ML20134C260
| ML20134C260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1997 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-T-0111, NACNUCLE-T-111, NUDOCS 9701310305 | |
| Download: ML20134C260 (180) | |
Text
ANW UPHUt: UUFY - HETAIN FOR
~
~ ~ ~ ~
THE UFEOFTHE COMMITTEE OfficicI Trcnscript sf Praccadings
()
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A CNWl-O/ Il
Title:
89th Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Docket Number:
N/A
- EMAQ, TO BJWHITE M/S T-2E26 415-7130 THANKS!
Location:
Rockville, MD Date:
Wednesday, January 29,1997
'O 1
I I
Work Order No.:
NRC-985 Pages 1-128 Note: A/o hwsealpt-I '22i??
A/o fruwscaipt //3a/97 _
h kphhh N
LE T-0111 PDR 4
310078 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
1 Court Reporters and Transcribers hh 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
A Washington, D.C. 20005 i
V (202) 234-4433 0 7[{!% F LE[L U $ j '
ACNW OFFICE COPY-RETAIN FOR THE UFE OF THE COMMITTEE
=_..
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V
3
+++++
l 4
89th MEETING 5
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 6
(ACNW) 7
+++++
1 8
WEDNESDAY j
9 JANUARY 29, 1997 10
+++++
11 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 12 13 The Advisory Committee met at the Nuclear D
'(d 14 Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, Room T2B3, 15 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:30 a.m.,
Paul W.
- Pomeroy, 16 Chairman, presiding.
17 l
18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
19 PAUL W.
POMEROY CHAIRMAN 20 B. JOHN GARRICK VICE CHAIRMAN 21 WILLIAM J. HINZE MEMBER 22 GEORGE M. HORNBERGER MEMBER i
23 ACNW STAFF PRESENT:
24 JOHN T.
LARKINS EXEC. DIRECTOR V(
25 MICHELE KELTON TECH. SECRETARY 1
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
2 1
RICHARD K.
MAJOR 2
HOWARD J.
LARSON L)J t
3 LYNN DEERING
/
ANDREW C.
CAMPBELL 5
RICHARD P.
SAVIO 6
CAROL A.
HARRIS l
l 7
SAM DURAISWAMY l
8 THERON BROWN l
9 ALSO PRESENT:
10 TIM McCARTIN 11 MIKE BELL 12 NEIL COLEMAN 13 BRET LESLIE n
14 JEFF POHLE 15 MARGARET FEDERLINE l
16 RICK WELLER l
17 JOHN GREEVES 18 BUDHI SAGAR 19 JOHN O.
THOMA 20 MIKE LEE 21 HAROLD LeFEVRE 22 23 24
/\\U 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
i 3
1 CONTENTS 2
PAGE i
O I
3 Opening Remarks by ACNW Chairman 4
4 5
Key Technical Issues Status (Open) j 6
Annual KTI Progress Report 5
7 Status Report on the Integration 8
Task Force 80 9
Round Table discussion 88 10 11 Discussion with the Director, Division 12 of Waste Management, NMSS (Open) 91 13
/O b
14 Site characterization at Yucca Mountain 109 15 Staff's efforts on revising Part 60 103 16 Part 960 options paper 106 17 EPA HLW standards 103 18 Activities at Envirocare 114 19 Outside regulation of DOE 120 20 Other topics 124 21 22 23 24 g
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
4 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
7s 8:34 a.m.
\\
<Q'/
3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
The meeting will now come 4
to order.
This is the second day of the 89th Meeting of 5
the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
Portions of 6
today's meeting may be closed to discuss matters, the 7
release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 8
invasion of personal privacy.
9 Today the Committee will first of all, discuss 10 the status of the key technical issues; secondly, meet 11 with the Director of the NRC Division of Waste Management, 12 Office of Nuclear Material, Safety, and Safeguards, to 13 discuss current events; third, discuss defense-in-depth as (n%-)
14 it applies to nuclear wastes; fourth, prepare for the next 15 open meeting with the Commission.
We will continue the 16 preparation of ACNW reports and hold a discussion of 17 potential new ACNW members.
18 Mr. Richard Major, on my right, is the 19 designated federal official for the initial portion of 20 today's meeting.
This meeting is being conducted in 21 accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 22 Committee Act.
23 We have received no written statements from 24 members of the public regarding today's session.
Should 10
(_,/
25 anyone wish to address the Committee, please make your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1
wishes known to one of the Committee staff.
2 It is requested that each speaker use one of f-k)s 3
the microphones, identify himself or herself, and speak 4
with sufficient clarity and volume so that he or she can 5
be readily heard.
6 Do any of my colleagues have any comments 7
they'd like to make before we go to the first agenda item?
8 Hearing none, the first agenda item this 9
morning deals with the status of key technical issues.
10 The purpose of today's meeting are:
- 1) to discuss and 11 review the first KTI annual progress report which 12 discusses NRC staff's progress for FY96 in developing KTIs 13 for the high level waste repository free licensing f\\ s/
14 program, and 2) to discuss the status and recommendations 15 of the integration task force report on KTI activities.
16 I believe our leadoff speaker this morning is 17 Margaret Federline, and I've seen Margaret Federline.
18 Good morning, Margaret.
And Margaret, you'll introduce 19 the other speakers as appropriate?
20 DR. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Thank you 22 DR. FEDERLINE:
Good morning.
I noticed that 23 you hava a very full agenda this morning.
I just wanted 24 to take a few minutes at the beginning to explain what O
i,/
25 John and I are trying to accomplish with the annual 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
6 1
report:
what it is and what it isn't; what you can expect 2
to hear from us today.
3 In your letter of February 16th, you urged us 4
to develop an annual report.
We had had a discussion with 5
you at the time on KTIs and we indicated that we were 6
thinking about developing a summarization and you urged us 7
to continue with that, and we took many suggestions into 8
consideration and I think we feel that it was the right 9
thing to do.
10 What we want to do today is provide a brief 11 overview.
As it notes on this slide, the annual report 12 provides a status of NRC high level waste work conducted 13 in FY96.
It summarizes the work up until the end of July.
fs
)
\\_/
14 As with any report, there's a problem with 15 getting all the lact minute information, so we've 16 attempted to define a cutoff point, and as you notice, the 17 copy that you have is a pre-publication draft.
18 What we have done is send this draft to all 19 the members of our mailing list.
We wanted to make sure 20 the information got out as soon as it was possible to get 21 it out.
And the report will be published later in 22 February.
23 I wanted to discuss for just a minute, what 24 the annual report is.
We decided that we needed to O(,)
25 explain to DOE, provide early feedback, of what we were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
^
7 1
thinking.
So in other words, you won't find the annual 2
report as being a definitive report on licensing.
In
-[s\\
3 other words, there are not specific findings about Yucca 4
Mountain, there are not conclusions.
5 What the annual report is, is an attempt to 6
make available to all the parties that are involved in 7
this process, NRC's current thinking.
And the real 8
objective here is to promote a dialogue.
We believe it's 9
important as we move to the viability assessment, to bring 10 all the information forward and to promote a dialogue, 11 have a discussion so that nobody is surprised with new 12 information as we approach viability assessment.
13 Another objective that we had for the annual
('
N 14 recort is to continue to focus NRC's program, and I'll 15 touch on that briefly on the next slide.
As always, DOE 16 remains ultimately responsible for developing an 17 integrated safety case, and they may in fact, choose to 18 adopt different paths to resolution that we are outlining 19 in our annual report.
20 But as you will see, as Mike and Budhi walk 21 through the annual report, a very key aspect of our 22 program is identifying a path to resolution.
We feel that l
23 it's important to have an end objective that we can begin 24 to bring closure at the staff level on some of the key
()
25 issues that are affecting repository program.
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPCRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RF. ODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2.% 4433 WASHNGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
8 1
And so we feel even if we pursue a particular 2
path to resolution alA DOE chooses an alternative path to 3
resolution, it will enhance confidence during the 4
licensing proceeding and there won't be a concern.
5 So bottom line, our objective in publishing 6
the annual report as I mentioned before, is to document 7
our progress. Some issues you will see, as Mike and Budhi 8
walk through, we have very preliminary information on.
9 Other subjects we're quite far along, and we feel that the 10 information in the annual report will form the basis for 11 an issue resolution report in FY97.
12 As we discussed with you, it has been as we've 13 reformulated our program and as our budget has been 14 reduced, it's been very important to us to refocus and 15 reorganize our program to make sure that we, as the 16 regulator, are focused on what we believe to be the most 17 significant vulnerabilities as we go along.
18 And the annual report is a tool that we're 19 using to help us focus, and to help us better integrate 20 the program.
You will see, as Budhi and Mike walk through 21 the various chapters, within each chapter we've defined 22 paths to resolution, but we've also defined integration 23 interfaces in the annual report.
24 And going through the discipline process of
(',f 25 writing an annual report has helped us to focus to ensure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1
that there are no loose ends.
So that's been a key factor 2
in preparing the annual report, l
3 As we've described to you in the past, NRC's 4
key technical issues are closely related to DOE's 5
containment isolation strategy.
We, as the regulator, 6
have a role to look at the vulnerability, so you will see 7
in our annual report an emphasis on what we believe the 8
vulnerabilities are, and urging DOE to look at particular 9
things, or bringing to DOE's attention, new information 10 that we've collected in the area of vulnerability.
11 We're still working with our vertical slice 12 approach and as you recognized in your letter following 13 our briefing to you, we recognized that there are some
/~N 14 shortcomings in pursuing this more focused approach.
15 There's a chance that we might miss something, 16 but we believe overall, as we have an iterative program 17 between our disciplinary focus in the KTI and our
.s.a1 18 systems approach in the last KTI, that there's an 19 iterative approach and that we will be able to recognize 20 elements that are perhaps outside our existing KTIs.
21 So overall, the objective of our program 22 remains to define a path to resolution.
It's very 23 important that we define acceptance criteria as we go 24 along.
One of our key roles is to ensure ourselves that A(_,)
25 we're going to have the criteria against which to review NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1
DOE submittals when the time comes.
2 And so you will see as we describe our issue
,s
,! j) 3 resolution process, part of that will be developing the l
4 acceptance criteria and advising people of those 5
acceptance criteria, at least in a general sense as we 6
develop our status reports.
7 MEMBER HINZE:
Excuse me, Margaret.
Is there 8
a generic acceptance criteria and then specific criteria 9
for each of the slices?
10 DR. FEDERLINE:
No.
What we are planning to 11 do is, for each issue resolution status report there will 12 be acceptance criteria.
It may be an acceptable 13 methodology.
We may, in all cases, not -- ana I'll use an i
)
\\~/
14 example -- what is the acceptable amount of infiltration 15 at Yucca Mountain?
We believe that's an integrated 16 systems question.
In other words, you have to look.
17 So maybe for infiltration the best you can do 18 is define an acceptable methodology at that point in time.
19 And as you pull it all together in the total systems 20 analysis, then you'll be able to get to more definitive 21 acceptance criteria as we get closer to licensing.
22 So you know, our goal is to pursue as precise 23 an acceptance criteria as we can at this point in time, 24 without limiting DOE's flexibility for the interfaces of A(_)
25 processes.
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 11 1
Does that --
j l
(
2 MEMBER HINZE:
Yes.
3 DR. FEDERLINE:
It's a fine line we have to l
4 walk defining acceptance criteria early in the process.
l 5
MEMBER HINZE:
Well, let me ask the question 1
1 6
then, when you have reached -- if you reach -- issue l
l 7
resolution on any of these topics with DOE, does that mean 8
that that terminates your work on this topic?
or do you 9
just agree to disagree?
l 10 DR. FEDERLINE:
There will be facets of work.
11 In other words, if we're working towards defining an 12 acceptable methodology at the process level, we may come 13 to agreement on that, but that work will still continue at i
('~)
k/
14 the systems level ensuring that the abstraction is 15 appropriate and that it's appropriately represented.
16 But to the best we can, and this is -- I know 17 there was some sensitivity in your letters to defining 18 subissues -- we want to get to the point whe' we are 19 resolving all the KTIs.
And we see that that will come as 20 we move closer to licensing.
But we believe that we're i
21 going to be able to resolve a number of subissues prior to 22 that time.
23 MEMBER HINZE:
In our letter about this time 24 last year, we wrote: "In the interest of achieving the l
l (O I
,/
25 efficiency that is central to the vertical slice approach, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1
criteria should be developed to determine when activities 2
should be terminated within a specific vertical slice".
f.s e
',)
\\
3 DR. FEDERLINE:
Right.
4 MEMBER HINZE:
Are we talking about the same 5
thing here --
6 DR. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
l 1
7 MEMBER HINZE:
-- when we're talking about 8
acceptance criteria and so forth?
9 DR. FEDERLINE:
Correct.
10 MEMBER HINZE:
All right.
So then you are 11 approaching that problem?
12 DR. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
13 MEMBER HINZE:
Thank you.
Ok/
14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Margaret, let me just ask m
15 one othar question.
When you talk about defining 16 methodologies in process, for instance, I think of our 17 discussions over the years about expert judgment and our 18 thoughts on trying to define a methodology and in fact, 19 incorporate it somehow even in a rulemaking, prior to the 20 time we get into the licensing situation, where I think 21 that in that particular -- using that use of methodologies 22 there may affect more than DOE because there may be l
23 independent evaluations using expert judgment --
i i
24 DR. FEDERLINE:
That's correct.
1
()
25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
-- of the repository by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1
other parties.
When you say define then, an acceptable 2
methodology, you're saying this is what would be
[_. i#
3 acceptable to --
4 DR. FEDERLINE:
Yes, at the staff level.
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
At the staff level.
6 DR. FEDERLINE:
And realizing we're now 7
currently working on developing a strategy for revising 8
or, you know, supplementing Part 60 which will go to the 9
Commission.
And until we get a sense of, you know, what 10 the commission sense is, we don't know how much we'll be 11 resolving through rulemaking.
But our goal in this 12 process is to resolve as much at the staff level or to 13 obtain agreement.
A
\\--)
i 14 Just to give you a couple of examples that, it 15 may help a little bit, and others will walk through these 16 and can explain these examples.
I think in the area of 17 volcanism we feel that we've laid a solid groundwork in 18 the probability area, and that there may be enough 19 information to come to agreement on the range of 20 probability.
That's in one sense.
21 In the sense of climate, we feel that we have 22 defined a methodology that may be able to bound the 23 climate number, but we're going to be, in our next issue 24 resolution status report we're going to be putting forward (O
,/
25 the methodology itself.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1
MEMBER I JZE:
Those are great examples.
One 2
of my concerns her is -- and help me please -- is that
,s 3
issue resolution is not equivalent to agreement.
4 DR. FEDERLINE:
That's correct.
5 MEMBER HINZE:
That's my reading of your 6
material, right?
And I think those words get confused 7
occasionally.
It isn't agreement at all; it can be agree 8
to disagree.
9 DR. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
10 MEMBER HINZE:
Okay.
11 DR. FEDERLINE:
And I think we have an 12 acknowledgement that there may be areas of difference with 13 Doff as we approach viability assessment.
On both sides, m
14 we can do our best job, but you know, if there are 15 differences of interpretation of scientific information, 16 that may continue to exist.
So I think the most important 17 thing at viability assessment is to be able to define what 18 those areas of agreement and disagreement are.
19 I don't think we would ever say that an issue 20 has been resolved if we've not achieved agreement with 21 DOE, but there may be some areas where we're not able to 22 achieve issue resolution at this point in time.
But 23 hopefully, we'll be able to understand why we're not 24 achieving issue resolution.
,/-
(
25 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Margaret, I just want NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1
to say that I think you gave a very good answer to Bill's 2
question when you referred to the fact that some of these s
l 3
issues are systems questions.
4 DR. FEDERLINE:
Correct.
5 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
And I think that's 6
something that has concerned us a little bit is any 7
attempt to allocate acceptance --
8 DR. FEDERLINE:
Right.
9 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
-- to lower levels out 10 of context with the total system impact.
11 DR. FEDERLINE:
Right.
12 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
So I think -- I was 13 encou aged to hear that, as a matter of fact.
,\\/
14 DR. FEDERLINE:
As I go through this, you'll 15 see that our FY97 work is focused on sensitivity and 16 importance analysis at the system level.
We've done a lot 17 of work in FY96 on completing sensitivity analysis at the 18 process level, and you could sort of jump to say, well 19 based on the process level we achieve agreement.
But 20 really, until you factor that into the system and see what 21 the tradeoffs are, you know, you may have to make some 22 adjustments.
23 So the focus of -- we've taken our own 24 guidance, you know,
.'e've been very definitive with DOE t' N
(,)
25 saying that you should document your. decision process, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(402) 234-4423 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
16 1
should lay out clearly what your thinking is.
We took 2
that to heart, and we believe that the annual report is a
~
3 place for us to really lay out our thinking and document 4
our thought process.
5 And that will be culminated in Issue 6
Resolution Status Report.
So these are going to be the 7
two key documents and we would hcpe, as we get closer to 8
licensing, that we will document all of this in a PSER 9
which will enable us to sort of formalize it for the 10 licensing process.
11 But right now, these two documents are our key 12 documentation of our current thinking, and they're also 13 our vehicles for discussion and integration.
We feel it 14 extremely important to bring the information to the table, 15 make sure DOE and other parties know what we're thinking 16 at this point in time.
17 So we have already met with DOE and the other 18 parties and provided an overview of the annual report.
19 And what we're planning to do in the next management 20 meeting with DOE is, sort of walk through the report and 21 understand what the best means are to dialogue.
22 Some of these issues you'll see are very early 23 in the process.
It may be wise to continue with some 24 Appendix 7s.
There may be others, you know, that have f3
(,)
25 matured to the point where we could actually achieve some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1
agreements and move to higher level meetings.
So that's 2
one thing that we need to decide.
(,_.D
\\"
3 As I mentioned, our FY97 and FY98 work is 4
going to be focused on importance and sensitivity analysis 5
at the systems level.
It's a very ambitious goal that we 6
have; we're hopeful we're going to be able to achieve it.
7 But our key here is to look at, if we proceed 8
with some of the issue resolution strategies that we're 9
looking at at the process level, what will that mean at 10 the systems level?
ou're also aware of our reduced budget in 11 v
12 FY97 in three KTIs.
That's been very hard for us because 13 we really need the Center's support in those key areas and O
\\_ l 14 we're certainly hopeful that, you know, we can reverse 15 that thinking and bring our budget back to full strength.
16 Are there any questions?
This was just 17 intended to be sort of a brief management overview to let 18 me know at least what John and I are trying to accomplish 19 with the annual report and where it fits into the big 20 picture.
21 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Apparently not Margaret, so 22 23 DR. FEDERLINE:
Okay.
Let me turn it over to 24 Mike Bell who is the Branch Chief who's responsible for O
/(,)
25 the majority of the KTIs.
John Austin is not able to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1
with us today; he's at a TRB meeting on performance 2
assessment, and Budhi Sagar will be doing the presentation V
3 on the last two KTIs.
4 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Thank you, Margaret.
5 DR. BELL:
Good morning.
I'm Michael Bell; 6
I'm Chief of the Engineering and Geosciences Branch within 7
the Division of Waste Management at NRC, and as Margaret 8
mentioned, the technical staff supporting the high-level 9
program primarily worked for me.
Eight of the ten KTIs 10 that we worked on in fiscal '96 are under my area of 11 responsibility.
12 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
That sounds a little 13 unfair.
fm 14 (Laughter.)
15 DR. BELL:
Or challenging.
The outline today 16 follows pretty closely the outline in the annual report, 17 and I'm sure everybody's had a chance to read the draft 18 we've provided you thoroughly.
But we will talk about 19 each of the KTIs and how it relates to the waste isolation 20
-- DOE's waste containment and isolation strategy.
21 That was a step on our part to try to 22 communicate better with DOE, that we thought if we focused j
23 the program in our comments to them on, you know, their l
I 24 own strategy for running their program, it would O(,)
25 facilitate communication and have more impact than 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
19 1
had done in the past, in many cases, you know, relating 2
some concern to some provision in Part 60 which is likely
('/
3 to change over the next few years as a result of the 4
legislation, the Academy report, and what EPA is doing.
5 I will talk about our path to resolution and 6
in particular, what we're doing on each of the sub-issues, 7
focusing on '97 and '98.
We see, basically, these two 8
years as being a key time for making some progress on 1
9 raising issues and resolving some of them with DOE, l
10 because at the end of '98 they'll be doing their viability 11 assessment.
12 And if we have some reason, or something that 13 needs to be taken into consideration in that, we want to 14 have the opportunity to make it known to DOE.
15 The last bullet on integration -- each chapter 16 talks about the linkages between the various KTIs.
I j
17 won't have charts on that today, but John Thoma will be 18 talking about integration afterwards, and it is discussed 19 in the annual report.
20 And it will be unavoidable actually, to talk 21 about not -- let's see, I'm going to use a double negative 22 here -- I won't be able to avoid talking about linkages 23 and interfaces even though I don't have a specific chart 24 on it.
(j 25 Now, one of the things I'm going to do 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
20 1
confuse those of you who have read the report from cover 3
2 to cover, is change the order.
The order things appear in
,k.]
3 the annual report is the way they appear in the contract 4
for the Center in the operating plan.
It makes no 5
technical sense whatsoever.
6 Hopefully, this sequence does.
Basically, 7
we'll talk first about the KTI on unsaturate'd flow, where 8
we look at things like:
what's the climate over the next 9
10,000 years if that's the period of performance; 10 infiltration into the mountain.
