ML20138L362
| ML20138L362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/25/1985 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1461, NUDOCS 8510310288 | |
| Download: ML20138L362 (275) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. O~ OR\G\Nb UlNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEES ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND METAL COMPONENTS mr u (~'\ V LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 247 - 488 DATE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1985 ACRSOFFITCOPPJ" Jo hoMemovefrom ACRSQ7 ice AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, [NC. Official .% porters 444 Ncrth Capitol Street Washington, 'D.C. 20001 03 8 851025 (202) 347-3700 T-1461 PDR
l CR24852.0 DAV/sjg 247 7~ 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEES ON 4 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND METAL COMPONENTS 5 6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1046 1717 H Street, N.W. 7 Washington, D. C. 8 Friday, October 25, 1985 9 10 The meeting of the subcommittees reconvened at jj 8:30 a.m., DR. Paul G. Shewmon presiding. 12 PRESENT: (_ 13 DR. DADE W. MOELLER, ACSS Member l 14 DR. PAUL G. SHEWMON, ACRS Member DR. CARSON MARK, ACRS Member ! 16 MR. HAROLD ETHERINGTON, ACRS Member 17 I 18 l 19 20 21 22 23 [/ x t 24 Ace swzt Reporters, Inc. 25
l PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1985 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date. No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at O
\- this meeting' accepts any responsibility for errors or -
inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript. n j
/
I ./ '/ ! -($)- I l
. - - . - . _ _ . - ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - . . - . - _ , - . , _ . _ . . _ , _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
8520 01 01 248
) DAVbw 1 PROCEED INGS 2 DR. SHEWMON: Good morning. This is the second 3 day of the meeting. So I don' t have to tell you to speak 4 loudly and into the microphone so the recorder can hear 5 you.
6 This morning, we're reviewing primarily the 7 research and technical assistance programs having to do with 8 marterials. Basically, this means the waste package, I 9 believe, but we'll learn more about that today. 10 I have no other opening remarks, unless somebody 11 else has something they wish to bring up or question, I'll 12 call on Frank Costanzi. () 13 MR. COSTANZI: Thank you, Dr. Sh e wmon . 14 Let me introduce myself. I'm Frank Costanzi, the 15 Chief of the Waste Management Branch, Division of Radiation 16 Programs and Earth Sciences, Of fice of Nuclear Regulatory 17 Research. 18 .The Commission's Waste Management Research f 19 Program is essentially managed out of the Waste Management 4 20 Branch, although there are a number of very significant 21 portions of the program being administered by the Earth f 22 Sciences Branch in the same division. One of those programs !' 23 will be discussed this morning. 7 24 That's the program on Rock Mass Ceiling. l 25 I would like to begin with just kind of a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
8520 01 02 249
) DAVbw- 1 statement of objectives.
2 (Slide.) 3 I'm going to tell you where we are and where 4 we're trying to go with our waste package program. 5 Our waste package program is, of course, one part 6 of our waste management research program. We're going to 7 hear about high level waste this morning. 8 There are other portions of the program that deal 9 with hydrology and geochemistry of waste management, both 10 high level and low level and another entire section of the 11 program that deals with questions of performance. 12 We will talk about those this morning only as () 13 voiced concerns which are addressed in those programs which 14 cover or affect the kinds of experiments and test
~
15 considerations that one gets in a waste package. 16 That is to say, how they determine or influence 17 the environment in which the waste package is supposed to 18 work? 19 The objectives of our waste package research are 20 four. The first is to identify likely failure mechanisms in 21 the waste package for each of the repository environments, 22 the kinds of repositories which DOE is looking at. We wish 23 to have some idea of what is the likely method by which the 24 steam will be lost. What is the likely controlling factor I 25 with regard to the release of radionuclides thereafter? i i t i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
-]
8520-01 03 250 () DAVbw 1 We looked at the waste package itself. We 2 identified the environmental determinants of the waste 3 package failure. That is to say, what are the conditions on 4 the outside which influence the way waste packages are in 5 the repository. We tried to identify the critical tests and 6 assumptions that are needed to demonstrate the long-term 7 performance of the waste package. That is what DOE needs to 8 do to demonstrate that they abide by the Part 60 and the i' 9 controlled release requirement. 10 Lastly, we performed selective experiments to i l 11 test these assumptions, the assumptions being what goes into 12 the demonstration. 13 (Slide.) 14 Our approach is circumscribed by the [ 15 circumstances in which we are in. Mainly, that we need to 16 track DOE decisions and not go off investigating materials ! 17 and such to which DOE is paying no attention, so the 18 materials that we looked at our the materials that DOE is 19 leaning L towards for the waste package in each of the 20 repository environments which DOE is considering, which f 21 means, of course, that we also try and tailor our
- 22 investigations to be realistic, in terms of what kinds of
, 23 waste packages we're going to examine. 24 DR. SHEWMON: Do you think that waste package is ( 25 pretty stable by now? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 01 04 251 () DAVbw 1 MR. COSTANZI: It depends upon which media you j 2 are considering. 3 The basalt carbon steel seems to be the most
- 4 likely candidate right now. The tuff site. DOE is giving 5 seriou's consideration to stainless steel. There are 6 certainly investigations of other material'. s DOE has not 7 made a decision yet, saying that this will be the waste l
8 package material, the overpack material for a particular 9 site. So we're just following what they're investigating. 10 DR. SHEWMON: The salt? l 11 MR. COSTANZI: I believe carbon steel is in salt, 12 is what they're leaning toward right now. They had been, at (j 13 one point, leading towards titanium, but some of our 14 research indicates that there were some serious questions 15 about titanium in salt. 16 MR. ETHERINGTON: I'm afraid I haven' t followed i 17 the waste disposal problem at all. Materials is one step 18 down the line from me. I would like to know something about 19 what the package looks like, what the heat flux is from the 20 outside and that kind of thing. 21 Is that possible? 22 MR. COSTANZI: I do not have that information at 23 my disposal immediately. 24 DR. SHEWMON: There is a blackboard. Can 25 somebody draw? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 01 05 252 A() DAVbw 1 MR. ETHERINGTON: Just the dimensions would 2 help. 3 DR. MC NEIL: I can draw a few things. I'm going 4 entirely from memory. I see someone there who is perhaps ( 5 more expert on the salt side than I am. I would be happy to 6 have corrections from the audience. 7 As I understand it, you have a right circular 8 cylinder of appropriate thickness, and this cylinder is at 9 present generally considered to be cast, although there are ( 10 good arguments for using rock products instead. ( ll You have tops and probably bottoms simply welded 12 on. () 13 DR. SHEWMON: Mike, why don't you back up and say 14 what's inside of the cylinder. l 15 DR. MC NEIL: All right. You have either waste 16 reprocessing gas, which is a silicate glass or else rods of 17 spent fuel, which are first contained in what is called a 18 canister, which is a right circular cylinder in stainless 19 steel. It is simply designed to facilitate handling. It's 20 not intended at present to represent a barrier to 21 corrosion. This is simply a commercial grade of stainless 22 steel, fairly thin gauge, welded up, so you can just make 23 objects of uniform shape. 24 MR. ETHERINGTON: These would be about 18 feet ( 25 high? , ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
'8520 01 06 253
) DAVbw 1 MR. COSTANZI: Something on that order, I think.
j 2 Maybe 14 feet. 3 MR. ETHERINGTON: And the diameter? 4 DR. MC NEIL: The picture that I've seen, they're 5 rather long and thin. 6 DR. MOELLER: Is Mr. Etherington thinking the
- j. 7 entire rod is put in there? Is that why you said 18 feet?
8 I assume it's all cut up. 9 DR. MC NEIL: Excuse me. Dr. Parry? 10 DR. PARRY: Generally speaking, it's planned that I 11 the fuel elements will be disassembled and that the l 12 individual fuel rods would be close-packed in a container () 13 that would be sealed separately. Now they're talking about 14 doing that away from the repository.
- 15 DR. SHEWMON
- Can I change your nomenclature for 1-16 a minute and ~ays that the subassembly will be disassembled, 17 but the rods will not be destroyed or broken up in any way, 18 if they can avoid it?
19 MR. PARRY: That's correct. They will take the i 20 cages off, though. 21 DR. MC'NEIL: Good rea'on s for not, at least in 22 the tuff site, because we know more about the tuff sites l L 23 .than we know about the other sites. At least at the tuff 24 site, there's good reason for this, because they are hoping ! () 25 to claim some credit for the actual zircalloy. I think it i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8C0 336-6646
- .. ~
l l l 8520 01 07 254 () DAVbw 1 is on the rods, in terms, not of the containment requirement 2 but the controlled release requirement. I 3 DR. SHEWMON: These fuel elements are usually 14 l l 4 feet long, about? i l 5 MR. COSTANZI: I think so. 6 MR. PARRY: The overall length is about 14 feet. 7 The active length of fuel material in the rods is on the 8 order of 12 feet. 9 DR. SHEWMON: So the 14-foot plus ends, I think 10 where Harold was coming from. 11 Okay. Onward. 12 DR. MC NEIL: In any event, this package here is fx (,) 13 now placed, for salt and basalt is now placed in the carbon 14 steel overpack. The way in which the carbon steel overpack 15 is fabricated is still somewhat in doubt. We will be 16 discussing this later, in terms of our container 17 manufacturing work. 18 It is welded shut. This is then placed in the 19 depository. This 'o-called s "open pack," which is of carbon 20 steel thickness, varies considerably, depending upon whose 21 answers you use. 22 I think DOE hasn't settled on a final answer. 23 MR. ETHERINGTON: These are loaded at the site, 24 then? 25 DR. MC NEIL: That is my understanding.
! /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 ?jlationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 8520 01 08 255 () DAVbw 1 MR. COSTANZI: It is not clear. There is some 2 discussion about the overpacks, the entire waste package 3 being assembled at the MRS and shipped to the repository. 4 DR. SHEWMON: What's an "MRS"? 5 MR. COSTANZI: I'm sorry. Monitor retrievable 6 storage. This is the facility which the DOE now proposes to 7 take spent fuel from power plants, consolidate the fuel 8 elements and, presumably, at this point, actually assemble 9 the waste package for assembly and disposal at the waste 10 site. 11 Many of these plants, you have to understand, DOE _ l'2 is still exploring its options. They have not made () 13 decisions on design, to the point where know the e.<act 14 dimensions of a waste phc< age, the exact thermal loading, t 15 the exact materia; s .,9 3 xact manufacturing techniques. 16 We are tailoring our program to what we believe 17 is the best information we have on what DOE is actively 18 pursuing during the following months. 19 DR. SHEWMON: Pardon my asking. This has changed i 20 some, I know, in the last year. You asked about heat flux. 21 Harold, maybe you won't get an answer on that today. 22 MR. ETHERINGTON: I think this is enough. 23 DR. MC NEIL: There's one interesting point I 24 would like to, before we leave the thing, point out. The () 25 tuff site, the tuff plant is entirely different. The plan ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
--, ,-. ._ - -, , _ , - - - - ~- .. . - - . - . - . . . , - . -
~8520 01 09 256 D)
(_ DAVbw 1 for tuff was explained to us at a recent meeting at Lawrence 2 Livermore. It is entirely different. They're primarily 3 focusing on spent fuel solutions there, And what they l i 4 intend to do in most cases is to use a single, very 5 carefully prepared container, either of a special stainless 6 steel chosen for its resistance to various forms of 7 environmental degradation or perhaps a high nickel alloy. 8 The advantage of high nickel alloys being that a
'9 they're much less vulnerable to transgranular chloride 10 cracking.
11 In the case of the tuff site, it is not at all ! 12 clear whether the DOE people are going with stainless steel () 13 or nickel alloys. So at present in the tuff site, unlike 14 the salt and the basalt sites, we are having to consider two 15 completely different alloys. We're in the salt and basalt 16 sites at the moment, a's of, I say, the last year and a half 17 or so. 18 There were some Armco iron tested, some 1018, I 19 think'some 1005. But basically, they're going at the 20 iron-rich end of the iron-phased diagram. 21 They're dealing with plain carbon steels, and l 22 barring some future convulsions out of the DOE side, the 23 situation there seems to be settling down a bit, but in the ! 24 tuff site, there is a fundamental question of container () 25 material selection that has not been resolved. ACE-FEDEPAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6M5 L.
. _ . . .~. -_ _ . . . . . _. __ .
8520 01 10 257 () DAVbw 1 Can I offer you more? 2 MR. ETHERINGTON: That's fine. 3 MR. COSTANZI: I might remark again that the 4 materials specification and the design are DOE's choice. , 5 DOE is charged under the Energy Recrganization Act to 6 develop the repository and deposal for waste. The NRC is 4 7 charged with licensing that disposal. Consequently, it's a 8 DOE responsibility to demonstrate that it has safely
- 9 disposed of the waste.
10 It l's not NRC's responsibility to make DOEs , 11 case. So we don't design the repository. We do not select 12 the. materials. We do not design the waste package. () 13 What we do need to do is know what the properties 14 of the materials and the designs which DOE chooses are. Not 15 only do we need to know how the waste package, in fact, how 16 the whole repository works. We also need to understand what 17 constitutes a demonstration that it works. That is to say, 18 we not only need to know what the properties of the 19 materials are -- carbon steel, stainless steel or nickel 20 alloys. In a repository environment, we need to know what 21 kind of testing program is going to demonstrate that the 22 waste package in that environment is going to perform as is , 23 required by DOE in containment for a period 300 to 1000 24 years, and controlled release of radionuclides thereafter. () 25 (Slide.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646 i-
,---..,,,..,,,-..,,-,,n.- , , , , , , , _ , _ , _ , _ , _ , _ _ _ _ , , . , _ _ ,
~e-- , ., .. - , , . , , . -
I l l
)
8520 01 11 258 () DAVbw 1 Given that, we talk about the four areas that 2 we're going to discuss today -- waste form, overpack, 3 packing backfill materials and seals, and then the waste 4 package environment, primarily conditions of the 5 groundwater, which will be attacking the waste package and 6 the wastes themselves. 7 The materials we're looking at, in terms of the 8 waste form are HLW glass and spent fuel. The assumptions 9 we're making is that idle waste glass, the boron silicate 10 glass of composition which has been prepared, are the 11 materials characterization center at PNL. The spent reactor 12 fuels are PWR and BWR fuel. Overpack materials. What we're () 13 focusing on. 14 DR. SHEWMON: Stop there for a minute. 15 Though the system for years has talked about 16 putting reprocessed fuel in here, you will be limited to 17 civilian wastes and no civilian fuel has been reproduced. 18 So l's it true that for the foreseeable fuel, 19 we'll be dealing only with spent reactor fuel? 20 MR. COSTANZI: Under the current DOE plan, as i 21 provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it limits the 22 amount of defense high level waste, which is glass that can 23 go into the repository. So the bulk of the first load in 24 the repository will be spent fuel. I think it's something (~\ ( ,/ 25 like 70 percent or more. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
..- . . .~
8520 01 12 259 () DAVbw 1 DR. SHEWMON: I thought it was excluded. It's 2 just limited. 3 MR. COSTANZI: It's just limited. 4 DR. SHEWMON: Thank you. 5 DR. MOELLER: Where does the West Valley material 6 fall? 7 MR. COSTANZI: I believe the West Valley material 8 is commercial material, and it will be vitrified according 9 to current plans. That I believe would fall under the 10 category of commercial wastes, 11 DR. SHEWMON: Is it clear where it will be 12 vitrified? () 13 MR. COSTANZI: I believe it's in West Valley. 14 DR. CARTER: In West Valley. They are building a 15 plant. 16 MR. COSTANZI: That's the current plans. 17 In overpack materials, low carbon ' steel, 18 stainless steel and high purity iron. 19 DR. STEINDLER: I think part of the DOE program 20 is also looking at copper. At least at two sites, and there f 21 is a nontrivial amount of dollars that I think are going to 22 be spent on copper. 23 IIave you excluded copper for some reason of your 24 own? e () 25 MR. COSTANZI: I don' t believe that DOE has i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 t
8520 01 13 260 ' indicated to us that at the salt, basalt or tuff sites, the DAVbw 1 2 three mediums DOE is presently looking at, that they are 3 currently, are seriously considering copper. 4 I think it would be premature for us to look at 5 that right now. 6 DR. SHEWMON: He just completed chairing a 7 committee which reviewed the research which DOE is doing in 8 this area. So it may be they haven't communicated with you, 9 but in reflection of what they're spending, I suspect he 10 knows whereof he speaks. 11 MR. COSTANZI: It is sometimes difficult to 12 understand which way to go, because we do get a good deal of O 13 mixea eteme1e tro 008-14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 10 25 (/ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 02 01 261
) DAVbur 1 DR. STEINDLER: I am sorry to hear that, but I 2 think it might be well to find out what DOE might be doing 3 in copper, not only in the basalt program but tuff and 4 basalt.
5 MR. ETHERINGTON: What is meant.by.high purity 6 iron? 7 MR. COSTANZI: Ju't~that, s iron which has very few 8 impurities. 9 MR. ETHERINGTON: Very low carbon steel, is that 10 r igh t? An open hearth product? 11 MR. COSTANZI: I am not sure. An open hearth 12 prod uc t? () 13 DR. MC NEIL: No, this is not the old ingot 14 iron. It is vacuum arc remelted. What you do is you take 15 an ordinary steelmaking argon oxygen decontamination system 16 and just run pure iron through it. 17 MR. COSTANZI: For the packing materials, the 18 backfill materials, and the sealing materials, DOE has been 19 investigating bentonite or a combination of bentonite and 20 basalt and of course cement and various compositions of 21 cement, bentonite, cement, basalt, for the sealing 22 materials. 23 Lastly, of course, the waste package 24 environment -- this has primarily to do with the () 25 groundwater, the chemistry of the groundwater, and its ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 02 02 262 () DAVbur 1 interaction with the waste package, and with the basalt 2 groundwaters and tuf f groundwaters and the brines of 3 basalt.
~
4 We will begin to start looking at the chemical 5 compositions of the groundwaters in granite. 6 MR. ETHERINGTON: The environmental problems come 7 from the outside, not from the inside? 8 MR. COSTANZI: I am not sure I understand the 9 question. 10 MR. ETHERINGTON: What is the inside environment, 11 inside the containment? 12 MR. COSTANZI: Inside the waste package itself? () 13 We have done some research looking at the inside of the 14 waste package, essentially corrosion of the canister from 15 the inside out, and we determined that that really isn't 16 significant compared to what is coming from the outside of 17 the waste package. 18 MR. ETHERINGTON: That is based on the 19 environment being what inside -- just air, oxygen, or what? 20 MR. COSTANZI: In the case of high level waste 21 glass it would just be a stainless steel can in which the 22 glass has been solidified, and in the case of spent fuel it 23 will be again a stainless steel can in which the 24 concolidated fuel pins are placed. There may be an () 25 encapsulating matrix, there may not. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 4 6646
8520 02 03 263 I) DAVbur 1 MR. ETHERINGTON: And the spaces are just filled 2 with air, is that correct? 3 MR. COSTANZI: They may be filled with some inert 4 gas, argon or nitrogen. We don't expect there would be a 5 tremendous amount of space, anyway. 6 DR. SHEWMON: With regard to the fuel, is the 7 Nevada site -- well, there is a possibility one could take 8 credit for the zircalloy clad. 9 Is there anything ongoing on cladding? 10 MR. COSTANZI: There are discussions for taking 11 credit for the zircalloy cladding as an inhibitor to 12 leaching; that is to_say, it provides fewer sites for
) 13 groundwater to get to the spent fuel.
l 14 I don't believe that there has been any serious f 15 discussion about taking credit for the cladding for 16 containment, to meet the containment requirement, although 17 that is certainly possible. That is a conceivable thing. 18 We are looking at the properties of the cladding, f 19 but presently our plans call for looking at the leachability 20 of the spent fuel under dif ferent conditions of cladding 21 integrity. 22 DR. SHEWMON: Okay. What about -- yesterday 23 there was some talk about high pressures or stability. Do 24 you assume this will collapse, for example? In the glass () 25 you could get a f airly tight fit, deformation. If you had a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-MA6
8520 02 04 264 () DAVbur 1 bunch of rods in there, attacking density would be 2 appreciably lower. 3 Is the design of the can -- or do you call it the 4 overpack -- usually such that it will withstand and maintain 5 its shape under the ambient pressure, or do people assume 6 that it will collapse and fill around? 7 MR. COSTANZI: As far I am aware, I am not aware 8 that the design for the overpack is intended to take into 9 account any stress from the environment. 10 DR. SHEWMON: The guys we had here were the same 11 agency but a different branch. They talked about 12 lithostatic pressures and hydrostatic pressures, and they () 13 calculate the hydrostatic pressure at 3000 feet. I got 1500 14 psi. 15 It may be a problem. On the other hand, if you 16 indeed have 3000 feet of rock sitting on your head, that is 17 a heck of a lot of pressure. 18 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. 19 DR. SHEWMON: And in basalt, that salt is rather 20 plastic, as you know. So it seems to me there is at least 21 a question as to whether in several thousand feet of salt 22 you can get enough relaxation and build up enough pressure 23 to buckle things or whether that is a "no, never mind." 24 It seems to me it is a question worth ( 25 considering. s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
8520 02 05 265 l () DAVbur 1 MR. COSTANZI: A distinction should be made 2 between what we are following -- that is to say, current DOE l 3 designs -- and what sorts of things can happen to the waste 4 package, which is another part of our program. 5 The question to which I have responded, are these 6 waste packages for taking those kinds of pressures? To the 4 7 best of my understanding, they are not. I don' t believe 8 that is a conscious part of the design. 9 Whether or not they will be nubjected to those 10 kinds of preasures and, if so, when in the lifetime of the 4 11 repository is a separate question. i 12 The question, for example, of the flow of () 13 basalt. Basalt is a plastic material. Whether that will 14 exert pressures that the overpack will not be able to 15 withstand, that is a question which DOE needs to address. 4 16 They need to demonstrate that either the overpack is i 17 designed to take care of that or that that would happen.
- 18 DR. SHEWMON
- And apparently you don't know what
} 19 their thoughts are on that, and currently the effective 1 20 plastic stream is not part of your program? l 21 MR. COSTANZI: It is not part of our program. i 22 Mike, do you know of any design? 23 DR. MC NEIL: I don't know of any consciouB i 4 24 effort that has been made on this subject. I would point () 25 out the fact, as Dr. Etherington has pointed out, we have i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 & 6646
8520 02 06 266 O) (, DAVbur 1 considerable heat flux. In fact, the inside of the overpack 2 is hotter than the outside of the overpack. It means that 3 the overpack stands to have a tensile heat stress. 4 Quite frankly, I would think that a certain 5 amount of hydrostatic pressure would not be a bad thing. 6 Crushing a steel container several inches thick purely by 7 hydrostatic compression would take some truly enormous 8 pressures. 9 Think about submarines. 10 MR. ETHERINGTON: What about the collapse of the 11 surrounding material? It might not be hydrostatic. 12 DR. MC NEIL: The real problem one has to look () 13 out for , as f ar as I can see in practical terms -- DOE ought 14 to look out for -- is a roof collapse in a mine imposing a 15 sudden severe buckling stress on these. But I believe this 16 practice that most of the DOE people are talking about, or 17 were talking about the last time they told us what they were 18 up to, of basically placing these holes reduces the chance 19 of a roof fall imposing such a sudden buckling. 20 MR. ETHERINGTON: Getting back to the heat 21 generation for a moment, what temperature are we assuming? 22 DR. MC NEIL: We are assuming surface 23 temperatures -- depending upon the details and depending 24 upon the age of the container -- we are assuming that they O (_j 25 will be no higher than about 260 degrees centigrade. That ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-3364M6
8520 02 07 267 (~)s (_ DAVbur 1 is the surface of the overpack. In general, we think most 2 of them will be considerably less because a lot of this 3 spent fuel they are putting in there is pretty old. 4 MR. ETHERINGTON: Thermal stress will be very 5 small, then? 6 DR. MC NEIL: No, that is not true actually. 7 If you do the calculations, you will find you 8 will get some quite severe heat stresses. 9 MR. ETHERINGTON: What temperature differences do 10 you have then? 11 DR. MC NEIL: As I recall, this temperature 12 difference from the center -- I am having to reconstruct a () 13 calculation done by someone else from memory, but as I 14 recall, the temperature difference from the center of the 15 load to the outside of the overpack could be in excess of 16 100 degrees centigrade. 17 MR. ETIIERINGTON: That is only about 20,000 psi 18 maximum? 19 DR. MC NEIL: Only about 20,000 psi, but by the 20 standards of hydrostatic pressure, that is a lot of 21 pressure. 22 DR. SIIEWMON: I don' t remember what the 23 mechanical engineers call these things, but the temperature 24 gradient, if you get a little bit of creep you can relieve () 25 the stress; whereas, if you have got a hydrostatic pressure ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800-336-6646
8520 02 08 268 - l
) DAVbur 1 a little bit of deformation doesn't relieve the stress at 2 all.
3 So the strain potential is a good deal greater in 4 the hydrostatic stress case than it is in the thermal stress 5 case. 6 I think secondary and primary is what the 7 mechanical engineers call it. 8 DR. MC NEIL: I don' t know. 9 DR. STEINDLER: Isn't the issue in part what the 10 temperature gradient is across the thickness of the 11 container rather than from the center of the waste to the 12 outside? () 13 DR. MC NEIL: But I happen to remember the figure 14 from the center of the waste to the outside. 15 DR. STEINDLER: That is what I am saying. The 16 gradient across the thickness of the overpack is fairly 17 modest. 18 DR. MC NEIL: Well, we had some discussions of 19 the question of the stresses at the time. One of the 20 consultants to Battelle Columbus did a back-of-the-envelope e 21 calculation, and the heat stresses do come out in thousands 22 of psi as opposed to hundreds. I don' t remember the exact 23 f ig ure . It is not as high as 20,000. 24 MR. ETi!ERINGTON : It is typically 100 or 200 25 degrees for each degree of temperature. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
8520 02 09 269 DAVbur 1 DR. MC NEIL: I don' t know. 2 DR. PARRY: With respect to the design of the
~
3 canisters -- and I am sure Marty will clarify if I go 4 astray -- as far as BWIP is concerned, they do plan on 5 hydrostatic pressures that will c' existent on reflooding of 6 the mine. 7 As far as tuff is concerned, there is no 8 expectation of any load at all, since it is in a dry 9 environment and there is only water barely passing through 10 it. 11 Salt is another matter, though. 12 The structural integrity of the canister -- of O 12 eue overeecx te co idered e esor de tee fector, eed aeevv 14 hydrostatic pressures are planned on, and the canisters or 15 the overpack is now being designed to allow for erosion of 16 the canister down to a certain final critical diameter of 17 wall thickness, which collapse is assumed to occur 18 instantaneously, assuming uniform corrosion of the whole 19 sur f ace of the pack, which is a question I won' t go into. 20 So there is heavy design effort on providing for 21 sufficient metal to withstand the lithostatic pressure in 22 that one project. 23 DR. STEINDLER: Let me just add one other thing, 24 and that is neither glass nor spent fuel will completely 25 cover the inside of the waste. In fact, in the case of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationside Coverage 800 336 6M6
8520 02 10 270 () DAVbur 1 glass there is a significant amount of freeboard'which would ! 2 be within simply the overpack. It is that significant 1 3 freeboard and the lack of sensible density in the case of 4 spent fuel, even if backfilled with sand, that causes the 5 need to pay some attention to the effect of stress. 6 MR. ETHERINGTON: Well, what is the glass? 7 DR. STEINDLER: What is the glass? It is boron 8 silicate glass. It is a boron silicate glass. 9 DR. SHEWMON: Please proceed again. 10 MR. COSTANZI: I would like to just mention 11 briefly the particular phenomena which this research program 12 is focusing upon. () 13 (Slide.) 14 The waste form devitrification, glass of course, l 15 leaching glass, and spent fuel, overpack materials. We get 16 pitting corrosion, stress corrosion, hydrogen embrittlement, 17 and the concerns which arise from the variability of 18 manufacturing techniques. 19 We have also done a little bit of work on general 20 corrosion, enough to convince ourselves that we don't 21 believe at this point that we need to do any more work in 22 that area; that is to say, we feel we can review any. 23 demonstration concerning general corrosion you would care to , 24 make. () 25 With regard to the packing backfill and seal ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-(M6
8520 02 11 271 () DAVbur 1 materials, we are looking at diffusion, hydrothermal 2 alteration of those materials, and the parameters which 3 determine the effectiveness of the shaft and fracture 4 ceiling of the rock. 5 With regard to the waste package environment 6 itself, we are looking at the chemistry of the groundwater, 7 and we have a project which gives the short end of coupled
; 8 processes. It is looking at what chemical, thermal, and 9 hydrological interactions take place within a repository to 10 report the performance of the repository, and we will talk 11 about that program today insofar as that applies to the 12 waste package environment.
