ML20128J015
| ML20128J015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/27/1996 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-T-0108, NACNUCLE-T-108, NUDOCS 9610100157 | |
| Download: ML20128J015 (264) | |
Text
- - - -. . - - - .. . ._ - - - . _ . - _ _. -_
@fflo101 Tranceript of Procrdings !
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
/}cyg/ o/d
Title:
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste I 86th Meeting TRO8 (ACNW)
RETURN ORIGINAL TO BJWHITE M/S T-2E26 Docket Number: (not applicable) 415-7130 i
THANKS!
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada lO.
oate: Friday, September 27,1996 l
i l MN LE y T-0108 PDR Work Order No.: NRC-859 Pages 299-495 hJ 50f 5 i!
N i \b h" \ , [h L'
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. f Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
O 10oo33
""""*'""'"'2"'"
(202) 234-4433 ACNWOFFICECOPY- RETAIN FOR THEUFE OFTHECOMMlTTEE l
1 J
DISCLAIMER PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE I
SEPTEMBER 27, 1996 l 1
The contents of this transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste on SEPTEMBER 27, 1996, as reported herein, is a record of the' discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
O V This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.
N NEAL R. GROSS i
court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS '
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 w __
299 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 +++++
4 86th MEETING (SECOND DAY) 5 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 4
6 (ACNW) 7 +++++
8 FRIDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 27, 1996 10 +++++
4 11 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 12 +++++
13 The Advisory Committee met at the Hotel San 14 Reno, 115 East Tropicana Avenue, at 8:30 a.m., Paul W.
15 Pomeroy, Chairman, presiding.
l 16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
17 PAUL W. POMEROY Chairman i
18 B. JOHN GARRICK Vice Chairman 19 WILLIAM J. HINZE Member 20 21 l
22 23 24 ,
q,)
( 25 \
NEAL R. GROSS 1 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE,, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
300 1 ACNW STAFF:
, , . 2 Miche.'.e Kelton, Technical Secretary 3 Richard K. Major 4 Howard J. Larson 5 Lynn Deering 6 Andrew C. Campbell 7 Richard P. Savio 8 Carol A. Harris 9 Virginia Colton-Bradley 10 ACNW CONSULTANT PRESENT:
11 Martin J. Steindler 12 ALSO PRESENT:
13 Bob Andrews
'v'
)
14 Jack N. Bailey 15 Bo Bodvarsson 16 June Fabryka-Martin 17 Dan McKenzie 18 Praviz Montazer 19 Mal Murphy 20 Richard Price 21 Bruce Robinson 22 Don Shettel 23 Nick Stellavato 24 Dean Strucker i 25 Abe Van Luik NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
301 1 INDEX
,q 2 AGENDA ITEM PAGE k 'l
'~
3 3) Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman 302 4 4) Welcoming Remarks 303 5 5) Site Characterization Integration through the 6 use of Performance Assessment 315 7 6) Repository Design for Viability Assessment 385 8 7) Comments from Interested Parties 9 7.1) Nye County presentation 455 10 7.2) Others 493 11 12 13 O
kj 14 15 I
16 17 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l
/s*
t Q) 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
- j
302 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (8:37 a.m.)
3 3) OPENING REMARKS BY THE ACNW CHAIRMAN 4 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: The meeting will now come 5 to order. This is the second day of formal presentations 6 of the 86th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear 7 Waste. Today the Committee will first discuss with 8 representatives of DOE site characterization integration 9 through the use of performance assessment as well as some 10 examples of the expert elicitation in site analysis.
11 Secondly, we'll discuss with representatives 12 of DOE repository design for viability assessment. Third, 13 we will hear comments from interested parties, including
,rx 14 Nye County; four, continue the preparation of ACNW 15 reports; and, finally, discuss Committee activities and 16 future agenda.
17 We are joined today by ACNW Consultant Dr.
18 Martin Steindler. Mr. Richard Major is the designated 19 fedelal official for the initial portion of today's 20 meeting.
21 This meeting is being conducted in accordance 22 with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
23 We have received no written statements from members of the 24 public regarding today's session.
25 In just a few moments Assemblyman Robert NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
t- l
303 1 Price, Chairman of the Nevada legislature's Committee on
- 2 High-Level Radioactive Waste will welcome the Committee.
('"'
3 And later today representatives from Nye County will 4 address the Committee. Should anyone else wish to address 5 the Committee, please make your wishes known to one of the 6 Committee's staff.
7 It is requested that each speaker use one of 8 the microphones, identify himself or herself, and speak 9 with sufficient clarity and volume so that he or she can 10 be readily heard.
11 The first item on our agenda this morning is 12 some welcoming remarks from Assemblyman Robert Price.
13 It's a great pleasure to have the assemblyman with us this
\ >' 14 mornino, and we look forward to what he has to say.
15 Assemblyman Price. Thank you for being here.
16 MR. PRICE: Thank you, Doctor.
17 4) WELCOMING REMARKS 18 MR. PRICE: Is this working? This is working.
19 Good because while I normally am not too concerned about 20 microphones, I do have something I want you to listen to a 21 little bit later, in a few minutes.
22 I want to thank you for joining us and having 23 your meeting here in Las Vegas so that the folks here that 24 don't normally have a chance to get around the country and
~h i ((_,1 25 the public and so forth have the opportunity to talk you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
304 2 and to express some of their ideas, concerns, and 2 questions, and so forth, 7--
b 3 Now, I was not quite sure. Is this considered 4 a political meeting or is it strictly scientific or --
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I think we can be either 6 one.
7 MR. PRICE: Oh, okay. In that case --
8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Perhaps both.
9 (Laughter.)
10 MR. PRICE: I don't want to get to leaning off 11 to the right. I'll leave that off for the -- as you 12 indicated, my name is Bob Price.
13 I'd like to tell you just a little bit about A
( !
'> 14 myself. I have been a member of the legislature for 22 15 years now. I was first elected in 1974. I am an 16 electrician by trade. I came here to Las Vegas 1954 from 17 Wyoming and joined the apprenticeship program.
18 We in Nevada call ourselves a citizens' 19 legislature. And so we have people from all walks of life 20 who have to go back to work or go back to their businesses 21 if they have any left by the time we get done each year.
22 I have worked off and on during my adult life 23 at the Nevada test site going back to the above-ground 24 test. I believe the first time I ever took a clearance 7~
( 25 out there would probably be about 1956 or '57 and worked NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
305 1 at various times in various locations in almost I believe fs 2 all cases except once for Reynolds Electrical and
/ )
~
3 Engineering in every area on the Nevada test site, 4 including the area that doesn't exist, Area 51. And so I 5 have a little bit of a perspective, at least, from 6 people's opinions, concerns, and history going back to the 7 activities out at the test site.
8 As you indicated, I am currently chairman of 9 the Nevada High-Level Waste Committee, of which we have 10 some members with us this morning. Max Bennett? Max is l
11 one of our members and also has worked out at the Nevada l Jack? Oh , right in the back, l 12 test site and Jack Reagan. ,
13 Jack Reagan, who is a senator. And also, as a matter of
,0
\\ ') 14 fact, Jack is my senator, an excellent senator.
15 And we have Joan Lambert, who is an 16 assemblyman from the Reno area. Richard Perkins, who is a 17 police officer and our majority leader on the Assembly 18 side, is also a member; Joe Neil, who spent many years at 19 the Nevada test site with Reynolds Electrical and 20 Engineerins. He is retired now. Jce is a senator. And 21 he actually scarted at the legislature in the Senate two 22 years before I did.
23 Lawrence Jacobsen, who is a senator from 24 Menden-Garderville, Nevada, which is pretty much at the b)
(, 25 other end of the state, and is our longest NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 (202) 234-4433 m
306 1 serving-legislator. I believe total between the Senate 2 and the Assembly, he has over 30 years now. And we have k 3 Senator Mike McGinnis, who is a senator from Fallon, 4 Nevada. So we have a very experienced group of people who 5 are interested and participate.
6 Our basic job, so to speak, has been to 7 oversee and learn what we can about the process and make 8 reports back to our bodies from time to time. At least up 9 to this point a big portion of our funding has been 10 through DOE, at least coming from the federal government 11 to our agency on nuclear waste and then through to our 12 committee.
13 And we have been able not only to meet in
'v 14 vf2rious areas around Nevada but from time to cime because 15 some of us also participate in national organizations -- I 16 also am the Vice Chairman of the National Conference of 17 State Legislatures Committee on High-Level Nuclear Waste 18 Transportation. And others of us belong to committees 19 that also deal in the area -- and I'm not exactly certain 20 which all committees that my colleagues belong to, but we 21 have traveled also throughout the country and held 22 meetings not only in Nevada but throughout the country.
23 Just to give you a short idea of what we have l 24 done, during this last year we held our first meeting, N l t
(b 25 actually during the legislative session, last year in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
307 l 1 1995, which was in September. And we had presentations
,-~ 2 from DOE and the Nevada's agency for nuclear projects, I
\ s'
'~
3 which is our agencies from the folks from Nye County and 4 Clark County, which are all affected areas, as well as 5 some of our Indian, Native American, folk who have 6 interest and concerns about Yucca Mountain. In fact, it I
I 7 was educational. From that aspect, it was something that 8 up to that point I had not thought about.
9 It's interesting those things that you hear.
10 I was not aware up to that point in time. They even were 11 not happy with the situation of the Ghost Dance Fault 12 being named that because that was a sacred title in their
,_ 13 time and in their ways.
\- 14 Our committee has all been, our members have 15 all been, to Yucca Mountain a number of times. I try to i
l 16 get out there as often as possible. We held a meeting in 17 April of this year in Celiente, Nevada, which is, oh, 18 about -- I don't know -- 70, maybe 100 miles from here.
l l 19 Caliente, which you may already be aware, is a 1
20 small town that is one proposed location where if rail is 21 used to transport the waste to Nevada it would be the area 22 where they would transfer it from the rail to the heavy 23 haul trucks. And the heavy haul trucks would then through 24 a route -- two or three possible scenarios for routes l /~~'N f J
\_/ 25 would leave Caliente, travel over the extraterrestrial NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
308 1 highway, and through Rachel, Nevada, which I would suggest g- 2 I left some brochures for you.
(
3 If you have a little time while you're here, 4 some people have seemed to enjoy going out to Rachel. And 5 you never know what you're going to see.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. PRICE: But travel. And there is a 8 possible entrance to Rachel, but we don't expect that that 9 would be use. But there is what in the old days we used 10 to call the back route out of the test site available, but 11 we think that they would probably go travel around.
12 Anyway, it's one of the proposed routra going.
13 Earlier this year most of our committee
(%
\~- 14 members were able to travel with us to Buffalo, New York 15 and visit the West Valley location and learn a little more 16 about the problems that they had had in the past and so 17 forth.
18 Anyhow, we have visited the Oconee plant in 19 South Carolina and Surry, Virginia. Oddly enough, from a 20 personal point of view as electrician, we were always 21 happy as I was growing up and going through apprenticeship 22 and later as a journeyman wire man when they were building 23 a nuclear power plant somewhere because that meant tons of 24 dollars for construction workers and so forth, but I had
() 25 actually, in fact, never visited a nuclear power plant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
309 l
1 until I became a member of this committee and then also '
j 2 later on as the chairman. And it's been a very O 3 interesting perspective from my end of it to look at their 4 operations and potential problems and so forth.
5 There was something -- you know, I was kidding 1
6 a little bit about whether this endeavor is political or l l
7 whether it's scientific. And, of course, our hope in what l l
8 you are working towards in the technical committee and 9 everything is a scientific evaluation of Yucca Mountain.
10 It's been interesting to observe over time.
l 11 Now, our United States senators, our United States 12 congrersmen, the last three governors of Nevada have all 13 been very adamantly opposed to Yucca Mountain as a siting.
\/ 14 In general, I would say that the public has 15 been generally in opposition, but it's interesting. There 16 have been polls that have gone each way. But they tend to 17 vary a little bit depending on which site is having the 18 poll done.
19 But an interesting development from the last 20 two or three years is that the labor unions that are 21 involved in the tunnelling and so forth have come to 22 support, officially support, the location at the test 23 site. I know because I know them they look towards it as 24 possible jobs.
ID
's ,/ 25 The one thing I have mentioned, at least one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
] (202) 234-4433
310 1 of the technical committees I attended a few years ago, I
<- 2 think they estimated that the jobs once the project was I
(
3 complete and operating would actually be less than 100.
4 So I'm not sure that my friends from that area realize 5 that. It may not be quite as big as they anticipate.
6 Two weeks ago I had the opportunity, I was a
'7 delegate to the Democratic National Convention and spent a 8 very enjoyable week in Chicago. I visited Chicago from 9 time to time, never to stay there a week, but it was very 10 enjoyable. They were trying to make up for what had 11 happened in 1968 and had cleaned the place up. Everybody 12 was very happy.
13 I didn't stay in toan. They were a little bit p
s i N' 14 expensive on their rooms. My friends who were staying at 15 the Nevada Hotel were paying $200 a night. And I stayed 16 in a little town called Naperville about 30 miles out, 17 rented a car, and drove back and forth.
18 I like to listen to talk radio and news 19 stations when I travel around, and even at home. I 20 learned something interesting. Of course, I had seen the 21 newspaper ads. Our friends at Nuclear Institute, Nuclear 22 Energy Institute, had started what I now realize because 23 there has been quite a bit of publicity over it a campaign 24 to try and get folks more interested in moving highly A
( .) 25 dangerous nuclear waste out of their -- in Chicago they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
311 1 were talking about away from Chicago land to a remote,
,f-2 safe location far away. And they were running television
(/ 3 ads, radio ads, and newspaper.
4 I talked to one of my friends there and had 5 asked her and she did send me -- I asked for a copy of 6 their radio ads. So I wanted to play that for you this .
l 7 morning because it adds a little more confusion to about I 8 whether this is purely scientific or if there is some 9 politics.
10 Now, what you're going to hear -- and I'm sure 11 maybe some of you have heard it, but I'm sure others j l
12 haven't -- is the voice over. It dcesn't have the music.
13 It is much better with the music because they were playing O
14 dah dah dah, dah-dah-dah kind of music that is a little 15 bit heavy-duty background.
16 The particular voice over it that you're going 17 to hear is talking about the Kansas and Illinois area.
18 The radio spot that they were running for their ad I'm 19 sure had many -- in fact, I know that they do because now 20 they're moving around the country -- was talking about 21 Chicago land. But I wanted to play this for you just in 22 case you hadn't heard it. And I think I have it keyed up 23 here.
24 Oh, wait a minute. I just turned on the O
(_) 25 radio, instead of --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
312 1 (Laughter.)
-s 2 MR. PRICE: Okay. Let's try this.
() 3 (Whereupon, the following radio announcement 4 was played.)
5 " Illinois nuclear waste. It just keeps piling I
6 up here in Iowa and Illinois, tons of it, near our homes, 7 jobs, schools. Congress says, ' Move the nuclear waste 8 now.'
9 "Our senators and our members of Congress I 10 agree. But Bill Clinton says, 'No. Pile it up. Wait.'
11 Why? The President has been bullied by two Nevada 12 senators. They bark. He balks. Nevada senators. Here 13 in the heartland, we're ignored.
(_ \
\
\ ') 14 "It's time Bill Clinton listens to us. Mr.
15 President, move the nuclear waste out of Illinois and 16 Iowa. And it's time the President hears from us.
17 "So call 1- (800) 865-9009. We'll make sure 18 you're heard. Call 1-(800) 865-9009, a message from the 1 19 Nuclear Energy institute. That's 1-(800) 865-9009. It 20 just keeps piling up."
21 (Whereupon, the foregoing tape was concluded.)
22 MR. PRICE: I have to tell you that the 23 version they were playing in Chicago said "When Nevada 24 senators bark, the President jumps." And I couldn't tell O
(_) 25 you how much it would cost to get a spot like that to use NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
313 1 in the next Harry Reid campaign, where he could say,
( 7s 2 "Here's what Miamians are saying. When I bark, the L')
l !
3 President jumps."
4 (Laughter.)
5 MR. PRICE: I'm not sure that the Nuclear 6 Energy Institute has thought of that particular angle.
7 (Laughter.)
8 MR. PRICE: But, at any rate, I imagine that 9 probably not all of you had heard that, and I thought you 10 might be interested, at least, in listening.
11 And, again, in all seriousness, I do want to 12 thank you for having your Committee meetings here so that 13 those of us from the counties and the cities and the (h
/ 14 citizens at large do have an opportunity to talk to you.
15 I want to apologize ahead of time. I don't 16 have to tell you that this is campaign time. And I have 17 this meeting at 8:30, another -- it's not exactly a 18 political meeting, but it's one of our homes for wayward 19 children that's having an open house that I have to 20 attend. It starts at 9:00, a little bit flexible. I have 21 another meeting at 10:00, one at 12:00, one at 2:00, 22 police ball at 5:30, and a couple of things that are going 23 on with that.
24 So I am going to have to leave early this n
k ,)
m 25 morning. I will not be able to stay. But I would be more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
314 1 than happy to answer any questions. And, again, thank you
, 2 on behalf of our committee and the Nevada legislature.
!,-)
3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Well, thank you very much.
4 We really appreciate your taking the time to come and talk 5 to us. And we'll take into consideration very carefully 6 all of your remarks this morning.
7 MR. PRICE: Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: But I'd like to thank you 9 especially for the brochure on the ET Highway.
10 MR. PRICE: And I left a few more in the 11 background for anyone who is interested. The response to 12 that has been amazing. I stopped in Las Vegas Chamber the 13 other day, and they were saying they were getting about b)
\/ 14 right or ten calls a day from people wanting brochures.
15 And that's one of the reasons I brought some with me this 16 morning to try and swing by and drop off to them.
17 I've been in the legislature 22 years. It's 18 always interesting what catches people's attention. But 19 when we dedicated that highway, there were people there 20 from all over the world. I personally did interviews with 21 the media from Switzerland and Germany and France and what 22 have you. And I did an interview with Cosmopolitan that 23 they printed last week.
24 (Laughter.)
C)
's ,/ 25 MR. PRICE: And just last Saturday they're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
315 1 starting a new -- here. I'll give these guys a plug.
2 They're starting a new TV channel, cable channel, next V
3 spring called the Military Channel. They were out last 4 Saturday and did some pieces interviewing myself and some 5 other folks on Area 51 and Rachel. The interest is just 6 astounding to me.
7 Anyhow, thank you so very much.
8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you. We appreciate 9 your comments.
10 Let's see. Where am I here? Our first 11 presentation this morning is going to be on site 12 characterization integration through the use of 13 performance assessment. Dr. Garrick is our lead member 14 for that. John?
15 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thanks, Paul.
16 5) SITE CHARACTERIZATION INTEGRATION THROUGH 17 THE USE OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 18 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yesterday we followed 19 discussions of specific technical issues on radionuclide 20 transport with discussions on what it all meant in terms 21 of the overall performance of the repository.
22 The activity that is supposed to answer the 23 question of overall performance is performance assessment 24 or, as DOE chooses to call it, total systems performance (O_) 25 assessment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RF: ODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-!701 (202) 234-4433 g
316 1 In principle, performance assessment should be 2 the analysis activity that provides perspective and 3 context to technical issues. Thus, it is an extremely 4 valuable source of guidance on what we should be worrying 5 about. ,
6 It is the committee's understandino that a 7 principal focus of the scientific and engineering 8 components of the Yucca Mountain project over the next two 9 years will be to provide the technical basis for the 10 models used in the TSPA.
11 We have been told that the TSPA for the 12 viability assessment will be a primary vehicle for I
13 expressing the knowledge that has been gained by the O 14 project over the past several years or, as it was put by 1
15 Abe Van Luik yesterday, a dry run for the license 16 application TSPA.
i 17 So the committee is extremely interested in !
18 moving the TSPA into center stage and to utilize it to the 19 maximum extent. And, of course, the NRC's performance 20 assessment activity adds input to us for helping us decide 21 what are the most important things that we should be 22 considering. That's a very important and difficult task 23 in a project that's as expansive as this; that is, to 24 decide where we should be focusing our attention.
25 It's my understanding that we have a rare NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 90005 3701 (202) 234-4433
i 317 1 opportunity today, that we're going to be able to ask
, 2 questions of a cross-section of people connected with the t
i' 3 performance assessment. 7 don't think we've had this 4 opportunity before.
5 If I understand it correctly, Andy, we're 6 going to have a sort of a panel format. It's going to I
J 7 involve Abe Van Luik, June Fabryka-Martin, Bruce Robinson, ,
l l
8 Bo Bodvarsson, and Bob Andrews. We're pleased to see you l
l 9 here, Bob. So I think they're going to come up here.
10 And while they're doing that, some of the 11 things I think we would like to hear from this group have 12 to do with the proposed plan for eliciting expert judgment l l
l 13 information and how that's going to be used to O -
14 characterize the uncertainties in the process models.
15 We are hopeful of being able to hear some 16 discussion about the model abstraction process; that is, 17 the transition from the detailed physical process models, 18 to the actual performance assessment calculations.
19 We're also hopeful of hearing some 20 reassurance, if you wish, of the means of assuring close 21 collaboration and cooperation between the scientists, 22 principal investigators that are generating the source 23 material, and the analysts that are actually exercising 24 and work;ng the models.
.O As far as these areas are concerned, in the (s/ 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
318 1 modeling area, some of the things we're interested in, 2 just to telegraph a little bit, are such issues as the i
V 3 decomposition of bottom line results, such as the CCDFs, 4 into specific rank-ordered contributors, the idea here 5 being to be able to backtrack from the final results to 6 those physical processes and those phenomenological 7 quest-ions that are really the most important and to be 8 able to see them in context with what they have 9 calculated.
10 We hope, continuing with modeling questions, 11 to hear a little more about the basic framework of the 5
12 model and now the notion of scenarios fits into that 13 framework.
14 We're very interested in the means by which 15 there will be some sort of eventual weighting of different 16 transport scenarios, for example, and different 17 hypotheses. Again, in the spirit of transitioning the 18 performance assessment from a deterministic model to a 19 risk-based model, one of the obligations for doing that is 20 to have the analysts of the models tell us what issues, 21 what hypotheses, and what scenarios are the most 22 important.
23 Finally, something we have always been 24 interested in as far as modeling questions are concerned A
() 25 is the treatment of uncertainty, especially the treatment NEAL R. GROSS CoVAT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
319 l
1 of the initial conditions or the initiating conditions, if I
,s 2 you wish, to think of them in the context of scenarios and
( )
~# 3 how those are propagated through to the results.
4 On the elicitation side, some of the things 5 that this Committee is very interested in, of course, 6 we're very interested in the general procedure of 7 elicitation.
8 We know you have been doing quite a bit of 9 planning on how you're going to implement and elicit 10 information from experts. In that regard, we're 11 interested in the structure that you're going to employ 12 for the experts to express their values of the parameters 13 or the information that they're going to present.
[~'T Y 14 We're interested in the source material that 15 will be employed and how that source material will be 16 presented to the experts. And, of course, we're 17 interested in peer review and public participation in the 18 process and what you intend to do about that.
19 As far as the collaboration question is 20 concerned; that is to say, the cooperation between the 21 scientists, the investigators, on the one hand, and the 22 analysts, the modelers, on the other hand, the PA 23 modelers, one of the things, of course, that we're anxious 24 to see is that teaming be such that there is high 25 confidence on the part of the scientists and the people NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
320 1 providing and generating information, that there's high 73 2 confidence on their part in the models and the way in w)
(
3 which their information is being treated and the sense of 4 buy in of the performance assessment such that the public, ,
l 5 our Committee, and others can also elevate our confidence l 6 level in the PA.
7 So I think that what we'll do is maybe, Abe, 8 you want to kind of give us a few opening comments. And 9 then the Committee will ask some questions.
10 DR. VAN LUIK: Is it necessary for each 11 speaker to identify themselves for the record?
l l
12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I think so. i l
13 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Well, I think it would
~s (x/ i 14 probably be a good idea.
15 DR. VAN LUIK: Abe Van Luik, DOE.
16 The reason I asked my fellow workers on the 17 project to be with me on this panel is because the agenda 18 says "O&A on" all of these subjects. All of these 19 subjects cover the subjects that were covered yesterday.
20 And I thought: Who am I to defend flux, dilution, 21 dispersion, percolation when we have the eminent people 22 here who have actually done the work?
23 As far as questions on TSPA-95, abstraction, 24 expert elicitation, and the peer review, I can answer
/^
's 25 questions there, but so can Bob Andrews, which is why I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCA'BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000'.,-3701 (202) 234-4433
321 1 invited him. And Bo Bodvarsson and Bob are both part of
-~ 2 the management team that is managing the expert V 3 elicitation, the first one which we plan to do to review 4 and give us some insights into the uncertainties in Bo's E work.
6 So I have enough material here that I could l
7 probably drone on for an hour and a half, but I think the 8 point is that you have already listened to and read what 9 our plans are in some of these areas. What I was going to i
10 do is give you a very quick update. And then if you would 11 please ask very specific questions that we can give to the 12 experts, I think you would learn a heck of a lot more and, 13 frankly, so would I, s- 14 Another reason that 7 wanted to assemble this 15 team here -- and I'm only sorry that on the agenda you 16 didn't ask for anything about the near field because we 17 need an engineer sitting right there.
18 But from now on the Yucca Mountain project in 19 this focus towards license application is one team. We no 20 longer have separate entities that do all of these things 21 and then maybe/maybe not work together. ,
1 22 I think symbolically now we're all one team. l i
I 23 And I think the way we're working together, we have 24 already become one team. I think Bob is as familiar with
/'"% i
( ,/ 25 Bo's work a month or so after receiving it as Bo is. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
322 l
1 I think Bo is quite as conversant with what PA is doing as
! 2 PA is. And I think the statement is true for Bruce. We
!f~~\
V 3 are actually pulling it all together, in my view. But l
l l 4 them I'm DOE, and I'm prejudiced.
5 But as far as the abstraction is concerned, I 6 think the PA plan that I spoke of yesterday actually lays 7 out, as I said, what the team should consist of and what 8 their work scope should be.
9 And, if I can read from my notes here, the 10 plan is to have a total system performance assessment core 11 team that kind of directs the overall work and then an 12 abstraction core team, which consists of sites and/or 13 design people and then people from the PA activity.
- 14 They get together and plan what is to be done.
15 They conduct workshops. And, as I said, they start later 16 this year. They document the workshop. And then they go ;
i l
17 ahead and conduct the analyses.
18 What we don't want in these teams is managers 19 like myself pontificating. We want the actual people that 20 will do the analyses and that will do the work to be the 21 ones that design the work and then conduct it. And then 22 there will be interim status reports. And the results of 23 this work will be synthesized and fed into TSPA.
24 The planning for this has been done by Bob in
(_/ 25 consultation with the site and design people. And I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 323 l l
1 if there are specific questions about that activity, we 2 can pass them to Bob.
('- 3 As far as the expert elicitation is concerned, 4 you are familiar with our plan. I think, in a nutshell, 5 the plan is to follow the -- is it eight points of light l 6 or nine points of light? I forget. But the branch 7 technical position that we have seen from the NRC, I think 8 we have no problem attempting to follow the spirits, if 9 not the letter, of those suggestions in there. And so we 10 plan to do so to the extent practical.
11 However, these expert elicitations are not at 12 the same scale and for the same purpose as the very large 13 expert elicitation we've done on volcanic hazard and g~
~- 14 seismic hazard. These are very much focused on the 15 internal certainties within one model, each elicitation l
16 is.
17 So the scope is very different. And the 18 purpose, we are basically not doing this to impress 19 outside bodies. We are doing this because we feel that 20 this is something we need to do to build our own case and 21 to build our own confidence in our own work, 22 So we're doing this for ourselves, but we are 23 doing it knowing that we are a public project. And, 24 therefore, we are in a fish bowl. And we want to do it im
() _
25 right. So we're following the recommendations of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
324 1 branch technical position.
- 2 The status of that work is that the paper that O 3 I shared with you, which was the preliminary plan, has 4 been commented on by the potential participants and is 5 being finalized this week. Last week there was a meeting 6 to discuss the changes that need to be made.
7 The letter going to probably 20 or so 8 different recognized experts in this field asking them for 9 nominations I think was being drafted this week. I don't 10 know exactly what the status of it is, but maybe Bob can 11 fill us out on that.
12 We're basically proceeding in a step-wise 13 fashion through that plan. We will receive nominations.
C '\
\
k '> 14 We will look over the qualifications and the interest and 15 availability of those people. And we will follow a 16 written procedure in how to finally select those people.
17 However, the selection, as you know, depends a 18 lot on subjective judgment also as to whether this is a 19 person that can cooperate, whether this is a person who 20 would come in and defend on view and not be eclectic in 21 terms of passing judgment on other people's views in a 22 fair manner. So there's a lot of subjective judgment that 23 goes into selecting a panel so that we can get a product 24 out of the panel.
O k_) 25 You mentioned public participation. What we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 325 l 1 intend to do is select several organizations, such as you, !
l 2 well, generally the NRC; the states; and perhaps others, l O 3 the affected counties, and ask them to nominate one person 4 to be an observer only because we do not-want every ,
I 5 meeting to be a large public meeting, but we do want l l
6 observation by the interested parties so that it's an i
7 open, yet a very controlled process.
8 As far as the peer review is concerned, a very 9 similar story there. We drafted a letter this week to ask 10 for nominations to the peer review committee. I gave you 11 the schedule for the peer review. l 12 Basically we would like to' start identifying ;
t 13 people by the first of -- well, by the first few weeks of i 14 October -- see, time sneaks up on you -- and by January to i
15 have a panel that starts looking.
l 16 We have identified four phases for their work. l 17 The first is an orientation phase to bring them up to i 18 speed on what we have done previously and what we are j i
19 doing now, basically looking at a lot of the activities i e
20 that I outlined yesterday. l 21 And then there will be a phase of them l 22 observing the abstraction activities. Where they would 23 actually give us interim reports, that would help us 24 define how we present and how we package TSPA-VA so that l 25 we can learn from their observations on our previous work.
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AN6 TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAr.b AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
326 1 And then as TSPA-VA is finished, they would 73 ) 2 actually become then a normal peer review panel and about 6
\_/ l 3 eight months later give us a report on all of the things i l
4 that they think need to be done better for the TSPA-LA or 5 need to be done differently. l 6 So it's a long-term peer review team. We have 7 not had much experience with this type of a team before, 8 but we have seen other examples where this has worked very l
9 well where the peer reviewers actually take the role of a 10 guiding group for a while and then turn back and do an 11 independent assessment of what we have done.
12 We have checked our procedures very carefully.
1 13 It's all workable without our current QA procedures. And k- 14 so we're moving forward under those procedures.
1 15 I think you would be best served at this point I l
16 to ask pointed questions. And I think the lady and l l
17 gentleman at my side will give you pointed and specific l 18 answers.
IT Like I said, we are a public program, and we 20 have nothing to hide. And you have questions. We 21 hopefully have answers. And if not, we will certainly 22 take note of that.
23 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Questions from the l
24 Committee?
fh
(_,) .5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I'm sure there are, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
327 1 maybe I can start with one to begin with just to clarify a 2 little bit. Of course, the Committee has buen impressed O 3 with the work that Bo has been able to do in a process 4 model. It's not clear to me, I think, in reading whether [
5 that process model is going to be abstracted or whether 6 it's going to be incorporated in its entirely into the 7 TSPA. Could you comment on that?
8 DR . VAN L'.'IK: I would love to comment on 9 that, but I think the appropriate person is Bob Andrews.
10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Okay. Certainly.
11 DR. ANDREWS: Yes. Bob Andrews with the M&O.
12 The answer is the former. It will be l i
13 abstracted. There's no way the full complexity and three i 14 dimensions and if it were transient, if Bo decided to put 15 transient events into that, the complexity that that would )
l 16 involve in three dimensions would just not be realizable 17 in a risk-type performance assessment, where we're trying 18 to evaluate all of the uncertainties in all of the 19 processes and all of the parameters to the best we can.
20 So the answer is we would simplify and 1 21 abstract the relevant, most significant output, if you 22 will, from that very detailed three-dimensional transient 23 process model in a form that we could use.
24 That output generally would be in the form as 25 it has been for previous TSPAs, although we did not use ;
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. J (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
...__._.m. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . -
4 328 '
1 the three-dimensional features of Bo's model in previous i
1 2 TSPAs, but we used 2-D and 1-D representations from :
- O i 3 earlier versions of that model that you heard about ,
l 4 yesterday.
l 5 We have abstracted fluxes, percolation fluxes, i I
6 distributions of fluxes, uncertainties in fluxes at -
i
! 7 repository horizon and for each of the hydrostatic graphic
}
! 8 units beneath the repository horizon, that distribution
- 9 being not just the spatial distribution, although we tried i
' 10 to look at that as well, but also the distribution between i
11 the fracture component and the matrix component or bulk 12 fracture component and bulk matrix component.
i
- 13 So I think probably hopefully that answers it.
14 So we're not using it in its full complexity. We're not i
i "
j 15 having a call routine to TUFF-2 that says, Give me fluxes
! 16 each time I have an uncertainty in a property or a a
j 17 parameter or a boundary condition." But I'm abstracting i
i 18 hopefully all of those uncertainties in a PDF, if you i
19 will, of the most relevant output from that model.
i i 20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Well, is this a matter of I
21 time that's disturbing? I'm a little unclear as to why j 22 you can't go through call procedures and simply ask i
1 23 questions like that in the process of carrying out the 1
24 TSPA.
25 DR. ANDREWS: Generally --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
-w - - - --y ..,-y- -r-- -- , .,y- .- - - - ~.y - y- -
,- 7,--
i 329 j 1 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I guess I'm concerned. The 1 i t 2 bottom line with what I'm concerned with is: What are you lO e
3 losing in that abstraction process? I realize that's a f 4 massive question that can't be answered here in its l l
i 5 entirety, but I'd like to hear a few statements about: i
! 6 What are you losing in the abstraction process? And why l
- 7 are you gaining so much over having that entire program i
- 8 sitting there as part of TSPA?
1 l 9 DR. ANDREWS: The what I'm losing is for each i
! 10 realization, for each uncertainty in each parameter of l
o 11 which -- I don't know how many gridblocks Bo has now, but 4
12 30,000, let's say, and each one of those gridblocks has a 13 certain uncertainty associated with it of about maybe 15 1
l 14 parameters.
15 So if 30,000 gridblocks times 15 parameters i
j 16 times who knows how many boundary conditions are also 17 certain and the problem becomes unwieldy computationally, 18 you're going to limit your sensitivity analyses from a 19 performance point of view to those things that are most 20 important. Not all 30,000 gridblocks are important, nor 21 is every one of those 15 parameters in each of those l 22 gridblocks important. !
23 But what we are losing is each time I make a 24 realization, one would like to compare the impact of that 25 realization back to something measured, back to a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
j 330 1 1 saturation, back to a perching or lack of perching, back 2 to a chlorine-36 observation, back to a tritium or
- O 4
3 carbon-14 measurement. And when you are doing the 1
i
- 4 multiple realizations, it is possible that you sample off i
]
5 of a part of the field that would not reproduce something 1
6 that was observed. That's very possible.
)
! 7 So you run some risk of hitting a part of the
', 8 sampling space that physically doesn't match observation.
I j 9 However, if you have run the process model a sufficient i
! 10 number of times, have sufficient understanding of what 1 11 drives that process model to reproduce or not reproduce i
12 the observed conditions, then you should have already l
1 j 13 bounded that to reasonable ranges of parameters to begin
- O l 14 with.
- 15 What I buy is a lot of time. It's just not i
! 16 feasible to run -- you know, that is running now overnight 1
i i 17 essentially. So I'd have to start'now for 600
)
j 18 realizations for TSPA-VA.
i 19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: That doesn't strike me as i
- 20 impossible.
i j 21 DR. ANDREWS: It's not impossible, but I'm 4
i 22 expectin3 improvements in that model between today and i
- 23 what you've heard yesterday and 1997.
1 24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: What does it take to run t
25 your model in its full scale, Bo? I don't want to prolong l
i NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
f WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 254-4433 (202) 234-4433
331 1 this too long, but I would like to get some more 73 2 information.
6 i G
3 DR. BODVARSSON: You mean in terms of 4 computational time? Is that what you're talking about?
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Yes.
6 DR. BODVARSSON: It depends on a lot of 7 things, like how good is your initial condition, how close 8 are you to steady state, are you doing transient pulses, 9 are you doing dual permeability, and all of those.
10 But I think Bob hit it kind of on the mark.
11 You can get generally a good steady state run with 30 to 12 50 thousand gridblocks overnight unless you have a climate 13 change kind of a model where you have a lot more r,,\
'- 14 infiltration causing a lot of phase transitions and all of I 15 that. It may take a few days, up to a week for one of 16 those. But most of the cases should take overnicht would 17 be fine.
18 Then also if you do a series of cases, you can 19 do it smartly or you can do it kind of dumbly. If you go 20 from -- like if you want to do a variable infiltration 21 rate at the different stages, you wouldn't jump from a low 22 to a high back to a low. You would start at a low one and 23 then a little higher one and then a little higher one. So 24 each one is close to steady state already. So it won't 7-(_) 25 take that long. So that may cnly take a few hours to get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
332 1 to each one of those. !
1 l
.3
, 2 MEMBER HINZE: If I may ask, Bob, you've I s a
\ )
3 talked about focusing in on the important items in terms 4 of the sensitivity studies. I guess one of my questions 5 is: Bo, are you at a point where you can state which of 6 the 15 parameters in each grid point are the critical ones 7 to exercise your model?
8 DR. BODVARSSON: Starting from about nine 9 months ago, we heard about the June '97 date for TSPA-VA.
10 Given the fact that there's a lot of work to be done 11 before that to make all of these things consistent in a 12 single model with the gas, with the fluid, with the heat, 13 and all of those and looking at sensitivity studies to O
'v' 14 understand totally all of the different parameters, the 15 milestone, what you have now, is just a point in time. We 16 are aiming for June '97 as when we can answer those 17 questions.