11 How much of that percolates down to the 12 repository level where it then gets impacted by the heat 13 from the emplaced waste and so it provides the input to es 14 the thermal effects on flow KTI; where now we look at 15 things like: is their focus recharged, what's the impact 16 of the heat on perched water at the repositories, issues 17 like DOE's thermal testing program and will it get the 18 information we need to model the transport?
19 Now when this heated water gets close to the 4
20 waste packages, the next technical issue I'm going to talk 21 about in this sequence is the near-field environment of 22 the waste package where we then get into the thermal 23 hydrochemical coupling and the chemical environment that 24 the waste packages are exposed to.
A
~ (_)
25 That's one of the inputs to the waste package NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1
and the source term considerations.
The other is the 2
design of the repository itself; whether or not there's 7s 3
backfill, what the thermal-mechanical response of the rock 4
is and whether that influences the waste package, or how 5
it's taken into account in the waste package design.
j 6
And then with these two sets of inputs we look 7
at the container life and source term.
How long does it 8
take for containers to begin failing?
As containers fail, 9
what's the release rate from the waste packages?
10 Next in turn is radionuclide transport.
How 11 does the contaminated water flow out cf the repository 12 down to the underlying aquifer and to the acceptable 13 environment, the critical group?
Whatever the measure is r'N
\\N ')
14 we'll be using.
15 And basically, that would be the package if 16 all you looked at was undisturbed performance, but we 17 realize there are things that could disrupt the 18 repository.
So there are two KTIs:
the one on igneous 19 activity and the one on structural deformation.
20 Seismicity, then look at geological phenomena that could 21 disrupt the isolation systems, and that's impact on 22 performance.
23 Then when you've done all that you need some 24 standard to compare it against, and so at that point John f%
\\,)
25 Austin would have taken over if we weren't in Nevada with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1
the TRB today.
But Budhi Sagar, the Technical Director at 2
the Center, will talk about the work in the KTI on the EPA i
p_)s
\\
i 3
standards, and then finally, the KTI and total system 1
4 performance and how we integrate the rrogram.
4 5
I know integration is always a problem that --
6 a question that comes up, a concern on people's minds --
7 and we think we've structured our work to try to 8
accomplish that.
Each of these KTIs is worked on by 9
teams, and the teams are all interlocking.
10 There is an individual, for example, on the i
11 container license source term team who is a representative 12 of, or may even be the team lead, from the repository 13 design team and the near-field environment team.
So that A
>\\_)
14 the people who have to provide the inputs are actually 15 represented on the team.
16 And in the same way, there's also somebody on 17 that team from the transport team who's going to take the 18 source term they provide and use the outputs.
And every 19 team has a member of the performance assessment team on 20 it.
21 So with that introduction --
22 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Mike, have the team 23 leaders all been designated?
24 DR. BELL:
Yes, they have, for some time.
In b, /
25 fact, most of them are here today and if you get into very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1
tough questions that require some detailed technical l
f_s 2
answers, I'll be calling on some of them.
Yes, all those
)
l
/
t
\\_J 3
people are, in fact, identified in the annual report.
4 So now, going through things in that order, l
5 Basically, DOE's waste isolation strategy has several i
6 hypotheses that are important to performance; that 7
essentially only small amounts of water will infiltrate 8
the mountain and percolate down to the repository horizon; 9
that fracture flow won't be a significant path *.vay for 10 carrying large amounts of water to the repository horizon.
11 In fact, some DOE conceptual models 12 hypothesize an impermeable layer above the repository 13 using fractures as sort of a gutter and downspout system
\\m-14 to transport the water quickly down past the repository 15 without ever becoming contaminated.
16 That capillary effects will reduce the amount 17 of water that gets into the repository horizon and can 18 impact the waste packages; that in fact, water will, 19 because of capillary effects, be moved out of fractures 20 and into the matrix where then it will have very long 21 transport times.
And that the impacts of climate change 22 over whatever the period of performance is, can be 23 bounded.
24 Looking at that strategy, in our program we I
(~T
(,/
25 have identified the subissues at the bottom.
And in 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
24 1
fiscal '96 and hopefully coming to conclusion in the first 2
half of fiscal
'97, we've been devoting a lot of time on
\\m')
3 the first three items there: the climate change, shallow 4
infiltration, and then of the shallow infiltration, how 5
much percolates down to the repository horizon.
6 Our plan is, in fact, early in this fiscal j
7 year to publish an issue resolution strategy report where 3
we look at the, essentially, what would be acceptable 9
methodologies for looking at things like climate _ change.
10 DOE is investing a lot of money in large 11 global climate models, for example, and is that necessary, 12 and what reliance will be placed on that type of 13 information in their license application versus just
,/~5 14 looking at the paleoclimatic data and the range of past 15 climates and using that information in a, say a more 16 bounding way.
17 The USGS has been spending a lot of effort 18 and in fact we think, making a lot of progress -- on the 19 infiltration issue.
And in fact, their estimates of 20 infiltration have been increasing, and we think we're in 21 fact, apprc one another now in what our estimates 22 would be.
An
's another area where we anticipate 23 being able to reach issue resolution, or put out an Issue 24 Resolution Status Report this fiscal year.
25 Next fiscal year we'll be tackling some 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
25 1
issues at the bottom of the chart, and using things like g3 2
the chlorine-36 data and other geochemical data to verify (v) 3 some of the models and the estimates that are being made 4
5 MEMBER HINZE:
While you're on that point 6
Mike, if I might ask?
Does your staff believe that 7
there's sufficient data available from the DOE at this 8
time, or projected ahead to the middle of the year, that i
9 they will be able to get a handle on the dilution in the 10 saturated zone?
11 DR. BELL:
Well, that's an issue we're 12 addressing, and in fact, it's a shared issue with my staff 13 and the performance assessment staff, and I'm not sure --
O 14 Tim, do you -- I mean, it's an issue that we're 15 addressing.
The question is, do we think we'll be able to 16 resolve that particular issue this fiscal year?
17 MEMBER HINZE:
You may have a result but they 18 don't have enough data by then.
19 DR. McCARTIN:
I mean, we're looking at it 20 from two aspects.
One is the data in terms of information 21 in the saturated zone.
The other aspect is, as Margaret 22 referred to, the strategy in terms of revising Part 60 in 23 the critical group and reference biosphere and things with 24 that, and exactly what will need to be calculated to 25 demonstrate compliance.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1
There's kind of two aspects to it.
There's 2
dilution in the saturated zone but there's also say --
C)
\\v 3
just in the saturated zone isn't enough, you have to pump 4
it through a water well and you get dilution in the well 5
head, and so we're looking at it from a lot of different 6
aspects right now.
7 MEMBER HINZE:
And I guess we'll be hearing 8
from Budhi about some of the results of that, right?
9 DR. McCARTIN:
Tim McCartin of NRC.
No, I 10 don't know if Neil Coleman -- if you want to speak to the 11 data?
I mean, he's the, you know, we've been discussing 12 this --
13 MEMBER HINZE:
They're the team --
O
\\ s#
14 DR. McCARTIN:
-- jointly.
s 15 DR. COLEMAN:
Neil Coleman, NRC.
About how 16 confident we are about the data at the site.
A major part 17 of the issue resolution report that will deal with the 18 saturated zone will be going through all the well data 19 that's available from the site, the hydraulic testing 20 data, the tracer testing that has been done and is still 21 going on.
22 A maior factor that has not been considered in 23 our analyses, in DOE's analyses, is what happens when you 24 physically pump a well.
Especially in the case at Yucca O)
\\,
25 Mountain where you have partial penetration of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1
aquifer.
~
2 You generate -- well, in this case not a O
i 3
spherical pumping pattern but a horizontal ellipsoid that 4
draws in a very large quantity of water, especially in the 5
case of the critical group which -- the scenario we're 6
looking at involves very large discharge wells.
7 That is a case that will maximize the dilution 8
factors.
That has not been considered before and is one 9
of the things we'll look at, especially in that IRSR.
10 MEMBER HINZE:
How far away from the site are 11 you doing these analyses?
How fat is your analysis 12 extending ir the Amargosa Valley?
13 DR. COLEMAN:
Not very far.
It would go out,
- O 14 oh, five to ten kilometers.
Five kilometers is down to J-15 13.
16 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Mike, you may have 17 answered this, but how much are you using the iterative I
18 performance assessment to answer the question with respect 19 to climate, of what climate changes really make a 4
20 difference?
It seems to me that would be a very useful 21 framework within which to deal with the detaile.
22 DR. BELL:
Yes, I think Tim McCartin would 23 like to address that.
24 DR. McCARTIN:
Yes, Tim McCartin once again.
,m i
25 We are looking at, as you'll see, a lot of the issues w
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(702) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 f
28 1
within the KTIs within the next phase 3 of our iterative 2
performance assessment, and we'll be trying to look at the
(
)
3 sensitivity's climate change, and its effect on 4
infiltration is one of those.
5 We're also looking at, you know, with respect 6
to what Neil was saying, with the water wellJ We're 7
looking at a five kilometer location for historical 8
purposes with respect to the old regulation, but also 9
looking at variations of, you know, between 20 and 30 10 kilometers for a group at Amargosa Desert, potentially.
11 But we're trying to explore different things:
12 the aspects of the well; what assumptions about the wells; 13 are we assuming all the contaminants get there?
There's O
N-)
14 many aspects to the aspect of evaluating the doses to a 15 critical group that need to be looked at with respect to 16 small well discharges, large well discharges, etc.
17 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Thank you.
18 DR. BELL:
Well, the things that the staff did 19 in fiscal
'96, much of it is still work-in-progress.
We 20 came up with the first draft of the Issue Resolution 21 Status Report on climate, but basically this is when 22 management decided to take this approach that, as part of 23 the Issue Resolution Status Report after the staff went 24 through its thinking, basically we should then have a f~%
(,)
25 section in the Issue Resolution Status Report that lays NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1
1 out, well, here was the review procedure we used and these 2
were our acceptance criteria, and that's why we think
~
\\
3 we're able to resolve this particular issue.
4 If you recall, one of the casualties of the j
5 budget was our License Application and Review Plan; we're 6
no longer working on the LARP.
And so basically, what we 1
I 7
see ourselves doing in these Issue Resolution Status 8
Reports in part is, building pieces of what will 9
eventually be our Review Plan.
10 We'll have documented the review procedures 11 and acceptance criteria and if at some time in the future 12 we needed to put together a Review Plan for the license 13 application, we could take these from various documents
\\
N/
14 and assemble them into a kind of a License Application 15 Review Plan.
16 Basically, we've been looking at the USGS work 17 on infiltration and percolation in doing some of our own 18 modeling.
It's a collaborative effort between my staff 19 and the performance assessment people.
And as you've 20 heard, we've been looking at the question of the saturated 21 zone di]ation, and you know, for reasons like the things 22 that Neil just described, while the underground -- while 23 the underlying aquifer may not be a well mixed tank, there 24 is credit for mixing due to the pumping at the user n
k) 25 location and such that moves our estimate and DOE's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1
estimate closer together.
j 2
Okay, the next KTI is the thermal effects on g3()
l i
3 flow. Basically, DOE's isolation strategy hypothesizes 4
that thermally induced changes can be bounded and 5
essentially they're relying on the heated repository to 1
6 keep water away from the waste packages and maintain a low 7
relative humidity envircnment for long periods of time.
8 And you know, to investigate this we're 9
looking at issues like gravity-driven refluxing, the 10 adequacy of DOE's thermal modeling.
Because these are 11 very complex systems. I mean, you're really looking at 2-12 phase flow in fracture systems that you have to make 13 approximations to the model, and we want to come to some
('h
'- j 14 agreements on resolution on what are acceptable ways to 15 model these phenomenon.
16 And we have been looking at -- well, the last 17 bullet, adequacy of the DOE thermal loading strategy --
18 what we've really been focused on for the most part, is 19 their thermal testing program.
This combination of a 20 single heater test, the large block tests at Fran Ridge 21 which was off for a while but is now back in the program 22 again.
And finally, the drift scale heater test that DOE 23 is excavating the alcove for at the present time.
24 And just last week I signed out a letter to (3
(,/
25 Steve Brocum -- I'm sure your staff has received them; if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1
they' re distributed yet -- letter commenting on the 2
thermal testing program.
73 k'~')
3 And the points of the letter were essentially, 4
we have no objections to DOE's phased approach.
In fact, 5
we find it acceptable, but we had three particular issues 6
that we commented on.
7 One of which was the concern we have that the 8
way they intend to run the drift scale heater test may not 9
adequately reflect the repository conditions and so they 10 may not see the phenomena that are of concern that have to 11 be modeled for assessing repository performance.
12 Things we have identified that we see we need 13 to do in fiscal '97 and '98 are shown on this slide.
I n
(k ')
14 think I've talked about a number of things in '97.
I 15 guess one of the things that we plan to get into this 16 fiscal ys 'r that is just starting up is when you look at 17 engineered features like backfill, ventilation and such, 18 how to ra.ke these into account.
19 Basically, this " reviewed and agreed with 20 findings" of DOE peer review team is a reference to the 21 letter I mentioned.
DOE had its own independent peer 22 review of their thermal testing and modeling strategy, and 23 basically a number of the comments that they raised, in 24 fact we agreed with and included in the letter that I sent n(j 25 to DOE.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1
The second bullet there in fact, is the 2
concerns that I mentioned about the fact that, in order to
~_
V 3
accelerate the testing they are going to drive the 4
temperatures much higher than you'll see in the repository 5
in the drift scale heater test.
6 And as a result, that may be much more i
7 effective at drying out the system and therefore you won't 8
see the phenomena that could impact performance, like 9
gravity-driven refluxing.
10 The next item is now moving down closer to the 11 waste packages -- what happens in the near-field.
12 Basically, DOE is relying on low seepage into the drifts, i
13 that after waste packages do begin to fail the release s
ss 14 from the waste packages would be low and that transport 15 away from the drifts to the accessible environment to the 16 underlying aquifer would take place at very low rates.
17 A number of subissues we're investigating:
18 near-field chemical effects and how they impact the 19 containment by the waste package; once waste packages fail 20 how radionuclides enter the water and are transported away 21 from the waste packages.
22 Our plans for making progress and resolving 23 this issue are to publish the Issue Resolution Status 24 Report this year on thermal hydrological chemical
-~
(,)
25 processes.
In order to do that we'll be looking at DOE's 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 33 1
geochemical models and developing our own for how the l
2 species interact between the natural systems
-- the rock p._
l (',)
3 and the engineered materials.
4 In not only the waste package but other j
1 l
5 materials that are introduced into the repository like the 6
large amounts of concrete, organic materials that may 7
enter inadvertently coming from spills or things that get 8
left behind.
9 MEMBER HORNBERGER:
Mike, how much of that 4
10 kind of work has DOE accomplished already?
The i
11 geochemical analysis of conc.ete and organics and 12 everything else?
13 DR. BELL:
Well, I'm going to ask Neil to give
'ul 14 his opinion, but this is one of the areas in DOE's own 15 program when their budget was cut that was also reduced i
16 significantly.
And I guess -- what's your judgment Neil, 17 on --
18 DR. COLEMAN:
I'm sorry, I didn't hear your 19 question.
I couldn't hear you when you spoke.
20 MEMBER HO: 'ERGER:
I'm sorry.
I was curious 21 about -- my question was, how much work has DOE done on 22 geochemical analyses related to external materials like 23 concrete and organics?
l l
24 DR. COLEMAN:
That particular question I'm
(,)
25 going to turn over to Bret -- Bret Leslie.
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 34 1
DR. LESLIE:
Bret Leslie from the NRC -- the l
2 team lead on this issue.
They have done some work.
The i
1
~#
3 problem has been that they haven't brought it into their l
l 4
modeling.
They've done it kind of offline, haven't 5
integrated it in any sense into their performance.
6 MEMBER HINZE:
While you're interrupted there 7
Mike, I noticed the data synthesis report -- at one time 8
the DOE was going to produce these data synthesis reports 9
and process model.
What are you receiving on that and 10 what is the result to your program, of any lack of these 11 reports?
12 DR. BELL:
Yes, actually, I think this last 13 bullet is in fact, the review of the data synthesis rx t]
\\
14 report, isn't that right, Bret?
15 DR. LESLIE:
That's correct, i
16 MEMBER HINZE:
Do you have those reports and 17 how are they coming in?
18 DR. BELL:
Oh, in the mail.
I'm not sure I 19 understand your question.
20 (Laughter.)
1 21 MEMBER HINZE:
Do you have any and how many do 22 you have?
l 23 DR. BELL:
I wasn't expecting that question.
l l
24 Most of the ones that they had scheduled have come in.
r~(s_)
25 The one notable report that I'm aware of that got delayed 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
35 1
was the one on igneous activity.
When they, I guess that 2
during internal review they found some difficulties with f~s i
1
'G 3
it and withdrew it.
4 I mean, we can get you that answer.
Rather 5
than stand here and --
6 MEMBER HINZE:
Well, in addition to getting 7
the answer, could we see one of those reports?
We were --
8 LR. BELL:
You're not getting them?
9 MEMBER HINZE:
We have not seen them.
And we 10 were unaware that they were even coming across the desk --
11 NRC's desk.
12 DR. BELL:
I guess I'm puzzled.
You know, 13 even if they aren't sending you them directly, they ought g,]
!\\/
14 to be going into our RIDS system.
Is that what it's still 15 called?
Going into our RIDS system and getting 16 distributed internally.
17 MEMBER HINZE:
At least I would be interested 18 in looking at a couple of these to see what they're 19 coverage is, that type of thing and so forth.
20 DR. BELL:
And our intent is to publish Issue 21 Resolution Status Report next fiscal year on the impacts 22 of these man-made materials and I guess one of the things 23 we are looking at with -- I guess in both this KTI and the 24 container life and source term KTI is the impact of micro-()
(_)
25 organisms that might be present in the repository.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1
Some of the things that we did in FY96.
We 2
looked at the sensitivity of some of these phenomena on fs
?
)
v 3
coupled effects.
We had some concerns that we've 4
identified in the equivalent continuum models that DOE is 5
using for some of its assessment.
You see the points 6
there.
7 In the repository design and thermal-8 mechanical effects, I guess this is the first one we've 9
come to now where we've been impacted by the budget.
Our 10 Center support in this area is being phased out.
Some of 11 the -- I still have staff, one engineer working in this 12 area.
13 Some of the modeling work and analysis work
( ~'N 4
f I
\\/
14 the Center was doing was being phased out and I guess, 15 transitioned into the performance assessment KTI, but 16 essentially our Center support in this area is about gone.
l 17 The isolation-type issues that we're looking 18 into in this KTI basically had to do with performance of 19 engineered barriers to prevent moisture from reaching the 20 waste packages after waste packages failed to limit 21 migration from the repository.
22 This KTI was also the area where we looked at 23 a number of design and QA-type questions.
Some of the 24 things that my staff is still doing, for example, is (G,/
25 looking at DOE's design control process of its QA program, t
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBEM 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
37 1
and we have this outstanding issue that's a couple of 2
years old and how regulatory requirements are reflected in
'V 3
DOE's design documents.
j l
4 In fact, at the very end of the fiscal year we l
5 received a submittal from DOE on that topic that was 6
intended to address our outstanding concerns and it's just 7
a matter of having the manpower to review that document.
8 Also in this area is where the review of DOE's 9
topical report on its seismic design methodology is taking 10 place.
You know, DOE had submitted an earlier topical 11 report on its probabilistic hazard assessment methodology 12 where they were proposing to employ a probabilistic hazard 13 assessment methodology much like the new Appendix S to
(~'i
(_ /
14 Part 100 would employ for reactors.
I I
15 We reviewed that report, accepted the 16 methodology and wrote an Issue Resolution Status Report on 3
l 17 that one last year.
Now we have the second report on how l
18 they're going to take the design inputs and use it in the 19 design of both the surface structures and underground i
20 structures.
21 This review is underway.
It's one of the 1
22 things we're still trying to accomplish with our reduced i
23 resources, but the schedule is impacted.
24 The things we intend to try to accomplish in A(,)
25 FY97 in order to resolve some of the design and 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
38 1
mechanical issues with DOE art in fact:
try to complete 2
the review of this report on their design control process,
,,_s
)
3 issue an Issue Resolution Status Report on that, complete 4
the review of the seismic design methodology report.
5 We have to continue to review DOE's design 6
documents, in part because that information is input to 7
other KTIs.
I mean, if they change their conceptual 8
designs that has to be reflected in either the performance 9
assessment work or the waste package design work.
10 Basically that kind of work still needs to go on.
11 The possible future work down there really 12 depends on whether or not the budget in this area gets 13 restored.
[
\\
\\m/
14 Most of the accomplishment I guess here, are 15 all still work-in-progress.
We had several interactions 16 with DOE on the topical report on seismic design, meetings 17 and -- we regularly take up the design control process in 18 our quarterly ESF meetings with DOE.
And basically in 19 fiscal '96 we're working on trying to bring those topics 4
20 to closure.
21 Work on parametric study of drift stability is 22 sr.ne of the work I mentioned that is being closed out and, 23 I guess completed in the total system performance 24 assessment KTI.
Essentially, we were doing work to
/~s
(
)
25 develop a joint constitutive model that will be used in v
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1
thermal-mechanical analyses and basically that work is --
2 at least be deferred until the budget situation changes.
fs
(
)
' ~ ~ ' '
3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Mike, a couple of quick 4
questions.
In terms of when the IRSRs are going to be 5
available, I see mid-FY97 year for most of the ones we've 6
seen so far, and I wonder if that's true.
We're about 7
four months into FY97 now -- three or four months.
Are we 8
going to see all of these status reports in another few 9
months?
10 DR. BELL:
I think the one on topical report 11 number 2 is likely to be doable.