() 13 DR. SHEWMON: Let me ask one question on that. I 14 assume we will go over all of these again today. 15 Is somebody measuring what the oxygen content is 16 of this water down there -- X thousand feet or so in the 17 basalt site, for example? l 18 MR. COSTANZI: We are doing experiments on using 19 water which was prepared by recipe, the recipe coming from 20 DOE. DOE has made measurements on the chemical composition 21 of the groundwater. 22 The question of the oxygen content of 23 groundwater , however , is a very dif ficult one to settle. 24 DR. SilEWMON: But very important? 25 MR. COSTANZI: Extremely important. The reason l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 804316-M46
=. -
~--
8520 02 12 272 () DAVbur 1 it is so difficult: 2 One, it is difficult to measure when you take 3 water samples if the water is anoxic and there is a great 4 likelihood of them being exposed to the air, and of course 5 if you change the oxygen content, and moreover the question 6 of the nature of what happens when you excavate the basalt, 7 what the oxygen content of the groundwater becomes after you 8 have opened up the mine and exposed it to air, also the 9 nature of the fractures that produce fresh fractures in 10 basalt. 11 We have some experiments which indicate that the 12 groundwater, as measured, as determined as best we can in () 13 the DOE measurements, and the current composition of the 14 groundwater do not relieve equilibrium. 15 So we realize the importance of the question, and 16 we don't know. 17 DR. SHEWMON: One other point that was brought up 18 again recently -- I had always thought that somehow the 19 water must have got down a thousand feet or so and just 20 didn't communicate with the atmosphere at all. Dr. Kassner 21 pointed out to me last night that some very good 22 organizations have been trying to put out underground fires 23 in Pennsylvania -- coal this is -- for a good many years, 24 and they have come back with what they have termed a bent () 25 lance. They simply can' t close of f all the air that gets ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336 6646
i I 8520 02 13 273 4 i O oavber 1 down ehere. 2 So there may be appreciably more avenues for 3 communication of air down through the earth than you know. 4 As you probably know, there is some interesting scientific 1 i 5 work -- well, more practical -- on how much radon comes up !. 6 through the earth and what this reflects of either ore l 7 bodies or changes that go on in the earth down to an l 8 appreciable depth. 9 So the permeability of the earth down to these i 10 depths seems to me a legitimate question. If there is some 11 way to get at, indeed, what the active oxygen potential is 12 down there, it would be of interest for several reasons. l 13 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. DOE, of course -- again, it l l 14 is their responsibility to characterize the site, to 15 determine, among other things, what the oxygen - content of ! 16 the groundwater is. That is something of which they are 17 aware and something we are pursuing. 1l l 18 We are pursuing the question of what happens with 19 varying contents of oxygen in groundwater. Part of the work 20 we will discuss is going on at Battelle Columbus, looking at . 21 the chemistry of the groundwater and how changes in that ! ~ ! 22 groundwater chemistry affect the performance of the overpack l 23 and in fact how the overpack affects the chemistry of the l 24 groundwater. O 25 oa. eracaAno: ceoree aircherd, nac eteff, i 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 ,
8520 02 14 274 () DAVbur 1 research geochemist. 2 I would like to just give you a little bit more 3 detail on that. That is that BWIP -- the oxygen contents 4 have been measured in groundwater but they are below the 5 measurable limits. ) 6 The argument and the question is just how low 7 below that measurable limit is the oxygen content. 8 DR. SHEWMON: Even though what the measurable 9 limit is, just so somebody who knows what measurable limits 10 mean agrees with it. 11 DR. BIRCHARD: It would below the part per 12 million level, a tenth of a ppm. () 13 DR. KASSNER: They can go down to at least parts 14 per billion. 15 DR. BIRCHARD: Yes, but the theoretical levels 16 that the BWIP people are talking about are way below that. 17 I mean, you are talking about, I think, like 10 to the minus 18 20 or some extremely low theoretical amount of oxygen. 19 So that is what the argument is. They can' t j 20 measure the theoretical level, and they never will be able 21 to measure the levels that they theorize. 22 So obviously at NTS there is no problem because l 23 you have unsaturated stone. 24 MR. ETHERINGTON: This would have been on the ( 25 location where there might have bee any organic material ACE-FEDERAL REPOPTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646 J
8520 02 15 275 A DAVbur that would have consumed the oxygen? V 1 2 DR. BIRCil ARD: At the basalt site there 1.= 3 reduced iron that would react with the oxygen. So at salt 4 sites organic material may be important. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 O 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nation *ide Coverage 80M3G6M6
8520 03 01 276 () DAVbur 1 MR. ETHERINGTON: What about CO-27 I suppose 2 that is present. 3 DR. BIRCHARD: There is a large amount of 4 bicarbonate in most of these waters. So it is dissolved. 5 There is also methane at the BWIP site. 6 DR. KASSNER: Yesterday and today we have 7 identified a number of failure modes for the canister. I 8 wonder, associated with any or each of those failure modes, 9 if you decided on what a reasonable failure criterion is; 10 for example, in the case of a stress corrosion cracking. 11 If you had a throughwall stress corrosion crack a 12 couple of inches long in a two-inch thick canister, if that () 13 were considered to be a failure criterion, it wouldn't seem 14 to me to be very drastic because if you got water ingress 15 through that then the corrosion product would probably plug 16 the crack and it would sit there for some very long period 17 of time. 18 So what I was wondering is if today and in,your 19 program you consider what the failure criteria are 20 associated maybe with each of those failure modes. 21 The same thing could be said about a pit. You 22 had a small pit through the containment wall. How much 23 transporter leaching could you ever get through, let's say, 24 one pit in a very large container? () 25 MR. COSTANZI: Your point is extremely ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37tX) Nation *ide Coserage 80}3)MM6
8520 03 02 277 () DAVbur 1 well-taken. Unfortunately, I have to respond by saying that 2 we do not have a failure criterion. , 3 The reason for that is that we are not.really 4 sure at this point what the consequences of failure are. 5 We are not sure what the differences in terms of the j 6 consequence of the overall repository behavior of a small 7 crack or a slightly larger crack or perhaps several cracks i 8 are, one pit penetrating the overpack or two pits or 100 9 pits. l i 10 The consequence of failure would depend on a 11 number of things. It would depend on the design of the 4 12 repository itself. It would depend on the local hydrology, () 13 the hydrology inside the underground facility itself, and it
- 14 would depend on the chemistry of the groundwater.
15 There needs to be consideration of things like it 16 you have a premature failure. liowever you define that, does 17 it have an effect on the " downstream" waste packages that 4 18 will apread like a cancer? 19 These are all questions which we are trying to ' 20 grapple with. We do not have definitive answers. So we do 21 not have clearly defined criteria which say that, for 22 example, 5 percent of the surface area of the overpack 23 penetrated through by pita constitutes a failure. We don't
; 24 have anything like that yet.
i () 25 DR. KASSNER: That would seem to be a major ace Fl!DliRAl. Rl! PORTERS, INC. ! 202 347 37(X) Nationwide Cmerage NN) b6-(M6
8520 03 03 278 () DAvbur 1 factor in calculating the release by other mechanisms -- 2 transport, let's say, of f the site? 3 MR. COSTANZI: Absolutely. 4 Now, there are programs going on. I believe one 5 of the programs we will discuss this afternoon deals with , 6 models of waste package performance. There is a waste 7 management technical assistance contract where they are 8 addressing this. 9 Our research program is primarily addressing 10 mechanisms at this point. We obviously have something 11 worthwhile to say to the Division of Waste Management 12 contractors about the importance of various failure () 13 mechanisms. 14' DR. S!!EWMON: It is mechanisms, yes. Whether 15 they are failure mechanisms or not, it seems to me you have 16 said now they were. But two minutes ago you said you 17 weren't, or at least that you hadn't defined anything yet. 18 Is that what you said? 19 MR. COSTANZI Okay. What we are talking about, ; 20 we talk about failure mechanisms. What we mean is if we are 21 looking at the question of how will the overpack be 22 breached, at this point we are talking about a true pit or a i 23 crack in the overpack. We are not really talking about how 1 24 many pita can you tolerate before you now say this waste () 25 package has " f ailed ." We are just talking about the i ace FCDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 34717(X) Nationwide Coverage *x) 33MM6
8520 03 04 279 () DAVbur 1 mechanisms of failure -- pitting corrosion, stress corrosion 2 cracking. 3 DR. SHEWMON: Deep pit penetration, then? 4 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. 5 MR. ETHERINGTON: But if you had a through crack 6 in a fuel cask, would you have a criticality problem? 7 MR. COSTANZI: No. I don' t believe so, no. 8 DR. SHEWMON: One assumes not, but that is not 9 this group's effort. 10 MR. ETHERINGTON: It might depend on whether a 11 through crack was important or not. 12 DR. KASSNER: Wouldn't this also have some () 13 implications as to the choice of materials? 14 For example, I would be happier to see stress 15 corrosion cracks in a canister that wouldn't dissolve 16 forever rather than take a relatively slowly dissolving 17 canister that will essentially expose the whole waste form 18 in some intermediate period of time. 19 MR. COSTANZI: Remember again that it is DOE's 20 responsibility to make the demonstration that the waste 21 package will f ail, containment will be lost by a particular 22 mechanism, establish why they have concluded that or when it 23 will be lost -- perhaps is a better word -- how they have 24 come to that conclusion, how they are substantiating that () 25 conclusion, and what are the consequences of it in terms of
- ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800436-6M6
8520 03 05 280 () DAVbur 1 the overall repository performance. 2 That means both in terms of meeting the EPA high 3 level waste standard and the controlled release requirement, 4 if we are talking about failure of containment, and then of 5 course the consequences with meeting the controlled release 6 requirement, and so on. 7 DR. STEINDLER: In the case of the overpack, you 8 have up there in effect three potential mechanisms of 9 failure. 10 First off, why did you pick those three? 11 And, secondly, DOE, I gather, is spending a 12 significant amount of effort looking at uniform corrosion as () 13 the target failure mode. Yet I don't see any attention on 14 your part, if that list is complete, to that potential 15 failure mode. 16 Is there some reason for that? 17 MR. COSTANZI: Yes. We have looked at general 18 corrosion earlier in this program, and we have concluded 19 that we understand a sufficient amount about general l 20 corrosion in the repository, the expected repository 21 environment, that we would understand how DOE would make the I l 22 argument that that would be the waste package failure. We 1 23 feel we can review that argument and say, yes, we agree or, 24 no, we do not. () 25 The holes in our ability to review DOE's waste ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationmide Coverage 800-336-6646 A
8520 03 06 281 /~)N (, DAVbur 1 package performance demonstration are with the methods of 2 failure that we are dealing with now. 3 We don' t feel we know enough to say, no, this 4 won't fail by this method or, yes, there is going to be a 5 failure. 6 DR. SHEWMON: Tom, those are good questions. We 7 have got side-stepped this morning, perhaps quite 8 legitimately. It seems to me that whoever is constructing 9 models which they would like to sell to the NRC on contract, 10 or are selling on contract, would be a good person to bring 11 it up with again. 12 DR. MC NEIL: Could I say one word to Dr. Kassner () 13 with regard to what one might term corrosion allowance 14 materials, particularly the irons and the carbon steels? 15 Even if they corrode severely, neither magnetite 16 nor hematite is particularly soluble, particularly not in a 17 basalt groundwater. Even if you assume extremely rapid 18 general corrosion, you are dealing with a sample that is 19 several inches thick. A several inch thick piece of 20 hematite by itself is a significant barrier to the motion of 21 g round wate r . 22 I am not saying this -- I am not pointing this 23 out. I realize this is not entirely relevant to the 24 discussion. I was offering it as sort of a bit of comfort 25 to your concern. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
~- . .- - -
8520 03 07 282
- 'DAVbur 1 DR. KASSNER: With regard to the comfort, I 2 looked at some of the work that was done in that area, and 3 over a period of, let's say, 8000 years they essentially 4 fitted an equation to it which came out parabolic, and if 5 you guys can find a material that exhibits parabolic , , . 6 corrosion out through those times, you ought to patent it.
7 DR. MC NEIL: I am assuming linear. 8 DR. KASSNER: You get breakaway corrosion after 9 some period of time, and I think it is very optimistic to i 10 use parabolic. 11 DR. MC NEIL: We are not_using parabolic 12 fittings. We are using linear fittings. And here is an "a-O 13 ex 91e or 18aa ve t- ota er sc e1 rate t e # 11, ! 14 and you notice it is still there, and this was not put in a 15 carefully prepared repository. This is something that some 16 Roman just dropped in the ground in the lowlands and stayed 17 there till the people at the University of Manchester came 18 around and dug it up. 19 DR. KASSNER: I would like to show you my '69 20 Chevrolet. 21 (Laug hte r . ) 22 DR. MC NEIL: Maybe the Romans made their nails 23 better than General Motors makes their cars. 24 DR. SilEWMON: I would just comment between you 25 scientists that both of these oxides occupy appreciably ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
8520 03 08 283 () DAVbur 1 more volume than the iron they replace, is that correct? 2 DR. KASSNER: Yes. 3 DR. SHEWMON: So that, too, will tend to restrain 4 flow very substantially, it would seem to me. 5 DR. KASSNER: The only thing you do consider, if 6 you do get a perforation in, let's say, an iron canister and 7 you'get ingress of water to the inside, you get oxidation 8 and corrosion and you get the swelling of the film. You get 9 what happens to my car. The thing essentially falls apart 10 due to the oxide stresses, and the canister then can rupture 11 and the corrosion process is off and running at a very 12 accelerated rate. () 13 DR. MC NEIL: We assume spallation, which is 14 basically in our linear extrapolation scheme. 15 MR. COSTANZI: Now, I have given you a picture 16 of the sorts of things we are doing in a very general way 17 and why we are doing them. 18 Turning now to the individual programs -- 19 DR. STEINDLER: Excuse me. Before we do that, I I' 20 guess you rang a bell, largely because of some of the past 21 sessions that at least Dade's subcommittee has had, when you 22 said you had some difficulty in communicating with the 23 Department of Energy and trying to find out where it l's that 24 their program is going, and so on, and so forth.
- ) 25 What mechanism do you currently use to track DOE I.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 I
-8520 03 09 284 i DAVbur 1 plans, not the results of their work, which presumably come 2 out in some kind of a periodic reporting system, but the 3 planning for the direction of the various programs?
4 MR. COSTANZI: The mechanism which we are finding 5 the most effective for the purposes of our program is our 6 active participation in the NRC/ DOE interface meetings which l 7 are going on as part of the licensing process. 8 Whenever possible, members of the Research staf f 9 attend those meetings. We think it is to the advantage of , 10 the staff. It has been a very effective mechanism of 11 keeping us up to date and keeping our program as focused as 12 it is. O 13 on sr81=ocea: 1 oe1a e ee e there te e 14 significant delay line between the time y'ou find out there 15 is a program delay and a change in program emphasis and the 16 time you are able to implement a sensible research ef fort on 17 some portions of this'new direction. 18 What would you estimate the length of time is 19 that you folks have to have notice for in order to be able 20 to move in that area? Does it take you a year to react to 21 changes to DOE emphasis on the program, six months? 22 MR. COSTANZI: It really depends on the magnitude 23 of the change. If we are talking about making small changes 24 in the composition of materials, changing the carbon content 25 of the steel or to a high nickel allow from stainless steel, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I i l l 8520 03 le 285 . I () DAVbur 1 that kind of change probably could be accomplished within a 2 quarter or two quarters, provided that the mechanisms you 3 are talking about, the phenomena, are transferable. 4 If we are talking about going to a material 5 change in which the entire mechanisms are different, where 6 we don't know anything about the effect of the environment, 7 we are not building on past understandings, that could take 8 as long as a year. 9 Essentially, you would be running a new research 10 program for that portion of the work. You would have to 11 consider what are the problems, how do you identify what the 12 problem's are, what kind of experiments do you want to do to () 13 pin that down and what do you want to do after you have done 14 those. It could be a major perturbation. 15 DR. SHEWMON: A related question: do you work 16 primarily -- or do all your projects have to be approved by 17 a user need letter from over. what would be the NRR side of 18 the reactor? 19 MR. COSTANZI: There is a user need letter which 20 outlines the areas in which John Davis believes that 21 research is needed for his waste management program. Within 22 those areas, individual projects are coordinated with the 23 Division of Waste Management. 24 Let me take a few moments to describe the
.( ) 25 coordination process.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
8520 03 11 286 m (_) DAVbur 1 The members of the Research staff and the 2 Division of Waste Management staff fortunately reside in the 3 same building. That facilitates a lot of interaction. They 4 see each other and talk to each other every day. 5 The cooperation and the closeness of the work I 6 think is remarkable. So we know what they are worried 7 about; they know what we are doing. 8 When there is an indication that some work needs 9 to be done, that is usually brought to the attention of 10 management, either Research management or the Division of 11 Waste Management management. There is management discussion 12 as to what kinds of things ought to be done, both ad hoc and () 13 on a periodic basic. 14 So there is not only planning that takes place 15 where I sit down regularly with Hub Miller from High Level 16 Waste and Leon Higginbotham and talk about the sorts of 17 things that we ought to be doing, but also when things are 18 generated spontaneously by the staff. We talk about should 19 we do this, what sort of resources should we expend. 20 When something looks like it is a good idea and 21 ought to be added to our program or our program ought to be 22 modified, then a statement of work is generated. It is 23 reviewed internally within the Of fice of Research, or at 24 least within the branch. Then 't is sent down for formal () 25 review by the Division of Waste Management. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
8520 03 12 287 () DAVbur 1 Prior to going to formal review, again these 2 discussions on the Waste Management staff and people on the 3 Research staff have been ongoing, so there are no surprises, 4 or at least few surprises. 5 There is one more point I would like to mention. 6 After that is don,e, there is a second level of review called 7 the Waste Management Review Group. That group is 8 specifically charged by the EEO with the responsibility of 9 assuring program continuity and all Division of Waste 10 Management technical assistance programs, all Office of 11 Research waste management programs are reviewed by that 12 group. It is an interoffice group, remember. It is not () 's 13 only Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards 14 Research, but also NRR, I&E, and Division of Contracts. 15 To assure consistency of the program, all 16 programs, both Division of Waste Management and Technical 17 Assistance programs and Office of Waste Management programs 18 in the Of fice of Waste Management must have Waste Management 19 Review Group approval to be funded. 20 so besides the interdivisional coordination, 21 there is also an interoffice coordination and program 22 coordination. 23 Now, the question is now how to proceed with l 24 these individual projects. I could give a brief l l () , 25 introduction to all of them and then come back to the 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6616
8520 03 13 288 () DAVbur 1 questions. I could introduce them project by project, and 2 if you have questions we will dispose of questions on that 3 one and then move on to the next one. 4 How would you like to proceed? 5 DR. SHEWMON: I don' t understand the procedure. i 6 We would like to go over each project and get some idea of f 7 .what you are doing and how you think you have reached the 8 results which you do. 9 MR. COSTANZI: I will just give you an overview 10 of each program. Then you can ask questions, 11 MR. ETHERINGTON: May I ask just one general 4 12 question? () 13 DOE has good documentation of their reasons for 14- selecting these materials, don't they? 15 MR. COSTANZI: When they select those materials, 16 material selection will have to be documented in the license 17 application. i 18 MR. ETHERINGTON: You mean they haven' t made any 19 tentative selections yet? 20 MR. COSTANZI: They have made a number of i 21 tentative selections, but they have not made any definite 22 selection. 23 MR. ETHERINGTON: So you are looking at materials 24 independently. You are not just looking at DOE's planning? a j () 25 MR. COSTANZI: No. We are looking at the same ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
I { l 8520 03 14 289
/ DAVbur 1 materials which DOE is considering, and we are following 2 DOE's lead. l 3 DR. SIIEWMON: But learning which way they are 4 leading is sometimes not as easy as one might expect.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ( 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l 23 24 25 l i l i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-336-6M6
8520 04 01 290 '( ) DAV/bc 1 MR. COSTANZI: Precisely because they have not 2 made definitive statements. 3 (Slide.) 4 The first project I'd like to speak about is the 5 project entitled Container Manuf acturing Parameters and the 6 contractor is the Manufacturing Sciences Corporation. The 7 objective of this project -- 8 DR. SHEWMON: Is that in Colorado? 9 MR. COSTANZ I: This is in Colorado. 10 Manufacturing Sciences Corporation is an adjunct of the 11 Colorado School of Minds. It's my understanding now that
-12 almost all the work is actually being'done at the Colorado
() 13 School of Mines. 14 DR. SHEWMON: Who are the principal 15 investigators? 16 DR. MCNEIL: The principal investigator for 17 Manufacturing Sciences Corporation is a Dr. Alan Liby. 18 However, the Manufacturing Sciences Corporation has in fact 19 been acquired by another firm and their headquarters has 20 been moved. Almost all the experimental work is in fact 21 taking place at the Colorado Senool of Mines under the 22 guidance of Professot Robert Frost. 23 He was one of Flemming's people. DR. SHEWMCN: Thank you. 24l () 25 MR. COSTANZI: The objective of this project is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433M646 l
8520 04 02 291 I) DAV/bc 1 to assess the ef fect of variabilities in the manufacturing 2 techniques of the performance of the waste package. 3 Particularly what they' re doing is they are 4 producing samples of overpacked material which are then 5 analyzed at Battelle Columbus. 6 MR. ETHERINGTON: What is overpack? 7 MR. COSTANZI: Overpack is the material that 8 essentially gives the corrosion barrier to the groundwater. 9 It protects and contains the waste form, the glass and spent 10 fuel during the containment period. 11 DR. SHEWMON: Why do they feel they have to 12 manufacture it instead of buying it to the specifications I () 13 used commonly? 14 MR. COSTANZI: The question we're investigating 15 here l's how close do those specifications have to be. DOE 16 will have a specification on material which will -- that 17 specification will determine both its composition and the 18 variability of its composition, and the way it's 19 manufactured, its history. 20 The question we're investigating here is how good t 21 does that control have to be in order to have confidence 4 22 -that the waste packages will perform as designed? 23 If the specifications are extremely loose on the 24 quality control program, or the quality control program is () 25 not well-defined and not well-managed, that will diminish i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 3)2 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 l l 8520 04 03 292 ((~~)TDAV/bc 1 the confidence that we would have that the waste packages 2 has performed as designed. 3 But, in order to make any sort of judgment as to 4 how much that would diminish our confidence, we would need 5 to understand how sensitive the performance of the waste 6 package is to those variabilities. 7 DR. SHEWMON: We're talking about cast steel. 8 The containers you're talking about are cast steel? These 9 would be centrifugally cast probably or sand-cast? What's 10 your assumption? 11 DR. MCNEIL: Let me answer that. The DOE 12 documents that we have do not specify at present whether () 13 they need to be centrifugally cast or not. In fact, we, 14 that is, the people at the Colorado School of Mines, are of 15 the opinion that ultimately, if they use a cast structure, 16 which they're still talking about but it's not unequivocally 17 clear that that's the best way to go, that if they use a 18 cast structure, they will in fact probably want to 19 centrifugally cast. But, certainly, a lot of sand castings 20 and static chill castings are being used now as samples. 21 MR. ETHERINGTON: You would have a centrifugally 22 cast cylinder and welded on heads? 23 DR. MCNEIL: Yes, precisely. There are 24 centrifugally cast parts. Professor Frost, in fact, when he () 25 was in Massachusetts, worked at Watertown arsonel where they s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
8520 04 04 293 () DAV/bc 1 have considerable experience at centrifugally casting large 2 gun ts5es, which are not all that different in fact from 3 some of these overpacks. 4 DR. SHEWMON: Are you working primarily with 5 chemistry or microstructure? 6 DR. MCNEIL: Both. But, of course, they 7 combine. One of the important things is the way in which 8 the steel is handled and killed before. We take basically 9 an AISI spec, or they take an AISI spec that DOE is using 10 and examine the question of how the addition of various 11 components in the casting process controls the structure, 12 not only the microstructure but also what I might term the () 13 gross structure, as in a sample which I will pass around. 14 This sample, incidentally, was part of a blank. 15 We took the basalt site specs and we told the people at the 16 Colorado School of Mines pretend the lowest cost foundry 17 you're going to make something that will technically satisfy 18 the DOE specifications. But you will in fact take no 19 special precautions, just as they were trying to minimize 20 cost. 21 Here is a cross-section of the appropriate thing; 22 the sides that don't have any holes in them are the ones 23 that are exposed to the air that you would see on visual 24 examination. () 25 DR. SHEWMON: Well, it will pass for a piece of 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-3 n-3:m Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
i
~
f 8520 04 05 294 H( ) DAV/bc 1 Swiss cheese in case anybody wants to know, except it 2 doesn' t seem to be made out of goat's milk and cow's milk. I 4 3 Let me come back. What you are using is entirely 4 then a chemistry spec. Sorry -- 1 i 5 DR. MCNEIL: A chemistry plus casting technique. 4 6 DR. SHEWMON: The question is what is the spec 7 you gave them? Is it a process spec:- A chemistry spec? 8 DR. MCNEIL: We gave them what we got out of the 9 basalt document. It's purely a chemistry spec. It was to
, 10 be statically cast out of such and such steel. 1 i
! 11 DR. SH3WMON: There's nothing about porocity in' 1, 12 it, obviously. () 13 DR. MCNEIL: There was nothing in the spec as we l 14 had it. I was talking yesterday to someone from the BWIP
- 15 site, who informs us that now they are in fact imposing some e
16 specs on their materials. a I 17 I sent them another cutting of that 1
-18 incidentally. I sent one out. They are now imposing some 19 quality assurance specs on their materials, which will 20 prevent this sort of thing from happening, they 'ay. s 21 But since we haven't had a joint NRC-DOE review 22 of the waste package work in the basalt site for more than ;
23 two years now, the details of precisely what they're doing 24 are wrapped in mystery. () 25 DR. SHEWMON: I can' t imagine that the people who P ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
. . ~ , - - _ ~ . , _ - - - , _ , . _ , _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . - - _ , _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
.. . .. . . . - _. _. _ - ..__-.n - _ . _ . -
t 8520 04 06 295 () DAV/bc 1 use cast steel in commerce don't have a specification which
- 2 avoids disasters like you' re passing around. '
l 3 DR. MCNEIL: Of course. The next thing we told 4 them, you know, when you're making samples for Battelle, use i 5 normal casting practice and produce sound castings. i j 6 DR. SHEWMON: That wasn't my question. The 7 question was, is there a specification which what you now I 8 call normal castings are made to. j 9 DR. MCNEIL: I do not know of a specific ; 10 appropriate specification in the sense of an ASTM spec for i 11 casting procedures for low carbon steel. l 12 DR. SHEWMON: But since a fair amount of tonnage
'( ) 13 is used successful, I have difficulty believing it's made 14 without specifications. But that's your professional l 15 opinion from your work in the subject. Is that right?
