and possibly : even for ultimate l

25 disposal at the repository.

We've done just a little

~

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

]

902) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 -

(202) 2344433

-4 1

4 39 1

bit of work.in this area focusing primarily on the.

~

2 preliminary review of the regulatory basis for MPC and i

3 what-kinds of impacts multiple purpose canisters and 4

decisions attendant to those might have on the rest of 1

5 the repository.

6 The greatest regulatory. concern from our.

7 perspective, and it's a technical' concern as well, is 8

that should there be a failure to fully integrate the i

9 HPC into the overall repository program from the very 10 beginning, it may allow design decisions focused on 1

11 MPC to go forward which may cut ' of f alternative' L

12 designs that would be favorable 'for repository-t 13 performance.

We feel that early decisions regarding 14 the MPC then could, if not fully integrated, backed up

.y 15 by appropriate studies of the performance of those i

16 MPCs in the repository, could-lead to incorrect 17 conclusions regarding their adequacy.

18 Thermal loading is a particular areal 19 that's of interest-to us.

Most of-the attention to l

20 date has been given on such issues -as ' criticality,

.i 21

' test and inspection and so forth.

But'again, those-l 22 seem to focus primarily on how the MPC would behave in 23 its early stages of life and' don't think through the 24 process fully and integrate it with the ultimate 25 disposal 'of such packages at a high-level waste P

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

{

.1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W,

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

~ (202) 234 4433 u.

i

40 i

1 repository.

j 2

Not too much that can be 'said at ' this 3-point other than to indicate that it's an area where 4

the NRC

staff, and we've ~been party.to those 5

discussions, has begun to meet and interact with the.

6 Department of Energy and that's going to be. crucial to 7

first identifying and then resolving J the sorts. of -

8 technical concerns that may be associated with. MPC 9

performance.

10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

O n e.-

'of

.the 11 troublesome questions involving MPCs has been the 12 question of burnup credit.

It's not only.there, of 13 course, but I wonder to what extent you plan.to do 'any 14 work in this area and do you have any special 15 facilities that might be suitable for burn-up credit 16 studies and criticality studies?

17 DOCTOR PATRICK:

I will'make a couple of-18 opening remarks and then defer to Bob.

I know he's 19 like to comment on that subject as well.

20 We have certain facilities that are

I 21 available that could support-such studies.

At' this 22

point, we've not -identified any. need for' direct-'

. 23 studies of criticality to be done by our staff, have-24 not ~ identified any particular issues'there.

Most of' t

25 those studies-have been highly calculationally based.

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

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 j

1

41.

1-

'We're familiar with those computer codes and-I think i

2 it is an area where some alternative calculations may' 3

.very well be appropriate to evaluate what the 4

Department of Energy is proposing with regard to'those r

~

5 criticality studies.

6-MR.

BERNERO:

There's an interesting 7

development here that affects the need or the desire 8

for such-studies.

For years people.

debated' 9

criticality and burnup credit'with respect to storage 10 in pools and transport, _ especially the transportation, 11 because transport for reasons of mass and' bulk 12 optimizes at something the size of a railroad tank

.i 13 car, which is a large assembly. We have traditionally 14 required the ingress of

water, the ingress' of 15 moderator-in the safety review.

16 In this multi-purpose canister, however,.

17 it is turning out, and I'm surprised by it, but'it is

'l 18 turning out that the need for burnup credit-is not-in-

-19 storage and transportation, it's in -the:. disposal

]

q 20 phase.- It apparently 'is the. inabi.lity to: predict: in -

j 21 the disposal phase that the material-won't' over a 22 period of: thousands of years turn -into a rubble which

?!

i

~

23 might form a critical mass if' moderator:were present.

24 So, the concept. of burnup' credit ' may' 25 actually be provided not by burnup credit but by'some NEAL R. GROSS

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

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

- (202) 234 4433 1

' '4 2 l'

means to prevent slumping, perhaps filling up the 2

assembly and getting some sort of homogeneous. fill-3 instead of a void.

So, right now it's not clear.

DOE 4

has an extensive program-already underway on how to 5

verify the burnup and monitor the burnup of.the 6

assembly.

But at the same time, they'have studies in 7

their system process that will -look tolthis long-range 8

issue of how predictable is it that I can' keep;this a

9 material distributed the way it is to start with.