That won't happen for 12 the one on design control work because the one staff 13 member I have is working on the other topic.
But it will
( ~/)
k-14 be in FY97.
And I don't know, were ymt just mainly 15 concerned about this KTI or were you asking that question 16 about other --
17 MEMBER HINZE:
Well, I just saw that you're 18 going to be producing all of these in mid-FY97.
19 DR. BELL:
Well for example, the one on 20 climate, we had a draft the last fiscal year; basically 21 the management said, well, that's a good try but we've got 22 this better idea; why don't you go redo it?
In fact, I 23 think we're near completion.
24 MEMBER HINZE:
The other thing is more
,/ -
(j 25 general, Mike.
I'll put the questions this way.
Has the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W l
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 L
l 40 1
DOE formally conveyed to you their change in the footprint 2
of the repository?
That is, that the repository will be
,s 3
entirely to the west of the Ghost Dance Fault and extend 4
further to the north, in order to provide the necessary --
5 the accommodation for the -- in other words, they've 6
changed the configuration.
7 DR. BELL:
Yes, they've changed the 8
configuration and --
9 MEMBER HINZE:
Have they conveyed it to you 10 formally?
11 DR. BELL:
-- if by formally conveying it you
]
12 mean have they come up with a new conceptual design 13 document with a different layout, I don't think they have.
s/
14 MEMBER HINZE:
I guess that was my question.
15 But what do you work with?
I mean, that affects a couple 16 of the KTIs that we've been talking about in some ways, in 17 terms of where the data is for some of the infiltration 18 and so forth.
19 DR. BELL:
Well, the work we were describing 20 that was done in '96 was really done under the previous 21 advance conceptual design.
22 MEMBER HINZE:
Okay, let me ask you this 23 question.
Does a change in the conceptual design or the 24 conceptual footprir
'f the repository, affect -- you gs,,
! )
25 know, are you going tc have to change any of this work to NEAL R. GROST COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1
take into account that change?
2 DR. BELL:
Not that I can identify right now, 7
s, 3
but it's a good question.
4 MEMBER HINZE:
When they do convey something 5
to you formally, could we get a copy of it?
6 DR. BELL:
Okay.
Yes, certainly.
7 MEMBER HINZE:
Thank you.
8 DR. BELL:
Basically, the next KTI on the 9
container life and source term, DOE's waste containment 10 and isolation strategy is based on having very long-lived 11 waste packages that are designed to last for a thousand or 12 more years, and that when these waste packages fail that 13 the release rates will be very slow.
O 14 The design does include a double-walled 15 container that has an outer general corrosion material and 16 inner corrosion resistant-type material that they are 17 relying on to provide galvanic protection of the inner 1
18 package.
Our program to look into these has identified 19 the subissues at the bottom of this chart.
20 Essentially the corrosion mechanisms, the 21 efficiency of their galvanic protection designs.
An issue 22 that always arises is when you have short-term data how do l
23 you use this to make long-term projections of performance?
24 As I mentioned earlier we're looking at
(~'s (j
25 microbiological corrosion and once waste packages fail NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
42 1
we're looking at phenomena like dissolution rates and the 2
impact of secondary mineral formations and formation c
3 colloids on release rates.
4 Now, this is another area, unfortunately, j
l 5
where as a result of the reduced budget, the work at the 6
Center has been cut.
I still have about two-and-a-half 7
staff on my own staff working on this, and some of the 8
work that the Center was doing has been picked up in other 9
KTIs.
Like some of the corrosion work is being completed 10 in the near-field KTI; some of the work on the models has 11 transferred into the total system performance KTI.
12 This was an area where the Center had a large I
13 effort; I think about the equivalent of five FTEs.
And I)
\\_/
14 even with the work that's been transferred, it's probably 15 less than two.
Is that about right?
16 During FY96, I think you'll see in the next 17 chart, one of the things we did was put out a NUREG report 18 on dry oxidation and whether or not it's an important 19 phenomenon to be considered in the waste package design.
20 It's potentially a mechanism that even if DOE was 1
21 successful in keeping low humidity, could begin corrosion 22 of waste package, and we plan to publish an Issue 23 Resolution Status Report on this.
24 Listed below are areas where we would plan to j
rh( )
25 do future work but essentially we're resource limited.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
'02) 234-4433 j
43 1
A number of the accomplishments that were 2
achieved in this KTI in FY96 related to development of a 7.
(
I
\\~#
3 computer model called EBSPAC, which is the model the staff 4
plans to use to evaluate waste package performance and 5
calculate the release rates in doing its own independent 6
assessment of DOE's waste package designs.
7 The Center completed development of that code 8
and turned it over to NRC at the end of FY9C.
It didn't 9
have all the modules in it that we had originally 10 anticipated, and basically, how we're proceeding now is, 11 my staff is attempting in-house, to complete some of the 12 development of that code.
13 It's basically intended to be either used as
(\\
\\_
14 part of the TSPA code, or if it's just too large and slow 15 to use it directly in the TSPA code, then to be used as an 16 offline code to do detailed calculations that then would 17 be abstracted and used in total system performance code.
18 This work is a key part of assessing DOE's 19 waste package design and how the waste package performance 20 affects the total system and its work that we've got to 21 continue in-house, and hopefully it would be an area where 22 I think if the resources at the Center got restored, it l
23 would be one of the first things that we would resume.
24 The next KTI, radionuclide transport.
C'
(,\\/
25 Basically how, after waste packages fail and contaminated 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
44 1
liquid is transported away, how the natural barrier will 2
delay, absorb the radionuclides and impact what eventually
,-~x i
}
~'
3 might reach the critical group.
4 A major subissue here is the flow of the 5
contaminated material through fractures and how 6
radioactive material might be retarded or absorbed in a 7
fracture flow system rather than a porous flow system.
8 Some of the things we plan to do in this KTI 9
are identify what are the key radionuclides impacting 10 performance.
Now we expect to have a new performance 11 measure, a dose standard rather than a release standard, 12 so some of the key radionuclides that we need to focus on 13 may be different from the things that we did under the old f)
kj 14 EPA standard.
15 Reach some agreement or resolution w 5 DOE on
]
l 16 what are reasonable numbers for retardation of absorption 17 of these key radionuclides.
This of course, is important
)
18 input to our total system performance models.
Within this 19 we get into the details of the question of isometrical 20 flows through the fracture.
Does matrix diffusion really 21 take place or does material remain in the fractures and 22 get transported more quickly?
23 The one individual as you note at the bottom -
j 24
- this is another area where the Center support has been A!s_j 25 cut -- the one individual who's left working in this area NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
45 1
has also been looking at the mixing / dilution issue and 2
also the chlorine-36 data on the transport of material
(
)
3 through fractures.
4 I guess this is also the area where we had 5
been looking at pneumatic pathways.
6 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Mike, if you believe 7
the performance assessment, hasn't this been reduced to a 8
very small number of radionuclides that you have to worry 9
about?
i 10 DR. BELL:
Hopefully.
i 11 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Depending on the i
12 percolation rate as far as the peak risk is concerned, 13 it's driven by either neptunium or technetium.
Does it go (D
\\
4
'd 14 much beyond that?
15 DR. BELL:
Well, yes, I think there's still a 16 few more nuclides we're looking at.
I see Tim shaking his 17 head back there.
Do you want to identify a few more for 18 Dr. Garrick?
19 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Well, I'm thinking of 20 the things that really drive the issue of peak risk way 21 out of time.
As I say, the TSPA-95 seemed to say that 22 that was pretty much those two radionuclides.
23 DR. McCARTIN:
Neptunium and technetium are 24 important but there are other radionuclides that we're
!()
25 looking -- we have approximately 20 to 28 that we'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
46 1
looking at.
Part of'it's tied to, what do you want to 2
believe for retardation and whether it's in fractures or
,sU 3
matrix, and that does have an impact.
Neptunium, 4
certainly there's a lot of it, it's very mobile, it's 5
slightly retarded.
Technetium is the same way.
But we're 6
looking at others.
7 DR. BELL:
And I guess some of the things we 8
did accomplish in FY96.
I think the Center published a 9
general article on neptuniumsorption.
The, I guess " smart 10 Ka" approach to sorption modeling.
11 If you've got detailed questions on that I'll 12 have to ask John to explain that a little better.
John 13 Bradbury's been this individual on my staff who's been
,,1 ti/
14 following the work on the chlorine-36 that's been observed 15 down at the repository horizon.
16 And basically, what work will continue to be 17 done in this KTI will essentially all be showing up under 18 other KTIs.
I think there is a statement in the annual 19 report that at least one member of the ACNW staff found 20 alarming in that it read like we're not going to be doing 21 anything all in transport anymore.
22 I still have the one individual on my staff 23 who will be doing the same kinds of things but his, 24 basically his activities will be done now under the total O) 25 system performance KTI or the near-field flow.
There were is, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 47 1
so little resources left in this that it just did not make guess fiscal sense, to budget for it.
It's a 2
good i
7s 3
fraction of an FTE on my staff.
4 Now we turn to the two KTIs that could 5
potentially disrupt the repository system; igneous i
6 activity being one.
This is an area where we devoted a 7
lot of attention to and we think made a lot of progress.
8 In fact, DOE itself devoted a lot of attention to the 9
probability question in FY96 and conducted a probabilistic 10 volcanic hazard assessment, published a report on that 11 topic.
12 And basically it's an area where we think it's 13 right for resolution, between the work the DOE has done on
/~S l
5 1
\\s /
14 the probability of volcanism and the work that we've been 15 doing at the Center.
We have different approaches, 16 different viewpoints, but there is an intersection of what i
1 17 they think the range of the probability might be and what 18 we think the range of probabilities might be.
And so next 19 month in fact, we have a techno-exchange scheduled with 20 them where we hope to make some progress on resolving this 3
21 1ssue.
j 1
22 The Center has also been doing work on l
1 23 consequence models for volcanism.
They've both developed l
I 24 a model for the dispersal of radioactive materials due to
]
T
(,)
25 a volcanic event at the repository, and then using natural t
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-37C1 (202) 234-4433
48 1
analog volcanoes, calibrated this, and we think developed 2
an assessment tool for looking at consequences of I' ')
3 volcanism that would be very useful to the licensing 4
staff.
5 During our techno-exchange with DOE next month 6
we also plan to lay out for them the work we have been 7
doing.
DOE's work has focused more on the probability of 8
volcanism, and recently has not done consequence modeling, 9
and I guess we'd like to reach some agreement on what the 10 kinds of consequence models might make sense for them to 11 look at, in either their TSPA that they do for the 12 viability assessment, or certainly the one they do at time 13 of licensing.
O_)
14 One of the things we had planned to be doing 15 by this time was reviewing DOE's synthesis report on 16 igneous activity, but I think as I mentioned earlier, l
17 that's been delayed.
And so one of the things we'll be 18 talking about next month is, what's the status of that 19 document?
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Does your staff know 21 whethsr they're doing any work on consequences, currently?
22 DR. BELL:
Not that we're aware of.
In fact, 23 I guess what our understanding is, that many of the staff 24 who actually were doing the volcanism work at DOE are no (3
(,)
25 loner on the program.
Now, that doesn't mean that there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1
aren't staff who have backgrounds in geology and igneous es 2
activity working as part of their TSPA team doing that
(
\\
\\,)
3 kind of work.
In fact, we hope to probe those kinds of 4
questions next month.
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Right.
We'll be there with 6
you.
7 DR. BELL:
In the annual report the Center 8
describes models that they developed for estimating the 9
probability of volcanism, how they relate it to the 10 structural features at the site and the past record that, 11 I guess we think makes a strong case for supporting an 12 approach to estimating the probability of volcanism 13 disrupting the repository.
And we'll be discussing this f^g
'u 14 next month with DOE and discussing their probabilistic 15 volcanic hazard assessment.
4 16 One of the things we hr.ve been doing is -- the 17 question that always comes up is. well you have this low 18 probability but potentially high consequence events.
What 19 does it mean as far as performance is concerned?
20 And so the Center has been conducting for us, 21 sensitivity studies, and one of the things we --
22 unfortunately this is still work-in-progress.
We don't 23 have a good answer to that question yet, but we're doing 24 the work to eventually answer for ourselves at least, what f~%
q,)
25 is the contribution of igneous activity to total system NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIB' IRS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1
performance?
2 In the work that's been done so far we've
,3 i
)
'~'
3 identified some key parameters in the models.
- Clearly, 4
how many waste packages would get affected, disrupted.
5 When material gets incorporated into the erupted material, 6
what the particle sizes might be.
That has a big 7
influence on how far material might get transported.
And 8
the incorporation ratio is another factor.
9 Another potentially disruptive event that 10 we've been considering is the impact of structural 11 deformation and seismicity.
This KTI in fact, was the 12 area where we reviewed DOE's topical report number 1 on 13 the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment methodology.
,-)
t\\~/
14 DOE is now, in fact, in the process of 15 implementing that methodology, conducting a series of 16 expert solicitations where they're now using it to come up 17 with what they're going to use as the seismic inputs and 18 the fault displacements that ought to be considered in 19 their designs and in their analyses.
20 My staff is -- and in fact, both my staff and 21 the performance assessment staff have been observing 22 these.
And I think this whole area of seismic hazard 23 assessment methodology, design methodology, and eventually 24 the inputs, are areas where it looks like agreement is
,\\
i
\\
(_)
25 achievable and it's just a matter of continuing to observe NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1
the processes that DOE is carrying out.
, ~g 2
Another important activity in this KTI is (v) 3 basically the understanding you have of the geology of 4
Yucca Mountain.
What are acceptable tectonic models?
5 There are still a number of alternative conceptual models 6
for the geology of the site, and depending on which model 7
you use, you could have a large range in the impacts on 8
performance.
9 During this period we had a, I guess an 10 Appendix 7 meeting on that topic, with DOE, and I guess 11 narrowed the range of viable tectonic models for the Yucca 12 Mountain site.
And this is an area where this fiscal year 13 we think we could publish an Issue Resolution Status
?
i
'd 14 Report that, I guess had the tone that you ought to 15 consider at least these alternative conceptual models.
16 Basically, the second bullet would be the 17 fallout of our review of the work DOE is doing to 18 implement its probabilistic seismic hazard assessment 19 methodology.
And as I mentioned, I think -- basically 20 we've already agreed on the overall methodology.
If they 21 apply it the way we think it was intended to be applied, 22 we should be able to reach agreement on this and in fact, 23 in the schedule it will be useful for DOE's viability 24 assessment.
,-U 25 And the last bullet you notice, this is 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
52 1
area where again, there are linkages between our 2
understanding of the geologic models and other KTIs, and
\\'-
3 in fact, the relationship between faults and the 4
probability of volcanic disruption.
5 (Slide) 6 MR. BELL:
One of the outputs of this would 7
be, in fact, an input to the EBSPAC code, some measure of 8
the probability and magnitude of a faulting event that 9
might disrupt the actual emplacement area in the 10 repository and cause a release that would need to be 11 considered in total system performance.
12 And I guess within this, there are also 13 linkages between what we understand about the fracture r3/
- 's_/
14 system as far as geologists and what the geologists can 15 tell the hydrologists about how that might be important 16 for flow.
17 Finally, the last bullet, we have been 18 developing a three-dimensional geologic information system 19 database that I think you've had demonstrated up on the 20 seventh floor in our computer center.
If you haven't, you 21 should.
22 We keep adding to it.
It started out 23 basically with geologic and faulting information.
They're 24 now starting to add things like the water, location of the (m
(,)
25 water, table.
And you can observe things in three NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1
dimensions that were really hard to visualize reading it 2
in reports and seeing two-dimensional figures.
73 t
)
3 (Slide) 4 MR. BELL:
The I guess listed -- each of these 5
I think has resulted in -- well, let's see.
The 6
identified Type I faults have resulted in a center 7
publication, where basically they looked at the faults 8
within a large radius of the Yucca Mountain site and their 9
historical activity and identified the faults.
10 The Type I fault is one that would need to be 11 considered in repository performance.
Essentially, it was 12 large enough, had moved recently enough that it would 13 impact the seismic design of the repository.
-m 14 Okay.
And I think that would be a good time 15 for me to stop and turn it over to Budhi, but I'd be happy 16 to answer any questions while I'm still up here.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Questions?
Go ahead.
18 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
On the thermal load 19 issue, I take it that it still is one that has 20 considerable uncertainty associated with it.
Is the 21 uncertainty mostly related to the effect of temperature on 22 the containment performance capability of the repository 23 or is a considerable amount of the uncertainty still due 24 to the inventory and the heat load itself; that is, the
(']?
x y 25 source?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1
And if it's the latter, if that's a 2
significant contribution, what consideration is being l
c
.s 1
(
\\
\\J 3
given to being able to control that given the increased 4
tendency towards an interim storage facility?
It would 5
seem that that would be an issue that you could bound very 6
easily if you could control the feed into the repository, 7
which you surely could do with very simple measurements if 8
you had an interim storage facility?
9 I've asked several questions.
10 MR. BELL:
Well, actually I probably should 11 have cut you off and say it's really the former.
One of 12 the issues that we had with DOE about this time last year 13 is they were looking at a range of thermal loads and you 14 could never get them to tell you whether they were talking i
15 about a cold repository or a hot repository.
16 One of the things they have done in Fiscal '96 i
17 is they have picked the heat loading.
And so basically 18 there is a reference number now that we're looking at.
19 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
So that would imply 20 that they are committed to controlling the feed into the 21 repository.
Otherwise, how would they be able to pick a 22 number?
23 MR. BELL:
Well, let's see.
I've got all 24 kinds of people jumping up.
(,f 25 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200GS-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1
MR. BELL:
Let's see.
Jeff, do you want to --
rx 2
MR. POHLE:
Jeff Pohle, NRC staff.
e
\\
G' 3
I was in Albuquerque last week and observed 4
one of the abstraction workshops.
And this one was on the 5
thermal hydrology.
No discussions of controlling the feed 6
due to on-site storage.
I think there was an assumption, 7
at least the people who were doing the work were in a 8
sense assuming, no controls that whatever comes in has to 9
go in the repository.
10 So they're doing a lot of modeling work l
11 looking at line sources and the drift or where the i
12 containers are butted almost together as a heat source and 13 then as point sources, where there's some distance.
And
[,_>h
\\-
14 they're talking about:
What if we put in some of the l
15 defense waste in between?
And you start to get into this i
16 hot / cold, hot / cold, hot / cold.
And that could channel 17 moisture toward the colder packages.
They're still 18 looking at all of these alternatives calculational.
19 That's as far as I can tell you.
I don't know 20 the planning.
And maybe Rick can tell you.
21 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
My only point there is 22 that that part of the problem would be -- it seems to me 23 there's great opportunity for minimizing the uncertainty 24 associated with that part of the problem.
(_,)
25 MR. POHLE:
Yes.
They made it clear, at least NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1
the people who have to do the calculations.
There is a 2
lot of uncertainty in the waste stream to them.
So G
3 they're dealing with it, but, like I say, there were no 4
discussions on controlling that through other ways.
5 MR. BELL:
But I would say for our technical 6
program, I'd say we would approach that as, well, that's 7
an engineering --
8 VICE CilAIRMAN GARRICK:
Yes.
9 MR. BELL:
-- qtastion.
I mean, we're focused
- )
10 more on the physical phenomenon, the couplings and such, 11 and the ability of tne model, the impact of heat on the 12 hydrology, the chemistry.
13 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Yes.
My only point is O
k-14 that if there are opportunities for fixing some of these
~
15 things, how much attention is being given to those 16 opportunities.
And why are we not putting more effort to 17 reducing the uncertainties about which we have some 18 flexibility and control over?
19 Part of your answer is that that's not the 20 greater source of uncertainty, it's more on the 21 containmtnt end than the inventory end.
But I :hink the 22 gentleman who was just up there did say they still haven't 23 resolved the inventory question yet.
24 MR. WELLER:
Dr. Garrick, Rick Weller from the i
(,_j 25 NRC.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1
Let me mention a couple of other things that 2
are important in this consideration.
And one is the 7_
(\\~')
3 period of operations.
I hear DOE now talking about a 4
150-year period of operation in which with the operation 5
of a ventilation system, they can dissipate that heat for 6
a longer period of time.
Right now they're committed to a 7
minimum operational period of 100 years.
8 The other important consideration is the use 9
of backfill.
And when you place that backfill, if your 10 strategy is to dissipate as much heat up front before you 11 close the repository and place backfill if indeed DOE 12 intends to use backfill late in that period, that's 13 another opportunity to dissipate that heat before they k/
14 essentially create somewhat of an adiabatic system by 15 placing backfill in the repository.
16 So those are a couple of things that DOE is 17 considering to minimize that impact as best they can.
18 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Other questions.
Bill?
20 MEMBER HINZE:
Yes.
Just to make a point, 21 Mike, I want to draw your attention to the fact that there 22 is a spelling error in the caption of Page 486.
We're 23 trying.
Okay?
Maybe a little too trying.
24 A few general questions that will help me to O) 25 get a flavor of what is going on with the KTI and the y
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1
vertical slice approach.
You have terminated, at least 1
2 for the time being, activities on some of the ten KTIs, if
-s
\\_s/
3 I understand correctly, because of budgetary problems.
4 What I haven't heard here is whether you 5
anticipate closing out and reaching issue resolution with 6
DOE on any of these KTIs during this next fiscal year or 7
will they all be achieved in '98?
What's looking ahead l
8 here?
)
9 MR. BELL:
The three KTIs where the budget has 10 been cut, we --
11 MEMBER HINZE:
I'm talking about them all.
l 12 MR. BELL:
Oh, them all.
Okay.
13 MEMBER HINZE:
All of them, looking ahead.