16 DR. MCNEIL: My background is not in 17 solidification. I have been told that there is no ASTM 4 18 specification. I 19 DR. SHEWMON: I don' t give a damn whether it's ; 20 ASTM or not. 21 DR. MCNEIL: There is a general knowledge 22 according to my understanding among foundarymen of how you 23 produce sound casting, and it involves various precautions , 24 that everyone in the sense of people in the business take to () 25 make sound castings, but which were not included in the DOE ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364 646
T 8520 04 07 296 () DAV/bc 1 documents we received on the subject. 2 DR. SHEWMON: I'm sure you're right, but I would 3 also ask you for all the money you are spending at Colorado 4 School of Mines if they would also see what specifications 5 are used by the military, for example, or are used by the t 6 railroad industry or put out by the Foundarymen's Society, 7 or Lord knows what. People closer to foundary practice than 8 ASTM is, to see what can be found other places. 9 DR. MCNEIL: I will ask that. 10 MR. ETHERINGTON: Sand castings are typically 35 11 carbon. Are you trying to get much lower carbon? 12 DR. MCNEIL: That is either 10-18 or 10-25. It () 13 is in fact what DOE are using. 14 DR. STEINDLER: Let me make one other comment or 15 question. If my understanding is correct, you're looking at 16 the details of the manufacturing process for alloys that DOE 17 has not yet specified. And the manufacturing processes are 18 still up for grabs. In some cases, you probably don' t even 19 know the environment very well in which the corrosion action 20 is going to take place. 21 Doesn't it seem like maybe this program is a tad 22 premature? 23 MR. COSTANZI: I think the picture that you paint 24 is a little bit bleaker than it actually is. While it's () 25 true that DOE hasn' t made any decisions in terms of saying ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coserage 800-336-6646
I _8520 04 08 297 () DAV/Oc 1 that this is our design for this repository, we do follow j 2 .the materials on which they are leaning and on which they : I 3 are doing research. j 4 We do, for example, understand that the overpacks 4 5 will be welded. It is part of this program we are producing i 6 welded samples. We do have some understanding of the 7 general conditions, for example, of the salt repository. 8 Much of our program is to determine how sensitive the l , 9 performance of the waste package designs would be to changes i-l 10 in those assumptions, changes into the casting techniques or i ] 11 the welding techniques, or changes into how the program j 12 changes in the chemistry of well water. () 13 DR. STEINDLER: I guess the problem that I have 14 is I think perhaps it's unreasonable but it seems to me, for 15 a lot of reasons, DOE has not made a firm decision on its 16 ' alloys because it's their testing program. It's not 17 complete. And, presumably, DOE is not totally satisfied d 18 that the alloys that currently represent the reference on i 19 which they're doing most of their testing will in fact be
- 20 qualified as suitable to meet the standards of both NRC and 21 EPA.
22 If, in fact, it turns out that a year from now i l 23 that turns out to be a real problem, surely, DOE will then
- 24 pick another alloy backup, or what have you, and effectively
() 25 a f air f raction of the work that you' re doing might very l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3XO Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 > . ~ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _
. .- - ~. .. - . - ._. - . -- ,_ - _ .- .. - . - . ..- -_ -. . - . -
l l 8520 04 09 298 () DAV/bc 1 well be interesting but not particularly germane. 4 2 MR. COSTANZI: In terms of the fact that DOE , 3 might take a backup material, which, incidentally, to the j 4 extent that we know what they are considering as backup 5 materials, they aren't even investigating. But the primary 6 material might be abandoned, or the primary design might be i-7 abandoned in favor of something else. 8 What you say is absolutely correct but let me 9 remind you that we are under a legislative mandate to be 10 ready to review and to review for a three-year period DOEs l 4 11 license application. We cannot afford to start our research ! 12 and develop an independent technical base for that review () 13 until after DOE has made all its decisions. 14 We feel that we have no choice but to track, j 15 albeit with some delay, track what DOE is doing. i j 16 We are making some judgments as to what are the 17 most likely avenues which they will pursue, and we are } 18 trying to follow them down those paths. ) J 19 If they turn out to be blind alleys, I'm afraid i 20 that's kind of where we end up. We don' t feel we can af ford 21 to wait. We' re not trying to lead DOE but we don' t feel we 22 can wait until they make their decisions and then do all our 23 necessary research to have an independent technical base for 24 our mandated review. () 25 We have to follow that. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
_ . .- . . . - ._ . . . . . .~ 4
; 8520 04 10 299
() DAV/bc 1 DR. STEINDLER: To what extent is DOE doing the 2 kind of research that you're doing here? 3 MR. COSTANZI: Dr. McNeil,? 4 DR. MCNEIL: As I stated, in both the salt and 5 the basalt cases, the amount of information we obtained from 6 the Department of Energy is slight and we obtained that with t i 7 delays in terms of years instead of months. 8 Insofar as I know, DOE is doing very little, if 9 any, work on welding and solidification research. I know 10 they are doing something on carbon steel because I have , , 11 f riends at Armco and I happen to know they are buying high I 12 purity iron from Armco. But that's the sort of information 13 that I have. i (]) 14 That's the answer. The tuff site, the people.in I 15 the tuff site are pretty open, but the other two sites, we 16 have a great deal of difficulty. I just found out 17 accidentally, for example, about these new specs on the 18 containers at the BWIP site. It happens I was teaching a i 19 short course and there was someone from BWIP there. The 20 subject came up and they just sort of tossed this out. 21 DR. CARTER: Let me make one comment. I guess
! 22 I'd like to follow this a little bit because we've heard j 23 some cases, I guess, of extreme cooperation, I guess, I
i 24 between NRC and DOE. It sounds like to me that you're a
) 25 making a case for the fact that they're withholding i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646 I ,_ . - . _ . - _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - - . - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , - _ -
i 8520 04 11 300 () DAV/bc 1 information from you on a deliberate basis. 2 DR. MCNEIL: I didn' t say that. 3 DR. CARTER: You didn't say that but the 4 implication could well be that you found out from friends. 5 DR. MCNEIL: I will give you one example of 6 something that happened. I came from DOE to NRC in 1982. 7 At the time that I left DOE there was available in DOE 8 headquarters in draft a very interesting document having to 9 do with radiation damage in salt'. 10 After a while of being at NRC, I thought it would 11 be nice to have a copy of this. Well, I discovered I 12 l couldn' t get one. Well, nobody knew where it was. () 13 I finally managed -- this was 1983. It took me 14 two years to get a copy of a report that was circulating in 15 DOE headquarters in 1982. 16 On the other hand, in the tuff site, basically, 17 any information-that I want, Dr. Vieth makes available. We 18 have no serious problems at all with the tuff site on the 19 sharing of communication. 20 I have found obtaining metalurgical information 21 from the other two sites extremely difficult. 22 DR. CARTER: Well, what's been done to try to 23 rectify the situation, if its a problem, and I gather it is 24 from the remarks that I've heard. () 25 MR. COSTANZI: I'd like to address that. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationside Coserage 800-336-6M6
i 8520 04 12 301 () DAV/bc 1 DR. CARTER: Please do. 2 MR. COSTANZI: One of the reasons why these ' 3 NRC-DOE prelicensing meetings are taking place and taking 4 place quite regularly is to identify early on the issues 5 which need to be addressed either now or certainly at the 6 time of licensing, so that we will minimize the surprises ' 7 that come up when licensing takes place. 8 Now, in the course of doing that, in our 9 discussions about who is doing what, what kinds of things 10 DOE is doing, what sort of avenues of research they're 11 pursuing not just in this area but also in terms of geology t - 12 and hydrology and geochemistry of their sites. () 13 Those are the topics of discussion. That's the - 14 meat of those meetings. . 15 DR. SIIEWMON: Why don ' t you , for example, then, 16 tell us about the overpack materials and when they are 17 prepared. 18 i 19 20 21 22 23 i 24 t i ( 25 ' \ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l
. . ~ _ . .- --. .. . - -. .. . - - ., . . . _ - - .
8520 05 01 302 G _(,) DAVbur 1 MR. COSTANZI: Those are regularly scheduled. 2 The information as to when the meetings are appear on both 3 the DOE and NRC hotlines. 4 DR. SHEWMON: Tell me about when the last 5 overpack meeting was and the next one will be, then, on each 6 of these e terials that is the subject of di'cussion. s 7 MR. COSTANZI: I don' t have the information at 8 hand when the last one was. 9 D R ,. SHEWMON: Let me tell you when the last one 10 was then. 11 As I understand, the one on tuff was la't s June, 12 is that right? ,- () 13 DR. MC NEIL: That is correct. 14 DR. SHEWMON: And the one which was to occur on 15 salt and basalt was flipping from both coasts so fast one 16 couldn't follow it last month when it was scheduled, and now <
.17 maybe they will be scheduled the first quarter of next year 18 if it can be arranged but it is not at all certain.
19 Is that a fair statement? 23 DR. MC NEIL: That is a fair statement. 21 MR. COSTANZI: That is correct. That is my 22 understanding. 23 DR. SHEWMON: So what he is saying is in general 24 true, but in this area it just isn't working. N) 25 DR. MC NEIL: As I said , the last meeting on the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
_~ 8520 05 02 303
) DAVbur 1 basalt waste package was 1982.
2 DR. SHEWMON: You say it is working, but when I 4
'3 ask you when it has occurred, it hasn' t occurred and it 4 isn't occurring but it may occur someday.
-5 MR. COSTANZI: I don' t think that i~s exactly a i 6 fair characterization, at least the part that it may occur 7 someday. It will occur.
8 DR. SHEWMON: I have faith, too. 9 MR. COSTANZI: It is not just a question of 10 faith. You have to remember that the waste package is a 11 fundamental part of the repository but it is not the only 12 part of the repository, that right now the questions which 13 DOE is facing in terms of the kinds of decisions that they
. ()
i 14 need to make today -- or I should say in the next few ] 15 months -- are siting decisions. They need to make decisions 16 with regard to which sites to characterize. 17 They have the environmental assessments which 18 they have done and published for comment. They are 2 19 reviewing those comments. Final environmental assessments 20 need to be prepared. ! ) 21 DR. SHEWMON: But relative to Dr. Carter's 22 comments, you are committing money now on research which is 23 supposed to provide answers, and he asked about the 24 possibility of liaison and coordination, and that is the () 25 question. And that i's at best being delayed, I think, is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
'8520 05 03 304 .() DAVbur 1 the answer to your question.
2 DR. CARTER: It sounds to me, if I interpret 3 correctly, here is a report apparently that Dr. McNeil would 4 like to have had and would have found useful, I presume, but 5 he says it took him two years to get a copy. 6 DR. SHEWMON: That was two years ago. What are 7 we doing now? 8 DR. CARTER: That is correct. What are we doing 9 now? 10 MR. COSTANZI: We have on numerous occasions 11 brought to the attention of the DOE management at 12 headquarters the difficulty of getting information. () 13 Both Mr. Browning, the Director of the Division 14 of Waste Management, and Mr. Rusche are aware of the 15 difficulty. It is not something that we are ignoring. 16 The point I am trying to make is simply that in 17 the area of waste packaging .right now we have not solved all 18 of the problems of communication. We realize in general 19 that communications ought to be complete and thorough, but 20 there are other things which are going on besides the area 21 of waste packaging. 22 There is communication among the people who work 23 in the DOE program and the Division of Waste Management and 24 in the Of fice of Research. The formal communications, the () 25 formal lines, published reports aside, are primarily with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 05 04 305 () DAVbur 1 the waste package meetings. 2 The recent difficulties encountered in scheduling 3 the waste package meeting at the BWIP site again come from 4 pressure of other responsibilities which both the Department 5 and the NRC have. It is not that anyone is really trying to 6 forestall discussions or forestall decisions. 7 DR. SHEWMON: What you are saying is having a 8 meeting has a low priority right now, or at least not a high 9 priority, and that there seems to be no other way to get 10 this to occur except that you hope it will happen at the 11 meeting when it occurs? 12 MR. COSTANZI: I would say that the press of () 13 DOE's responsibilities, in my judgment -- this is my 14 opinion -- seems to be their highest priority. 15 DR. SHEWMON: Everybody seems to agree. Do you 16 want to pursue it further or shall we go on? 17 DR. CARTER: No. 18 DR. SHEWMON: Any other questions on the 19 manufacturing project? 20 (No response.) 21 MR. COSTANZI: Perhaps the next several 22 projects -- Dr. McNeil is the principal investigator -- it 23 might be convenient if I would ask him to come up here, if 24 that would be all right. () 25 (Slide.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800 336-6M6
8520 05 05 306 /m kj DAVbur 1 The next project is the pitting corrosion 2 chemistry at Brookhaven National Lab. The objective of this 3 project is to assess the confidence available in ol extrapolating short-term labor tory tests to long-term 5 pitting rates. 6 What the specific program is trying to do is 7 observe the rate and chemistry of pitting in artificially 8 produced pits, pits that are produced to represent what we 9 expect an aged pit to look like. Specifically, what we are 10 trying to get at here is the basis for assessing what will 11 be DOE's extrapolation of short-term pitting behavior to 12 long-term pits. () 13 We would expect that pitting corrosion would be 14 something that DOE will do with us, regardless of how it 15 believes its failure rate will be for a waste package. 16 There will be short-term tests to measure pitting rates and 17 a question as to how believable are those tests in terms of 18 the stability of the pitting process over the long term. 19 DR. MC NEIL: I am waiting for questions. 20 DR. KASSNER: I have one then. I would just like 21 a little short discussion as to how the short-term pitting 22 data is being used, in the sense that a pit usually starts 23 out very small, grows rapidly, and most models say that it 24 dies. Then it either reinitiates and goes again. () 25 As I looked at some of the material in the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
8520 05 06 307 () DAVbur 1 handouts that-I have read recentl'y, I got the impression 2 that they might have been taking a pitting equation and 3 essentially applying it to a pit that might be two inches in 4 diameter and eventually two inches deep, growing by either a 5 parabolic or cubic rate.
'6 I wonder if that is at all realistic. In other 7 words, if you get a pit that is two inches in diameter, that 8 is like uniform corrosion. Maybe you have to reinitiato a 9 pit on a pit on a pit, and therefore the kinetics might be 10 much. faster than essentially growing a two-inch diameter, 11 .two-inch deep pit over 8000 years.
12 Mhat I am really asking is how is the chort-term () 13 pitting data being used~in the models to assess penetration 14 of the canister? 15 DR. MC NEIL: We have two different issues here, 16 one of which is the behavior of very deep pits that have a 17- high aspect ratio. We are doing experiments there, [ 18 basically creating artificial pits with a high aspect ratio 19 and trying to determine how these grow and how this-20 correlates or does not correlate, in fact, with appropriate 21 models. You have the question identifying the rate . 22 controlling step. Is it in fact the rate controlled by the , 23 availability of cathodic reaction or is it controlled by the 24 precipitation.of salts to the bottom of the pit? f () 25 The second question is when you have these pits, i
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6 l
-, - , , _ - _ - . - - .---l
!s 8520-05 07 308
, ) DAVbur 1 like you get in carbon steel and pipelines, the very low 2 aspect ratio, deep and wide pits, how does that pit grow?
- 3 And the answer that we seem to be coming out 4 with -- and we are not really ready to go out publicly with i 5 this because I have told them to confirm. You know, we want
'6 a lot of confirmation -- is that the traditional models of 7 pitting, which are oriented toward high aspect ratios, are
- 8 utterly inappropriate for this.
4 ! 9 DR. SHEWMON: What is a high aspect ratio? 10 DR. MC NEIL: A high aspect ratio is a deep pit, 11 deep.and narrow. Low aspect ratios are the ones typical of 12 pipelines that are, you know, two to three times as deep as
-13 they are across as opposed to 50 or 60.
1( ) 14 Dr. Bibers believes that he has a new model which~ 15 is appropriate to these pits. We are doing a lot of 16 experiments because we have such questions as to what 17 extent -- you know, where is the cathodic reaction taking l- 18 place, where is the current going? , 19 He thinks he has really interesting new ideas on P 20 this subject, but I have told him to be pretty sure before 21 he publishes because I don' t want any muddied waters in this 22 program. ! 23 MR. COSTANZI: I might interject that the purpose J 24 of this program is not to develop a new model of pitting () 25 corrosion. The purpose is to have some confidence and to I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 05 08 309 () DAVbur 1 establish what confidence you can have that once pitting 2 starts you can measure it in the laboratory. What is going 3 to happen several hundred thousand years down the line is 4 going to be reflected by what you measure over the short 5 period of time in the lab. 6 DR. SHEWMON: If you can do that with any 7 confidence, you are going to have to do original scientific 8 work. 9 MR. COSTANZI: Exactly. And we need to do that 10 with confidence in order to understand whether or not you 11 can do that and to what degree. 12 DR. MC NEIL: The issue here is, you see, () 13 everybody takes -- well, most people -- people worry about 14 pitting in stainless steels. They take models that work for 15 stainless steel, like Alkeier's work at Illinois, and if you 16 are not too perceptive -- well, you have pitting in carbon 17 steel, let's go take this model that works for stainless 18 steel and just apply it simplemindedly,'and it doesn't 19 work. 20 DR. KASSNER: The danger here is that you will 21 get a very nonconservative calculation if you take some of 22 these simple models and just apply them to these release 23 things. 24 I j ust wondered if that was being evaluated. p) (, 25 DR. MC NEIL: That is a major source of concern. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-66:6
8520 05 09 / 310 (_,1 DAVbur 1 MR. COSTANZI: Let me stress, we have nothing 2 against using the simple models provided that you know how 3 wrong they are. If a model that is used is nonconservative, 4 the degree to which it is nonconservative can be 5 quantified, therefore, in some sense, compensated either by 6 design or by environment. 7 Fine, that is no problem. We cannot afford to be 8 ignorant of just how far off the simple models might be. 9 MR. ETHERINGTON: I have seen them with a 10 three-quarters inch diameter surface, but I gather we are 11 talking about s'omething much bigger. 12 What is the biggest pit that you have seen r) ( , 13 anywhere? 14 DR. MC NEIL: The biggest pit I have seen 15 anywhere -- I gather other people may have seen some bigger 16 ones -- is in a sample of pipe at Battelle Columbus 17 Laboratory and is approximately three inches in diameter. 18 MR. ETHERINGTON: Was this made artificially? 19 DR. MC NEIL: .No, no, this was a problem that 20 Battelle was taken in on on a failure. It is sort of a 21 right circular cylinder. It doesn' t narrow down very 22 rapidly. 23 Excuse me,-while I have got the microphone I 24 would like to correct an answer to a question I gave you (3 25 earlier. I gave you an answer that was garbled on the (_/ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700' Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
8520 05 le 311 () DAVbur .1 . subject of the pure iron samples. 2 We are using samples from a heat of pure iron 3 that was produced by vacuum arc remelt owned by the 4 Department of Energy. We are using samples of that because 5 it is nice to have one heat so everybody knows what they are 6 drawing from. 7 The commercially available iron now is 8 argon-oxygen. If you ordered commercial iron now, it is 9 produced in an AOD furnace. 10 MR. ETHERINGTON: How long have you owned that? 11 DR. MC NEIL: I don' t know. It has been owned 12 since we were AEC. My guess is probably that it was from
.() 13 electrodes of some sort.
14 DR. SHEWMON: You said AOD. What is the carbon? 15 DR..MC NEIL: As I recall, you can get to 0001 16 easily. You can pull another factor of 2 or 3 off of that 17 if you really want to. 18 DR. SHEWMON: If you don' t cast it in air 19 centrifugally? 20 MR. ETHERINGTON: Are they filled with magnetite?
- 1 21 DR. MC NEIL: They are normally filled wi th 22 magnetite. For experimental purposes, in checking some of 23 the models, we have tried making artificial bits and packing 24 them with other materials to determine to what extent there
() 25 are -- we are concerned about cathodic reactians within ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- 8520 05 11 312
() DAVbur 1 these very large pits. 2 DR. SHEWMON: Tom, did you have other questions? 3 DR. KASSNER: I am just saying I wish you guys 4 would get high aspect ratio pits because when they perforate 5 the amount of transport of the species out through that type
- 6 of pit will be minimized. One can then take advantage of 7 it.
8 DR. MC NEIL: I know, but unfortunately if you 9 make thing's out of carbon steel you tend to get these very 10 broad shallow pits. You have to speak to God about the 11 behavior of carbon steel. 12 DR. KASSNER: Is there any chance in getting some () 13 long-term data to see what the shape of these thing ~s 14 eventually will be? I mean, is-it well-know that they are 15 going to come out? 16 DR. MC NEIL: All we can do is look at things 17 like old pipes. We tried to consult people who have some-18 experience with dealing with things like perhaps water pipe 19 systems in New England. In these cases you are talking 20 about sort of archaeololgical metallurgy. You just have to 21 take what is available, unfortunately. 22 DR. STEINDLER: What sort of materials are you 23 looking at*in this program? 24 DR. MC NEIL: Almost entirely carbon steels. i l ) 25 DR. STEINDLER: Are you doing this with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 05 12 313 ().DAVbur 1 distilled water? 2 DR. MC NEIL: We have several different 3 experimental systems. We take basalt groundwater, according 4 to a recipe which we get from DOE. 5 DR. STEINDLER: What sort of control do you 6 exercise in the oxygen content? 7 DR. MC NEIL: We-do generally some of them simply 8 with atmospheric levels of oxygen and others sparged with 9 argon, low oxygen. We do not believe'that these ultra low 10 oxygen figures -- I do not believe these ultra low oxygen 11 figures being cited at BWIP for two reasons. 12 The first is that the theoretical arguments they 13 advance having to do with the CH-4-H CO-A-3 minus (]) 14 equilibrium are quite pointless. 15 I think the arguments advanced having to do with
. 16 the thermochemistry of freshly cracked basalt surfaces are i 17 inappropriate because you may make arguments on I . 18 thermochemistry based on basalt that has been cleaved in 19 vacuum. But the basalt down there is not cleaved in "
i-l 20 vacuum. It has been broken up in mining processes and 21 exposed to the air for years. 22 And the third thing is because you have got l 23 radiolysis. 24 DR. STEINDLER: So you are picking on one of the () 25 alloys in the case of basalt, that the basalt is
.,,A ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 s
8520 05 13 314
;I).DAVbur- 1 investigating?
2 DR. MC NEIL: We are also doing tests in pure
- 3 iron.
4 DR. STEINDLER: I am trying to get at the 5 solution chemistry that you are looking at, since that seems 6 to be one of the driving forces. 7 Do you know anything about the EEH of that 8 solution that you are doing? 9 In other words, I am not interested in exploring 10 technical issues. I am trying to figure out whether or not
- 11 the results of this work will indeed be extrapolatable to 12 the real world and include sufficiently decent data so that l () 13 the NRC and/or DOE will be able to defend itself against 14 some group of intervenors #uo have hired some pretty decent 15 corrosion people.
16 DR. MC NEIL: Well, we try to do the tests in the i 17 most anoxic conditions we regard as believable. Now, of
- 18 course, that is very much a judgment call.
19 We try to do it in rather oxic conditions. We L 20 regard equilibration with that oxygen. It is pretty 21 oxidizing. 22 We occasionally do tests with peroxide, and then 23 we do these scans, you see. 24 (Slide.) ( 25 The polarization, where we can drive the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
._ _ - , _ . _ . . - . , _ _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . - . _ _ ~ . _ , ,
8520 05 14 315
,m
(_) DAVbur 1 reaction potentially up to extremely oxidizing conditions. 2 Well, that is not extremely oxidizing, but the thing is look 3 at the pitting we got. 4 Now, this isn' t much better. 5 DR. SHEWMON: Show us the pitting on that one, 6 since you admonished us to look at it. 7 DR. MC NEIL: I am sorry. Here is the anodic 8 branch. This is the potentiodynamic scan. This is the 9 anodic branch of the curve. Forget about this part here. 10 '7 hen you begin to crank up the potential -- I 11 will show you the equipment first. That might help. 12 (Slide.) () 13 Here is a schematic of the experimental setup, a 14 very crude schematic of an experimental setup. Here is a 15 reference electrode which could be hydrogen, but is in fact 16 usually calomel for practical purposes. 17 You have an adjustable voltage. You are 18 connected to a working electrode, which is your sample. The 19 auxiliary electrode merely serves as a way of dumping off 20 the electrons. You are going to use this adjustable voltage 21 to drive the working electrode to make it corrode faster 22 than it wants to, in some sense, and you need some place tc 23 take away the electrons. 24 And this is the auxiliary electrode. You measure f () 25 the voltage with a salt bridge and the device called an i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
8520 05 15 316 - w DAvbur 1 electrometer, which is an extremely high impedance potential 2 measurement. 3 So we get an accurate measurement in the 4 dif ference potential here and we get a current. 5 Now, will you put back the other little thing? 6 Here is an example of a measurement. We start off, let's 7 say, here in a quite reducing thing. This-is against 8 calomel, so you are up 250. You have got 250 between here 9 and the hydrogen electrode. Here is the current density, 10 logarithmic, going out there. l'1 So as you crank up the potential, you make it 12 more and more anodic. The current goes up and up. This is () 13 uniform corrosion. 14 Now, you have a fall-off here. It is 15 beginning -- some alloys, you see, would go way down here, 16 but this is Ferrovac E, a commercial iron, commercial pure 17 iron, and it doesn't passivate very well in this 18 groundwater. You see it passivates a little bit down here, 19 and then it goes along here, and you keep driving it, and 20 finally it starts pitting. 21 So this current is pitting. 22 23 24 () 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336#A6
8520'O'6'01 317 ()-DAV/bc 1 Now one of the reasons I have this -- shows on 2 hysteresis, one of the nasty things about this curve from 3 the point of view of assurance of noncorrosive behavior, as 4 you see, it had to go up here to make it start pitting. 5 But once it starts pitting, when you back off, 6 you see it comes all the way back down -here before it goes 7 back down. What you're showing here is a situation in which 8 it's very hard to make the sample start pitting. But once 9 it starts, it can grow in a much more reducing environment 10 than the environment you have to create in order to get it 11 started. 12 DR. SHEWMON: Fine. Go back to the next () 13 question. Yo'u asked the question again. Have you got an 14 answer to the question? 15 DR. STEINDLER: The focus, I gather, is primarily 16 on basalt, the basalt container material. 17 DR. MCNEIL: Yes. It's not entirely on basalt 18 but I would say more than half the effort is on basalt. 19 DR. STEINDLER: Do you have programs that work in , 20 the environments defined by the other repositories? 21 DR. MCNEIL: We have a significant effort in the 22 salt. We have very little in tuff at the present. 23 DR. STEINDLER: In the case of salt, how did you 24 choose the solutions? () 25 DR. MCNEIL: There are two brines, brine A and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
I 8520 06 02 ; 318 () DAV/bc le brine B with appropriate impurities which are used on common 2 tests between DOE and NRC. 3 Basically, we just try to stick to what DOE seems 4 to feel are brines typical of their repositories. It's a 5 question of the oxygen concentration. That's a very l 6 significant one there, particularly considering that you 7 have radiolysis of basalt as well as the brine. 8 All I can say is we' re trying to do something on 9 that. 10 DR. STEINDLER: Presumably, then, you recognize 11 that those results will be more generic than specific in 12 light of the fact that the actual groundwater is not () 13 defined. 14 DR. MCNEIL: In all cases, well, we are doing one 15 thing in the basalt case. We have a number of different 16 components that we know will be present. We, that is, 17 Battelle, have a number of components that are known to be 18 present in the basalt groundwater. And a very large number 19 of these experiments are being done. 20 And varying the concentrations of these partly 21 because we feel that the concentrations in the groundwater 22 probably will vary from one part of the repository to 23 another. Quite apart from the variations in the average 24 composition. And we are attempting to determine by a scheme () 25 of statistically-designed experiments which of the first ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 06 03 319 _( ) DAV/bc 1 order and second order interactions are the most important. 2 For example, a trivial question that one has to answer is 3 how important is silicate; if the concentration of silicate 4 lons is. increased by 4 times, does this make a fundamental 5 difference to the important parameters here, or is it down 6 in the noise? 7 The second order question is, if you increase the 8 amount of silicte ion ano you increase the amount of, say,. 9 borate ion, is there a second order effect?