I 10 So, it's only on the burnup credit for 11 disposal that we're looking right now.

So, it'sinot.

12 clear what we need.

13 MR. THOMPSON: But I think our reliance on 14 the Center to do that effort right now,_we have not 15 identified any specific need 'or support from the i

16 Center on that particular issue, as I understand =it.

17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Well, would the 18 Center have expertise in criticality calculations t

19 anyhow?

20 DOCTOR PATRICK:

We have nuclear-21.

engineering staff - and ' mechanical engineering-staff 22 that have worked in those sorts of problems in the 23

past, r

24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Incidentally, you've

^

25 done the best job in helping me better understand what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(?O2) 2344433 -

_ ASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 W

\\,

43' l-I characterized unjustly.somewhat.as some ' hand f

2 wringing. When people talk about the MPC and the 3

importance of the canister because I've.

always 4

thought, well, yes, we know there's got to. be a t

5 canister for the repository and that canister has.to 6

be made to satisfy the conditions of the: repository, t

7 but I think your description makes me feel that that 8

decision on what is the canister might be driven by'

't 9

the storage and transportation provision's and

{

i 10 therefore it could foreclose out possible design.

11 features.

And I must admit I had missed that.

So, it

'12 was very helpful to have your description.

j

.13 DOCTOR PATRICK: A simplistic approach _has 14 always been, well, it doesn't. really much matter..

't I

15 because we can always over pack it again in something.

16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Yes.

i h

17 DOCTOR PATRICK: The focus has been on-the -

18 corrosion of the

package, looking-at _ 160.113

=

i 19 requirements.

But looking internally to. issues.of

• t 20 criticality and the like and looking-externally to'thef

l 21 ef fect on the repository, that broader integrated view

~

22' is the point we were trying to make.

.f 23 (Slide)

If we could have the final' slide,

-24 slide 11.

25 I've tried to summarize here, choosing

l

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

(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433

?

j 44

'l from among the preceding materials that we've briefed 2

on, five particular items, thatf I would offer as 3

central themes in the form. of

'a summary or a

i 4

conclusion of what we've learned so far in'the areas S

that the Center and to a large extent the.NRC staff is 6

focusing its attention on at this' point.

And you'll 7

notice a common theme in most all of these, that there 8

is a call for continued and productive. DOE _ and-NRC 9

interactions during this. prelicensing period.

We 10 think that looking at the congressional mandate ' of -

11 processing a license application in three years is an 12 incredibly difficult task and'that it's'only going to i

13 be through very productive prelicensing activities t

14 that that's going to be likely to.be successful.

15

Now, the first item there, as I had 16 indicated in one of the first charts, we have seen 17 over a

period of years, 'as you're well

aware, 18 continuing delays in the repository ~ program without j

~

19

-commensurate slips.

A couple processes that we r

20 alluded to in several of the discussion points are so-

-]

.I 21 complex, take such long periods of time to develop and i

22 come to fruition that we feel it's -- we're getting 23-close to the point where unless.there's some slip,-

I 24 some movement in the license application submittal

'l 25 date or some very clever approach to experimental t

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

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

45 1

design that we've not tripped.across, that there may' t

2 very well be - some real impacts on the ability to' 3

acquire the necessary data to license that~ site ~and 4

that repository.

-i 5

We just finished talking about areas Nhere l

1 6

discussionn need to continue with reg'ard-to d

7 integration on MPC.

I won't discuss that further.

8 Access to early site data is crucial _and

-i 9

staff has been working diligently'to'obtain access to

~

10 such data.

Here we need access to that data-to be 11 able.to make sound judgments regarding not.only sitei 12 suitability but the adequacy of the investigations.

13 that the Department of Energy is currently working on, 14 currently planning. We find ourselves 'in positions 'of 15 reviewing one at a time, veryLdatalled study plans, i

16 But it's the data that begins to-be. acquired from the d

17 early plans that gives.us the real insights'into the-18 adequacy of subsequent plans and the plans taken as a 19 composite.

20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Do we have

.a I

21

' mechanism for that to happen?

22 DOCTOR PATRICK:

Yes.

.j 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Is-- there a clear-

24 mechanism for~ data'from the site to be able_to --

i 25 MR. BERNERO:

Oh, yes.

We have---

l NEAL R. GROSS e s$No j

323 t us.