\\ss/
14 MR. BELL:
Well, basically the things we laid 15 out are things that we think are important to do and are 16 doable by the time of the viability assessment.
By the 17 time of licensing, essentially not only these ten KTIs but 18 all the other things in the program that were cut in the 19 last round of budget cuts are back on the table.
20 MEMBER HINZE:
You anticipate all of these 21 remaining on your KTI list until --
22 MR. BELL:
Oh, yes.
Those are issues.
I 23 mean, the issues haven't gone away.
The issues are still 24 there.
They're just --
b) 25 MEMBER HINZE:
That clarifies it.
(_
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1
MR. BELL:
-- being worked on at a reduced 2
- level, fm e
1 N_)
3 MEMBER HINZE:
What's in the wings?
What's in 4
the wings?
One of the concerns about the KTI thit j
5 certainly was addressed by everyone was:
Maybe we're 6
missing something here.
There are holes in w.at we're 7
doing or holes in what DOE is doing.
Your budget was 8
ramped up.
9 Do you have any idea of what the next KTI that 10 would be added to this list of --
11 MR. BELL:
We're hopeful we might we able to 12 get back to these ten.
You're saying:
Well, if there 13 were an lith, --
,O
\\
l 14 MEMBER HINZE:
Yes, right.
15 MR. BELL:
-- what would that be?
I don't 16 remeinber, but when we went and identified these ten KTIs, 17 we went through a systematic process.
There is a list.
18 And somewhere there is --
19 MEMBER HINZE:
But as a result of one of the 20 ingredients that we were enamored with, or at least I was 21 enamored with, is that the KTI and the vertical slice 22 approach had this flexibility so that we would learn as we 23 went along and perhaps develop KTIs.
24 We have learned there have been some really r~
(,%)
25 significant changes, as you pointed out, in what DOE has 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 60 1
learned in the last year.
The window is changing.
l
-s 2
MS. FEDERLINE:
Mike, can I respond?
b,f g
l 3
MEMBER HINZE:
Does this lead us to other i
i 4
KTIs?
I 5
MS. FEDERLINE:
I think we feel, we felt at 6
the time we came up with the KTIs, that these are the big 7
picture issues.
I mean, we have been studying the 8
mountain for a long time, as has DOE.
9 I think where we're seeing some shift in lo emphasis is the change in the vertical slices within the 11 issues.
And that is becoming apparent to us as we follow 12 DOE's program.
As Tim McCartin would say, as we develop 13 the standard, as we understand, as it becomes clear what kl 14 critical group we are working with, there are changes in 15 the vertical slices that are going to occur.
16 But in terms of the big picture issues, Mike 17 and Budhi can answer, but I don't see any fatal flaws 18 coming down the pike.
At least we haven't recognized one 19 to date that would suggest we would be adding an lith 20 issue.
21 MEMBER HINZE:
You've answered, in part, my 22 next question.
And that is you've completed your first 23 full year of looking at a number of these KTIs.
What 24 about lessons learned internally?
What about integration?
25 What lessons have you learned about the integration NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1
problem?
That was brought up.
What have you learned 2
about your interactions with DOE?
What is the --
[3\\
~
3 MR. BELL:
It's a shame John Thoma isn't 4
following me directly.
That's exactly the kinds of 5
questions we've been asking and that he's going to share 6
with you.
7 I mean, some of it's not as good as we had 8
hoped, but, as you say, it was our first year.
And we're 9
looking at how well we worked and where there were 10 weaknesses and trying to improve it.
But I think we ought 11 to just let that wait until John's presentation and let --
12 MEMBER HINZE:
We can defer.
13 MR. BELL:
-- Budhi finish up this part of the I'/
14 presentation.
15 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Anything else?
16 (No response.)
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Margaret, can I interject 18 here?
As you know, we're going to talk to you and John 19 Greeves.
20 MS. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
You're on the schedule at 22 10:45.
Do we have sufficient time to hear everything that 23 we need to?
24 MS. FEDERLINE:
Yes, yes.
As we understood
(,h) 25 it, you were willing for this part to run over by perhaps r
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1
15 minutes and then John would run over by perhaps 15 2
minutes.
We had discussed that with your staff.
f_
3 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Right.
4 MS. FEDERLINE:
Is that still agreeable?
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
That's still valid.
6 Welcome, Budhi.
7 MR. SAGAR:
Thank you.
Thank you.
8 (Slide) 9 MR. SAGAR:
Good morning.
My name is Budhi 10 Sagar.
And I work at the Center for Nuclear Waste 11 Regulatory Analysis in San Antonio.
John Austin couldn't 12 be here as he's in Nevada attending the NWTRB meeting.
So 13 it's my duty to present the last two of the ten KTIs.
'x_)
14 I would support Margaret's earlier view that 15 when we sat as a board to choose the ten KTI issues, I 16 think we covered most of the issues we could think about 17 that are important to performance.
And I don't see 18 bringing in new issues, even though, depending on the 19 budget constraints, emphasis within an issue would change.
20 And that essentially means the vertical slice approach.
21 The emphasis might change.
22 The night KTI we talk about is the EPA 23 standard KTI, which is slightly different from the other 24 nine KTIs in the sense that this is not directly related
.r%
( )
25 to assessing the performance.
This is related to setting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-443.
WAbrilNGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1
a standard, the EPA standard, and then eventual i
2 modification or revision of the 10 CFR 60.
,s
)
3 All parties to the ways to program are, of 4
course, affected by the EPA standard, including NRC and 5
DOE.
And the primary NRC interest is to assure that the 6
standard that would be set would be implementable, that it 7
would be practical in a manner that you don't have to go 8
through many gyrations to establish whether the standard 9
is met or not.
10 There are four main subissues that were 11 defined that are of importance in setting the standard.
i 12 The compliance period is one.
There's a question whether 13 you should look for the peak risk time or you should set a n.
i
(
)
x/
14 period up front, like 10,000 years.
15 The selection of the critical group, the 16 location of the critical group, the definition of the l
17 critical group is another one.
How to evaluate the human 18 intrusion, whether there's a stylized scenario, or to 19 include this in the overall dose calculation is the other 20 issue.
And should we or shouldn't we define disruptive 21 events up front in the rule or should we leave it open to 22 be defined later is the other last one that we looked at.
23 The primary way we did all this is to do some 24 analysis, preliminary analysis, ourselves and then provide k
25 the results to EPA, discuss the results with the EPA staff 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 64 l
l 1
so they would have that in their hands while they i
I 2
formulate a standard.
7-~
I N',I 3
(Slide) 4 MR. SAGAR:
We intend to continue that 5
interaction with EPA.
I don't know the latest status of i
6 where the draft EPA standard is.
It went to the OMB, I 7
understood.
But maybe some NRC staff could update us on 8
that issue.
I don't know where that is.
9 MS. FEDERLINE:
Tim McCartin is our liaison 10 with EPA.
11 MR. McCARTIN:
Yes.
No, the standard has not 12 gone to OMB.
13 MR. SAGAR:
Oh, it has not?
- -)
14 MR. McCARTIN:
Yes, it's still at EPA.
15 They're still discussing certain aspects of it.
We would 16 hope it gets soon to OMB, but we don't have a date as yet.
17 MR. SAGAR:
Okay.
On the time period of 18 interest, we thought of four different factors that might 19 affect the choice.
The relative radioactive hazard is a 20 purely technical aspect of it, which is:
Could we look at 21 at what time does the hazard equal or is similar to that 22 of an old body, for example?
And maybe that would b-an 23 appropriate time for the compliance period.
24 The peak dose if that's of interest, as the o
(_)
25 NAS standard had suggested, then the peak dose, the time 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
65 1
at which the peak dose occurs is also a function of the 2
location of the critical group.
It's not a totally
\\v 3
independent factor.
And we tried to see how the peak 4
dose, the time of the peak dose, would be affected as the 5
critical group location change.
6 Similarly, the time period, the compliance 7
time period, is also affected by the disruptive events.
8 That is, if you have a longer compliance period and some 1
9 disruptive events, weakness activity, for example, could 10 happen more than once in that period.
And the way you 11 would implement such a standard would have to change i
12 somewhat.
13 It's a policy issue in the end, despite the ik 14 technical considerations.
So the public comments and the i
15 NRC policy, the past precedence, would play a role.
We 1
1 l
16 knew that.
17 On the reference biosphere, the location and 18 the definition of the critical group, the exposure 19 scenarios will become part of the standard in some way.
20 And this is different from the remanded EPA standard 21 because that was based on a five-kilometer location and 22 cumulative release, rather than the dose.
23 The human intrusion scenario, again, the NAS 24 recommendation was to treat it as a stylized scenario OV 25 separately from the other scenarios, reason being 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
66 1
once the site is selected, the human intrusions -- you 2
could use the human intrusion scenario to distinguish 3
between sites, but once you have a site, you have it.
Sc 4
you still have to, of course, look at the possible 5
consequences, but should we or shouldn't we include that 6
as part of the overall dose calculation?
So we have to 7
take a position on that.
8 (Slide) 9 MR. SAGAR:
All of these issues were 10 considered in F.Y.
'96, preliminary calculations were done 11 and discussed with the EPA staff.
We found, for example, 12 that the relative radiation hazard from the waste was 13 within a factor at about 10,000 years.
There's a lot of
\\
/
14 uncertainties, a lot of assumptions made in that 15 calculation, but if you look at the relative hazard, 16 10,000 years is not a bad sele tion, bad choice for the
~
17 compliance period.
18 The peak dose certainly depended upon the 19 location of the critical group.
As we move the critical 20 group out from the repository, the time for the peak dose 21 increased.
So you could go as high as 100,000 years or 22 between 100,000 to a million years if you were just 23 looking at the peak dose.
24 And, again, this is still being considered,
,c.,
(
25 but I think that most people who have looked at this issue 5
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 67 l
1 favor fixing a time, rather than leaving the peak dose and 2
leaving the compliance period unstated in the rules.
So fss e
i
\\' ')
3 10,000 years still is favored.
4 The human intrusion, we did a stylized human 1
5 intrusion analysis stylized in the sense that a single 1
6 bore hole would interrupt the repository and will bring up 7
some waste.
And we calculated the dose and found that it 8
does not affect the performance a whole lot.
I think most 9
of the technical staff that has looked at that issue 10 believe that a stylized human intrusion would be 11 acceptable to be done, that probably you don't need to 12 include human intrusion as part of the overall system 13 performance.
gl k-14 Again, the importance of disruptive events is 15 dependent upon the choice of the compliance period as the 16 compliance period increases, the repetitive occurrence of 17 a disruptive event has to be considered.
18 For example, roughly speaking with a very 19 preliminary back-of-the-envelope calculation, the 20 importance of igneous activity may go up by a factor of 21 two or three if we extended the time period to a million 22 years because of the possibility of multiple volcanic 23 events happening.
l 24 (Slide)
/3k) 25 MR. SAGAR:
The last KTI is the total system NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 923 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1
performance assessment.
And you will note the inclusion l
l 2
of the word " integration" in the title of this KTI because 7-i\\'~)
3 it was thought that the integration would indeed occur at 4
the level of the total system, that all of the other KTIs 5
would bring in input to the total system KTI and that a 6
total system KTI would be able to look at the big picture, 7
at the system picture, and be able to tell us which 8
particular aspect of this system was really important to 9
performance.
10 As was stated earlier, the management board 11 set up a subgroup of four people to look at the 12 integration aspects.
That group talked to all of the KTI 13 leads, and we looked at the issues like:
Is the m
I i
(_s/
14 integration being really effective?
I think that's always 15 an issue.
It's good to use the word, but the 16 effectiveness of actually doing the work and trying to say 17 at the end that the integration did happen is not always 18 easy.
And John Thoma would come after me to brief you on 19 what we found on that issue.
20 on the system level, obviously all of the 15 21 hypotheses of DOE's waste calculation with containment and 22 isolation strategy apply.
Again, I guess we have to think 23 in the sense that these are just hypotheses and that DOE 24 would indeed try to show that those hypotheses hold.
And 25 if they do hold, then we want to see whether 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
69 1
performance standards are met or not.
2 There are two major components if we divide 7-3 into subsystem level.
One is that the containment of 4
radionuclides would be affected, near total containment 5
of radionuclides and the engineered barriers would be 6
affected for thousands of years.
And this is based on a 7
combination of low calculation rates and heat load, some 8
optimum heat loads, at which the containers don't get wet 9
too soon.
10 And that necessarily doesn't mean a very high 11 heat load.
That doesn't necessarily mean a cold 12 repository.
There is an optimum heat load which gives you 13 the highest container life.
And if all the 15 hypotheses 7_.
\\_
14 held, then the end-ward dose to an individual in a i
15 critical group would be below the regulatory limit, would 16 be acceptable.
17 We are interested under this KTI to look at 18 whether the abstraction process that the DOE would follow 19 for doing their total system assessment is reasonable, is 20 acceptable or not.
21 And we would also be interested in seeing the 22 level of the proof, the level of investigation that the 15 23 hypotheses are indeed addressed adequately in the 24 system-level performance.
O, 25 The third tick mark here is an internal q,
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 1
objective for NRC, which is that:
Using the total system 2
performance, can we assess the relative importance of each 73 3
one of these issues, the 10 K technical issues, or even 4
within an issue, could we through sensitivity analysis, 5
through importance analysis check the relative importance 6
to total system importance so that the allocation of 7
resources and the definition of work from year to year 8
could be improved?
9 (Slide) 10 MR. SAGAR:
Again, as Mike had shown you for 11 the earlier eight KTIs, we intend to write the issue 12 resolution status reports.
When we say issue resolution 13 status reports, the acceptance criteria are part of them.
14 This is in lieu of the license application review plan.
15 So we do want to focus the staff on thinking 16 that:
If there is an issue or a subissue, what is the way 17 to resolve it that we can think about?
And how would we 18 know whether we are close to resolution or not?
19 That's all acceptance criterion means, if this 20 is done, if that is done, if method is like this, if data 21 is like this.
Then yes, we are close to resolution.
22 That's essentially what acceptance criteria would look 23 like.
24 The model abstraction is a major issue in the
/;
's )
25 total system performance level.
There are all sorts 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
71 1
simplifications.
We all agree that simplifications would 2
be done.
It's a question of how those simplifications 7-(._)
3 would plow into the system-level performance and whether 4
at abstraction that level of simplification would provide 5
you a reasonable estimate, a conservative estimate, of the 6
overall performance.
7 We have done an audit review of TSPA-95.
This 8
is DOE's TSPA completed in '95.
And based on DOE's own 9
sensitivity analysis, we would select a few areas, a few 10 critical areas, a few sensitive areas, that would be 11 checked independently by the NRC staff.
12 This is the same method that we intend to 13 follow in reviewing the viability analysis as well as the
'\\ -)
14 license application; that is, do an audit review first of 15 the entire performance assessment, look at what areas are 16 critical, and then those selected topics, do an 17 independent calculation to see that things are acceptable.
18 For that, we do need to maintain NRC PA 4
19 capability in the sense of codes, in the sense of 20 expertise to perform such an analysis.
And there's a 21 desire to provide early feedback to DOE.
Most of the 22 thinking is that before the viability analysis is on the
'2'3 st9eet? we should be able to indicate what the critical S'K.iysues and that DOE ought to be able to have an 24
,s()
25 opportunity to include those or to resolve those in 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
72 1
viability analysis; TSPA, for example.
2 The relative importance of the waste
(,,, )
\\'
3 containment and isolation strategy hypothesis, which are 4
15 in number, to the system performance, that's another 5
one of the issues.
Again, we think that the importance 6
will tell us how much resources, how much time to devote 7
to some of these.
These include a study of parameter and 8
model uncertainties and the scenario methodology.
9 The las bullet here is the documentation of 10 TSPA.
I think most of the people have realized at the 11 international level in various others nations that the 12 understanding of the performance assessment through proper 13 documentation is quite important in the sense that the O
(_/
14 reader ought to be able to understand what changed, what 15 presumptions were made, what data was used, et cetera, et 16 cetera.
So this would state what's the expectation on the 17 documentation of TSPA.
l 18 (Slide) 19 MR. SAGAR:
What we did in F.Y.
'96 included 20 an audit review of TSP in '95 and a meeting.
This was a 21 technical exchange with DOE that provided them the audit 22 review comments.
l l
23 The first four tick marks were the main 24 comments that were provided to DOE.
That is, the DOE used rx()
25 an infiltration and percolation model, which uses low l
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
73 1
percolation rates.
And it's a non-conservative 2
assumption.
7s
)
\\_/
3 The DOE is depending we believe significantly 4
on dilution to meet the system performance requirement.
i 5
This didn't use to be the case when there was a time when 6
the performance requirement was supposed to be met at the j
7 interface of the unsaturated and the saturated zone.
That 8
has changed.
9 There is significant emphasis on dilution and 10 mixing in the saturated zone now.
We thought that the 11 dilution factors calculated or used in TSP in '95 were 12 overly optimistic, were larger than the logic given in 13 TSP-95 would support.
A
(
)
(/
14 For the calculation of the container life, the 15 temperature and humidity calculations were not 1
16 well-documented.
By that, we mean if we tried to 17 reproduce them, there wasn't enough data in the 18 documentation that we could pick it up and say, "Okay.
19 Well, let's check if the temperature and humidity are 20 calculated correctly."
And there were some assumptions 21 that would give you non-conservative results.
22 The waste package failure models were limited 23 to general corrosion and pitting corrosion, but other 24 failure modes like mechanical loads and hydrosion
/
(v) 25 embrittlement, et cetera, were not included in TSP-95.
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 74 1
The other bullet that's not here is that in 2
TSP-95, DOE did not consider any disruptive events.
.\\
~
3 The overall result was that, in fact, the tow
)
4 major things that happened in TSP-95, for example, 5
compared to TSP-93 were that in TSP-95, the source terms 6
were much lower than in TSP-93.
7 The end result, the dose as well as the 8
cumulative release calculated were quite low.
9 MEMBER HORNBERGER:
Budhi, I have a question 10 of clarification here.
When you do this, I guess my 11 question revolves around the use of the word 12 "non-conservative" here.
13 It's my understanding that this is to be a O'\\ -)
14 performance assessment, that it's to incorporate 15 probablistic elements.
Therefore, I wouldn't expect 16 individual assumptions to be conservative in the normal 17 use of the word.
18 Have I missed something or is this --
19 MR. SAGAR:
No, you haven't missed something.
20 But even in a probablistic setting, let's say we are doing 21 a probability distribution up in filtration.
Whether you 22 assume the mean of that distribution to be three 23 millimeters or ten millimeters is an issue; right?
24 You have included a band of uncertainty, but f~h
(,)
25 you can skew the distribution.
You can set the mean NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1
differently.
And that's what makes it conservative or 2
non-conservative.
j 3
MEMBER HORNBERGER:
Yes.
But it's really net 4
-- well, you said they used the wrong distribution, not 5
that they were non-conservative.
6 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
George, the real 7
answer is they haven't really gone probablistic all the 8
way yet.
It varies --
9 Mk. SAGAR:
It's a mixture.
10 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
-- depending on where 11 you're looking in the analysis.
12 MR. SAGAR:
I would hesitate to call anything 13 wrong.
That's my problem.
So I would rather say, "Well, 14 it's non-conservative."
Okay.
15 (Slide) 16 MR. SAGAR:
The NRC and the center staff have 17 worked over several years to write a computer code, which 18 is called total system performance assessment code, TPA 19 code, which would be a vehicle for us to, a tool for us to 20 review, to do the independent calculations ourselves.
And 21 it's a code that is still developing.
We enhance it We 22 add the new modules, the new thinking, the new 23 abstractions, et cetera, et cetera.
So that is still 24 going on.
/~'/
\\
(
25 A couple other things that were done in F.Y.
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 76 l
t i
1
'96:
A branch technical position on expert elicitation is
?
t 2
now published as a NUREG.
That is out on the street.
(,\\
l
,j 3
And we set up a licensing support system, a 4
test bed, a test system, at the center that people could 1
5 access on the internet.
And there would be documents 6
noted in the LSS test bed.
So we have an experimental 7
setup, a test setup, that's functioning at this point.
8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
I read that last night, 9
Budhi.
And I was very interested in it.
Can we get --
10 MR. SAGAR:
Oh, you bet.
We can give you a 11 test.
12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Can we get some 13 instructions on how to get into it?
(~]%
t\\
14 MR. SAGAR:
Yes.
In fact, we have the center 15 staff here today.
And any time we can provide you that.
16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Okay.
Very good.
17 MR. SAGAR:
We'11 log on and show you how it 18 works.
19 (Slide) 20 MR. SAGAR:
This slide should really come 21 after John Thoma's discussion, but I think to save time, 22 I'll just summarize it now.
23 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Great.
24 MR. SAGAR:
As you have heard from Margaret (p
,/
25 and Mike, in response to the resource constraints that l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 1
were imposed on the program, the entire NRC program was 2
refocused for high-level waste in F.Y.
'96, and we chose j
s
(
\\
' '/
s 3
the ten key technical issues to focus staff's work.
And 4
it's being again refocused, as you heard, during a 5
presentation in F.Y.
'97 due to further constraints, where 6
three of the KTIs are not fully being worked at at this 7
point.
l 8
We correlated the NRC key technical issues and 9
the vertical slices under them to the DOE's hypothesis for 10 waste isolation because we thought the best thing we could 11 do as a regulator would be to verify those hypotheses.
If 12 we can verify them and if we can show they're together, 13 those 15, if it helps you meet the system standard k
14 performance, well, then it's okay.
s-15 Again, as a mechanism for focusing work, we 16 said staff ought to not only look at problems that exist 17 but also how those problems would be solved, what would be 18 a reasonable path to resolving those problems, and 19 actually think about the methodology and the data that you 20 will need.