'10 It just basically depends on the product of these 11 two. So we're doing'quite a large program of experiments to 12 identify not only just to collect a lot of data on what I
() 13 would term believable basalt groundwaters in the sense of 14 basalt groundwaters whose compositions are more or less 15 consistent with the information we've got, but also to 16 determine which ions are the most important. 17 In other words, if it turns out that everybody 18 was grossly wrong about the borate composition, does it 19 really matter? 20 That's a question we really feel we have to have 21 answers to because the groundwater is not that 22 well-defined. 23 DR. STEINDLER: Are these data going to be used 24 in validating the model? ( 25 DR. MCNEIL: These data, I don' t know that I can ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 06 04 320 ()'DAV/bc 1 answer that question. I'think these data will be used to 2 analyze' DOE's submissions. 3 MR. COSTANZI: I think that if the Division of 4 Waste Management; determines that it needs a specific model 5 for pitting corrosion and chooses to develop one.at this 6 level of detail, then this data, certainly data collected 7 from these experiments will be used. 8 Right now, it's a question of what kind of cases 9 do you need to make in that? How do you view that? Again, 10 as part of this Aerospace contract, they are looking at that 11 waste packge. I'm not sure they're into that level of 12 detail. O 13 oa snewaon= oxev-14 DR. MCNEIL: I think Dr. Parry had a question. 15 DR. PARRY: The basalt groundwater that you've 16 used there, is that saturated? 17 DR. MCNEIL: We have two different varieties of 18 basalt groundwater; in the sense that we vary the ranges, 19 yes, some of them go all the way to saturation. 20 But we have two standard basalt groundwaters, as f 21 well as what I might term the artificial ones we use for the 22 statistical experiments. One is a 1-Xed. That is the ! 23 straight basalt in groundwater as specified by DOE. And
- 24 then the second one is simply basalt groundwater i
() 25 . concentrated le times. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
~8520 06 05 321
()DAV/bc 1 The reason you concentrate it 10 times is because 2 the repository is going to be physically hot.. The cesium
~
3 and strontium produce heat and so it's our perception that 4 as the first groundwater comes back into the repository 5 after it's been excavated, filled and sealed, it will be 6 converted to steam which will escape leaving the soluble 7 salts behind. 8 And so we think it is quite plausible. By the
,9 time we actually have liquid electrolite in contact with the 10 containers, it will in fact be significantly enriched in all 11 the soluble salts.
12 Could . I say one more thing about this curve in
.() 13 terms of the statistical experiments?
14 It is often observed. Suppose you do these 15 curves twice and you do them once slowly and the second time 16 fast? It is often observed that if in fact you have a very 17 peak here down in the general corrosion area, the difference ! 18 between the fast and the slow scans is a great deal. As in 4 19 this case, you see I have penciled in.. 20 Suppose this were the slow scan and you got a lot 21 and then you had this in the fast scan? You got a sizable L 22 difference between the slow and fast scan. In this loop, 23 this type of behavior seems to correlate with stress 24 corrosion cracking. () 25 And so, in doing the statistical experiments ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
8520 06 06 322 () DAV/bc 1 also, we're in a sense doing a screening in the places where 2 we have to worry about. stress corrosion cracking. 3 DR. PARRY: Is that a high magnesium ' groundwater 4 that you're using in the system? 5 DR. MCNEIL: This is basalt. 6 DR. SHEWMON: Tom, do you have a question? 7 DR. KASSNER: Just a quick one. Did you make any 8 in situ measurements of the redox potential? 9 DR. MCNEIL: You mean, in the actual sites? 10 There has been considerable experimental-work at 11 the basalt site. It's been giving very contradictory 12 numbers. This was work done by DOE. They have got a very , () 13 wide range of values going from plus 200 on hydrogen down to 14 about minus 200. 15 DR. KASSNER: That's the kind of information that 16 would be. 17 DR. MCNEIL: When the information is all that f 18 broad, it's not all that useful. We do what we can given ! 19 the information that we get. In this case, I do not think 20 DOE is concealing. I think it's just a very, very difficult i i 21 measurement to do. Ph measurements are not all that easy to ! J 22 do in the lab. When you try to do them down in the-ground ! 23 somewhere, I can appreciate some of DOE's dif ficulties. i 24 DR. KASSNER: Those potentials are quite a bit - () 25 higher than what you' re looking at. i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
l l 8520 06 07 323 (3 (_j DAV/bc 1 DR. MCNEIL: Put that back. That's calomel, 2 remember. So, in fact, minus 200 hydrogen has got minus 450 3 calomel, which is around there. 4 DR. ,KASSNER: So those environments were up in 5 the pitting range then? 6 DR. MCNEIL: We are observing pitting in basalt 7 groundwaters. 8 MR. ETHERINGTON: You mentioned radiolysis of 9 salt. Can you quantify that relative to the normal chloride 10 lon concentration in brine? 11 DR. MCNEIL: It can be done. I don' t have the 12 calculations here. () 13 MR. ETHERINGTON: Is it 10 times as much? 14 DR. MCNEIL: No. We're talking here about 15 conversion of NACL into sodium metal, which then reacts, and 16 chlorine CL2. So far, what has been detected is CL2. 17 Personally, I think if it's done in one of these situations 18 where you have all this brine around, what you're going to 19 get is some sort of oxygenated chlorine atoms, chlorides, 20 chlorate, or something like that. 21 There's not been adequate experimentation in that 22 area. 23 MR. ETHERINGTON: Wouldn't it be a chloride ion 24 before it became chlorate? O DR. MCNEIL: (_) 25 No. The evidence from the actual ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 6M6 ,
_ . - ~ _ _ . _ . .. . - _ . _ - _.~ - _ 4 4 8520 06 08 324 l () DAV/bc' 1 experiments. These reactions take place in solid salt, not 2 in the solution. {
- 3 MR. ETHERINGTON
- Okay.
4 DR. SHEWMON: One of the bylaws of the ACRS says , 5 that for a subcommittee chairman to maintain his post, he ~ , 6 has to have a break at least every two hours. So why don' t 7 we take one. 8 (Recess.) i 9 DR. SHEWMON: Can we begin, please? } 10 One of the questions I wanted to get your , 11 comments on, Mike, had to do with -- after a look at the 12 program, it would seem to me that you have concluded that () 13 uniform corrosion you can handle and that pitting corrosion 14 is the most important parameter that you should be able to 15 handle, but you didn' t have enough information on to i 16 handle. 2 17 DR. MCNEIL: I think that it is going to be j 18 r'elatively easy to judge uniform corrosion data. j 19 DR. SHEWMON: You can answer yes if you want to. I 7 20 (Laughter.) i 21 DR. MCNEIL: The answer is that uniform 22 corrosion, I don' t think NRC needs to do a lot of work on. 23 Stress corrosion cracking, we simply have to avoid. Stress [ ! 24 corrosion cracking, as far as I can see, cannot be coped f () 25 with over a multi-hundred year basis as a corrosion ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l
8520 06 09 325 () DAV/bc 1 allowance thing. 2 Stress corrosion cracking will propigate. They 3 will proprigate at crack velocities that make corrosion 4 allowance unreasonable. 5 So, in that case, you just have to avoid pitting 6 corrosion. Pitting is something you can allow for and 7 discuss the rates of. That's, I think, why there seems to 8 be a particular emphasis on pitting corrosion, because it's ; 9 a situation in which we in DOE will probably agree. Yes, it 10 happens but what is the rate going to be over a thousand 11 years? 12 DR. SilEWMON: Do you then feel that anything ! () 13 coming out of the programs we've talked about so far, which 14 I guess is Battelle and maybe Brookhaven, but we haven' t 15 differentiated them, will give NRC the information that's 16 needed to try to predict what' kinetics are over these longer 17 terms? 18 MR. COSTANZI: The important thing again to 19 realize is that what we're trying to do is be in the 20 position to make an intelligent evaluation of DOE's 21 demonstration. 22 DOE'~s demonstration says pitting at such and ; 23 such. 24 DR. S!!EWMON: They may come in and say it's all [ () 25 uniform corrosion because you have to be able to make the i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
l 8520 06 10 326 () DAV/bc 1 prediction whether they comment or not, if you think it's 2 important. l 3 MR. COSTANZI: We have to be able to evaluate. 4 DR. SHEWMON: Let's say they come in with uniform 5 corrosion. You say it's all pitting corrosion. You can't 6 go in without anything to back that up. 7 MR. COSTANZI: That's right. So we really don' t 8 need to know what the conditions are, which would say that 9 pitting corrosion -- 10 DR. SHEWMON:. Okay, would dominate. But how do 11 you get to say it dominates? You've got to say it's 12 faster. If you say it's faster, you've got to have a rate () 13 equasion. So let me come back to the question. 14 DR. MCNEIL: I believe that'this work will permit 15 us to estimate, I prefer the word " bound", because I think 16 that DOE will not claim that the pitting rates, let's say in i 17 the basalt groundwater, are below a certain curve.
- 18 I believe that our program will permit us to i
i 19 judge whether claims on pitting corrosion are believable or 20 not. 21 DR. SHEWMON: !!ow do you get that out of 22 short-term tests that you were just talking about? Or, 23 don' t you? 24 DR. MCNEIL: One of the things that we're doing () 25 is trying to deliberately create old pits. That is, very ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- - _ ~ - = 8520 06 11 327 () DAV/bc 1 large pits. If you start a pit now, it is never going to 2 get to be big enough. If it takes 200 years to make a pit 3 the size of my thumb, we are making artificially very large 4 pits which one would project from short-term data would be 5 what one would have in any number which is convenient to you 6 experimentally. 7 So you artificially make the pit. Then you study 8 how the artificial pit grows, so we can set up a pit that is 9 four inches deep and has whatever aspect ratio you want and 10 then study how it grows. 11 DR. SHEWMON: You can create that geometry but 12 can you also create a chemistry? () 13 DR. MCNEIL: Yes. 14 DR. SHEWMON: How do you do that? 15 DR. MCNEIL: We take the groundwater, enrich it 16 in chloride, pack the container with a slurry of groundwater 17 enriched with chloride and magnetite, which appears to 18 represent fairly well what seems to be found in long-term 19 pits. 20 DR. SHEWMON: With a low aspect ratio pit, you've 21 got uniform corrosion in the valleys. 22 DR. MCNEIL: It tends to sort of spike out the 23 picture; the overall effect in some of these things tends to 24 be that it tends to grow relatively uniformly. But, in the () 25 short-term, you tend to have spikes and irregularities ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-646
( A bc 1 developing during the corrosion process. 2 In other words, even though the long-term effect 3 of the pitting corrosion over the very long period may be j 4 uniform, if you do the measurements in a matter of weeks i 5 down in an old pit, you find considerable irregularities. 6 DR. SIIEWMON: So low aspect ratio pits, I have i j 7 difficulty understanding. Af ter you've chewed the hole _in l 8 it, it knows it should behave like a pit, instead of like l
- 9 uniform corrosion. Something must have started that pit s
! 10 there in the first place. That's by definition different I
f 11 from what goes on around it. i 12 DR. MCNEIL: You see, it's being choked off down I i () 13 on the bottom. It still is enriched with chlorides and it 4 14 tends to acidify because you do get reactions down in the i i 15 pit. It tends to acidify. s A deep, a low a~pect pit, a very 16 low aspect, clean pit is a contradiction in term'. s ) 17 I had a viewgraph of one of them around here l 18 somewhere. These pits like we were talking about, the ones 19 that look like this, they're never clean. This is in fact 20 experimentally, when you find this in part, this area is j 21 invariably full of bits of corrosion product. It has to be i 22 because otherwise the hydrodynamics would make the 23 electrolite down here like the electrolite out here. You 24 wouldn't have any more force for pitting. ) () 25 It's the fact that the pit chokes up and so you 4 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 _ _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a
F 8520 06 13 329
.DAV/bc 1 have what amounts to sort of super crevice corrosion all 2 over the bottom of the pit, is what keeps this type of pit '
3 going, we think. 4 DR. SHEWMON: Do you think you know enough about 5 what chlorides and oxides and so on to put in to indeed 6 emulate the behavior of the pit? 7 DR. MCNEIL: I don't but my contractors do. 8 (Laug h te r . ) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cecrage 800 336-6646
1 8520 07 01 330 () DAVbur 1 DR. STEINDLER: You indicate a strong interest in 2 magnetite. In some cases, particularly when you use 3 sensible groundwater, the layers have not much to do with 4 magnetite. You in fact get stealites and silicates that 5 precipitate as corrosion layers on top of the metals. 6 It seems to me that in fact if that is a more 7 accurate description of what goes on on the inside of your 8 cavity which you have filled, or however you do it, it 9 ought to make a significant difference in the quality of the 10 results you get. 11 Do you have some way to determine that this 12 artificial pit that you produced in some fashion or another () 13 and the rate equations that you obtain from it are in fact 14 something more than just the rate equations for an 15 artificial pit? 16 DR. MC NEIL: Relating the artificial pit to the ! 17 real pit is a difficulty, particularly in the presence of 18 mineralization. 19 The answer is you try to cope with this by 20 studying the pits that grow in groundwater -- of course, 21 these are f airly small pits -- and try new types of junk in 22 here. What I think the answer is. 23 Our work along these lines has been quite 24 limited. We are hoping in future times to spend more () 25 effort. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natio mide Coverage 800-336-6M6
8520 07 02 331 ()s DAVbur 1 We are aware of the fact that there is a detailed 2 connection between mineralization and the corrosion 3 process. We are not deliberately avoiding it. But it is 4 something that we are doing as our limited resources become 5 available. 6 DR. MARK: I have a very loose understanding of 7 what we are talking about, some of these things here. You 8 are interested in pitting corrosion so that water may get 9 through the overpack. Then starts this famous leaching 10 business at 10 to the minus 5th per year, or whatever it 11 is. 12 If you have pitting corrosion over 10 percent of () 13 the area, is your leach rate then 10 percent of the things 14 you had uniform corrosion over 100 percent of the area? 15 DR. MC NEIL: No. It is not that simple. 16 DR. MARK: I was aware it wouldn' t be that 17 simple. There would be no room for research if it were. 18 (Laug hte r . ) 19 DR. MC NEIL: This question of leaching, of what l 20 happens when you have leaching through a failed surface, has l 21 been looked at by a number of people. In the particular 22 case where you have a fuel rod after the overpack has failed and you have water in there on the fuel rod, cracks and
~
23 24 holes in the fuel rod, the answer is that the work is being () 25 done. The answers that I have seen aren' t useful. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 07 03 332 () DAVbur 1 DR. MARK: There isn' t much tendency for the 2 water to be flowing up and down the hole? 3 DR. MC NEIL: It is clear that there is only one 4 pit through and that not much happens. The question of what 5 happens when you have cracks or what happens when you have 6 more than one pit, I have seen several different answers 7 from different groups, and there doesn' t seem to be any 8 particular commonality. 9 DR. MARK: Anyway, there is some attempt to get 10 some hold on that? ! 11 DR. MC NEIL: This is primarily being done by DOE 12 se far as I am awarc. () 13 Perhaps Dr. Stahl would like to comment. 14 DR. STAIIL: Dr. Stahl, Battelle Columbus 15 Laboratories. 16 I am not aware of much work that is being done in 17 regard to the surface area corrosion on the DOE side. We 18 have a study going in the cell on spent fuel, which is
, 19 addressing this particular area.
20 But if I may, just by way of reference to some 21 work that has been done by DOE and also by our Canadian 22 friends on oxidation, looking at defect sizes, drill holes, l 23 cracks, there .eoms to be a threshold on the surface that i l 24 must be made available to the oxygen in order to get a l
/~
l (_T/ 25 substantial effect, and I suspect that similar analogous ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(Xh336-(M6
8520 07 04 333 (O_; DAVbur 1 behavior would occur with leaching, that you do need some 2 threshold volume available of the fuel to the leaching. 3 DR. SHEWMON: Any other questions? 4 (No response.) 5 DR. SHEWMON: Who is the PI at Brookhaven? 6 DR. MC NEIL: Hugh Isaacs. 7 MR. COSTANZI: If there are no further questions 8 on that one, we will move on to the next project,. pitting 9 statistics. 10 (Slide.) 11 A program underway at the National Bureau of 12 Standarda. () 13 The objective of this program is to assess the 14 variability of pit depths with pit age and environmental 15 conditions. Basically, the scope of the work is to examine 16 fluctuations in passivation current as a possible precursor 17 to the onset of pitting and also to statistically analyze 18 distribution of pit depths and size with pit age. 19 The results of this work are passed on and 20 correlated with the work at Brookhaven and Battelle 21 Columbus. 22 Again, this is related to the stability over time 23 of the pitting process in expected repository environments. 24 That parenthetical statement reflects some of the () 25 work that has been done on the pit geometric studies that ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 NationwideCo erage 800 336-6646
- . . --. -_ - .~ . . . - - - - - - - - - _ - - ..- . . _ . - . - . - - . . - - ,
8520 07 05 334 () DAVbur I have been done, which indicate that the repository 2 environments may very well be in regions where pitting 3 " ort'o ion or general corrosion would not normally be. 4 Again, Dr. McNeil is the project manager of this 5 program. 6 DR. S!!EWMON: How long has this been going on? 7 DR. MC NEIL: About six months. 8 DR. SilEWMON: And the PI is? 9 DR. MC NEIL: Ilugo Bertocci. 10 DR. SIIEWMON: Where do you get your pits or 11 cracks that they are doing statistics on? 12 DR. MC NEIL: These are done in carbon steel () 13 passivated with borates. There is a subcontract with the 14 University of Manchester Institute of Science and 15 Technology. 16 In fact, if you are going to do counting pits, , 17 you do large numbers of samples and you have to do 18 statistics on the pits. You have really got to do it in an 19 institution that has a large supply of cheap labor, of 20 graduate students. 21 DR. SilEWMON: We still get back to the problem of 22 extrapolating from one month to one century. 23 DR. MC NEIL: Yes. The answer is "yes." I will 24 show you the sort of thesis. () 25 There are two different questions -- well, there ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
8520 07 06 335 () DAVbur 1 are several different questions having to do with statistics 2 and pitting. 3 One of the trivial ones which DOE is working 4 on -- it is trivial to state. It is not trivial to solve -- 5 I don' t have a viewgraph, but I will pass it around. 6 The pitting potential. Here are data plotted on 7 probability paper for the pitting potentials measured on a 8 number of nominally chemically identical steels. 9 This work was done by a Dr. Shibara, and it came 10 out of the program of Professor Mcdonald, which is funded by 11 the Office of Basic Energy Sciences. 12 If in fact the pitting potential were a state () 13 property like heat capacity, all these lines would go 14 straight up and down because there would of course be only 15 one value observable. So that is an issue of pitting 16 statistics, which we are not dealing with because I have 17 full confidence in Professor Mcdonald and in the Office of 18 Basic Energy Sciences to cope. 19 We are concerned with two different issues, one 20 of which has to do with how do you detect a difference 21 between incubation times and situations in which you are not 22 going to have any pitting. 23 Suppose I measure the corrosion current and I 24 will measure the corrosion current as'a function of time, () 25 and I have two cases. I have one case where the sample is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
8520 07 07 336 () DAVbur 1 subject to pitting but it has an incubation time, and if I 2 do it on a gross scale, I will discover that the basalt i 3 looks like this. 4 I have another sample where in fact pitting will 5 never happen, and of course the answer is it just goes along 6 the flat line. 7 Now, if you do all your measurements up to this 8 point, how do you discriminate? 9 Well, the answer is that if you look -- if you 10 fix the voltage very carefully with specialized equipment 11 and look at microfluctuations in the current, you find that 12 if in fact you are not going to have pitting at all you have
.() 13 a certain amount of noise in here, that in fact it just 14 looks like this on a blown-up scale.
15 If, on the other hand, you are going to have -- 16 this again is a severely blown-up scale, goes straight up 17 and then decays -- if, in fact, on a grossly exaggerated 18 scale -- this is microamps per centimeter squared -- if in 19 fact you find that you are having a pattern like this in 20 which you have little spikes that decay from time to time, 21 that is a warning sign that in fact you are not in uniform 22 pitting, that it is just incubating.
- 2. 3 DR. SiiEWMON: I thought you and Kassner agreed 24 half an hour ago that pits would grow for a while and then i 25 stop.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 07 08 337 /~s () DAVbut 1 DR. MC NEIL: I will get to that point in a 2 moment. This is one part of the thing. 3 So we have the question of using the statistics 4 of current, the very fine statistics of current to judge 5 claims as to whether pitting will happen or not. This is a 6 way of addressing the question. 7 DOE says here is a sample in which pitting will 8 not occur, and this is a way of saying, of discriminating, 9 where we say, okay, yes, we agree that the evidence is that 10 pitting will not occur versus telling them, hey, you didn't 11 run your experiment long enough. 12 Now, let us consider the following experiment. () 13 We take a large number of identical samples, and we put them 14 in an identical environment, and every now and then we pull 15 one of them out and we plot the number of the density of pit 16 depth versus the pit depth. 17 This is in T-naught. We will find it looks 18 something like that; that is, there will be a lot of very 19 small, very shallow pits that probably will come down here, 20 and there will be a few slightly larger pits. Now, we have 21 T-1. It is greater than T-naught. And we have a further 22 distribution. It may even have maximum. 23 The question is: as time develops what happens 24 to this distribution?
) 25 The pattern in some of the arguments advanced by ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
i 8520 07 09 338 () DAVbur 1 the Department of Energy has been to assume in their 2 calculations that all pits have the same depth. That is 3 just a block distribution. And the delta function -- 4 basically, the delta function just propagates bigger and 5 bigger pit depths as times goes on. 6 This is clearly not the case. There clearly is a 7 statistical .istribution pit depth, and it is very important 8 to know. 9 Suppose we have two cases here, both at T-1, and 10 suppose T-1 is a long time. We can have two distributions 11 that h' ave the same mean, but one of them is very narrowly 12 distributed actually. The second one may have the same () 13 mean, but in fact it may have a long tail. 14 This is what we have to look out for, it seems to 15 me, in analyzing data. If you deal only with average pit 16 depth, you can get a situation in which the average pit 17 depth is still quite shallow, but if the pit depth 18 distribution has a long tail out to long depth, you might 19 wind up with holes anyway. 20 This would be typical where you had a lot of 21 pits, most of them passivated but a- few of them kept 22 growing. 23 DR. S!!EWMON: The question was: how do you 24 extrapolate from a month to a century? Can you answer that?
) 25 DR. MC NEIL: I am not capable of saying how I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 07 10 339 (m (,) DAVbur 1 will extrapolate to a century. 7 am telling you how I 2 extrapolate from short term to intermediate term, a matter 3 of a few years. 4 We take this, and we analyze the tails, and we 5 try to determine -- I would like to find a demonstration 6 that there exists a function -- say the steel, water, DT, 7 which I will call phi -- such that the limit, as T 8
- approaches infinity and that D approaches infinity, and N of 9 D equals phi -- what I am hoping to do is to find that for 10 all available beta that we can get in short and intermediate 11 terms we can find an asymptotic value for this distribution 12 function and that we can then tie that in in some fashion to
() 13 our studies on artificial old pits. 14 DR. SHEWMON: That was written just for you, 15 Carson. Go ahead. 16 DR. MARK: Thank you. 17 I think I understood most of that. 18 Is there a means today of doing a microscopic 19 survey of a surface and saying there will be a pit here and 20 a pit there, not in the middle? 21 DR. MC NEIL: No, not'until they start. I 22 DR. MARK: There ought to be. l 23 DR. MC NEIL: Yes, I agree. We have in fact a 24 technique which can map the microcurrents at a surface and () 25 can pick up pitting before you can detect a pit by any ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 07 11 340 (j- DAVbur 1 optical means. 2 I mean, I can artificially say, look, I can tell 3 you, for example, that in certain types of enclosures there 4 are likely to be nuclei for pits. I can tell you that if 5 you take a punch -- given the trivial examples of surface 6 abrasions, impurity concentrations, and so forth. 7 But given a sheet of superficially uniform carbon 8 steel of uniform chemistry, I cannot tell you where the pits { 9 will and will not propagate until we put it in the 10 electrolyte. 11 DR. MARK: Well, look, I certainly don' t mean to 12 argue with anything. On the other hand, a uniform surface ('v; 13 will not promptly develop pits. 14 DR. MC NEIL: It is not quite true. 15 DR. MARK: It has got to have centers where 16 things are going to get their teeth in. 17 DR. MC NEIL: That is not actually quite true 18 because the model of why, of how pits initiate is a picture 19 of defects in the surface, atomic scale defects, and when 20 you get -- statistically speaking, you will now and then get i
~
21 an abnormal concentration of defects at this point or that 22 point. That is the point where the pit will start, and it 23 may be entirely identical to the other points on the 24 surface. But it just happens, just from statistical 25 principles, that this is where there were too many ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6686 l
1 l I 8520 07 12 341
) DAVbur 1 vacancies at one point.