18 But, of course, we have gained a tremendous 19 amount of insights already into those parameters that we 20 think are critical. For example, if you look at rock 21 properties with these maybe 10 of the 15 parameters you 22 have in the gridblock, there is no question that the 2 23 dominating ones are the matrix permeability and the alpha 24 values for the fractures. Those are the two ones.
p 25 Other parameters, like the residual
. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
333 1 saturations, like the details of the Vander Hukten 7- s 2 parameters for the matrix, are not permanent. So already I e \
V 3 they may reduce things from ten to two in that context, 4 although we need to look at some of the others.
5 We also know that the coupling between the gas 6 and the heat and the moisture can be really substantial 7 for different problems. For example, the gas fic a is 8 tremendously important for thermal loading issues. That 9 needs to be very carefully calibrated for those kinds of 10 studies.
11 So we've gained a lot of insights already.
12 MEMBER HINZE: So you're doing the sensitivity l
13 studies, too, to determine that? l
(")
'/
l 14 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes, we are doing sensitivity 15 studies. We are also looking at various futures and 16 putting this together in a single model. We have been 17 doing a bunch of one and two and three-dimensional models 18 on different parts of the problem. And now it all needs 19 to put in a single consistent model for TSPA-VA in June 20 '97.
21 MEMBER HINZE: Bo, we are all aware that 22 there's a difference in the warm, fuzzy feeling that's 23 associated with the uncertainty bounds you put on these 24 parameters within different grid points in the
~S s) 25 hydrogeological units.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 'elHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 334 1 I guess my first question would be: Is that 0 in any way validated in the program or in these -- is O 3 there any quality assessment placed upon these parameters 4 within a grid point?
l 5 In other words, your matrix infiltration --
6 two years ago when this committee was out in Las Vegas, we 7 had a meeting, which you very graciously and well 8- participated in regarding the unsaturated zone.
9 One of the concerns there was that we seem to j i
10 be preparing ourselves to get a lot of information at that 11 repository horizon. Indeed, we are collecting a great 1
12 deal of information on ESF through the ESF,-but we have a 13 lot of information that we need above and below, which is 14 perhaps in one sense much more important than it is in the 15 repository horizon. So we have a difference in the 16 quality of these in the various hydrogeological units. -
17 How is that quality detailed and documented in 18 your data?
1 19 DR. BODVARSSON: I'm still not quite sure 20 about the question.
l 21 MEMBER HINZE: Okay. You have a i 22 hydrogeological unit. i 23 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes, yes.
24 MEMBER HINZE: You've got some information --
25 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4*'43
335 1 MEMBER HINZE: -- directly measured there.
- 2 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes, yes.
V MEMBER HINZE: We've got a range. All right?
3 4 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes, yes.
5 MEMBER HINZE: And let's say that we have a 6 hydrogeological unit above that or below that.
7 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes, yes, yes.
8 MEMBER HINZE: And we don't have any direct 9 information on it except extrapolating it.
10 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
11 MEMBER HINZE: And certainly there is a 12 difference in the quality.
13 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes, yes. I see.
s
\- 14 MEMBER HINZE: How is that quality imposed 15 upon your model?
16 DR. BODVARSSON: I see. The data that we have 17 come from two main sources. One is boreholes, surface 18 boreholes. And the other one is the ESF. Those are the 19 two ways to get underground.
20 Most of the rock property data that we have 21 come from boreholes. And those boreholes have sampled the 22 hydrogeological units both above and below the repository 23 horizons. So we have quite a lot of samples, both in the 24 PT and in Tiva and the Topopah, even in the Calico Hills, p.
'x_/ 25 in the ziolitic and vitric sense.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
_ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ __ . . _ _ _ _ . --. _ _ . _ . ._. _ _ . _ . . _ - _
336 1 So the ESF has allowed us to gain tremendous 2 access to the repository horizons and above it through the 3 tunnel and looking at the moisture conditions in situ in 4 those areas. And that's where that helps us a lot.
5 I still think that the quality -- that we have 6 substantial data also above and below. And the way we 7 treat it in the model, we do a matching with moisture 8 tensions and saturation and change the rock properties.
9 And then the code, 1-TUFF code, gives us the 10 sensitivities of these results. For example, if you have 11 a hydrogeological unit with very few measurements, it will 12 give you a tremendous range of uncertainties in the And then I will go back perhaps to l 13 results for that unit.
14 Russ Patterson and tell him we need more measurements in i
15 that unit. And maybe that will improve the situation.
16 But for each unit, the 1-TUFF code gives us a 17 measure of the uncertainties in each one of these 18 parameters. And that's documented.
19 MEMBER HINZE: Okay. That is documented.
20 Okay. Let's say that we've got a drill hole --
21 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
22 MEMBER HINZE: -- and we've got tests from 23 core samples --
24 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes. ,
I O 25 MEMBER HINZE: -- derived from that drill hole NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 n - -.. =. , . - . . - ,.,.--..-r. . _, e -
337 1 --
f~x 2 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
3 MEMBER HINZE: -- and we have that for a 4 certain hydrogeological unit.
5 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
6 MEMBER HINZE: Is there a change in the 7 uncertainty bounds that you apply to the grid points as 8 you move away from that be extrapolation?
9 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
10 MEMBER HINZE: How is that kind of decision i l
11 made? Is that made by the hydrogeologists? Is it made --
l 12 DR. BODVARSSON: Let me answer that. We have 13 -- the main data we use for rock properties, like I said, 14 are measurements from Lori Flint. It may be 1,000 samples 15 that had been measured for each hydrogeological unit.
16 And then we use the moisture tension and 17 saturation data. The moisture tension and saturation data 18 we have from roughly ten boreholes in the mountain. Okay?
19 Then what we do is -- the 1-TUFF code, I don't know if 20 you're aware of it.
21 MEMBER HINZE: Yes.
22 DR. BODVARSSON: It allows you to input the 23 moisture tension and saturation data from all of those 24 boreholes into the code itself. So you don't have to (D 25 match it by hand and change it. The code matches already
(_/
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
338 i
1 itself and gives you then an adjusted parameter value that 2 best fits the data for all of the boreholes, ten 7
(
3 boreholes. Okay?
4 Really, it's not that many boreholes, but it 5 gives you -- for 30 different units it will tell you the 6 best matrix permeability. And Tiva I is 10-" . And it has 7 this standard deviation around it.
8 Then after we do that, we have then the best 9 match, which is the best average for each unit in matrix 10 permeability. Okay?
11 MEMBER HINZE: So it fits? It fits some 12 analytical function?
13 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes. Well, it fits the e
(m)
\/ 14 moisture tension and saturation data for all of the 15 boreholes. In some cases since we are matching them 16 simultaneously, we will have too dry for this borehole, 17 the saturations will be too low, and too wet for this one.
18 The saturation will be too high because you are then doing 19 them all simultaneously to get the best average value for 20 that unit for the matrix permeability.
21 Then we go back after that and we match each 22 individual borehole separately now without the influence 23 of all of the other nine boreholes. And then we document 24 that. And that will give us the variability around the r3
(_,) 25 mean that we then can prescribe in whatever manner we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
339 1 choose to describe in for that hydrogeological layer.
2 Does that -- I know it's --
3 MEMBER HINZE: Yes, that helps. That helps.
4 DR. BODVARSSON: -- a long-winded explanation, 5 but --
6 MEMBER HINZE: No. That helps very much.
7 DR. BODVARSSON: You understand?
8 MEMBER HINZE: I guess I'm not really certain 9 whether the uncertainties increase as you move away from a ,
10 data point. Does that happen?
11 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
12 MEMBER HINZE: It happens?
13 DR. BODVARSSON: That happens, yes.
14 MEMBER HINZE: Okay.
15 DR. BODVARSSON: That happens.
16 MEMBER HINZE: Let me ask a question related 17 to the thermal characteristics.
18 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
19 MEMBER HINZE: We all understand the 20 limitations on the data that will be available at the 21 time. How are you treating this in your models? And how 22 are you assigning uncertainties?
23 DR. BODVARSSON: In the thermal 24 characteristics?
25 MEMBER HINZE: In the thermal since we won't NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. -
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
.- . _ _ . _ .- . . ~ . = . - - . . - - - - . . - .__ _ ..- - - .,_.__.- - .
340 1 1. ave the drift scale test data at the time of the --
2 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes. That's a good question.
3 To finish up the last one, -- I didn't answer 4 it very well -- I want to make one or two more statements 5 about it.
6 MEMBER HINZE: Okay.
7 DR. BODVARSSON: And that is the project also 8 has Chr.s Rodman at Sandia who has been doing rock 9 characteristic work, who has correlated permeabilities and 10 porositie:s and all of the other parameters. He is going 11 to feed that for us for all of the hydrogeological layers 12 so thr.t we have his kind of geostatistics distribution of 13 those carameters in the different layers that we are then 14 going to u,'e for TSPA-VA.
15 MEMBER HINZE: So he's going to answer the i
16 representative questions?
17 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes. Well, yes, he's going l
18 to do that through this porosity correlation if you 19 believe that porosity correlation. So that's going to be l
20 a part of the sensitivity studies with variable properties 21 in the layers.
22 MEMBER HINZE: That will be available from the 23 time --
24 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes. I think it's scheduled 25 to be available in February. I don't know. Is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
_ . _ . , _.. _ ~ . . . - -.
341 1 right, Russ, something like that?
w 2 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Bo, just let me interrupt
\_)
3 there for a second.
4 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I apparently don't quite 6 understand. You have certainly porosity measurements in 7 any borehole that you've got, --
8 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes. i 9 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: -- really, through a given 10 layer.
11 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Now you're going to use 13 other porosity measuremento in other parts of the layer in 14 order to predict what?
15 DR. BODVARSSON: Are you talking about Chris I
1 16 Rodman's work?
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Yes.
18 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes. Well, what he has done 19 in collaboration with Lori Flint in the measurements, he l 20 uses the matrix permeability data, for example, and the l 21 matrix porosity data to correlate the permeabilities, 22 porosity with the permeabilities.
23 And he makes that correlation. Then he looks 24 at the statistics of that to look at the uncertainty of l '8 As l 25 that and the variability of that. And then he assigns it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
342 1 randomly in space so that you can have that variability
-)
's_/
2 represented in some kind of geostatistical form for each 3 layer.
4 And he has done that for several other 5 parameters. For example, he has done the same thing for 6 thermal conductivity as a function of porosity and 7 saturation and other parameters.
8 And then back to your other question since 9 this was --
10 MEMBER HINZE: How is his ground truth?
11 DR. BODVARSSON: Excuse me?
l 12 MEMBER HINZE: How is his ground truth? Is '
13 this going to be tested? Are his relationships going to I
\'_ 14 be validated in some way?
15 DR. BOLVARSSON: That's a good question. I 16 don't know. If you can say things can be validated -- l l
17 MEMBER HINZE: If you want to get a good 18 feeling about it, it's nice to be able to have some 19 unknowns out there that you --
20 DR. BODVARSSON: That you can predict.
21 MEMBER HINZE: Right.
22 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes, yes. No, I don't think 23 it can be relative.
24 DR. VAN LUIK: In terms of the heater test 25 data?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
343 1 DR. BODVARSSON: Well, not the porosity l 2 permeability information, no. l (s,)
3 I know your other question, with respect to 1
4 predictions, maybe we can get to that later. But there l l
5 are some things that we have been blindly predicting to 6 get the confidence in our models. I know somebody brought 7 that up yesterday, and we can talk about that later.
8 I'll get back to your other question, which is 9 the thermal hydrology. You are absolutely correct that 10 you have no thermal hydrology measurements at Yucca ,
1 11 Mountain right nou because we just started the single 12 heater test and the drift skill test is not going to start l
13 until at the earliest October 1, 1997, perhaps not until
(N
\~ 14 December of 1997. But the project is doing other things 15 to try to get confidence.
16 One of the things that is in the plan for F.Y.
17 '97 is to look at analog studies. And certainly the 18 geothermal, hydrothermal analogs come to mind because some 19 of the very same coats that are being utilized for the 20 thermal hydrological studies at Yucca Mountain have been 21 used for decades in geothermal studies.
22 And to give you some -- I have worked a lot in 23 goothermal fields, as you may know. And the data from 24 those fields is also very sparse. You probably know that, 25 too. We almost never ever know the thickness of a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
344 1 geothermal reservoir. We never know if it is 500 meters 2 or a kilometer.
7-3 In some cases -- I can give you one example 4 there where we don't even know where the reservoir is.
5 That's a strange statement, but that's the truth.
6 MEMBER HINZE: Which one is that?
7 DR. BODVARSSON: That's Dixie Valley, Nevada.
8 MEMBER HINZE: Yes.
9 DR. BODVARSSON: You drill into a fault, and 10 you hit the fault. The fault gets fluid. We don't know 11 where the fluid comes from. So we just keep on hitting 12 the fault. But, anyway, that's a rare case.
13 The good situation or what I will say the
/~'s
%I 14 promising situation that we are going to try to document 15 this year is the fact that given that there are very l
16 limited data from these resources, there have been 17 tremendous success I think in predictions of how many ,
1 18 megawatts can a given geothermal field handle, what is the 19 pressure decline going to look with time, how is the 20 reinjection of the fluid going to affect the pressure 21 decline, as well as the productivity. l 22 A lot of those things are very complicated 23 because these are coupled thermal hydrological 24 measurements with boiling taking place and condensation C'$
( ,/ 25 and chemical effects and ceiling, a lot of the same NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
345 1 parameters that we are facing at Yucca Mountain with the 1
fs 2 man-made type of thermal system that we are going to do
' ('~')
3 there.
4 So that's one thing that's going to help us 5 gain some confidence that the TH models that we use for 6 TSPA-VA will give you something reasonable. But certainly 7 you're absolutely right. We have no measurements except 8 lab measurements on thermal conductivity, heat capacities, 9 and things like that.
10 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: On the thermal 11 question, if you had the question asked of you a little 12 differently perhaps -- there are two issues here. There's 13 the issue of the feed material; that is to say, the waste (3 )
i
\/ 14 itself and what kind of a heat source it really 15 represents. Then there's the issue of the response of the 16 repository to that.
17 If in your analysis you could specify what 18 would be a reasonable thermal load to receive, would that 19 simplify and reduce the uncertainties that you're facing 20 in trying to resolve the influence of heat? And why isn't 21 there more effort in that.
22 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes. You're saying what --
23 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I guess what I'm 24 getting back to is something that Abe reminded me of when
/~
( ,N) 25 he pointed out that may be the engineering issues. To me NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
346l 1 I think that where you really get to a point where you can 7- 2 solve some of these problems is where the engineers and
( 1
~
3 the scientists and the analysts really get together and l
l 4 the information is translated into engineered solutions. l 5 DR. BODVARSSON: Right, right. l 6 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Is there an engineered 7 solution here, at least partially?
8 DR. BODVARSSON: If I understand you l 1
9 correctly, you're asking: Is there something we can 10 prescribe in the engineering that can help us not have to 11 face these very difficult scientific questions of coupling 12 between this and that and not knowing what we are going to 13 --
r~x i
\/') 14 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. One example 15 would be to specify the heat that would come into the 16 repository.
17 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes. I think that's a very 18 good question. For example, if we only put one canister 19 down there and nothing else, there is almost no heat. So 20 you don't have to predict anything, and you are okay.
21 That would be one limit to have at the very, very low heat 22 load so it doesn't disturb much. And then you wouldn't 23 see it.
24 Then the question is: That may not be -- of A
( ,)
25 course, you can't put all the waste there that we have to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
347 1 put down there because we have these 70,000 metric tons of 73 2 waste that we have to put down in the Yucca Mountain.
I V
3 But it's still a good question because if the 4 fluxes are as high as we think they are, then we may need 5 an increased heat load from the 83 kilowatts per acre or 6 whatever to be able to create a less of a humid 7 environment there. So there are some we are talking with l 8 design to see what's the best options to do those things.
l 9 but, to directly answer your question -- I'm 10 sure Bruce can answer it also -- is I am not very 11 concerned personally about coupled effects with respect to 12 heart. Thermal hydrology I think personally is the most 13 important one. Why is that?
[, \
\' ' 14 In my view when you have a so heavily 15 fractured Topopah Springs, where we see four fractures per 16 meter or more, where we have the pneumatic gas 17 permeabilities on the order of 10 darcies vertically and 18 on the order of 2 darcies horizontally, that's a huge 19 permeability where you have 12 permeabilities on the order 20 of 1,000 darcies extending over 500 meters or kilometers 21 to the mountain.
22 Then you ask yourself, you know: What impact 23 would, for example, thermal mechanical effects have? You 24 may close a few of these fractures, but I don't think t_) 25 you're going to reduce the permeability from ten darcies NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERG AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
348 1 to zero at all because there are so many of these things.
_ 2 So maybe that is not important.
3 And you ask yourself also about the thermal
)
4 chemical effects. You'may seal up some of these fractures 5 and some of these matrices, but I doubt that you can 1
6 reduce that effect from ten darcies to something that is I
)
7 tremendously low.
8 And then you look at the impact from your 9 thermal hydrological calculations on what if it is ten 10 darcies and it goes to one darcy. What is the impact? I 11 don't think there is a tremendous impact, but I'm sure )
l 12 Bruce can add something to that.
13 That's what comes to my mind in terms of these
/^)N k,_ 14 difficult coupled processes.
15 DR. ROBINSON: Bruce Robinson, Los Alamos.
16 I guess along those same lines the high l 17 fracture permeabilities in the repository horizon sort of 1
18 constrain the type of result that one would predict in '
19 models and what one would expect in reality.
l 20 In other words, you're probably almost 21 certainly not going to have conditions that are 22 significantly greater than atmospheric pressure. In other 23 words, it's a pressure cooker but the lid is off. It's 24 open.
(,
25 So that leads you to a certain type of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
l
i l 349 l
1 behavior, which ' think we can predict. We as a project, l 2 mostly people that aren't represented on the panel here 7
( )
~#
3 but are at Lawrence Livermore, have done many predictions.
I 4 And at the types of permeabilities that we see, they 5 predict and it's corroborated by other modeling efforts, 6 albeit with no experimental results at this point, about 7 atmospheric pressure at the repository, superheated steam, 8 and, for example, for a period of time less than 100 9 percent relative humidity at the waste package itself 10 because you have a waste package that has essentially one 11 atmosphere of pressure around it. And the vapor pressure 12 of water is that at 100 degrees, but the package itself 13 is, say, at 200 or 250 degrees.
/~%
's- 14 That sort of prediction in kind of general 15 terms I think is a fairly solid one, despite the fact that 16 in detail analyses are going to vary depending on where 17 you are in the mountain and that kind of thing. But the 18 general features I think you are led into one mode of 19 operation given what we know about the rock and the 20 repository horizon.
21 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.
22 MEMBER HINZE: If I may?
23 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Go ahead.
24 MEMBER HINZE: May I, John?
(3
( ,) 25 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Sure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
350 1 MEMBER HINZE: I'd like to follow this up just 2 a little bit more. The single heater test, that will be O 3 done. And you'll be getting information from that. Can l
l 4 you speak positively about the kind of input that you'll 5 receive in terms of the pH from that test? Will that help 6 to constrain the uncertainties that we're all concerned 7 about?
8 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes, yes. There are a few 9 data sets coming in this year. I'm sure there are a lot 10 of other experts on heater testing than myself here. Feel 11 free to jump in or you guys.
12 There are several things coming in this year.
13 Number one, there is a series of lab tests that are going 14 to look at the factors like heat pipes, look at the 15 factors like enhanced vapor diffusion, look at the factors 16 like preferential flow down fractures due to a thermal 17 regime. That's going to help us with the modeling because 18 these will be modeled and help us with the issues as heat 19 pipes develop. Do they develop at Yucca Mountain or not?
20 There is planned a large block test that was 21 asked about yesterday, a Fran Ridge test that is supposed i 22 to start now. I mean, there was a meeting yesterday, 23 actually, at Livermore, where they are really starting to 24 plan that and get that started. !
25 The DOE has decided to do the large block NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
351 1 test. At least it's on the books now. I mean, it's off 2 and on and off and on, that is. Right now I think it's
- O 3 on. Right, Abe?
?
9 i 4 DR. VAN LUIK: Yes, sir. '
! 5 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
6 (Laughter.)
i
- 7 DR. BODVARSSON: The single heater test was i
4 i
8 turned on something like a month ago. And the
( 9 temperatures there are already up, last I heard yesterday, 10 up to 90 degrees or something like that plus the heaters.
11 I don't expect the single heater test to give 12 us tremendous thermal hydrological information. That's 13 not the intent of that test. That is more of a thermal 5
14 mechanical test and is a thermal mechanical test 15 primarily, but it will certainly give us some indication 16 about temperatures.
17 The area where you get the two-phase zone 18 around the heater is going to be so small that I don't 19 think we get a lot of information with thermal hydrology.
20 MEMBER HINZE: Well, that's leading right 21 where I was trying to lead, and that is that as a result 22 of the discussions yesterday and previous things that I've 23 read and heard about, we do have this TC problem and the 24 concern about TC. That probably has further to go than (h 25 many of the others.
NEAL R. GFH)SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 352 1
1 1 1 I was wondering if maybe Bruce or you, Bo, 1
g~.s 2 would like to comment on it. Are you going to have any r 1 3 results out of the single heater test or -- well, the 4 block test chemistry is out of the block test now is my 5 understanding. Are we going to have any information on 6 TC?
7 DR. BODVARSSON: Bruce wants to answer that.
8 MEMBER HINZE: Bruce wants to?
9 DR. BODVARSSON: Yes.
10 MEMBER HINZE: I understand that.
11 DR. ROBINSON: I want answers to that 12 question. I don't know if I can answer it very well 13 because the problem you have with TC and those types of I i
\/ 14 couplings is that in models, we have a ground truth. And 15 it's another model to compare it against. But in reality, 16 you have what you've got. Okay?
17 You do an experiment. All of these processes 18 potentially are relevant processes. And you have a single 19 measurement. You don't have something to compare it 20 against to say, "Well, gee, the chemical effects were 21 really important here because I saw the permeability go 22 down." Well, how did you know what the permeability was 23 in the first place?
24 So I think the only way to go about this is to
,m (m 25 perform experiments, look for deviations from model NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
353 1 results, and then go back and actually make physical 2 observations of the rock to see it u can find the impact
~'
)
3 of, say, precipitation and that kind of thing.
4 But it's a very tough question in my mind, one 5 that's going to always have a considerable amount of 6 uncertainty, these types of couplings that we know have a l
7 distinct possibility of happening.
8 MEMBER HINZE: I was wondering if there was 9 any way that you're thinking about of beleaguering any 10 information out of the single heater test for this? But 11 it's going to be -- you know, it's tough.
12 DR. BODVARSSON: There are some things in the 13 program now that are going to address this issue to some g
i
's- 14 extent; for example, the large block test. Before the 15 heaters are turned down in the large block test, there is 16 going te be a series of pneumatic tests in it to look at l
l 17 the permeabilities of the fracture system in the test. i 18 There is also going to be an infiltration test 19 up on top to look at the migration of water through the 20 large block beforehand. Afterwards, you do the same 21 thing. It will be repeated. It will repeat the 22 pneumatics after the heater has been turned up.
23 And you will repeat the moisture flow down the 24 large block after it has been turned down. And that
[fs, 25 hcpefully will give us some indication about if you had a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
e 354 1 lot of precipitation in the fracture systems or something 2 like that that changes the flow of moisture or gas.
7-() 3 There are also plans in the large block test 4 to have a gas tracer, perhaps using gravity, and put the 5 gas tracer in the bottom of the large block and let it dry 6 up to get you at the fracture porosity, which is an 7 important parameter to characterize.
8 With respect to the single heater test and the 9 drift scale test, there is also a series of pneumatic 10 tests going to be done during those tests. What the plan 1
11 is is that if the physics and procesets are as we 12 envisioned them to be, you expect to develop some kind of 13 a boiling zone and some kind of a condensation zone above
( \
(/ 14 the heated area in both the single heater test and the 15 drift scale test.
16 If that's the case, you will change the 17 pneumatic permeability to gas in those regions because you 18 are going to change the permeability of the fracturec 19 because that's where the condensation zone is going to be 20 or where the dryout is going to be.
21 So what the project has planned is to do a 22 series of pneumatic cross-hole tests to look at the 23 moisture redistribution and, therefore, also, of course, 24 the chemical sealing if you can see it.
/O
() 25 And periodically, like for the drift scale NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 'J005-3701 (202) 234-4433
355 1 test, it's going to be probably every month repeated 2 measurements at various locations in the drift scale to O 3 look at the effect of moisture redistribution as well as i
4 then probably of the chemical sealing if everything, of 5 course, precipitates out.
l l l 6 So those are some of the things that are l 7 planned, I know. Analysis of these may not be 8 straightforward, but they certainly should tell us 9 something about what --
1 10 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: If it turns out --
and I l
11 I'll ask as a non-geologist. It's probably a dumb '
12 question. But if it turns out that the evidence increases 13 that the transport is dominated by fracture flow -- say 90 14 percent plus of the risk comes as a result of pathways, 15 fracture pathways. Suppose you knew that now.
16 How would that influence your recommendations 17 on the experimental program, the block tests, et cetera, 18 et cetera? How relevant are these results really going to 19 be, I guess is my question if the evidence continues to 20 build, that matrix flow, for example, is not a significant 21 mechanism?
22 DR. BODVARSSON: June, do you want to answer 23 that? You haven't said anything. Why don't you say 24 something?
25 DR. FABRYKA-MARTIN: That sounds like a i
NEAL R. GROSS I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
356 1 modeling question to me.
7s 2 The goal of this past year in the ESF sampling L) 3 was just to get a feel for what's there. Now that we have 4 the results back for the first half of the tunnel, we can 5 revise our sampling strategy and focus more on trying to 6 get a more statistically valid description of the role of 7 fracture flow relative to the matrix flow.
8 For one thing, I think, in addition to the 9 systematic sampling, every 200 meters collecting a sample, 10 we'll be revising that and say every 200 meters collect a 11 sample, then also collect the nearest fracture meeting 12 certain criteria. That will allow us to say more, then, 13 about the matrix fracture distribution.
/i l
\M 14 T think Bruce probably should go on from here 15 on the modeling aspects.
16 DR. ROBINSON: Yes. I think about this in 17 different ways depending on whether I'm interpreting 18 results that have been obtained from the ESF or if I'm 19 making predictions about radionuclide migration, I think 20 those are almost two separate issues.
1 1
21 The measurements we've made so far in the ESF l
22 have given us greater confidence, I believe, in the l 23 predictions of infiltration rate. And, as everybody 24 knows, this is a critically important parameter for all m
_) 25 the predictions we make, both understanding the mountain NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
357 1 and its saturation distribution and also understanding the g-) 2 geochemical evidence and also the predictions that we make L) 3 for radionuclide migration.
4 However, when we're talking about radionuclide 5 migration, in addition to the infiltration rate, it's the 6 nature of the rocks below the repository that is 7 important. And the ESF tells us next to nothing about 8 that.
9 Therefore, I think that the focus of the 10 radionuclide transport simulations has to be on acquiring 11 whatever information from the existing data set as a start 12 to try to bound this business of the relative fracture and 13 matrix flow below the repository. And that means
\
\J 14 primarily in the non-welded units below the repository.
15 One approach you might take -- and if you have 16 nothing else, you start to think about this -- is that we 17 have an analog to how the Calico Hills might behave above 18 the repository at the PTn in general terms when you're 19 talking about a non-altered part of the Calico Hills.
20 The ziolitic Calico Hills I believe is where a 21 lot of the performance of the repository system is 22 derived, a lot of the UZ performance. And work to further 23 characterize the ziolitic Calico Hills I think is crucial 24 to our predictions and ultimately to our PA analyses of O
'\ _,) 25 the performance at the site.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
358 1 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Sort of a related l
l gg 2 question. In looking at the minutes or the notes of the b 3 technical exchange meetings between the NRC staff and DOE 4 on performance assessment, the staff has some concerns l i
5 about how the transport was modeled, how transport was 1
6 modeled, in the unsaturated zone. I 7 Are you going to do anything different in 8 relation to those questions with respect to the viability 1 1
9 assessment transport model? What are the changes going to l l
l 10 be between TSPA-95, for example, and TSPA-VA? l l
11 DR. ANDREWS: The answer is yes because at the '
12 time of TSPA-95, the work that Bruce worked on last year 13 and continued working on this year wasn't available for i 14 incorporation into TSPA-1995.
15 We post-TSPA-95, in fact, presented in the 16 document a comparison of essentially the breakthrough 17 curves at the water table of Bruce's model at the end of 18 F.Y. '95 with what TSPA-95 had. And they were virtually 19 identical for the same source term.
20 Of course, the source term in TSPA-95 was 21 wildly different than my simple source term because there 22 are a lot of package issues and EBS issues and waste form 23 issues that were being addressed.
24 But in TSPA-VA, which was your question, the O)
(, 25 intent is to use the current understanding, as embodied in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
359 1 Bruce's model, which takes, of course, flow information 2 and distribution of flow information from the flow model, O 3 which would have been calibrated or verified, if you will, 4 against observations of a variety that Bo was talking 5 about yesterday and incorporate a number of 6 transport-specific issues that Bruce talked about 7 yesterday, matrix diffusion, dispersive issues, 8 retardation, actually transport issue, effective porosity 9 issues, which are transport-only issues, don't concern 10 bulk flow issues.
11 So the intent is to use that and, the 12 unfortunate word, abstract from that for TSPA-VA. The 13 abstraction in this case might, instead of being fluxes at 14 the repository horizon, both percolation and seepage 15 fluxes, which would come from the flow model, might be in 16 the form of arrival time distributions, breakthrough 17 curves, if you will, at either the water table or assuming 18 that the UZ and SZ transport models are fully coupled, 19 coupled now in space, if you will, rather than coupled in 20 terms of processes taking us directly at the accessible 21 environment, wherever that accessible environment might 22 be.
23 MEMBER HINZE: John, could I ask another 24 question?
O 25 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT PEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. . - - .- --. . -. . . - - - .. . _ . ~ . . . - ~ - . - . _ - . - . . - . .
360 1 MEMBER HINZE: June has the microphone in 2 front of her. June, let me ask a question that certainly 3 your discoveries regarding the occurrence of the fast 4 pathways are important, and this is recognized by everyone
! 5 and certainly by DOE in their ratcheting up of your 6 program.
l 7 As we all know, this is not only a matter of 8 fast pathways but processes and your looking at various 9 models, et cetera. But magnitude, as we discussed
- 10 yesterday, is an important, probably the important, factor 1
11 here.
l l 12 Is the program that you're embarked on now I 13 going to provide a decreased uncertainty regarding the 14 magnitude of the fast flow in time for the VA? How is 15 that coming about?
16 DR. FABRYKA-MARTIN: I think depending on TBM ;
17 progress, that the data will be available in time. And I -
)
i 18 think as long as we -- well, given that we're modifying 19 our program and working smarter this coming fiscal year, I 20 think the value of the data will go up also.
21 I'm really excited about the idea of looking 22 at the chloride pore water concentrations, too, because 23 what you can do is take Allen Flint's infiltration map, 24 convert it into chloride concentrations, and then use a 25 transport model to actually follow those chloride NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
1 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.c. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
i 361 i
1 concentrations down. i 1
2 This allows us to test not only the ability of i 4
3 the model to match the. chloride concentrations in the ESF 4 but also the chloride pore water concentrations that are 1
4 5 available from the few boreholes that do penetrate all the
.I 6 way down to the Calico Hills and the Prow Pass and water i 7 table. So I think that will probably be useful along the 8 same lines as the chlorine-36 and perhaps even more so in
- 9 trying to get at that question of the flux and its i
l 10 redistribution with depth.
l l 11 In addition to that, if it's feasible to use I
, 12 Randy Bassett's device to look at C-14, again, that would i
! 13 expand our database and give us a better way of dating the i Pg 4
14 pore water in the matrix of the ESF than the chlorine-36 i
} 15 has provided. And, again, that will be a whole new area l d
i 16 of data available.
! 17 Does that address your question?
i u
18 MEMBER HINZE: Yes, I think it does. What
. 19 you're really trying to do is get that uncertainty down --
f 20 DR. FABRYKA-MARTIN: Right.
1 4
i 21 MEMBER HINZE: -- in terms of how much is 22 coming down on these fast pathways and all. That helps.
{
i 23 Could I ask another question on a little 1
24 different topic? One of the things --
i 25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Can I just ask a quick one?
NEAL R. GROSS
- CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l ,
362 >
1 MEMBER HINZE: Sure. Please.
2 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: We were talking earlier O 3 about some of the experiments that are going to be done in 4 conjunction with the heater tests. I guess I'm still l 5 concerned a little bit about the coupled process 6 information, particularly TH, in TSPA-VA.
7 And I just wonder. I didn't have a clear 8 picture of the time frame in which some of that data might i
9 be available, but my perception is that none of it might l l
10 be. 1 l
11 Can you help me with that? I don't know who i l
12 the appropriate answerer is. Probably -- '
13 DR. ANDREWS: Yes. Let me try. Abe talked l O 14 about each of these workshops, these abstraction areas.
l 15 And thermal' hydrology happens to be one of them. And near j 16 field environment, which would be other coupled processes, 17 happens to be another one of those.
18 The intent is to first lay out all of the 19 uncertainties associated with current understanding in 20 thermal hydrologic response as it drives performance, 21 which would be both in drift, which has in the past been 22 the driver for performance but also larger-scale thermal 23 hydrologic response. ,
l 24 Those models, the thermal hydrologic models, 25 just as with the UZ flow model and the UZ transport model' I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
l 363 1
1 that you heard about yesterday, are also being updated, if 1 l
2 you will, the next fiscal year, Fiscal Year '97. We will 7-('~) 3 abstract from that updated model.
\
l l
4 There is a current version of that model and )
1 5 its current bases documented in a near field environment !
6 report similar to the reports that Bo and Bruce described 7 to you yesterday but for near field environment. That 8 model, however, will be updated to the extent it can with 9 whatever information available from the large block test, 10 from the single heater test. Clearly the larger drift 11 scale test would not be available.
12 But the idea is given that there are 13 alternative conceptual models available for the thermal O
%- 14 hydrologic response, just as there are alternative 15 conceptual models of flow and transport to hopefully bound 16 that with whatever observations are available.
17 I should also add one note from a PA 18 perspective, and that is we have 10,000 packages roughly.
19 And each one of those packages, depending on drift spacing 20 and depending on package space, has its own thermal 21 hydrologic response or could have its own thermal 22 hydrologic response; i.e., there's a variability issue 23 here, a stochastic issue, if you will, involved.
24 And that variability, although we did not O
( ,/ 25 incorporate it in TSPA-95, the variability in thermal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
364 1 hydrologic response, we fully intend to incorporate that 2 into VA, so to acknowledge that not every package is the O 3 same, not every package is the same thermally, and not 4 every package will have the same thermal hydrologic 5 response.
6 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Getting back to my 7 earlier question on this, isn't that something you can 8 feed back to the engineers and achieve some control over?
9 In other words, can't you reduce your uncertainties about 10 those 10,000 units quite dramatically by just the strategy 11 that is adopted for feeding waste to the repository?
12 DR. ANDREWS: Yes, you can. In fact, the 13 engineers have proposed a fairly simple but nice way and 14 elegant way of minimizing that uncertainty. And that is 15 essentially line load the thing, which gives you a fairly 16 uniform line thermal load and a fairly simple, 17 straightforward assessment of its response, given the 18 uncertainties and variability now in the hydrogeologic and 19 thermal hydrologic properties.
20 I guess I'm not trying to say that the 21 uncertainty -- I'm not talking about the uncertainty in 22 the thermal inputs. I'm talking about the variability in 23 that. And it's a variability from package to package that 24 I think the source term gives us. And it's a variability
( 25 from point to point in space within the repository horizon NEAL R. GFK)SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
365
, 1 that nature gives us and that I think we have to live with t
I
,-s 2 and incorporate to the best of our abilities in the
%/ \
3 assessment performance. !
4 Not every point in the repository is going to 5 look like every other point in the repository.
6 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: We certainly want to 7 give our consultant an opportunity to --
I 8 MEMBER HINZE: Could I --
9 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
10 MEMBER HINZE- -- ask one more question, 11 please? I don't want to give them -- TSPA-VA is a very ,
1 12 important element of looking at the feasibility of the
- 3. site, beating against 960, if you will. ,
(~% l
\ l 1
'/ 14 When we first heard about the revised program 15 plan and the viability assessment, I think there was some 16 concern about what's going to be done in terms of 17 acquisition of data in the time period subsequent to VA if 18 that comes out positive and moving on to the point of 19 licensing.
20 It seems to me that TSPA-VA is an excellent 21 opportunity to get a heads up as to what are the critical 22 things that need to be studied in the succeeding period.
23 After all, I think there isn't a person in here, scientist 24 or engineer, who is not concerned about the limitations on O
(,/ 25 the iata set that is available for the VA assessment. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS MD TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
366 1 we have the opportunity to move on from that. i 2 What's being done in terms of TSPA-VA and in O 3 terms of the peer review panels to look at this next 4 stage, if you will, if indeed it turns out positively?
l 5 DR. VAN LUIK: In terms of what's already 6 being done, this last year we got started on a system 7 engineering overview study of what the confirmation l
l 8 program should look like in terms of what scientific 9 investigations do you carr; on beyond the VA and even the 10 LA?
11 This coming year, which starts next week, we l
12 are expanding that. But I think you make an excellent 13 point. There will have to be adjustments from the results l
of TSPA-VA.
14 15 However, the type of work that Bo and Bruce 16 are doing on their models, the proof or the ground 17 truthing, whoever likes to use that word, of those models 18 is already something that they are concerned with. And i
l 19 when they identify issues that could be resolved i
20 experimentally, we expect that to be factored into the l
21 ongoing year-to-year planning process and also to be j 22 factored into if this is a longer-term, like the l 23 large-scale heating test is.already part of the 24 performance confirmation program mandated by 10 CFR 60.
25 So I think we can't wait for TSPA-VA to give NEAL R. GFH1SS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
367 1 us the final word on that. It will probably result in 2 some adjustments on that. We have an active program !