We intend to document that starting with F.Y.
21
'97 in the issue resolution status reports.
22 We believe that significant progress was made 23 on these aspects of the key technical issues.
And I've 24 already said that in the future we do intend to let DOE e
(v) 25 and others know what the thinking is through publishing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1
the issue resolution status reports, which, again, would 2
be brief reports, f_\\')
f 3
We don't intend to provide comprehensive 4
literature review on what exists, et cetera, et cetera.
5 It would be maybe, my guess, five pages, ten pages long.
6 It would basically state, "Here is the issue.
This is 7
what we think" and be done.
And this would be acceptable.
8 Thank you.
Any questions?
9 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Thank you, Budhi.
10 Are there any critical questions?
11 MEMBER HINZE:
I've got to ask a question 12 about that last one because I'm still confused.
You've 13 got " Issue Resolution Status Reports to Close" the O
k s/
14 "Subissues at the Staff Level."
Does this mean that if m
15 you have issue resolution, that you close it at the staff 16 level necessarily?
17 MR. SAGAR:
My understanding is that if we can 18 come to an understanding on a unique part that would 19 resolve and we have the tools at the NRC staff level to do 20 that, we would devote those resources to something else.
21 We would be done.
22 Margaret may choose to look at it very 23 differently.
24 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Margaret?
(O) 25 MS. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
You have to keep in mind NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1
with the definition of issue resolution, which we have 2
achieved as part o - the agreement with DOE, it means staff s
i
)
%~J 3
has no,further questiona at this point in time.
4 But, as I was indicating in my presentation, 5
we're going to be looking at *he rel;tive importance of 6
these things in the performance assessment.
And, of 7
course, if our understanding of our resolution changed,
]
we 8
would be able to go back and modify that because under our 9
agreement, it says if new information comes to light.
10 But we want to have some definitive milestones 11 of based on what we know today, that it makes sense to 12 agree at this point and devote our resources elsewhere.
13 MEMBER HINZE:
Thank you.
\\-)
14 MR. SAGAR:
And, as Margaret said earlier, if 15 DOE chooses to adopt another method, which is okay, then 16 you still have to go look at that method to assure 17 yourself that that's acceptable or not.
18 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Okay.
I guess that's it, 19 Budhi.
Thank you very much.
20 MR. SAGAR:
John, it's all yours.
21 MS, FEDERLINE:
Let me say while John is 22 getting hooked up.
We are sort of in an introspective 23 process in the high-level waste, you know, shrinking 24 budgets, a multidisciplinary program, very long time r%
(
25 periods.
NEAL R. GFH3SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1
So one thing that the board decided in forming 2
this task group was it makes sense to go back and ask fs I
)
3 ourselves some questions.
Are there any things that we 4
can do to improve the way we're operating because we're 5
making transitions?
6 Our attempt was to form this small group who 7
would go around and talk to people, hopefully people would 8
be comfortable talking to this group and we would really 9
get people's true ideas about how things are going.
10 So, with that, let me turn it over to John.
11 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
John, welcome.
12 (Slide) 13 MR. THOMA:
Thank you.
5-14 6.2 STATUS REPORT ON THE INTEGRATION TASK FORCE 15 My name is John Thoma.
And I'm here to give 16 you a status report on the integration task report.
I was 17 hoping to say that Mike Bell and Budhi covered all of the 18 issues.
But they kept deferring to me.
So I guess I'll 19 have to go ahead.
And in the interest of saving time, I'm 20 going right to Slide 3.
Slide 2 was just an outline of my 21 presentation.
22 (Slide) l 23 MR. THOMA:
To give you a little bit of a 24 background, in mid July to late July, the management board (O) 25 started raising questions in its discussions about the 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
81 1
integration of our efforts.
They had looked very closely 2
at each individual KTI and had brought the KTI and fs i
'1 3
discussed it in detail.
4 But questions were raised about how 5
effectively the KTI has been integrated.
And the answers 6
were not immediately obvious.
So the management board 7
decided to put together a task force to investigate it.
8 The task force consisted of:
Budhi Sagar from 9
the center and the NRC staff of Norm Eisenberg, Keith 10 McConnell, Robert Johnson, Sandy Wastler, and myself.
And 11 I was named chairman of the group.
12 We were specifically tasked with looking at 13 integration.
We were not looking at the technical
/m
(
)
'/
14 adequacy of each individual KTI but how is the program 15 being integrated.
16 We conducted interviews with all ten KTI team 17 leads, including their center counterparts.
We gave them 18 written questions in advance.
We had an interview with 19 each one of them that lasted between one and two hours.
20 We did emphasize to the team leads at that 21 time that we were not direction-setting, we were simply 22 gathering information.
If they felt like corrective 23 action needed to be taken at that time, they should bring 24 it up through their management chain.
And they did.
I (3
(,)
25 have a slide that will discuss some of the changes that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTOfJ. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1
were made because of that.
2 (Slide) 7s
)
\\#
3 MR. THOMA:
Some of the overall observations 4
that we made before we got to our conclusions were there 5
were some positive aspects to what the program was doing.
6 It was focused on the more significant issues.
7 We did find and they are doing more work 8
towards sensitivity analysis because we've still got to 9
determine:
From the overall perspective, are the most 10 important vertical slices being done?
But they were still 11 making the attempt of what they had right now to focus on 12 the most important issues.
13 The TSPA-95 review was an audit review.
It
(~%
(sl 14 was a complicated review that had to be integrated across 15 all the KTIs.
It was done straightforward, fairly short 16 fashion with the teams getting assignments, doing them, 17 and coming back.
We thought it was a good example of an 18 integrated effort that worked.
There was a' good meeting 19 with DOE.
The ACNW was briefed on that meeting.
1 20 The KTI involved with the EPA standard, again, 21 had a series of very short deadline items where they were 22 making recommeQdations on what comments we would give to 23 EPA.
They had to be coordinated across and integrated 24 across all the ten KTIs.
It took a big effort for them to i
)
25 do that, and we thought that was a good example of a team NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1RANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
83 l
1 that was in operation.
2 If you look at our KTI implementation plans, 7_s i
\\
t
/
3
-- and you can read them in the annual report that you j
l 4
have a copy of -- there's a whole section devoted to 5
input / output tables.
And that section is a good effort at i
6 identifying what needs to be integrated.
7 The last thing that we thought was good, that 8
we had tied our plans, we had linked them in with DOE's 9
waste containment isolation strategy because we also need 10 to integrate the national program.
Things that we think 11 are important we ought to make sure that DOE thinks are 12 important and vice versa.
And by linking our two programs 13 to common elements, that was a way to achieve that.
n 14 (Slide) 15 MR. THOMA:
However, we did reach a conclusion 16 that there was room for improvement.
The individual plans 17 were working fairly well, but, for example, the 18 input / output sections needed to have better follow-through 19 to make sure that those actions were really being done.
20 A couple of examples.
People knew they had to 21 provide an output to another KTI.
They didn't necessarily 22 go to the other KTI and say, "What schedule do you need it 23 by?
And what format do you want it in?" nor did they ask 24 somebody who was supposed to provide them an input.
I')
s,j 25 We found examples where the same element was t
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
84 1
being computed by three different KTIs for valid reasons.
2 Take temperature.
Temperature was calculated in the far 7-~
b 3
field.
Temperature was calculated in the near field.
And 4
temperature.was calculated at container wall.
A simple 5
question we asked was:
Do these calculations converge at 6
the boundaries?
7 They weren't sure.
It wasn't an area they had j
8 looked at because they had been focusing in the area of 9
their KTI.
And that was something that was going to have 10 to be done because you would hate to have some kind of i
11 step change in your performance change code because of a 12 difference in assumptions or things of that nature.
13 Performance assessment was an area that we p
\\m /
14 felt that coordination and integration needed improvement.
15 There were a lot of instances where individual KTIs knew 16 what they were doing and said, "We're going to pass this 17 off to the performance assessment.
That black box is 18 going to do whatever it is and come back and tell me if 19 it's important or not."
20 And we're saying, "No.
You should be over 21 there understanding why performance assessment is coming 22 back with the priority ranking that they come up with.
23 And you should agree with it.
And if you don't agree with 24 it, it should be something that we discuss."
O(,f 25 Now, this started back in August.
And, as 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
i 85 1
result of these interviews, people's attentions were 2
focused on integrations, and actions were taken.
The task 7s) l (v
3 force itself has not taken credit for these actions.
4 These are things that by raising people's awareness, they 5
stepped forward and started making some changes.
6 (Slide) 7 MR. THOMA:
Some of the more significant ones 8
that we put up here were our KTI activity tables were 9
updated to include better scheduling of:
When do I need 10 this?
Many people were working with the viability 11 assessment in late
'98, "That's when my input is due" when 12 the real answer iu "My input may be due mid '97 so TSPA 13 can have an output by late
'98."
(~~N 14 In our implementation plans that we developed 15 for
'97, we've done a better job in not only discussing 16 schedule but:
What format should it look like?
What are 17 they really needing to have handed off to them?
18 And something that would be transparent to 19 most people but we found significant, we also did a better 20 job of tieing the KTI implementation plans to the 21 high-level waste operating plan.
22 High-level waste operating plan is a plan 23 that, like all the operating plans for the office, go up t
l l
24 to the office director.
Things that are on the plan tend
(~~%
(,)
25 to have more management attention.
And by making sure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1
that some of the important integration activities are in 2
the operating plan, that places more management attention
,7S()
3 on making sure that they're done.
j 4
We have a Yucca Mountain team meeting that 5
meets every Wednesday morning.
We canceled it this 6
morning so that most of the members could be here.
But 7
we're working in that team meeting to open a better j
8 dialogue.
9 We used to just have a general discussion of 10 "All ten KTIs, report what you're doing."
What we're 11 attempting to do is each week take two of the KTIs and 12 have them go in more detail of what they're doing and what 13 help they need from other KTIs, things of that nature.
/%
ss 14 Members of the management board are coming to 15 the Yucca Mountain team meeting and engage in a more 16 active discussion with more of the staff on, "Where is the 17 program going?
What would the management board like to 18 see?"; things of that nature.
19 Outside of this task force, division 20 management did bring in an outside consultant, a man by 21 the name of Bill King, to look at how we were doing on 22 forming our teams and how our teams were doing working 23 together.
24 Now, he produced a detailed report.
And, yes, 25 his report said that we had areas where we could improve 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
87 1
or areas that we need to focus on, but I think one of the 2
important things and one of the important inputs that I l
}
\\
3 got from his report was he said, based on his experience 4
of looking at other government agencies and nonfederal 5
identities, we were doing a fairly good job in our 1
6 team-building effort.
We had things that we could 7
improve, but overall we were focusing on the right issues.
8 I was glad to see that in his report because 9
when you're in the midst of that and you don't have 10 experience dealing with teams a whole lot, there are 11 problems.
You don't know their significance or how 12 they're related.
That's not saying he gave us a clean 13 bill of health.
he's saying there are some things we
,/ 3 t
t s_/
14 could do, but I thought that was positive.
15 (Slide) 16 MR. THOMA:
Now, the task group put together 17 some 16 to 18 specific recommendations.
The ACNW has been 18 provided with a copy of the initial recommendations that 19 we gave to the management board.
20 The management board -- this slide here 21 summarizes the three major areas where you could divide l
22 those recommendations.
The management board took those 23 recommendations, held an all-hands meeting, where we 24 internally discussed them.
The management board now has 25 taken both our recommendation and the results of that
(,)
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
l l
88' l
1 all-hands meeting and are determining what our future i
2 course of action will be.
,s
(
)
\\~j 3
They want to have something -- it won't be 1
4 something where the management board says, "One, two, 5
three, four, five.
This is what you do.
Integration is 6
done.
It's over."
It's:
How will the program better 7
integrate itself in the future?
How can we put into the 8
management line focuses on the proper integration?
And 9
how can we make sure we have staff buy-off?
10 So I imagine a lot of the things that will 11 come out of the management board decisions will be other 12 activities that the individual KTI teams or other groups 13 will have to put together to come up with a plan of
,r%,
's--
14 action.
But that will take a period of time.
15 That summarizes what I have to say.
Are there 16 any particular questions?
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Great.
Thank you, John.
18 Are there ~uestions?
19 6.3)
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION 20 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
I think this is great.
21 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Yes.
In a nutshell, that's 22 the --
23 MR. THOMA:
Okay.
24 MEMBER HINZE:
I do have one question.
And
(_)
25 that is you have done an excellent job of providing us 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 89 l
1 with basically lessons learned internally and in terms of 2
integration.
I'm wondering if there are any lessons
,s l
')
~#
3 learned in terms of the interaction with DOE with the KTI 4
and the vertical slice approach.
5 MR. THOMA:
Well, one of the things that --
6 and I don't know if you'd call it a lesson learned, but 7
one of the things that we have focused on, even before we 8
did the integration task effort, is started a rez focus 9
about a year ago.
Every meeting had to have an objective.
10 You had to go into the meeting with what you wanted to i
11 accomplish.
And you had to communicate it in advance to l
12 DOE.
Now, I think that's had a very positive impact.
13 Now, it hasn't been easy because staff was i-
\\/
14 used to getting a lot of status reports.
DOE was used to 15 giving a lot of status reports.
But the management of 16 both sides agree that you can't just have a meeting for a 17 status report.
There ought to be something that you're 18 getting out of that meeting when you're having it with 19 DOE.
20 Margaret, I don't know if you have anything 21 else you'd like to add.
22 MS. FEDERLINE:
I think, coupled with that, 23 one, we want to emphasize do your thinking before you go l
l 24 into the meeting.
Be prepa' red.
Even if we have to have a gm
(,)
25 second meeting, we can establish some interim objectives.
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2 % 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1
And that's fine.
2 The second thing is don't languish.
If there
,3 s
Q 3
are differences that need to be resolved, we have a 4
hierarchy now where we interact with DOE, Appendix 7, 5
technical changes, management meetings.
And, of course, 6
Dr. Paperiello has expressed an interest in getting 7
involved.
So we're now routinely briefing him on key 8
issues that are of concern.
9 So don't let an issue languish.
Take the time 10 that you need to get the technical information, but then 11 raise it in the process so that we can have dialogues and 12 make sure that the right actions occur on both sides in 13 each agency.
\\-
14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Okay.
George?
~
15 (No response.)
16 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Okay.
Thank you very much, 17 John.
18 Margaret, do you have any summary words or --
19 MS. FEDERLINE:
No, I have nothing.
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Okay.
I'd like to take a 21 seven-minute break, if we can.
22 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the 23 record at 11:07 a.m.
and went back on th^
l 24 record at 11:17 a.m.)
tQ
(,)
25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
The meeting will come 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 l
91 1
order, please.
The next item on our agenda is a 1
(
g 2
discussion with the Director of the Division of Waste 3
Management at NMSS:
John Greeves.
r l
4 John, welcome.
I think I'll not say anything l
5 about what subjects you're going to cover.
I'll let you 6
do that.
But, as always, we're pleased to have you here.
l 7
And we look forward to the information that you're going 8
to talk to us about.
So the floor is yours.
9 MR. GREEVES:
Thank you.
l 10 7)
DISCUSSION WITH THE DIRECTOR, 11 DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT, NMSS 12 MR. GREEVES:
It's good to be back.
I think, 13 as most know, I spent much of last year up with Carl OU 14 Paperiello as his acting deputy, which didn't give me the i
15 opportunity to visit with you as much as I would like.
l 16 And so I came back in November.
And I think I i
17 missed your last meeting.
You had one in November?
I 16 think I was out of town.
So this is really the first time 19 I've had the chance to get back together with you.
20 And Margaret has been doing a terrific job in 21 my absence.
I heard the calls of " John who?" but that's 22 okay.
Margaret does a terrific job, and I think it's to 23 our advantage to have these kind of people available.
So i
I 24 I'm pleased to come back and spend a little time with you.
(O
/
25 Unfortunately, I find in coming to this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1
meeting that the list of things I want to talk to you 2
about is rather long.
So, whether I'll get through them fs
[
)
~
3 all or not, I'm not sure.
And if I don't, we'll take them 4
up another time or at another venue.
5 So, with that, I'll just sort of start in and 6
go through the list, as we have in the past, somewhat 7
informally.
I don't have any slides, just a number of 8
topics I think we have mutual interest in.
9 I would like to confirm one point, though.
10 I've been getting your mail.
Robert Johnson did a nice 11 job of assembling all the letters that you put out this 12 past year.
And I refreshed my memory on all of them in, 13 the last day or two.
,-s k-14 And we had some difficulty in making sure you m
15 got all our products over the last year, which I've talked 16 to you about.
And we've instituted some new procedures, 17 where you are clearly on distribution for all the products 18 at the branch chief level.
So, either now or at some 19 point in time, I'd like to get some feedback from you that 20 that seems to be working.
21 I think you're going to get a lot of mail ' hat 22 maybe you won't be looking at, but please give me some 23 feedback in terms of:
Are you getting what you think you 24 need?
And if you're not, pick up the phone.
Let me know.
(-
(,)
25 And I'll do something else about 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
i 93 1
CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Right.
I think we're still 2
seeing some of the influx of that, John, right now, in
~~s
/
i 3
fact.
4 MR. GREEVES:
If your In box looks anything 5
like mine, I expect you are.
6 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
But we will get back to you 7
on it if there's any --
8 MR. GREEVES:
I would like some feedback on 9
that --
10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Sure.
11 MR. GREEVES:
-- because I want to make sure 12 that's not a problem.
13 Okay.
This morning Margaret and the staff
./ 3
\\_)
14 gave you background on what we call the annual progress 15 report.
I think this is an area that ought to be on your 16 radar screen.
And you're obviously giving it attention.
17 I spent a few minutes down here this morning when Marg.aret 18 was making some introductions.
So 1 know you have that 19 background.
20 Essentially that report summarizes how we've 21 been conducting the refocus program and illustrates the 22 progress we felt we made during the past year.
It is a 23 little bit dated, as I'm sure Margaret and the staff 24 pointed out to you.
Obviously there's a time clock where
,a( )
25 you hr.ve to cut of f the input and put that together.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000 5 3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1
We think it documents the accomplishments that j
the staff made during the last year and sort of gives the 2
(' ')
3 road map, the path that we're on and as these things are 4
produced over time will show progress.
5 Margaret and I went down and met with Lake 6
Barrett and his staff and personally hand-carried a copy 7
of this document to him.
Was that about a week ago?
8 MS. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
The 15th.
9 MR. GREEVES:
Okay.
And I felt it was 10 substantive enough that we wanted to give it to Lake and 11 let him know what it was and what it wasn't.
I think 12 Margaret probably went over a lot of that with you this 13 morning.
\\/
14 As you read it over time, it's quite detailed, 15 quite technical.
You will see that we're trying to head 16 towards resolution of some of these issues.
I did stick 17 my head in earlier and saw Margaret get a couple of 18 questions, comments on issue resolution.
19 In many ways, if we can get within an order of 20 magnitude on some issues, for the time being, maybe that's 21 good enough.
This question of what is issue resolution, I 22 heard a couple of questions about that.
It can be a 23 little confusing to people, but I think our job is to try 24 and narrow the issues.
! (g
( j 25 Obviously the big ones are going 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
95 1
presented and discussed in the licensing, the formal 2
licensing, phase.
So to the extent we can narrow those fs
\\'~')
3 issues, I think that's going a long way towards resolving l
4 some of them so that we can " Hey, what's more important 5
now?
Let's turn our attention to" whatever that is.
With 6
the resources we, the rest of the community have, we've 7
got to put our attention on the important issues.
8 So, in any event, I just offer that.
I think 9
this document will facilitate that dialogue with the 10 Department of Energy, ACNW, other parties.
And I hope you 11 find it useful.
And I got some good feedback on the 12 briefing this morning.
13 So we would look forward to engaging you in 1
s
(
)
kJ 14 some select number of those topics.
So over time again 15 that's an item that I'd like to hear feedback from you on 16 as to what your view of that is.
17 We will be taking up some of those issues 18 subsequently that you saw in the annual report; for 19 example, igneous activity.
DOE has agreed to meet with 20 us.
I believe the dates are February 25th and 26th.
And 21 it's my understanding several of you are going to attend 22 that meeting.
So I think that's quite good, and we would 23 look forward to that type of participation.
24 The staff I'm sure this morning identified
,s
(_)
25 that we had to drop three of our key issues for
'96.
NEAL R. GRGSS COURT REPORTERS AND ".RANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1
There's not enough time here to go through our budget 2
process, but I think you're pretty familiar with that.
-s 7
~
3 Margaret and I are I think somewhat optimistic 4
that in the next fiscal year or two, that we're going to 5
bring those back.
You don't ever regain the lost ground 6
as such, but we're getting a lot of support out of the 7
Commission for this program.
And I think you probably 8
have some visibility of that.
9 So I'd look forward to us trying to get those 10 three issues back on line.
Unfortunately, I think during 11 this fiscal year, we may not be able to give it as much 12 attention as we would like or you would like.
13 Several of them are on your priority list.
So
\\-
14 there may be some tension there in terms of how much 15 ability we're going to have to participate, even with you, 16 on those topics.
But I think you understand that.
17 And, even with that, people talk about a $17 18 million program.
That's not where we were when we were 19 doing a program at $22 million.
It doesn't get us in a 20 position to develop the review plan.
I think you 21 understand this very well.
22 So my optimism goes towards getting back to 23 addressing all ten issues.
We still have the issue of:
24 How do we put together a review plan for the licensing (3
(,/
25 process?