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

t

46 1

COMMISSIONER ROGERS: -- go to the Center?

2 MR. BERNERO:

Yes, we.have that.

We have 3

an agreement with ' DOE under which -- you know, 4

' protocol, under which there is. data access and then, 5

of course, the state gets accosc to the data as well.

j 6

DOCTOR PATRICK:

And then the final two 7

items I would mention are key technical issues that-8 we're examining, infiltration, the' movement of' 9

groundwater from the point of precipitation. down 10 through to the repository level and on down to the

. ii 11 accessible environment and then the potential.for the-12 probability of the consequences of renewed volcanism c.

13 at the Yucca Mountain site.

14 Those conclude our remarks.

I'd be happy j

3 15

.to entertain any additional questions that you might n

16 have.

17 CHitlluiAN SELIN:

I need to-leave.

'I i

i 18 Commissioner Rogers will chair the meeting.

Thank t

19 you.

^

20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS : ~ Commissioner Remick?

-I 21

' COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Well, I do' have two

~

22 questions, but first let me say that'I continue to be~

23 very pleased by the technical' work of the Center.

I'm' j

- i 24 also very pleased a t.' w h a t I perceive is a close I

25 interaction between the NRC staff 'and the - Center -

i i:

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

'(?O2) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 2344433 w

,4, f

47 s

1 staff.

I think it's a very powerful combination where 2

you folks,.in somewhat of isolation from the day to 3

day problems that the staff. faces, the crises they t

- 4.

face and so forth, can think about these things on a 5

more extended and in-depth.

And yet the staff brings 6

with them the realism of the. regulatory process and 7

their experience and so forth.

- So,.it's extremely 8

powerful combination. and I'm pleased to see how I 9

perceive it to be growing.

10 That brings me to a point.

In my past 11 history,-

I had advisory committees or review-

+

12 committees that reported to me on institutes and 13 centers that I was responsible for and I served on a t

14 number of those.

I know in addition to the advice you-15 get from review committees or reviews, in addition to 16 that is the fact that the people being reviewed, the 17 Center in this case, benefits too from time to time 18 having to sit back and analyze what it.is you're:

19 doing, what you've accomplished, what you haven't and 20 where you're headed' in order so you can tell the

. 21 review groups.

22 When.I look at reviews you've received:in 23 the-last' half year or so, I see'that'in~ December,-If i

24 guess, you had the semiannual review of the staff-for-

]

25 about three days, immediately followed by.our Nuclear 1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW.

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

~

48' l'

Research ' Committee, ' review. committee, :for. several

-r 2

days.

I assume some of the same-topics.

I. think.

3 before that you had the Center-for Nuclear Wastei--

4 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste,. excuse me, review.

~

5 and now you have this one.

.Although I know reviews 6

are good, I wonder if ~ we're.not killing you with'a 7

good thing.

8 MR.

BERNERO:

Excuse me, Commissioner.

I 9

You forgot the IG review.

10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: That 's one question.

11 The other question is.along that-.line.

i 12 Have you and the staff thought about is there any way' 13 that we can combine some of these'?-

In fact, I'look I

14 around and I see some of our NRC staff in the' audience-c 15 and. I think.that's great.

.This is a one hour 16 presentation, but chances are our NRC staff here~who 17 don't get an opportunity to go down for the six month' 18 review and so forth.and hear..your. presentations in 19 detail and perhaps.even have an opportunity Lto ask you t

20"

. questions, if you've given a thought ' about somehow 21 combining some of these and maybe holding your-six 22 month review, which I guess is going to becomeLan 23

' annual review, sometimes in Washington where more of 2

24 our NRC staff could attend and participate?'

t 25 I realize that probably.means bringing.a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W C202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005

. teo2) 2;M4433 j

- -. ~.

.~ -

V:

49 1

-number of people to Washington, but if you coupled it 2

.with,a presentation to the Commission and so forth; 3

maybe it could be justified and maybe we could 4

minimize tha number of reviews on the assumption, 5

making the assumption that that's quite a few reviews 6

for a small group to be constantly regurgitating some 7

of the same information.

8 DOCTOR PATRICK:

Those are some very good-9 suggestions and we have begun'an' analysis.

For lack l

10 of a better term we call it a zero-based management 11 initiative under NRC's program management leadership 12 to examine such things.