('~') 3 underway to already define what needs to be done beyond i
4 the VA and beyond the LA to give us confidence so when we i
5 go in for the license amendment to receive and possess l l
6 waste, that we will have answered many more questions.
7 MEMBER HINZE: That's great, Abe. It just 8 seems to me that these peer panels are an excellent 9 opportunity to broaden our viewpoint to really look at 10 this from a fresh viewpoint in terms of where can we cut 11 down. It's not just a matter of what the uncertainties 12 are, but where can we cut them down and where will they be j 1
13 meaningful. And that's all tied up in that.
I
- /
N- 14 So that's great to hear that because to many 15 of us, that post-VA period is a very important period.
16 And I think it's particularly important to the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission because it's when they're going to 18 have to fish or cut bait.
19 DR. VAN LUIK: Yes, that's very true. And 20 it's partly because of the requirements that the license 21 application as part of itself contains a performance 22 confirmation program plan.
i 23 Basically in the license application, you 1
24 admit to certain uncertainties. And you also say, "And I'd
(,j 25 here is what we are going to do to address then," between l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
368 1 now and the time that we come back for a license 2 amendment.
O 3 So I think we have it structured. And if your 4 question is about structure, I think I answered that.
5 MEMBER HINZE: Yes.
6 DR. VAN LUIK: If you're asking what are these l
7 two people and June doing to actually implement this, I l
l 8 think that's the different larger question. 1 9 DR. STEINDLER: I guess everyone gets their 10 turn. I come at this a little bit differently. The job 11 of the Committee, it seems to me, is to identify what's 12 happening and then ask the question, "How can the NRC 13 staff possibly handle this thing?" considering its 14 existing state of knowledge and resources.
1 i 15 I think it's fairly obvious that the l 16 abstraction process is going to pose some serious 17 difficulties for the reviewer who is fundamentally an 18 antagonist. And the function of the NRC staff is an i
19 adversarial function, here to find out whether or not in a 20 sense DOE has done it right or to identify the aspects of 21 reasonable assurance.
22 So there are a couple of issues that seem at 23 this juncture to raise their head pretty fast. I would 24 hope that somewhere in the approach that you folks are 25 taking that abstraction process becomes extremely NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR;BERS :
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I
368 ,
1 now and the time that we come back for a license i
2 amendment. !
3 So I think we have it structured. And if your l l
4 question is about structure, I think I answered that.
l l
5 MEMBER HINZE: Yes. 1 6 DR. VAN LUIK: If you're asking what are these 7 two people and June doing to actually implement this, I 8 think that's the different larger question.
9 DR. STEINDLER: I guess everyone gets their 10 turn. I come at this a little bit differently. The job 11 of the Committee, it seems to me, is to identify what's 12 happening and then ask the question, "How can the NRC 13 staff possibly handle this thing?" considering its 14 existing state of knowledge and resources.
15 I think it's fairly obvious that the 16 abstraction process is going to pose some serious 17 difficulties for the reviewer who is fundamentally an 18 antagonist. And the function of the NRC staff is an 19 adversarial function, here to find out whether or not in a l
20 sense DOE has done it right or to identify the aspects of )
21 reasonable assurance.
22 So there are a couple of issues that seem at 23 this juncture to raise their head pretty fast. I would 24 hope that somewhere in the approach that you folks are 25 taking that abstraction process becomes extremely NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
369 1 transparent more important than perhaps transparency,
~s 2 which you can get at by inquisition if you have to or prod i
i 3 the peer review team pretty hard or do whatever.
4 There is some fundamental data that I have 5 some difficulty with that I don't see. Let me give you 6 one silly example. In all of the writings I've read so 7 far, -- and that's certainly not comprehensive -- either 8 this massive amount of metallic iron that's sitting in the 9 repository has been ignored or there's a small comment at 10 the bottom of some footnote that says, "We're not going to 11 treat this for the time being," at least giving the reader 12 the opportunity.to say, "Well, at least they know it's 13 there."
yx
\ )
N/ 14 And, yet, we hear with passion the general 15 notion that this is an oxidizing system. It isn't an 16 oxidizing system. If you do the arithmetic for fairly 17 simple thermal dynamics, it's unlikely that it's going to 18 continue to be an oxidizing system, at least close in.
19 Another thing that I learned yesterday, which 20 I found startling, was that there's a concrete liner to 21 the drift. I don't know whose idea it was to put a 22 concrete liner in the drift, but he certainly did not 23 consider or she did not consider asking the folks who are 24 in the geochemistry business as to whether or not that's a es k) 25 smart move.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l
_. - . - ~ - - _ ~ . . _ . . _ . - . . . . - - - . . _ _ . - . . - _ . . . . _ - . - . --- . -.._ - .. - - .
370 1 We heard a fairly detailed -- by the way, I 2 got straightened out on my question there -- diacussion 3 that what that really does for you is it produces a 4 caustic solution that drips on the waste container. Is 5 that really a smart move?
l 6 It gets me to my other point. And that is:
7 To what extent are you folks, who see the problem on the 8 basis of a model output, able to feed back into the 9 engineering, loosely called, some suggestions as to what 10 you ought not to put into the EBS?
11 It seems to me that ought to be a very l
12 important part of your activity, integration or however, 13 to avoid the -- especially since they're apparently not 14- fixed aspects; for example, heat load, for example, the 15 materials of construction, the geometry of the 1 16 construction, et cetera, et cetera. The backfill issue I 17 think still seems to be a flip of the coin as to whether 18 or not it's going to be a capillary barrier or whether 19 it's going to be a chemical barrier and so on and so 20 forth.
21 Is there some mechanism -- and I didn't mean 22 to give you the same lecture that John did yesterday. Is 23 there some mechanism that allows you to feed back 24 consequences to the designer with the notion of, hey, you 25 know, maybe you guys can change this thing so it lasts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
371 1 longer, corrodes less, you know, and whatever? That was a 7-~ 2 question.
3 DR. VAN LUIK: Yes. It also would have been a 4 good speech.
5 I think the answer is yes, there is such a 6 mechanism. The concrete liner issue, for example, is 7 being addressed at the current time largely because of 8 concerns expressed by the performance assessment team.
9 There ic snw an interdisciplinary team that is 10 supposed to wrap up its work by January to look at some of 11 these ramifications, the exact things that you were 12 talking about.
13 And it's a mixed bag. It's a caustic (D
5- 14 solution, yes, but at the same time it sure reduces the 15 solubility of some nuclides. So all of those things are 16 being --
17 DR. STEINDLER: It shifts them over to 18 colloids.
19 DR. VAN LUIK: Our colloid model isn't ready 20 to ascertain that yet.
21 DR. STEINDLER: I understand that.
22 DR. VAN LUIK: But I think on the other issues 23 that you've mentioned, the work that you saw presented 24 yesterday on the near field environment and how we are
,rm
() 25 actually making progress in that realm, it's a realm that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
372 1 I think is somewhat behind where it needs to be.
fs 2 But I think that we are seeing the results
, Nh l 3 that were presented yesterday; for example, on the exact 1
4 results you were referring to. It's a large step in the i
5 right direction. And we're also somewhat concerned about l 6 the alteration of the chemistry of the plume that moves j 7 away from the repository.
I 8 So I think we will have a more comprehensive I i
9 description of the near field environment attacking a lot !
10 of the issues that you mentioned for use in the TSPA-VA. !
1 11 And, of course, we realize that more work needs to be done i
12 in the near field environment description work for the 1
13 license application.
O)
\
\- 14 Feel free to jump in.
15 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Let me ask Marty a ,
1 1
16 question. If the near field is not an oxidizing 17 environment or at least not to the extent that we thought, 1
18 from an engineering perspective, isn't that good news, l 19 rather than bad news, if we take advantage of it?
20 DR. STEINDLER: Probably. It's surprising how 21 ignorant we are about the chemical speciation of fission 22 products and neptunium that is derived from the actual 23 reaction of the surface to spent UO2 fuel with whatever 24 kind of groundwater you would care to have or, for that
/^
k_)) 25 matter, deionized water, which is where most of the drift NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. !
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
373 1 tests were done.
l l
- 2 The general notion is that if you do this in
/ss
\'~') 3 air, you're going to get technetium-7. And for l
l 4 pertectonate, we'll simply ge whistling down at the same 5 rate as water. Well, maybe you do, and maybe you don't.
6 And this is where my bucket of iron comes in.
7 The Canadians have just in the laat year 8 indicated that the stability of technetium-4 and 5 is a 9 heck of a lot greater than had previously thought in 10 relation to technetium-7. So the stability or 11 stabilization of the lower valent state technetium, for 12 example, could do a lot.
13 The other thing that is a little bit O)
\~
14 surprising is that our state of ignorance of complexation 15 of the cartonates is not -- I'll add that. It's an old 16 story. Probably some of the stuff is incorrect, but it's 1
1 17 not too bad.
18 At the levels of, say, neptunium, at 10 4 molar 19 or less depending on what kind of dilution you can expect, l 20 you have to begin to pay attention to the things like the 21 small fluoride concentration, totally ignore it. And the 22 actinide complex fluoride is like crazy.
23 You wonder why those things simply are not 24 mentioned in the reports. That's my concern. It isn't r~
(,T) 25 that Los Alamos doesn't know what fluoride complexing is.
NEAL R. GROSS
, CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I
1
374 1 Good grief. I mean, that's where it started. But I don't l
2 see the attention being paid, for one reason or another.
, !7-
}
3 And I'm now looking at it from the standpoint 4 of not the guy who is going to referee a journal article, 5 which, by the way, you guys have got to get that out there
! 6 in the referee literature. Otherwise, credibility is 7 going to be a problem pretty sian.
8 But I'm thinking of somebody back. in the NRC 9 staff who's suddenly handed a document and say, "Tell me 10 whether or not this stuff is reasonably assured." The 11 criteria is reasonable assurance.
12 For that, that person has to understand what 13 went into this thing and the comprehensive envelope which
,m
> \
\# 14 was used in the thought process. That can't be opaque.
15 That's got to be kind of evident and visible. If you 16 throw it into the literature, it becomes a little more 17 evident. That's all I'm saying.
18 But, yes, it would be a handy thing. I was a 19 little bit surprised, by the way, in the ratio of dose of 20 neptunium to technetium. It doesn't seem to match the 21 TSPA results. It almost seems to look as though 22 technetium is a no never mind. Is that an illegitimate 23 comment?
24 DR. VAN LUIK: It's per unit concentration.
pj. 25 DR. STEINDLER: Per unit concentration. Did I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRlBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
375 1 miss that?
2 DR. ROBINSON: Yes.
I
(
\'
3 DR. STEINDLER: I probably did.
4 DR. ROBINSON: I think that the dose 5 conversions are quite uncertain, and it kind of gives you l
6 a snapshot. The ranking that I put there kind of gives 1
7 you a snapshot of: Based on certain assumptions, which 8 one would come out the most important?
9 I think given the way in which those change 10 and the way that factors into things, anything that is 11 basically within a couple orders of magnitude of neptunium 12 I would think you wouldn't want to just ignore at this 13 point.
f c
\~ 14 And clearly neptunium, which is also important 15 if the time period of focus is more narrow than, say, a 16 million years that a lot of these simulations are carried 17 out for, then it becomes the important radionuclide.
18 So it's a caveat. When you try to synthesize 19 something into a single slide, you sometimes lose a lot of 20 that detail.
21 DR. VAN LUIK: So it looks like I was wrong 22 about the unit concentration, but in the TSPA, technetium 23 and iodine unretarded. And you're suggesting we ought to 24 take a second look, at least at technetium. Maybe we can 01
( ,/ 25 claim we're conservative if there are temporary reducing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
l 1
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
376 1 effects that tie it up for a while.
- 2 Those came out first. And the higher peak in
\~#
3 the far distance is the neptunium peak. I did believe l 4 your calculation was for a simple source term at the water 5 table before it hit the saturated zone. Isn't that i 6 correct?
7 DR. ROBINSON: Yes.
8 DR. VAN LUIK: Or just as it hits the 9 saturated zone.
10 DR. ROBINSON: That's right. And the 11 assumption is that --
12 DR. STEINDLER: But that wasn't dose at the 13 critical --
O
\~ # 14 DR. ROBINSON: It was relative dose. What it 15 assumes is that at the concentration in the water, when it 16 hits the water table, when the water table dilutes and 17 disperses these radionuclides, it does the same amount of 18 dilution for each of them. Okay.
19 So we're just focusing at a concentration 20 right before it hits the water table converted to a dose 21 and then put on a relative scale.
22 DR. STEINDLER: That's what I was saying.
23 DR. ROBINSON: Yes.
24 DR. STEINDLER: That's fine.
k_j 25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Time is slipping away from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
377 1 us , Abe. I did want to talk a little bit about the expert I
2 elicitations. I guess there are several questions that
~'
3 one could ask.
4 One that occurred to me as you were talking 5 earlier has to do with the function of the peer review 6 panels. I think I understood that you're going to use the 7 peer review panels on a continuing basis, both during the 8 elicitation itself and then afterwards as an independenc 9 evaluator of the process.
10 First of all, maybe you could tell me whether 11 that's correct before I go further.
12 DR. VAN LUIK: That's basically correct. The 13 peer review is a very separate issue from the expert
(\
-) 14 elicitations. And the expert elicitation results will be 15 made available to the peer reviewers. As far as detailed 16 questions on the expert elicitation, like I mentioned, 17 both Bob and Bo are part of the management team for the 18 first elicitation. And so maybe I should pass your more 19 detailed questions to them.
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Okay. But just to clarify, 21 it will be the same peer review panel that will be serving 22 as what we used to call in the seismic, the earlier EPRI 23 seismic, investigations a senior advisory panel. And then 24 that senior advisory panel will then take the function of
, /O
(_) 25 a peer review panel?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
, 378 I l
1 Usually that will be a little strange because a 2 you will be then trying to review in some way what you had a
O 3 directed in a format sense at least.
4 DR. VAN LUIK: The procedure that we're using l 5 actually does allow for that. And we did find precedent 6 within DOE for putting together a panel of this nature.
k
- 7 The first charge, however, of the panel 8 chairman is to write the plan, which conforms with the DOE a
i 9 procedures on how to use a peer review panel and at the l 10 same time meets our needs, which is to have some input 11 along the way so that we don't -- the thing that we are 12 trying to avoid at this point is to have a peer review 4
i 13 panel that watches us work, keeps quiet, and then 14 afterwards says, "Well, if there was an opportunity for us 15 to give you some correction along the way," then obviously 16 if they suggested a very specific piece of work, we did 17 that work.
18 And it went into the TSPA-VA. Then in their 19 independent review, they would have to just focus not on 20 the fact that we did or didn't do the work, but on how 21 well the work was done.
22 So I think the independence can be maintained
- 23 as long as they recognize that where they made a direct 24 suggestion and we followed it, that that aspect of it has f
- S to come off the table. But whether we did it correctly or i
NEAL R. GFH)SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
.z- - .
379 1 not is still wide open.
2 We are counting on the Chairman to be a person O 3 that is sensitive enough to these types of issues to lay 4 out a plan that can then be reviewed anu agreed upon.
5 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICi'.: From the standpcint of 6 enhancing that plan -- and maybe yo2're very much on top 7 of this, but part of the DOE, namely EM-50, the science i
8 and technology group, just took a pretty severe hit from l
l 9 the National Academy of Sciences and Engineering on their
- 10 whole peer review process.
1 11 And it's my understanding that they are 12 undertaking a rather major effort to establish a peer 13 review process that has more universal acceptance, 1
s 14 including acceptance by such bodies as the National 15 Research Council and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 because I know that we have been feeding them some 17 information from the NRC, et cetera.
1 18 So that might be an activity that would be l
19 something for you to review if you haven't already.
20 DR. VAN LUIK: I have not, and I will, yes.
21 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: This is Clyde Franks'.
22 DR. VAN LUIK: I know the organization well, 23 yes.
24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: On another aspect, I think 25 I'll direct it to you, Abe. And you can pass it off. You NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASH!NGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
380 l
1 talked about the criteria that you were utilizing for
,_s 2 selection of the experts. And I know that's going to be k
3 fine. I think you were talking in that context of 4 external experts. l 5 But perhaps you could clarify for me. Would j 6 the same criteria that you're using for the selection of 7 experts from the outside community apply to the people in 8 the inside community that you'd select? l l
9 DR. BODVARSSON: (Sighing.)
10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I like Bo's response.
11 DR. VAN LUIK: Yes, Bo's response is very 12 good, in fact. It would be my response except you 13 directed the question to me.
.O
\_) 14 What I believe I heard in the last meeting 15 that I was invited to on this of the management group is 16 that, yes, that would also be the case. And i fact, j 17 part of the internal selection process i. make sure 18 that we do not get people who have such a vested interest 19 in promoting their own model that they can, in fact, as 20 was the case in the volcanic hazard assessment, listen to 21 other people and say, "Okay. I probably should take that 22 into consideration."
23 So I think yes, but on the inside we are 24 somewhat limited. If we're looking at Bo's model, he has O)
'q , 25 a limited amount of people available. And so if we take NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
381 1 three experts in the project and one or two of them is out
,_s 2 of Bo's very own shop because they would be the most
'- 3 intimately familiar with the modeling, we would have some 4 limitations there. But yes, we are intending to the 5 extent practical to apply the same procedure to selecting 6 those people.
7 But I think this is going to be an interesting 8 thing to watch. And I think that part of the reason that 9 we are not as concerned perhaps as we would have been for ;
10 the PVHA and the PSHA, whatever the acronyms are, is that '
11 we are doing this for ourselves mostly.
12 And so we are planning to write down why we 13 selected the people we did and to document, be as F'i (m / 14 transparent as possible, and follow the nine points of l 15 light in the technical branch position. Because we don't 16 want to get into procedural arguments, we would like to j 17 immediately be able to focus on the technical content of 18 the outcome of these reports that will be generated.
19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Absolutely. And I think 20 we'd all strongly support that. I do think, though, that 21 these elicitations are going to be in the VA, TSPA. And 22 it's not perhaps clear to anybody yet whether they might 23 be incorporated, in part or in all, into TSPA-LA.
24 DR. VAN LUIK: It is not clear at this point.
) 25 I imagine that they will certainly be part of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
382 1 background for the TSPA-LA, but it also may be that the 2 uncertainties that are identified will be addressed by "
O 3 some additional work which will be used instead.
4 But if that additional work flows out of the l
5 result of the expert elicitation, certa'nly they would be 6 referenced and be part of the documentation of the LA. So l
l t 7 you're right. It may not be a direct feed in some cases.
l 8 And in some cases it might.
9 It might be that they identify uncertainties 10 that when we test them in a total system model are 11 acceptable. And, therefore, it would be best for us to do l 12 the best job we can in making it honest and following the 13 protocols in the BTP, et cetera.
14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: We think it's an important 15 move, and we certainly want to have somebody from the NRC 16 observe as we go on, I think. l l
17 DR. BODVARSSON: We'11 add one more thing to '
18 what Abe said. You have a lot of discussion in this group 19 with Bob and Abe about: How can we best use this 20 opportunity to improve the model? Like Abe said, this is 21 for us, although we want to follow all of the protocols.
22 And when we are selecting the outside experts, 23 there are a lot of areas that we would like them to look 24 at, but we have to limit them, of course, because the UZ 25 model covers a lot of ground.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
- . , = - - . - , . -- - =.. -.-.- ,. ., . - - , -
383 1 So there may be somewhat different criteria, I 2 would think, between the inside and the outside because, 7-U 3 for example, for the outside experts, what we are thinking 4 about now -- and this may change -- is that we certainly 5 would like to see somebody on that is highly knowledgeable 6 about infiltration environments because basically, we 7 have a limited amount of people within the project that 8 have been looking at that. Basically, Allen Flint and his 9 people have been looking at that. And that's an important 10 part of it that we would like to get an outside expert in 11 that area.
12 Another area that we also would like to get an 13 outside expert if we get the right ones is what you guys 0\
\d 14 have been probing be especially over the last couple of 15 days. And that is the adequacies and uncertainties of the 16 rock properties and fracture data and all of those kinds 17 of things.
18 And I think it would be very helpful to get an 19 outside person that is familiar with those measurements 20 and analysis and uncertainties to come in and give us 21 something there.
22 So I think given the fact that we are, I 23 think, working with six people on that panel, perhaps 24 three inside or three outside, maybe even two inside and
/^
25 four outside if you get four excellent experts, we can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
384 1 adjust the mix somewhat to get the best thing possible to 7-s 2 help the model and TSPA-VA.
3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right. And that 4 flexibility is critical, I think.
5 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Well, we're five 6 minutes over our schedule. I think we're going to have to 7 adjourn. Let me say that I like this format. I think 8 it'F a rare opportunity for the Committee to have a 9 multiplicity of talent in front of them on the performance 10 assessment. I think it's something we need to do. I hope 11 we can do it again.
12 I didn't get to a whole series of questions 13 that I had on the general form and structure of the model, b\/ 14 but maybe there will be other opportunities. And also I'm l
15 sure each of the Committee members has a long list of l
16 questions that they would yet like to discuss. So I hope 1
l 17 that this is perhaps a precedence of a format that we can l 18 employ from time to time in the future.
19 In the meantime, we appreciate very much all 20 of you hanging around the second day of our meeting and 21 being available and being as forthright and direct as you 22 were in your responses. So thank you very much. l l
23 Paul? l l
l 24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I certainly second that j
(
25 appreciation on behalf of all of the members of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
385 1 Committee. Thank you.
,f _ 2 We are now scheduled for a 15-minute break, t I 3 and I'd like io take that and reconvene at 10 minutes of 4 the hour.
5 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the 6 record at 10:39 a.m. and wer' back on the 7 record at 10:56 a.m.)
8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: The meeting will come back 9 to order, please. The next item on our agenda is 10 " Repository Design for Viability Assessment." And Dean 11 Stucker with the DOE will be our speaker. But I'll turn 12 the meeting over to Dr. Hinze, on my left, for 13 administration.
/ s
- b. )
</ 14 MEMBER HINZE: Thank you, Paul.
15 6) REPOSITORY DESIGN FOR VIABILITY ASSESGMENT t
16 MEMBER HINZE: It has been a good long time 17 since we have heard about the design of the repository.
18 And it's certainly one of the very critical elements of 1
19 the VA. l
)
20 We are reminded of the iterative process in l 21 design between science and engineering. And we're 22 interested to hear about how that iteration process has 23 worked, then. We're interested in how that leads to 24 assumptions and what the implications of those assumptions (3
'( ,/ 25 are, Dean.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
386 1 I won't take any more of your time. So if you
,s
, 2 would, please? I understand you're going to be <
l
\ )
3 introducing your cadre of troops. \
4 DR. STUCKER: Yes, that's correct. And good 5 morning. I'm looking forward to a discussion of our i 6 current designs and our current approach and some of the 7 issues.
8 I think it's been almost two years since we 9 gave a brief presentation to the Committee on where our 10 designs were at that time, and we have had some 11 substantie1 changes in our design approach and in our 12 designs. And I would like to take Abe's approach and have 13 the M&O present some details of what those design
,r\
5~-
14 approaches are currently and what some of the issues are 15 related to the designs and some of the designs that we're 16 currently going forward on.
17 In doing so, I hope to answer some of your 18 specific questions. We have some experts in the audience 19 that we can bring forward to help answer those questions.
20 So now I'd like to introduce, if I could, Jack 21 Bailey. Jack is the deputy of operations manager for the 22 engineering and integration with the M&O. And Jack brings 23 a strong engineering background in licensing to our team.
24 So I'd like to turn it over here to Jack, and h 25 he will have a presentation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
, . - . . . - . . . - - . ~ , - . - - - _ - . _ ~ - - - - . - . . _ - . . . . - - - . - . - - - . . .. - - -
387 1 DR. BAILEY: Thank you, Dean.
2 (Slide.)
3 DR. BAILEY: I'm going to talk about the 4 repository design for viability assessment. Before I l 5 start with that, I want to build on something that Abe l t 6 said earlier.
\
l 7 We did have a session up here earlier with the 8 scientific and the performance assessment folks in our 9 panel discussion. And Abe mentioned that the designers l l
10 weren't at the table. I was in the audience. l l
l 11 I probably coulr* have been at the table, but l
12 we didn't set it up that way because the questions were l 13 focused more to a scientific nature. We certainly are a 14 team here with regard to science, performance assessment, i
15
~
and engineering.
16 .ind another question was asked I want to build 17 on by Mr. Steindler. And that is the question with regard 18 to: Concrete linings, steel casks, what are you doing 19 here?
20 Well, we had some problems here with l
21 engineering. Engineering is an interesting piece. It's 22 the back end of the process. You heard about science.
23 You heard about performance assessment. And naturally and l 24 chronologically, here we are at engineering. We have to i 25 take what these fellows find, what they need. And we have i
NEAL R. GROSS :
l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS ]
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. j l
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l i
l
388 1 to turn it into an engineering facility that satisfies the
,_s 2 requirements of Part 60.
\'h 3 What you saw is a problem. We have 150 miles 4 of underground drift. We need to place radioactive waste 5 into that. We chose to canisterize that. With 150 miles 6 of underground drift, we have to be able to maintain that.
7 We have to be able to enter it. We have to be able to do 8 performance confirmation with regard to it.
9 Concrete is a good answer for that. That 10 solves problems for us. It's a known material. We have 11 desires to stay with reasonably available technology.
12 It's a known material. There are certainly different 13 kinds of concrete that might be able to help us there.
g
~ 14 But we also recognize you've got a pr)blem. )
15 Yes, it is reducing environment. It has the 16 potential for corrosion of the package or accelerating 17 corrosion of the package. It also, as Abe pointed out, 18 has the potential to help us with regard to perhaps the 19 transport or the non-transport of those radionuclides.
20 Clearly there are some competing efforts.
21 That's what design is about. It's coming up with the best 22 answer you can with what you're given. And we're talking, 23 as Abe said.
24 We have scientific people. We have the p
(,,) 25 performance assessment people. We have the engineering NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
389 1 people working to see if this is, in fact, a viable p- 2 solution, to see if we can, in fact, engineer a design to
() 3 satisfy those kinds of problems. i 4 So I want to point out that we indeed are a 5 team. We are, in fact, looking at what they give us, very 6 similar to the ccmments earlier at the beginning of the 7 talk, of how you go through this iteration process.
8 Well, the itera: ion process came toward us. l l
9 We looked at what we needed to do. And we're giving it 10 back. And we're now into that. And I think in my talk l
11 today, you'll hear a good deal of that type of iteration. l 12 The engineering effort -- and it's called the j l
13 viability design -- is being directed to produce a design i
?~
~ 14 suitable for the LA in 2002. We have a way station along l
15 the way, which is the viability assessment.
16 We recognir.e that we have to go through and 17 develop details of design, we have to resolve significant 18 issues, and we have to deal with the regulatory design 19 detail that's necessary t' meet the NRC-type requirements.
20 In that path, we want to come up with a design 21 in 2002 that we conduct. We also need to be able to 22 support a viability assessment in 1998 with that portion 23 of the design that is particularly significant with regard 24 to performance assessment.
f^3
(_) 25 So it has to be a balanced design. We can't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
390 .
1 just work waste package materials. We can't just work 2 thermal load. We have to work the whole system. And 3 that's what a good deal of my talk about is today. !
4 (Slide.)
5 DR. BAILEY: As a result, my intent is to 6 describe the goals of engineering in the near term. I'm i l
7 going to review the history a little bit so you understand i
)
8 where we start from.
I 9 I want to identify the criterion we've used I l
10 for setting up priorities. I'd like to review some major 11 issues briefly. I'd like to take a short term of the t 1
12 design, emphasizing some changes.
I 13 And, along the way, I'll try and address the
~
1 l 14 questions that were noted in the agenda. And I welcome 15 questions. If you want to interrupt me in the course of i
16 the talk, feel free.
l 17 I have several people in the audience if the l 18 question is deeper than I or I feel they can answer the l 19 question better that I'll happily pass to. l 1
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Jack, then, before you l
, 21 begin, let me just ask you a quick question --
l !
22 DR. BAILEY: Certainly.
23 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: -- that I know the answer 24 to but I want to get it anyway.
25 DR. BAILEY: I hope I'm right.
l l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
391 1 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: You mentioned that you're 2 conforming design also to the regulatory environment. And i
73 t
~'
3 I just wanted your feeling. Are you running into major 1
4 difficulties trying to do this design in the context of 1
5 regulations, standards and regulations, that are changing, 6 that may change, at least, I'd better say?
7 DR. BAILEY: Well, I look at it from -- I 8 guess I view it in three ways. First is the post-closure 9 performance. And that is we're told perhaps subject to 10 change.
11 I think that the scientific aspects and what 12 we're learning about the characterization of the mountain i
13 is probably a bigger impact on us than the regulations at
(~% '
i s
\~-) 14 this point in time.
15 Our intent is to produce a robust design and 16 to make that design interface as flawlessly as possible 17 with the environment. If we do that, then we've done what 18 we can with regard to the regulatory requirements. If 19 they change, then we'll look at our designs and we'll look 20 at margins and we'll look at redundancy as necessary or 21 changes. Scientific will cause us to be driven the same 22 way.
23 With regard to the pre-closure facilities, 24 which, of course, also have to be licensed, there we're r~
(,,x) 25 going through an effort, which has started very lightly NEAL R. GROSS !
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
_ __= _ _ _ _ . _ _ .__ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
392 i
! 1 but which we're getting into now, -- and, in fact, I'm l
2 going to address it here doing the talk -- to try and lO I 3 identify those pieces of regulatory criteria that exist in 4 the Parts 50 or the Part 72 world that we believe is 5 adequate and appropriate, perhaps with modification, 1
6 perhaps without modification, and identifying that to use l
7 as part of the guidance for our design.
8 Those areas where we don't have precedence, l
9 where we don't find precedence, then we have to look and 10 go to the industry standards for that area, which likely 11 is not going to be familiar to the NRC.
12 So we may have to make a case that certain 13 industry standards were appropriate with regard to 14 criteria. And we may, in fact, have to do specialized 15 analysis to demonstrate that criteria.
16 Probably the most difficult part of this part l
17 of the design is that Part 60 is an over-arching-type 18 requirement similar to Part 50. It gives you goals to l
19 meet.
j 20 How to meet them and how to have them accepted 1
21 in the reactor world comprises a couple of rooms full of 22 "If you do this, you're okay." And, of course, we don't 23 have that.
24 So we're trying to gather as much of that as 25 we can and define the rest and work with the NRC to gain NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
_~ _ _- _ . . _
393 1 acceptance of that and gain an agreement on what the right
,_ 2 levels of margins and the right types of standards are.
( )
'~~' 3 So we have to go through that process.
i 4 Is that responsive to your question?
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: That certainly is. Thank j 6 you.
7 DR. BAILEY: Our near-term goal for the design 8 is to develop a reference design for the viability 9 assessment. I need to have something designed that's tied I 10 directly to the total system performance assessment for ,
1 11 VA, the TSPA-VA that you were talking about. That's our 12 first priority.
13 We work with the performance ass- sment folks.
( 't
\/ 14 And they tell us what performance they expect from 15 different parts of the engineering system. And that 16 performance comes to us in the form of requirements, like 17 for the waste package, perhaps in thermal. It comes to us 18 in the form of requirements, satisfy these requirements.
19 They give us the specification based on what 20 they believe is out there. Now, they can't give us that 21 unless they have an idea of what we have because this is a 22 first of a kind. So we go through a very iterative 23 process there.
24 We also have to identify tentative or likely (3
(_) 25 resolution to various engineer drivers. And I'm going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
394 1 talk about what some of those issues are a little bit
- 2 later. But we have to come up with a design.
\~.) 1 3 It doesn't have to be the design that we 4 license. It is not necessarily going to be the design 5 that we license. But we feel that we need to spend some 6 time; come up with a reference; develop that reference 7 design; ensure that it's in lock-step with the performance 8 assessment so that we get an accurate representation 9 through the performance assessment and the performance of 10 the mountain; and demonstrate that that design is 11 feasible, preferably with available technology, that it's 12 cost-conscious, that it can fit within the requirements of 13 cost, and that it's licensable.
( s
\l 14 So.we have a whole series of things to do. So 15 it isn't just TSPA. It isn't just the post-closure part 16 we have to look at. We have to look at how we do the rest 17 of it.
18 The VA reference design -- and I've said some 19 of this -- is a design that balances the overall facility.
20 There's a good deal of cost in building this facility that 21 isn't associated with the TSPA.
22 We want to make sure we're in lock-step. I'm 23 going to say that a whole bunch of times today. We're not 24 going to have a design that isn't reflected in the TSPA.
[~)T
(_ 25 They're not going to have something that we don't have, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
395 1 and we're not going to have something that they don't 7s 2 have. We're going to demonstrate a design that works.
V)
(
3 We've had some problems like that in the past, 4 and that has to do more with timing than with 5 coordination. But, unfortunately, it's frequently called 6 coordination. So this time we're going to do both. We 7 have timing the same, and we have the coordination to 8 ensure no problems there.
9 We have to develop potential solutions to 10 resolve these unprecedented regulatory designs. The 11 ventilation system is always one of my favorites. We all 12 know how to push and pull air, but to push and pull air 13 through 150 miles of tunnel in these types of quantities O) k- 14 in this type of a locale, maintain a delta pressure 15 between the emplacement site and the development site, 16 probably in a safety-related manner, with sampling and in 17 conjunction with a variety of performance confirmation 18 requirements down the road.
19 Your question from earlier regarding "Do we 20 keep taking data?"; of course, we do. Our ventilation 21 affects our data. It has to be controlled, and we have to 22 know what happens.
23 The NRC has never looked at that. Although 24 the principles are probably right, it's not something that O(m ,/ 25 I think is.just going to be checked off as it's done.
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. ,
(202) 234-4433 WASHlNGToN. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 j l
396 l
1 We're going to have to work with that area.
l 2 So even t nings that are f airly 7-3 straightforward, you would think, like ventilation, in a 4 regulatory atmosphere, we really have to work and develop 5 our criteria.
6 And one of the things we want to do in the 7 reference design is define our requirements for these 8 systems, structures, and components. We're breaking the 9 plant down into various systems. And then we're breaking 10 those systems down into the structures and the components.
11 And we're working to determine what's got 12 precedent, what doesn't have precedent, and how can we go 13 through the design process to make sure that it works. So
(--
kl 14 it's a very logical and step-wise program. I are an 15 engineer.
16 (Slide.)
17 DR. BAILEY: Once we get to the VA and if we 18 get approval at the time of VA that this reference design 19 in conjunction with the TSPA suggests that we should 20 continue with this project, then we're going to continue 21 and develop the license application design. And we'll do 22 those designs to an appropriate level for the LA.
23 This does not mean that the entire facility 24 will be designed by the time of the LA. Far from it. We
( \
(_/ 25 expect to be continuing the design for years after the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
397 1 submittal of the license application.
,s 2 It is our intent to put in the license
( )
3 application those systems, structures, or components in 4 the level of detail that will satisfy the NRC with regard 5 to the safety case that we intend to make.
6 In addition, once we get to the VA, we will 7 identify changes to design as a result of ongoing 8 scientific results, either in characterization of 9 parameters that we use directly in design or differences 10 in scientific results that are fed into the performance 11 assessment group, who will then reallocate performance as 12 necessary to make optimum use of the mountain and give us 13 those kinds of design changes.
t' 14 We will then take the reference design and 15 change that reference design in a controlled manner; being 16 able to show the deltas and show the impacts of how we 17 think we can satisfy those requirements better; and, of 18 course, design development. At the end of the talk, 19 you'll see what kind of design development we've done in 20 merely the last six months.
21 MEMBER HINZE: Jack, so we're all on the same 22 page, --
23 DR. BAILEY: Sure.
24 MEMBER HINZE: -- your design is not only the A
k_s) 25 underground but also is the handling operations, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 398 1 transportation access, et cetera?
f- 2 DR. BAILEY: Yes. The design of this 3 facility, MGDS, is from the front gate, where the fuel 4 comes in until emplacement. It's everything within the 5 site boundary. That includes security; the gate house; 6 the receipt facility; the handling; the repackaging of the 7 fuel in the waste packages; the closure of the waste l
8 packages; the shipment of the waste package into the i 1
9 underground; the emplacement into the underground; and. in 10 fact, the actual construction of the underground, which 1
1 11 will be ongoing for a period of time with the emplacement 12 operations. So it's all aspects of the design.
l 13 MEMBER HINZE: Perhaps this is a premature '
['T
'\ 's 14 question but a comment you made suggested. Can you give 15 us any example of how information derived from the 16 construction of the ESF has led to changes in your 17 thoughts on the design?
18 I know this has been a continual process and, 19 as we have pointed out, iterative. Do you have any 20 examples of how that has happened?
21 DR. BAILEY: Trying to choose which one to l
22 use. The ESF was certainly a boon for us in terms of 23 knowledge. One which I'm probably not the strongest 24 person to talk about but basically the fractural
{~Ny,) 25 orientation inside the rock.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
399 1 As we have gone through the tunnel, we have l
,g 2 found that the fractural orientation of the rock is not
(.} 3 exactly where we thought it was going to be based on our 4 surface observations.
5 And what happens with your fracture 6 orientation of the rock is that if you're driving parallel 7 to it, then you're kind of fighting your way constantly l
8 through loose rock.
9 It's very difficult in terms of construction.
l 10 If you look at and, in fact, when you see the charts that l
l l 11 I currently have in the repository, which have been drawn l
12 for some time, the northern boundary of it, you will see 13 that the drifts are currently oriented almost exactly ll
\2 14 across the fractural orientation, which we have to find 15 down there from what we learned in the ESF. We're going l
16 to have to turn those drifts in order to make it more 17 constructable.
18 So, yes, we learned physical things from being 19 down there. We learned how well the TBM works in those 1
20 kinds of areas. So, yes, we have learned a number of l 21 things in ESF.
l l
22 (Slide.)
23 DR. BAILEY: In terms of history, we published 24 the advanced conceptual design in March of 1996. This was (3 25 years of design effort. The design program has worked in
( j/
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 400 1 various areas at various times over several years.