2 DR. SHEWMON: The scale on which it is uniform, I 3 think, is the example. 4 DR. MARK: I was thinking of some of the kinds of 5 things where you examine the variations in crystal 6 structure. 7 DR. SHEWMON: Let me bring one question up on 8 this. You said inclusions don' t necessarily go very deep. 9 Once you have this instability there, the fact that you have 10 run out of inclusions doesn't stop the pits, is that right? 11 DR. MC NEIL: No, it does not. 12 DR. SHEWMON: Thank you. () 13 DR. MC NEIL: One other thing I would suggest is 14 that a lot of work has been done on the subject of 15 relating -- you see, pitting is a statistical phenomenon, 16 but the properies of atomic defects are deterministic, and 17 Professor Mcdonald, who was in Dr. Shewmon's department, has 18 just become head of all chemical research for Stanford 19 Research Institute and has done a good bit of work on 20 demonstrating how you can reconcile the statistical nature { 21 of pitting properties, such as those curves I sent around, 22 with the deterministic nature of atomic defects, and I am 23 sure he would be happy to give you some of his reprints. 24 DR. SHEWMON: Has there been any DOE work in this () 25 area that you can try to check and reproduce to see what the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 07 13 342
-( ) DAVbur 1 state of the art is on transportability of results from one 2 lab to another?
i 3 DR. MC NEIL: Dr. Isaacs is doing some work for 4 DOE. Some of his work on mapping the microcurrents on 5 surfaces is for DOE. 6 DR. SHEWMON: That is not quite an answer to the . 7 question. l 8 Because I suspect what you are going to end up, 9 and what you suspect also, is that between one piece of 10 steel and another you are going to get different results. 11 You are also aware that on experiments like this one 12 laboratory doesn' t do the same thing that another one does. () 13 So the fact that the tide i~s rising on odd days 4 14 for you and on even days for DOE doesn't help much. 15 What might come from the West Coast, Brookhaven, 16 or Columbus -- 17 DR. MC NEIL: Well, we are circulating samples, 18 and the group at Battelle Columbus has deliberately 19 attempted to reproduce and succeeded in reproducing an 20 experiment done for DOE by Dr. Diegel at Sandia. 21 Also, we do try as far as possible to maintain 22 supplies of steels, distribute supplies of steels, so, as 23 far as humanly possible, everybody knows that they are 24 working from the same piece. () 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
h q ,i520 08 01 343 1 DAV/bc 1 DR. SHEWMON: Any other question's on this 2 project? 3 (No response.) 4 MR. COSTANZI: The next project in the overpack 5 program is the containment asses' s ment program. 6 (Slide.) 7 The viewgraph has a typo in there. It should be 8 VNL, not BCL. This is a program which is finished. The 9 objective of this program was to examine the questions of 10 crevice corrosion and hydrogen embcittlement in titanium 11 alloys and carbon steel overpack materials. p t j 12 Experiments were performed to assess crevice 13 corrosion in titanium and hydrogen uptake and its 14 consequences in steel overpacks in the sale and basalt 15 repository environments. 16 The reason for doing this was to assess whether 17 or not crevice corrosion and cracking in a salt repo'itory s 18 was a significant problem with titanium overpacks. 19 The second question was whether or not hydrogen 20 embrittlement i~s going to be a problem for carbon steel 21 overpack materials. This program has finished. 22 DR. SHEWMON: Why did you do hydrogen carbon 23 steel? () 24 MR. COSTANZI: Originally, we concluded that 25 wasn't going to be a problem. However, some recent work at ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
m . . __ _ _ _ _ __ _ 8520 08 02 344 () DAV/bc 1 Battelle Northwest has indicated that there might be cracks 2 when we get on to the work at Battelle Columbus. It might 3 be a more appropriate time to discuss that. 4 DR. SHEWMON: We already had Battelle Columbus. 5 There's something here on long-term performance of the waste 6 package. We haven' t gotten to that yet. 7 MR. COSTANZI: I have 's lightly rearranged the 8 presentation from the listing in order to group the material i 9 on overpack. The next grouping will be waste forms. 10 DR. SHEWMON: Is that the copy of the agenda 11 you're working with? It's not the copy that I have. 12 MR. COSTANZI: I'm afraid not. () 13 DR. SHEWMON: Go ahead. 14 MR. COSTANZI: Maybe we ought to move on to that 15 last project. 16 DR. STEINDLER: Before you leave that one, you 17 indicate, at least the documents that we have that, number 18 one, the program has been closed; and number two, that one 19 of the conclusions seems to have-been that titanium alloys 20 are not;to be 'used in civilian high level waste. 21 To what extent are your results transmitted 22 backwards to DOE on this issue? 23 MR. COSTANZI: DOE was informed of the results 24 that we derived from this work. () 25 DR. STEINDLER: When did you close this program i i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 l- . - - . .. . - . - . . , , . . - , . , , , , _ . _ _ . _ __ , , , _ _ , , , , _ , _ ,,
8520 08 03 345 () DAV/bc 1 out? Or, let me put it this way. When were the results 2 available? 3 MR. COSTANZI: The results were available 4 essentially almost as they happened. Our topical reports 5 and quarterly reports are made publicly available. So when 6 is the final report of this program? 7 DR. HSU: Peter Hsu, Brookhaven Labs. I think 8 that the last report was published about a year ago. The i . 9 program started around about 1979-1980, starting out with 10 Tycho 12 as a principal containment material, because the 11 basalt project people had as one of their prime reference . 12 material. () 13 We do publish quarterly progress reports which 14 have national distribution, 350 copies all over the 15 country. 16 DR. MCNEIL: Let me say one thing though. It's a 17 slight exaggeration to say that Brookhaven said that Tycho- + i 18 12 was inappropriate. Brookhaven said that Tycho 12 19 demonstrated crevice corrosion in the repository 20 environment.
- 21 DR. STEINDLER: Let me read you from what I've 22 got in front of me. In effect, it says the results of this 23 program, which has been phased out, were used to support the 24 NRC's contention that titanium alloys ought not to be used
() 25 as overpacks for civilian high level waste. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4336-6646
. --- - . .- .= . - . .
L 8520 08 04 346
~( ) DAV/bc 1 DR. MCNEIL: NRC may say that but Brookhaven does 2 not say that.
3 DR. SHEWMON: And the basis for it was crevice 4 corrosion? 5 DR. MCNEIL: Right. Crevice corrosion was one 6 problem. There was another problem, however, that had to do 7 with high magnesium brines. Does anybody want to know about 8 that? 9 (No respon'e.) s 10 DR. MCNEIL: Okay. 11 MR. COSTANZI: The last program on overpack 12 research is the Battelle Columbus program, the long-term-() 13 performance of high level waste package materials. 14 (Slide.) 15 With regard to the overpack, again, the overall 16 objective is to identify the likely overpack failure mo/..s 17 under expected repository conditions and what the scope of 18 the work is to observe the rates and conditions for various 19 overpack failure modes. General corrosion, heat corrosion, 20 stress corrosion, pit corrosion and embrittlement. ! 21 Of course, what we're trying to do is provide the 22 technical basis for assessing the DOE's. demonstration of 23 overpack integrity to contain material for 300 to 1,000 24 years. The programs that are being done, the research to be () 25 done under this program, are the potentiodynamic-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 08 05 347 () DAV/bc 1 polarization tests, identifying regions where stress 2 corrosion, pitting corrosion or general corrosion will take 3 place in basalt repository environment. 1 4 Strainright tests for stress corrosion cracking 5 for overpack materials, pit propigation experiments, using 6 artificially produced pits with various aspect ratios to see 7 in effect how pits propigate hydrogen embrittlement tests. 8 And, lastly, in a nodeling program for identifying the rate 9 controlling parameters of corrosion. 10 MR. ETH E R*.NGTON : Would you say a little bit 11 about hydrogen embrittlement? i 12 DR. MCNEIL: We found the experimental that we 1 ) 13 had had would be collected on what I would call 14 straightforward samples cut from the appropriate steels. It 15 indicated that although there was some loss of ductility in l 16 the carbon steels due to hydrogen uptake, under no 17 believable hydrogen activities for the repositories did this 18 lead to any really significant problems. f f 19 Unfortunately, the tests were done without welded [ 20 samples. When we began to get welded samples and began to 21 get new tests in the heat-affected zone, we found recently 22 catastrophic loss of ductility in some parts of the 23 feed-affected zone due to this hydrogen uptake. l 24 MR. ETHERINGTON: Is this hydrogen uptake or
~( 25 hydrogen that was in the well to begin with?
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L
8520 08 06. 348 () DAV/bc 1 DR. .MCNEIL: This was a case where we took two 2 identical wells. We treated one of them with hydrogen and 3 the other one -- we did one of them in a hydrogen atmosphere 4 and the other in a nitrogen atmosphere. We found there was 5 a radical difference in the ductility. 6 So this is pretty clearly due to the post-weld 7 atmosphere. 8 MR. ETHERINGTON: At room temperature? 9 DR. MCNEIL: Yes. 10 DR. SHEWMON: If you held that at 90 degrees C., 11 would you expect to find that had any effect? Usually, 12 hydrogen brittleness stops around 100 degrees C. This is what I carry in the back of my head.
-( ) 13 14 DR. MCNEIL: You certainly know more about that 15 than I do, yes. Hydrogen embrittlement is something of a i 16 low temperature phenomenon, but the containers will get cold 17 eventually. Unfortunately, well, we hope to undertake more 18 work of hydrogen problem's on area's that have had thermal histories consistent with the heat-affected zone in future i 19 l
20 but we're doing relatively little on it now. ( 21 (Slide.) 22 Another question that I will mention at this l- 23 point has to do with hydrogen damage. The question has been I raised several times at Brookhaven about whether we have to 24
-( ) 25 worry about hydrogen damage, particularly since we're 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 _,.. _. ,, .__ , , , . _ _ . . , _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ , _ _ _ - __ ._ ..___.:___._--__-..~. _
8520'08 07 349 () DAV/bc 1 talking about very long times. There's lots of time for 2 hydrogen to go into the steels. It appears to me that, 3 except possibly for very heavily loaded containers in the 4 salt repository, you probably ought not to have to worry 5 about it, because if you look here at the hydrogen 6 pressures, this is, of course, Fahrenheit unfortunately. 7 Even for a really heavily loaded container, a 8 really hot container in the salt repository with lots and 9 lots of hydrogen around, you are really marginal, marginal, 10 marginal in terms of this diagram. 11 So we may eventually look at hydrogen damage. 12 But we've not done it up to this point simply because we've r 13 had more alarming problem's to look at. 4 (f 14 DR. SHEWMON: Can you have hydrogen potential for 15 a long time? I would think this would only occur in the 16 area of very active corrosion. 17 DR. MCNEIL: Well, in the salt dome proposal, 18 deganners are decomposing the salt into sodium chlorine. 19 The sodium is reacting with the brine. You've got hydrogen 20 being generated from the brine by just straight radiolysis 0 + 21 of the brine, which produces hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen 22 is a single species. 23 You've got hydrogen being produced by radiolysis 24 of the salt in contact with the brine, followed by reaction I) 2s of the sodium with the brine itself. And you've got ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 08 08 350 p) q_ DAV/bc 1 corrosion hydrogen. So I would say, in the particular case 2 of the salt repository and also the salt repository has this 3 self-sealing characteristic, which means that hydrogen at 4 above 1 atmosphere finds it less easy to leak out than 5 something above 1 atmosphere would from a normal mine. 6 So I'm not completely prepared to dismiss this as 7 a problem in the salt repo~itory s though, as I said. We have 8 not regarded it as a high enough priority to justify any 9 investment of resources up to this point. 10 DR. KASSNER: In thi's program, they are also 11 doing some modeling work on the radiolysis of the 12 groundwater. () 13 DR. MCNEIL: That is correct. 14 DR. KASSNER: Has any conclusion been made over 15 the last year that enough of these projects are generated to 16 have any influence on the erosion process? 17 DR. MCNEIL: I did some back of the envelope 18 calculations, given what we knew about the site, and 19 concluded that, yes, they were significant. 20 DR. KASSNER: Do you have any idea which ones? 21 DR. MCNEIL: Hydrogen peroxide. 22 DR. SHEWMON: This is just in salt or this is in 23 basalt also? i 24 DR. MCNEIL: My judgment is that in any situation i () 25 where you've got groundwater in contact with the container, ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6 L
8520 08 09 351
,/ x i, j DAV/bc 1 before the cesium and strontium are all gone, the radiolysis 2 of groundwater will produce significant perioxide.
3 DR. STEINDLER: Does this conclusion take into 4 account the design of the salt container, which is 5 thick-sectioned material, in order to avoid radiolysis? 6 DR. MCNEIL: It used the last data I had on the 7 basalt container, and I forget the exact thickness. But, as 8 I recall, it was of the order of 10 centimeters. I don' t 9 have the calculation and I do not remember the exact fig ure , le but I was using data that were available from the basalt 11 site and their anticipated design. 12 I will say that one thing that might happen, () 13 however, one option that is being discussed, that DOE 14 research has put forward, I gather , to somebody in the DOE 15 waste program, is the idea of putting into the backfill or 16 into the mineralization some species that catalyze the 17 recombination of the radiolysis products. 18 Apparently, there are iron salts whose nature I 19 can no longer remember. This came up in a DOE meeting that 20 I attended, that have the effect of in fact catalyzing the 21 recombination of hydrogen perioxide and greatly reducing its 22 stability. 23 This idea has been put forward to the DOE waste 24 people; what action if any they intend to take on it, I do O
\~/ 25 not know.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 t l
8520 08 10 352 () DAV/bc 1 DR. STEINDLER: If you have the opportunity, it 2 may be worth your while to engage yourself in a discussion 3 with the BWIP folks on the extent of radiolysis. 4 DR. MCNEIL: I would love to do so if they'd talk i
; 5 with me.
6 DR. SHEWMON: The rates for various failure modes 7 that were used to describe this, again, let me harp on on.
; 8 month to one century or one decade, or whatever. Failure 9 modes indeed mean failure modes, not corrosion mode's.
10 Can you identify failure modes here? If so, what 11 do you think the project will do for the rates?
- 12 DR. MCNEIL: In this program at this point it
() 13 addres'es s only penetration of the overpack. I will call 14 upon someone from Battelle-who may be doing work that I'm 15 unaware of, but I am not aware of any work in the corrosion 16 part of the program which addresses the question of the rate 17 of e's cape of radionuclides. And, for that matter, the 1 18 definition of failure. 19 DR. SHEWMON: I'm taking maybe out of context the i 20 words I heard from Costanzi five minutes that there were l 21 rates for various failure modes. l l
- 22 MR. COSTANZI
- No, I'm sorry. I was talking 23 about what are the rate controlling parameters of the 24 various forms of corrosion.
() 25 Failure mode, I'm talking about the mechanism, l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- - - - , .- - , . . - - . ~ _ . - , - . , - ,... , - ,. _ .._ ,__ _ _ , , ,. -,
8520 08 11 353 () DAV/bc 1 the pitting corrosion, stress corrosion, whatever. Those 2 are the things T'm talking about. 3 Again, let me emphasize that the definition of 4 failure in terms of a regulatory definition would be, for 5 example, a certain percentage of the overpack no longer 6 be'ing there. 7 What we are trying to do in our materials 8 research program dealing with the overpack is to identify 9 under what conditions, what kind of mechanism is going to 10 lead to loss of overpack integrity. However you define 11 . failure. When you presumably might mean percentage. 12 DR. SHEWMON: The problem is you still have to
- () 13 get at rate's before you can say what will decrease integrity 14 and make it lose integrity.
15 MR. COSTANZI: The corrosion mechanisms do 16 compete to a certain e:: tent. 17 DR. SHEWMON: I've heard of that. Z imme r ' 's 18 anyway, i 19 MR. COSTANZI: And if you're in a condition in 20 which pitting corro's ion is going to be the dominant 21 corrosion, then what you're worried about l's what is 22 controlling the pitting corrosion. You can do that in an 23 environment in which there is no passivation and is going to i. 24 be general corrosion and you can worry about what's () 25 controlling the rate of that. t J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationiide Coverage 800-336-6646
- ,_ . - - . . _ - , . . _ . _ - . - _ . , _ . . - , _ . _ _ . - _ . . _ _ . . - - . . - _ ~ _ , . _ -
8520 08 12 354 () DAV/bc 1 DR. SHEWMON: It's a very difficult problem and 2 the reason I'm appearing to be hassling you, or am has~ sling 3 you, I guess, is that I don' t think you' re going to be able 4 to predict it. And what you're waffling on is the fact that 5 you can. 6 MR. COSTANZI: I'm sorry. Can't predict what? 7 DR. SHEWMON: The rates of penetration through 8 more than four inches of steel. 9 MR. COSTANZI: Yeah, I think we do. We have a 10 model, that is to say, a concept, right now of the stability 11 of the process, or a way to extrapolate through short-term 12 tests to either the kind of corrosion which will end up () 13 failing the waste package over time or the stability of That 14 process. 15 If the rate changes, you' re absolutely right, we 16 don't. But that's the point in doing all of this work.
- 17 We're trying to' figure out to what extent can you do that.
18 And to what extent you can do that, what that solution looks ( 19 like. 20 DR. SHEWMON: Any other questions? 21 DR. STEINDLER: I have one. Again, the material, 22 the research summary that we have, has an objective for this 23 program, which looks a little different from the statement l 24 you have up there. Is it in fact true that the long-term l () 25 performance of the high level waste package materials l i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336- % 56
I i i 8520 08 13 355 DAV/bc 1 program at BCL deals only with overpack? 2 MR. COSTANZI: No. The statement that appears up 3 there applies only to the overpack portion. The program at 4 Battelle Columbus has a much broader program. It's looking 5 at the whole waste package. 6 So we're looking at not only the overpack but ' 7 it's also looking at the waste form itself, and it's looking I 8 at the waste package as a combination of waste form and 9 overpack in the respository environment. 10 So the statement before you now is simply a 11 different piece of Battelle Columbus program. f 12 13 14 15 16 i 17 , 18 i
- 19 i 20 4 21 22 4
i 23
; 24 o 25 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
. . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ , _ , , . . . _ , . _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ , . _ . . - - . _ _ . . . . , _ . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ , . _ . - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . ~ _ . . _ ,_
8520 09 01 356 () DAVbur 1 DR. SHEWMON: When do we get to the other part? 2 MR. COSTANZI: The waste one is coming up next. 3 DR. MARK: Could I ask a question here? You are 4 looking at basalt-tuff, basalt, with half the work on basalt 5 at the moment. 6 You will ultimately get a picture, I suppose, of 7 the different conditions you have to meet in one of these 8 media from one of the other media, and you will even get a 9 picture that it is easier to live in one than another 10 perhaps. 11 Are the Canadians doing the same thing with 12 respect to granite? () 13 DR. MC NEIL: A considerable amount of work is 14 going on in granite in Canada and the United Kingdom. 15 DR. MARK: Do you have a way of guessing now -- 16 is that a good or bad bet -- for the kind of applications 17 you are thinking of: l 18 DR. MC NEIL: I think that it is a very 19 significant question that has to do with the basic i~s sue 20 there, which is the greater flow of groundwater. 21 Basically, it is my gut feeling from the work that I have 22 seen that if you have got a good -- and I am putting the 23 word in parentheses -- granite deposit in the sense of water 24 availability, it is not at all a bad situation. () 25 DR. MARK: But it is premature to make such a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 8520 09 02 357 () DAVbur 1 conclusion? 2 DR. MC NEIL: In all these cases, the question of 3 the actual conditions in the mine, particularly the 4 geochemistry and hydrology, are so critical it is like 5 asking me whether a salt site is a good idea. Some salt 6 sites are really terrible. The question is: can you find a 7 good one? 8 DR. MARK: But you are, in any event, reasonably 9 sporadically informed of the findings these other people j 10 make? I 11 DR. MC NEIL: I am in pretty good touch with the 12 UK group because I know the people there. The Canadians I () 13 get reports from. ) 14 DR. MARK: Thank you. l ' DR. SHEWMON: Tell me briefly what the difference 15 16 is between basalt and granite. They are both igneous; one 17 is crystalline? 18 DR. MC NEIL: I have a feeling.you ought to ask a i~ 19 geologist. We have got a geologist from our branch behind 20 us. A geologist can tell us the difference. 21 DR. HACKBARTH: My name is Claudia Hackbarth, 22 with the staff. 23 The difference between basalt and granite. There 1 24 is a compositional difference in that basalt is much more () 25 mafic. That stands for more magnesium and more iron. It ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 & 6646
8520 09 03 358 l( ) DAVbur 1 crystallizes at a very high temperature. 2 Granite is more sialic. It has more silicon and 3 more aluminum and less magnesium and iron and would tend to 4 crystallize at a lower t9mperature. 5 There is also a textual difference in that basalt 6 is a rock that has solidifiei from magma very quickly, so 7 that there are very few crystals in it and quite a lot of l 8 glass; whereas, in granite it is cooled slowly and crystals 9 were able to nucleate and grow and it has no glass in it. 10 DR.-SHEWMON: Does that mean that the granite 11 tends to fract'ure more because of its coarseness than the 12 basalt or not? i l () 13 DR. HACFBARTH: No, I don't think you could say 34 that. They both fracture pretty well. 15 DR. SHEWMON: Thank you. 16 Nobody is talking seriously about granite 17 repositories? 18 MR. COSTANZI: No, that is not true. The prime i 19 candidate for the second repository right now is in 20_ granite. DOE does have an active program looking at 21 granite, crystalline rock, and we will be turning our 22 attention to granite in 1987, FY '87. 23 DR. SHEWMON: Okay, i 24 MR. COSTANZI: The next one is -- again, we want f r
.() 25 .to talk about the long-term performance project at Battelle i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ( l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l
1 i t 8520 09 04 359 )
) DAVbur 1 Columbus.
1 2 (Slide.) 3 Now, we want to turn our attention to the waste 4 form itself. 5 DR. STEINDLER: I am s'orry, before you leave that 6 long-term performance of the metallic components, that 7 program has been going for some years. 8 Have you arrived at a statable conclusion in j 9 terms of the original goal, the definition of rates and 10 extrapolated all the figures in, let's say, carbon steel? 11 DR. MC NEIL: I believe that we shall have a 12 usable model for the growth of large pits in carbon steel. () 13 We have drawn several preliminary conclusions with regard to
- 14 other issues.
- 15 If I state a research conclusion, our present 16 experimental basis indicates that unless radiolysis 17 introduces some new complication, which they may well do, we ,
18 have .got to deal with that, also. If DOE uses their present 19 designs, does good centrifugal casting, careful welding, i 20 stress corrosion cracking will probably not be an issue. 1 21 We have already told you my conclusions. The 22 thing is there is no one conclusion. You are getting a 23 number of different conclusions. 24 But I must point out that these are preliminary () 25 research conclusions, and we made the condition that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
'8520 09 05 360
() DAVbur 1 radiolysis not introduce any new complexities into the
'2 reaction.
3 It is a very, very big "if." 4 MR. COSTANZI: Let me state that conclusion in a 5 bit different way. 6 We do believe that we will be able to evaluate 7 and conclude whether or not we agree with DOE's 8 demonstration of overpack performance in a basalt i 9 repository, especially if they make an argument such that 10 stress corrosion cracking would be a problem and the waste 11 package is likely to lose its integrity. I think we will be 12 able to make a reasoned judgment as to whether or not we () 13 think they have supported their case. 14 We think we are in a good position or 'will be in 15 a good position to do that. 16 DR. STEINDLER: Would that conclusion also hold 17 for the enclosure area? 18 DR. MC NEIL: Assuming good welding practice, I 19 believe so. And again, remember there is another big "if" 20 here. 21 WGT, a part of the Division of Waste Management, 22 and we have had to form our views of the groundwater 23 chemistry based upon what BWIP has given us. That is 24 assuming again that we are not seriously in error on that. () 25 DR. SHEWMON: Might we postulate that pitting ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 09 06 361 () rAVbur 1 will be the controlling process here? 2 DR. MC NEIL: We have had no meeting on waste 3 packaging for several years, but insofar as we are aware, - 4 they.seem to focus mostly on general corrosion. 5 MR. COSTANZI: Dr. Shewmon, was your question on 6 the rate and what we are doing relative to extrapolation of 7 short-term testa and long-term performance -- was that 8 sufficiently answered? 9 I feel uncomfortable. 10 DR. SHEWMON: The question was answered as well 11 as it can be answered. 12 MR. COSTANZI: I still feel uncomfortable. I may () 13 not have understood your question. 14 DR. SHEWMON: I feel uncomfortable, too, but I
'15 think neither one of us i~s going to feel any more 16 comfortable.
17 You do not have models which, with any assurance, 18 can predict behavior of kinetics for 300 years by pitting. 19 MR. COSTANZI: Today that is true, but that is 20 not -- you know, we are proceeding to see if that can be 21 done. 22 DR. SHEWMON: But they have a comfortable feeling 23 or at least feel that they are making progress with the
~
24 model? () 25 MR. COSTANZI: Yes, on a number of fronts. i. . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L rn ,
8520 09 07 362 (_) DAvbur 1 A number of our programs are doing that, yes. 2 DR. SHEWMON: I am a little confused on what you 3 just got done saying about BWIP, although that is not the 4 main purpose of what we are doing. 5 I had thought you were going to be judging it, 6 you and DOE would assume or would agree that the canister 7 would probably hold out for an adequate period of time and 8 that they would improve it or assert it on the basis of 9 general corrosion and you would agree with them on the basis 10 of having evaluated the pitting corrosion, 11 MR. COSTANZI: I hope not. If DOE, indeed, makes 12 the argument that pitting corrosion is not going to be a () 13 problem, I believe that we will be able to judge whether or 14 not they have proven their case. 15 That is what we are talking about. If we 16 suspect -- and it is a suspicion -- that there is not likely 17 to be general corrosion or pitting corrosion, then they will 18 have to make that argument. s That i's pre'umably the 19 argument they will make. 20 But whatever argument they make, we feel that we 21 will be able to say you have not proven your case or you 22 have proven your case. 23 DR. KASSNER: Don't you think that beyond that 24 that what you, NRC, should be looking at are the () 25 consequences of, let's say, a premature failure of the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
J 8520 09 08 363 _( ) DAVbur 1 canister under the two different modes? ! 2 MR. COSTANZI: Absolutely. l 3 DR. KASSNER: After you decide that, you might i 4 say, hell, it is not important. The egress of radionuclides i 5 through a pit or group of pits is really not going to change 6 the picture at all. In other words, that is still going to 7 be the slow buildup and the release of these things to the 8 environment, depending on the model. * . 9 MR. COSTANZI: There are two aspects of 10 consequence. There is a requirement which DOE must meet on 11 containment integrity from 300 to 1000 years, and they must 12 demonstrate that the radiation will be substantially () 13 contained within the waste package for that period of time. 14 DR. SHEWMON: Do you think that would be enough, 15 for substantial containment? 16 MR. COSTANZI: Substantial containment. This is 17 the questior. which the Division of Waste Management is 18 addressing, its technical assistance program. But the 19 question of whether containment is substantial is of two 20 points: 21 One, the premature release, which ends up being a 22 premature release of radionuclides to the environment and 23 subsequently is a violation of the standard promulgate " by 24 EPA as well as the 10 CFR, Part 60, there is another () 25 cons < ience which relates to the subsequent performance-of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 8520 09 09 364 DAVbur 1 the repository itself in terms of the controlled release 2 requirements and the containment on the downstream waste 3 packages. 4 So in terms of whether or not premature failure 5 of one package is significant with respect to meeting the 6 containment requirement -- is a threat to the public health 7 and safety is one aspect of the question. 8 The other question is: does premature failure of 9 one-package grow like a cancer throughout the repository and 10 then the premature failure of everything. 11 Those are two different kinds of questions. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 01 01 365 x_) AGBeb 1 We need to examine both of them. 2 DR. SHEWMON: Do you want to answer your question 3 again? 4 MR. COSTANZI: We in Research are not doing 5 that. 6 MR. KASSNER: I think I'll pass. But you know in 7 the reactor you run with essentially failed fuel elements. 8 You know, you can tolerate a certain number of minute leaks 9 in fuel elements and people have learned to live with that. 10 I am just- trying to say the situation might occur 11 here. 12 MR. COSTANZI: If you're asking the question do () 13 we know whether or not we can live with that, the answer 14 right now is no, we don't. And the reason that we don't 15 know is because we haven't looked at the question. And the 16 reason we haven't looked at the question is because the set 17 of questions which we have to answer is much larger than the 18 dollars we have available to answer those questions. 19 MR. KASSNER: In addition to the modeling that 20 you're doing on these atomic processes here, I think someone 21 should be looking at this so that they can put some of these 22 in perspective. And that'~s the only comment I was making. 23 MR. COSTANZI: It's just that we're not doing it 24 now. p) q, 25 DR. SHEWMON: Bring it up this afternoon. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6646
S 8S20'01 02 366 () AGBeb 1 Any other questions on this? 2 1 (ko response.) 1 3 , DR. SHEWMON: Let's go on. l t 4 ; MR. COSTANZI: I would like to then talk about 5 the waste form. And Dr. Stohl of Battelle Columbus is the 6 principal investigator on this project. The staff member, 7 Dr. Peter Kihm, who is the project manager of this project, 8 is not available today. He is on travel. 9 The objective of this part of the program is to 10 assess the range of expected performance of high level waste 11 glass and spent fuel in its high level waste form. What is 12 being done is that laboratory experiments are being () 13 conducted on the' leach properties of high level waste glass 14 under a variety of conditions of the spent fuel. 15 Again, it is to provide NRC with a basis for 16 evaluating DOE's demonstration of performance of the waste i 17 form, that performance demonstration being part of DOE's 4 18 afgument that it will comply with the controlled release-19 requi,rements of 10 CFR Part 60. , 20 In terms of the glass experiments that have been 21 conducted, experimenfs have'been done to test the 4
, . 3 22 predictions of glass ih. solution model and the effect of
' 23 _ crystal di7e on_the leachability of the glass has been 24 i nves t'ig a ted .- Tho'eNfectcforganicacidswhichmightbe
() 25 natural organic acids that might be found in the repository L
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwgle Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 01 03 367
-( ) AGBeb 1 on leachability of the glass has been investigated.