Not just the review groups, 7

13 but the variety of other means and techniques that are i

14 use'd to monitor, document our progress, record problem' 15 areas, lead to their resolution and so forth.

16 But there are a number of constraints that 17 operate on our trying to combine some of these things.

18 The federal advisory committees prefer to meet alone.

19 They don't mind observers', but 6 typical. advisory._

20 committee meeting does not lend _ itself to staff 21 interaction.

We took the first step.this year to.:see-22 if moving two reviews together in time, if not in an 23 overlapping sense at least to abuti'them end to end, 'if -

l

~

24 there would be some efficiency gained in the. process 25 of doing that, and I think there was. ~ Our staff'was NEAL R. GROSS rOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHCOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

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

50 l'

able

.t o ' b a's i c a l l y p r e p a r e ' o n c e.

Even though the 2

audiences were'somewhat different-we were able to

.3 p r e p a r e.. o n c e' a n d provide adequate in' formation, we

-f 4

felt',

to meet the purposes:

of-both of those 5

organizations.

6 We are specifically looking-at a.

7 modification to the existing review structure which we -

8 think will incorporate several of the' suggestions that

.{

9 you've mrt c

.In tandem with our considerati'n of-o 10 going from semi-annual reviews to annual reviews by 11 senior NRC management, we would space throughout the

~

12 year more focused program area reviews. which would l

13 most likely be hosted here at White Flint and-would 14 allow more of your technical staf f,. in additio'n to the '

t 15 management staff, to participate in those.

'So, for h

16 instance, we would have an engineered barrier. systems 17 program area review which would span.NMSS work and 18 Research, and that could be given here and in a period h

19 of a couple of days be able to go into great detail on r

20 accomplishments, problem areas, new directions and so i

21 forth.

r 22 I think they're good suggestions.

j 23

. COMMISSIONER REMICK:

And - I. think this 24 would encourage the team approach.

25 DOCTOR PATRICK:

Absolutely.

j L

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

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000$

(202) 2344433'.

51L l

1 ~-

MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

a 2

COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Where more of.our 3

staff would be familiar with the Center and their 4

personnel and what they're'doing and vice versa.

5 DOCTOR PATRICK:

Absolutely.

6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Thank you'.

~

7 That's all I have.

8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Commissioner 'de 9

Planque?

10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Well, I'd like 11 to thank you for the excellent briefing.

I always' i

12 find these extremely interesting.

I especially.

[

13 appreciate it when you do give us some results.

You.

14 know, we're always intrigued with why.you're doingla 15 certain thing,-but everybody leads us up to the end' 16 point and we t.Ver hear.the answer.

So, it's really 17 wonderful when you can spr. inkle..in some of the' 18 concrete results that come out of the research.

We 19 appreciate that.

~

20

.I have one question.

It'.s probably mainly.

21 for Mr. Bernero, but may require a reply on your part 22 as well.

23 I noticed from thef bt dget document that 24

.there's some plans to shift some of the work'that was-25 more traditionally done here to the Center.

Is that a

NEAL R. GROSS.

H COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

.f 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W

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

152 l'

going to just change the priorit'ies at the Center or 2

is it going to require more manpower at the Center?'

3' MR.

BERNERO:

No, the Center ' work is-4 planned around a core professional staf f of 54 and the

L 5

budget projections we have right now, I'm thinking in r

6 terms of the ' 95 ' budget.

We won't be having any

-7 significant change in the Center' priorities and the 8

nature of their work.

t 9

COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Okay..

What 10 about in terms of --

11 MR. BERNERO:

Other than driven by the i

-l 12 program.

Remember, we're in a phase of the. DOE 13 program where the reactive. data phase is. really

'f 14 building up, depending on the budget that DOE gets, of i

15 course.

16 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Yes.

But in

' i 17 terms of review of DOE documentation and reports, that 18 sort of thing, is there any shift in that?

19 MR. BERNERO:

Nothing very significant in-20 my mind.

l 21 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Okay.

All 22 right.

That's all I have.

Thank you very much.

23 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Incidentally, along 24 that line, I'd like to say I appreciated your pretty 3

25 pictures also.