2 And what we did in the first half of 1996 is 3 we took everything that was basically on the boards, and l
l 4 we compiled it. In important piece, we integrated it. We i
5 made sure that it fit. We convinced ourselves that we had 6 a basic design which worked.
7 It would perform the basic functions of the 8 repository. Those are receipt, handling, packaging, 9 welding, transport, haulage, emplacement. We had a design 10 that we thought would work and that tied together, it 11 could be -- as I said again, it could be deltaed from PA.
12 You could look at what was different from PA.
13 So you had a basis to look and see how it 14 worked. And we were confident that the basic precepts of 15 10 CFR Part 60 could be met. So we came up with this 16 advanced conceptual design, which says, "Here's a starting 17 point. Here's a design that will probably work."
18 It provided us with a common reference for the 19 start of design for VA. That's where we're starting from, 20 guys. This is the design we want. And let's work at the 21 deltas to that.
22 It will not be updated, the ACD. It was a 23 point in time. Everything was pulled together. We put a 24 big effort into it. And now we have a pretty good idea of 25 what the facility might look like. It sits out there, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
- _ ~ - -
401 1 we're not going to update it.
2 We're, in fact, going to keep the design 3 alive, as I call it, on the boards.
4 (Slide.)
5 DR. BAILEY: We have what's called a one-pass 6 program. We have an ongoing development of a single 7 design that's going to support viability assessment, 8 environmental impact statement, and the license l
9 application. And we'll be developing that over the next 10 five to six years.
11 Whdt that means in the not sense is that we're 12 not going to develop another ACD. We're not going to go 13 two more years to VA, put a big design on the street, 14 write a big report, and then decide what we're going to do 15 next.
16 We're going to go to a standard engineering 17 process and develop portions of the design. Ie sill be a 18 controlled process. And we will know what is on the board 19 and what has been used at the time of VA, part of our 20 staying in lock-step with TSPA.
21 And that design will be -- although we will 22 create a summary and provide some presentations of what it 23 looks like, it will basically be a listing of drawings, 24 specifications, and analyses that define the design at
) 25 that point in time. And as we go past viability and as we NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
402 i
1 make further decisions, then we'll go back and we'll n 2 continue to develop that design. And we'll make changes 3 to that design.
4 So we basically have said the ACD looks like 5 it would probably work. So let's move forward, and let's 6 make deltas to the ACD that we believe are appropriate.
7 Let's take a look at what we get from the scientific and 8 the performance assessment requirement in terms of 9 performance allocation. And let's make changes.
10 (Slide.)
11 DR. BAILEY: Now, we can't design the entire 12 facility in the next two years. It wouldn't make sense to 13 design the entire facility in the next two years. We have 14 to prioritize it. And we prioritized it for VA. We 15 prioritized it for the needs of the EIS. And we 16 prioritized it for the needs of the LA.
17 We want to make sure in that that we stick to 18 the post-closure evaluations, look at our performance 19 allocation requirements, and look at the regulatory 20 issues. I keep coming back to that because those are the 21 things that we really have to pay attention to in order to 22 design.
23 And we have to establish an adequate design 24 basis. And we believe we will that will support licensing 25 over this next five-year period, but it won't necessarily i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
403 1 support construction.
-- 2 As I said before, when we get to the LA, it
\_./ 1 3 isn't time to go to the field. There will be very little 1
4 l of the design that we'll actually be able to provide ;
l 5 physical drawings and installation specs for in the field.
6 I'll talk about that again in a minute.
7 But the idea is to get a conceptual design on 8 the table, to have analyses that verify that that design j 9 works, to have enough in-depth understanding of some of ;
10 the processes to ensure that the TSPA can be interfaced 11 with. And then we'll move ahead from there and start 12 continuing to flesh out the design.
13 As I'm sure you know, at some point following es i
(
A/ 14 license application, you swap typically from a design 15 process and a conceptual mode to start focusing on the 16 design to support construction packages.
17 So there comes a time once we have the entire 18 LA put together that then we shift our focus from trying 19 to get a complete I guess a Title I-type design, a 20 complete design, which you hand off to having a partial 21 design in the areas that we need it to support licensing 22 and construction. And, of course, the five-year program 23 is contingent on the go-ahead of VA.
24 Go to the next one.
,O.
( ,)
25 (Slide.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
i l 404 1 DR. BAILEY: I have a slide here. I'll point p- 2 out my mistake first. Optimistic me, the construction O 3 authorization isn't in 2002. It's more in the 2005 or 4 later time frame. And the SRR and the LA, which are l 5 almost indistinguishable to me, occur in the 2002 time 6 frame, 2001-2002 time frame.
l l 7 I say they are almost indistinguishable 8 because the information that I have to provide in order to l
l 9 make a site recommendation is almost the same information 10 that I have to provide in order to write the LA.
11 So I don't see a big distinction in those 12 particular pieces from the engineering point of view, 13 although I'm sure that the documentation that would be i
,m t i
\/ 14 used in each might be a bit different.
15 On a time line basis -- and I had this talk j 16 with the NRC. Unfortunately, we struggle with Title I, 1
j 17 Title II, and Title III, which is a design construction l
18 method.
l 19 We have a Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, which l 20 we have chosen for our engineering scheduling approach.
21 And in a page or two, you're going to get into Bin 1, 2, 22 and 3, which is one of my prioritization needs.
23 So I feel compelled to either confuse you or 24 try and straighten you out at this point. I think I (A_) 25 understand this. So it's always something you can come NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
( WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433
405 1 back to if you're confused.
,s 2 First, we issued the ACD, which provided us I\ \
' '/ 1 3 with a basis of design in 1996. Our Phase I, which runs l 4 for a year from 1996 to 1997, tries to stress, in fact, 5 our integration process. This is what we believe we need 6 to give to the other disciplines in order for them to get 7 on with their work for the VA.
8 At the end of '97, that's basically our cutoff 9 for what TSPA needs. We have to tell them what they need.
10 Clearly we're going to update them with the reoults of 11 tests and design that we define, but that's basically when 12 we have to give them their answer.
13 MEMBER HINZE: Does that include the predicted I t
/~N 1 1
\ 'j 14 performance of the containers? l l
l 15 DR. BAILEY: Yes, that includes the predicted 16 performance of the containers. Now, that testing is 17 multi-year. And we have some short-term tests, and we ,
1 18 have some long-term tests.
l l
39 And we'll be giving them updated performance.
20 In fact, that performance comes in in the March-April time 21 frame, initially to them, and to the short-term tests.
22 And we continue to update that information to make sure 23 that the fidelity of the information is acceptable as they 24 go through their processes.
A
( ,) 25 So we look at that information and compare it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
406 1 to see if it's something that they need to know that we're
,g 2 getting differant information. So yes, we are going to
( t
~
3 give them an up6ste so that the TSPA for '98 reflects the 4 best information we have at the time that their cutoff has 5 to come from and to make it coordinated with our design.
6 Phase II is a time frame that reaches from the 7 end of this interface period until the next interface 8 period. And the next interface period is when we have to 9 give all of our information to TSPA, to Licensing, to EIS 10 for the license application in the final EIS.
11 Once again, we've focused ourselves into:
12 What does everybody else need from us? And we asked for l 13 information requests from the different departments? What
/ s
-- 14 is it that you need from us? By the way, we do that to 15 them. We tell them what we need from them as well. We 16 exchange this information request. What do you need? And 17 when do you need them by?
18 And we focus on making sure that we meet all 19 of the needs of the other people so that they can do their 20 piece of work with the interface that they have to have 21 from us.
22 The rest of the Phase II time frame is 23 intended for us to more fully flesh out the design with 24 regard to the license application. An example of that q
k_) 25 might be the rad waste system, radiological waste.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
407 1 The TSPA guys do our pre-closure dose 2 calculations. And so they're interested in what our i
3 source term is, what our accident is, what the event is in '
4 there so that they can work with the dose calculation 5 associated with whatever postulated event is for rad 6 waste.
7 I need to be far enough along to give him that 8 kind of information. But the NRC now wants to know: -How 9 big is it? What's our throughput? What kind of piping is 10 it that you're using? What kind of routing? Have you 11 made your selections on your filters and your 12 demineralizers?
13 I've'got to do that kind of work downstream, 14 which may or may not -- if it has an effect on his answer, 15 then I may have done it. If it doesn't have an effect, 16 then I won't have it done, but I'll go do it post giving 17 him that but prior to doing a license application.
18 MEMBER HINZE: Is there a contingency diagram 19 that takes into account the possibility of interim storage 20 and becoming a factor here in the near term? l 21 DR. BAILEY: No, not for me. I don't have 22 that worked into my schedule at this point in time. When 23 I get down to some of the issues, you'll see thermal 24 management.
25 And clearly we have some interesting questions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
408 1 with regard to sequencing of the material as it comes into 2 the site, sequencing it as in storing it when it arrives,
/,,\
( /
3 storing it after we have taken it out of the canister, 4 sequencing it after it makes it into the waste package.
5 But those are our issues at this point in time.
6 The interim storage facility presents both 7 some helps and some hindrances with regards to us. But 8 no, we have not designed in the specifics associated with 9 the interim storage facility being present other than 10 looking at some potential locations.
11 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Jack, since you 12 introduced the confusion of Title I --
13 DR. BAILEY: Yes, sir.
13
(.) 14 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: -- versus phases, 15 where would you put Titles I, II, and III on that diagram?
1 16 DR. BAILEY: Title I will probably exist 17 finally done actually in this time frame. I won't finish 1
18 the design for the entire facility prior to LA. It will ;
l 19 be post-LA. It will be sometime either around the time of l j
i 20 construction or just post-construction.
l l
21 My experience in the utility business, as you 22 go to the field, it's 65 percent engineered. !
l 23 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
24 DR. BAILEY: And so around the time of going l l
(~N l
(_) 25 to the field is when you would actually finish your j NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 409 I
1 conceptual design, which is Title I. Title II, which is
,.-, 2 your construction design, we believe we could have the
't
& 3 construction design done in the 2007-type time frame; 4 i.e., you're constructing certain portions of it while 5 you're continuing design.
6 And we believe we could have the design done, 7 two or three years done, before operation so that it 8 satisfies the need for construction, which is what Title 9 II would actually end up.
10 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
11 DR. BAILEY: And, of course, Title III is 12 ongoing as you build.
13 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Thank you.
n I )
\/ 14 MEMBER HINZE: Do you have a lock on the 15 defense waste? There is a multitude of defense wastes 16 that are possible. Don't smile. And do you have a lock 17 on this or how much is that impacting your design?
18 DR. BAILEY: The DOE waste has just recently 19 come into the baseline. And we're currently working on a 20 strategy in order to characterize and deal with how best 21 to handle that.
22 The DOD waste is incorporated into the 70,000 23 metric tons, which the regulation provides. And that in 24 terms of the glass logs, if you will, that come from the n
k_,) 25 Savannah facility, that is incorporated into the design NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
410 1 that's being handled.
,s 2 The DOE waste, we're still working on a
/ \
O 3 strategy on exactly how to deal with it and what sequence 4 to take it, the multitude of the different types of wastes
! that exist there.
6 MEMBER HINZE: Does that include above Class 7 C?
8 DR. EAILEY: I'm sorry?
9 MEMBER HINZE: Does that include above Class 10 C? Has that raised its head?
11 DR. BAILEY: I don't know the answer to that 12 question.
13 MEMBER HINZE: Okay. Thank you.
C\
-s 14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Before you go on, --
15 DR. BAILEY: Sure.
16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: -- just quickly, I presume 17 when we get down to talking to the issues, you're going to 18 perhaps give us some indication of the time that you need 19 some of the major decisions made, such as the thermal 20 loading decision.
21 DR. BAILEY: Yes. I will try and talk to 22 that, but being a good engineer, I can live with change.
23 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you.
24 DR. BAILEY: So it isn't necessary to Ch
( ,/ 25 necessarily have a real firm time on some of these issues, NEAL R. GROGS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
411 1 but I'm going to talk to that.
s 2 MEMBER HINZE: You'd rather have bucks, but ;
\
3 you'll go along with change. ,
I 4 DR. BAILEY: I'm sorry?
5 MEMBER HINZE: You'd rather have bucks, but j 6 you'll go along with change; right? j l
7 DR. BAILEY: Yes, I would. I'd much rather 1 8 just move ahead and never change it, but I can deal with l 9 it. And it is a first-of-a-kind facility. You know, we 10 sometimes lose sight of that, I believe. It is a 11 first-of-a-kind facility.
1 12 Heck, tomorrow we do have a better idea. And i 13 if it's still cost-effective to work that -- and you're (D
\2 14 going to see a couple of f. hem in here that in the last six 15 months have reared their head, which are really very 16 interesting because we finally sat down and thought about 17 it a little bit more and how best to do it.
18 So I'm not averse to change. Clearly the more 1
19 things that I can lock in, the better off we are and the 20 cheaper it's going to be, but some things you can't lock 21 in yet.
22 This is somewhat repetitive, but I want to go 23 through it in a different way now. Now that I told you 24 one way, I want to tell you another way.
['N (j 25 (Slide.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
412 2 DR. BAILEY: The initial design efforts focus f~s s 2 on VA. And what we have to do is we have to support i
V 3 performance assessment, we have to look at the feasibility 4 of the technology of this VA design. That's actually a VA 5 here. That's the second time I've made that mistake.
6 That's actually a VA design. It's really the design for 7 the PA.
8 But we have to look at the feasibility of the 9 technology.
10 (Slide.)
11 DR. BAILEY: We have to look at the cost.
12 There are lots of ways to skin this cat. Can we do it in 13 a reasonable cost manner? And we have to looK at the O
5- / 14 regulatory basis for planning.
l 15 That's real important because our requirement 16 for the VA is to have a TSPA, to have an engineering 17 design in lock-step with that. We have to have a capital 18 cost estimate if we decide to proceed. What's this likely 19 to cost us?
20 And then a licensing plan. We need to have a 21 licensing plan that says, "Can we really do this in the 22 next few years?" So we have to work through some of these 23 issues and decide on the licensability.
24 Support for performance assessment. We're O)
(_ 25 going to go and do those things that have to be done.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
413 1 Corrosion models are a good example, the materials in the j fs 2 underground. We need to make that selection on what those k_
l 3 materials are going to be, what the quantity is going to l
4 be. Can that be tolerated?
5 Feasibility of technology. I talked about the 6 underground ventilation. Another area that's of interest 7 is dry spent fuel handling. The ACD design, the design up 8 until a year ago, was based upon the use of the 9 multipurpose canister.
10 The multipurpose canister was taken to the 11 utilities. It was loaded with fuel. It was dried. It 12 was welded up. It was shipped to us. We put it in an 13 overpack and took it underground. All of those things
,/~T J 14 that are normally done in a utility in terms of handling 15 fuel and such were done in that type of an arena.
16 Without the MPC, we're looking at having to l
17 unpack either dual-purpose canisters, storage and 18 transportation, or unpacking transportation canisters and )
19 handling each and every fuel element individually.
20 That's a very different process. That's 21 thousands of elements each year. Our desire is to do it 22 dry. It's much more quick. It keeps water out of the 23 packages, which is desirable. But handling thousands of 24 elements on an annual basis is a technology that hasn't f' 1
(_)% 25 been licensed. It's a technology that we can certainly NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (/02) 234-4433 l
l
I 414 1 do, but it isn't one that has been licensed.
- 2 So there are some interesting challenges there l
3 in terms of dealing with feasibility of technology or of 1
4 licensing as you get to the next page.
5 (Slide.)
6 DR. BAILEY: Cost to construct, ground 7 support. Ground support could be terribly expensive.
8 It's nice to choose one that satisfies our needs but keeps 9 the costs within bounds. We need to develop a design that 10 allows costing.
11 One of the reasons we can't do just the 12 interface to PA is you can't cost, just the waste package 13 and just the ground support and just the materials O)
N- 14 construction. We really need to look at the whole 15 facility. It doesn't mean we're going to design the whole 16 facility, but we can get ourselves into sizes and shapes I
17 and volumes and activities and then get a reasonable l 18 estimating estimate as to what this is going to cost.
19 And the regulatory basis for planning, is it i 20 precedented or is it unprecedented? We need to identify ;
21 acceptance criteria. Designed to Part 60 is nice. We can ;
22 do certain things which are particularly specific, but 23 when it comes down to margins, when it comes down to 24 biases, when it comes down to what code is acceptable, 25 that's an entirely different issue. And we.certainly NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. l l
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
415 1 don't want to put the NRC through an entire technology 2 change if we can avoid it. So we really have to work at if~s\
%./
3 that pace.
4 And we're going to determine the level of 5 detail through what I call binning, which is a couple of 6 pages away, and to tell you again our priorities are 7 performance assessment, use of existing technology, 8 costing, and licensability. Those are the four things we 9 really look at. Those are things that we're going to 10 focus our efforts on.
11 Now, we've used some consultant panels, most 12 notably a repository consulting panel, to try and help us 13 guide the process, to help us focus on solutions, to take
/, i
-l 14 advantage of their experience in large-scale projects, and j l
15 to give us some advice on the design development. Are we 16 doing the right thing or are we just barking up a tree?
17 We're trying to take advantage of some outside l 18 help, not that we don't have competent and capable people, l 19 but we work on it every day and there are other big jobs 20 out there. We might as well take advantage of them.
21 Next slide.
22 (Slide.)
23 DR. BAILEY: This is what we call binning.
24 This is where you get to go to 1, 2, and 3 again. What it O
k)m 25 tries to do is identify the priorities for the level of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
416' 1 detail at time of the license submittal.
s 2 As I said, we're not going to have the entire
( \
%'-)
3 design done at the time of the submittal of a license 4 application. So we went through, and we broke down l 5 systems first and then individual components and 6 structures inside those systems.
7 That activity is still ongoing We've done a 8 partial. And we tried to break them up into three pieces:
9 Those that have a radiological involvement and no 10 regulatory precedent, those that have a radiological 11 involvement that have regulatory precedent, and those that 12 have no radiological involvement.
13 As you might guess, Bin 3 is what we think we
[
\/ ) 14 have to have the highest level of detail on. We believe 15 that those types of design would have to be almost to 16 Title I and perhaps in some cases past Title I if we 17 actually get into the physical aspects.
18 So we're taking the entire facility. We're 19 trying to break it down into pieces. We're trying to 20 prioritize each one of those pieces along a variety of 21 means, regulatory means, performance assessment, cost, and 22 take all those little pieces and try and take those pieces 23 and come up with a general design and then focus in on the 24 little pieces to come up with the specifics that we need
(~~'\
() 25 first for VA and then for LA.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
417 1 MEMBER HINZE: Can you give us an example of 2 something in Bin 3?
O 3 DR. BAILEY: Actually, we put the spent fuel 4 handling, the actual transfer of the fuel from one 5 canister to another canister on a production basis into 6 Bin 3. I don't believe the NRC has licensed a production 7 facility of moving fuel in that manner. The waste package 8 is Bin 3.
9 Underground we conclude that ground support 10 was probably a Bin 3. The NRC certainly has lots of 11 structural knowledge, but it isn't clear that they've ever 12 licensed anything in host rock. And some of the ground !
13 support we believe may end up falling into a safety O 14 category. It may not. The initial effort was yes. But l
15 that's subject to reconsideration. So there's-a number of 16 areas that do that for us.
17 (Slide.)
18 DR. BAILEY: What I was going to talk about in 19 the next slide, if you will, Dan, is I'm going to talk 20 about the design issues. I know I'm kind of like 21 listening to a fire hose, but let me try and walk through 22 some of these. l 23 We sat down and tried to go through the four 24 categories and pick out what's performance assessment, 25 what's cost, what's engineering, and what are the design l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
418 1 issues.
2 So I'm going to give you a -- I don't know how 3 familiar you are with the design. I apologize for not I 4 having done that piece of research, but I'll try and talk i
5 through different pieces of the design and where we are, 1 l
1 6 try and address your questions on timing. !
7 We went through and tried to pick. In fact, 8 we made a listing of some 90 activities, some of which are 9 just work. We have to go finish this. We need to make 10 the Q list. We need to decide what is Q and what isn't Q.
11 As I said about ground support, we throw it I 12 out on the table as it is today, but we aren't sure. So l
l 13 we need to do the design basis events. We need to look at l 14 the allocation of the requirements in the design basis 15 events to the various system structures and components and 16 determine what's O and what isn't Q and come up with a O l
l 17 list.
)
18 That's not an issue. That's work. That !
19 doesn't require a big decision. It doesn't require a 20 great deal of interface. It doesn't require scientific or 21 testing confirmation. That's not an issue. That's work.
22 And we came up with a list of about 90 items 1
l 23 like that. From that, we distilled about 12 what we call l
24 issues. So I'm going to run through those issues as we t 25 found it.
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
419 1 The thermal loading or the thermal management 7s 2 strategies. We've gone through and selected 80 to 100 MTU b 3 per acre, the high range, as the basis for our reference 4 design. It doesn't mean that it can't change, but we've 5 chosen that as the basis for our reference design.
6 We were going to be working for the next 7 several months to choose where in that range it ought to 8 be. Eighty-three was somewhat arbitrary. And we're going 9 to look at what the right number is.
10 The prevailing wisdom was that we should make 11 it as high as possible. There are structural questions at 12 the high levels. There are some geochemical questions at 13 the high levels, as you heard today.
O i/ 14 And so we're going to look through, have these 15 coordination decisions, and try and make a choice as to 16 what kind of a number we want to design to because we need 17 to design to a number. That number, of course, will be 18 given in to the PA.
19 There's a number of strategies associated with l 20 how we deal with the thermal loading. As Bob Andrews 1
1 21 talked about earlier, there's a point loading approach.
1 22 There's a line loading approach so that you can overwhelm l
23 the packages from package to package with heat and make a 1
24 long heat plume, as opposed to a series of individual l
3 25 ones.
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
420 1 You need to make a choice for the reference 2 design, not necessarily for the line design we submit to
,7 s\
N) 3 the LA, but for the reference design so that we can have 4 that basis and have it analyzed properly.
5 The EBS performance enhancements These are 1 6 the backfill and the drip shields. Recent studies suggest 7 that we don't get that much benefit out of the backfill or 8 the drip shields. Drip shields we're putting on a shelf.
9 The backfill, however, we decided we will not preclude.
1 10 And so we will leave allowances for it in the design, 11 consider the design with the ability to backfill but not 12 necessarily include that backfill into the design that we 13 provide to the performance assessment group.
A i
( =
N/ 14 Again, we're making some choices for the l 15 reference design, which can be reversed in the next few 16 months if we find better data or may be reversed 17 post-viability after we get back what the answers are.
18 We have some criticality control concepts that 19 we're working with. Do we fill the packages in order to 20 limit the geometry associated with the fissile material?
21 Do we have control rods? Do we limit the filling of the 22 waste package? The use of depleted uranium is a filler.
23 And, of course, we're assuming burn-up credit 24 here, which is in itself an issue. The NRC has not
("%
(_ ,/ 25 granted high levels of burn-up credit. Burn-up credit is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
421 1 very much of interest to us to take advantage of the 2 reduced fissile content. It allows us to load much more 3 fuel than to a single package and has a big effect on cost 4 and area of the repository.
5 The emplacement drift ground support concept, 6 which I addressed briefly at the beginning, we need to be 7 able to maintain. We need to be able to carry packages 8 in. We need to be able to set them. The potential for 9 retrieval, which I'll come to in a minute, if we have to 10 go back and get them, those things are all enhanced by a j l
11 line drift. It's a desirable answer. It solves a lot of 12 our problems.
13 Clearly there is a cementaceous issue, which 14 is the PA piece of that. And we really could use that.
i i
15 cementaceous material. Right now we're looking at i
16 proceeding with the line.
17 As was said earlier, we have several meetings 18 and several efforts that are going on to see if that's the 1
19 right thing to do or if we have to abandon it and go to l
l i 20 something else. That one is not firm yet.
l l
l 21 Performance confirmation concepts. This is 22 interesting. It was mentioned again earlier. To us since 23 we have to design this system, we're interested in the 24 monitoring system, the sampling approach, the sampling
() 25 rate, what needs to be sampled.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AV2., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
422 1 This can be additional confirmatory data. It 2 can be data associated with how the repository is 1
3 perforning with regard to what's put into the mountain.
4 Remember that we have to do all of this while we're 5 operating the facility. And we're looking at a 100-year ,
6 or more lifetime, obviously a long lifetime for l
7 instrumentation in hostile environments. l l
8 So there are some interesting engineering i i
9 questions and trying to pick the right things to go 10 monitor. And that effort has begun so that we can 11 incorporate it into the design.
l 12 (Slide.)
13 DR. BAILEY: Retrievability concepts. From an 14 engineering point of view, it's of interest to me when you 15 want me to make it easy -- I didn't misspell that; it's 16 supposed to be " ease" of the concept'-- whether it's easy 17 or if we need to just develop a means to retrieve the 18 packages whenever it turns out to be required; i.e., mine 19 them out. ;
20 I don't think mine them out is a viable !
I 21 alternative, but how easy we want to make it is a question i 22 because from an engineering point of view, we can do ;
i I
So we need 23 things to make it much easier to get to them.
24 to make that type of a decision. And we intend to do that l 25 in the first half of the coming year. The -- ;
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLfMD AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 i
. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ - - . _ _ _
423 1 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Would that also involve ,
2 horizontal versus vertical emplacement?
O 3 DR. BAILEY: Right now our basis is horizontal 4 emplacement.
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Yes.
6 DR. DAILEY: Yes. ,
7 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Is there any further 8 discussion of vertical emplacement?
9 DR. BAILEY: We're not working at the vertical 1 10 emplacement at this point in time. Again, if the 11 performance allocation says that you need to have a 12 smaller area viewed from above, then we'll consider it.
13 But it's currently horizontal in the in drift. I would 14 picture that as we come on.
15 The next one is kind of funny words, but what 16 it says is that we have to handle this very large number 17 of individual elements. We'd like to handle them dry.
18 With that number of elements being handled, the potential 19 of drop exists. Clearly we'll have mitigative features.
20 And we'll have preventive features to prevent it from 21 dropping.
22 We may look at a pool. We're going to do some 23 evaluations as to whether a pool is really feasible and 24 what impact that pool has with regard to using a waste 25 package, as opposed to dry handling.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
424 1 The MPC again hit us with regard to disposal ;
,-s 2 of site-generated waste. We didn't expect a great deal of
~
3 site-generated waste with the MPC. We receive in a 4 package.
5 We expected to handle less than ten percent of 6 the fuel in a bare fuel manner. Now we're looking at 7 handling 100 percent of the fuel in a bare fuel manner.
8 So we expect to have a much higher value of site-generated 9 waste, which we now have to be able to store and dispose 10 of. We're going to be working through that problem and 11 giving some recommendations by the time of VA so that we 12 at least have a handle on how much and what types.
13 The strategy for mapping a repository O) k- 14 subsurface is kind of an outgrowth of the construction 15 method associated with lining the tunnels. We want to be 16 able to get an understanding of the underground, how much 17 mapping is necessary to do that.
18 This is one of those regulatory areas in my 19 opinion that's kind of interesting. It's unprecedented.
20 From an engineering or a scientific point of view, we can 21 come up with some pretty solid arguments as to doing a 22 circumference, doing a variety of drifts in the middle, 23 probably gives us more than enough understanding in the 24 underground.
r~
(_)T 25 Clearly that's something that we're going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
425 1 have to sell to the regulator because if, if, if we go to
,s 2 the -- for all the different ifs there are, if we go to
( i
&/!
3 the line tunnel, some of the construction methodologies 4 are only efficient if you just line the tunnel and you 5 don't map, you don't take knowledge of what the rock is, 6 the underlying strata is by a full or complete mapping, 7 not to mention the expense.
8 That's an interesting problem that I think we 9 need to think through with regard to how much do we have 10 to have. It's a technology that in a regulatory sense I 11 doubt has ever been explored.
12 Finally, the viability of the underground and 13 remote concepts. We're looking at probably 90 percent of
( \
's-- 14 the waste handling being remote, if you will, handling it 15 from a control station, perhaps a person on station in 16 some sort of a shielded bubble, but for the most part l l
17 doing the most of this remote, looking at handling many, l l
18 many tons, 50, 75 tons, very large equipment, and placing 19 it within a few meters of where it needs to be placed, l 20 being able to deal with the upset condition of the machine l 21 breaking or problems with basically limited access.
22 And so although it's within the reasonably 23 available technology, it hasn't been done. And we really 24 think we need to think through that and come up with some
(~'h
(_,/ 25 solid strategies and basics of how we're going to run our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
428 1 basically you can't make the decision unless it's --
pg 2 MEMBER HINZE: I agree with you.
l t 3 DR. BAILEY: Now, there's one other piece.
4 There is one other piece, if I can go on. We have what we 1
5 call a control design assumptions document, which hovers l 6 between the SDD and the MGDSRD. i l
i 7 In some of these decisions, -- and, frankly, i
8 some of these things are in there -- that's controlled by 1
9 the contractor but visible to DOE. And that's places l 10 where we make interim decisions so that we have a common 11 view for everyone to work with. And we run back to there, 12 and we can change it in DOE.
13 That one is a little squishy, but DOE has the 14 opportunity to view it anc go, "Why are you doing that?" I 15 And we have an obligation to tell them. So there are i 1
1 16 several places where these decisions are, in fact, public l
17 and have to be improved, public inside the project and !
18 have to be approved.
19 MEMBER HINZE: Let me ask a specific question. I 20 And maybe that would help me to understand hearing 21 something about this. Let's take setback distance, --
22 DR. BAILEY: Yes.
23 MEMBER HINZE: -- my favorite setback distance 24 problem. Setback distance depends upon a number of
) 25 factors here in these issues. And, yet, it would seem to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRlBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l l
- 427 l
1 controlled by the MGDSRD or will be controlled by the t ,
7g 2 MGDSRD when we get through with the next revieiun. So in I i i
\ ,)
3 order to change to not satisfy that in a requirement 4 slowdown approach, we have to go back to that document and 5 ask for permission to change it. In order to change it, I 6 we have to go to DOE. And we have to present the basis l l
7 for which that change is going to be made. Many of the j 8 items that I talk about here are there.
9 The second area from the engineering point of 10 view -- that's for the interdiscipline. For the second 11 area, which is the engineering area, the way that we're 12 setting up the process is we have what's called a system 13 design description. And that system design description
(~N) i
\/ 14 contains a set of requirements on the system. What does 15 that system have to do as part of its allocation to the 16 total repository facility design?
17 It is our intent that the base requirements 18 for the systems, which easily encompasses what's left 19 here, will be reflected at least in the system design 20 description. And that's a document which is made 21 available to and reviewed by the DOE.
22 And so we have two processes by which we in 23 engineering or we on the project can take. And we have to 24 effect a formal change in a control document in order to r"%
ks ,) 25 make a decision. It's a bureaucratic-sounding answer, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
429 1 me that in an advanced conceptual design that setback gs 2 distance coming to some decisions regarding setback
'~
3 distance would be quite important.
4 How do you arrive at appropriate setback 5 distances considering all of these issues? Is that a fair 6 question?
7 DR. BAILEY: So-so.
8 MEMBER HINZE: Okay.
9 DR. BAILEY: For my technological bed, let me 10 try and help. The setback distance was from the major 11 faults. And, in fact, the next chart will show it. Our 12 setback distance that we have been taking for the major 13 fault in the area has been about 60 meters, p.
(% /) 14 We chose that arbitrarily for a couple of 15 reasons, actually three probably. One was to stay well 16 away from the faults so that we didn't try and go through 17 them, which, two, for construction reasons, as I said 18 before, moving into the fault is swimming upstream you 19 want to stay away from. So, for construction reasons, we 20 stay away from them.
21 The third reason has to do with the impact of 22 the fault motion on potential packages, what would happen.
23 And when that 60 meters was chosen, it was based on a thin 24 skinned, vertically emplaced in a borehole type of a (O
x_j 25 package, where if the fault lay across a borehole, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-5701 (202) 234-4433
430 1 might actually shear the package. So we stayed well away.
2 Now that we have an extremely robust package 7-~
Nuj 3 and we have a better understanding of the underground, we 4 may very well go back and identify that setback distance 5 to be another number. To us right now it's not a high 6 priority because we have an adequate area to work with.
7 The 60 meters still appears to be very 8 conservative. We used 15 meters inside the drifts, by the 9 way, with regard to the waste package. But it still seems 10 to us to be very conservative for what we need.
11 So at this point we're not trying to change 12 that one, but if we wanted to change it, we would go 13 through an analysis similar to what I did to look at what (w
14 are the events and what are the drivers associated with 15 the need for that setback distance, i
16 MEMBER HINZE: You say you have adequate area.
17 And I'm sure you --
18 DR. BAILEY: And I'm going to talk about that 19 in a minute.
20 MEMBER HINZE: All right. I'll defer my 21 questions, then. Thank you.
22 DR. BAILEY: Okay. Okay. Any other 23 questions?
24 MEMBER HINZE: I'm sorry. But you're locked (O) 25 in. I didn't mean to say " locked in," but you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-?701 (202) 234-4433
431 1 established an advanced conceptual design.
- 2 DR. BAILEY: Yes.
N) 3 MEMBER HINZE: What kind of detail? Help me.
4 What kind of detail does that go to in terms of you're 5 talking about the deltas? Okay. I understand that. But 6 how broad is that base that you have with the advanced 7 conceptual design?
8 DR. BAILEY: It's variable base. When you 9 come down to the waste package, we'll give you 10 measurements in tenths of millimeters where we think we 11 are today, which, of course, might change.
12 I mean, we're being very precise. We're 13 trying to get exact materials. We're trying to run tests
/,,)
is/ 14 on the materials. We're looking at perhaps doing 15 fabrication methods to find out what the best way is to 16 get a solid fit so that we can take advantage of methodic 17 protection with dissimilar materials. We're actually 18 looking at running tests to make sure that we can get a 19 positive contact that will last.
20 We're into that level of details in some 21 areas. In other areas we have a shell of a building that 22 says cask management facility with the outline of three 23 cranes in some lay-down areas and some decontamination 24 areas because at that point in time we figured we might
(~s
(_) 25 have to repair a cask that comes in broken before we send NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
432 1 it out again. So we made sure we had a big enough garage g3 2 to do that kind of work.
b 3 So it varies. It runs that gamut based on 4 what we believed the true technology issues were and what ,
l 5 we believed the true Part 60 issues were.
6 Does that help you at all? j l
7 MEMBER HINZE: Yes, it does, really.
8 DR. BAILEY: Go to the next one. l 9 (Slide.)
10 DR. BAILEY: This is the drawing that 11 basically shows in the ACD. It's black and white in 12 yours. I put it in color here. I think it's still okay 13 in black and white.
[
\- 14 You'll notice that towards the upper block you 15 can see the direction of the drifts. We'll probably have ,
16 to change those. You'll see that it shows a lower block.
l 17 You'll see that it shows the ventilation piece because 18 we've always considered ventilation to be fairly l
19 important.
20 You'll see that it has a 60-meter standoff i l
21 from the major faults, 120 meters to the west for the 22 Ghost Dance Fault because the surface zone seemed to be 23 bigger there. So we took a little extra many years before 24 me.
f~%.
(, ,) 25 This was designed -- you'll see only part of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
433 1 the bottom is shaded. This was designed in order to place fs 2 70,000 MTU at an 83 MTU per acre load. That's what we j i
V) 3 came up with.
4 You'll notice there's a ventilation shaft 5 running right down the center of that, the idea being that 6 ventilation comes in the middle. And you can see that 7 there's an exhaust shaft. l 8 You have a development side, and you can't see 9 that here. There's a development side and an emplacement 10 side. And on the development side you supply down the 11 tunnel, and you exhaust. l 12 And on the emplacement side, you take an 1
13 exhaust out of the stack and let it draw down the tunnel.
,r)
('/ /
14 That's our means of getting this differential pressure, if 15 you will, between the emplacement and the development 16 side. And we had this ventilation shaft running straight 17 through the middle.
18 (Slide.)
19 DR. BAILEY: If you go to the next one there, 20 which is just a side picture of it, this gives you an 21 idea. You've seen a lot of these today. You can see the 22 -- just to give you the section view of what it looks 23 like.
24 (Slide.)
(~
(,)/ 25 DR. BAILEY: If you go to the next one there, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l
434 1 here you see one that says, " Surface operations Area."
gg 2 It's actually both a surface and a subsurface operation
\ \
V 3 area.
4 If you take a look at it, you'll notice that 5 it is just the upper block. If you can't tell, I couldn't 6 get an overlay made in time. You'd see that the upper 7 block used to end right along in here a few drifts short.
8 You'll also notice that what used to be the lower block is 9 now an available expansion area.
10 And one of your differences here is that your 11 development exhaust shaft, your emplacement exhaust shaft, 12 our intent at this point through design development is to 13 place that exhaust shaft about ten meters below the t
\- 14 repository and use a vertical borehole to get the cooling 15 air up to the drifts. By doing that, we saved a 16 tremendous amount of line drift availability because we 17 didn't have to set back for the main drift.
18 We also found that this section up here was, 19 in fact, adequately characterized by the testing that had 20 been done. It had just never been used, never been taken 21 advantage of. And so we were able to add another two, 22 three hundred meters to the northern area of the block.
23 So I now can say that this design, which isn't
- 24 final -- it's still a reference. We still have some
[\
(_/ 25 coordination to do with regard to the underground NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
'.J23 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
435 1 ventilation drift, the below-grade ventilation drift.
- 2 We aren't done with it yet, but we can get
\,_]
3 70,000, at least 70,000 metric tons at an 83 MTU per acre 4 loading into the upper block. Now I have that still 5 available to me and a potential existing of still more to 6 the north, which has not been fully characterized.
7 So we made some changes. We made a design ,
l 8 change. And that gives us, by the way, about a ten 9 percent margin. In other words, we can still use up about l
10 ten percent of that total drift length in setback 11 distances.
12 MEMBER HINZE: Does any of that go north of i
13 where Drill Hole Wash Fault presumably went? I
<x '
- 14 DR. BAILEY: I don't believe so. Does it, 15 Dan?
16 DR. McKENZIE: You were right up here. We 17 have actually added 300 meters onto that. If we added 300 18 meters to the north, it would be across the fault.