2 The spent fuel program is in its infancy at 3 Battelle Columbus, and they are now developing -- have 4 developed a test plan for looking at the properties of spent 5 fuel as a waste product. So Dr. Stohl is here to answer 6 questions on that program. 7 I would also like to introduce Dr. Means, also of 8 Battelle Columbus. + 9 DR. SHEWMON: Do you feel that the spent fuel 4 10 program is going to be one more of the stability cf Zircaloy 11 in general or the statistics of a few defects? 12 MR. STOHL: Well, we are looking at the entire-And
'( ) 13 system; that is, the Zircaloy irradiated UO2 system.
14 the primary emphasis right now is on developing techniques 15 that we can use with spent fuel, beginning with unirradiated e 16 UO2. That's the focus in the near term. 17 Later on we will be looking at what we call 18 separate effects or combined effects with Zircaloy. At the 19 same time--- 20 DR. SHEWMON: 'I don' t know what you said. Did 21 you say you are going to restudy the corrosion rate of 22 Zircaloy in the first stages of the project? 23 MR. STOHL: (Shaking head negatively.) 24 DR. SHEWMON: What. data will go into your model?
- () 25 You can get anything out of your model that you put in, I'm ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46
J. 8520 01 04 368 () AGBeb l- sure, or you can get any answer you want if you put bad 2 enough data in. 3 MR. STOHL: Well, I'm not sure of the thrust of 4 your question. 5 DR. SHEWMON: The thrust of my question was: 6 Do things that in the real fuel that you're going 7 to -- somebody will put underground that the main problem 8 will be general corrosion or defects at a few points? When 9 you said "We're making a model - " 10 MR. STOHL: I didn' t say we' re making a model. 11 DR. SHEWMON: A systems approach? 12 MR. STOHL: A systems approach. In the near term () 13 we are looking at the spent fuel assuming that we have 14 defects in the cladding. 15 Later on we will be looking at the cladding 16 itself, but we don't feel that, again, general corrosion of 17 Zircaloy in these groundwaters is a problem, but that 18 localized corrosion may be a problem. And we have done some 19 literature review to indicate that under some conditions, 20 under our problems, even with Zircaloy you get stress 21 corrosion cracking and pitting can be a problem as well as 22 hydrogen embrittlement. 23 So those are things that we will be 24 investigating probably in Year Five of our five-year plan of () 25 our program. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L -
8520 01 05 369 ( AGBeb 1 DR. SHEWMON: To what extent have you learned 2 anything from fuel that has been in pools for ten years, or 3 is that temperature too low? 4 MR. STOHL: That's a very controlled chemistry 5 which is high'in' boric acid. The temperature is lower but 6 there are things that certainly you can learn from that, but 7 not much, I don't believe, that can be extrapolated to 8 localized attack. 9 DR. SHEWMON: And you think that the defects that 10 will come are from localized attack, not manufacturing 11 defects? 12 MR. STOHL: That's correct. In our integral test () 13 program which we will-get onto perhaps a little bit later 14 on, we are studying, as I mentioned in a comment earlier, 15 intentionally-defected Zircaloy fuel reds along with 16 in-service defects to try to understand or to try to 17 determine whether there are things happening there under l 18 those conditions that we were not able to consider or s l 19 predict on the basis of separate or combined effects 20 testing. 21 DR. SHEWMON: In general, what is known about the 22 leachability of this fuel? 23 MR. STOHL: Well, UO2 is a fairly resistant 24 materiel. The leachability is related very strongly to the () 25 oxygen that's available in the groundwater. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
8520 01 06 370 () AGBeb 1 Again as was mentioned earlier by Dr. Costanzi I 2 and others, we need to have a very good handle on what that 3 groundwater chemistry is, and its oxygen content. Now most 4 of the tests that have been done so far, for example at PNL, 5 have not been very strongly controlled as far as oxygen 6 level, and those testa are now being repeated. 7 DR. SHEWMON: Is-there much redistribution of 8 fission products after the clad / fuel interface in commercial 9 power elements? 10 MR. STOHL: Well, it certainly is there because 11 you have a very high temperature . gradient. The situation 12 that we have in a repository, you have a fairly flat 13 gradient across the fuel and it operates at lower (]) 14 temperature. 15 DR. SHEWMON: I'm aware of all that. My question 16 was-- My background is much more in fast reactor fuels 17 which are run at both higher temperatures and higher 18 temperature gradients. 19 MR. STOHL: Yes. 20 DR. SHEWMON: And there you do get redistribution 21 of fis'sion products after this interface. 22 MR. STOHL: That's correct. 23 DR. SHEWMON: Is there as much, or almost no 24 transport of fission products after this interface, or what ( f- 25 ones transport? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33&6M6
8520 01 07 371 [ AGBeb 1 MR. STOHL: I don't have any hard data but I
; 2 think that from what we know right now, we would expect very f
3 little transport due to thermal processes. What you may 4 have i.s dissolution-enhanced diffusion after your tube 5 breaks up. 6 DR. SHEWMON: When this thing comes out of a 7 reactor is there an enrichment of fission products at the 8 fuel / clad interface? 9 MR. STOHL: Certainly. 10 DR. SHEWMON: Okay. What is known about that i 11 then? Which ones enrich? And is it appreciably less than 12 in fast reactor fuels, or do you happen to know? You're talking about looking at fast ( )- 13 MR. STOHL: 14 versus light water reactor fuels? 15 DR. SHEWMON: I'm talking about light water 16 reactor fuels before anybody even thinks of putting it 17 -underground. 18 MR. STOHL: Oh, certainly you do have your more 19 volatile materials throughout the interface, your cesium, 20 strontium, iodine. That is going to be at or near the 21 surface. We do know from microprobe examinations what the 22 distributions of those materials are. 23 And certainly in many of the tests that we will 24 do and that PNL has done for DOE, you will remove those () 25 materials early on in the leaching process. f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationside Coverage 80 4 336-6666
-8520 01 08 372
()-AGBeb 1 DR. KASSNER: Dave, the number of fuel elements 2 that seem to be coming out of reactors that have defects 3 is apparently going down to almost negligible in recent 4 years. 5 MR. STOHL: That's correct. 6 DR. KASSNER: So the point is that I'm just 7 curious as to'how much emphasis should be placed on leaching 8 of fission products on a very mildly defective cladding. In 9 other words, we're not splitting these rods open. The 10 defects are so small and tight usually that they can't even 11 be found, and the only way you can detect them is by fission 12 gas coming out during operation. () 13 MR. STOHL: Yes. { 14 DR. KASSNER: So I was wondering how much 15 emphasis we should even be looking at.- In other words, the 16 failure rates are down to a couple hundredths of a percent. 17 As a consequence of that, NRC and other people aren' t even 18 funding much in the fuel performance area any more. 19 MR. STOHL: .Let me respond to that in two ways: 20 One way is that we don't know what credit DOE is 21 going to take for the cladding. 22 The second point i's that the early fuel is more 23 likely to be put into the repository sooner than the fresh 24 fuel, which means that that material will have a greater () 25 defect rate and therefore, be more likely to give concern. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- 8520 01 09 373
) AGBeb 1 DR. KASSNER: The other comment is that the ~s tuff 2 that has been laying around in ponds for 20 years apparently 3 is performing very well. In other word',s there is no 4 degradation by virtue of storing it the way they are now.
5 And in fact, I hear of cases where you can take the stuff 6 out and stick it back in the reactor and reirradiate it and 7 it performs well. 8 So apparently the cladding with the Zircaloy or 9 oxidized coating on there is pretty impervious to insults 10 from laying around in the spent fuel pond for a long time. 11 So the only thing I'm saying is I don' t know how 12 much relative to other things you might be doing that this-() 13 work should involve. It might be a difficult problem to 14 study and then, after you do it, the consequences might not 15 be so large. And maybe you could anticipate that, based on 16 what is already known. 17 MR. COSTANZI: This is a similar situation to one. 18 of many we have, that DOE -- we do. not know whether or to 19 what extent they are going to take credit for the cladding 20 as a containment barrier or as a barrier to the leaching of 21 the fuel after containment l's lost. 22 We need to study the effect of the degree to 23 which the cladding integrity has been violated on the leach 24 rates of spent fuel because we are going to need to address () 25 .that question in licensing hearings. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 01'10 374 () AGBeb 1 DR. SHEWMON: A matter of clarification: 2 You say you need to study the effect of the 3 integrity or deterioration on leachability, but what'he was 4 saying is that indeed, there is a substantial amount of 5 evidence that says there is no deterioration, that these 6 things are going to come out at a maximum one in a thousand 7 having a very tight leak. 8 MR. COSTANZI: There is no guarantee today that 9 after the spent fuel is pulled from the pool, stored in an 10 MRS and the assemblies have been disassembled and the pins 11 consolidated that the integrity of the cladding which you're 12 observing today in spent fuel pools will be the same as the () 13 cladding.which goes in the repository. 14 DR. SHEWMON: That's'quite possible. On the 15 other hand, they do take these things apart and reassemble 16 them, so unless they get pretty ham-handed in the 17 repository, the technology is available for doing these 18 things. So it's possible that they may run trucks into 19 them, but.... 20 MR. COSTANZI: I don't think the insult has to be 21 that large. 22 DR. SHEWMON: It probably doesn' t, but I don' t 23 think the insult probability is too likely if they indeed 24 use reasonable care, is my point. () 25 MR. COSTANZI: I have no basis for agreeing or ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
8520 01 11 375 () AGBeb 1 disagreeing-with your statement. 2 What we are acting on in terms of doing this 3 research is the presumption that we will be asked if 10 4 percent of the pins have cladding defects, what effect does 5 that have on_the leach rate of the fuel. We are going to 6 have to address that question. 7 DR. SHEWMON: You also ought to address and if it 8 is one percent and one-tenth of one percent, because 9 one-tenth of one percent is en upper limit as to what is 10 coming out of the reactor. 11 I don' t remember ever hearing of more than-- One 12 in ten thousand is what they're talking about now. My () 13 impressic. is that if they get an order of magnitude above 14 that, they have to take it out just to meet operating 15 limits. So I doubt if you are going to have very much stuff 16 that is any place near ten percent or even one percent, 17 simply from what they were allowed to operate the reactors 18 with. 19 MR. STOHL: I think what you're doing is quoting 20 current practice. 21 DR. SHEWMON: No, I'm not. Current practice is 22 well down towards one in ten thousand. You can check it 23 out. 24 MR. STOHL: Yes, I agree with you. () 25 DR. SHEWMON: And that is not what I said. I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
-8520 01-12 376 l f AGBeb 1 said one in a thousand, which is ten times as big. And I 2 don't know what--
3 MR. STOHL: I'm saying that in the di's tant past 4 the failure rate was larger than that. When we were 5 learning about fuel and fuel / pellet interaction -- 6 fuel / cladding interactions, -- excuse me -- fuel 7 densification, there were a lot more failures in LWRs than 8 we have currently. 9 DR. SHEWMON: But I doubt if you ever got up to 10 ten percent. If you got to one percent and operated with 11 it, I didn' t hear about it. 12 MR. STOHL: I am not familiar with the numbers. () 13 I can't quote them. There were many failures. 14 MR. STEINDLER: Is the thrust of your effort then L15 going to be to answer the question that you.just posed? 16 Namely, if you have some fraction of failed elements in a 17 repository, what is the expected release rate of whatever 18 fission products you are interested in? 19 If that is in fact the thrust of the program, do 20 you have some kind of a sufficiently generic model of what 21 the geometry of the system looks like in order to be able 22 to obtain an answer that is extrapolatable to the real 23 world? I l 24 MR. STOHL: Our objective is not to create a i () 25 model; our objective is to try and get an understanding of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 j
8520 01 13 377 [ AGBeb 1 what important phenomena are occurring. And we try 2 certainly in our test program to be as prototypic as 3 possible. 4 MR. STEINDLER: It isn't at all clear that a 5 simple understanding -- and I use the word advisedly, 6 " simple" -- a simple understanding of the phenomena will 7 allow the regulators to quantify the output which is really 8 their job. 9 I guess I have to go back to the relationship 10 between whatever data your are planning to get, which 11 apparently does not include models, and the application of 12 those data in an assessment to determine whether or not the () 13 Department of Energy can meet regulatory criteria. How is 14 that translation going to be made? 15 I mean supposing you have an infinitely detailed 16 understanding of the reaction of water with spent fuel of l 17 some particular heat generation rate, burnup, and isotope 18 distribution. It isn' t at all clear to me how that relates 19 to the real problem of a leaky fuel element in a repository 20 sitting in basalts. 21 Who is going to make that translation, and how 22 specifically, or even generally, are you going to get from 23 your data to that bit of information that is obviously going 24 to be needed by somebody? () 25 MR. COSTANZI: The overall performance of the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
8520 01 14 378 () AGBeb 1 waste package, which would include the performance of the 2 spent fuel in the repository environment, is a question 3 which again is being addressed by the Technical Systems 4 Division of Waste Management. 5 What we are trying to do in this program is 6 provide input to that effort. We are not really trying to 7 directly make the connection of if the behavior or the 8 leachability of spent fuel is so much, then what does that 9 mean? 10 In this program what we are trying to do is 11 determine what determines what environmental condition's or 12 groundwater conditions of the cladding in the integrated () 13 experiments that we are doing, the condition of the 14 overpack, have on the ultimate leach rate or leachability of 15 the waste water, the rate at which radionuclides are leached 16 from the waste form into the underground facility. 17 Putting that together in a coherent model by 18 which you can take raw data and design data and measurement 19 data on waste forms from the Department of Energy and crank 20 it through several calculations to end up with a specific 21 release over time by release rate is not the objective of 22 our program at this time. 23 DR. SHEWMON: You are setting up a straw man to a 24 certain extent. This afternoon, as you well know, we will () 25 hear from the Aerospace people who are trying to set up a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
s i
; 8520 01 15 379
( ) AGBeb 1 model which is being funded by the NRC which somebody 2 apparently feels will be useful to the NRC. 3 Have you ever had any requests from them, or ever 4 asked them what sorts of data in this area they would need i 5 for their model? 6 MR. COSTANZI: We have interacted with both the 7 Division of Waste Management project manager and the 8 Aerospace researchers very frequently in this program. ; i 9 Dr. Stohl has attended a number of the program reviews of 10 that Aerospace program at the request of the Division of 11 Waste Management, working very closely with them. 12 DR. SHEWMON: I think that's an answer of Yes to () 13 my question, but I didn' t get a Yes. 14 MR. COSTANZI: Yes, that is an answer to your i . 15 question.
! 16 MR. STEINDLER: That leaves open then, and perhaps 17 the time would be this afternoon, to see whether or not it 18 is obvious how the data output of Dave's program is going to 19 be used by the folks who eventually are going to try and 20 convert this into a model.
21 I must say right now it isn't very obvious how 22 that is going to be done. It strikes me that release rates 23 are strongly geometric-dependent, and I can' t conceive of a 24 program that is going to last a few more years that can go () 25 through the broad basis of geometry of failure, cladding i ACE FEDERAL REPORT'aRS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverar; 800-336-6646
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ , _ _ _ . , , , _ _ , _ _ . - . . . , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ~
l 8520 01 16 380 () AGBeb 1 failure versus leach rate. l 2 Clearly if you punch a hole in the top of the l 3 plenum, for example, and you blow the gas out that was 4 inside the container, a single hole, even if the rest of it 5 is saturated with water, isn' t going to leach with anything 6 other than diffur inal movement of the fission products that 7 are currently at that cladding / fuel interface. 8 That will give you a burst and you end up with a 9 spike, and the rest of it now is strictly diffusion. 10 It is a sufficiently complex system so that the 11 kind of experimen.ts that I think I've been trying to track 12 in this program, -- you know, they do publish fairly () 13 frequently -- it just seems to me it isn' t very obvious how 14 that translation is going to be made from the Battelle data 15 to the modeling folks. Contacts between them may be strong 16 but the relationship and the utility of the output isn't 17 clear. 18 Perhaps this afternoon it will be made clear. 19 MR. COSTANZI: I don' t know that we can say in 20 all cases that we have an isomorphism between the results of 21 -- either in terms of the understandings and conclusions 22 which we draw or the data which we generate in this program 23 to models being developed by the Division of Waste 24 Management. () 25 MR. STEINDLER: If that's not the case then I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4 e i
- 8520 01 17 381
() AGBeb 1 think one could challenge you and ask why you are doing the 2 work. 3 MR. COSTANZI: In some cases we're trying to 4 learn to walk before we run. How the information is to be 5 used in terms of very specific ways, saying well, we have 6 this set of data done, these experiments, we have this set
~
7 of data and we're going to u'e s these as an input to this 8 model over here to predict this kind of an outcome, in 9 some cases we are at that stage and in many cases we are 10 not. 11 We don' t know yet. We don't know what the model 12 needs to consider. You know, there is no point in loading a () 13 model with irrelevant data. We are having to consider 14 processes which don't really have much of an effect. 15 MR. STEINDLER: I think you put your finger on 16 part of it. There is certainly no point in loading the 17 model with irrelevant data. There is equally less point in 18 generating your own data and it is that issue that I-- I am 19 not sure that this is the place or the time to consider 20 that. 21 DR. SHsWMON: This is a's close'as we are ever 22 going to get, at least in the past several years, so I think 23 it is worth pursuing. 24 MR. STEINDLER: Perhaps this afternoon we will () 25 clarify that position, but I think it is critical. ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
a520 01 01 382 4 AGBeb 1 This is a significant expenditure of resources at 2 a time that, as Mike says, you folks are not exactly flush 3 with resources. Your schedule, as we have mentioned 4 yesterday, is extremely tight. So it seems_to me a strong 5 focus of research related to the needs of the regulators in 6 an obvious sort of way is mandatory. And my problem is 7 right now I can't see it. Perhaps I will see it better this 8 afternoon. I hope so. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l 1
8520 02 01 383 () AGBwrb 1 Other comments? 2 MR. ETHERINGTON: A quick clarification. 3 You mentioned experiments to determine the effect 4 of crystal size on leach rate. Was " particle size" intended 5 rather than " crystal size?" 6 MR. STOHL: This is the glass work you're 7 referring to? 8 MR. ETHERINGTON: No; the glass has no crystals. 9 MR. STOHL: Yes, it does have crystals. You 10 always have some crystals in high-level waste glass, and the 11 concern is that if you do have additional crystalization due 12 to other processes -- thermal or mechnical or what-have-you () 13 -- is that going to lead to greater leach rates. 14 MR. ETHERINGTON: Wouldn' t you expect continuing 15 crystalization from the radiation over a period of time? 16 MR. STOHL: To a small degree, but not very 17 large. I think the greater problem is the thermal effect. 18 MR. ETHERINGTON: To what percentage is crystal 19 in the glass, about? 20 MR. STOHL: In the range of 5 percent. 21 MR. ETHERINGTON: 5 percent. Thank you. 22 DR. SHEWMON: Is there an upper limit specified 23 by DOE yet on what the center temperature of the glass will 24 be and, thus, by calculation what the outer surface () 25 temperature will be? Acr FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
8520 02 02 384 () (~m AGBwrb l' MR. STOHL: There have been calculations based on 2 the design concepts for the waste package repository system 3 of the thermal gradient across the waste form. I can't 4 quite those number. 5 DR. SHEWMON: My question was whether there was 6 an upper limit on the centerline temperature which you knew 7 s of, and then it would follow by a fairly 'traightforward 8 calculation what the outer limit -- 9 MR. STOHL: I think Michael mentioned a 260 10 degree C. temperature level. Is that at the surface? 11 MR. MC NEIL: The centerline limit I do not i 12 remember in detail. There is a centerline limit temperature () 13 but it was adopted by one of the DOE sites, and that is of 14 the order of 500 degrees Centigrade. 15 DR. SHEWMON: Is it known? Do you remember what 16 that could correspond to, then, to a surface temperature? 17 MR. MC NEIL: As I recall, through the container 18 for the overpack-- 19 DR. SHEWMON: I mean the glass surface. 20 MR. MC NEIL: No. 21 DR. MARK: Several times hydrogen embrittlement 22 has been mentioned as a matter of either interest or 23 concern; I thought concern, mainly. I understand 24 circumstances where it is a concern, but I don' t see why it () 25 is a concern here, although there may be obvious answers. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
'8520 02 03 385
? () AGBwrb 1 Obviously, ductility is not an important characteristic of 2 something quietly in its grave like these things. 3 MR.'STOHL: I'm not sure I understand the thrust 4 of your question. 5 DR. MARK: Why are you interested or concerned 6 with hydrogen embrittlement? 7 MR. STOHL: Because it is certainly going to, or 8 could lead to failure of the overpack. 9 DR. SHEWMON: How could it if there's-- 10 DR. MARK: There's no pressure. 11 MR. STOHL: There's residual stress which is 12 present in the overpack itself due to the welding, which () 1,3 could, because of its geometry, be high enough in the 14 hydrogen embrittlement mode to cause failure. Tha t ' s 15 something that is a possibility. 16 DR. SHEWMON: With no overt plastic strain? 17 MR. STOHL: Correct. 18 DR. SHEWMON: And low carbon steel. 19 MR. CARTER: Can I ask a couple of questions? 20 One, you mentioned UO-2. Is that the only type 21 of fuel that will be disposed of in the waste form? I 22 MR. STOHL: The bulk of the waste form will be 23 spent fuel, as indicated earlier by Dr. Costanzi, and most 24 of that would be UO-2, irradiated UO-2. () 25 MR. CARTER: What other types would you consider, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. -. . - - .- .. ., _ . - _ . _. . . . . - - ~. - -
i. 1
- 8520 02 04 386
- .( ) AGBwrb 1 or have you considered, other than UO-2?
. 2 MR. STOHL: There may be other types of fuel that 3 will eventually find its way into a repository. But many of
. 4 those odd materials have been either stored or reprocessed.
5 MR. CARTER: A couple of things on the glass. 6 One, what degree of homogeneity do you get in the 7 glass form itself? 8 MR. STOHL: It depends on where you're doing it. 9 If you're doing it in a laboratory, certainly you get a very 10 homogeneous product. When you're dealing with these large 11 canisters you find that you do have inhomogeneities. 12 MR. CARTER: What about the brittleness of the () 13 glass? 14 ?!R. STOHL: There was some work done-- At Iowa, 15 was it? --at the University of Iowa on half-size canisters 16 which looked at cracking using cooling rates that DOE was 17 contemplating. And certainly there seems to be not too much 18 of a strong relationship between the cooling rate and the 19 crystal size of the resultant product. You get, I think, 20 1-centimeter size crystals, or something in that order 21 during the cooling. 22 MR. CARTER: The other thing I was interested it, 23 How, actually, do you do the leach test on the g: ass? 24 MR. STOHL: The preliminary work was done in () 25 small bombs using standard MCC techniques. I can give you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nr.tionwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
f 8520102 05 387 () AGBwrb 1 more detail on that if you'd like. 2 DR. SHEWMON: Any other questions on thin 3 project? 4 (No response.) 4 5 DR. SHEWMON: Let's move on. 6 (Slide.) 7 DR. COSTANZI: The next project is the glass 8 analog study at Argonne National Lab. J 9 This program has ended in FY85, and the idea of 10 this was to understand the aging process of glass; that is 11 to say, is glass going to age in the repository such that 1 12 when glass as a straight waste form starts leaching af ter () 13 containment, it is going to look -- or how dif ferent will it 14 look from the glass that is originally prepared and on which 15 laboratory tests are performed. . 16 The way this was done is that the materials 17 characterization center protocol tests were conducted on 4
- 18 boro-silicate glass representing a high level waste form and l 19 ' on basaltic glass of fairly recent origin, and it was --
20 those tests were compared with old natural glasses. 21 This program, as I say, has now ended, mainly due ^ 22 to the fact that we don' t believe that glass now is going to 23 be a major constituent of a waste repository, and we feel i 24 that for the time being our study of glass is suf ficient i () 25 that we can fairly confidently evaluate anything that DOE i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. [ 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
8520 02 06 388 ()'AGBwrb 1 claims about the leachability of the glass. 2 DR. SHEWMON: Does crystalization change the 3 leachability rate by an order of magnitude? 4 DR. COSTANZI: It does change the rate. I'm not 5 sure about how much. Perhaps Dr. Stohl can-- 6 DR. STOHL: Larry Hench from Florida did some 7 work with Savanna River glasses, and he found that indeed if 8 you just had a few percent -- 10, 20 percent crystallinity, 9 that you're only talking about a leach rate of maybe twice 10 what you had normally. But if you did go to fully 11 crystalline material, then the leach rate could go up by as 12 much as an order of magnitude. () 13 DR. SHEWMON: Is that because of accompanying 14 loss of integrity, or ease of penetration, or the chemistry 15 of the rated dissolution of the surface, or the enhanced 16 rate of dissolution-- 17 DR.. STOHL: I think it's the surface area. 18 DR. SHEWMON: Let me say it a different w.y. 19 Is it an increase in surface area, or an increase 20 in reaction rate per unit area? 21 DR. STOHL: I think it's just... 22 Jeff? 23 DR. MEANS: I'm sorry, I missed the question. 24 DR. SHEWMON: Does crystalization mean that you () 25 also get more surface area available, or does the rate of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
8520 02 07 389 ('s (_) AGBwrb 1 dissolution per given unit of surface area go up? 2 DR. MEANS: I think it's just strictly an 3 increase of surface area. Hewever, solubility is a limiting 4 factor in the dissolution rate. 5 MR. ETHERINGTON: Is there a volumetric change 6 during crystalization; is that a factor? 7 DR. SHEWMON: Is there a volume increase 8 during crystalization? That was Mr. Etherington's question. 9 DR. MEANS: I suspect a rather small volume 10 change; I'm not sure what the direction is. 11 MR. ETHERTNGTON: It can be big in some 12 materials, like silica? () l? DR. MEANS: Yes. 14 DR. SHEWMON: Let's go on. 15 (Slide.) 16 DR. COSTANZI: Let's now turn our attention to 17 the question of the waste package environment, and again 18 talk briefly about what we're doing in that area. 19 We'll begin with talking about what we're doing 20 in that area at Battelle Columbus Laboratories, and that is 21 looking at the interaction between the overpack material and 22 the groundwater environment, particularly in basalt and in 23 - tuff. 24 A groundwater chemistry model has been developed () 25 by Battelle Columbus, and we are now doing a number of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
! l 8520 02 08 390 j l () AGBwrb 1 experiments -- or weighing experiments, I should say, to l
2 validate that model. They have demonstrated that there is 3 indeed a significant change in the groundwater chemistry due 4 to the corrosion of the overpack. That's what we expected. 1 5 The question was how is that change made, and how do you 4 ! 6 mode. it. i 7 DR. SHEWMON: When you use the word " corrosion of 8 the overpack," could this also be termed ion exchange, or is 9 it actually erosion away, dissolution and transport of the 10 overpack away? i 11 DR. COSTANZI: In order to have sustained i j 12 corrosion there has to be some movement of corrosion i () 13 products away. But the tests that I believe were being done i 14 have been static testing and have not been flow-through 15 tests.