I look at our own staff and it would 1

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

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

(202) 234 4433 i

g m.

i 53' t.-

i e

1-be nice if from time to time you thought of. ways in l

2 your presentations to show us some pretty pictures of i

3 equipment or what.you're-doing.

4 MR. BERNERO:

I'11 bring the radioactive-

{

5 material right here and put it on the table, except

'l I

6 that Sam Chilk would have a f.it.

7 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:

Glitz works 8

every time.

9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: We've got to get the' 10 print a little larger though.

i 11

. DOCTOR PATRICK:

Yes, I apologize for-12 that.

r 13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, I don't have 14 any special additional questions and I'd like.to just

'i i

15 join my colleagues in thanking you very muchifor a i

16 very informative' briefing.

17 DOCTOR PATRICK:

Thank you.

'l 18 (Whereupon,.at 2:38 p.m., _ the above-19 entitled matter was concluded.)

20 21 i

22 23 24' I

i 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCHIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. -

)

.(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005

'.(202) 2344433.

l CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER

.t l

This is to certify that the attached events of a' meeting

[

of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:

TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON ACTIVITIES OF THE CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSIS (CNWRAF

}

PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:

-JANUARY 25, 1994'-

~

were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription 1

is accurate and complete, to the best of my-ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.

l

//A A4 Y s

V V D Reporter's name:

Peter Lynch r

i

?

f F

l 9

HEAL R. GROSS cover assomes me vnamscamens 1313 AMost itLAME AV98UE. M.W.

f (sori rw-uss wAmanovow.or sesos (most mm j

8 w

x, CURRENT;lSSUES IN THE HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses o

January 25,1994 Briefers:

R. Bernero, NMSS W. Patrick,fCNWRA B. Sagar,.CNWRA

Contact:

M. Knapp, NMSS--

Phone:

504-3324

Slide 1 l

..-.~.,~-,.~._..i-...-,,---,.~.,,m.,-,-

,-...m.--

w,,

,-4

i.

PURPOSE 2AND SCOPE OF PRESENTATION

, i Provide a Summary Status of the CNWRA Delineate Basis for.' Selection of issues e

Analyze Identified ' Issues

-Statement of Issue

-Progress tosDate on Addressing issue

-Outlook and Plan for Resolution of issue Slide 2 1

w

..w.

..%i+e-

--w v.,

w

--n-e,ee.,*_

.-,,w s v

-e

. e e

e e

,..,.i..

r-.

+

w w

.,w..-

..,, +

x BASIS FOR SELECTION: HLW. PROGRAM ISSUES e

Systematic Regulatory Analyses e

Iterative. Performance Asses.sment e

- Prelicensing Interactions e

Development of Analytical Capabilities e

Research on Specific Topics h

Slide 31 T

N ws

...w-,,-

.w..

.w.-w-.

.de-,.n v-,.

e

...++.--,----,=w

-e +

s.%...

-..-.s'

-.2--aw m

+-%'

.-a..-

e.-.-.-

e.

• .*u-...ms n-. -

~

. SELECTED 1 TOPICS: HLW PROGRAM ISSUES e.

. Data and:Models of Processes and Conditions e

Submodel and Model Validation e

UseLof-Early Site Characterization Data e

Use of Expert Judgment e

Subsystem and Total System Performance e

Multiple-Purpose Canister-(MPC)

~

Slide. 4.

__.L,-

f f

DATA AND MODELS OF PROCESSES AND CONDITIONSL ISSUE

-Criteria to Judge Adequacy of Data and Sufficiency of Models

-Time to Make Such Determination

-Treatment of Multiple Alternative Interpretations 4

4 PROGRESS

-Alternative Conceptual Models for Unsaturated Flow f,

-Evaluation of importance of Coupled Pr6 cesses

-Investigation ~of Tectonic and Volcanic Processes (A photograph of Crater Flat as seen from Yucca Mountain will be shown here.)

-Sensitivity Studies in Iterative Performance Assessment t

RESOLUTION

-Prelicensing Guidance / Interactions, F&CRG, and.LARP

--Focus on Performance.

Slide 5

^

SUBMODEL AND.MODEL VALIDATION T

4 ISSUE

~

-Confidence in Models at Repository Time and Space Scales:

l

-Distinction Between Model and Data Deficiencies s

PROGRESS.