19 DR. BAILEY: Okay. That was Dan McKenzie 20 speaking. No. We're up to the fault, but we haven't 21 crossed the fault yet.
22 MEMBER HINZE: Is there consideration of going 23 across the fault?
24 DR. McKENZIE: Yes, there is. It doesn't seem l'\
'q,/ 25 to be a real significant feature of the tunnel.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
436 1 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: You're going to have
,y-2 to talk in here.
3 DR. McKENZIE: I'm Dan McKenzie. I'm the 4 Manager of Subsurface Repository Design.
5 We are looking at going across the Drill Hole 6 Wash structure. When we penetrated the Drill Hole Wash in 7 the curve of the north ramp, it didn't seem to be a real 8 significant feature.
9 And there appears to be good ground north of 10 that area. And we don't want to waste it if it's there.
l 11 But we haven't really made a decision yet to go north or 12 we're looking at maybe 300 meters, maybe 600, maybe even l l
13 as much as 1,000 meters north of that Drill Hole Wash. l p
.\- J 14 But, again, like you said, it's not been characterized 15 yet.
16 MEMBER HINZE: And this would give you the 17 advantage of if there is an advantage to lowering the 18 thermal load?
19 DR. McKENZIE: That would be one advantage.
20 There's a number of reasons why you would want more area.
21 Either the ground is more broken up than you thought and 22 you lose more emplacement area because there are areas you 23 decide not to emplace in or we might increase the capacity 24 of the facility or we might have to lower the thermal k_,/ 25 load. And any one of those three would increase your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
437 1 desire to have more area.
,,- 2 MEMBER HINZE: Are you putting in any requests
(,/
3 for a characterization of that area?
4 DR. McKENZIE: We have some discussions going 5 on now about putting a drill hole. There is a hole quite 6 far to the north. And then, of course, we have UZ-14 and 7 several right there in Drill Hole Wash.
8 But there's a couple thousand meters between 9 those holes, and we'd like to have one, at least one, in 10 the middle to sort of truth that area and make sure that 11 it is as it appears.
12 There are discussions going on in that. I 13 don't believe the drilling has been scheduled, but it's
,O
14 something that we're thinking about and talking about.
15 MEMBER HINZE: Thank you, Dan. That's l
16 helpful. I 17 DR. BAILEY: Go to the next one.
18 (Slide.)
19 DR. BAILEY: I put this one up in the sense of 20 how we get things. We get things by rail or we get things 21 by truck. And how does it come in? It comes in with a 22 wide variability. It may come in as a dual-purpose 23 canister, a store and transport type. It comes in in 24 transportation casks and may be a PWR assembly, a BWR O
(_/ 25 assembly, or defense high-level waste canister.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
438 1 And there is some DOE spent nuclear fuel, g~) 2 which is in our baseline, which I have not included in
(' /
3 this chart, but it's being updated. And then, finally, we 4 emplace it, either in a disposal container or defense 5 high-level waste disposal container. So we try and do a 6 mix and match to get everything into one of those two l
7 kinds of container right now.
1 I
8 And we may have some cats and dogs that we 9 need a different specialized container for. And the DOE 10 SNF may drive us to some different kinds of containers, 11 the basic design. But that's basically what we try and 12 handle.
13 The pieces that are of interest, in
! )
\/ 14 particular, I think are the handling of four to five 15 thousand PWR assemblies and around 9 000 BWR assemblies on i l
l 16 an annual basis, taking them out of the transportation 17 casks and placing them into the waste packages at the 18 disposal containers, significant production effort.
19 MEMBER HINZE: Jack, your comments raise a 20 question in my mind. I should know this, but I certainly 21 don't. Are there regulations in effect related to the 22 length of time that you could store material on the site 23 so that you could get the proper mix going into the hole?
24 DR. BAILEY: Not that I'm aware of, sir. I b)
(_ 25 don't know of any specifically.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
439 1 MEMBER HINZE: I don't either. Yes. Is this i
,- 2 --
(
V 3 DR. BAILEY: We did not have that identified l
l 4 as part of the advanced conceptual design because of the l
5 MPC. It came to us already mixed, already blended for 6 thermal and criticality fissile material concerns. And i 7 that was an imposition we were going to place on the 1
8 utilities at the time of loading. Of course, it was going l
l 9 to be broader than maybe what we wanted.
10 Here with the ability to stack up the I l
l 11 transportation casks, which is probably not a real good 12 probability because of the interest by the regional 13 transportation initiative, which is privatization of 14 transport, -- they'll probably want the canisters back --
15 we now have to look at how we hold and how we blend.
16 That's a different problem, different 17 engineering problem. It's to a certain extent encompassed 18 in the thermal management discussion that I had to make j 19 sure that it goes in properly as well as the fissile 20 content criticality, but it's engineerable.
21 We have to look at how we hold these things 22 before we put them in the packages. And then when we take 23 them down the drift, I mean, we can load three or four 24 drifts at a time, put a hot package.
/
(_j 25 This drift needs a cold one. So we can put NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
_ _ _. _ ._ .. _ _ __ _ .-. _ _ . __ _ _ _ __ _ . _m_ _ _
l 440 1 1 the cold one. So there are several management strategies 2 that we're going to consider as we go through this design.
3 MEMBER HINZE: There may be regulatory 4 problems, too.
5 DR. BAILEY: I'm not aware of them, but 6 certainly we're looking at that as part of the fact of the 7 change from the MPC to the individual item.
8 (Slide.)
9 DR. BAILEY: I've talked about it. So I have 10 a real quick set of pictures here just to give you an i
I 11 idea, an overview of the surface. I keep shooting myself.
12 You have unloading. You have to be able to 1
13 lift up these transportation casks. You have ts> get the i O
14 cask into a position so that you can get into it, either l 15 the ones that are transported to us as a bolted or perhaps 16 a dual-purpose canister that might have to be cut open, 17 not just unbolted, but actually cut open. That shows in I
i 18 the next piece.
i 19 (Slide.) !
20 DR. BAILEY: You have to transfer the 21 assemblies out of one package and into the ultimate 22 disposal container. You have to be able to weld this. We 23 want. to be able to weld it.
24 As you're well aware, welds frequently become 25 the first target of the corrosion process. So we want to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
. _ . . ~ . , _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,__ _ _ _. . , _
f 441 i 1 make sure that we establish a very controlled process and 2 try and keep that from being the first point. If it is 3 the weakest point, then it is. And we have to deal with 4 it. ,
5 But clearly we're working very hard in the I
l 6 fabrication arena so that we can close these up. And, of 7 course, then we have to get it out of the building and 8 into a transporter and taken underground. Those are the 9 basic functions that take place on the surface facility.
10 (Slide.)
11 DR. BAILEY: I don't have the same chart for ,
l 12 the underground, but I wanted to show this one because I 13 think it's interesting. It's come out of the facility c' 14 the surface. It's been put into this railcar, which you 15 see right here. And you'll see the rail line going down 16 into the repository. And it's a shielded car. And inside
~
17 is, in fact, the waste package.
18 You come down to an emplacement drift. You 19 abut up to the emplacement drift. And the canister is 20 then pushed out of the emplacement drift or pushed out of 21 the rail car into the emplacement drift. Doors are 22 closed. Shielding is placed remotely.
23 Right here we have a gantry crane. And what 24 we're looking at if you recall from the ACD -- and I don't 25 know if you're familiar with it. In the ACD we basically NEAL R. GFH)SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
442 1
1 just push these down on a railcar and put this on a gS 2 railcar, then push that railcar in and let the railcar V 3 sitting in the emplacement drift. certainly not very 4 conducive to retrievability. It's unlikely that the rails 5 or the car will necessarily be functional some 50 or 75 l
6 years later. And then you have to contend with that. Our 7 approach at that point was to send a locomotive in and 8 pull and push it out.
9 What we've done here as a new approach is 10 we've created this gantry. We've lowered the invert 11 segment. And by doing that, we can take this gantry in, 12 pick up this waste package, and pick it up and carry it
,_s 13 down the emplacement drift, and then replace it.
(\--) 14 If you go to the next slide, Dan?
15 (Slide.)
16 DR. BAILEY: We put in a series of small 17 pedestals, which put the waste package very low in the 18 drift. And you can see the small pedestals. We set the 19 package very low in the drift. And it can carry it in, 20 set it down on that pedestal.
21 One of the forms of upset could have been the 22 falling off the railcar or the old pedestals. We made a 23 fairly low V-shaped pedestal to sit in with the minimum 24 contact.
/'%\
t
(_/ 25 But if we want to retrieve something or we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (702) 234-4433
b i 443 1 want to get a cask out if we have a particular performance I
. 1 l 2 confirmation or something we want to check, an upset, we l i
j i
3 can actually go in and go over the other casks and pick up
, 4 one. It provides us a great deal of flexibility, i
5 If we find we have to go back and add
]
f 6 backfill, we could adapt this gantry to go back over the
! 7 waste packages and fill from above. It provides us with a
) 8 great deal of flexibility over the design we used to have.
i 9 If, in fact, retrievability on an immediate basis is 1
10 desirable, the ground support in a line session is highly 1
l 11 desirable if we can use it.
1 i 12 That pretty much brings me to the end of the 13 talk a moment or two early, the idea being to give you a 14 flavor of where the design is and the fact that we are 15 working through the design almost in a piecemeal manner, 16 but it is an organized manner. And we have definitive 17 goals we're trying to get to.
18 Questions?
19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Yes. Jack, on your diagram 20 here, the upper block now extends back essentially to the 21 Solitario Canyon Fault. Is that a setback of 60 meters 22 there from the Solitario on that slide?
23 DR. BAILEY: Yes.
l 24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I don't know the number.
) 25 DR. BAILEY: He's putting it up.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
444 1 (Slide.)
2 DR. BAILEY: Yes. That's set back 60 meters 7s I
l
(- 3 from there.
l l 4 DR. McKENZIE: Southwest.
5 DR. BAILEY: To the southwest. Dan, do you 6 want to?
7 DR. McKENZIE: If you look in the southwest 8 area, the offset obviously is much larger than that. And 9 that's because of the sloping nature of the unit.
10 Actually, that next chart there that shows the 1
1 11 cross-sections, you can see that as emplacement drifts go 12 further to the west, they get closer and closer to the j 13 bottom of the TSW-2. In that area, they actually would
(\ }' 14 run into the TSW-3 if we kept going to the west.
15 So that's why the block is cut off in the 16 southwest.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I see.
1 18 DR. McKENZIE: But up north it is cut off l 19 strictly by the 60-meter offset.
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: And there's been a lot of I 21 talk about an east-west exploratory shaft. Jack, could 22 you comment at all?
23 DR. BAILEY: Yes, there is some interest in l
l 24 the east-west underground excavation. We have an action l /N l (_,) 25 this yeer to make a decision as to whether or not that is l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
445 1 actually needed.
s 2 We aren't going to make -- the engineering,
/ \
\)
3 should we do it is being identified in the '98 time frame.
4 And the excavation would actually be done in the '99 time 5 frame. And our action for this year is to go through and 6 do the termination.
7 It falls back to the question of: How do we l l
8 make a decision? I'll segue back to that. This is a i 9 decision we were asked to make. And what we'll do is 10 we'll pull all the right people in. We'll pull the 11 scientific people, the construction, the PA, and the 12 engineer. We will identify what the issue is, what it is 13 we want to learn, what the drivers are, wnat the YI 14 constraints are. And we'll establish a racking criteria 15 as to what's important. And then we'll come back to the 16 management.
17 This is typically done through what's called a 18 systems study process whereby we identify the issue to be 19 resolved and we determine what we want to learn about it.
20 And then we sic a team on it to come back and give us an 21 answer.
22 That's another answer to your question of 23 those things we clearly want to make a decision on. We 1
24 sic a team on them and bring back the answer based on what l
/~N l k_,) 25 everybody thinks is necessary to get to the answer.
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERP 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
l
_ __ ._ _. _ ..-.. . . _ . ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _
446 1 That's what this particular one will be. We've been asked 2 to do that this year.
O 3 So I can't comment as to whether we will or we 4 won't, but it's still under active consideration.
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: One last one. Are you 6 looking for additional information and, if so, what kind 7 on the area closer to the Solitario Canyon Fault?
8 DR. BAILEY: I don't know that I can address l 9 that directly. More is always good. I'll say that as an 10 engineer. I can move margins. Standard talk.
11 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you.
12 DR. BAILEY: I can't speak to the specific 13 technical issue. Can you, Dan?
14 DR. McKENZIE: No, I don't believe so.
15 DR. BAILEY: Try and go to the microphone.
16 DR. McKENZIE: We would probably like to have 17 more information in the southwest part down there just 18 because there's not much drill hole information out there.
19 There's only a couple of holes down there. And it would 20 be nice to know exactly where the vitrophere is.
21 That's the TSW-3, the unit that immediately 22 underlies the block. And since that's our cutoff point, 23 we want to have a real good idea stratigraphy-wise where 24 it is. I guess that's not to say we don't know where it 25 is now, but two holes maybe aren't enough. Maybe we ought NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
447 1 to have more other areas. We have much higher drill hole 1
~
2 density than that.
G 3 But that's about all. We know about as much l
4 about that area as we do about that northern area that I l 5 was talking about earlier.
l 6 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Okay. Thank you. l 7 MEMBER HINZE: John, questions?
8 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Just as a matter of l l
9 curiosity -- you may have said this while I was out, but 10 can you say a little bit about who the designing team is?
11 DR. BAILEY: Certainly. The design team is 12 comprised of many teammates amongst the M&O. I'll speak 13 to the M&O. MK is generally responsible, Morrison Knudsen 13 1 4 A/ 14 Company is generally responsible, for the underground 15 repository development. Flor Daniel is generally 16 responsible for the surface facility development. And 17 Framatone Cogema Fuels is generally responsible for the 18 waste package development.
19 Now, in that we also have a number of people 20 from Duke Engineering Services. We have some SAIC. I 21 believe we have some Intera. We have some TRW.
22 There's a smattering of teammates throughout 23 there. And, in actual fact, you will find that MK people 24 work in the surface and Flor Daniel people work in the
/~T
\ ,I 25 subsurface. And we have tried to make it into an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l i 448 1 integrated team.
l ,3 2 My boss, Dick Snell, who is the operations 3 manaEer for engineering integration, is a Flor Daniel. I 4 myself am with TRW. So we try and wear an M&O hat while 5 we're doing this particular piece of work and be an 6 integrated team.
7 Clearly the specialty engineering aspects, 8 Morrison Knudsen does a great deal of underground work, 9 Flor Daniel does surface-type work more so. But it is a 1
10 team in every part. l 11 Those are the major participants. Did I leave l
l 12 somebody out? Yes. Thank you, Jim. The laboratories.
1 13 Lawrence Livermore, in particular, does a great deal of i
14 work for us with regards to the materials testing. I'm 15 embarrassed by that.
16 MEMBER HINZE: Marty, staff, questions?
17 (No response.)
18 MEMBER HINZE: Well, let me try one more. l 19 DR. BAILEY: Sure.
20 MEMBER HINZE: The NRC regulation is built 21 upon defense-in-depth. And one of the critical aspects of 22 that is that you don't rely solely on any one aspect of ,
l 23 it. l 24 And do I sense from what you're telling me i 1
tm
(,,) 25 that you're beefing up the engineer barrier system over NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
449 1 what might have been thought about some years ago?
2 DR. BAILEY: Well, let me answer the question, O' 3 and I'm sure I'll get poked here in a second. The 4 pre-closure facility I expect will be a fairly standard !
5 NRC approach of defense-in-depth and redundancy and such.
6 So I expect a resurgent precedent will take us there.
7 When we get to the post-closure facility, I 8 think what I'm trying to tell you is that there's a large 9 effort going on with regard to the site characterization 10 and the science associated with the mountain.
11 Performance assessment is the tool that we use 12 to evaluate how well the engineered structure and the 1
1
! 13 natural environment interact and what kind of performance l
L l 14 it is that we get.
15 They provide us with requirements, as I said, 16 based on the performance allocation of what we have to do.
17 Being engineers, we don't want to foreclose the potential 18 of change; for example, the availability of backfill, l 19 although it's not a requirement. Performance assessment i
20 doesn't say that we need it.
21 I didn't speak to the clad, for example, on 22 the fuel. We have a thermal goal, which is in place, 23 which we did not change. We did a thermal study this year 24 on thermal goals. And we concluded that the 350-degree C.
25 limit on the fuel to prevent cladding failure when oxygen NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
{
450 1 enters -- we decided that we would maintain that goal.
,3 2 We're not sure we can license it. We're not i I U
3 sure that we can demonstrate to the NRC for a very long 4 time. Maybe we can. We're going to work at that. But 5 right now it isn't in solid enough shape to be able to 6 license.
7 But we're going to maintain that as a thermal 8 goal so that we have some layering, as I like to call it, 9 beyond what's specifically required or specifically 10 claimed. And if we're able to develop the basis to show 11 that, then we'll make use of it.
12 I don't know if I'm answering your question 13 directly or not. We intend to have a very robust waste s 14 package.
15 MEMBER HINZE: Things are still on the table 16 is I think what you're saying.
17 DR. BAILEY: Yes. As I said, this is a first 18 of a kind. It's iterative. The science changes. Yes, 19 we're doing a reference design. Yes, we're spending a 20 little money on drip shields, which the studies say they 21 may not have much for you, but you never know what's going 22 to show up. You never know what else might be needed.
23 Same goes for ceramics. We're going to look 24 at ceramics a little bit. It's not our prime design, but
(_j 25 we're not going to foreclose it. As an engineer, you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 451 l
1 to be able to go to all of these places.
l 2 Performance assessment will identify what 7
NJ l 3 performance has to be gained from the engineered system. I 4 And we will satisfy that. And the licensing case that has 5 to be nade will be made through the performance 6 a ssessnant .
7 Do you want to add anything to that?
8 MEMBER HINZE: Andy, did you have a question?
9 DR. CAMPBELL: Yes. I can't remember where it 10 was. I think it was in an M&O report there was some 11 discussion of possible expansion zones. And, if I recall 12 correctly, -- and I can't recall the name of the report --
13 there was some discussion of an expansion zone to the west 14 of the Solitario Canyon Fault.
15 Was that ever considered? And what was the 16 statu of that?
17 DR. BAILEY: Dan, why don't you answer that 18 question? Do you want me to flip your slide?
19 (Slide.)
20 DR. McKENZIE: Again, we have looked at 21 several areas. If you look at something like 20 MTU an 22 acre, you obviously are looking now -- instead of 850 23 acres, like we have now, you're looking at 3,000 acres of 24 space. So in order to emplace 70,000 metric tons at a low fs
'kj) 25 thermal load, we have taken some very preliminary looks at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
452 l
1 areas outside the primary area. <
gs 2 To the west there appear to be some areas, l O 3 but, again, there's virtually zero information. A lot of 4 this stuff is based on maybe one drill hole or something l l
5 like that and surface observations. !
1 6 But yes, we have blocked in some very 7 preliminarily and said, "Yes. Okay. If we were going to 8 go to something that was a very low thermal load and 9 maintain a 70,000 metric ton inventory, we would 10 characterize these areas because they look appealing.
11 They lese the minimum requirements. They're 200 meters l 12 deep. The TSW-2 appears to be continuous. The faulting 13 doesn't appear to be extreme.
/'~~N
/ 14 So yes, we have looked at areas west, some l 15 south, and some north of the primary area also.
16 DR. BAILEY: Yes. I want to make a statement 17 with regard to what Dan said. And that is that I have 18 talked a lot here about some of the specifics that we have 19 tried to choose so that we can have a reference design.
20 Clearly the regulation says you can't 21 foreclose things. And we're not doing that. Our design 22 considers or allows for alternatives. If we have to go to 23 a low thermal load, the design we're working with is not 24 optimized for 80 to 100. It's set up so that it can drop A
( ,) 25 back into different thermal loadings.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
453 1 So we're not foreclosing alternatives. I
- 2 don't want to give you that impression. But for purposes V
3 of design and for purposes of the VA, we are trying to 4 choose a reference. But we're not closing out the 5 alternatives, which is another reason we keep so many 6 things alive.
7 MEMBER HINZE: Well, Jack, unless there are 8 further questions, on behalf of the Committee, I would 9 like to thank you. One of the things that I think has 10 gone unstated here is the effort involved. I recall 11 Richard Crown's discussion of the number of some of the 12 statistics regarding the design and how many diagrams, et 13 cetera, in the words of my grandson, " awesome."
( \
\- 14 And you failed to convey that. The effort you 15 made, this seemed like such an effortless problem. But I 16 assure you we appreciate how much of a problem it is.
17 DR. BAILEY: No, it is not effortless. It's a 18 tremendous effort, but you try and hone out just the big 19 efforts that --
20 MEMBER HINZE: Dean, do you want to -- do you 21 have any final words of wisdom?
22 DR. STUCKER: No. I think Jack did an 23 admirable job on this. I appreciate that, Jack. I don't 24 have anything unless there are some other questions that
[n
( ,/
1 25 you have for me.
NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
454 1 MEMBER HINZE: Okay. Thank you, Dean.
2 We'11 pass it back to you.
3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: That ends our presentations 4 for this morning's session. We will reconvene, then, at 5 1:20 this afternoon to hear comments from interested 6 parties to the process.
7 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken at 8 12:21 p.m.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l
22 23 i I
I 24 O 2e NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ;
455 1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N n 2 (1:25 p.m.)
/ \
V 3 CHAIR N POMEROY: The meeting will come to 4 order. We're a few minutes late, but I think some of us, 5 at least, had a very pleasant lunch.
6 It gives me great pleasure now -- we're 7 turning to comments of interested parties. It gives me 8 great pleasure to introduce Nick Stellavato, the on-site 9 representative for Nye County.
10 Nick, I assume you're going to introduce other 11 folks as we go along. Is that correct?
-12 DR. STELLAVATO: That's correct.
13 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Welcome here.
(D 14 DR. STELLAVATO: Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you very much for 16 coming.
17 DR. STELLAVATO: Thank you. Thank you. Nye 18 County appreciates this as we get the microphone going.
19 (Slide.)
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: This is high-tech.
21 DR. STELLAVATO: It is. We're not used to 22 that in Nye County.
23 7) COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES 24 7.1) NYE COUNTY PRESENTATION O
V 25 DR. STELLAVATO: I'm just going to introduce NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (20?) 234-4433
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
- . -- . . - . . - . . ~__.. - _ - - ~_.__-. - . - _ .~ . - . ~ - _ - - . .
456 3
1 the other two presenters. Myself and the second presenter 2 will be about a tenth or one percent of the presentation.
l 3 Praviz Montazer is going to do the major presentation.
l j 4 What we're going to talk about, I'm going to l
- I j 5 talk about the -- just introduce the three. I'm Nick l 1
j 6 Stellavato, as you introduced. Mal Murphy is our i
7 regulatory adviser. Mal is going to talk just a little j 8 bit about our program and what we plan for the future.
9 And then Praviz is going to show you data that he has 1 10 analyzed over the last year and a half from our three data 1 )
i 11 sources.
f 12 (Slide.)
i
- 13 DR. STELLAVATO
- And they are in December '94 l
l 14 Nye County drilled its first hole on site. It's Hole
)
15 ONC-1. And we'll show you the analysis of that data. We 16 have been monitoring that data with down-hole j 17 instrumentation since March of '95. i 18 We instrumented that hole in one of the DOE 19 holes, NRG-4, in March of 1995. That data you'll see 20 today. And then we also instrumented the TBM in August of 21 1995, We have been monitoring pressure, temperature, and 22 relative humidity on the TBM since August of '95.
23 And this is just a little incentive of one of 24 our engineers downloading data on the TBM. So we're going O)
(_ 25 to look at NRG-4, ONC-1, and then the ESF calculations NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
457 1 from our data from the ESF.
,g 2 And now I'll let Mal take over.
(v) 3 DR. MURPHY: Thank you, Nick.
4 I'm Mal Murphy, the regulatory adviser for the ;
5 Nye County program. I just again warc to very, very 6 briefly give you a little thumbnail sketch of the program, 7 both its past and what we hope will be its future in light 8 of the recent congressional action. We want to save as 9 much time as we possibly can for Dr. Montazer, whom you 10 really want to hear.
11 (Slide.)
12 DR. MURPHY: The basic goals of our program 13 have always been to address the key issues and can have a l'_ s s
NI 14 paramount impact on both the design and performance to 15 ensure a safe repository; to put it in a broader sense, to 16 ensure that the public's health, safety, and the 17 environment are adequately protected in the entire 18 program, not just at the site, to evaluate the DOE's 19 general scientific program or site characterization 20 program if some people prefer to refer to it, and to 21 identify some areas that we feel are not being adequately 22 addressed by the Department in that program.
23 (Slide.)
24 DR. MURPHY: Our key issues of concern remain i
(_) 25 the same as they have been over the last several years, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
458 1 the pneumatic and hydrologic systems, the potential f- 2 alternative designs that can improve the performance of 3 the repository. And, by that, we mean in the very 4 broadest sense our approach is to try to ensure that the i 5 Department is looking at the entire suite of possible and 1
l 6 potential alternatives. We don't mean to be suggesting 7 any or making a decision in favor of a particular design, 8 at least not at this point in time.
9 And also we're concerned with the adequacy of 10 the hydrologic and geologic models of Yucca Mountain. And 1
11 I don't think we're going to discuss that in any l l
12 particular detail today. l 13 (Slide.)
\ ')
i 14 DR. MURPHY: Our past program, which, 15 unfortunately, is at least temporary coming to a close, 16 involved active oversight of the entire range of DOE's 17 repository program. We were funded under, as was the l
18 state and other units of local government, Section 116 of 19 the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. l 20 We have an on-site representative. ife have 21 looked at regulatory and licensing issues, socioeconomic.
22 We have a very active socioeconomic program, as I think 23 you have heard in the past. Transportation, 24 institutional, and NEPA/EIS issues we were involved in.
f\
(_,) 25 Our program has always been and continues to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
459 1 be conducted under protocols that we negotiated with DOE es 2 some time ago. And what we think is the capstone of the
(_/ !
3 program is what we call our independent scientific '
4 investigations program. ,
5 Nick has mentioned the ONC-1 borehole, the
)
l 6 fact that we have instrumented a DOE hole at NRG-4. We 7 put our pressure temperature and relative humidity 8 monitoring instrumentation in the ESF.
9 All of this data is shared with interested 10 parties. I can see a misspelling there. In the beginning 11 we handed it out. It was a hard cop) format of sharing 12 all of thi data with anybody who was interested.
13 Currently we post this, all of the data, on a
/'~ N
-- 14 Nye County home page on the World Wide Web monthly, every 15 month new data posted on the World Wide Web under Nye 16 County's home page. I probably should have put the 17 address of the home up there, but certainly we'll give 18 that :o anybody who is interested today.
19 Hopefully this will be what our future program 20 will look like. As most of you are aware, Congress has 21 again denied funding to the state and affected units of 22 local government under Section 116.
23 So our future program it looks like will be 24 limited to the on-site representation, which is funded (y
) 25 under Section 117(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE IGLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 de ..m e a . ' . _
460 1 that all of the collateral activities conducted by the Nye 2 County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office will be f-%
V 3 limited to those directly in support of the on-site 4 representative function.
5 Socioeconomics will be terminated.
6 Transportation, institutional; NEPA/EIS, for example. But 7 we will continue again hopefully to collect data and 8 conduct analysis under the independent scientific 9 investigations program and, in fact, expand that program 10 again depending on the continued funding of that program 11 by DOE.
12 We have a proposal in right now for a program 13 of eight new boreholes to be drilled in three phases, two 14 new deep holes in Phase I, which we're confident will add 15 to the sparse deep aquifer for monitoring data. Phase II 16 will involve three shallow UZ and upper saturated zone 17 holes. Phase III will involve four holes to conduct 18 tracer tests similar to the C-well complex.
19 As in the past, we would continue to conduct 20 this program under the on-site representative protocols we 21 have already in place with the Department of Energy and 22 under NOA-1 standards. Data and analysis will continue to 23 be shared with any interested party via the home page with 24 data to be posted on a monthly basis.
( 25 In addition to that and just to finally NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
1 461 !
l 1 conclude, we write periodic reports. The first annual 73 2 report is going to be published within the next two weeks.
(v) 3 And that's a fairly thick document. That will be also 4 made available to anyone who is interested and that in a 1
5 written narrative as well as hard data sense will contain 6 much of the information that you're going to hear from Dr.
1 7 Montazer.
8 So, without further ado, let me introduce Dr.
9 Praviz Montazer, who is the Nye County technical adviser 10 in this area.
11 MEMBER HINZE: Mal?
12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Yes. Mal, I've got a 13 question, too, before you get away.
/T l s# 14 DR. MURPHY: Sure.
15 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Go ahead.
16 MEMBER HINZE: I just wanted to make certain I 17 understood properly that you are going ahead with these 18 additional drill holes, despite the Congressional action.
19 DR. MURPHY: If they are funded by the 20 Department of Energy because you have to keep in mind the 21 distinction between oversight under Section 116 and the 22 conduct of the program h- .n on-site representative under 23 Section 117.
24 What we're proposing to do in the future will 10
(_) 25 be limited to the conduct of our on-site representative NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
462 1 program, to include the independent scientific f
2 investigations program and anything that's necessarily to v
-)l 3 be conducted in support of that program.
4 MEMBER HINZE: I think I understand.
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Mal, my question is perhaps 6 simpler. There is a draft DOE publication out on some 7 demographic characteristics of people in the Amargosa 8 Valley.
9 I wonder whether there were any kind of county 10 or state publications that had similar kinds of 11 demographic data.
12 DR. MURPHY: Yes, there are. And we can 13 certainly make them available. I can think of at least c
p_s\
\2 14 two. And I'm sorry. I apologize for not having the 15 titles of those documents in my mind. But we have two of 16 those kinds of documents that were put together under our l
l 17 socioeconomic program in the past produced primarily by l 18 Planning Information Corporation from Denver.
l l
19 They are available. And if you're interested, 20 we can certainly make sure that you get copies of them.
21 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I would deeply appreciate 22 it if you could, Mal. I'd really like to see them.
23 DR. MURPHY: Those documents, incidentally, 24 were made a part of the record in the National Academy of
?
( 25 Sciences EPA standards, the committee on technical basis.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTOH, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
l
463 1 DR. MONTAZER: Thank you. !
2 (Slide.)
O 3 DR. MONTAZER: I'm going to try to briefly 4 present some of the information that we have gathered and 5 some of the analysis that we have made and propose 6 basically an alternative evaluation of the situation at ;
7 Yucca Mountain and see how we can take advantage of the 8 unsaturated zone environment.
9 We have been basically producing in the past 10 couple of years, Nye County has been producing, a 11 tremendous amount of data, faster than I can keep up with 12 it as far as analysis is concerned.
13 And we have recently received just in the past 14 couple of months data from U.S. Geological Survey that I'm 15 not going to go through, mainly because we haven't shared 16 the results with them yet.
17 (Slide.)
18 DR. MONTAZER: Just to show the perspective 19 location of these boreholes, the ONC-1 is located on the 20 southeastern part of the site, which was drilled, as Nick 21 mentioned, by Nye County; and NRG-4, which is a Department 22 of Energy borehole but instrumented by Nye County. And 23 these other boreholes are the boreholes that we have 24 received data on so far in the unsaturated zone 25 properties.
NEAL R. GFH)SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
464 1 (Slide.)
I 2 DR. MONTAZER: The instrumentation in the l 0 3 ONC-1 and NRG-4 is scheritatically shown in here. We 4 installed a -- NRG-4, as you can see, is about 700 feet !
5 deep. It's drilled from the top of the ridge. It's about 1
)
6 50 feet or so horizontally away from the section of the 7 tunnel. i 8 It was drilled before the tunnel intersects or 9 penetrated the Paintbrush TUFF non-welded unit, which I'll 10 be referring to as the PTn basically in this non-welded l
l 11 area.
12 And we instrumented this using a West Bay 13 package system, which is quite different in the way the 14 project has been instrumenting the boreholes. This is 15 kind of another way of looking at the data and whether we 16 are generating the same type of information.
17 Here I'm showing the number of packers that 18 are set in the places, the locations with basically the 19 instruments with these diamonds, red diamonds. We have 20 seven instruments. We also have one instrument that 21 monitors pressure and temperature at the surface.
22 ONC-1 has 15 packers, but we're monitoring 23 right now only 9 probes. Two of these probes are below 24 water table. And the rest are above the water table.
25 (Slide.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 4 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 1 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
465 1 DR. MONTAZER: One of the interesting things g~s 2 that we observed initially that we saw a substantial 3 difference during the tunnel constri>ation, this shows the 4 May 16th, I mean, the month of May observation of the 5 NRG-4 borehole.
6 What we see, a significant dampening of the 7 barometric pressure, this blue line is the probe that is 8 on the surface. And it is showing the barometric 9 fluctuation of the surface.
10 And Probe 5, which is down in the Topopah 11 Spring, 4 and 5, really, show, significant dampening. The 12 main cause of that is the PTn, especially the lower part 13 of the PTn, which has higher saturation. So it has a
\
[_2 k- 14 lower permeability to air.
15 (Slide.) '
l 16 DR. MONTAZER: After the tunnel broke through, 17 which was actually sometime in mid June, actually, the 18 tunnel was at about June 18th broke through, and we began 19 -- actually, a couple of days before we began seeing 20 substantial fluctuation in the lower probes, which are 21 basically meaning that the tunnel effect of being -- ever 22 since we have been seeing 600 types of fluctuation in all 23 the probes in NRG-4.
24 We have spent a great deal of time and energy b
(_j 25 in analyzing this data. And I'm showing just a brief NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS !
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
466 1 review of what we have seen.
2 (Slide.)
V 3 DR. MONTAZER: This is in ONC-1. ONC-1 is 4 interesting because it's a mile and a half, almost two I 1
5 miles away from where the tunnel path is, the north / south j 6 ramp, or section of the ESF tunnel is. So we initially 7 didn't expect to see much in the ONC-1 borehole.
1 8 (Slide.)
9 DR. MONTAZER: This shows before the tunnel 1
10 and effect. And we have dar.pening again in Probe 2, which 11 is basically separated by the PTn. I apologize for this 12 yellow line, which is an important part of my 13 presentation.
14 In here we show about 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> of lag time in 15 response of the -- this is the trough in lower probes, as 16 opposed to the probes that are above PTn. Basically, the 17 magenta line represents Number 1. The yellow line 18 represents Number 2.
19 We see similar -- I apologize for the data up 20 on the top on your handout. This should be 1996. This is 21 1996 data. We see the similar type of lag, and it changes l
1 22 by a few hours. The lower probes are lagged by about 20 2 hours from the probes up above.
l l '4 What's important here is that Probe 2 if you lf3
!s,) 25 can trace this yellow line is basically synchronous with NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
467 l 1 all the probes in below. I should note that Probes 4 and i
2 5 are placed near a fault which is believed to be the
.O 5
3 extension of the Bow Ridge Fault.
i l 4 One other thing in this figure, in February we 1
5 began noticing some ripples. We weren't sure if it was 6 because of instrumentation or if we were really seeing 7 some effect of the tunnel.
8 (Slide.)
9 DR. MONTAZER: Here in March we clearly see 10 that the Probe 2, which is this yellow line, is ahead of 11 the probes that are deeper section, basically meaning that 12 something else is influencing these probes sooner than 13 they have been influencing the Probe 2, which is at the 14 higher elevation.
15 We interpreted this to be possibly the effect 16 of the tunnel, but it could have been because of some 17 atmospheric effects from some of the boundary conditions, 18 such as Solitario Canyon or some of t: exposed cases 19 surfaces in the Topopah Spring.
20 However, when we examine this data more, we 21 noticed that the magnitude of these ripples have increased 22 in all of the probes.
23 (Slide.)
24 DR. MONTAZER: We tried to simulate this as a 25 one-dimensional vertical fluctuation-type system. And we NEAL R. GFH)SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
468 1 can see that we can pretty well match down to the probe, 2 too, which is below PTn. Below that, regardless of how O 3 much I increase the diffusivity, I cannot match these very 4 well.
5 (Slide.)
6 DR. MONTAZER: What I decided to do is set up 7 a three-dimensional system, which basically shows here we 8 have conceptually showing the north ramp. Each one of l 9 these numbers shows the numbers that I have used to 10 represent the tunnel. And these planes represent the 11 fractures, this being the Ghost Dance Fault, this being 12 somewhat an extension of the Sundance Fault, basically 13 connecting to the Topopah Spring here with PTn being on 14 the top.
15 With this configuration, we can match all of 16 the probes almost perfectly. Basically, you see at the 17 deeper probes with a little bit exception of this one, 18 which I think just requires some adjustments, we can match 19 all of the responses pretty closely. So it's basically l 20 indicated that there is some response from at least if not l
2I the tunnel, there is another source of deep perturbation 22 that is affecting the data.
23 (Slide.)
24 DR. MONTAZER: We were curious as to how our
() 25 data compares with the U.S. Geological Survey. I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
469 1 showing here the elevation on the x-axis in in feet. So 2 on the vertical axis, I'm showing the absolute pressure in 3 kilopascal. Basically 100 kilopascal would be one 4 atmosphere at sea level or above.
5 We can see that both NRG-4 and ONC-1 signals 6 fall within the -- actually, all the boreholes show the 7 same or similar trends and, again, I should show that this 8 is one of the -- we have just looked at the mean and 9 minimum and maximum. I'm just showing the minimum 10 pressure response.
11 (Slide.)
12 DR. MONTAZER: And this figure just shows the 13 overall, all the entire depths. And ONC-1 is the deepest O 14 hole, at least elevation-wise, in the system.
15 (Slide.)
16 DR. MONTAZER: Now, one of the things we 17 noticed was that if we want to interpret this data, we 18 needed to understand our boundary conditions. One of our i 19 important boundaries was the tunnel. And it's a dynamic 20 boundary. This is continually changing.
21 Therefore, we decided to install 22 instrut.entation after discussion with the Yucca Mountain 23 project. And we have been monitoring the pressure 24 temperature, humidity in the tunnel.