So maybe over time I'll talk to you about 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
97 l
1 Maybe you've got some ideas on that.
2 But, anyhow, that's the comments that I wanted 7~
(
)
'M 3
to --
4 MEMBER HINZE:
Can I ask you a question about 5
that, John?
6 MR. GREEVES:
Jure.
7 MEMBER HINZE:
What are the plans for reacting 8
to the viability assessment?
What's the situation there 9
in terms of formal matters?
10 MR. GREEVES:
Well, Margaret, jump in and help 11 me on this when you get the chance.
12 First, DOE has clearly stated the viability 13 assessment is something they're doing.
It's actually in p.
(_-)
14 legislation space now.
It has background in legislation.
15 There is no call for NRC comment on 16 viabilities.
There's no legal requirement for NRC to do 17 anything on viability assessment.
However, Margaret, I,
18 the staff in looking at it, just common sense, you need to 19 recognize that something that substantive, somebody is 20 going to be looking for the staff's view on that document.
21 And we fully expect the Commission is going to be looking 22 for the staff's view on that document.
23 So our plans are to be prepared to comment on 24 the substantive document, the viability assessment, in O) 25 that time frame.
And so we were putting ourselves in 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
98 1
position that we could provide those comments.
And if the 2
Commission wanted to, they could provide such comments to 7s i,
4 3
DOE or anybody else who might ask in that time frame.
4 So my expectation is that there will be some 5
comments in that time frame expected from the regulator.
6 And we are putting the staff in a position to be able to 7
provide such comments.
8 But I don't expect that there are going to be l
9 any big surprises.
Our comments are going to start 10 showing up in these annual reports that we're putting 11 together.
And we've talked to Lake Barrett about this.
12 And we said that we want to stay current with what's going 13 on within the resources that we're given.
,\\
f
)
k/
14 So that's sort of where it is.
Again, I don't 15 see any legal requirement for us to make comments.
DOE is 16 not asking for anything.
But, realistically, let's face 17 it.
Somebody is going to want to know where the NRC is on 18 this.
And Margaret and I are putting ourselves in a 19 position to be able to make such comments.
20 Margaret, do you want to add to that?
21 MS. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
Let me just add to the 22 process.
As you heard this morning, we're planning to 23 develop these issue resolution status reports.
And it's 24 our goal by the time of the viability assessment to have f3
(,)
25 at least produced an issue resolution status report on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1
most of the KTIs, budget permitting.
2 And, as we explained this morning, we're going fs I
)
~'
3 to develop acceptance criteria as a part of that.
So our 4
review will essentially be based on the acceptance 5
criteria that we develop as part of the issue resolution 6
status report process.
7 And so everybody will sort of have an idea of, 8
not only what our comment is, but what the basis for our 9
comment is.
And, depending upon the budget, there wil be 10 some issues perhaps that our comments, we will not have 11 gotten to that point yet.
But that's just sort of a wild 12 card.
13 MR. GREEVES:
Well, in, for example, the
,q f
4
\\J 14 design issue, which is one of the ones we have had to put 15 some hold on during this particular fiscal year we're in.
16 That's a key element of the viability assessment; whereas, 17 seven of the ten issues we will go full steam on, 18 hopefully we can pick up a couple, maybe even three, of 19 these next year.
So, anyhow, the budget does affect our 20 ability to comment on viability assessment or anything 21 else that comes along the line.
22 So I hope I've clarified or clearly answered 23 your question.
I don't think there's a requirement, but I 24 think everybody expects the staff will be in a position to (Q
25 provide comments.
And we're pointing towards having that 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
100 1
information available for the Commission.
2 MEMBER HINZE:
And other than the issue of 7
- N.,-)
3 resolution reports, there is no formal structure that you 4
have in view at this point?
5 MR. GREEVES:
We don't have one.
Maybe if 6
you've got some ideas to share over time, I'd enjoy 7
hearing those.
But we certainly as it gets closer will be 8
talking about how we might structure such comments.
9 MS. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
I think our plan is to 10 use the vertical slice approach.
In other words, it's 11 going to be consistent with the framework that we're using 12 now.
That would be the way we would structure the review.
13 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
John, the reason that i
14 this strikes us as a rather important milestone; that is 15 to say, the viability assessment is, some of us have heard 16 DOE officials describe it as a dry run for the licensing 17 application.
And I guess some of us have great difficulty 18 seeing how it can be that if the NRC is not going to be 19 involved.
20 MR. GREEVES:
Well, I don't know who the DOE 21 officials are, but I can tell you that Lake talks to 22 Margaret and me.
And what we're getting is that they 23 aren't asking for comments.
They know they're going to 24 get some comments.
rh(_j 25 VICE CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1
MR. GREEVES:
And a goal I have is that we're n
2 in what I call the pre-licensing process.
And if we've
(
)
3 got a comment, a substantive comment, we're going to give 4
it to DOE when we have it.
We're not going to hold these 5
things back and, "Oh, where's the viability assessment?"
6 There it is.
Let's launch our -- that doesn't help 7
anybody.
8 So I think it will be a significant document 9
and a lot of attention will be paid to it.
And we will do 10 our part in putting together what comments we have.
If 11 there's new information in it, we would be commenting for 12 the first time on it.
13 So maybe I'd enjoy some conversation with you
./
tN-14 about ideas you have.
Margaret and I wrestle with this 15 along with a bunch of other questions regularly.
And if 16 you've got some ideas of how to package this because there 17 is no guidepost as such.
Nobody has produced something 18 called a viability assessment before.
Maybe we could take 19 that up with you.
20 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Okay.
21 MR. GREEVES:
Okay?
So the second topic is 22
" Status of Legislation."
There was a bill put forward, 23 Senate 104.
I asked for copies of it to come down to your 24 staff.
Now, we just received it.
So you're I think in V
25 receipt of warm copies.
I think we got these down to 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
i 102 1
yesterday.
I don't expect anybody's had a chance to look 2
at it in detail.
\\j
(
3 So status is it's there.
And I believe you 4
have copies of it.
Senator Murkowski is planning on 5
looking into this aggressively.
I understand there's a 6
hearing on February 5th regarding this.
And it's reported 7
it's virtually identical to 1936.
I think you're familiar 8
with that --
9 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Yes.
J 10 MR. GREEVES:
-- from last year.
Staff has 11 not reviewed this document yet.
So we don't have any 12 observations to make at this time.
But obviously it's 13 something that we need to keep an eye on, and we will be g]
(
14 paying attention to it.
15 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
John, do they normally 16 introduce a House bill, a companion House bill, at the 17 same time or do you have any idea?
That's way outside of 18 both of our fields.
19 MR. GREEVES:
Yes.
I'm probably best not 20 giving an answer on that.
21 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Okay.
22 MR. GREEVES:
Like you say, I can --
23 Congressional Affairs is probably the group that can 24 answer that question accurately.
,/ m 25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Right.
Great.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 1
MR. GREEVES:
I really don't have anything 2
else to say on the legislation issue.
-s
/
't
/
s'~
3 MEMBER HINZE:
While you're on that type of 4
issue, are you going to say something about how you're 5
going to interact with the 96C?
6 7.2)
STATUS OF STAFF'S EFFORTS ON REVISING PART 60 7
7.4)
MR. GREEVES:
Yes.
The third issue that I J
9 just wanted to talk about was the EPA standard and NRC's 10 actions on Part 60.
I think you're fully aware that EPA 11 is developing 40 CFR 197.
We have had some interactions 12 with them on that.
My expectation is we probably briefed 13 you on those types of activities in past meetings.
14 I think they're pretty far along in that 15 process.
And my understanding is that it has not gone to 16 OMB yet, Margaret.
17 MS. FEDERLINE:
That's correct.
18 MR. GREEVES:
That's accurate.
So it's out 19 there cooking.
So it basn't gone to the stage of going to 20 OMB yet.
We have given hem our best insights on these 1
21 issues.
And I think they're still deliberating on how l
22 they want to put the final pieces in place.
So that's the 23 status as we know it on the EPA standard.
24 As far as Part 60, in parallel with that (v) 25 effort, we need to be workir.g on this Part 60 effort.
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
104 1
will say that you received a letter from us December 31st.
2 And in the letter, you'll see mention of it being held in
,s
(
)
Q/
3 abeyance.
Well, we are now working on it.
So just let 4
this be notice that being held in abeyance is 5
discontinued.
We are, in fact, now working on Part 60 at 6
the staff level and developing our strategy for how we 7
would put together such a document.
8 I think we have enough insights into what EPA 9
may come forward with that it is useful for us to start 10 that process.
So we're thinking in terms of developing a 11 separate part for Yucca Mountain.
Again, these are 12 pre-decisional things, but this is the direction the staff 13 is looking into.
f k-14 The substantive differences would be a dose 15 standard versus the integrated release-type approach with 16 what you find in Part 60 at the present time.
I'm going 17 to have to account for a stylized human intrusion type of 18 scenario.
19 I expect it's going to be much more 20 performance-based in terms of its approach to regulatory 21 activity.
And we will in due course be developing a 22 Commission paper and give the Commission some options.
I 23 expect that that will probably happen a the spring time 24 frame.
I would also expect that as the EPA standard comes q
Iq,)
25 out, that we would be providing comments on that also.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1
CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
John, do you have any 2
feeling -- I know what you'd like to see in the standard, fm fx"'-)
3 but do you have any feeling whether there's any feeling 4
over there that they're going to specify things that we 5
would rather control here, such as the critical group, 6
specifying reference biosphere, specifying various kinds 7
of --
8 MR. GREEVES:
Margaret, could you?
9 MS. FEDERLINE:
Yes.
10 MR. GREEVES:
Margaret is actually closer to 11 that topic than I am.
I'd like her to try and address 12 that.
13 MS. FEDERLINE:
We've made comments to EPA in fm
(
)
v 14 that regard.
The last time we talked to them, it appeared 15 that there was going to be flexibility for the implementer 16 on many issues.
But, again, we don't know what the final 17 standard is going to look like.
18 So, Tim, did you want to add anything?
19 MR. McCARTIN:
No.
That's fine.
20 MR. GREEVES:
Again, the process calls for EPA 21 to put out something, and lots of people are going to 22 comment on it.
I think we've made our wishes known to 23 them.
24 There are a couple of areas where we don't
'yj 25 exactly line up, but that's the due process here.
Let's 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 l
106 1
get the standard out there.
And we'll make our formal
,~3 2
comments on the areas we think we'd like to adjust.
And (V
3 so will everybody else.
4 So I think you probably have pretty good 5
insight as to where we were coming out on it.
But as it 6
pops out, I'd enjoy some interaction with you on it also.
7 So that's sort of the summary of where these 8
things are.
There is a GAO report out on thics.
And also 9
I've asked for that to come down to your offices.
It's a 10 final report at this point in time.
It discusses the 11 implementation of these things.
So you might be 12 interested in taking a look at that.
13 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Yes.
(~'
\\-
14 7.3)
STATUS OF PART 960 OPTIONS PAPER 15 MR. GREEVES:
All right.
The fourth topic 16 that I had in mind was 960 that Bill mentioned.
We ought 17 to talk about that.
18 DOE announced that they were going to look at 19 the guidelines in September.
They acknowledged that some 20 sort of re-concurrence by the NRC would be part of that 21 process.
I think, as most are aware, they put it out 22 December 16th for comment.
23 They recently had a meeting on January 23rd, a 24 public meeting, to take comment on the document.
The k_,)
25 on-si.:e reps were there, and I understand that a number 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
107 1
the people commented and were looking for an extension in 2
the comment period.
~Y 3
It's my understandi"g what was a 60-day 4
comment period now is a 90-day comment period.
And I 5
be2. eve it goes to March 17th.
So there will be 6
additional time to provide comments.
7 The principal change is that there would be a 8
new subpart which is Yucca Mountain-specific.
And they 9
would be conducting a total system performance assessment 10 analysis.
And they will compare that with the applicable 11 EPA and NRC standards.
12 They have the problem that they don't exist at 13 this point in time, but they do commit that when they do
[~h
(_)
14 come forward, they would be comparing them with those 15 standards.
So they are proposing specific revisiens to 16 both the post and pre-closure system guidelines.
17 We're in the process of preparing a Commission 18 paper to give the Commission some insights from the staff 19 level as to what we think about this.
We also expect that 20 we would be making at the staff level comments on the 21 guidelines.
22 And, again, comments on these guidelines would 23 be coming forward within the March 17th time frame.
So 24 we'll I'm sure find a way to talk to you about this
( w) 25 process, but that's sort of a thumbnail sketch.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1
Margaret, do you want to add anything to that?
1 2
MS. FEDERLINE:
No.
I think the only thing is
~#
3 that they do commit in the proposed guidelines not to move j
4 forward with suitability until the final rules are 5
promulgated.
So that's a pretty firm commitment on their 6
part to bring them into -- I think our earlier comment,
]
7 the thing the commission was really worried about back in 8
the early time was ending up having an inconsistency 9
between suitability and licensing.
And I think there are 10 certain precautions, in at least the proposal, that does 11 provide some assurances in that regard.
12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
So there they have a 13 commitment, then, to not make the suitability decision i
)
\\'
14 final until both the EPA standard and revised Part 60 are 15 16 MS. FEDERLINE:
Well, let's ask Mike Lee.
Am 17 I saying it wrong?
18 MR. LEE:
Good morning.
19 MS. FEDERLINE:
Give your name.
20 MR. LEE:
Mike Lee, NMSS Waste Management.
21 OGC was reviewing the preamble to the actual 22 changes in the statement of considerations.
And they're 23 concerned that, although the revisions, as John Greeves 24 has pointed out and Margaret has also, acknowledge that
~s
)
25 the revisions are to demonstrate compliance with the EPA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
109 1
and the NRC regulations, the language in the preamble says 2
they commit.
They won't make a decision unless the EPA
^
3 standard is out.
So we have to clear that up with them.
j 4
So that would probably be one of our comments l
l 5
at the staff level during the public comment period.
So I
l 6
we --
7 MS. FEDERLINE:
We're still working with OGC 8
to flesh out all of these comments.
So this is where we 9
are at this point in time.
10 MR. GREEVES:
And it's going to receive a lot 11 of attention, --
12 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Thank you.
13 MR. GREEVES:
-- as it has already.
So that's I
's /
14 just a thumbnail sketch of where we are on 960 status.
15 And as these things pop out, you'll be on distribution and 16 enjoy some conversation with you over time I'm sure.
i 17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Great.
18 7.1)
THE STATUS OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION AT 19 THE PROPOSED YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY 20 MR. GREEVES:
Okay.
The next, the fifth 21 topic, that I had on my list was Yucca Mountain site 22 characterization highlights.
Just a couple of things on 23 this front.
24 One that had some attention on the past is the i
f~%()
25 pneumatic monitoring program.
I just wanted to make sure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110 1
you were aware that DOE had completed their monitoring in 2
two bore holes:
NRG-6 and NRG-7A.
They've used these xj l
3 bore holes to monitor pressure changes in the mountain.
4 It has been an issue that I know you have paid some 5
attention to in the past.
I just want to make sure you 6
were aware that they had finished that monitoring of these 7
two holes.
8 The staff has no objection to DOE's decision 9
to discontinuing monitoring in these two particular holes.
\\
10 We think that adequate data are available to show changes 11 in the conditions in these holes.
We understand DOE while 12 they're terminating monitoring in NRG-6 and 7A, it is 13 continuing pneumatic monitoring in several other bore
/~%
(
l x/
14 holes, UZ-4, 5,
7A, and SD-12 and 7.
15 In any event, I thought you would appreciate 16 being updated on this.
17 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Right.
18 MR. GREEVES:
And to the extent you have some 19 concerns, you could maybe come back and talk to us about 20 that.
But this was a topic.
We had a number of special 21 meetings on it.
And I just wanted to make sure you were 22 up-to-date on it.
23 As far as the exploratory shaft test facility, 24 as of about yesterday -- and I'm going to talk in miles p
(_)
2r because they're pretty far along here.
I never get 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
111 1
feet or the meters exactly right.
I understand the--' re 2
about 4.4 miles into this program.
And it's a five-mile 7s
\\
\\-)
3 program.
So they're on the outward-bound leg here.
And I 4
expect you all have actually stayed pretty current on 5
what's going on out there.
6 They in the November time frame were in what 7
they call Category I ground.
That's where they can make a 8
lot of progress and move rapidly, you know, in the tens of 9
meters a day.
10 However, lately they've run back into what 11 they call Category IV ground, which is much more difficult 12 to maneuver in.
And since probably mid December, they've 13 remained in what they call Category IV ground, which
(')s
\\-
14 requires shot crete, some hand mucking, et cetera.
They 15 have problems with the grippers.
16 I think we all went through this and watched 37 this very closely when they entered the mountain a while 18 back.
So they're experiencing the same difficulties, 19 getting back to what looks like the Bow Ridge Fault zone.
20 So I don't think it's a big surprise, but I'm sure that 21 lots of people wish that let's daylight this particular 22 phase of the activity.
23 So I think they're about 30 days behind their 24 expected schedule.
They would like to have finished what
/~(,n) 25 they call hole out in the end of March.
So I think 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
1 112 1
1 information that we have is it's probably going to be 1
2 April sometime before they actually daylight the tunnel.
-s 3
As far as some of the alcove testing, I 4
understand that Alcove 5, where a lot of the heater 5
testing is being set up, is subst:aatially complete.
6 They've started the single heater test in August.
And I 7
understand that's going to take about a year to heat up 8
and cool down.
So that's still in progress.
They have 9
done the construction in the main heater test area.
10 And I would like to point out to you a letter j
11 that was signed out to Steve Brocum by Mike Bell recently, 12 which includes our comments on their thermal hydrologic 13 testing and modeling program.
It is dated January 23rd.
'\\ms/
14 And it gives I think some good feedback to the DOE 15 program.
So I recommend it for your reading in terms of 16 some of your activities.
17 As far as Alcove 6, I understand that they've 18 put some bore holes out from that alcove.
And they have 19 located the Ghost Dance Fault.
And investigations 20 regarding that activity are in progress.
21 I also understand DOE has started some 22 construction at the south portal.
They did a lot of 23 preparatory effort on the north portal in terms of going 24 in and getting that machine set up.
So I expect that
()
25 there is going to be a similar type of effort at the south NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
l l
l 113 l
1 portal to allow a machine to come out.
l 7-2 The last item I had was I understand they do l
3 continue tracer tests in the C hole complex.
That's kind 1
4 of a little bit of a summary sketch of what's going on out 5
at the exploratory shaft facilities.
l 6
CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Great.
Bill?
7 MEMBER HINZE:
Could I ask a question?
We 8
have heard about John Braderhoff preparing a paper, which 9
I understand is submitted for publication, in which he and 10 his coauthor arrive at the decision that at least. Midway 11 Valley faults have a very high permeability.
This is just 12 street talk.
13 And I'm wondering.
I believe this work was Os kJ 14 done with relationship to or in association with Nye 15 County.
I'm not certain about that.
The work is, of 16 course, important to all of us.
I'm wondering if you have 17 any information on it.
18 MR. GREEVES:
I don't.
Margaret, is it 19 something we want to get back to them on or does somebody?
20 MS. FEDERLINE:
Mike, is somebody here from 21 your staff who could address that?
22 MR. BELL:
I'm looking around the room.
23 MR. GREEVES:
Why don't you let us get back to l
\\
l 24 you?
We'll take a note on that one.
/O
(,/
25 MEMBER HINZE:
It's very important.
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 114 1
7.5)
STATUS OF ACTIVITIES AT ENVIROCARE 2
MR. GREEVES:
Okay.
I'll move on to the next
-s i
/
~'
3 topic, Number 6 on my list, which is Envirocare.
I don't 4
think there's anybody who hasn't read a news article on 5
this.
This is a concern.
Any time you start hearing 6
about extortion, regulators taking dollars, this is 7
obviously a concern for all of us.
I find it difficult to 8
express my feelings on this topic.
So I'm not going to go 1
9 too deep into it.
10 Again, there are allegations at this point.
I 11 think many of you are familiar with the articles in the i
12 Salt Lake Tribune.
And to the extent you feel like you 13 need to know more, we have a lot of that information.
So O
(
3 s-)
14 if you or your staff wants to come up, we'd be happy to 15 share some of that with you.
16 It exceeds the amount of material I was 17 reading on your background, and it's growing.
So I offer 18 if you want some information, either you or your staff 19 come on up and visit with us.
And we'll give you the 20 background on it.
21 I think you know the details.
The owner of 22 Envirocare is talking about extortion in terms of 23
$600,000, and there's a regulatory official who is suing 24 for 5 million.
I mean, this is the kind of stuff you just 1
("%
l ()
25 usually think you see in the movies.
I really don't want NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 i
1 to go too far into it, 2
Rest assured that we have notified the g-]
%^
3 appropriate federal officials associated with this.
The 4
NRC has a point of contact with those people.
And we have 5
talked to the State of Utah.
They're currently reviewing 6
the Envirocare license in a renewal program typical with 7
ours.
And they have offered to provide and share with us 8
that information.
9 I think there are actually five license-type 10 activities out there.
So there's a lot of people involved 11 with this.
We have what we call an 11(e) (2) byproduct 12 license with them, which is basically the mill tailings 13 program, which the State of Utah did not obtain.
We do
\\/
14 continue to regulate that license.
15 In addition to that, I understand Utah has a 16 NORM license, a mixed waste license, a mixed waste 17 processing license.
And I forget what the other one is, 18 but there are about five different licensing activities 19 out there.
20 As far as our license that we hold with 21 Envirocare, we have scratched, talked to the staff, and 22 looked to see if there was any reliance on the State of 23 Utah in terms of documentation for our issuance of our 24 license and our safety evaluation report.