- 16 DR. SHEWMON
- Do you know the process of ion l 17 exchange? Have you have heard of it?
18 DR. COSTANZI: Yes. , f 19 DR. SHEWMON: Okay. My question was, Is it a t I 20 matter of ion exchange or is it dissolution and transport 21 away? And I guess your answer is that since the stuff i 22 wasn' t moving it wasn' t transported away. But what was the y 23 model of the changes that were occurring when you termed 24 this " corrosion of overpack?" () 25 DR. COSTANZI: I do not know the details as to e i
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
8520 02 09 391 () AGBwrb 1 the chemical model. Perhaps Dr. Means would be able to 2 answer that question. 3 DR. MEANS: Frankly, I'm not involved in this 4 modeling work, and I don' t know the specific answer to your 5 question. I suspect that the alteration products are 6 assumed to remain in place. 7 DR. SHEWMON: So there is a dissolution and 8 transport away postulated? 9 DR. MEANS: Yes; by diffusion. 10 DR. SHEWMON: Is that right? 11 DR. MEANS: Yes. 12 MR. ETHERINGTON: Generally we have a very clear () 13 description of the difference between granite and basalt. 14 Do we have a description of tuff? I j 15 DR. SHEWMON: And then you might also talk about i
- 16 bentonite.
l 17 MS. HACKBARTH: Claudia Hackbarth, NRC Staff. l 18 Tuff is also an igneous rock, it's also a 19 volcanic rock analogous to basalt, but it has the f l 20 composition of granite; okay? So that means that the tuff l 21 sites, the rocks are rich in aluminum and silicon and sodium 22 and are relatively oxidized as far as rocks go; whereas 23 basalt is a more basic reduced composition. Tuff is a 24 volcanic rock, as I say, so therefore it's partially glass () 25 and partially crystals. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. r 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
8520 02 10 392 AGBwrb At the tuff site some of the units are welded; ( [] 1 2 they fell while they were very hot and were compacted by the 3 weight of the overlying rock, and therefore are very dense, 4 with little pore space, whereas some of them are fairly 5 porous. 6 DR. SHEWMON: Sometimes overpack is used to 7 describe the steel container, and sometimes that's called 8 the package. I'm sorry; we're still on steel, we're not on 9 rock; is that right? 10 DR. COSTANZI: I don' t understand your-- 11 DR. SHEWMON: You're talking about the
^
12 dissolution of overpack, and I had thought we had gone to () 13 rock. But as I look back on your handout, carbon steel is 14 overpack. 15 DR. COSTANZI: Carbon steel is overpack; that's 16 correct. 17 DR. SHEWMON: Pardon me. Packing and backfill. 18 So overpack is packing, and packing is bentonite? 19 DR. COSTANZI: That's correct. 20 DR. SHEWMON: Okay; pardon. Then I don' t want to 21 know about bentonite. 22 DR. COSTANZI: Shall we move on to the next? 23 DR. SHEWMON: Which one have we just left? 24 DR. COSTANZI: The one we were discussing is () 25 the-- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L
8520 02 11 393 l ) AGBwrb 1 DR. SHEWMON: This was the modeling of overpack 2 corrosion? 3 1)R . COSTANZI: 'Yes; the modeling of the 4 interaction between the groundwater and the overpack. 5 DR. SHE'r LN: Sorry; my questions all had to do 6 with what would happen with rock, and that's why_I was 7 talking about ion exchange, and you were confused because 8 you thought I was ion exchanging the steel. I'm sorry. ; 9 DR. COSTANZI: Okay; if you wish to move on to-10 that, we'll just skip the next one and then come back to it. 11 DR. SIIEWMON: I don' t know what the next one is 12 because it's your list. And if I have your list I don' t 13 recognize it. ({ 14 DR. COSTANZI: The next project is_the coupled
. 15 processes interaction at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
16 This program is a program to identify what 17 are, and what is the significance of the coupled processes, 18 coupled thermal, hydrological, mechanical and chemical 19 processes which affect repository behavior. ! 20 What they are doing is examining hydro-thermal f 21 systems as analogs essentially to the thermal-mechanical
- 22 perturbations of in-place waste in a repository. The idea
! 23 is to provide essentially an initial integration of the . I- 24 research we're doing. l () 25 As you've heard today, we're doing research on ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. f 20t347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 1
n- - , 8520 02 12 394 () AGBwrb J. j overpa ks, we're doing research on waste forms. In other 2 areas of research we're doing volcanic chemistry, geology, 3 hydrology. 4 The idea of this project is to try and get some 5 feeling for how these various disciplines are going to 6 interact, what are the interactions among them in the 7 repository environment. 8 They have been focussing on the explanations, or 9 the models, if you will, which have been developed to 10 understand hydro-thermal systems as natural analogs to a 11 repository. 12 DR. STEINDLCR: Are you doing this for all three () 13 sites, or potential sites? 14 DR. COSTANZI: Yes, for all three. 15 DR. SHEWMON: Basically,-this can greatly enhance l 16 the transport because you've got now an active circulation 17 mode, or the potential for it; is that right? 18 DR. COSTANZI: Whether or not that convection i . 19 because,of the heat 'is a significant method of 20 tranport of radionuclides out of the respository is one of 21 the questions being examined. 22 I didn' t answer your question "yes" because I 23 don' t know whether it's significant or not. 24 DR. SHEWMON: But the potential is there? () 25 DR. COSTANZI: The potential is there, and this ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37m Nationwide Coverage 800-33%u6
8520 02 13 395 () AGBwrb 1 is one of the things we're examining. 2 DR. SHEWMON: It's a possibility. 3 Any questions on this? 4 (No response.) 5 DR. SHEWMON: Go ahead. 6 (Slide.) 7 DR. COSTANZI: The next project, also at Lawrence 8 Berkeley Laboratories, is site geo-chemistry, and we're only I 9 going to talk here about the part of that program which 10 deals directly with the waste package environment. Part of 11 this program also deals with the transport of radionuclides 12 in the area which is thermally undisturbed by the () 13 emplacement of the waste. 14 In particular we are looking in this program at 15 diffusion of radionuclides through packing material, we are 16 looking at the interactions of the basalt and groundwater 17 and tuf f groundwater systems, and how elevating those 18 systems to repository temperatures changes the geo-chemistry 19 of the system. 20 We have also taken a look at the effect that 21 leachates from the spent fuel as a waste form -- from the 22 uranium oxide,in the spent fuel might have on the overpack i J 23 material. 24 Again, this is to make sure that we understand () 25 what's going on in the waste package environment; to what ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
< 8520 02 14 396 l- ( ) AGBwrb 1 extent the assumptions that are being made both oy the NRC 2 and by DOE in their tests on waste package performance cre 3 consistent with what we really expect to ge 1xi inside the
- l. 4 repository.
5 MR. STEINDLER: The problem I had on this one is, 6 I couldn' t quite figure out what it is that you are doing in 7 the tuff area. Tuff has no packing material, they don't 8 have any bulk -- at least they think they won't have any
- 9 bulk water flow because they are in the unsaturated area.
10 The mechanism for transport through the pores strike's me as 11 being still up for grabs. 12 What's the activity in the area of tuff? 13 DR. COSTANZI: The activity that we have done in (f . 14 tuff areas has been a small part of the effort, for those 15 reasons. But we have just looked at what the interaction of I . j 16 the tuff and any water which would. seep into the repository 17 might be under the elevated temperatures, essentially to 18 look at the chemistry. l 19 MR. STEINDLER: This is tuff-water interaction, 1 i 20 not the canister? e L i 21 DR. COSTANZI: Not the canister. i l 22 MR. STEINDLER: Are you obtaining kinetics for ^
.s.
l 23 those reactions? l 24 DR. COSTANZI: I believe so. I think George 25 Birchard can answer that. He's the project manager. l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ,
.m .._ -- ___,_ ~____ .. _ . .,_.- ...- _ . _ . _ , _ __ _ _ , ~.. , - _ _ . .
_ -- . . _ ~ . . - . . - -. - - .- . - _ _ 8520 02 15 397 () AGBwrb 1 MR. BIRCHARD: I'm George Birchard, research 2 staff. 3 The answer to your question is yes. The work on 4 tuff, by the way, is really just beginning in this project. 5 We're trying to finish up the basalt work. 6 But the answer to what will be done is, the 7 steam, which will be at about one atmosphere, vill be 8 reacted with the tuff at elevated temperature, both to 9 predict what it does to the tuff and what the groundwater 10 chemistry will be that reacts with the tuff. 4 11 DR. COSTANZI: Even though the tuff repository is , 12 in the unsaturated zone, there is still water present. i We understand from DOE that they intend to place (]) 13, 14 -- to have very high temperature waste packages in the tuf f i 15 repositories essentially to drive the water out and keep it 16 away from the waste package. 17 There will be alterations of that water in the 18 tuf f rock during that process. 19 Eventually, of course, packages will cool and 20 water will come back. Now, the degree to which that is 21 going to contact the waste package and provide a mechanism 22 for movement of radionuclides is another question. 23 MR. STEINDLER: When you say there is water i 24 present, you're not suggesting there is condensed water in () 25 bulk form? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4336-6646
8520 02 16 398 () AGBwrb 1 DR. COSTANZI: No; it's in the unsaturated zone. 2 MR. BIRCHARD: Well, the unsaturated zone does 3 have water in the pore space. 4 MR. STEINDLER: I very carefully said " bulk i 5 form." 6 DR. SHEWMON: While you've got the microphone, 7 would you tell me briefly what they learned from the basalt 8 part which is apparently over? 9 MR. BIRCHARD: The basalt part is not yet over, 10 it is being completed. And the basalt part has shown that 11 at elevated temperatures, at least-- 12 DR. SHEWMON: How elevated? () 13 MR. BIRCHARD: Up to 250 degrees C. 14 (Continuing) --that the chemistries seem to be 15 predictable based on models using lower temperature data. 16 There seemed to be a good degree of similarity between the 17 results of higher and lower temperatures; which is very 18 reassuring to us, in that it gives us some hope that DOE
- 19 will be able to make predictione about the groundwater 20 chemistry at elevated temperatures--
21 DR. SHEWMON: Let me ask you-- 22 MR. BIRCHARD: --with a limited amount of data 23 base development. 24 DR. SHEWMON: When I first heard about high level () 25 waste, maybe a decade ago, maybe more, people were talking ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 02 17 399 about packing bentonite in and around it. It was supposed
-() AGBwrb 1 2 to be, I get the impression, fine enough to pack in fairly 3 tightly and had the nice property that, when it hydrated or 4 came in contact with water, it expanded and really choked 5 things off.
6 To what extent can one model and take credit for 7 that? I haven't heard about it yet. 8 MR. BIRCHARD: Let me tell you what bentonite 9 is. I have a very simple answer. It is Kitty Litter. 10 DR. SHEWMON: Okay; so it's rather porous? f 11 MR. BIRCHARD: What they do is, in the repository 12 they won' t give it to you in the same loose form, they will 13 presumably pack it in. It is actually clay, it is volcanic (]) 14 ash that is weathered into expansive clay. If you put it in 15 a repository it will swell up and fill pore spaces and 16 cracks. 17 There is a model in one of the tasks at Berkeley-18 that has been developed to predict transport through l 19 compacted bentonite, and it involves diffusion -- both bulk 20 diffusion and surface diffusion mechanisms. And they've 21 been able to do this at lower temperature. Now we're 22 planning to do some work over the coming year at higher 23 temperatures with compacted bentonite. 24 DR. SHEWMON: What's low and what's high?
]
() 25 MR. BIRCHARD: Lower temperature would be at room l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
a520 02 01 400 () AGBwrb 1 or ambient temperature, the higher temperature will be just i 2 below 100 C., so about 90. 3 DR. SHEWMON: Now, given the results there, how 4 many hundreds of year ~s can we get out of that? Or is it a 5 no; never-mind geologic time? 6 MR. BIRCHARD: The answer is that there are some i 7 questions that we're not addressing about bentonite. 8 Particularly, in this project we have assumed that the 9 bentonite maintains its mineralogical and chemical 10 stability. Now, that may or may not be a correct 't 11 assumption, depending on reactions that would occur at
- 12 different sites and at different waste packages.
(} 13 But assuming that we maintain the stability, one 14 can then predict the rate of diffus. ion of mass out from the 15 waste packages; and that is something that DOE, certainly 16 BWIP, has been working on and taking credit for. 17 So we are developing the ability to assess what 18 they will be doing. 19 DR. SHEWMON: And it is a significa' t barrier? 20 MR. BIRCHARD: It can be extremely significant. 21 It can be very effective at limiting mass transport. It can J 22 also be very significant with respect to maintaining the 23 canister integrity because it also controls the flux of . 24 water in and out from the canister. So if you have very () 25 little movement of water into the canister or overpack, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6646
~- - . . . . - .. ]
a520 02 02 401 ( AGBwrb 1 naturally you will be greatly adding to the stability of i 2 that waste pack. 3 DR. SHEWMON: So if we just wait until after 4 lunch, and rush back early, we'll hear how all of thi's is 5 - integrated into the aerospaces model. 6 DR. MARK: Two questions. I was not supposing 1 7 you would have any water migrating into the waste package 8 when the temperature on the outside was much above 100 9 degrees C. i 10 MR. BIRCHARD: That's something I'm not going to 11 presume one way or another. I guess that's part of the-- 12 DR. SHEWMON: That's not necessarily what happens
- () 13 here. It depends on--
! 14 MR. BIRCHARD: For the tuff, though, it would be j 15 -- that would be true. For an unsaturated zone, yes, you'd < 16 only have vapor. But, say, for the, basalt site it would be
- 17 different.
+ 18 DR. MARK: Now, how long does the temperature 19 outside the package itself stay above 100 degrees? 20 MR. BIRCHARD: Claudia, your project, I think, 21 addresses that more directly than mine; or maybe Nick wants 22 to answer. 23 MS. HACKBARTH: That's a good question, how long 24 and how hot the waste package will stay and will be. () < 25 I think that depends, it depends on how much t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 _ - - , _ ~ - _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . . . . _ , , . _ _ _ . _ - - . _ . , . - . _ , - _ . . _ _ - _ _ - - - . , _ , ,, - - - .
c520 02 03 402 () AGBwrb 1 groundwater circulates around and takes away the heat from 2 the waste packages; it depends on what goes into the waste 3 packages, and it depends on how closely the waste packages 4 are placed together. 5 So I don' t think we really know. 6 DR. MARK: Well, I'm sure there isn't a unique 7 answer, but i's it like 100 years, or 1000 years? 8 DR. COSTANZI: I think that the current designs 9 call for the peak temperatures in the repository to be 10 reached at like 100 to 150 years after closure. The package 11 itself vill remain above -- current designs call for the 12 initial surface temperatures to be above 100 degrees C., and () 13 they will remain that way for at least that long, perhaps 14 even longer. 15 DR. MARK: Well, my simple thought here was that 16 the period of high temperature is also -- is limited perhaps 17 to one or a few hundred years, and your waste pack is going 18 to be guaranteed to be intact for three hundred years, so 19 that some interest in the high temperature chemistry might 20 be relieved a little bit by saying you don' t -- anyway, 21 should be mitigated by the fact that the phases don't 22 totally overlap. 23 DR. SHEWMON: Battelle Columbus should be 24 studying steam corrosion not water corrosion, do you think? () 25 DR. COSTANZI: I think you're right. We have not ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
a520 02 04 403 () AGBwrb 1 addressed steam corrosion. There's a lot of things we 2 aren't doing yet; and that's one of them. 3 I'd like like to make a further remark about 4 bentonite as a packing material. 5 DR. SHEWMON: As soon as you quit, we' ll go 6 to lunch, so don't make it too long. 7 DR. COSTANZI: Okay. 8 A program at Argonne looked at the effect of 9 temperature on the packing material, at bentoni'.e. What 10 they found was that bentonite subjected to high temperatures 11 in an autoclave, essentially water above 100 degress C., 12 showed an appreciable loss of its mechanical properties, its 13 swelling properties, and the like, and its chemical (} 14 properties as a clay. However, hydro-thermally altered 15 bentonite, that is to say bentonite exposed to steam, 16 changed both its physical properties and its chemical 17 properties, and as a packing material became essentially 18 useless. 19 Bentonite heated in a dry atmosphere-- 20 DR. SHEWMON: " Useless" means that then it 21 allowed circulation? 22 DR. COSTANZI: It means it doesn' t swell any more 23 and it doesn' t stop anything. 24 Dry bentonite -- that is to say, heated dry, () 25 above 100 degrees C. -- also did not seem to appreciably ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6M6
a520 02 05 404 t' ' _)) AGBwrb ( 1 lose any of its chemical or mechanical properties, the 2 ability to swell and essentially inhibit the flow of water. 3 But in an environment where you have high , 4 temperatures, temperatures above 100 degrees C., and have 5 100 percent saturation, that is, you have a steam-air 6 environment, bentonite will very likely deteriorate and will 7 not be a serviceable packing material. 8 DR. SHEWMON: I rule that we will not talk about 9 sealing rock masses at the University of Arizona unle~s s 10 somebody asks a question about it after lunch. 11 We'd like to start again at twenty minutes to 12 two. () 13 (Whereupon, 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was 14 recessed, to reconvene at 1:4 0 p.m. the same day.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 () 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8004 16-6646
8520 03 01 405 1 ()'AGBeb 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (1:45 p.m.) 3 DR. SHEWMON: Why don't we go ahead? We will 4 pick up a number of members soon. 5 This afternoon we start with the Division of 6 Waste Management's presentation. 7 Who leads off? 8 MR. JOHNSON: John Greeves. 9 DR. .SHEWMON: Okay. 10 Please begin. $ 11 MR. GREEVES: I just wanted to make a couple of 12 introductory remarks, and really just show a couple of (]) 13 points that were made by Hub Miller yesterday, and try to 14 put a couple of things into perspective. 15 (Slide.) d 16 Hub went through this particular slide with you 17 yesterday, and I think it is important to remember what the 18 resources available to the Staff are to evaluate these 19 problems, and I just wanted to remind you of what our 20 funding level is, what the level of ef fort that we have in 21 looking at the various high-level waste problems are , and , i 22 what the Department of Energy i's focusing on. j l 23 You are aware of the number of FTE within the l l 24 division, and this is all of the 3rogram areas. You are ! 1 () 25 only looking at the one, the waste package materials ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-M7-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
.- . = _ - . . - .-
8520 03 02 406 () AGBeb 1 program today, and their funding comes out as a fraction of 2 this 6.7 million-dollars in technical assistance funding as-3 compared to what is obviously a much larger volume of 4 dollars that the Department of Energy is putting into their 5 programs. 6 DR. SHEWMON: So you have to try harder. 7 MR. GREEVES: We have to try hard, and we have to 8 be astute as to what it is that we look at. 9 Jack fully agrees with that. 10 DR. SHEWMON: I'm sure that is what that outburst 11 meant. ,
- 12 MR. STEINDLER
- I have heard this comparison now
() 13 for a couple of years running between the big steam roller 14 in DOE and the poor folks in NRC that have so much fewer 15 resources. I'm not sure I know what that comparison is 16 meant to highlight. 17 The job that you folks have is drastically 18 different, and the mere comparison of either FTEs or dollars 19 in the context of your mission is wholly illegitimate. You ! are not digging holes ten feet- in diameter, six hundred feet 20 21 deep, or at least you are not supposed to be as far as I 22 know, et cetera, et cetera. 23 So tell me a little bit about why you bring that i 24 comparison up almost continuously. () 25 MR. GREEVES: There is no question the reason ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 '
8520 03 03 407 () AGBeb 1 that is brought up is that at times when we are asked about 2 our program, we get the impression that folks are wondering 3 why we aren' t out forging ahead, getting out the answers and 4 developing the answers to some of these questions'when in 5 fact, and rightfully so, we are at a much reduced FTE level 6 and technical assistance dollar volume level that allows us 7 to ef fectively go out and audit the DOE program, not go out 8 and do their job. 9 Our job is to-- And I have another slide that I 10 was going to show 11 (Slide.) 12 Effectively what our job is -- and this is () 13 addressed to the technical assistance part because that is 14 what you are reviewing today -- is to utilize staff and 15 technical assistance to go out and critique the reviews of 16 the various DOE documents. 17 And it obviously takes a great deal more FTE and 18 resources to get out and as you say dig the hole and do 19 things like that, so we critique that and prepare guidance 20 at a level but not get out and map out how they are supposed 21 to come up with the answers to the problems. 22 We keep ourselves in the role of being 23 independent to be able to critique that, but at the same 24 time to provide some guidance at a level that helps them () 25 perform that. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66&6
l i l 8520 03 04 408
.( ) AGBeb 1 The other thing that we are doing with technical 2 assistance help is to acquire modeling and assessment 3 capabilities, some of which you will be hearing about that 4 the Aerospace group is helping us with, and then, on a very 5 selective basis, on occasion run some sort of a confirmatory 6 measurement test.
7 So I just wanted to make sure that as Hub was . 8 mentioning yesterday, the whole distinction between the 9 Department of Energy and the Staff is in mind as we go 10 through these discussions. t 11 DR. SHEWMON: Go on. 12 MR. GREEVES: At this point I will turn the mike 13 over to Andrew Johnson and have him introduce himself. (]) 14 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. 15 The people I have here: Ken Chang on my right, 16 who is a project manager for the Aerospace contract as well L 17 as one with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and behind me I 18 have Ken Stevens from Aerospace, and Peter Hsu from 19 Brookhaver.. Both of these are the lead people for their 20 respective contracts. 21 Basically our responsibility here is set out in 22 10 CFR 60,'and as you recall from the discussion yesterday, 23 10 CFR 60 provides some quantitative criteria on the waste 24 package and the engineering barrier system, and these are t () 25 the containment criteria and the release criteria in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 _ _ _ , _ _ _ . , ~ - . . - _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _
520 03 05 409 l ( ,) AGBeb 1 Section 60.113. 2 It is our job to review DOE's programs and their l 3 designs to make sure that when they submit a license to us l 4 that we have the capability to evaluate their designs to l 5 meet the Part 60 criteria. l 6 Now we believe that the engineered barrier 7 features in the waste package are going to be extremely 8 important. As you know, there are a lot of inherent 9 uncertainties in geological systems and we feel that because 10 you can control and you can design the engineered features 11 of the repository, there will be an awful lot of emphasis 12 placed on that during the licensing.
/m 13 Our programmatic efforts at this time have been (v) 14 primarily oriented to keeping abreast of DOE activities, 15 reviewing their work, and also to identification of problems 16 that we wish to present to DOE. And the identification of 17 problems are done through literature searches, through some 18 limited experimental testing, and through the research 19 programs that we heard abouc this morning.
20 We are also involved in direct feedback to the { 21 Department of Energy, and that is primarily through out 22 Waste Package Workshops. The purpose of these workshops is 23 to obtain from DOE an up-to-date status of what they are 24 doing and also to provide them technical feedback on areas n () 25 that we think that they need to emphasize. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-. . - - = -. . - -. -
2 i 8520 03 06 410 J () AGBeb 1 We had one this past July, the Nevada program, 2 and as was mentioned earlier, meetings with the SALP and [ 3 BWIP were originally scheduled for the month of October but 4 have slipped, and we are in the process of trying to 4 i 5 reschedule them. 6 Now because each of the three DOE programs have 7 unique waste package designs and have to deal with unique 8 environmental conditions, NRC has to do a great deal of work 9 in order to get ready for licensing as well as review the 10 interim documents such as the site characterization review. 11 And it is absolutely essential that we have high quality 12 technical assistance work to help us in supporting this () 13 licensing effort. 14 Now before I get any further here, I.think I 15 should try to address some of the questions that were l . 16 brought up earlier today. 17 The first thing I would like to talk about-- 18 Maybe this would be a useful time to go over the individual 19 waste package designs, and I believe you have passed out 20 diagrams of each of the waste packages. And Dr. Shewmon, if I 21 you would like, I will go through each of these so that we 22 know what we're talking about for each of these designs. 23 DR. SHEWMON: Fine. 24 MR. JOHNSON: The first page is the basalt () 25 design, and what it is is a cannister made of carbon steel, i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 8520 03 07 411 ( AGBeb 1 and in it is placed either the glass, the borosilica glass, 2 or the consolidated fuel rods. 3 The cannister is then emplaced ~into a carbon 4 steel overpack which is approximately three inches thick. 5 That overpack with the cannister then goes into a hole on 6 which packing, a bentonite-basalt mixture of packing is 7 placed. And the particular design that is shown here is the 8 reference design that was presented in the BWIP 9 environmental assessment. And they would emplace the 10 packing in segments and it would completely surround the 11 overpack. 12 Now more recently I think that BWIP has () 13 recognized some difficulties in emplacing the segmented 14 packing pieces and what they are suggesting now is perhaps 15 putting the packing into another carbon steel container that 16 would contain everything. It would contain the packing plus 17 the overpack and the cannister. And this whole big piece 18 would then fit right into the hole.
- 19 DR. SHEWMON
- Now this packing material that you 20 would put inside sheet steel would be the bentonite?
21 MR. CHANG: It has 75 percent bentonite and 25 , 22 percent basalt, crushed basalt. 23 DR. SHEWMON: Now if you put it or they put it in 24 cans, isn' t it going to remove most of the virtues it has () 25 for being there? 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6646
. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . - _._..__.____..._,2_.___._,.___.__ .. . . . . . -
r_- 8520 03 08 412 () AGBeb 1 Mit. JOHNSON: No. I believe that what they 2 assume 10 that if-water cor odes through the outer steel i 3 carbon container, it will oe absorbed by the bentonite -- 1 4 the packing. The packing will then swell and it will 5 further seal of f the introductioniof any additional water. t 6 DR. SHEWMON: The outside cannister will corrode 7 first and you don't need it until -- before that. 8 MR. JOHNSON: Right. 9 On the next page, which gives the reference 10 design for the salt repository, and this again is their 11 proposal as stated in the environmental assessments, what 12 this is is again a carbon steel cannister into which borosilica gas or spent fuel rods are emplaced. This (]) 13 14 cannister then is put into a large carbon steel overpack. 15 These overpacks would be approximately six-inch thick carbon 16 steel. 17 And the overpack with the cannister would then be 18 emplaced in a hol'e and backfilled with crushed salt. So in 19 this particular design there really isn't a packing as there 20 is with the basalt design, but the void between the 21 overpack and the hole would be filled with crushed salt. 22 And we would expect that that crushed salt would eventually 23 become a homogeneous piece of the wall over time because of 24 the lithostatic pressures which would be applied in the () 25 hole. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 03 09 413
~N ,1 AGBeb 1 DR. SHEWMON: What do you assume about water 2 actually flowing through the salt?