) 25 I'm just going to briefly show you the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 !
i
470 1 instrumentation is attached to a part of the TBM. This is
,s 2 about 300 feet from the TBM. And it moves with the TBM.
l
() 3 So as the TBM penetrates the mountain, our instrumentation 4 continues to move.
5 (Slide.)
6 DR. MONTAZER: We have placed three sets of 7 probes and purposely spaced these near the center, the 8 other two being at close to the wall of the tunnel. And I 9 will share with you what was the purpose of placing them 10 like that in just a minute.
11 (Slide.)
12 DR. MONTAZER: What we observed, this shows an 13 example of the December variation in humidity. We're t
N- ) 14 looking at 0 to 100 percent humidity here. And I have 15 also plotted temperature down at the below.
16 The fluctuations that you see in between these 17 plateaus are due to ventilation. There's about anywhere 18 between 60 to 100 thousand cubic feet per minute of 19 ventilation that is going through, is being used to 20 ventilate the site, the tunnel.
21 During the weekends, they shut off. And the 22 humidity and the temperature for all the probes recover.
23 There's a separation between these.
24 (Slide.)
1 <~
q,/ 25 DR. MONTAZER: This is just an example of a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
! 471
," 1 January observation. As we go deeper into the tunnel, 1
! 2 both the temperature and humidity rise to a higher level.
l 3 In this case we're reaching a level that is beyond the l
l 4 instrument sensitivity. These instruments are only
< l 5 sensitive to about 95-96 percent. Above that, they start
! 6 showing -- that's why we have above 100 percent humidity. I 1
7 If you notice, the blue line, which is in the 8 center of the tunnel, always shows a smaller temperature.
I 9 In this case it's a yellow line for the temperature, a 10 smaller temperature and a smaller humidity.
11 (Slide.)
12 DR. MONTAZER: This is what I believe is a 13 result of what we call in the atmospheric sciences eddy
'- 14 diffusivity. I just want to briefly give you an idea of 15 what eddy diffusivity is.
16 Air by itself is almost an insulator. It 17 doesn't transfer heat very well and doesn't transfer. And 18 it transfers moisture basically at the diffusion 19 coefficient, which is in the order of 10-', almost 10-'
20 centimeters squared per second.
21 But we all have felt wind, and we see it has a 22 cooling effect. So the moving air has the capability of 23 transporting a tremendous amount of moisture and heat.
24 And the way we try to describe that is by this eddy i
25 diffusivity. l l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
472 1 What happens is that when we have flow into a
,es 2 tube. In this case, I imagine this is a tunnel. There t i 3 are differences in velocity. Really, at even the small 4 velocities in the tunnel, we have turbulent conditions.
5 Air turns into turbulent condition very, very quickly. So 6 it generates these addies near the wall that they are 7 different sizes, and they're not as regular as I have 8 represented here.
9 These eddies, what they cause, they result in 10 -- in addition to the transfer of heat and moisture in the 11 longitudinal direction, they also encourage the transfer 12 of heat and vapor perpendicular to the tunnel. Therefore, 13 they have a tremendous potential, there's a tremendous
\') 14 potential, for removal of heat and moisture from the 15 tunnel.
16 This has been observed in many, many different 1
l 17 conditions. I have observed it over my technical life in l 18 different tunnels. As soon as you turn on the 19 ventilation, it goes dry. And we have made an observation 20 in the Yucca Mountain project as well as observation in 21 the ESF tunnel that demonstrate this.
l 22 (Slide.)
l 23 DR. MONTAZER: We wanted to -- therefore, now, 24 one of the things that -- this is, I believe, what's the
.fh 1
i
( ,)_
25 cause of the differences in temperature and pressure and l
' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
473 1 humidity in the different probes.
2 Is it my mike that's making noise? I have to O 3 keep on talking. Okay. That's a good spot. !
4 We wanted to see how we can match the data '
5 with the observation with this conceptual thinking.
6 Unfortunately, there's not a good analytical way of doing 7 this. So we had to use a numerical stimulation for which 8 we have developed a code which we refer to as A-TOUGH, 9 which is based on the TUFF code that the Yucca Mountain 10 project is using.
l 11 The major difference on that is that we have i
12 added an atmospheric element into this model that l 13 interfaces with all the other elements through eddy 14 diffusivity. Basically both heat and moisture transfer is 15 through eddy diffusivity, rather than standard diffusion 16 coefficient.
17 (Slide.)
18 DR. MONTAZER: And here I set up an axis 19 symmetric grid for stimulation of the tunnel. We have 20 here -- if you imagine this being a plane view and this is 21 the ESF or the tunnel, these first few elements up to here 22 are the tunnel elements, and then the rest are the rock l l
I 23 elements.
24 We're going in the radial direction to about k 25 300 meters and from the portal down to about 600 meters.
NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS !
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. I (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200(5 3701 (202) 234-4433 i
474 1 At this time when I was analyzing the data, the ESF was s 2 about 200 meters into the mountain.
/ \
V 3 I have made a lot of different simplifications l
4 as far as the properties and material are concerned. And 5 basically to look at this conceptually at this time, we're i
6 looking at it a little bit more in depth to look and see 1 I
1 7 if -- I've tried to use the material properties that are 8 provided in the TSPA and in Bo's model, site model. But, 9 again, I have to make some simplifications, and we haven't 10 looked at some of the alternatives.
11 Here we are looking at one scenario. There is ,
l 12 basically one week of ventilation. And I'm looking at the 13 relative humidity, which I'm showing here with fractions, 1 A
i n
's/ 14 as opposed to the percentages, although here we're looking 15 at the percentages.
i 16 We're looking at the various locations in the l
17 tunnel. I have picked these different nodes that are l
18 different depths. And I plotted this over time, the five, 19 four or five, days' time.
20 And we can see that as we go, that this one is
'1 o the deepest into the tunnel. As we go outside towards the 22 portal, the humidity decreases. This is really because, I 23 mean, I'm allowing a ten percent humidity air to come in.
24 As the air goes into the tunnel, it picks up O
(_) 25 moisture from the rock. And once it reaches to the end of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
475 1 the tunnel, it reaches almost 85 percent humidity and in 2 this case basically is what we have here, we're all 7-N') 3 observing here.
4 As soon as the ventilation is shut down, we'll 5 go back to the 100 percent humidity because the air in the 6 tunnel tries to come into equilibrium with the rock, which 7 is at almost 100 percent humidity air in the fracture of 8 the rock.
9 (Slide.)
10 DR. MONTAZER: Here this shows the 11 temperature. In this case the temperature has a reverse.
12 I'm putting a 25-degree C. atmosphere into the system.
13 And as we go into the tunnel during the ventilation
\/ 14 period, we have a cooling in the tunnel.
15 (Slide.)
16 DR. MONTAZER: And as we start the j 17 ventilation, the tunnel nodes that are closer to the end, 18 they come to equilibrium with a rock which is at about 19 19 degrees C. in this case.
20 With some of the observations that are being 21 made by USGS, these ranges of f]uctuation in the rock 22 temperature and in the temperature and humidities are 23 matching.
24 (Slide.)
O
(,) 25 DR. MONTAZER: Now, I wanted to -- all of this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANGCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
476
) 1 data collection and the emphasis on the importance of the ,
! 2 pneumatic characteristics of the mountain and why we're
!s j 3 looking at this is that the mountain, the unsaturated )
j 4 zone, especially the fracture at Topopah Spring, has a )
5 tremendous capability to move air. There's a lot of air l 6 that can be moved in and out of Topopah Spring.
i g 7 One of the things that we considered in the i
8 process of seeing how the rock responds, see if we could
}
9 create a ventilation without any force.
10 (Slide.)
11 DR. MONTAZER: I don't know. I guess just for 12 some people who are not familiar with natural ventilation, 13 it's been known for years, actually in the mining industry j 14 for a couple of centuries, that just by creating a path j 15 from a lower elevation to a higher elevation, because of 16 the density differences in the atmosphere and the shaft, ;
I 17 which is controlled by the temperature of the rock, they 18 can create a ventilation, an actual ventilation, that 19 basically provides air into the tunnel.
20 Now, we wanted'to see how this can be taken 21 advantage of. So we set up a simulation that basically is 22 similar to the axis symmetric simulation that I showed you 23 with the difference that we have a number of heaters in 24 the center and a shaft connected to the atmosphere, which
( 25 is about 300 meters near the surface, so imagining that we NEAL R. GFH)SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
477 1 connect the ESF to the surface by a 300-meter shaft here.
2 (Slide.)
O 3 DR. MONTAZER: And I'm opening this into the 4 atmosphere and opening that into the atmosphere. And the 5 tunnel material property is similar to an atmosphere.
6 Therefore, the transfer between the tunnel material and 1
7 the tuff are through the eddy diffusivity. l l
8 (Slide.)
9 DR. MONTAZER: We ran this simulation under 10 natural conditions without any forced ventilation to 11 10,000 years. Here we see the saturation line is the 12 first element in the rock that is adjacent to the tunnel 13 atmosphere. And as we go out, these are the last one, the 14 square is about 8.3 meters away from the center of the 15 tunnel. So it's about five meters from the face of the 16 wall of the tunnel.
17 We can see over time in a couple of thousand 18 years we can bring down the saturation, down to 50 l
19 percent. And it maintains --- the rock adjacent to the 20 tunnel basically dries out, completely dries out without 21 any moisture in it. That shows at about 2,000.
22 Now, I have used a very conservative eddy 23 diffusivity in this case of .001. The simulation that I 24 did for actual data gives us an eddy diffusivity of .01.
25 (Slide.)
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ;
i -_ . _ . - -
i 478 I 1
1 DR. MONTAZER: Now I'd like to basically note l 7 2 that eddy diffusivity is a dynamic parameter. It changes
~
3 with the flow of air. So it's not constar.t. But I have 4 just for simplicity here -- it's not that the limitation l
5 of the model, but for simplicity of the simulation, I have l 6 kept it constant over the 10,000 years.
7 I should have showed the amount of heat that 8 I'm putting. I apologize. The sequence of some of these 9 are changed during the copying process this morning.
10 (Slide.)
11 DR. MONTAZER: This is the heat load that 12 we're putting into this small section of the tunnel.
13 We're using about 400 meters of that tunnel. And we're
(
k/ 14 putting about 45, beginning to put 45, kilowatt, which is 15 equivalent to about 5 canisters based on the TSPA data, 16 TSPA-95, data. So over a 40-meter length, we are putting 17 equivalent of 5-canister heat into the tunnel.
18 Now, the heat load, this is basically taken 19 out of TSPA. We have just added it up to account for this 20 is their prediction over 10,000 years.
21 (Slide.)
22 DR. MONTAZER: Now, what happens to the rock 23 temperature is even more interesting. This is again in 24 the most conservative case of the .01. Now, here the pink
<~x q,) 25 line is basically just right near the center of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
\ .
l l l 479 l
l l 1 tunnel. So the hottest temperature we get is right next l
l ~ 2 to the canister. And that's about 70 degrees. That drops 3 down because the heat load decays.
j 4 But let's look at what happens at the rock 5 surface right here at 3.0, about 3 and a half meters. It l l
l 6 starts at 19 degrees, which is original. And it cools l l
7 down and remains cool until it tries to equilibrate with i
8 the atmospheric temperature that the air that it continues 9 to flow through. And I'll show you in a minute what 10 happens to the temperature and saturation for the 11 distances.
12 (Slide.)
13 DR. MONTAZER: This is the plane view.
O'ss' 14 Basically if you -- this is basically the same direction 15 as the mesh that I initially showed. We have the portal 16 up there. And this is the 600-meter length of the tunnel.
17 And this is 300-meter radial distance.
18 Initially we have these hot spots developing 19 within the tunnel, which will reach about 65-70 degrees.
20 But as time goes on, you can see that the temperatures 21 drop down to about 10 to 20 degrees. Beyond 100 meters, 22 the temperature never goes above 30 degrees. So all time 23 temperatures really remain below 34 degrees.
24 (Slide.)
(~%
l
(_) 25 DR. MONTAZER: One of the important parameters NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ -. ____.m._ _ . . . . _ _ _ _
480 l 1 in determining which way the water flows is the capillary i 1
2 pressure. Now I'd like to note that in this case I have O 3 not taken infiltration into consideration, but with the 4 tremendous amount of changes that we see based on this 5 simulation in the saturation, even 20-30 millimeter a year 6 of flux is not going to matter. It's all going to be 7 observed by the rock mass that is dried by this process.
l 8 The capillary pressure gradient continues to l 9 become steeper and steeper. And > : gets the steepest at l
l 10 10,000 years. Basically what it's meaning is that the 11 direction of the flow gets stronger and stronger as the 12 water keeps moving towards the -- the potential for water 13 movement is towards the tunnel at all times.
14 (Slide.)
15 DR, MONTAZER: This is a .01 case I just want j 16 to show you for comparison. In this case we're looking at 17 the saturations. The saturation in this case falls down 18 quicker. In ten years the node near the surface basically 19 dries up in ten years, completely dries up, which is 20 within a meter from the tunnel face. And the rest of the 21 rock again continues to dry out to about 15 percent 22 saturation.
23 (Slide.)
24 DR. MONTAZER: The temperature is much more 25 drastically influenced. As you can see in this case, all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TPANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
481 1 the temperatures in the vicinity of the tunnel remain 7- - 2 below 30 degrees. The maximum temperature in the tunnel U 3 is about 32-33 degrees.
4 And in the rock, again, it cools down. This 5 cooling down below the flow of the air is basically 6 something similar to a wind chill factor. That's why we 7 get cooler, the rock gets cooler, than the flowing air.
8 (Slide.)
9 DR. MONTAZER: This is just a comparison.
10 Yes, I didn't show you the temperature pressures. I just 11 wanted to show you the pneumatic conditions, basically the 12 air pressure in the system. This I'm just showing you as 13 an example for .01 eddy diffusivity at various times.
A' 14 The air pressure, basically it appears we 15 create a stronger gradient for the pneumatic pressure as 16 well as the other parameters as we go towards 10,000 17 years. Mainly it's because the tunnel tries to come to 18 equilibrium with the atmospheric pressure.
19 (Slide.)
20 DR. MONTAZER: Now, I realize that this is a 21 very simplistic simulation. And there is a lot going on 22 in the site. We have a lot of diffarent boundary 23 conditions that are going to influence. And, of course, 24 if we're considering this to use this for waste
.R
(_) 25 emplacement, we have to consider a lot more tunnels and a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
482 1 lot more complicated system.
2 What this shows, that it is possible, at least i V 3 it is worthwhile to pursue this idea and try to see if we 1
4 can verify in the field with more complicated simulation 5 to see if there is really credibility to this concept and 6 then see if we can work out the engineering problems 7 because if we can demonstrate that this is really l
8 applicable, we have solved our temperature problems and we 9 have solved our flow problems. l 10 If we can figure out a way to maintain the 11 repository for 10,000 years, which is not unthinkable if 12 you go to historical, -- at least we know to 3,000 years 1
13 that big openings have stayed open -- if we can l
(" 1 A' 14 I demonstrate that, we can probably make a safer repository.
15 (Slide.)
16 DR. MONTAZER: So, basically, in conclusion, I 17 would like to emphasize to pay a little bit more attention 18 to this aspect and try to see while we have the l
19 opportunity get more data analysis of these kinds of l 20 situations.
21 Thank you. I'm open for questions. l l
22 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you.
l l
23 Are there questions from the Committee?
24 MEMBER HINZE: Praviz, has your work gone far 1 O l k,)
l m
25 enoug. so that you can make any estimates of the bulk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
483 1 properties and how these compare with those that are now
~s 2 being made by the DOE in their TSPA?
/ \
3 DR. MONTAZER: What kind of bulk properties?
4 MEMBER HINZE: Well, the pneumatic --
5 DR. MONTAZER: Yes. One of the things that we 6 have been able to come up with from the NRG-4 and tunnel 7 interaction, at least we can come up with a 50-foot radius 8 or even larger in this case bulk permeability.
9 One of the things we have observed -- and I 10 have tried to make these simulations, actually show that 11 you basically calibrate it to that conditions, if you 12 will. " Calibration" is a strong word in this case, but 13 since I only have one data point. That's NRG-4.
(
\ ') 14 The NRG-4 temperatures have shown a decline of l 15 about one degree over two years or year and a half. The 16 temperatures have dropped about one degree at the tunnel l l
17 level. And the model simulates about the same amount of 18 drop. So we're looking at the other holes and see if we 19 can make this.
20 What this basically shows us is bulk thermal 21 properties from the tunnel to NRG-4, which is the largest 22 scale we have ever that I have ever heard of except maybe 23 petroleum engineering, petroleum fields. But this 24 interaction between tunnel and some of these boreholes, C
(_ 25 we're continually analyzing, trying to come up with bulk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
484 1 properties.
1 l
l 2 We have wanted to analyze the tunnel data as '
1
[ h,
'~'
3 it progresses to see if we can get the variation in the 4 bulk properties as the tunnel progresses. ;
1 1
5 Unfortunately, we don't have good flow data. I
, 1 l l 6 The ventilation data is not being monitored in a very 7 precise manner. Therefore, I cannot analyze for bulk 8 permeability and other properties because on the average 9 if I just use 60,000 CFM or 100,000 CFM, I'm going to come 10 up with big differences. We need to have the diurnal 11 fluctuation in the flow to be able to take advantage of 12 that.
l 13 One thing that we know we have learned from i q
- 14 ONC-1 observation in the bulk properties is that these 15 fractures are connected through into a brass ring, at ,
1 16 least pneumatically. And they can transmit pressure long 17 distances. In ONC-1, I believe it's at least a mile and a 18 half, which is a distance from ONC-1 to where the tunnel 19 intersected Sundance Fault.
20 We're planning to get some gas samples from 21 ONC-1 as the tunnel approaches to see if it can detect the l
l 22 atmospheric environmental tracers in the tunnel. And this 1
23 coming in to the ONC-1.
l 24 Actually, next week we're going out in the 1 r~
1
(_)h 25 field collecting that. That way will give us a large 1
NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
t
485 1 scale, the transport properties, at least in the gaseous
- 2 phase of the Tupopah Spring
'~'
3 MEMBER HINZE: Let me ask a naive question.
4 Are you really measuring bulk properties or are you 5 measuring the fastest path, if you will?
6 DR. MONTAZER: In case of ONC-1, it's fastest 7 path. In case of NRG-4, I believe it's bulk property ,
l 8 because I'm looking at the most of all probes that are 9 vertically -- you can imagine this. A pumping test is i
10 being done by the tunnel and you're monitoring what all is 11 being in a vertical direction. It's kind of the plane is 12 turned around.
13 So it really does show us the bulk pneumatic O) t
\/ 14 properties in NRG-4. But in ONC-1 we believe that the 15 communication with the tunnel comes through Bow Ridge l
l 16 Fault and some connection with Sundance Fault because I 17 cannot simulate this if I use large diffusivities, meaning 18 that there is a lot of fractures involved.
19 I have to use very small effective porosity to j 20 simulate this communication, that meaning that there is a 21 very distinct path that connects the ONC-1 to the tunnel.
22 MEMBER HINZE: Have you justification for l
23 large anisotropy?
1 l 24 DR. MONTAZER: Oh, yes. There's definitely
' (_,/
(D 25 large anisotropy, but how we can --
l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 1
486 i l
1 MEMBER HINZE: What are the implications of p-s 2 that to the performance at the site?
D 3 DR. MONTAZER: The thing here is the 1
4 anisotropy in the unsaturated zone depends on, number one:
5 What parameters are you looking at? Now, we're talking l 6 about the pneumatic parameter of conductivity.
7 Yes, there is a large-scale anisotropy. I 8 don't know if we have a small-scale anisotropy. Well, of 9 course, we have on top of that the heterogeneities that 10 are these large-scale fractures that go long ways. But at 11 different scales, we have different situations in the 12 Topopah Spring by itself.
13 MEMBER HINZE: Is that going to have an impact
-- 14 upon the performance measures at all?
15 DR. MONTAZER: The?
16 MEMBER HINZE: Anisotropy. Let's say on a 17 large scale.
18 DR. MONTAZER: We have to unuerstand, I guess, 19 what kind of alternative are we going to be looking at es 20 far as the repository performance is concerned.
21 We are looking at the conceptual alternative 22 that I just showed. That means leaving a repository open 23 and taking advantage of natural ventilation and heat of a 24 repository, heat of the waste canisters.
/~
ks ,x) 25 Then the intermediate-scale anisotropy become NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
487 1 important. The small-scale anisotropy become unimportant,
,s 2 insignificant.
(vI 3 MEMBER HINZE: Yes.
4 DR. MONTAZER: We won't have to worry about 5 the dripping. We won't worry about the -- well, I 6 shouldn't say we won't have to worry about it, but it will 7 be minimized. We'll have to engineer around it. There 8 are going to be cases, there are going to be like along 9 the faults, et cetera, that if we intersect, we are going 10 to have dripping, regardless of this ventilation.
11 I haven't done the analysis, but my gut 12 feeling from my experience -- I lived in a tunnel for two p_
13 years -- is that this ventilation is not going to take
(
\~') 14 care of all the dripping. But along the tault zones, et 15 cetera, we're still going to have some dripping.
16 But in the major portion of the tunnel, if we 17 maintain ventilation, good ventilation, with the heat of 18 the canisters, I don't think we have to worry about 19 dripping, which requires small-scale anisotropy study.
20 That's basically all I'll say.
21 If we want to study where we're going to have 22 these drips or not, then a small scale is important. But 23 if we are not worried about it, then the small-scale 24 anisotropy will not be as important.
(~h
(_,/ 25 MEMBER HINZE: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
488 1 DR. MONTAZER: Sure.
I f3 2 MEMBER HINZE: I just want to thank you.
i }
N_/
3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Other comments? Staff?
4 (No response.)
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: I just wanted to ask -- you I
l 6 touch base fairly closely with the DOE people and the DOE l i !
l 7 TSPA people as well, do you? j 8 DR. MONTAZER: We attend -- Nick is directly l
9 on a day-to-day basis in contact with DOE. And I'm 10 attending a lot of the meetings. Most of the meetings 11 that are pertinent, Nick lets me to sit in. And we 12 interact.
13 They've heard this, not in all of this detail, rb 14 but they have heard our conceptual thinking for the past 15 year or so on this. We haven't formed a --
16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Could you paraphrase their 17 comment, if any?
18 DR. MONTAZER: I think generally they're 19 receptive on any new ideas, new concepts. My general 20 feeling is that, as expected, nobody is ready to jump on 21 and derail all the trains and go on these ideas.
22 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Right.
23 DR. MONTAZER: But I think they've been very 24 receptive on a lot of our suggestions and comments.
(~
(,/ 25 MEMBER HINZE: I had one more question, if I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
489 1 might.
l 2 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Sure.
, !-)
N/
l 3 MEMBER HINZE: Your testing parallel to the 4 C-well test, where is that located? Can you --
l 5 DR. MONTAZER: Nick, do you want to comment on 6 that specifically?
7 DR. STELLAVATO: Yes.
8 DR. MONTAZER: Things change on that.
9 MEMBER HINZE: And tell us something about 10 where in the section you plan to do the testing and so 11 forth.
12 DR. STELLAVATO: Where in the section? This 13 tracer complex is -- there's that map, Praviz, that you O
\wl 14 have on top there.
15 DR. MONTAZER: Which one? This one is clear.
16 Do we have it or not?
17 DR. STELLAVATO: Okay. The project was 18 interested at one time in another tracer test, down 19 gradient. I think TSPA pointed out some -- or Los Alamos 20 a year or so ago pointed out in this down gradient area 21 they don't have very much data and they'd like to see a 22 down gradient tracer test.
23 C-well complex is 2,600 feet southeast of 24 ONC-1. So it's basically off this map, right in this area 1%
(_) 25 right here. And they wanted to see something in a down NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
490 ,
1 gradient, the WT-17 area, down gradient of the repository
-~s 2 block. So it would be in this area right -- well, it's 3 hard for --
4 MEMBER HINZE: Just switch around. <
l l
5 DR. STELLAVATO: Okay. The C-well complex --
6 here's ONC-1 -- is over in here. It's about 2,600 feet 7 southeast of ONC-1. The project I know was interested and 8 we are in the down gradient section, down in here, which 9 is down gradient of the repository block, in the WT-17 l l
10 area, for a four-hole tracer test.
11 And so in my plan, I watched the projects 12 plans very closely because I'm there all the time. And 13 Praviz and one of other consultants were very interested
(" \
\' # 14 in this data also. So I think that program has been 15 dropped by the project. So I said in my program, I would 16 go ahead and pick it up and do it because we want the data 17 also.
18 If you look in this area, there's really very 19 little data. In this southeast repository block, there's 20 very little data. One of the concerns we have is the lack i 21 of a database because I saw today on the repository l 22 design, this whole area here has -- I didn't count the l
23 drifts on them, but there's quite a few emplacement drifts 1
1 24 with very little data. They don't know if there are any 7'
k ,N) 25 faults in there or not.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASH.NGToN, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
491 1 And just recently at the NWTRB, we respond in )
2 ONC-1. And you saturate it within two hours of the C-well 3 pump test And that's 2,600 feet away. So that's quite a 4 big response in the saturated that far away. And then 5 we're responding in the unsaturated from the TBM, which is 6 located in this area, which is a kilometer or more away.
7 Now, Warren Day of the GS at the NWTRB says he 8 has postulated another fault that runs right up the canyon 9 past UZ-16, past H-4, that intersects the Ghost Dance, and 10 right into the tunnel.
11 I agree with that because I have evidence from 12 our drilling that we not only intersected the. Bow Ridge.
13 We have a fault below the Bow Ridge. But I couldn't prove 14 it.
15 And now with the responses that we're seeing 16 and then the responses in the unsaturated -- and then 17 Praviz showed you the evidence that we have something 18 running back this way that's connecting us to tne TBM.
19 And it's definitely not from the surface. And I wouldn't 20 imagine it went up, back, over, and down this way. It l 21 would be this way.
22 So that's why we're interested in that down 23 gradient area because it is a big hole right now.
24 MEMBER HINZE: While you have the microphone, 25 Nick, let me ask you: What about your monitoring of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
492 1 what's going on with G-2? Do you have any plans to look rw 2 at the steep gradient or what the significance of the
\,,
3 steep gradient is? Where are you or where are you all?
4 DR. STELLAVATO: Okay. G-2 in the steep 5 gradient, again, that was a very interesting hole that we 6 were interested in that they were going to do. That hole 7 has since been dropped from the program, but they do have 8 a drill pad sitting up here. And I put that in my 9 program.
10 I wanted to drill a steep gradient hole 11 because we'd like to have information, too, up in the 12 steep gradient.
_ 13 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: So is that going to happen?
, e
'~
14 DR. STELLAVATO: Well, again, it will happen 15 if we can get the funding under the on-site rep, as we 16 requested. And, also, the Solitario Canyon, I want to do 17 an angle hole across that because that's open to the 18 atmosphere.
4 19 And then the South Block, I have a hole here 20 and then the four-hole tracer test. And then I want to do 21 a 6,000-footer down into the deep carbonates. So that's a 22 , rogram for next year.
23 MEMBER HINZE: Pretty ambitious.
24 DR. STELLAVATO: Too ambitious.
(~h
(_ j 25 MEMBER HINZE: The G-2, is this just up on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
l
! 493 1 top of the gradient or is it on the --
g3 2 DR. STELLAVATO: G-2, that's north. And then l
3 between G-2 and down to UZ-14 is the steep gradient.
1 4 MEMBER HINZE: Okay.
5 DR. STELLAVATO: And it's very critical in the 1 6 modeling how you're going to model the north part of Yucca l 7 Mountain and the saturated.
I 1
8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: If there are no other 9 questions, I'd like to thank you, Praviz and Nick and Mal.
10 We' re now open to other con.nents, criticisms, 11 or ideas --
12 MEMBER HINZE: Go easy on the criticisms.
13 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Strike the criticism.
(o' l' 14 -- for anyone else who would like to make 15 comments at this time. Yes, sir?
16 7.2) OTHERS 17 DR. SHETTEL: Yes. My name is Don Shettel.
18 I'm with GMI in Boulder City. Due to lack of oversight l l
19 funding for the state and Nye County, I'm essentially 20 representing myself, a private citizen.
21 Due to the highly fractured nature and faulted 22 nature of Yucca Mountain, we believe that there's 23 essentially no significant or perhaps a very high l
l 24 probability there are no pathways through the matrix in O)
(_ 25 the vicinity of the repository block. l NEAL. R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 494 1 And what this means is the coupling, g- 2 especially for the TSPA, between the matrix and fractures kJ 3 is very important. And if there are no uninterrupted 4 pathways through the matrix, essentially from the land 1
5 surface to the water table, and DOE is still proposing l 6 that since the mid to late '80s, when they thought the l l
7 percolation and infiltration flux was essentially less l 8 than .1 millimeters per year and now it's up to almost 10 9 millimeters per year and they're still saying that most of 10 this flux is going through the matrix but the problem is l
11 there is probably no uninterrupted pathway through the 12 matrix from the land surface to the water table, that this l 13 flux is going to have to at some point cross a fault or a
(~N
\- 14 fracture. And, therefore, the physical relationships in 15 this area must be understood.
16 That's all I have to say.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Thank you very much.
18 Other comments?
19 (No response.)
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY: Hearing none, what I'd like 21 to do is the following. This concludes essentially the 22 formal presentation portion of this meeting. From this 23 point on, the Committee will in the first instance 24 consider at least one of its letters that it's currently 25 preparing. And following that, we'll make some decisions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l j l 495 i 1
1 regarding future agendas for future meetings and other ;
2 administrative decisions.
/
c3
('~' /
3 What I'd like to do now is to take a 10-minute 4 break and reconvene at 20 minutes of the hour.
5 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter was recessed 6 at 2:30 p.m.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
24 i
Q) 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: 86TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) MEETING Docket Number: N/A Place of Proceeding: LAS VEGAS, NEVADA were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
}h 19 Y$ DA11L (pORBETT RI!(ER Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
J l
I O
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
- J U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY L "
OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT -
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE !
SUBJECT:
Repository Design For Viability Assessment i
PRESENTER: Jack N. Bailey PRESENTER'S TITLE AND ORGANIZATION: DEPUTY OPERATIONS MANAGER, ENGINEERING & INTEGRATION CRWMS MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTOR LAS VEGAS, NV i TELEPHONE NUMBER: (702)794-7266 i
l 7 September 27,1996 I I
O O O l
Engineering Design Description Goal of Design L
l Develop reference design for viabi! sty assessment A design tied directly to Total System Performance Assessment for viability assessment (TSPA)
Identify tentative /likely resolution to engineering drivers -
VA Reference Design A design that balances the overall facility Adds additional confidence to the TSPA- VA design Develops potential solutions to resolve unprecedented regulatory designs !
Define requirements for the systems, structures &
components _,,
l
- o o o -
Engineering Design Description (con't)
)
- With Approval of the VA - Develop the LA Design Develop designs to appropriate detail for LA Identify changes to design as a result of ongoing scientific results, potential reallocation of performance and design development i
EtO JNB 0996442 3
Engineering Design Description (con't)
Advanced Conceptual Design Published - March 1996 Compiled and integrated years of design effort into a facility design ;
Identified data needs from science i Allowed for evaluation of difference from TSPA -
1995 Provides common reference for the start of design for VA Reference for establishing reo 'irements !
Will not be updated r
EO JNB 099M42
- O O O Engineering Design Description (con't)
One Pass Program Ongoing development of a Single Design to support:
Viability Assessment Environmental Impact Statement and i
License Application Developed over 5 year period EBO JNB 09S6442 5 6
O O O Engineering Design Description (con't)
Prioritized to:
Meet needs of each area above, Identify latest design for post-closure evaluations and Address likely regulatory issues associated with first of a kind Establishes adequate design basis to support
- Licensing but not necessarily construction ElO.JNG 09/96042 6 f
O O O -
MGDS Design Approach Major VA SRR LA CA 1996 1998 1999 2002 2005 i : i i i i !
lssued l 1996 '
- ACD i
l I
Phasei i l
i l>
Phbse11 I I
Phase 1- Initial VA development I l Phase ll - Complete VA design, l I
Develop LA design i :
Phase 111 Phase ill - Complete LA design !
l Continue development of design I
O O O
- Engineering Design Description (con't)
Initial Design Efforts focus on VA:
Support to Performance Assessment Design of selected systems structures and components Corrosion models & associated testing programs Feasibility of technology of PA design Existing technology use in new applications Underground ventilation .
Enks 09NM2 8
Engineering Design Description (con't) '
1 Cost to construct Evaluate and develop design for significant cost drivers
- Ground Support '
! Develop design to allow costing Balanced facility '
Establish regulatory basis for planning Basis for regulatory acceptance precedented- yes or no Identify acceptance criteria Radiological waste processing systems Bare spent fuel handling operations Determine level of detail for license submittal Binning _ _ , ,
O O O ;
Engineering Design Description (con't)
Developed priorities to support Viability Assessment Performance assessment Use of existing technology Costing l
Licensibility Use of consultant panels to guide process Focus on solutions Take advantage of industry experience Advise on design development EIO JN8.0946042 to
O O O
- Engineering Design Description (con't) 4 Means of prioritizina Binning identifies priorities for level of detail at
, time of License submittal-Bin 3 Radiological involvement - No regulatory precedent Bin 2 Radiological involvement -
Regulatory precedent Bin 1 No radiological involvement
= = .. 2 u
O O O Viability Assessment Design issues Thermal loading strategies
, EBS performance enhancements (backfill, drip shields...)
Criticality control concepts (filler, control rods, ,
partially filled WP, use of DU) (assuming burn up .
credit)
Emplacement drift ground support concept (steel vs :
cast in piace concrete vs precast concrete)
Performance Confirmation concepts (monitormg i system, sampling approach, sampling rate t
EIO.JN8.00/96-042 12 I
O O O Viability Assessment Design issues (con't)
Retrievability concept (ease vs develop when required)
Confirmation of high volume and long period of waste handling capability (dry vs pool)
Disposal of site generated waste Strategy for mapping repository subsurface Viability of underground, remote concepts
a.m .. s-a_m__.e, es. ,,s._ ._...A.s.-
- m,. m.A .cAaaa.142. _ _.%,s_.__a.2,,_a, =a,1,_a_.ig.,m_,, -,a..a,a k $
)
I o
a 1. i 115 1
m a-
-m
% N E5 g !
g \;
en
\
h E I hi %
! 55 1 51 I
{g i ;if f, SE I f I
/ /f
[/J I
t s /
/ % ' li E i
/
[# '% ll i!
I O ew 1' -
si" i
i se .
',l '
g, !
' I s
' 4 i
~ Il 3 -
N 12
- / g n
- i d
l e
W
. C D
g rn
, ei id r
r a ao
[ g\ ;
l
- Cn y u l be r
mf s
@,~ en sa sr AT
- ep t
~
4 mt o se i ,
rac FWeR
.....h.. m.A,m2Aue w4.. am ..au.....4-..m
_-eas% 4 A -_aa_m ,_p. , , . ___ , a Jga._u_gau3M_A 2_J_,m___,
k
( )
t
~
$ i, i
g <
W
\ CC 4
( \
W w
W Z
^
4 CC
\
\g P-
\ \'
\o
b : l I I i ! :;!
il L i I , I! t L i 4
H 9 m
u
._ T I
m II s W 9
m m
e G
_. m
_. Y e S
R T
N a_ ./ A
./ 4 GE
./ WT G h
A
. ./
/ Q
/NK
/
\f / EC
_ \\
?
\f
/
d ./
./
/
g/
/
' C MA E P E
./
/ A. T l
. \ P S MA n EW n
n M
. T N
E ME N
. OLA ET C
s
~
^
~ G ES A D A
. K C
E L A P
- n PT R
P M
n EO T
S P P
A U E
_ WS h.
N OLA E T O, -
G ES
- A D K E CP A
n PT
~
E R n / T O
/
4 S P P
/ WA U
_ /'fQ\W S h / /
/
/ g/
/'/
'/ <
' . 'p
- O O O *!
NYE COUNTY TECHNICAL 3-PROGRAM Nick Stellavato couErv On-Site Representative Wal Murphy Regulatory Advisor Parviz Montazer METI
.=,,
T
. .t l
- O. O O _
NYE COD TY PROGRAM
+ Drilled ONC#1 in December 1994
+ Instrumented ONC#1 and NRG-4 in March 1995
+ Instrumented TBM in August 1995
. . i g -
O O o
[
-GOALS OF NYE COUTY'S TECHNICAL PROGRAM
, + To address k ey issues that can have paramount impact on both the design and performance of the repository at Yucca Mountain l:
+ To ensure a safe repository at this site
+ To evaluate DOE's general scientific program
+ Identify areas that are not being adequately addressed by DOE
.s.. ;
o' O O -i KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN :
+ The pneumatic and hydraulic systems in the repository block
+ Potential alternative designs that can improve the performance safety of the repository
+ Adequacy of DOE's hydrologic and geologic models of Yucca Mountain
.=.
T
..a - - - _ - maw..a.Wd m. .e._-- . --L-- - . ' - Am.mMJ.t--I -$1-m ^
-"'edl6.4,.s-J -
A--4.%-.
1 s
- * - n.'.
% , de g .
I ,
.s . . ..
,m 9 , ~. . . . .
9.%g ,.
. , . . .._ . . ,_ ._. _ _. . .g!
p i. * %Tt l p,.y i...i" ...
' ; -*.',,f* .. . . ; - ' - '* f * *" .'r r*. ,.,,,..-
v y"k4b . . ' ct l N .
7 . . ,, ;$ : .
s,_,,,, _2,_ _c . - . _ w. - -
t
'l
.* , , 1 y
g
'$ * 'r'ff. s.
w g.
g
..-:s.
e
, + .
~:
.~
. .n.tr
'4__- . c:;;;;:.
. ..... c. --_. .
-L.? I
, h4 s;,, '
tg<, ""',e r I- -- * , g ,- --=f 7, =l -
.7 ;, .
f y.my W}d ?
.i.. y'. 'N { .: "
. gy ..; -- . ;- ., . @ 1". .
- r. e v.. > . .