And the answer (O,/
25 coming back is no.
We did an independent evaluation 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
116 1
evaluate our license and write up our typical safety 2
evaluation report.
fs
(
)
%/
3 We, I'm sure as many of you have heard, have 4
received a 2.206 petition by the Nuclear Resources Defense 5
council.
And we are reviewing that at the present time.
6 They ask for a number of things, including revocation of 7
Envirocare's license, NRC's license, the state's 8
authority, et cetera.
I think you can just refer to that 9
document for the details.
We're currently reviewing that 10 petition.
And we expect we will be getting back to NRDC 11 shortly on that.
12 Also, for your information, we're conducting 13 an inspection at Envirocare this week.
It turns out that
(~T l
e i
\\/
14 before these articles hit the paper, we did an inspection 15 a while back.
And there were a couple of issues that the 16 inspection showed that needed follow-up.
So we had 17 already scheduled an inspection for this time frame.
18 So the staff is out there this week looking at 19 those issues, and I understand they're getting a fair 20 amount of help from other people who are interested in 21 this topic at the present time.
22 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Right.
In regard to that, 23 John, if I can interrupt you a second, we have a request 24 in to get a copy of the inspection report.
We didn't know O
(,/
25 it was an ongoing inspection, but we have requested a copy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
117 1
of the inspection report.
So when that's available, we 2
would like to see it.
p_
3 MR. GREEVES:
No problem.
4 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
I understand that some 5
parts of it are written but are still in management 6
review.
7 MR. GREEVES:
Yes.
If somebody is in the 8
audience, Joe Holonich, are you with us?
If Joe shows up 9
and wants to tell us when that inspection report is coming 10 out, but we will make it available to you.
Others have 11 asked also.
12 Harold, what's the status?
Now, this is the 13 inspection report dated what, November?
(\\
t
\\_)
14 MR. LEFEVRE:
This would be for the November 15 inspection.
16 MR. GREEVES:
Right.
17 MR. LEFEVRE:
And I understand -- I got an 18 e-mail yesterday from Region 4.
And they indicated that 19 the document is available now.
I understand it was to 20 have been signed out late yesterday afternoon.
So we can 21 provide a November inspection report to the Committee.
22 MR. GREEVES:
Harold, you'd better get a 23 couple of copies of that on your desk.
Provide one of 24 them to --
f3
(_)
25 MS. FEDERLINE:
Harold Lefevre is our project NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASH'NGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1.i 8 l
t l
1 manager on this.
l 2
CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
We'd like to get one.
f~
N^]
3 MR. LEFEVRE:
Sure.
l 4
MR. GREEVES:
So, as I said, we right now have 1
l 5
an inspection going on at the site.
And I want to stress 6
that this is an inspection that we would do anyhow.
It 7
has a focus on the issues that we identified in November.
8 It is not as a result of the newspaper articles, et 9
cetera, but obviously the team is aware of those issues.
10 And they'll have their antennae up as they go through the 11 inspection.
12 We also recently received a document from the 13 American College of Nuclear Physicians signed by Carol
/^\\
)
\\/
14 Marcus raising some additional issues regarding this.
So 15 we're in the process of taking a look at that.
16 As I said, there's a lot of interest in this 17 site.
I'd characterize us in a gathering information mode 18 at the present time.
Obviously we want to make sure we 19 get the information that's needed and use it properly.
20 I would want to end with one of the first 21 things that Margaret, I,
other managers, Joe want to ask 22 the staff is:
Do you know of any safety-significant 23 problems at this site?
Does anybody know of any l
24 safety-significant problems at this site?
And the answer
(~%
(
(_,)
25 so far is no.
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
119 1
The issues in front of us obviously are cause 2
for concern, but our job first is safety.
And we have not 7g i
i
%J 3
identified any significant safety issues.
So I just 4
wanted to leave you with that piece of information and to 5
let you know that we're vigilant and that we are looking 6
into these and other issues.
There are probably more to 7
come.
It's going to take a while for this one to get 8
sorted out.
9 So that's the update.
10 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Great, John.
11 Let me ask the members whether anybody has any 12 questions for John on these subjects.
We can feel free to ask him other questions, :out he may not be immediately 13
\\~)
14 prepared to answer.
But he usually comes through.
15 MR. GREEVES:
We can take the question and 16 maybe get back to you.
Things I've said I think are 17 pretty much available out there.
So, as I said, I'd be 18 happy to visit with you or your staff.
19 Joe Holonich has got a file that's growing.
20 And we'd be happy to go over that with your staff 21 upstairs.
But if you've got a question right now, I'd at 22 least entertain it.
23 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Questions, George?
Bill?
24 John?
n
(
25 MEMBER HORNBERGER:
Didn't you have another NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
120 1
issue?
2 MR. GREEVES:
Yes, I've got some other issues.
7s l
I 3
CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Oh, you have more issues?
1 4
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Please go on.
5 MR. GREEVES:
It's been a while.
6 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Please go on, John.
7 MR. GREEVES:
How much time do you --
8 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
I want to give you as much 9
time as you have to cover.
10 MR. GREEVES:
All right.
Good.
I'll keep 11 going, then.
Okay.
12 7.6)
OUTSIDE REGULATION OF DOE 13 MR. GREEVES:
The next item on my list is DOE
/~'\\
t
14 regulation.
You got. a copy of the news release that DOE 15 put out.
And it indicated that they expect to submit 16 legislation, transferring oversight to basically NRC over 17 a ten-year period.
And this would establish NRC as the 18 regulator of DOE facilities and phase out the Defense 19 Board.
20 Within about the first five years, it would 21 look towards the nuclear energy facilities and the energy 22 research facilities transferring over.
I think the 23 thinking here is these are the ones that are probably most 24 like NRC facilities at the present time.
So we could O)
(,
25 maybe cut our teeth on these in that process.
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
121 1
Then environmental management facilities, 2
which in some ways may be more problematic, would be fs
~
3 transferred.
And by the end of the ten years, defense 4
program facilities would follow along.
5 I think the sense that I'm getting is that 6
there would probably be some time frame next couple of 7
years where legislation would be required on this front.
8 So it may take a couple of years.
9 And then once that were to be sorted out, they 10 would start into this process of moving over to NRC 11 regulation.
I think you'll hear numbers like a $135 12 million annual program.
I think that's the total program.
13 NRC is a subset of that.
/~'s 14 The rest of it would be DOE activities.
And 15 people talk in terms of pilot programs, trying a couple of 16 different facilities.
In fact, in many ways, we're 17 already 9 tarting to do some of these things.
I think 18 you're familiar with the Hanford tank activities that the 19 fuel cycle program is working on with appropriated budget.
20 Margaret, in fact, is just coming back from a 21 visit with Savannah River Lab in terms of looking at some 22 of their efforts with the aluminum clad fuel.
And one 23 we've been working on for a long time, West Valley, is 24 starting to heat up.
They are looking at getting their 25 EIS and record of decision process moving along.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1
So lots of these things are actually starting 2
to come in the door through various vehicles.
And I think 7-
)
3 people are thinking of the USEC model, where maybe we'd do 4
a certification kind of process for existing facilities.
5 So this looks like something that's coming at 6
the agency over, say, the next ten years.
And we all 7
collectively probably have to do a fair amount of thinking 8
as to how to bite into this.
I think the expectation on 9
the DOE's side is that there would be some kind of a 10 ramp-up process, some pilot facilities, et cete:a.
I know 11 Carl has some ideas on this, and I expect he will be 12 talking to you about it over time.
13 So that's the background on review of DOE Ok-14 regulation.
15 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
John, in terms of that, I 16 wondered.
I presume that there must be a group of people 17 somewhere within NRC that have a very good grasp of 18 exactly what the problems are at the various DOE sites and 19 that somebody has done a very careful analysis of what 20 it's going to cost to do this.
21 It seems to me there's a great inherent 22 danger, if you will, in taking on the regulatory 23 responsibility for some specific site without having a 24 fairly detailed knowledge of what's there and what the
(~h
(,)
25 problems are.
And you may well end up in that kind of a l
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
123 1
-- if you didn't have information, you might well end up 2
with not enough money to cope with it basically.
-s i
3 So I assume somebody is doing that.
Is that a 4
fair assumption?
5 MR. GREEVES:
Well, it's certainly been a 6
topic of discussion with DOE.
There's been a lot of 7
energy put into this, discussions with DOE at high levels.
8 And you're right.
It's a huge program.
9 I think that, in fact, DOE, just for them to 10 get their arms around this program is somewhat difficult.
11 It's just many, many different programs to put it 12 together.
13 So there's been a fair amount of effort on the gs k--
14 NRC staff to look at:
What is this, how big is it, and 15 what would it take to regulate this?
There's been a fair 16 amount of thinking within the agency on that.
And I think 17 that will continue.
18 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Is that monitored out of or 19 is that coordinated out of the EDO's office, then?
20 MR. GREEVES:
Yes, it is.
The EDO is directly 21 involved in that process.
And Dr. Paperiello is a key 22 player in that process.
I would expect that it's going to 23 be a topic within the agency in years to come as to how 24 that transition will take place.
AQ 25 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Great.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
124 1
7.7)
OTHER TOPICS 2
MR. GREEVES:
Okay.
That's all I had on that.
73 I
i
~'
3 I've just got a couple of items here, and I can mention 4
them.
And I'm just about done at that point.
5 The first is the low-level waste branch 6
technical position.
We were looking to get that out for 7
comment in January.
Well, we've only got a couple of 8
days.
But I think that it will be out in Febcuary.
9 And I'd like to get your insight, spend some 10 time with you, here or in some other venue, on that 11 particular topic.
So I just wanted to give you a head's 12 up.
That's substantive.
That's something that should be 13 on your radar screen.
t'%
14 The other one is the decommissioning rule.
I 15 expect something's going to come out on that.
It's taken 16 a long time.
So I just wanted to give you a heads up that 17 that's another one.
There's going to be a lot of 18 follow-up on that in terms of implementation.
So I just 19 share with you, expect to see that pop out sometime in the 20 reasonable future.
21 A problem that Margaret and I wrestle with 22 daily is I've only gone through a partial list of the 23 things that are on my plate.
With the limited resources 24 that we have in government, how do we manage those n
(,,1 25 resources in an effective way?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344 433
125 1
I read your priority list.
And you share the 2
same process of:
Gee, how many of these can I bite into?
i V
3 So sometime when we get a chance, I'd like to visit with 4
you a little bit and just make sure.
There are priority i
5 lists, but I don't know how we're going to get to all of 6
them.
7 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
You're not alone, John.
8 You're not alone.
9 MR. GREEVES:
You, as you pointed out in your 10 letter, have the situation where you don't have to so much 11 pay attention to the budget, but it's a reality.
So I 12 encourage you.
When you get the chance or when we get the 13 chance, let's try and talk through.
To the best of our
?
t
'L/
14 ability, we'11 share with you what we think the best use 15 of our resources.
16 That's what we're going to do.
We're going to 17 work on those issues.
18 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Right.
19 MR. GREEVES:
And there are going to be some 20 items that we just -- not that they aren't priority and 21 not that they aren't important, but I find you can dilute 22 yourself.
And you try and cover them all, and you can 23 really get yourself in trouble on substantive issues if 24 you don't put the proper amount of energy into it.
(")%
(
25 So I don't have any magic answer to that, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
126 1
over time I hope that we can talk.
2 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
We would like to do that, g-)
\\
3 definitely.
4 MR. GREEVES:
Okay.
So when you get a chance, 5
maybe I'll talk to you about your priority list and let 6
you know where --
7 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Very good.
8 MR. GREEVES:
Actually, I did get through my 9
list.
I went a little quickly, but I'm glad that I was 10 able to do a little bit of catchup.
So I'm at this point 11 open to adjourning or answering other questions.
And from 12 time to time Margaret and I would like to come back and do 13 this again, f
i
\\ #
14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Well, we'd certainly like 15 to have that happen, John.
You're always welcome down 16 here.
We especially like this informal interchange of 17 updating us on where things are.
18 Other questions for John, folks?
19 MEMBER HINZE:
No, but I really appreciate you 20 coming down and giving us this extensive discussion.
It's 21 very helpful.
It puts things in context for us, which is 22 most useful.
23 MR. GREEVES:
Great.
24 MEMBER HINZE:
It helps us also to set some O)
(,
25 priorities.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127 1
MR. GREEVES:
Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
I should ask you one last (g) 3 question, I guess.
4 MR. GREEVES:
Sure.
5 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Did Mal come back or is Mal l
6 still --
7 MR. GREEVES:
He's back.
He's in the 8
building.
l 9
CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
He is back?
10 MR. GREEVES:
Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Okay.
12 MR. GREEVES:
He's doing well.
He's 13 jet-setting.
Cr 14 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Then, with that, John, I'd 15 like to thank you again.
We all appreciate your coming 16 down.
We know it's difficult to take this much time away 17 from your schedule, but we do appreciate it.
And we look 18 forward to talking with you in the future, informally and 19 here as well.
20 MR. GREEVES:
Thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN POMEROY:
Thank you.
22 With that, I'd like to take a one-hour recess.
23 I'd like to reconvene at 10 minutes after 1:00.
And if I 24 could get the attention of the Committee for just a p).
25 second, after you get some food, I would like to meet to
(
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
128 1
talk in there.
2 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken at g ~s, i
i
\\v/
3 12:12 p.m.)
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
,O.
b, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
,r,
(/
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPC11ERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RF ODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHlf GTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
~
4 O:U i
4 DI8 CLAIMER j
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 4
JANUARY 29, 1997 The contents of this transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste on JANUARY 29, 1996, as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.
l O
NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RilODEISLAND AVENUE,NW (202) 234 443i WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005 (202)234 4433
e
/"S.
U l
CERTIFICATE l
This is to certify that the attached j
1 proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
i Name of Proceeding: 89" ACNW MEETING l
Docket Number: N/A a
l Place of Proceeding: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear l
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.
1 67 41/A
'CORBETT NINER Official Reporter Neal R.
Gross and Co.,
Inc.
O NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RilODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW (202)234-4433 WASilINGTON,D.C. 20005 (202)234 4433
o o
O' t
,p- ~s.,,
l
<.1 United States
\\,,,,,,)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM FY96 AXNUAL PROGRESS REPORT Presented to:
i Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste January 29,1997 By:
}
Margaret Federline, Deputy Director Division of Waste Management i
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
l
o o
o f - s,,,
<.1 United States i
\\,,,,)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
l OVERVIEW l
The HLW Annual Report provides status of NRC-HLW work conducted in FY96 and an assessment of progress toward resolution of the 10 Key Technical Issues.
For each individual KTI, the specific path to resolution is unique and reflects both the nature of the issue and progress of the DOE and NRC technical work to date.
I i
1 2
January 22,1997
O O
O
~!
- p. - s l
s United States
- \\,...../
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
LIMITATIONS / EXPECTATIONS Not a licensing document.
l Conclusions are not NRC findings or requirements for
[
future action.
t DOE remains ultimately responsible for developing an l
integrated safety case and may choose to adopt a different path to issue resolution than NRC Purpose is to document progress and facilitate a dialog between
[
NRC and DOE.
I i
3 January 22,1997
+
! > <,,1 United States
\\,.....j Nuclear Regulatory Commission t
FY96 REPOSITORY PROGRAW
SUMMARY
l 1
- NRC Repository Program Refocused and Reorganized
- NRC KTI's Closely Related to DOE's WCIS i
- KTI's Investigated by Detailed Examination of Vertical Slice i
i t
- Objective: Define a Path to Resolution, Including Acceptance i
Criteria, for NRC Review of DOE Submittals i
h Significant Progress in Groundwork for Subissue Resolution a
l l
4 January 22,1997
o o
o -1:
United States y
%.....}
Nuclear Regulatory Commission REPOSITORY PROGRAM FUTURE ACTIVITIES i
- Issue Resolution Status Report (IRSR) and Annual Reports
- Primary NRC Documentation of NRC/ DOE Prelicensing Process
- Vehicles for Discussion and Integration f
FY97-98 Sensitivity Analyses to Evaluate Performance Impact l
a 1
Reduced FY97 Budget Eliminated CNWRA Support in 3 KTI's 1
?
l 5
January 22,1997 i
O O
'P f w "}
United States
\\,,,,,/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission b
HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM FY96 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
SUMMARY
OF TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES i
Presented to:
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste January 29,1997
[
By: M. Bell, Branch Chief Division of Waste Management Nuclear Regulatory Commission and t
B. Sagar, Technical Director l
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses k
i
O O
O P
p~"'%
y United States
...../
Nuclear Regulatory Commission PRESENTATION OUTLINE t
For Each NRC Key Technical issue (KTl) Provide a Brief Summary of:
i i
KTl and the Associated Elements of the DOE Waste Containment and Isolation Strategy (WCIS)
Path to Resolution for Each KTl i
l FY96 Accomplishments for Each KTl t
i Integration and Information Flow Between the KTis (See Report) i I
t i
l 2
January 29,1997 l
I
O O
O l
P 1
l
<3 United States l
%.,,,,{A Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
SEQUENCE OF KTl PRESENTATION l
UNSATURATED AND SATURATED FLOW UNDER i
ISOTHERMAL CONDITIONS THERMAL EFFECTS ON FLOW EVOLUTION OF THE NEAR-FIELD ENVIRONMENT i
REPOSITORY DESIGN AND THERMAL-MECHANICAL EFFECTS CONTAINER LIFE AND SOURCE TERM RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT l
IGNEOUS ACTIVITY STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION AND SEISMICITY i
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE EPA STANDARD TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND
[
INTEGRATION l
i i
3 January 29,1997 j
O O
O I
P
~
,f.
j i
'\\
United States
\\.,;,,,0 Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KTl AND DOE WASTE CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY:
UNSATURATED AND SATURATED FLOW UNDER ISOTHERMAL CONDITIONS DOE WCIS:
- Percolation is Significantly Less Than Infiltration I
- Rapid Fracture Flow Affects a Limited Volume of the Repository l
- Capillary Effects Will Reduce Seepage
- Impacts of Climate Can Be Bounded NRC SUBISSUES:
- Climate Over the Performance Period Shallow infiltration Under Current Conditions
- Deep Percolation Under Current Conditions
- Deep Percolation Over the Performance Period
- Dilution in the Saturated Zen 2 i
4 January 29,1997
O O
O r
,. ~.,
{'~l}
United Stees
.,,,,/
Nuclear Kegulatory Commission
\\-
l
[
i l
PATH TO RESOLUTION: UNSATURATED AND SATURATED FLOW UNDER ISOTHERMAL CONDITIONS j
Publish issue Resolution Status Report (IRSR) Including Acceptance Criteria on Future Climate., Shallow infiltration, and Deep Percolation-Early FY97
- Investigate Bounds on Future Climate Based on Geologic Record l
- Bound Shallow Infiltration Considering Spatial Variability l
Reach Agreement on Method to Model Deep Percolation or l
Obtain Conservative Bound l
Publish IRSR on Dilution in Saturated Zone-FY98
- Evaluate Conceptual Models including Flow Channeling
(
- Analyze Geochemical Data to Corroborate Hydrologic Estimates j
of Dilution j
i
[
5 January 29,1997 f
i
1 O
O O
,IwA United States
%, y Nuclear Regulatory Commission
\\
t I
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96: UNSATURATED AND l
SATURATED FLOW UNDER ISOTHERMAL CONDITIONS l
Drafted an issue Resolution Status Report on Climate Modeled Shallow infiltration and Potential for Perching l
Considering Site Characteristics i
Used Hydrologic and Chemical Constraints to Estimate Percolation Flux Initiated Study of Saturated Zone Dilution j
i 6
January 29,1997 t
I
O O
O
\\
4
"\\
United States l~A
\\,;,,,{
Nuclear Regulatory Commission t
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KTl AND DOE WASTE CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY:
THERMAL EFFECTS ON FLOW DOE WCIS:
- Thermally Induced Changes in Seepage Rates Can Be Bounded j
- Emplaced Waste Will Reduce the Relative Humidity j
NRC SUBISSUES:
- Adequacy of DOE Thermal Testing to Evaluate Gravity-Dnven Refluxing
- Adequacy of Thermal Modeling to Assess the Nature of and Bound the Thermally Induced Flux
- Adequacy of the DOE Thermal Loading Strategy with Respect to Waste Package Performance j
7 Janua y 29.1997 l
O O
O i
i f
.s
\\,,,f)
United States i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission PATH TO RESOLUTION: THERMAL EFFECTS ON FLOW l
Publish IRSR on Gravity-Driven Refluxing-End FY97
- Evaluate Conceptual Models: Fracture Dripping and Gravity-Driven Refluxing
- Reach Agreement on Range of Conditions for Field Tests l
- Determine Effects of Backfill, Hydraulic Properties, Ventilation, l
and Geologic Features j
- Evaluate Whether important Thermal Processes Are included in l
PA Publish IRSR on Thermally induced Perturbations on Water l
l Flux-FY98 i
- Evaluate Effect of Heat on Perched Water Bodies
- Evaluate Sensitivity of Dose to Thermally induced Perturbations on Water Flux l
8 January 29,1997 t
O O
O
"}
United States
(
~
\\,;,,,,/
Nuclear Regulatory Comutission i
t i
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96: THERMAL EFFECTS l
ON FLOW I
Reviewed and Agreed With Findings of DOE Peer Review Team
[
Evaluation of DOE Heater Tests indicated That Gravity i
Refluxing May Not Be Observed in Drift-Scale Test Benchmarking of DOE /NRC Computer Codes Did Not Show Major Differences d
Sensitivity Analyses Showed Cooling Effects of Fracture Flow and Ventilation l
[
9 January 29,1997 l
i i
0 0
0 I
?