-Participation.in INTRAVAL and DECOVALEX Study of Natural Analogs

-(A photograph of the Pena Blanca site exhibiting mineralization and fractures will be shown here.)

l

-Laboratory and Field Studies

-NRC/ SKI Joint Paper.on Model Validation RESOLUTION L

-Manage Expectations; Scientific Validation not-Possible l

-Develop Technical Basis for Guidance.

l Slide 6 i

i i -

2.~.

in

. J.

.,,...l..

".-.ow_,.

..... _,. +..,...

..-.ma

.',J.

4 USE OF-EARLY SITE CHARACTERIZATION DATA t

ISSUE

-NRC Inferences Regarding Adequacy and Suitability. of Data:

-DOE Use in Judging Site sAdequacy and Modifying Strategies

-NRC Use to Review Repository and EBS Design

~

PROGRESS

-Visualization.of Structural Geology of Basin and Range (A Geographicallnformation System (GIS) image of the topography, faults, and earthquakes will be shown here.)

-Geochemistry and Hydrology of Death Valley. Region (A GIS image of the. topography, principal groundwater flow directions and the area and concentration of hydrologic investigations will be shown here.)

-Volcanism =and Tectonism in Basin.and Range e

-RESOLUTION

-Policies and Procedures for Timely Access?to Data

-Prioritize ~ Analyses Based on Key. Technical Uncertainties Slide 17:

= -...

.~

E P f a

^

USE:OF EXPERTLJUDGMENT 4. 4 ISSUE.

-Acceptable Level of Sul,jective Data / Judgment

-Treatment of Diversity of-Opinion

-Definition of an " Expert" for First-of-a-Kind Program PROGRESS-

-Review of Current Practice

-Study of Use in Other Industries

-Elicitation on Future' Climate:at Yucca Mountain RESOLUTION

--Develop Technical! Basis for Guidance i-

-Aid in Developing Public Confidence in Process-i Slide 8'

~

g s.

~

SUBSYSTEM AND TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ISSUE

--Relationships Between Regulatory Requirements-

-1

--Acceptable Level of. Detail in Modeling.

-Use and Acceptability.of Corroborating Evidence PROGRESS

-Systematic Regulatory Analysis to Develop Relationships 3

-Proposed Rulemakings and Guidance Documents

-Use of Iterative Performance: Assessment RESOLUTION!

1

-Complete'Rulemakings and Guidance Development.

1

-Focus Performance Assessments on Resolving issues.

r

- Slide.9.

.x m

e.

r.

u m m

. x

~m-.m

--__._ -.,..._ -... -,. ~... ~...... _,,,,,.. -.

,_.c

.-m..

.o

MULTIPLE-PURPOSE CANISTERS A

ISSUE

-Potential Impacts:of MPC on Repository Design.and Performance

-Integration of MPC with Transportation, MRS, and Repository Compatibility of MPC.with Thermal-Loading Alternatives e

PROGRESS

-MPC has.Become DOE. Preferred Concept

-Reviewed Regulatory Considerations Regarding MPC e

-RESOLUTION

-Plan.for Work lon MPC But A'ssume High Uncertainty

-Foster-Interactions with DOE. on Technical Concerns and. Integration issues Slide 10

,g-.-

m..

.s

_m4,..

.+,..,

y y

,..,%s

.'.4.%,.

c..y.,

, _ e m

i CONCLUSION l

e DOE /NRC INTERACTION ON LONG-TERM TESTING NEEDS l

AND POTENTIAL lMPACTS ON SCHEDULE L

-e-DOE /NRC:lNTERACTION ON MPC REGARDING INTEGRATION AND TECHNICAL' ISSUES e

ANALYSIS OF EARLY SITE DATA TO BE CONDUCTED ON AN ONGOING BASIS e

lNVESTIGATION OF INFILTRATION

-DOE /NRC Interaction on Testing Program

-CNWRA JAssessment e

AGGRESSIVE RESEARCH AND INTERACTIONS ON VOLCANISM

-Probability and Structural Controls

-Consequence.s Slide:11

,r-.-~

e-w

.a

+.,

or m- - +. --

-..w.-.-v*=+

,,m..

v a-

.--rw.-*

-se

,r w ~ s

-w ne 2.<w-- - -.. -

we aw.

=

r.-+.

1,e-e,- e r-

+,ww is e-

'r<ww-4, w

t<

= -<-

rw e