[ . ,:..hm :27.kp' [ OI 3 $
r p~**---*"J----- - - -
, U,i y.
.?F F ,...
.t.7'L.
- J 4 .. - M. . .
9 r ,. @ .. y. -
- 2. ..
~ . .. ;. ' . . . . ' * .
yb - )
j w; ng. j ...
- f. ,.j g m ~A .. ~
1
~ "
- .;. . , m .
. . _ __ [. <
j k(T ' *F,P-1 3
.3.,....,. . .ym. .c y ..h ,2 sJg. .s.Q_ . ~
- - - ~
. . . #a ,
! yegs) .
2,hy "a.
.Qe. y g:.
.s g. AC .?
yk.'% .
M
~^
-" W
' ~ L-
~
I
=~ ~ . ' f. )
- . J ; . N = *
-. : , + , . =.,.,
1 3. t . .
G.
p.>8p&. 4" wl
.. 4.. .. ..~ 2.. y::
r, # .
,_...- .. - . .- . ~ . .
- p. f.-s -. 4 - :, , -:~ .
- Mg .y,1 1 2. .%. - . n .
,, ,, . Jg
(.14 y. .. ...n.. e. .
.- gT(17&L i g Mm-sg :. - -
- a ga,,;;
-c.
r ..- . -- ?-
, .. ne'p . m. p w a.
3-
, - 5._~:: .. . ~ .
'9g j .' : .. 4 .
g, f"', i Q :- Q
, g. d* . . . < -
(. . *
.5, y *1
- M "r.' -.
. =me--
. %i k.j, 1
g,f t c--, - - .
m-.
+;f+ . 2 . '-
? ., w dP r' g, r,.,. , .
i t.
, a'p. .h,u
- 4 ,. "
T'g '. < * *- f'
=. .
- - ~
%y . m.<r ++- y: - Q., u
/ . ; .m, .'
- , w .4
( Tdr g
.y 2
- F'-'
-e.- z. . -. . # .
- * " ' ' ' * ' ~ ~* ' ~ ~ ~ " - '
. . . . =:3-~m g . - ,
7p . 8' f'.;, ',,. p' .. pf 4, ,. , . ;g ,._ . ,
A. . .
, r %
'^'~
s e T '" d i. .: :-.- _- . -'~* -.. ' _
- x-- M qM w..c-e
~h a r ,n z. x . . .
sg- ;l. py ~~. .
.i ' K ,. s 0 :' M' -
' ' ~'
~ '
]*Y$
,ff.h p .
c p, %, .: z . . - - - = .~ gy G. svN; Q .s ..
4,#
-A
,m, q
,J, 2,
- l , . . -- -. -
g 2 : ' . : . .. . . - . . . - .n .
~- - - - -
--> - > .< .i m 1 1
yl .& & %^' -we= . - .
'^ '
t
'f'. J ', .l%.m.n$ g: *'g I
(+ '>
p., y n 4: .[n...
,-- r. .
,.c-., .
=. .r
. _: ..s ,TF
. .7.--
. t, v
---y.g.
~ ~ ~ .
y.
- f p gp
..x.
- V) Q .~. d. .
_ m.- r uns-::=c , .c
'( * . ~
,1 -,
l --
"I) Qk'* ..A. - -s P.-
- ~-"""'7 ""* g'* ' r ,* T L W k l
- w .W ,e ..
- r.: :;- :- -.- : er .w. u . -. , , , . ~- 1$. Q'.4 '
1 j
$# 4-1 '. ;,y ,','r a
i-]
I ;4 b3 yd c. .
'a
- r. .. -
--- - /... _ .". .d. '*g '
F# . p 9* - Y
..Y. r- -J '
y
, q;q,,3 i y ., . ,
7
--6 - - '
% '__...-*'a=='em'
- 3s'5 ~ 'ks -
{ * , . . . . .,f; g. g
! ;.;p- ' .,,. -
(n g
e
, ..y., 3 wh 7 . re f .!'Fri
, . , }L, .
- ,. 4 ..
'. fq r<\
n '
q -
y, ..A..
n <.
g
} } .'ty W. E;',; ,
- ' ~
.. y y ~_, .'...> . __- .. .: , .1 ,.,.a s ~ ~
r ,, .
V, . . . _ _.. . . __.
g *.{.aurg . , .
- r. ~, f, _
.. . . ~ . .
h ,* ' ~ - - .: ,"- . I. 17.
$ w [.
) . M.v O.@ ,: (j . , " .~ [I ~
.; *- . .. hir - .
/49% ; [ s[ -,gf' e o .. . ' ,
c" 1 -g . . .
. . .. ,.2 1..$. .".T , M agg:
d,, . ,,Q og
, n .. o .t r -**
u.
g
., j .
y g ; .. .u- .
v .
7 .
_ -- ,, ey
. n.
r
, \
. \ . ., .
+
) I' ,&# , q,
~
O {[,
f, .,'~'.s
' ' '.~ '
3 _ , 7 i
' es@' .
.i.c ' . = & . -dga -
h.-_ h _-
7,EJ;3
~
h - = -
[__- -
. I . - ir.9. [ . ..
+
ep.. s.h , . . gy-
_. e l . . s -
4 g
g, .' ,
p.
t q =. ' ' '
M e -* 6 - , _, w g-*-# u
-~ . ~. .. .. -
j
, q .
t g 1
O O O _
I l
? EXPI.ANATION
% imi4 g,
,g' l -b . t NRG.7e (JZ4 E yk kn $,.J es I ma% < t M p .e.en b.e
]
[""' .,r *.
ot ' *
- 8
)Y <= .. w - :
Nac-s
/ !
1 .--
1 Nac4 nac-4 il r# 1 a-* '
f / l
) ' ? g,Iy a n. 6
(
~
( j
- \
i i
4, ;
D 5 S 82 > ,/ !
wu, A /, .
l< _
ONc "' r f
e y 9) L -
'c&f Figure 2 - Topography, location of selected boreholes, and ESF centerline at Yucca Mountain Site.
D"$Tm.r =w s, 3
%*., D,'" , , % .. . .
l SCHEMATIC PROFILE OF INSTRUMENTATION SETUP IN UE-25 ONC# 1 AND USW NRG-4 -
! DEPTil IN FEET NRG-4 DEPTil IN FEET ONC-#1 i
r.n e m 1 0-- 0 .
l
.. 4 3 ALLUVIUM RAINIER MESA 100 - m., 200 l .
f FACKERS }
400 - i TIVA - WELDED 200 - i - r cx,Rs _
TIVA - WELDED ' orts i
- 7
$2 0 0
- m. ~ 2
' 600 as V NONWELDED
- - J !
300 - -
- ma>
2
%. YUCCA MOUNTAIN g00 71 4nucn:=ts 0 ,
0 400 - ~ ~ ~ ~N NONWELDED / 0* TOPOPAII SPRINGS E
p- ~l M 1000 i .u,
$\ 0'
~
500 g ,,.
im O
.: }7, _
y g..15 1200im 4 ,,
ui FAULT ZONE t
600 ~-
M 0" CAUCO HIRS i @l_' , i 700 EE
'E!
$ 0 is
__I 1600 l l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _-n _ ____m -___ m _m---
i i
! 13.2 NRG-4 w ,,
1 _ __-.-
~
__- . _ _ . Z 1 1EZ Z Zz Z z l~_ 'll.__ ._
i 13.* , ,
Casing
- }g -
rzzz
_ z -
z Probe 3 -bottom of ;
f y _ __ __ __ _ -
, 7 j __ _ _ _ _ __ ._ __ _ _ _.
1- .;-200 -
____ _ g - ___.__ 7
_4 : ncx =
, p.
- - m -T& , - -
_.g w __ _
_p _. - --
4Lp 1300-W -
, ~ -
_gy m-h qw__ _
_gc. . . x ... _
x ..
_p
.g., G=q 3 __ _ l A
fv _ _t ___
w _,_}jl _:
C 7 . 2$ ^
gJ _
400 .? p -
Y k_@ '2 ~Z Z N f Q.
._1_ _ p [_
. ZN/D ZI Z i5 --
p 4 ._pg y g g 2.,
~y 500 -
m a -
t
_~_~
l j_ -
~
_ _. _p ft u2 (j /z z ZZ _y- _ _ __. --
dM _. Atmosphere -
i{ c< n-s i -
600 E. -
t 3
_ z d/k x _ _ m z z zz z z r z z.: E if'
_( _._ ._ . . _ . -. .
E h_- .
_- _-- 7 0 0 y =
g ", ____ _ _ _ _ - - - . - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _
5/11450:00 S/16d 5/21/95 0-00 5/31450. ;
Tim o l Robe O Pressuro --
Robe 1 Ressure Robe 2 R ssure Robe 3 Ressure Robe 4 Ressure Robe 5 Ressure Robe 6 F essure Robe 7 Ressure f
i
l O ..
l i
! I l i l l l
i l t i
4 i
I i i 13.2 - - - - - - - -
NRG-4 u u-l a l A l-J_ u _ - -- --.
Z Z ZZ ESF tunnel broke 9- .
Probe 3 -bottom of through non-welded
__ non-welded unit - _.._ y c"'"'
<e unit on 6/18 100 - ,- -
_l_L g __
. 7 {
_ g_ . . ._
q_t_ _
.j bN kk w bb
, [Ubk %_ g-7
) f' 300 d-a %:a g m _:1 erg WA[_m:j m m
4
.c 46 - --
, _ . 3 . . .. .. .
e x_
e Q.. ._ y
-vipQbf,p S400 -[
- i,L
$,___ _y klg.L:[\,
~
_= ;_ .
p
..s.._- _ _ ._.._ - .- . - .
. 4-
.j - . . --
c '- u .: . v.y - 1m va m u u
-2 9 :q
- -z ;
- - zz .t
_y
.. 1 _ T T 1 '- ZZ Atmosphere
.K
~
mu 2.
.p ,. _ . ._ .. _. . _ -. - - .. .. -. . --. .. .
(99 ; _ g[ mu _ i ~- 1-7 0 0 -i 12 d P l 6/10/95 0 00 6/1 6/20/95 0 00 6/25a 6/30/95 0 00 7/5 2 Tim e Robe O Ressure Robe 1 Ressure Robe 2 Resswe Robe 3 Ressure Robe 4 Pressure Robe 5 Ressure Robe 6 Ressure Robe 7 Ressure a
i , l 13 9 - Z ZZZ O
'Z -Z ZZZ T i z:ZZ ~ T i ~ Z
- 11. i '
_.._._ _- - - ._ - _. ._ . _Z._Z . ._. - _ l Probe 5 - below fault zone 3s_a .; - _ _. . _ . -- neuas rizzz _z ~~ rn n ~~.4 % E ~
\
WM,. iu _% g~' '1 ~ ~ Mi ; T z$iiiigg_
,, g---g.7__._
- .; r gi g M____g@N M
._ p W 1 (g 30 0, ,
02 ___ -- _.- _1 - __ L _. p ..s _.p .j... ,m .J
.g y
q p
.~..- _ _ .
ym~p._ _.
. . . . . ._ -~ . . . . . _ ~ - .- .- -. .-
_c,,9 , I as 'i"'e a'""I'b ' 4 I"'"" i Atmosphere --._ g t -
+ "--- - -
/ 0*
l ,, vs n/
#"AYN?) V""
~^
T QYYOW%v 5 - V V N5)Yg 4\ ~ 0' !
._h 1)
_.__ _ _ .._ _ tr _ _ i 0 I ag tinic alnbl*I-4 liours - - - -- - - - g 'li ll _{-_- . _ - I A 0 J _ Y I ll
._- I m,
0" ! 12J ior28.'95 0 00 11 11/7/95 0 00 11/12, 11/17/95 0 00 11/22/1
' 0' t
Robe O Ressure - - Robe i Ressure Robe 2 Ressure Robe 3 Ressure Robe 4 Ressure Robe 5 Ressure [ I Robe 6 Ressure Robe 7 Ressure L f
1 j i M-M-l-M4-14 M-M-M 4 : H- H-H- -H--H l +i 1 -F : _-M
- Probe 5 - below fault zone - ESF tunnel ~ at Sundance :z. --*
13.7 1,ault - _ _ _ __ ____ ._ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ ncimas N$$$?_._. _._Y.Y__ Y _Y.NN N $5 _ . Y Y Y _. - ue p.__- 3 '_ M_
.1 1 _-/q+ h- -j..zRp y^r_. _#
Ett-I \Q
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4 0' g __ ____ u_ _ Ng u,y unic ,,,,.p2 _2%,un - - rocwa0 ' r " ,_- / 0*
~~
. Atmospher.e -__ ___- .. ._
p,& Q [$% }T y -Z j_[E%%~- {J Z T
-[. Z Z~-
- Z44 \ 0' 7
- _ N -._.._ k Y
._[ _
A __ _ I. y
..____}._._.._._.__.g_.._._ ___ _. _ . .
fb n E . _ . _ _ .. _ . . _- _-. _g , g _ _.f_ __ _ _ . . __ _ _ 1,. 0" g4 Q 1/21/96 0.00 1 1/31/96 0 00 2/ 2/10/96 0 00 2/15/9 2/20/96 0 00 l n Robe o m-- - - Robe 1 Ressure Robe 2 Ressure Robe 3 Ressure
;5obe 4 Ressure HR 6 Ressure Robe 6 Ressure - Robe 7 Ressure t
I l I
? -
1 . (
. :.;..b. -
- . . ,.~. y n . . ,,
- % ,T4
*l }'Q -
- -g- g y . p :st.w *. -
,l 7~.7 ll ff } ' lJ:. .
.,l J
(jl".. . f r y f, : , p , , t. , ., 5 J, l j, f. p . .. ., . , . . .. m, ' ( j ,
,i .
. j i 3 3 U
\ ) ! l %
t ( l l (T *
\ ..
{l
- 1 I
i
. ee aa . L fl / I ! J' . g a-X
! i I I %I _ 6 Is 1 g. .
) ,p . ,
g (
~
,. 1 i
4.- w. ( ik y
< 4 ( .
g eg
) ]
i I I l l i l 3 g ls 5I ! E ; ! .) \ . a* c j g I ( r~ b\ k, ff an k, h ,d 3< t - g
. 1 W ( ' "
'?% 6 g j' ,
1 1 1 '( -
$ i!!
-y.
t -- I; a h /< U 3 \ E Ei c-
\/ f/f-- .
/ ,
f Ij
/. fye l ..
. .e ,
s g - ,n furj p.~ ,. n -- n n tr .
.. t .. . , ,
. .. a
),. , , ,
o j f : .- .
.. N N; :<-7# r . n
. .4t i t n
- i. :e i i' . t %
.m
-1 l g
l C 4 . . . , , . . , s > r. ,< ,
.. s
= . . ..
~, , , , - - . _ - , ,
. . . ~
... , . l
,.p . e s ,
. ~ .
.n .
n .m ...- a . , (4 . .,. . >., . .. , . yr
~
i ' I t (: C ib : ',: $ I l k s ,
; *~
) s h2 5 -
s g
' 7 '.. , i ; s t s.A d E k .m s ii i d a
). , . ,. , . .
6 !! p p
- n wg .
. g a
yg e. l - 4 - n ; . . . . l - b$ mm i * '
- s. A i y q > : , ,,,s h , , , ~ a S
l Mi +.M r -
- i. m i x ,, . : 6 - ,) .}s = . . . a c .o i
- -J i _ , L. - 2 s ,
g,e n . l m .a m , .
.. . g . .
u . . ~ , . - - _ n . , uw . c . e
%Mw.1.n w u. .
7 w.m v -a '. '. a [- u
% g. . . ..
c n @1 ,
-e.s ., . . ;?% ;,; . . , -
, 4 z
.h
. y. .
4 , - n- atW m A Le . e.
..,,..e .s - . ., --. . 1'. s en E .,. . .
.e. . .
,r' M :e '.a4%-
..: ap ,4j -p_ .3" q c. ,? .
4.** *v .
*** a A .
n ~> ; i95* .- *e *."t> ' <s 3 'S.'I . '4 ; n
*=='
. ;s 8 4
men y snm.,i.u ,,. nom-s%.*1yA 7, ,-; pT6-3.c b. w .ah e y. , .a.4 wp; .?i % % W h 4',.- sei
, + .: w; G. -
- w. @' . , ,es .m.ama. ng n. 1 += --. w ?.1 * %.e.
u --. ' *.
,e ,,
- r.M.*.a
-ymr.-n
+.. . e ..S..
a WS Nf d. (*s2 A -
- .. . i-1* M vW
- M / *"A:+ V ".-
J l 1
A.A4-Aw_.- X. . , - m- easea Aw _* -. e. __me amh-*3eA-i.as A _ r asa_ ema.wm,Ame..%- wha. m.a_em.a.4m+- m._m w.+m,e4_mns.Le i..w.-.a_.em_
. a.La mip _m. , , e 4
? *
, , , n n i , e n ,
a m a e a i m a e ~ l E E E E . E E E E j 4 4 i, , w d b. s i e T n 9 T , T n m a m m m a e m 1 k j i ' i
- - p _ _
t _ _. _ _ _
) -
- -- % g _. -
*m - -
f , _ _, _ _ . _ _ _ _ _x __. 3 __ _ X
- cL l (
(
- = . _
g g- O 4 /'..-,4 _ , _ .- _ _ _ i _ .. - - _ ._ e .- - - - - -- -.
- 8. .
i ' _ ~ _ . 4 (k p _. _ ____g" . __,_g- __ _. -- __ j
\ s 4 4 4 r)
_ - _ _ 4, 4 _ , . _ _. 4 __ _ _ ._ _ _ hu - _ o 4 \ 4 4 E e 9 . g j
- _ _ +
. ___E__ _
3,
. _ _ _4 =__.0,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ --
g a _. _ _ _ _ 4 e_._.___ __ - 1 l 4 , 4 3 2 4 ,- _4 _- -n z --_ g
- .- _ 4 i o i
!O J 1 4 I a
O , q=!
, n n , , , n
[ ! i m e 2 i w , n , , , , n
- . . "E . 6 E. . . . ...
; 3 t
j E EEE l', c j . . . _ . s < ,. c o . _. ~ _. 5 1- - c . W
-_! . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ :?- -
O ___ j _ ._ ._ __ _.___5 g 1 r ; _ . _ _ w _- . *i._g-_l_- _ _ p _ _ - - _ l e
.; ; _ s_ ,
~
_ _ _ _ _ _ J ,,_ ._ _ __ . . . r-
. 4 4 r __ _ _ _ . _ I _ _ __
. _ _. _ . _ _ _ _ .n , y o
4 s- 4 . _-., a, _ q. _. ._ g p, _ , _ . _ _ _... g__ c p 3 i
.g _ _ _ . .
g j . _ _
,; . i __ _ _ ._ _ ,_ _ ; __
t 8 O 1
4 4 O V f ,
~...;*654oy
$" 3 3 I o 3 I '
l l o a eoo O= c 8 Td 2 o > T l'j;
! ! ! ' 2 E ! i i .
T. , i , i j l i i
- !. i j. i
- 5 lp i.
~- - _4.- -.--.-- - : : .
g . i' _J._.a . - - _,_i_ a ' ' I ! ! . !!!. 2 _a_ p _ _. a _ _ , . ll ' ' ' pt. g g ;
-- _ _ ~ . _ _ _iii . : .
ii - i - - o I 8 o i > , , . . . , .g _J- w - - !
.h..!. $
~: . !
- l. ,_ -
3
! !! o N
t ! i i i
+-. -
es .i ;l
- i m i I
._.;__._.J._.. __LL l !
g S I i r i i I i, r i i
, g ,
, , o s
, , i .
f , , g i . , i , e I ij , f3 'l i i i N -
)
i-i t i i , i -ii: i
~
- i'j ,
l l i f g C 3 Ep i
! 1 i
! )
I i i ' , , i I i i , e C i i i i i i i i i i i i -/M ~ii i i i i Od @
, jy f > , o
; , , , . +
"b }> Eg (wg 5
-+:
. ! i i 4 i
- i > J/! ,
i l T .i. :i (N}
! ! I
-. 2: '
!1 1 1! ' '
Z g 1] [
!. _.5 l i i l i i ' gO g J5 i l i ffi i i 4 i i 3
- : !/ [ ' ' bg 0m.
ok J
! i i I
! I l /W ! It '
! ! i ! i ! y i ,
' ' +i ! ! i H. _ !!i i i i i j! l 4 h I O'
' ~
i l 1 i 6
.ii fT
- FJl t
i i
! ! ! I i i -i i
! l. i: .
%i Vy as
! i t l l i i ii [. '
I i
- 1. i. i l i i i um wS i [. ! I- I i i i) / i I I i l j i . i RS i i;~ i ' ^ i ff i i ! i i i i il 0 UT
+ '
! i/L ! l ! ! i e ! ! ! ! 1 ! 9 O 1!
i
! ! W/i !i Wi! '!II I iii I
e
!I i l i i i i i i i!
!i!' [S wS i j
^
*~~*
i r
! if /i ie i! I i 6 i i l I j ^j i i
, OC ig fi i i i i ii i i ; i i ; I i +
i o ED R y - I - .
> !/
i/ i i i
! i i i i i i i ! i i ! ! i
! i i
, t
! ! , i
! 8
}
i i i '/ , i i i ; i ' i ! sv
/_ i i i. . )- l - i. i i i
- l. i i
- g gco.O i i i i/i
/ I
, . ii ii i i i .i .
i l : i, i i .i ,
, , g
! i ! ! ! ! ! ! 4
! I I ' R og Ji! ! i i ! Ii i ! i i ! l ! iiii 26
/ ! i >
iI! i i ! ! ! ! i
./' i i i iiii i ! l !! i i ! .d_ -
iii g
, i
_g al i i i i l i e
. ,/ 4 ,
i i o 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8N y]
- a a 8 : : : 1 YdM NI 3HRSS3Hd 3.LfrIOS8V If D
G
F l , I s I l
~ ...
r i 7 o o; o. a *
@ 3 3 E ii 5 3 3 3! J p
*eo ' .
4s l I i
' 'i g
o j: : l t "iil
> 2'11 o -
$ $h 1
.7 . _.._ p . _
j{ $ yj " jl [! g _- _.
; , ; ;. gv ;
._7 7g j
_ _ - __ , _. , , g m - t 1 1 fo _g.- . / ' 7 l jy ;- l - l,
; ga
.8.Z!
; i
----~[ +--- "
i 8 ER
+ t
[t i n k, RU yg
.-_. : j-
- + -
.__l,j 3m a_
i .
---'-"=
-h ~j l h 'ffjl h j 8
o l
~
-*--'- i- T ~, i :/ i :. : i ~l ; i 3EO -
. . . > !f
'r i
! 2 61
' !r.:
$d fF- i j , i i i i i i vi .c vg 2 C. ~
l_._
!/ !
_l!<,!
' ! '. ,! ;.r I 2
. '. G oo
~, .j.
i i,i
~-
i
.-5
' - i - -
j Fi 4,g p /i i/ i ! i -iii o Z, ,,i' o ,o yz
, i F 1 s_ ~ -'*
, i
! 8Z! 6E 'Ir i .
t i i 1 i. j . , I .r i l
- A, y f g- c5 g
i i ii , i'~I~ -df l , ; I i ; I i i p C 8, j i i i , i 7 ,
/i f i i
i
! i i1 -
i i o< o p, 'C < o z ifi- /r - i 8,, 6 {
! i i. i ,
,g'4 i
3 e.
/ ,i i ! ! i ! , s. m p
. . !. A g 1
'd f
~;
i p t-r I 1 l!ll
. i...i i i lI!lI
- i. i i +
o o EN 8p e l T I//.
- l l t !
I I ' I
- i l E, $
o o* gg
' i ' l
_1._ //l ! ! __._ _ A !l ! ! ! ! !! ! os
' '! I i ! ! ! ! !. ! . ! I I o o
SS "
# i i i i i i ! I i i i o "Q c n /. :
- i. i ! i. t i. i. R,,, co So
/ 6 I I i ! : I: - f.
/ ' i i i
! l .
; ! g -
ll' i !il !i 8 !.
-f / ,, ,
;' ll '!ll j i
R h} jj' .-~~ / ._ i ! ! I ! ! i ! ! I h ll M' l-l .
! : lil l !! 8 8
II:5 ge l 8 8 8 8 8 8 82 -t
- dg s u! aJnssaJd asnlosqy
})
O v
i . ) \ .- . 1 j w l C - m W. g
<T l
l ' tu E Ei O l- O 9^ Z u. CD m < ~< e u. s.. ; Q m a 5
$5 Eg SZ 40 O
O O i[
$g 1
H e- - m >m E W tr M zz M o. WW L
@ pp.
WO EO O O w eg H op bEO z o>g E p Z ,
} e.. e I
- Z. a5 o
- ::: x. 4, O z e
! W W M WP <0 mb LU z i j~~ l
%z mO zm 3 o 3 tu OO p *-
N Z
- g. m w> 0 p o. "- -
i Z Io i!; tu, om E 5 l $g jm0 E< F. O 5E @ 3. b 2
<E tu O- 2 > .:: !
*H >
XM Wn i gr a- m O lij 3 d, , ZW tu @ ,- O e m z g a l
"Z 4 H.
O m kJ wb IE 6-O2
"- k tu O :
%. ?!
mz Q 6 = >< sr -e m < l W 2 W > ba
>E i W m M m> r.
m >. z l Q zw zw 4 <J zW - l Ox 0 36 03 4 y A' 23 E-i 9 E lm .Eg g tu -oz m e tu i-om 00 tu - Om X o >m a p - O O 'om oo m
- u. tu
- O -
4
- 4 i- E t- 3 ou i- u.
o to i- < c a t- n. 1 c <c e e o e e , l 1 k i I
i!ilf' ilriT ;iiIlrl'j, )l;^ i IL ,. rP
~
. O O l e n yn t u r O iT d imF S h uE n o
= ei X h t s e
O f o bo
'j
/.
s B nr op . it e ar cu ot a l r - 3, t np e - e r m O'. . r ue C d t
. J n .
- e. ?J>*'s a a;e i s
jj-
~-
.1
. ~. i
' ~
A, . I s rr4 i e
- h. - '
O l ,!:iII l .i;j;;j,i!' ' ' Id < ,I 4 l i d d
. l i
.-a ,
4 ;a wf.
? 1111 W 1111111111 1111111 Illlillliti W F i ~.
- u. 111111111111115 11111111 L A H lE : lilElll
'z
= lil'1lIIIl!!jillh=!IIIIIlI 1I1*' 111111111 mdll1111111111lmil s lillii W W ! "111 ililljililli&E l
- j -
Id!!!!!!!!!rg Ilmmlillisslgiggggggl((gl5gg.igga 3 - i
;z :E;ESMan t-8 1 5 11111111 Ellil lllitih"ilill il: 1 m Rill m s111111!!!h8J!!!Ill *
- N t! M !;!$ i 8e i1111111!!litiom"_95 8 li M E f 11!!!!
i0' = littliiR I'!!!!!itii S n it ti l i F F . a T !i!! s ;< !!!!! . l E . fbi
,_ e o .o
= ;lih.i.l.l,!,!W5(II'lllI.l.ll.i.d.i,llisH.9 aulti,Jimii
- l. y aad a
; 3E ; !!!IllidM!! I idHHUlilli!!!TFli u-
- 8 !!!!MFHiiill Illllil!!!ilif R !!NI -
Re I!IiMiMiHillINililll EQ TjliEM:ipilMTy!!!!NC#Eill frc ~ g i l P;""+ Me g llg;.g d:;mrpis - I a .ll@Hl:l O Ml= lilM C ie 9. g ,"%.' 311111iIllihN 9
< .. W g j!)ll e lililli M y a : /
=
oc D (:4;Mi297 V. , , . .. . . q' ' ' 1 u.. c a ...s-llNpmapd a
, 6-j ., f f ' :* 6.' , j a t v * .. r
, . es flf: [
ass m m -
l.'*:'\Y,
,j.' ..--3 ~
j lgh,J ,J.} ( - i4J $ifl i q q ,8.* y i r. 1 4 i . , . m _ Pw' ~wm'inans ~ r a
$,ff8kT N ) - ,a lk y y.; ;m. ~, u,e,_ omy~, ,emm_ y 4 - - - - - - . - _ - , - - - --,,-r .,,.-------m---- - - - n-- -+ =,-e-- ---r--- - - - - - ~ - - - ~ - - ,,=~~~--r-w- - - * ' ~ - - ' '
i .
;~g, g r . . ,
,.w$ a.
e ' k g4
--- . 3 .; , . . ,
^~ *
.?r.dk . 'I ?' b ff: ';f
.. , 'C ? -
h R r, f .1 M y.. ;7 -- u %,!L. & , q$ *j^ E ..
@ ' . IlmummmHII IHillfilutilH ;Iml IHIIIH M m 9 M A I mlH IHulH-mmnimsui I L
.ds M ' IllillHHlHHNII IHill Hulat lo.m u:% % ..'
"A II i!8,!!"v!HIII 'Hillllp*HRI E'Illii11 IHilIIIHml.Idi"?s"W Higu Kw .w.7$' e.
S Tb 1H I IMHlH ll hit atWhu! N 9 W I!!M"118!!!Hll111lI***"blMMl 4 N 'IIIIIM Hl uf "HillUt."Illi fil
$-q8{
l l %
- 2 I I)i oI 5 > 154mifHilHH I 7 IDH liithi - IH H I: $ Itut W !tt;tle::ifffff:)tfIHut!1.I 1
@:M
?w IHg.H..ggi: . . .w . 11ll1li~IDW!W lH I awni WUI.hiPW M *F N ;aId!!:..!!!8 IHil![mlHilllit IHlHIl! IIHHH i = 812 I98f5mmit " wIEH '~I l
T6* I ilHHHl'n=.--8888 l DE Zh"1;~J. g;l F V' w IIIIIfMC::-iT_ ;*5HHJ ' IHHH M5Hini Haitti abstigit
)""5HMH tmgI1m 3i i e 1%H
% .. -?IHHIHisr =i.I""e ifHl; pass"*%H,asnifBHHil Hfflilif DHIGHl 5 '8J"*".;'243ffHUllHlHil IHilfit P!THil I
@h-g z
' C 7;M. " IMO!H"8!gIMINIIHHH mm tE!!HimillilIHilliH;UEE If.i.finiHHIHHI !!m !nII j
%l4n D:.m E tunan -Eg:::HHlui Hanw UisiAHilfi HIfl8HIII Infil!!! fit!4!Im s
- Q;W_.,? fHt!!!bu"-~~~ o iftitM18C..: 3 BEHW BiWiUY V4011H1 *
- $ m & g o J 1 H e! " ' F 'd E lJ U H H 6 i R $ lt. !!! U T a 6g"lH: % DI.% n ;~;;;" - .. mmulum dual ~ "sirii anw d s smnu h a. a ; 3
.:3 im m u.-
4
? Nf!Orw K USZ#.h.7"d --__
5 :":'!:WMM 5!"'f[d,JiipjH3 301 E lBut;g%ag a f.QlW~b.% L hi MUI *, '
? ? _iintl h.M dll l na W 88' iC ' W W y 3 ,t GMMI' ff il m 'o n i 13g&liffPt":'.!!Oi!!!H 2 si $$h:54*8 Wa l .
J#WWm"7.i. 5M!*s!! g as asspp;.M y ,g : 7f; e
},.
- gly { p c % v < r t Wgggg g g g ' '7, .
gF ;. {'j . S l . i,6% b. f I . - .J ..3 d4lHIs! E $ E i h. . !
' l ~ ~ I . . . a . J-
@DMhjp[3 IT8
O'-lk ' huh WMM35g$ Y' k kD!! 91.M J! \ ~' k ;~ g .' ,- ; . b ~' i y _ , f o gy. .m,pk , s
?
', o t
,_ s .. . . s - , \ ',. -. . . . . _ _ ' ., .
g g .g 7 % N1 AllOlWOH ONY 0 N13HO1YM3dW31 ,
~
O O O . l
*^
. :P-ZE5LMl
- y+g" . , ~A.M.Lisi F' rs eLg: ;gg .:
c s s . v;:l a %' $4 . gf /. .% - l 3Ihkc1w. effn11hty37 flux &@f %,. - -. - ;. .
" '^ ~ > *
.- I g
i
-m. 7 . m..,,.
~. .
. ,- : , l 9
v I I Jk Jk JL I JL JL I I I LONGITUDINAL CROSS SECTION Figure 6 Schematic diagram of flow through a tunnel (eddy diffusivity concept). .
'o .
August 24,IW6 ggw - 'dJ""***'**'d''** '- P2e614&wposesa Nyeuwdyenmep+6fgw s Ny, cmyga ,%wp,gggp,,g ng,
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ . . . _ . t i
I
1 e 1 a l *
': ' ~ -
y p.; g- z0 :. ; a . omo3 ;;
- L7 . .
i E .,,,l - O p I-
)
- g,, h l. - --
~Nl~ gg haf } y.N. {I *;>_
l -
-g g g ., . . x .V K. . .j
.:h "; ,
^
.. n ;
. c.
.1.
= ' = .. -- . . . . . . . . ,
.o ..--
l n . ..
.. ... . . . . . . . . . .. -s '
n n . :.- . N 4 O O N O
. LO
' r 9
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O O
"3.,. ' y f. ~&
- Q .;. - m- s. .9D 7
.4
;@ .s
. ,1 ts ,Mc
.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. g ! *;
O - ' - ,&
'g.. LO +%
< < y s . ..
.7-l ..
~
-y ,
9
~
O. O O O O O ,' M
- .,' O . O O O O -
y "m e.
.,..~- ,
r' ca ' n ' to 3 ; 4. ..'. - .
+
a .E'.. , e.t. 4 . . ..: . .y . i ;- e r sJe3ew y! lepod mo;; eauels!O :
; ec.: .
.- E s4
' s i
f
)
. _ . - _ . ~ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ep t'. !' EoS u ..
- -' ~
' ' o 'a j
- ops E [ '; 'e 5} E N b k k !4 N 'h k E 5 k *
. 4 X '
I e5 4 X- + i _- _ W l y 2 Ha Z 3* - r-H
~
I 5 3 <- l ?> J H . - g+ 4> 4I
- X 4-
- i w .y..
l E '
+ ,4t l 8 'X~ 4 +
! 3 W r; . y l 4.. ,0'. o { h+ <> I ' X 4 -
+ z * '
Wp; .
. g f[pihi b ly 4 sk 18 .
X 4 - - - g T[ a * *
.i
' y3.
m M '.m- .'+' I X 4 4 + f ;;a46 .l ; 4
.h :ya ge l
- X 4 "a
- l : in '
+ "
.e3
.a uogeggueA UW699 4 ~
g
.~:::
3 '.' .
,a O
j 2 l[L 8 88 6 6 R 6 8 6 8 6 6 8 6 a 6 - 6
- 2. 8 6
{ l g$; W' .. . .yW suoQaen u! 4!ppung aAQElOM _f' i ' l 4
l* l !.* l 1' ' iv :. .
~
! g (# g
^3g .^
OS ..
.1* . . . . j. !' -e .
J. v-e e - - e e e .-e
- e e 4 .2 r ,
- e. - e e m m to e m m e e.
C / 4 g . .
\
..' - ' . . g ,,,,
- g. '3 " T T'i.i 9N ,. 7, 8? T T g g S.[ , ,
l
. ' s, ,,
3
.s .v, ,
T. W'
*f ,-, ., . .. , . .. , ,.
l <
, v-
! p ,
, 7.j l
.. L' ~
- 4X. -s lg ,,,
#. _ * .- . #,r 4l . -.. ..-
- 5 < ~ .-
. M ,- . y yn - .
- , * .. . . ;
- g.
"~
.
- 4X s gg
' ,J l . h*.> +
rg .
' . ; *s . 4
l Mm j . O, j r
+ ,y.64X .-
'I m -
~
"O a .
, ' ; ;.y \,
gn ~. . -
, )
.m e,,
~ ;~. ' :r .; ',,f.$-. ,
4 X el
; ,FP i 5 i'*f!j;,4::h. :'
l . . c N. 2. - [.- x
$ t . .,
.'- *4 ,
si
-i..-{. g'.g. g?.:
! ), : :!$..
. ... .p. p . .
. : ; P k,Yi
~
l . j 13 sg j T.F d. .-<.y I. + kg 4 X [. . , . . ; - .4, e.x.. .e. .
; 4. . . . ,
- , + .; A W '< .,
3
... . v:
- ).. -
'...m,-
O :: : -j . ,
. + i* 4 X 8 85 ; :y 1 : 1e .
' 4=;**<
}:- >:. . M,: , ;-
" v = = := =*49 ' {' p, .- c$
l l '! bi,4 h - , . . . . v -- ' 5- h I j js.' . ';;..3 g.a! ,
- g E+y v ..
no..,3... ,
~
.g ;.e ;p i :.:
- a. N 1
- f 4 X 1? .
a
. ' '2
..g -): .
.s . .
.: : '. *.i . . 4 :
vg.* v.? .: v.> . 4 X v *a j
. I g. 4E,:p Jj.: ... . , ,
- . : .s. q.'
i t- . i
. ..c.1 n :..,p j,..g .3,. ,. .
/ 4 X - ,
- 3 4<
- .s ,1 *
- . 4..
.: : ,' :. . .. v. , .qd: / ~ /-
j {. !y-yL[ . {. :
..<........ . 4- ... . . -
- p. ..
- w p
el ' C
~ .
.j,,
4
,g ) .; ..: , ; . .1, . . ... : g.. - .: . .
- : ..-4 . .. . le(
. y. *
, : :: ; 'd _
; 'jI
- f. ,
M. -
'o o oWo o
o o o o o o o o o' o o o o o o o t \ c n m N e o m m n e m N M N N N N , - e- e- v-j 3 33M030 NI 3MfuYH3dW31. i S. . . - . . , . . .. . ..- . - . - - . .. -
- y -
~
. 4 7 .
- 7 <
n - Eo -
- U jeE m oo o 99o o 9oo o o o o =
l . 8c c-9 n 9 n n , &nnnnn,,*3m s s.5 ; g g 8 ; g g g g ". ;; Ei a 4 x 'i+a4 x + i T. s ..