- f. -,
i' ~ 3 United States
\\.,;,,fi Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TH.E KTl AND DOE WASTE t
CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY:
i EVOLUTION OF THE NEAR-FIELD ENVIRONMENT DOE WCIS:
- Seepage into Drifts Will Be a Small Percentage of Percolation
- Radionuclide Release Will Be Low l
- Transport Properties of Engineered Barriers Will Reduce Radionuclide Concentrations NRC SUBISSUES:
l t
- Near-Field Chemical Effects on Seepage j
- Effects of Near-Field Environment on Containment l
- Effects of Near-Field Environment on Radionuclide Mobilization
- Effects of Near-Field Environment on Radionuclide Transport l
10 January 29,1997 i
i
O O
O
?
f-~g j
('
)
United States
%,,,,./
Nuclear Regulatory Commission PATH TO RESOLUTION: EVOLUTION OF THE NEAR-FIELD ENVIRONMENT Publish IRSR on Effect of Coupled Processes on Containment, l
Release and Transport-Mid FY97
- Develop Geochemical Models for interactions Among Water and l
Natural and Engineered Materials
- Evaluate the Adequacy of DOE Near-Field Environment Model and Associated Data Synthesis Report
(
- Bound the Range of Near-Field T-H-C Effects and Their l
Influence on Performance i
Publish IRSR on Effect of Mineralogy, Petrology and Rock j
Ohemistry on Near-Field Environment-End FY97
- Review Data and Models j
- Estimate Sensitivity of Dose to Related Parameters I
11 January 29,1997 f
?
g a.s.,
l~
1 United States
~
\\,,,{i Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
I PATH TO RESOLUTION: EVOLUTION OF THE i
NEAR-FIELD ENVIRONMENT (continued)
Publish IRSR on Effects of Man Made Materials-FY98 l
- Bound the Range of Effects of Man-Made Materials and Micro-l Organisms l
I L
i 12 January 29,1997 l
O O
O
[
= < ^} United States
%,;,,,,)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96: EVOLUTION OF THE NEAR-FIELD ENVIRONMENT Sensitivity Analyses of T-H-C Effects for a Range of Aqueous i
Components, Heat, and Fluid Flow Conditions Showed Significant Effects on pH and Chloride Concentrations Initial Calculations Showed that the Equivalent Continuum Models Did Not Accurately Simulate Flow Through Fractures Estimated Effects of Cementitious Materials, but Uncertainties Are High Found Bacterial Colonies Were Viable at Repository Temperatures
[
13 January 29,1997 i
i
O O
O r
.* ** e i o l}
United States
)
\\,,,~,fl Nuclear Regulatory Commission RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KTl AND DOE WASTE CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY.
REPOSITORY DESIGN AND THERMAL-MECHANICAL EFFECTS DOE WCIS-
- Flow Rate into Repository Will Be Low
[
- Engineered Barriers will Limit Migration of Radionuclides
}
I NRC SUBISSUES:
[
- Design of Repository to Meet Pre-and Post-Closure Objectives I
- Evaluation of Thermal Effects on Underground Design
- Role of Repository Seals in Meeting Performance Objectives j
I f
14 January 29,1997 i
i
o o
o.l I
fy)
United States I
k.W...O. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I,
i i
PATH TO RESOLUTION *:
REPOSITORY DESIGN AND l
THERMAL-MECHANICAL EFFECTS i
i f
l Publish IRSR on Design Control Process-Mid FY97 l
- Agree on Seismic Design Methodology and input Data j
- Ensure DOE Design Documents incorporate Regulatory l
Requirements l
- DOE Implements Adequate Design Control Process l
Possible Future IRSR
- Evaluate DOE Heater Tests and Results i
- Complete Evaluation of Adequacy of Continuum Model and l
Parameter Values for Analysis of Rock Stability
- Due to budget constraints, contractor work has been eliminated in FY97 and NRC staff work has i
15 January 29,1997 l
l 5
i
ii!;
!l!!
- lil!!lj!!!!
jiji!f!IIY!!:i
~ -
. O 79 9
1 92 N
s p
y i
r l
a S
t G
c e
nu a
E d
e n
J I
S O
f n
f f
o E
o a
E Z
D D S n
s s
d e
e d
w l
Y T n
s d
e R C a
o s
i u
Y D
e l
r E
d c
t n
O F e
w S
n o
TF w
o i
t d
E e
I lF y
a a
S i
t v
h o
i OL e
d t
l L
i PA R
n b
l e
c a
a s EC s
t d
i n
a s
Sr o
m RI s
- N W
e M
s e
t i
f t c
it e
n 6A 2
o a
e S
r o
DP v
i r
9H P
i f
s f
t s
YC od e
u o
6 O
or l
1 i
Ne o
u t
s m
FE i
yt t
t t
r t a t
m NM ou n
d c s
c r
o ua n
e o
I C
L pa t r o
f l
f ev C
SF C
E SA RE n
co t
f y
r T
g it n
o o
N M ag l
r i
i t e o
n a
E R c n s
e t
e v
J o
i i
E pe D
mi r
l t
i u
M oB ais ce a
k a t
s H
Te E
r eg a n oh u
t e H T Os Pe RS a
r aR S
l c a t
Dn S
t i
v Sr D
ms e
d de E
IL se dm ee e s da PN e
t r r
e ise n t e cA pe d
el MA So ar u
o v e
ti c t
nu u u ds e e a
i l
UN O
Ep e
s aq nt vR l
it C
Oe ve oa ef i
DR ER CR Do n
C I
k sQ{l A
- k
.,i\\
_O i
o o
o!
y.
l
~\\
United States
%,;,,y Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KTl AND DOE WASTE CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY:
CONTAINER LIFE AND SOURCE TERM DOE WCIS:
- Corrosion ' Rates Are Very Low 4
- Double-Walled Containers Will Provide Galvanic Protection
- Radionuclide Release from Waste Forms Will Be Slow NRC SUBISSUES:
- Method for Estimating Corrosion initiation and Corrosion Rates
- Efficiency of Galvanic Protection
[
- Extrapolation of Short-Term Data on Dry Oxidation and Humid l
Air Corrosion l
- Effects of Long-Term Thermal Exposure and Mechanical Loads
- Effects of Micro-Organisms on Corrosion
[
- Significance of Dissolution Rate, Secondary Mineral Formation,
[
and Colloids on Release l
i I
17 January 29,1997 j
i
=
g* ** e,
s i' ~~ %
United States fi Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
's PATH TO RESOLUTION *:
CONTAINER LIFE AND SOURCE TERM i
Publish IRSR on Dry Oxidation-Mid FY97 Topics for inclusion in Future IRSRs i
i
- Complete Long-Term Critical Potential Measurements, incorporate in TPA Calculations
- Evaluate DOE Estimates of Corrosion by Using Repassivation Potential Methodo!ogy
- Bound Stress, Flaw Size, Grain Boundary Phosphorus, and j
Material Factors Affecting Mechanica: Stability j
- Evaluate Galvanic Effects on Waste Container Life
- Due to budget constraints, contractor work has been eliminated in FY97 and NRC staff work has
[
been reduced significantly.
i 18 January 29,1997
I O
O O
i
,f.... s
?
Di United States
\\ y Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
i i
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96: CONTAINER LIFE AND SOURCE TERM l
i Demonstrated Applicability of Repassivation Potential as a l
Bound for initiation of Localized Corrosion Determined that Microbial Effects Can Be incorporated in Repassivation Potentials Evaluated Dry Oxidation Rate l
Identified Method for Evaluating Thermal Embrittlement Based on Grain-Boundary Phosphorus Calculated that Galvanic Coupling Could Extend Waste Package l
Life Substantially i
Determined that Formation of Secondary Minerals Will Control the Rate of Waste Dissolution Developed the First Version of the EBSPAC Computer Code i
t i
19 January 29,1997 i
L
o o
O
- j....s lm3 United States l
\\,,_f Nuclear Regulatory Commission RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KTl AND DOE WASTE CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY-RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT l
DOE WCIS:
- Transport Properties of Natural Barriers Will Significantly Reduce Radionuclide Concentrations NRC SUBISSUES
- Conceptual and Mathematical Models for Radionuclide Retardation l
- Identification of Radionuclides Requiring Some Form of l
Retardation to Meet Performance Standards at Yucca Mountain
- Geochemical and Hydrological Controls on Rates of
(
Radionuclide Transport f
t 20 January 29,1997 l
I i
O O
O 0*
United States
~
i' s
\\,.....J Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
PATH TO RESOLUTION *: RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT i
i Obtain Agreement on Lower Bounds.of Sorption for Key i
Elements Implement improved Sorption Models in TPA to Evaluate Sensitivity Evaluate Degree of Matrix Diffusion at Yucca Mountain Use Site Data to Bound Mixing / Dilution I
Due to budget constraints, contractor work has been eliminated in FY97. NRC staff work continues, but is shifted to other KTis.
6 L
21 January 29,1997 I
O O
O f
....s, i
~ "k United States
\\.,;,,y Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
{
l ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96:
RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT Evaluated the Sensitivity of Np and U Sorption to Geochemical l
Parameters; Sorption Changes by Orders of Magnitude with Changes in Ph i
Developed a " Smart K " Approach to Sorption Modeling o
i Evaluated the DOE Cl Measurements; Measured *Cl in ESF l
8 Indicates Presence of Fracture Flow i
Evaluated Saturated Zone Mixing Using Hydrochemical Data
[
22 January 29,1997 l
O O
O i
1 I
[
}
United States
\\,,,,,,)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KTl AND DOE l
WASTE CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY: IGNEOUS ACTIVITY l
DOE WCIS:
- Volcanic Events within the Controlled Area will be Rare and the l
Consequences of Volcanism will be Acceptable NRC SUBISSUES:
- Probability-Recurrence Rates, Geologic Factors influencing Timing and Location
- Consequences-Physical Characteristics of Eruptions, Models of Effects on Repository and Waste Packages and Dispersal of Contaminants l
- Data Quality-Accuracy, Precision, and Completeness of-the l
Data Used to Support Models and Associated Evaluations i
23 January 29,1997 I
O O
O j
~
e*
United States fi Nuclear Reguk y Commission PATH TO RESOLUTION: IGNEOUS ACTIVITY Publish IRSR Criteria on Probability-Late FY97 i
Integrate Spatially-Dependent Probability Models into the TPA Code j
for Performance Assessment j
include Results of Investigations on influence of Structure on Probability
[
Publish IRSR on Consequences of Magmatic Disruption-Late FY98 l
Characterize YMR Volcano Dispersal Capabilities Gather Geologic Data to Evaluate Subsurface Areas of Disruption Conduct Sensitivity Studies of Key Parameters Using the TPA Code l
Evaluate DOE Igneous Activity Synthesis Report 1
- Maintain and Develop Systems to Evaluate Large Data Sets (GIS, l
PVHVIEW)
Maintain Consistency of Approach with SDS and TSPAl KTis i
I i
24 January 29,1997 I
O O
O
,.....,,1 is 6
United States
%;.,[I Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96: IGNEOUS ACTIVITY l
Estimated Annual Probability by Alternate Models and That Will Provide Basis for Subissue Resolution Developed Initial Calculations of Dose to Critical Group Identified Sensitivity of Dose to Number of Waste Packages Affected, Fuel Particle Size, and Incorporation Ratio i
i Updated Database to Support Development of Alternative Models and Evaluation of the DOE Viability Assessment i
h 25 January 29,1997 t
[
O O
O i~\\
United States
\\,
fi Nuclear Regulatory Commission RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KTl AND DOE WASTE CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY:
STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION AND SEISMICITY l
l l
DOE WCIS:
- Movement on Faults Too Small and Infrequent to Bring Waste to Surface or impact Containment
- Only Slight increase in Rockfall and Drift Collapse Due to Severity of Future Ground Motion f
NRC SUBISSUES:
- Conceptual Tectonic Models
. impact of Future Faulting on Waste Packages
- Effects of Structure and Stresses on Groundwater Flow
- Potential Fault-Dike interactions 26 January 29,1997 l
o o
o.!
9 '*%
(
"}
United States
)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
\\
PATH TO RESOLUTION: STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION AND SEISMICITY Publish IRSR on Conceptual Models-End FY97
- Update Geological and Geophysical Database
- Further Narrow Range of Viable Models Publish IRSR on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)-FY98
- Reach Agreement on Probabilistic Fault and Seismic Hazard j
Analysis Methods
- Using TPA Code, investigate Sensitivity of Dose to Seismicity j
Publish IRSR on Fault Control of Magma-FY98 l
- Determine Effects of Fault-Dike interactions on Performance l
27 January 29,1997 i
O O
O i
I
,o a c.,
i' 1
United States
\\.,,,fi Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
t I
f PATH TO RESOLUTION: STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION AND SEISMICITY (continued) l Pubiish IRSR on Fault Disruption of Waste Packages
- Analyze Sensitivity of Performance to Faulting j
Publish IRSR on Fracture Models-FY98 l
- Evaluate Fracture Models and Effects of Stress on Flow
- Evaluate influence of Structure on Large Hydraulic Gradient j
Continue GIS Development l
I t
i k
28 January 29,1997
l
. =* o i'>~"
United States i
N.,,,y\\
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96: STRUCTURAL l
DEFORMATION AND SEISMICITY 1
Narrowed Number of Viable Tectonic Models t
Identified Type I Faults Initial Modeling Results Indicated that Empirical Attenuation l
Functions May Underestimate Ground Motions Initial Investigation of influence of /n Situ Stress on Flow Anisotropy Showed Significant Change in Flow Direction l
I i
i l
i 29 January 29,1997
O O
O I
l
,,-~s l
[ w I,}
United States
\\,,,,,J Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KTl AND DOE WASTE i
CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY:
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT i
OF THE EPA STANDARD i
DOE WCIS: Not Directly Applicable i
Defining a Compliance Period l
Selecting Critical Group (s) l Evaluating Results of Human Intrusion Considering Disruptive Events i
l 30 January 29,1997
?
i!!)lt[lll!l !t!! li!!jlljjlll!jj!lfi!
-- O 799 1
9 d
2 e
y:
n s
a O
o s
a un e
B a
T s
J s
t n
g s
n s
D D e
n e
or io c
i E
s T R m
r e
o e
ut AA c
r r
r m
d P
u t a i
o s
s nF LD C
n e
I o
r EN o
n p
ne i
la C
e x
ah l
R A m
t s
E mt r
s s a uO ST o
e nB s
Hr ES F
r e
o e
o o r
I i
f /
TA e
t t t e
od d
n a
h n
I e
VP v
n a c
p t
I iv f
oi s
E I
o o
Lt o
e n
T mn r
a i
E P
d el s B) o o
C e
t H
o t
i i
t aRn e (s at A
s i
T A
ec r
. O 1
s i
s e cp e
r r e 3
i P
P pt m n u Tr m
m N F E
on e o i
ed gD em r
r r
o O O h
r mapvo eG n e f
t izpE i
T T w
TaA C
el d v C
i I
Ra ri e c c
a a t
eH y
U N s
t vi ni gl r
t ai t
l o
L E n
a e t b oi ei s r
o a
OM ivepu eC Rg t
i ri t
pt suP e
l o cor c
s u SP c
r aDisd nd nL eg EO rd a
a n o
i po Dn t e ik a
d a t t aR RL er t a pd a f iu s
i t
u ),
op E
nd Aa eoy Sr O V ea n RPei G (s Pn n
c I
da T E ut aef c o pi aS I
o e
l el nu H D nS vonP or t
ic t
a t A t t ci e
l i
t e en p
UN T
nf ea uC ve oN mf R ec dn a
l l
l or A
SRTIeeinN DS Ao CD P
)/,
g a
c a
a f{%,
- O i
O O
O
,. -. s,
(
'}
United States
%,,,,,j Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96: ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE EPA STANDARD j
Evaluated Radiological Hazard Relative to Uranium Dose Studied the Relationship Between the Peak Dose and Location of Critical Group
{
Determined the Consequences of a Stylized Human Intrusion t
Analyzed the Magnitude and Relative importance of Disruptive l
Events for 10,000- and 1,000,000-Year Time Periods i
b 32 January 29,1997 l
i i
I
--- -- - - -- - -- - - ------ -- l
-..-...---__.__.-_---_----------I 0
0 0
.,f
,, ~.,,,
[' ~ l,}
United States
\\,,,,,,/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
l RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KTl AND DOE WASTE CONTAINMENT AND ISOLATION STRATEGY: TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
{
AND INTEGRATION l
DOE WCIS: All 15 Hypotheses Addressing the Goals of i
- Near-Complete Containment of Radionuclides for 1,000s of j
f i
Years
- Acceptably Low Annual Doses to the Public NRC SUBISSUES:
- Adequacy of the DOE TSPA Methodology
- Adequacy of DOE WCIS in Representing and Testing the Major j
Performance-Affecting Site Attributes and Processes
- Working with the other KTis, Continue Ongoing Assessments of l
the Relative importance to the impact on Performance of the NRC/KTis l
33 January 29,1997
}
O O
O i
[' >~ )
United States
\\.,,/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
i PATH TO RESOLUTION: TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND INTEGRATION i
Publish IRSR on Model Abstraction in DOE's TSPA-FY97
- Conduct Detailed Reviews of TSPA-95 in Selected Focus Areas
- Develop and Maintain NRC PA Capability
- Provide Early Feedback to DOE Via Technical Exchanges and i
Appendix 7 Visits j
Publish IRSR on Relative importance of KTis and WCIS-End l
FY97
- Technical Subissues Regarding Model Abstraction, Parameter and Model Uncertainties, and Scenario Methodology i
t Publish IRSR on Documentation of TSPA-FY98 l
- Investigate " Transparency of PA" i
i I
34 January 29,1997
[
l
O O
O i' ~ 3 United States
\\, y Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96: TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND INTEGRATION Conducted Audit Review of DOE TSPA-95
- Infiltration and Percolation Model is Nonconservative
- Groundwater Dilution is Overly Optimistic and not Supported by Geochemical Data
- Temperature and Humidity Calculations Were Not Well Documented, but Appear Conservative
- Waste Package Failure Models Are Limited to General and i
Pitting Corrosion, and May Be Nonconservative
- Subsystem Abstraction for Transport Results in Lower l
Cumulative Releases and Individual Doses i
l 35 Janua:y 29,1997 l
f l
O O
O i
-r l
~ !1 United States
\\.,,,,,{I Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN FY96: TOTAL SYSTEM i
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND INTEGRATION (continued) i Support to improving the TPA Code
[
- Incorporated Capability to Address Alternate Regulatory i
Requirements
- Accommodated in-Drift Emplacement Repository Designs j
- Enhanced Process Models Completed BTP on Expert Eliciation Completed Licensing Support System Test Bed j
i t
36 January 29,1997 l
1
O O
O
'o
. e ** a<.,
i
(
>w l}
United States
\\,,,,,/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS The Entire NRC Repository Program Was Refocused and Reorganized-FY96 The NRC KTis Are Closely Related to the DOE Waste Containment and Isolation Strategy Paths to Resolution Have Been Developed for Each KTl l
Significant Progress Was Made on Resolution of Subissues in FY96 Future Work Will Employ issue Resolution Status Reports as a Vehicle to Close Subissues at the Staff Level 37 January 29,1997
O O
O
,,....s,*
i&)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission HLW INTEGRATION TASK GROUP REPORT Presented to:
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste January 29,1997 i
By:
John O. Thoma, Section Leader Performance Assessment & HLW Integration Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i
i i
O O
O
(
s,,,
(
,1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
OUTLINE
Background
t Observations Conclusions Short Term Actions Long Term Recommendations 2
January 29,1997
[
i O
O O
~
, - ~3
{&'. ',,1 United States l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
BACKGROUND L
The Management Board raised questions on the effectiveness of integration in HLW Program Group identified and tasked to investigate the level of integration in the HLW Program j
All 10 KTI Team Leads and CNWRA counterparts interviewed j
i l
l 3
January 29,1997
O O
O
~
s,,
(
1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
i i
OBSERVATIONS Several examples of positive aspects to the program:
Focused on the more significant issues 1
TSPA-95 audit review supported by coordinated analysis involving many KTIs l
EPA Standard KTI KTI Implementation Plans
+
Input / output tables
+
Linked to DOE's Waste Containment Isolation Strategy I
1 4
January 29,1997 i
O O
O
'i 1
i
/
i&'S.,1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission CONCLUSIONS Although each KTI has made progress based on individual i
plans, there is still room for improvement in the overall implementation of the program.
Improvement needed in follow-through on input / output section of the KTI Implementation Plans Improved integration needed in implementing performance assessment activities i
5 January 29,1997 i
O O
O
-l
,f - s
!&.,1 United States
~%. I Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
L SHORT TERM ACTIONS KTI Plan activity tables recently updated to include:
i A more integrated approach that identifies KTI activities j
supporting specific issue resolution and PA activities i
Products with completion dates better defined for each i
activity with improved integration of completion dates l
i Yucca Mountain Team meetings are attempting new approaches to foster more open dialogue.
f i
An independent consultant has reviewed team building across e
the Division for HLW activities.
l 6
Janucry 29,1997
O O
O
- s.,,,
,f i
?
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission LONG TERM RECOMMENDATIONS The HLW Program needs to develop and continuously i
nurture a shared vision for performance assessment, its role in the program, and its relationship to other technical activities l
l Management needs to continuously promote and support a team approach to the HLW Program to ensure effective implementation of plans Communication across the HLW Program should be improved.
i i
er 9
i