. . an Q. . < O O g :. ;
, ;, u -
5 ~e x .#a 4 u .-
- .= 4 x seems
, .. *: i i e \ . . j -
- .S4X 8 8m '
i :
- f, l
. ;g c .,.
^
.44x ;
. i ams
^
' . . r4 4 X 81 '
{l:-? : ' V.:q f $.
.v...n..:f:up .:y-]I?Af}Lw>y- - - : -- .e
~
b
~ $.,w:
a.. ;gg .* x 4 ' samm . ;. g
+6d a 'df1NNg: - I -
79Pj 4 M.u$'...itJ45;Og;
- .e.: 4 w.g: . c.
4 x .i , x, v y-r
#,': R
< M. L;' i p'S i;g:s ': .', C ^ '
- % *.h r O
~ i : - { ! . .' ,y -};vi::p
- . . t 4 X iIg i g .;>M
(/ 2 i.. . . w :s.:. .
"t";r%. ... :. p:Q.:
e E ',. ;
-g 3.
.* ;4 , ;+;z: .p.b;. ,. . -
a v . f}if ': 'j<(Fi'.!:. 1 n5,;:a y. nA;-
- T{ 'i W. . ::[d. . .'Tij
.- 4 X \
. t .. ,
- 5 .. . . ..
j i .: ; *. . . , i. %:r 1 . . vynt . . 4 X v i :P ~
;4 n, y,::: '
..j..d.d #p 4igi-n:ii 4 X 8
! .hP
- p -a W 3< :s$;:;i.: ,p- i8 . p -
3
.' 4...!..
ett.4;W t: s:4 ,.2t
*e e m ,
- 2.m.:
it: .Y't 3
.;f.;;f p ..g 4:- s:! . ele < ,
-jk
- gy
.w A .g:E 3 P l:i J jj = ma ===ma === am a e ===Am m
(
- gg jm
= __ e * () O r i ' j g g
~
-+
)
^J e
D 33HO3O NI 3801V83dWll
<J <T
<- t.
. .'O O
e a
., , - , - - - , - - , - . - - ., - - - -----,,. - ~- , - , . ~ . , , , , . - - , - - - , - _ . , , - -
%,mk.A--aa.w.e_mm ..,,..,-.+.w.m mA.F,*n.=&-mms-=A--MAm" MM aM-- mamm-m- 'aAM.sAw am imA-4 c *
. - +
., . .A Av. r ,. - $.f: <t -
. . c. .
-..+
. , . eno.*w- ** .e. f' e,n - , . . . . .r .
.(.f- y i g#, ,. .-
- , , .
- . rs y v s ,: 4::g +- r
, s k, h g,i *
.a- r n.
~ ,
e . '. ;y & %* v h 4
.. r...j I
l[3. w%,.. $is..'4g+ . .~*,*y . \ s . , $s (,, . % ...~.. 1 i 9, , . . '
- - ,1>* . . =. . F 4 -
'_k'. ~9
[ '.~. - 3 i n- + cny.: a n. n> .~+s . . g2:.y n-) v - .. t l z Ns*wf ~ r ..
.- .:. 4 ,4 a s s& y'1, i,
. :U '. .y 5 ? er A .. , . s . k, 0
- 1 l,4'S. ,, . ,. ' f, ' . t l' J j'1 ( ~^ , ' . .p4I dii' -'
.h a'
! g/ : . . . 2 - .. y: j [ .. .
~ y ,1
} 4..
~ ~, m .']:.;.-
., 6- s j
, . 3 . $, p g-
- e. ..
a%,d,, #S;.,. - l
. -f .
t { . - 0 Ag6 ,b . L. ...,' Dhf', '
...2g *; f%f .:4...
is. .c .
. , s.gf:T ,' _. .} . or ~ ~ .
, jmt .- ..,
.'# ,b l A _ y '
i s _{*Wu e ., e< l
'.[.r 7 . ,
, t [,i 'k%, , .(i .
l- [,
,,,4 .;
'At.^ R
,c f .* ( . . . . .
[ MY ,-[ < [ .4 - - - -
- i . . . . *
.g6., f :" ; . .
d . O ' f E .j '
- g. .
l
~ '
- i' ' ,
%' }
%. S' H -
. Ng .
g { '.
- 4
;> c .
, a Y.4
. . . s n- .
7 - y u g 4 M
! 4tt .' ~
j .:' , a
.O2
- ~ -
f . .?
. '. . .t 4 a i
. - - . . - . - - > mm-- u-----.ns._n,n -
.w.--mma-._,a,-mmm -a._ __m----u----mmam.--..---e-,--,smme j .
E ! O i E \ \ ! +~ : i
- 5
- i I
= .
l b I Il i
- e. i Z'
O! l t I 4
=
l l i E l
?
i r p r a.
' f ; 1 Y
bz i I hi l Qi 5= L 5
'} 1 p
f i g
~ s e
i O e..: .h, Vu g! t' w ! tt u
- -'"AlghlD5
$ O
s
??eq; i
( i ss i.
> l, ~ ?l i .
- r. =
< H iO - -
i b
a_. .-....-u.-.._------.~........_..~,......-.__._n.--- .. - - . _ ~ - - . _ _ _ _ _ e 1' iO l 4 l l 1 I 1 l I
.,l . .
+
g .4 ! 23%> kN 18Uury l ' .25
- fefi%y f h' ' ' '
kf'?,k. . 10 c l
?
OitI1$p$gE?s?$w$eg;Q.g.. s .g e xc
~-
Y t iO l l 1
b 4
)
kJ M. 2
. t . -
.p. ;. ..
+
> --g. ,,
.a ( l .
2.8e.,' 't . '
. gf,J '" '.,. )g .., v.i d. ' 4 r ,'$ l
,, , .s . A,. .y ... l
...Mj r j $ % l 3
,p sb
'.w f ,.
'.~ f .
N
~ .h %r.M c -
;, n ' '; n.! .
1 s. . .#. :...,
- 9
, - ..*a- 4
^
- g% 6 .;g.
4 i .v,,., y - ,(;. . p,.g-y <- a
, . -+ e I .x
. 1; y.
i , . .
~
. .p. c;
./ .a
. _.._. .te. .,s. :.3 ;c ..
~. .
- e. ,.a.. . . . . .t Y .,J s ! . c y 7:. y
.- m , . 4.. 3
- s. , s . . ra+. g, s <.~.-
...s ,,~...
.; .c-- ,s v ;3 t 7 jg 8
p* ; e
- 1. A v
p ,.,, a .
. . sG - , . ... -
,s; ,
n ..
- v
_r . . - . .. . ,,c - .; en ' -
- g -i+ 0 ;- ;, ;. 3, c.
c # .
, , . - . -5 -.
v ---- - - o -
'.,s.- .. . ,
4
.Do ,
.w , ..
3 - '., f- f. H , ' g.fDR e.#, . SC 4 u f ry, n. oG x.. %'V . l o a g "m g .
.a .:
.v'. r~., ~ . e.-
Jp j 9+fv.- nm 4 3. y
. p: e *;,, -
y
.C .m Oo g
.x
~
.c .%.
a
~ . . . -
.,. w< n.
r,%
~ * ^
n.v tp e
. ~..u.'.. ..,w-n... . . ~ -
Y. , - o >. es l i NJ A J, p.g C r,, d\{. ,. v A,.W t ,,.x , -
'e"'
"W c ,
.- 1d J4 .7 we A *t ,. % ... .p.
- o. e - yw s
- 4 e. c, %F E Md.s. .:s @;y p3 . N .' M @C 7, . 3 j":
e 'C 4 b hdhed -i . . am ), .% ,. h'.vhv C- *
%>d.FrN.i
. S.. yl ' sn ? ,
o e ~ . e ., m S. 4 y ,. .a , , . . - Y$ a la
' .h,M"( NW$,,s,Y o.,
.c er+ ,, L. x &w+; Q.f.. W. .., a
^'
n e ge ~o sj. V+ rs"',_' "mJ >~*g.. s-s.s rc ,Wd*'.
.E'
,. g [.., ., g p * ,, 'r,,
2 ) &WM l4slt$ & %sfG %~s&1l) 3,' w%. ' '.! f ? '. , 'm,. p o ' me,
.m.e w y3 w
}O p ., .g. a %. g Zw "
; m." a -
- u~.
e q ,cw r x; n . m vf .'C! W- - - - - 7
- a. ~ . 1;.r; f., g,, 9 -
g:,;p . w e: s :j vn. .%. y.,~.. gut- 9.
.. x
-et ga g.g,i m v q ,a u "m-h. c*Y / ,..n 1 A. N.g 4'* , sIEDdT, F.
w.dW .O. +ns,' 9
. m. ..* .;. 5.N. ,.
. rim,,c.
- w. p p.s, #w r,m i
^
. . . h:.,,.yj.: cy n h abn; M- 's.w
_- a y mm . e>:.v sv-y , 7. c ~, e Nk 4M Ohit %.,, Ph h.be_.w.,.k.W.-g.d YNN M' s4 m# m m IPP p;
.ua.
w. 3 w.. c.. bug '.M1T n U, o
- . i : . ~Q,' W ' ., u..t.3i,s7t w, 9-s W.. ..s. .w-
~
O 76
.w. 14. w .q e c
. p~ ....= %
Jga.c y' %%-
. a 2 . .r -e raw 69 -
t:r . i.
- ~ ex
- - 9 3f.?-
' *'4.: .wath.-.-
. W,pf.wK
. . . .f fd.e.t .^~*F r ' . g g. ('iW. <
..mM.#7,7 p. -
.. k..E.L . E
- s f" ^~ %. 2% . DT gg ,p.#rs
',j .%;T M dj %s. jD j
. r .. y ~a ..n He W .y' ~.;. .v.; Mg;, a
%4. . +-
d m. c k.f,9.: ., ,,.;v.s,.r y..w. e.vi E ' * * . . .
,r M 6_,, . ts. g< g,ng.%~., t4 d Wam4 =*' r* @
b,;- 2 _ai .. wca. f.: e n. +m %. : f
/ kh,,3y L. . [. t. ,,, ,h3M ;h~- ~ 'u$ j$
d~ ["f%
. Ap Mvbiq Hkq %'A[
M
.U &QWQ,ft* MQt4{?C e 8 C ct :$
e e o m o e e o o u'n w S n n n n e o. . s
? O' (WI) gndano itoH 3u
e 6 e 1 O T w -
,^
h * -
' d4 . . ., ;. a > ;
- g. , o -,', ' -
- s - g, p J.y ! y. i V
N ,
- 5. ' ..> .e, ac . f. 5eh u h M &.m
# - ...lI
; .h - .m h&} ' hk ..ww n
C t. .
<< rp, p '1; y, ,
~ p y.
'V *. *4 3. , .- .
!?; ' ^p" f. ,e 1 g Q,, ;.;,, . ;?.
,. ,i e
- f * '* LM w / J*. ^*#"m'***-**'N' .
*#-- - * -
- 4 l )
~
I'. . h . . , , h ,, / ;, ,.
". I H--
g e a w d i F. .h .,I ,'. j e ,, # e.., .
.c . ,' ff.. +,g s, e* - ..
1., r: n .',, o V N af
< N*d..ha~ . .,s3.;.,( ,,,or t )[ ,
' F"
' 3 .[*f f,
,g
,3 ,
Q g f ,,'? f ',& f {.Yd .' ' * 'f Y ' ,.g .Q f * *l l 44 I e- p V e '. * . is p f- % ., .t." .:. 7, . 4 > l
- .Q ..': .-.;h;, :". -pQ.f j
il o ,n... ., s, .,::.7 e.
- ,: , r:y -
t, o. z , 8
~
oo
- 2. - .
t,,w+n. . -. ru f, ".,.:
- ,.w
- -.<T- >--
e
.e ll ,
. . . . , . . q .. . a ;.
':. . .~. s. , ,
8 Mp P:: , gc C F <, i N, . . fc; 3:: #.4 ._
. @? f. A cy ,w . ~ t ' <>
- w. x
.Q%o m
'O .. - e,, . ,. .
qt; };. .;[b . ,} ;; i, p O y 4.1 fyQk ' 4> et "' 9fWys L:-yh4 9%- b Lf . 3 ' ,t__. 4 e
/,,'
y gV
.m - . .:M Qip$sw,:
- @e :.
v ru y 9A-g&,#g g wi jny
~ -
g%:6 % ,c
-Qfy .s o
E e. i
- r. . ..
- . . :weh.. w.
s g.; s - .a e
.s e
- . .:%ms.n -
m;.,.f - 254A 7: .~ ,
? ', , ; ,
. H 2co ' * -
- M t
a"
$ j pirj":e wp-
'h p'da,.~
^~
. e$ .
- s .;
Mu' s., t 1
; e'g fa p' .#,
c.t i ;. e' . y.-. ,e.o ch 9 4- M. . {E
.- c -c, S {79 ,?&.
.r- .
e
-e C'l
~+ 9 U .R
%,en~$w. MB
- e. gen,
& F -.a tu 9,c.6' - %.=>
11 W o O s.,. A
'Q' yb*;. **w.s
.r.L t . . , n,
__ m wm,
-iv.
. t . -l %-A
- -v. ,.
c .c. - y g s- u' -
"I ':; e ,. - a
~
^ '
O ** d @.+g+a
- @. . . i .'.
%kT h .$ 5 -- W:.?i; .W. '
Q
" ?$ . _= .
R N,
~QBUT>1= h MW a t T; -
> s wM,, . m a~p C. m. .t : '. .t y,e '
M;;,, m t%v. y ** .eq
.,l .
4 y,7 '- < f"*: 119 7# T.y.?- ~,erpU r E:- e e Si - o S '
.YL? " A Y
$* Y N w %r ?.. a--.1 t. ,e --ee -v+.w+V..,4 .
l
- 1. r~h' ,; -= rs- s s<rR.l.4 %
n N.- E N. Q' '.' 4, . . t.,.;*p W4.
.. 4..th4n.T .n. ;.r e
", j Il n %-
ggp -
,,e D . '. .M
'. >, 7. 4 m[l'*" *-
gpj
~^ ? e n ..a r"wnc p'1p. ..yZ
.; * ,1. A
* *i n k ne ucy wr4 w n.,.e: 'w.d? ; g o o o o o o o o od 80 P= to en 4 s1 N e o eeJ6ep ul amieJedwe.L
(
)
w a - l Simulated varation of saturation with time for selected nodes perpendicular to the center of heat load (Eddy Diff = 0.001 Case) 0.900 i I a t 0.800 . * -
. t- -
n.o .
$ 4
*J
, . . . .s $
0.700 sf' t.- - _- - -
< 1 A^ ' p 3Mj k " '? " 1 .
' ?,
1* -
-b if Q', , . : N_ ! h'- i 4}$$ ' t . . Es TI l'(-j' "O '
. ,_ 5i y LlV?.i 'T.] Lg ~
- 4 .t O.600
"- . ~! U ! "# -
~ ~ ~
u n - 4: - _. pr;} 4,
*A i g(-%
' ,-Q $ h, ;[ff-.
t l
*4_ j j ~~
,L : ,
i c:
- t i:., ' .i 7; kviU.Y, . ;,%Q} @f.01b '..I ' [i, I 7 ' -- g j o 0.500
~
}--'~~....~..
r v*
., ~ ..eg ,, . <~ R3 ;.* %,+ :
,, % .~;
?,l v :. ; e,.
n.- n e- -* s ' .~* . , . . t , . . $. . - c p. % p..
^ ... . .
m e 0.400 .
$..[. % AEjM 4. 2bS h ,
< t,2. . :j . , '
p??-9 s a,.
', '. .y i +r 9; N. . N. [M. S k(t.7/iGW -
3 0.300 % -A
+ +;,: * ,,s > m.; :>
- ,V b;) 3 . fc,h E~l?ftt :., N- 6 '.
,;~~ , 5:
i ,
).
l '. . 0.200 -
+ C3 ";: p .GGG g. *
"- - /.W. Wi l?C Q NJA. ;g
/-c
> -,c. 7
-i . i ' % +- -i d th.a. 4 0.000 ' V-- * - w- '
h--e -- -- H - - -- --- 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Time in years -
, . . , . .-. _ _ _ _ _ m . --.
~
O. O O . j _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ ____ ___ f j 0 i
. - .; > 0
-10 -10 % -10
-e -20 -20 ~2 -
g -30 -30 -
-30
-4 -40 ION -4
-50 -50 , -50 ,
50 10 1 0 20 20 30 0 lbo Iko 2bc 2ko 3bo 1 0 1 0 0 20 30 Radial d1 stance free center of tunnel in a Radial distance free center of tunnel in a Radial distance from center of tunnel la a 2 yea,e li.41 days 10 ve... l 0 0 0
-10 -10 -10 c
-20 -20 -20 g -30 -30 -30
-40 -40 -40
-50 -50 -50 s
10 1020 29 0 50 1 0 10 2bo 2ko 3bo 50 10 1 0 20 20 30 Radial distence free conter of tunnel in a Radial distance frem center of tunnel in a Radial distance from conter of tunnel in a 1 100 years 1000 $ ears 10000 years 10 20 30 40 50 60 Temperaturein degrees C l Figure 6 Simulated temperature around the tunnel for various times. Case 8, with decaying heat load. Eddy diffusivity = 0.001, atmosphere temperature = 15 *C. August 24.1996 F2ees2 29 AMD emergrupede h Presored fue ,,_, , . , ,. , l[ ,,$ ,, m,, ,, Juman Sye i aunty Nentest M esse kepuehury ProMt 4 Mke ,4 6 i
~
a l
O O O . _e - - . . - _ - _ - _ _ j 0 ' O I
, -10
-10 -10 g -20
-20 W y
, -20
-300
-30 [ -30
-40
~ 40 .gDq
-50
~50l -50 s l 50 1 0 1 20 2 3 b do the iko 2b0 2kB 3bo 50 1 0 10 2 0 2 0 30 Radial distance from center of tunnel in a Radial distance from conter of tunnel in a Radial distance from center of tunnel in m 0
0-.T _,3..r a
' ['
i
, -10
-1c I *
-100, i
?ty'-
4
-U
~20
-2c
-200_ ^\l" g -30
-30
-300_ ,
f,'
-40
-40
-400_ ;[h.
- 500.. vf ,4
-50 h-f
~
-500 50 1 0 10 20 20 30
' >b 4 h 5'O lbo Iko2b0 2kD 3bo f 5'O lbo Ik0 2bo 2ho 3bo Radial distance frem conter of tunnel in a Radial distance from center of tunnel in m Radial distance from conter of tunnel in a 20 40 60 80 Capillary pressurein bars Figure 6-26 -Simulated capillary pressure around the tunnel for various times. Case 8, with decaying heat load.
Eddy difTusivity == 0.001, atmosphere temperature = 15 *C Note scale changes among graphs. s
^
c 'i h e _ _ _ s,.1 ,s t :Co , . . . "-' - " - ' "-
1 4 e 4 j^A
~
O W o 6 ' .s . 3 >o . y 8 e O a >
~
92- -- o
- e I.. .. f.
ig
- g g. u 6.?,a,.y..,;
w:;. , , y,
~.
j .,p. '*$ 4
. " I,s e g i
., e *
.g
- a _C no C .g ; .-
O l' Q, . # ,th " . g- 1. s a. .y. . h ..s. y ,
, 4p Q > ~ ~ Q.', [ ',, r"*
g,
* ,'^4,
,g ,. o .. . . ...
. .s.-
j,.>",. = . ,w x, ,,,;., '{,i: _. 45# A.
-r.
m... (G . .v e .. , . . .
.. *- A~t , ser . , ,.
g Q & .$. y. D@ .* t Q' . *." . " ; -d OO ' e--
~ : 8-C, 7" /
t O '
" j' -
-~
eea -
. k. - .; g,-5
- r. **
; .. ' , , . . . ' . ,.',E' g
.} .
Y. i. '.'.* y . . !,g .'-/A l *
,W g C,.) ll
.A
-4 . ' ,s'N,g j L
.i. . ~ . . '4
, . 3.,..
, u .
..)g% 4.,
e ._ o ,. v .. s, o - _ , ..t
. .y.y
- c. c r:
a,
~-.,
e (m &Q ; e. y~ .; g ,.w.
..97 .3. .
, g.
, o. 3M,5c., ,.i ..,s.
- y. l u . . .
a Oy e es. g
, y ;/ -
,(+r,y.fj *r., :,9*y 1
,.y,...... ,p
,m M,. %. . f'v 1-
/ h " ;.
6-eg
.../.. M.wp* , .-. W v ,..y . ,E. .,h "' ;
@ w., . .w 4 g g t &
E*
- a zy a
.,:{ch._)V
.... N{"
~'f'"._" .=.L': - - ('- .' .' .- .%;. _.:.". _
. m '
l
.c m
.C ~ ~ .
e .
.2 h
.; : -?. ;. .^. ,?. .';.,. .m%' -
^ '
. ,.,w.&. *
': *%, . .;l lx .,, i
.. >&, y&, . !,V .L. n c. . ,,.a p .&
$w
, . yy n . w . .e tu1,.v ,, .
.=
.h_
8 c .S _", [: b. ' u_g.Mk.,%hMM. , < ,L. .;%g , wy. 4;gy, D'b 65 6 . D Ir; u, . j. ; y y %. p . , g
,j . - r , c ..Si,4g r
w% .
^* 9, ,; .
'o grl ^ < ^'
m.,."..
~
M 6 0
- 1, yw.m' 4 m M .t.W. '..
~.,
M., .. ' , e.4 . -s +. s ;o ?W &,.
~
3 L e.s @ T b du.
/,u . .
.T G v ?.3)(a g/1.;ng%
v
++-. cams Fges:, '
P.W"' ..W- ; ; .6 & 4. m.. v.sh.%
.+
M' ', c '
^
5 g C r t kY = lb'. y '-) e
. g eg &g@[,.8 ,g. e - - -
d O 'j ) . y yi "* i,,.
$1 4 q &@, pk'<l a n<. 9e
&g z
8 ~F .g.
* .e wp r:PWR %%~ WW &{$?'#
,g .p.y . 3 ypge n@' v vc ,
~
a 6 ,g .. . .4 . . sa a- 3.... -- . w . .. yea m.6 1,w hu .. M+- a , .A -
.n m
e
'5en %.W. v: %q.a p.,%Q,;,p'&..ih:;;;. M.. % gr.. F yl'
*H Bh & _.t a:
ua a .< nr . 4a f>J.r.'.e._O. . . W , q. w. :- 3-
- j. - . . < ,
s.
+- ,,.y.9.
%wu<lo,. q- g- de.w
' NY[*-
[>- S,
. u. a,% s. ),h, - .* .,,
,
- ag,Q
. 5 $
%gm
.u.
. .h
~
1.f, y
.$ d ,;
,,4 g
'.'g y j
.., 1s q- .',." ;,' ? p s '~ - * + . ~ s ,. . r o 4 -*
q r . .cr r ' -
, . s. e u+.
j f5.=. N N :s -h . n #2?".E,
.E_ : - M' .'.Yc,w,'%,.e15 .D : n., *.h .
- m, 1y.4. . a . g}t.t b q %....v+a.h. : .2. . 5.p. ,.~
I I! te , [
, .h fr,
*,.,4f, ,
e- Aw,s w,
. .a w m e.
..g. 4-.a s4
.* 4+y j,w,ar.n.,+9~,r. w t. ,. p.pa;, , m . .. n. . .em.. + .
.-.m.. . . .
Af .. * - i mt
> , . u.
<n >
,.9 .g ~re.. ;,,, a y b.wer-*o CA g
o g o 8 P' . a g o g o 8 9 o g o 8 N o 2 o" gd o uopemies
_. .- - . _ . . - . - - - - . - __. - _- _ _ . - --= -. . - . _ . t 1 1 8 o
.c g
~
~~ n.~ 2 .; yg o, c m.m,g
;sen . w;;y %w'~ 'p;~j;
-e
- .f. . .$. u,;;. - ). Q.
- = . a.
u g
%f}.h ,(\ s. % t
.. ,w.$ 2 .Qfi i Y 3 ;-
$o .p.s c ...w,,t ,.,. s.e.~
. ,, f. i;7,.,.j, ,
r . . .+ - .i * .,y; a. y,
~
D ~
. .9 r & :. %.. , y.A qu.&s..y wa L .yp2 .. ,.
n ., py; e 4 .,+.. w. r c a. .. ....w
, _ .w . .-, A ..n ,.
I
*- , 7 WA -c ..S s.. . .) , p. .. ...q,A. "
gg' j.=}A ' i11]' u r .cy "+i{y5:L'%Q[.%- L n %,Q hkgg s ' EK '"- ~TF rd; (2.77 E M C
- & @S tT..g$!FM @y~!%p3 @W *4'$we,,..
ee e
.. 2 9%). y'p. ~i
.f~jy *. yt
%d
.$.3 . 2.1 e n
;, Vv ;
~
h, N Y Jn j h{ - . +- verL g c0
"# ?::h % p % w ~ -
3-1
*N kha? lh
_a _ Wi' 'E.g gM&gjg-k sg4,, Y W. p@. $;#,7p %(,g%g;. @ C
,g T - y
_.7 f. b MW I h: ." ~ ms6
.g Qi.:k, ht%,Viz h,t":
M - Oy eu ' t.c +,5 * [ g W' WNu 3p~g . $.W5 %, ~ e
=
Em 7t* Wi gr y
,,s ~ s.g;;.g A i E;e&~ , 4g49
+
~
.c, t
n o
-c_d c
.4 x s.
,w s
M.. %re ey t v.e4wa 2,.,. w' w+
.,~ .-
.e e
'.+.a la
.a'e
*4 w..%, 0* .
~
>3 c, fi -,
.E-m C, ~e. . a, ft.,W.
, , . r' 4 $aw. -
WS s.s q', ;
<4 r.%%
s s' fts 4
... w.
5xa e.- "'; O N. m s v' u .-
- W
~~
.3 .c a
- a.m.,
eua ' 9, ', , - ,
. , :q , . , ' ~ nniz . a .:c,.c .,an .r,4 -
m u .. y*?&^.7 a.- u ,,o,, , b4 .a ' +
*'.q ..
R s., ' -)n . r. :
.4 ~ 3' ~
Wl ' : ^~ , u.apg$ E . - ,i . l ?.i e $, wu :. . .
.b I
" lN$h ~ ~ .I . ,N . .[ , M
- , Id . pNL c ..Q3M . N f ' , J~1 * ' T 1 H % VVfla 4t'Wg .
aguQ b4 Fut,W W
^ '
4 o i G 17;;. a.WiW
.m g . ,_Aa.4.:sAvs s e. ~y
- 73. ;l-p W* . f e
- rr
.L yC
.a. p' ? f,. g, ;~N~
&w e iks'?? *2"' n %2. ., ,, . . a x, .L: --
> .~ w y._ ..
.C" V ,A. . [
& se m e . - . . ..- ,,,%. .
.i i
h ; E M~ , -.
- Y .- ~* S'+
g -
..J
@%K q -
a- 'x "
., i
....1 .
n -v4 :.
, 3 .;p c, . -..m.4.
u was - mt ~ 4 4.. q y ;En:, . d. ~ p ..
- e
- w:.
m.m .mm .
- p. .,. . - - _ , g e o e oO e o n N N e,. o,-
h n o eaJ6ep ut aJnieJedwel
O O O e
- - - - - ~~- - --' - ~ ~
a 0 f O_ w 0 ,
-100_. -100.' .j -10 ,.
a p *: % .*
-200. $H ~20 -
q -200 ~Q t ' 10 years
-300 -300 ,p g -300_,
-40Q, ~40
-400 m
-500 -50
-500 50 10 10 0 30 50 lbo 1 0 20 2k0 30 h 5'O lbo Iko 2bo 2k0 3bo Radial dastance from center of tunnel in a Radial distance free center of tunnel an a Radial distance from center of tunnel in a 1
.i l i e j 0 W . 0
-1C : *
-10
-10 '
tu
-2C :
-20 h g -20 t -30 g -30 ~ 3C t
-40
-40
-4C ,
-50 # -5C . -50 50 1 0 0 0 30 $ 5'O lb0 1ko 2bo 2k0 3 0- 50 10 10 20 20 30 Radial distance from conter of tunnel in a Radial distance from center of tunnel in m Radial dastance from center of tunnel in a ,
t 0.071 0.873 0.875 0.877 0.079 ' Absolute pressure in bars Figure 6 20 - Simulated pressure around the tunnel for various times. Case 7, with decaying heat load. Eddy i ditTusivity = 0.01, atmosphere temperature = 15 'C : t, t Assgd 24.19'46 P*cI*'d id t .s.. . 4 - a..,4,, a ,. 4 2 s,.. r2ees2 29 AAfD energeogme e - . _ _ _ hswee Nye t'meens) Nemtree % aste Repusesury Pr@t iN&e i k
I
~?
O. O O 4 e j 0 0 O g - T_, c -10 -10 -10 l q -20 -20 -20 y
- 44
' f
-30 -30 ' l
-30 f
-40 -40 l m.
-40
$ ~50 -50 -50 ll -
t 1b0 1020 2 0 30 b 50 lbo lho 2bo 2 0 0 50 10 10 2bo 2 0 30 l Radial distance from center of tunnel in a Radial dastance from center of tunnel in m Radial dastance from center of tunnel an m
=
h 0.. _ g 0
-100 , -10
- -100.
-a -200 l,t m -2c -200. - -
Jty [ -300. # , ' -
- 3C -300 .
.' f
-400 -40
^
-400_
yI + f,
-500 -5c
, -5C0 -
3 ~. _
- t !
10 10 20 20 30 b 5'O 1ho 1ko 2bo 2k0 3bo b 50 lbo 1l,0 2bo 2b0 3bo Radial distance from conter of tunnel in a Radial d1 stance from center of tunnel in a Radial distance from center of tunnel in a I 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 l Temperature in degrees C Figure 6 Simulated temperature around the tunnel for various times. Case 7, with decaying heat load. Eddy diffusisity = 0.01, atmosphere temperature = 15 'C August 24.1996 hepared for r2=en2 29 OED -pe mmammymuneros ayans ,,,,,u '..,,,,, Sye t cemey Neatrar M asse Repositeery I*rojess (Mhe
--..~_. , __ - _ _ _
l!* ;( ! . ' ! I!L ( t ; . !lI I l a. O _ a _ a - . n
. a n
. i l
. e l n e
_ 0 n } ' li o n 3 u ' b n t 3 u t 0 f , o 0 f . 2 k o d . _ r 2 a . e r o
- 0 e t o l
. 2 n '
b t n t e - c 2 o a . . 0 . 0 c e ] . 1 m o j$ b m h . _ r
, . A q l
r o gsh , 0 f j
' ;e
; 0 f n p ,
g fay
. 1 e c "
( ,f b l e _ iya n a ' 4 c n ar cg a
. t s
0 5 t eg , i - i d i s dn _
. d ho _
_ im l b t g p _ _ a * . . , l - _ O 0 0 0 0 0 d i 0
- 0. 0.
- 0. 0 0.
i a wa,s .
- 1 2
3 4 5
- R a 0 1
0 2 0 2 0 4 0 5 d a 7e g
- - - - - R _
- _ aa se n -
a Cc h
. sl.e a
_ _ n a i n _ ea l e l e 0 _ imc t : s e o r n 0 n 9 . s te m b n M
' 3 t
u ' b 3 t u . r ouo It . o f o f ,a iN r n j - k o e - O 2 ) k 2 o n a . P r 0 r e r e 0 7 i vC r" y r O t 0 N b 2 n b t n r fo5 u e e e_le 1 t 2
- o c c e .
. . pu n
o . n=e e . k r. . m k t . I o m . JS , r I o r_n e r se u ur es o f r ,_. . o 0 h f 5 eg a e b y t Pr M 1 t c n l e c r a ea r _ '5 O t a
'5 O a n i r _hr pe t t a
r [3 t s t 1 . u .
' i s %
a d d a c_dnm ue y - - b 0 . b
) tn l
ot a l e E m m gI a r e e 0 0 0 0 0 d i a 0 0 0 0 0 d are t e 2 3 5 e . iM 1 4 y 1 2 3 4 5 a
- - - - - R - - - - - R rh up %
s s so - a em r pt a a . n n y , i i r1 la0 l l - e l e . n n i0 0 n p _. 3 u t 0 n u a= . 3 t cy 0 f t - o 0 f di 2 r 2 o ev ti
. e r e as .
t 0 u . _ luT n t o 2 n e 2 N e imi t - 0 c c e d 1 m o 0 m S y ap se - f r 1 0 f o r d m. . e 2d 1 c 1 e c 2E - -
- n 0 a 0 n
a 6 h._._ 5 t s i - 5 t s e r m.
. l-
- d l d
i u m l a l ig a 0 i a F a m 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 1 2 3 4 5 d
a 0 0 2 0 3 0 4- . 5-0 d i
%h 9s R
1 a 1 k
- R .A n_ '
4 2 92 se2 uo O gm E : gtg )3 ejl fg 33 u 2e AP
': (' f
O O O , s 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . - ._ g 0 0. O
= .
-100 e
{ -100 -100 f 5 -200 -200 -200
-300 -300 4 -300 e.
, 10 ) ears l -4c0 -4m. {
-4m
-500 -500 g -500 g '
E 6 160 1 I . I I 2 2. l Radial distance from center of tunnel in m Radial distance from center of tunnelin m Radial distance from center of tunnelin m i l 0 ( . O_P 5 M j -100 -100 .
-100_ >
p e E
-200 -200_ 4
! -200 ..
~m -300 .. -3"-
< 1 m)O > ca rs -j 000,) ears ;
e -400 -40o -4m_ y
-500 -500 I -
-500 !
d '8 0 .'O) 160 lb 200 2M 300 2 Radial distance km cc We of tunnel in m Radial distance from center of tunnelin m Radial distance from center of tunnelin m l J i i 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.a Saturation !
. - . - . - _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - . - -._. . _. . _ - . p Figure 6 Simulated saturation around the tunnel for various times. Case 7, with decaying heat load. Eddy j ditTusivity = 0 01, atmosphere temperature = 15 'C. t i
A. . n. im n n.w i.. ,, , . , , , , , , . . . PJeec2M Ahe) r w aro m mu p ey.. Nye t es) Suitrer M asse Repudtury Prope otRie
?
t
r lo - e* g J Lu OW E LLI l- - WI g Z Z 4 ft) E l- .Lu O E EM PE h
.- M g 6-Mo eo' lij c. - -
H
*o 3E z )
- g -
<- u.
W e ' u. p O J o W .Ozl-WJ E4 w J W
> u. E>J M Lu I @E!S <O -
ME W g >O Hg Mz zW EM U o <W gZE
- E OE g ME
. W" F* "W C -O mM #W U w e~ z-W 4 W m Wm iu a.- <$ jr. g .. tu O z -
! PE O W- -O 3 24
-- W o mz O g 2I Wmx M o, z He W Ega W< ~ mg
.Z Og <.
2W E sa W 3 mm
< _M z o~ 4 Om
@ mz 00 E g IW i >
40
- u. a:
z$ W tu O et of 20
>. a.
e 4 o0 M 0 eW zJ mE-4 - e n. 4 e Ez Z p zW
-m F<O 0 E F >E 90 9 J E g E a 99 g o p- S J .uJ '
V d $ ~ tu E z h , Z'2O Lu. e EE o W 00 - O Oz z< OoW o- <z Em iJ E l- E m CD Lu V e e e e e g . .
$h O
NYE COUNTY NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY PROGRAM PAST AND FUTURE A THUMBNAIL SKETCH O l ACNW MEETING LAS VEGAS, NEVADA SEPTEMBER 27,1996 i ! l O 1 1
l . l O GOALS OF NYE COUNTY PROGRAM
+ TO ADDRESS KEY ISSUES THAT CAN HAVE l PARAMOUNT IMPACT ON BOTH THE DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE OF THE REPOSITORY AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN
+ TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND THE l
ENVIRONMENT
+ TO MONITOR AND EVALUATE DOE'S GENERAL l SCIENTIFIC AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM l Q + TO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT ARE NOT BEING ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY DOE l
l l 2 O l
1 PAST PROGRAM O
- ACTIVE OVERSIGHT OF ENTIRE RANGE OF DOE PROGRAM
{
+ FUNDING UNDER NWPA i 116 l
l + ON-SITE REPRESENTATIVE l
+ REGULATORY AND LICENSING l l j + SOCIOECONOhDC l + TRANSPORTATION i
l
+ INSTITUTIONAL
+ NEPA/EIS O PROGRAM CONDUCTED UNDER PROTOCOLS WITH DOE 1
l INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM (ISIP) i
+ ONE NEW BOREHOLE - ONC-1 l
i l + INSTRUMENTATION IN DOE HOLE . NRG-4 i ! + PRESSURE / TEMPERATURE / RELATIVE HUMIDITY l MONITORING IN ESF 4 l + DATA SHARED WITH ALL INTERESTED PARTIS
- AND POSTED ON NYE HOME PAGE i
l i 3
- O e
l
O FUTURE PROGRAM CONGRESS HAS AGAIN DENIED FUNDING UNDER NWPA { 116 FUTURE PROGRAM WILL BE LIhDTED TO ON-SITE REPRESENTATION
+ DEPENDENT ON FUNDING UNDER NWPA i 117(d)
- COLLATERAL ACTIVITIES WILL BE LIARTED TO ,
THOSE IN SUPPORT OF OSR FUNCTION INCLUDING ISIP l
+ DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS UNDER ISIP WILL CONTINUE AND EXPAND e COUNTY HAS PROPOSED A PROGRAM OF 8 NEW BOREHOLES, TO BE DRILLED IN THREE PHASES e TWO NEW DEEP HOLES TO ADD TO SPARSE DEEP AQUIFER MONITORING e THREE SHALLOW UZ AND UPPER SZ HOLES
- FOUR HOLES TO CONDUCT TRACER TEST SIMILAR TO C-WELI COMPLEX
+ ISIP WOULD CONTINUE TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER NYE/ DOE OSR PROTOCOLS AND NQA-1. DATA AND ANALYSIS SHARED AS BEFORE VIA NYE HOME PAGE 4
O}}