3 MR. JOHNSON: I'm not quite sure as to how much 4 water is going to get into the salt bed itself. There is 5 brine, though, that is a part of most of these salt 6 formations and the brine has the tendency of migrating 7 toward a heat source. 8 DR. SHEWMON: I'm familiar with that, and the 9 reason I asked about it is that from a materials viewpoint, 10 this seems to be a pretty miserable environment to get 11 involved in. But it is one of the old favorites that many 12 people thought had many virtues, and if they are indeed () 13 correct I suspect it has to be because the long-range 14 migration through this stuf f was highly inhibited by the 15 continuity and self-healing virtues. 16 That's why I asked about the long-range migration 17 of water. 18 MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'm not prepared to talk in 19 detail about the. hydrologic questions that are involved with 20 the salt repository. But there apparently are questions as 21 to, you know, now that you have drilled a hole from the 22 surface, how do you keep water out, how do you seal that 23 hole to prevent water from perhaps some of the above levels 24 from affecting the repository engineered features. () 25 There are many questions regarding hydrology ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6666
p- , t ! 8520 03 10 414 AGBeb 1 that I believe need to be addressed in this case, and 1( ) 2 unfortunately I don' t think I'm prepared to discuss those in l 3 detail. ; 4 DR. CARTER: I wonder if I could have you put, 5 say, approximate dimensions on some of these parts? . i ! I 6 MR. JOHNSON: If you look on the last page of the ! 7 handout there are some dimensions. Basically the size of I 8 these containers vary with whether or not you have spent i 9 fuel in them or borosilica glass, but they range-- For 10 example, the cannister for spent fuel is, you know, il approximately 20 inches in diameter. It ranges to almost 20 12 feet high for some of the designs. () 13 The dimensions for some of the gla'ss waste forms are thinner in terms of its diameter and also range about 12 ! 14 I
- 15 feet high.
t 16 DR. SHEWMON: Where did you get the 20 feet? 17 MR. JOHNSON: I believe that 20 feet is the-- I 18 think that's the salt waste package. It's about 20 feet. 19 DR. SHEWMON: The highest thing I see here is 4.6 I 20 meters, which doesn' t. . . . Go ahead. l 21 MR. JOHNSON: That's 18 to 20 feet high. 22 CR. SHEWMON: I would say.... That's secondary. l 23 I can do that on my own time. 24 MR. JOHNSON: The last design is the one from 25 TUFF, and this is a single stainless steel cannister for ( )- F i l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
- . _ . _ , - _ , - . _ - . - . ~ . _ _ _ . _ , . _ , , - . . . . , _ . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ , , , _ _., - . _ . _ , . - . -_-_._ _ __.
l
; 8520 03 11 415
( 1 AGBeb 1 spent fuel, about a centimeter thick, half an inch thick. 2 The reference material was Type 304L stainless steel. 3 For the glass case, their current design is a 4 carbon steel process vessel into which you would pour the 5 glass and that process vessel would then be emplaced into a 4 6 stainless steel container.
- j. 7 That's not completely shown on this diagram, but
- 8 if-you look at the glass can, the present TUFF design is to 9 put that cannister with the glass in it into another 10 container that is tha Type 304L stainless steel, again about 1
i 11 a centimeter thick. 12 DR. SHEWMON: So this area that is labeled " gap" () 13 here would be filled with reinforced stainless steel? 14 MR. JOHNSON: No. See where it says "cannister"? 15 That's the 304 stainless steel. The gap _a just air. 16 DR. SHEWMON: And that thickness is likely to be 17 what? 18 MR. JOHNSON: For the gap or-- i 19 DR. SHEWMON: The cannnister. 20 MR. JOHNSON: The cannister is one centimeter. i 21
- 22 23
- i. 24
) 25
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 i _ .,
~ . _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ _ . , _ . . ._ _ ,.___ __ . . . , _ . _ . .. . _ _ . _
8520 04 01 416 () AGBagb 1 MR. ETHERINGTON: How much did you say? 2 MR. JOHNSON: One centimetc7. 3 DR. SHEWMON: And the gap i; there why? 4 MR. JOHNSON: The gap is the e because you have 5 to build a bigger hole than what you are putting into it. I 6 am not exactly sure of the dimensions of what that gap is. 7 I would assume it would probably be a couple of inches. 8 DR. SHEWMON: They didn' t show a gap in the first 9 one, I guess, yet there has to be a collar clearance. I On the first two, the salt, the gap 10 MR. JOHNSON: i 11 is filled with crushed salt and on the BWIP design, the 12 current design with the carbon steel container which 4 13 everything fits in there, would again be you know a small
-(])
14 gap in there. 15 DR. SHEWMON: Fine. i 16 MR. JOHNSON: Are there any questions on what the 17 designs are or what we are talking about? - 18 (No response.) 19 MR. JOHNSON: The next thing I would like to talk l 20 about is a question that came up earlier in the meeting and 21 it had to do with failure criteria. I believe Professor I 22 Kassner asked what would be the failure criteria and the 1 23 failure criteria for the containment. If you remember from i 24 yesterday, we have a performance objective which says that () 25 for a period of 300 to 1000 years a containment should be i.
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
8520 04 02 417 () AGBagb 1 substantially complete. And we have published a paper on 2 what we mean by substantially complete, and let me give you 3 some background. 4 As you recall, there is another performance 5 objective-and that was for a release rate. And that release 6 rate was -- we would allow releases on an annual basis of 7 one part in ten to the fifth of the inventory at 1000 8 years. In other words, we would allow a certain number of 9 curies to be released following a thousand year period. And 10 our failure criteria then is to say that from zero to 1000
; 11 years we would also allow the same number of curies to be l
12 released.
.( ) 13 Now at an earlier time, because you have decay 14 taking place, the total fraction that we would allow to be I
15 released over the first thousand years.would be a great deal 16 less than at 1000 years. f 17 In other words, your inventory is going to be 18 much higher say at 100 years than at 1000 years. We would 19 still allow the same number of curies though to be released 20 irrespective of the time period. Now earlier on of course 21 the release fraction is going to.be quite a bit lower than F 22 at 1000 years. 23 Now what this means is that say you do have a pit l l 24 or a crack in the containment and some material does get I l () 25 out, if DOE can demonstrate that that total amount of l 1 l i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
. . _ , . . . _ . . . . . - . , ~ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . - - . , , , . . _ , . - . , , - ,
1 + 8520 04 03 418 () AGBagb 1 material is less than the total number of curies that we 2 would allow at the time period of 1000 years, we would say 3 that that meets the criteria of substantially complete 4 containment, f 5 DR. SHEWMON: Is that in a Staff technical i 6 position some place where people can see it? 7 MR. JOHNSON: It is in a paper that was published 8 at I think it was a meeting in Albuquerque about a year and 9 a half ago. And we are going to put that into a technical 10 position. DOE has had some input on that and basically they 11 are pleased that we are giving them that flexibility. . 12 The other question that came up during this () 13 morning's meeting had to do with information exchange. And
- 14 I believe the problems that were identified with research 15 primarily revolve around the availability of published 16 documents from the DOE program.
- 17 DOE does have a very complex, perhaps Byzantine, 18 review structure which makes it difficult to get timely 19 documents that are completely published and have gone 1.
] 20 through their QA system and so forth. 21 So what we have dono -- we have recognized it as s- 22 a problem, too, and what we have done i~s we've set up a 23 mechanism to allow our technical people to talk directly to 24 their technical people and we have an agreement and a series i () 25 of contacts between each of the projects. ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3 % ;646 1.
d 8520 04 04 419 () AGBagb 1 And this exchange agreement has worked out pretty 2 well and I think that the technical people at DOE have been 3 more than happy to discuss technical areas with us and have 4 been very open, so I don' t think it's as bad ~ as what was i 5 portrayed earlier this morning. 6 There is also another program that we have 7 underway -- 8 DR. SHEWMON: What level was that signed off on? 9 MR. JOHNSON: Pardon? 10 DR. SHEWMON: This agreement, at what level was 11 it signed off on? Did you negotiate it or your boss or did 12 it go on up at the... () 13 MR. JOHNSON: I think it was agreed between the 14 division director level and the Ben Rushe level. 4 15 And there is also another -- 16 DR. STEINDLER: Excuse me, before you leave that, 17 can I interpret that to mean that anybody in research or 18 NMSS can call up anybody else in the various projects? 19 MR. JOHNSON: No, there are specific contacts in ] 20 specific program areas. For example, in waste package, we 21 have a contact name and a contact name for the salt project, 22 for example. And we have project leads in each of the three 23 repository areas for waste package. There is one contact 24 that can call a counterpart for the DOE program. () 25 And so say somebody from research had a question, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800 336-6646
8520 04 05 420 ()-AGBagb 1 he could go to the lead in that particular area and make a 2 conference call or something to get whatever information was 3 needed. 4 DR. STEINDLER: So what you are really telling me 5 is that there is an enormous barrier of communication 6 between NMSS and research? 7 MR. JOHNSON: I wouldn' t say that. I would say 8 that perhaps not all of the questions that are arising are 9 using this mechanism to the full advantage. 10 DR. SHEWMON: What I heard was that there is a 11 great reluctance to pass out documents before they have been 12 vented at several levels and properly aged in DOE. They can () 13 get verbal contact set up if they go through the right 14 channel. I'm not sure whether the channel was negotiated 15 only for their division or whether research comes under it 16 or not. i 17 MR. JOHNSON: Research is not particularly a 18 part of this agreement but if they had questions they could 19 go through the contacts that have been established to get l 20 their problems solved. ! 21 DR. STEINDLER: I may have overstated my case 22 slightly but maybe not all that much. 23 DR. SHEWMON: Research has to come up and say a
- 24 mother may I before they....
t l () 25 MR. JOHNSON: There is also another area that l ACE-FEDERAL RLPORTERS, INC. ! 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6646 L
8520 04 06 421 () AGBagb 1 we have tried to get better information exchange into and 2 that is also part of this agreement between the Department 3 of Energy and our division and this involves -- as you 4 recall yesterday, Hub Miller talked about their being 5 on-site representatives for each of the repository 6 programs. 7 And what we had established is an agreement that 8 we can send our Staff out to the on-site representative and 9 our Staff can go through technical documents, drafts, data 10 logs or whatever that is desired under the guidance of the 11 on-site representative. So there is a mechanism for us to 12 get information on a more timely basis than having to wait () 13 for the reports to be formally approved. 14 DR. STEINDLER: Would somebody from research be 15 able to latch onto the site rep that you have and get his or 16 her questions answered that way? 17 MR. JOHNSON: I believe that if a research person 18 wanted to do this, I believe it could be arranged. That 19 question hasn' t come up yet. This program with an on-site 20 rep was signed, what, about a month and a half ago and we 21 'have had a couple of meetings under that program that have 22 been very worthwhile. But there is no reason why research 23 couldn' t ask us to go forward on that. 24 MR. ETHERINGTON: DOE is concerned with safety () 25 and retrievability. Is NRC concerned only with safety? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6M6 f
I I I 8520 04 07 422 ; () AGBagb 1 MR. GREEVE_S : Retrievability is one of the l l 2 performance objectives and NRC has a responsibility to 3 review all of the performance objectives. 4 MR. ETHERINGTON: Even though it isn't a safety 5 consideration? 6 DR.(qHEWMON: You can' t say it's not a safety 7 consideration, that may be why it's there. 8 MR. JOHESON: It would be a safety consideration 9 in terms of the operations and maintaining occupational I 10 exposures at a certain level and so forth. In terms of the 11 preclosure safety aspects it would be important. 12 MR. GREEVES: The hearing board is going to have () 13 to make a finding on all of the performance objectives, and 14 one of which is retrievability. The Staff will be expected 15 to come to the hearing and state its position on the 16 retrievability at that site, the Department would state its 17 position and we_would go from there. But the board would 18 have to make a finding on retrievability. 19 MR. JOHNSON: There was another area that had to 20 do with how do we use research information. And I think the 21 basic kind of information that is coming from the research" ! 22 program revolves around identifying problems that should be 23 presented to DOE for them,to address. 24 And we expect that the Department of Energy, in () 25 their application will provide us a fairly complex t + ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 ' _' . .- - - . - . . .- - _ 202-347-3700.. - --- - .
l 8520 04 08 423 () AGBagb 1 performance assessment analysis and that performance 2 assessment analysis will have included with it perhaps 3 computer codes and models and so forth. 4 And our objective would be to review those 5 computer codes in that assessment to make sure that all of 6 the right mechanisms for failure are discussed completely 7 and thoroughly. And in order for us to do that, we use our 8 research programs as a mechanism for obtaining information 9 as to what are the appropriate failure modes that DOE should 10 be looking at, is this a problem, is this not a problem. 11 And the use of that data would be used to do that. 12 DR. SHEWMON: So would you have a list of what () 13 you think are the most important failure modes? 14 MR. JOHNSON: I think the most important failure 15 modes in terms of corrosion are the localized failure 16l modes. That would include pitting, stress corrosion 17 cracking,' hydrogen embrittlement and so forth, crevice 18 corrosion cracking. These are items that we identified in 19 our comments on the environmental assessments. . 20 The environmental assessments that were done had 21 a short discussion on how they would handle waste package. 22 And in it, their evaluations only considered uniform 23 corrosion. 24 DR. SHEWMON: When was that? () 25 MR. JOHNSON: This was published December 20th of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.:02-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_ ~ _ ..- -_. . _._ _ _ _ . .. . . _ _ _ ___ . r 8520 04 09 424
- ( ) AGBagb 1 last year. And our comments were generated and submitted to 2 DOE at-the end of March 1985.
t 3 DR. MARK: You mentioned hydrogen embrittlement 4 and that's of that three-inch or six-inch steel welded, 5 covered. 6 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 7 DR. MARK: ' If that's the most serious failure
- 8 mode, there can' t be any very serious f ailure modes.
9 MR. JOHNSON: I don' t know if that's the most' 10 serious failure mode. What I said is that we thought that 11 localized corrosion phenomena like hydrogen embrittlement 12 may be the principal failure modes and these failure modes () 13 are going to be something that DOE has to address. I don' t 14 believe I have the information to say that, yes, this is the 15 principal one or this isn't. But I think.that there is
-3 16 enough information to say that these are areas that DOE
, 17 needs to consider. I 18 DR. MARK: You spoke of occupational exposure. , i 19 Are the standards there the same as for reactors? l t 20 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, the Part 20. 21 DR. MARK: Now there has also been reference 22 there to their mining techniques. Why should NRC take that 23 on at'all? Why isn' t that given to the Bureau of Mines to i 24 answer that? l ( () 25 MR. JOHNSON: I think John should answer that. i L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
8520 04 10 425 r~g (j AGBagb 1 MR. GREEVES: The Bureau of Mines is one of our 2 principal consultants. 3 Again, remember that the Staff is going to have 4 to, when they come to the hearing process, indicate what 5 their view is on those findings, hopefully with someone like 6 the Bureau of Mines as a consultant supporting us. 7 And as far as mining techniques, principally that 8 will come up in cases where the Department of Energy 9 backfills around a particular canister and claims that they 10 can retrieve it. Well the Staff better have a position on 11 can they mine that out and can they make a finding that 12 retrievability is an option available to this particular () 13 site so that the Commission will have an option when it 14 comes time to decide whether to terminate this particular 15 site or not. And if they decide hey, we can' t leave it 16 here, then that option to retrieve still is avaliable.to 17 them. So it can involve mining techniques depending on the 18 design that the Department comes up with. 19 MR. ETHERINGTON: What does backfill'mean, just 20 blocking the opening or filling in all of the cavities 21 around the casks? 22 MR. GREEVES: It is design-dependent. To date we 23 have been seeing things at the Nevada project where there is 24 no backfill. The Department is saying we are going to put (n) 25 the canisters in and we think it is good enough to leave ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
r
.8520 04 11 426 '( ) AGBagb 1 it in there and we can meet the performance objectives 2 without a backfill environment. At the BWIP project, we see 3 them talking about packing materials. And essentially we 4 have seen designs ranging the full spectrum.
5 And it is in large part going to depend upon cost' 6 factors. It is very expensive to leave all these rooms open 7 and ventilated until the vcry end and then get your license 8 and march forward and backfill it. If there is any way that 9 they can provide a backfill to essentially put it in its 10 final environment with assurance that if things went wrong 4
-11 they could go back and remine it, it is far cneaper to_do it 12 that way. So they are still playing with the dollars and
() 13 cents aspect. 14 DR. SHEWMON: So it is really a question of 15 whether this stuff is cementatious or whatever the word is 16 that you backfill with whether it's -- if it's sand you can 17 get it out a decade later and if it's sale you can' t or 18 something. 19 MR. GREEVES: Well the mining folks can get just 20 about anything out if you pay them enough money. They have
- 21 proven that in adverse environments. That is for a 22 resource, an ore.
23 In this particular case we are talking about hot i 24 radioactive wastes, so how you go back in there and excavate ( ). 25 such an item is a ticklish question and I think we are on ACE-FEDETAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
.--m.. m -,_ ~ _ , - . _ . _ . - - - . . - - _ _ . _ _ - . - . , _ . _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . . - _ . _ . _ . - - _ ~ . -
8520 04 12 427 () AGBagb 1 the record with the environmental assessment comments that 2 Tim mentioned earlier as saying we in some cases see 3 retrievability as being a fairly straightforward operation 4 but in environments like salt where the. rock naturally 5 creeps even under ambient conditions, that is accelerated 6 under thermal loads, we need to have some pretty serious 7 discussion with those folks if they have designs that don' t l 8 sleeve the waste and provide access to them.
- 9 So again DOE has got to come forward, tell us 10 what their design is and allow us the opportunity to review 11 .that and engage them in some dialogue on it.
- 12 DR. STEINDLER
- You have just indicated, and I
() 13 think correctly, that the mining folks can retrieve anything 14 given enough money. Why doesn't that apply also to 15 retrieving something that happens to be radioactive? There , 16 I would ask then why fuss over this business of 17 retrievability since it is probably commonly agreed that if 18 you are willing to spend enough money you can retrieve 19 anything. 20 MR. GREEVES: Well retrieving hot radioactive 21 waste is not something the mining industry has done in the 22 past, and they also have a habit of -- 23 DR. SHEWMON: We never had enough money.
)
24 MR. GREEVES: They also have a habit of claiming () 25 they can do things in advance, and what's your guarantee ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-370t, Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 04 13 428 () AGBagb 1 that they are going to be able to do it? 2 So it's a ticklish situation. Some of these 3 projects they identify they are going to use overcoring 4 techniques. Well can you-imagine using an overcoring 1 5 technique which is just boring a larger hole around it and 1 6 if your measuremedts are off you could cut right through the l 7 waste package if you found yourself in a situation where the 8 QA or the original records on where the darn thing is placed 9 were wrong. So it's not a trivial situation. 10 Again, we have been asking the Department to come 11 forward with a serious design concept and then we would take 12 it up. We would involve folks like the Bureau of Mines who () 13 we are going to look to on issues like this.
=
14 DR. MARK: You mentioned the business of 15 maintaininc ventilation if you didn' t stuf f the cavities 16 full. Ig he impression that wherever you put waste the 17 crust consists almost entirely of water, groundwater. It's 18 like power plants attract earthquakes. 19 (Laughter.) i 20 Are you also going to keep this darn thing pumped 21 out of water so that there is guaranteed water flow? 22
- 23 24
() 25 ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l i 8520 05 01 429 1 MR. GREEVES: The Department is going to have to (}AGBeb 2 come forward with a design that proves that they can get it 3 back out. I spoke about ventilation for an example. What 4 they have to assure is that they can get back in there and 5 ventilate. They may not maintain ventilation, for example, 6 on a particular design during the operational phase. They 7 may. shut a particular drift down and just not ventilate it. 8 But they have got to have a design option 9 available that they can get back in there and ventilate that 10 drift. It doesn't necessarily even include having this 11 ventilation equipment onsite. They have to have a design in 12 place, reviewed by us, that shows that if necessary, they (} 13 can come1back in and reventilate that area. 14 As far as the hydrologic aspects, some of these 15 places will have water coming into it. They.are going to be e 16 concerned about two situations. One is the safety of the 17 workers involved here, and two, any scenarios as far as 18 being able to get back in if the decision is made.t'o 19 retrieve the waste. And they need to have a design option
~
- 20 available to assure that.
21 It doesn' t necessarily have to be in place at all i 22 times because it's expensive. 23 DR. SHEWMON: Does that answer your question? 24 DR. MARK: Yes. (} 25 MR. STEINDLER: Let me ask one more. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
e 8520 05 02 430 . 1 You talk about retrievability as though it were 4 f()AGBeb i 2 in a class more tightly controlled than even the reasonable 3 assurance aspect of containment. Are you also planning to ! 4 define a " reasonable assurance" aspect of retrievability 5 designs? 6 MR. GREEVES: It, to my way of thinking, is not
- 7 in any different class. We are going to have to make a 8 finding that there is reasonable assurance at the license 9 application stage that there is an option to retrieve the 4
10 waste. We are going to have to call on tolks like the J 11 Bureau of Mines, other technical consul'tants, DOE's i 12 counterparts, and they are going to come forward and state ) {} 13 that there is a reasonable technology available, designs are i 14 available to meet the retrievable option. i '- Does the transportation cask 15 MR. ETHERINGTON: ) 16 stay with the cannister until it is inserted into its final-17 hole, or does it stay up top? 18 MR. JOHNSON: I think that the whole area of when 19 things get-put together hasn't quite been decided by the 20 ~ Department of Energy. They are looking at doing some work 21 in-terms of packaging the waste at what they call a 22 monitored retrievable storage facility. 23 What exactly that will encompass hasn't been 24 decided. They are in the process of doing a series of () 25 optimization studies to look at which is the best way of i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-MA6
8520 05 03 431 1 packaging waste, should part of it be done at the waste ()'AGBeb 2 generator,~should part of it be done at the MRS, should part 3 of it be done at the repository itself? 4 Basically we would expect that there would be 5 some container -- I don't know whether it would be the 6 overpack that would be put on at the MRS or not, but in some
'7 : place there will be a central facility for consolidating 8 rods, putting it into some container, taking those 9 containers on a unit train to the repository.
10 That transport cask would again be reused and ,the 11 containers themselves would be brought to the repository. i 12 If an overpack or whatever was needed at that point, it () 13 would be placed in.there and then it would be put into the ! 14 mine. But the transport cask would be reused. 15 Are there any other questions on those? 2 16 (No response.) 17 MR. JOHNSON: Well, let's go into the TA program. 18 Ken Chang will make the presentation. He will describe the 19 five technical assistance projects that we have underway.
- 20 (Slide.)
4 21 MR. CHANG: This is the title of my 22 presentation. Basically it is an overview of all the high 23 level materials technical assistance projects that we have
- 24 to answer the question of whether DOE's waste package can
(). 25 meet the requirement described in 10 CPR 60. i ACE-FEDPRAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347-3700 Nati3nwide Cover ?;.e 800-336-6646
. =. -_ .., . .
I T 8520 05 04 432 1 (Slide.) y ) AGBeb 2 Here are the our topics that I am going to 3 discuss. Basically you go over, you know what the overall 4 objective for the program is, the five TA contracts in i 5 force, and some of the related contracts including research 6 contracts and also other technical assistance contracts that l 7 other branches and sections of our division handle. l 8 Also other than that we will go through some of l 9 the specifics of the technical assistance contracts. All 10 the contracts that I am going to talk about basically will 11 be the TA contracts in force or sponsored by the Materials 12 Section. 13 our section has the responsibility to make sure 14 to review whether DOE's high level waste package can meet 15 the 10 CFR 60 requirements or not. And I am going to go 16 through some of these requirements with you. T 17 (Slide.) 18 I believe most of you have a few pages of the 10 19 CFR 60 and it contains all of the requirements that the 20 waste package must meet. In 60.ll(a)(6), the title is " Site 21 Characterization Report," and basically on (6) it says that 22 DOE must provide a site characterization report to include a 23 description of it, and a plan to do it, and a conceptual 24 design. So presumably it will include a conceptual design (} 25 of the waste package. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
8520 05 05 433 [w) AGBeb 1 It will also include a description for all issues 2 related to the selection of the site. So that takes care of 3 60.11. 4 60.111 addresses the overall performance 5 objectives. 6 In 60.lll(a) it addresses protection against 7 radiation exposures, releases of radioactive material. 8 In section (b), 60.111(b), it addresses the 9 retrievability of the waste that we discussed just new. 10 60.112 is the overall system performance 11 objectives of the geologic repository after permanent 12 closure.
,] 13 Most of the waste package requirements however s--
14 are addressed in 60.113. In 60.113, specifically in 15 paragraph (A), it says that containment of high level waste 16 within the waste package shall not be less f.han 300 years 17 nor more than 1,000 after permanent closure at the geologic 18 repository. , 19 And in 60.113(B) it addresses the 10 to the minus 20 5 control release requirement. 21 The next part of the requirement is 60,135. Over 22 there it addresses the criteria for the waste package and 23 its components, and it describes in detail that, you know, { 24 the waste package design must be designed so that the in () 25 situ chemical, physical and nuclear properties of the waste l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
J 1
, 8520 05 06 434 1 package and its interactions with the emplacement
{ ) AGBeb 2 environment do not compromise the function of the waste 3 package. 4 In 60,135(b)-- In (a) it also includes some of 5 the factors it must consider, and these are listed as 6 follows: 7 It must consider solubility, oxidation / reduction 1 8 reactions, co rosion, hydriding, gas generation, thermal 9 effects, mechanical strain, and so on. 10 In the other section, (b), it talks about 11 specific criteria, things like it must not contain 12 explosives, pyrophoric, and chemically reactive materials. (} 13 It should not contain free liquids, and how, you 14 know, it should be designed for handling. It must be 15 specifically identified so that you know, you know, what you 16 put in. 17 And then there are more very specific i 18 requirements for waste form, including solidification, 19 consolidation, combustibles, and so on. 1 20 And I think in the research project that we 21 mentioned, that we discussed this morning, most of these 22 criteria have been addressed. 23 In 60.137 and 140 specifically it talks about 24 performance confirmation, and over there it talks about () 25 designing for anticipated events. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. . _ __ _ .._ _ . .. ._ _ . . _ _ _ ~ . _ ._ . _ _ _ . _
i
-8520 05 07 435 7
1 But you will find when you go through 10 CFR 60, ( ) AGBeb 2 even though, you know, the waste package was designed for 3 anticipated events, we must also analyze for unanticipated i 4 events because that is required by the EPA standard. 5 In 60.142 it outlines the design testing required 6 for the waste package, and over there it mentions about it 7 must test for thermal interaction effects of the waste 8 package, backfill, rock and groundwater. l 9 And in 143 it talks about monitoring and testing l 10 of the waste package. 11 Now all these requirements must also conform with I 12 a quality assurance program. And what it says in 150 and J (} 13 151 is basically DOE must have a quality assurance program 14 and also it must conform to 10 CFR 60 Part 50. 4 4 15 DR. SHEWMON: What does that mean, 10 CFR Part 4 16 50?
- 17 MR. CHANG: 10 CFR Part 50? It has a list. It i
18 has quality assurance items-- 19 MR. JOHNSON: 10 CFR Part 50 is the reactor-1 I 20 regulation, and Appendix B is a s'eries of quality assurance 21 guidelines that nuclear power plant facilities must comply 22 with. 23 DR. SHEWMON: I hope you don't generate as many 24 tons of paper per ton of product as'they do, and get more () 25 improvement in quality out of it for what you do spend. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
8520 05 08 436
,- l 1 MR. JOHNSON: I think our objective here is a
( ) AGBeb 2 high quality assessment by the Department of Energy and our 3 objective isn't just to make paper, as you indicated. 4 DR. SHEWMON: Stated another way, it would be 5 nice if you got a high quality of product. Whether a high 6 quality of assessment would do that I don't know. 7 MR. CHANG: With all these requirements, you 8 know, I guess if you want to reduce it to two questions, 9 basically I guess as far as our project is concerned, -- 10 (Slide.) 11 -- it's basically how is DOE expected to approach the waste 12 packaging licensing issue and, as far as NRC is concerned, () 13 now is NRC going to use the technical assistance program 14 that I am going to discuss described here to assess the DOE 15 data or analyses? 16 (Slide.) 17 We expect the DOE to more or less follow these 18 steps here. Basically we expect the DOE first of all to 19 define what the waste package environment is first in terms 20 of temperature history, groundwater flow, groundwater 21 chemistry, and so on. 22 And then we expect DOE to perform a series of 23 experimer.ts and tests to develop a data base so that they 1 24 could use whatever models that they develop to verify'that () 25 indeed it satisfies the performance requirements, i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 334 6646
8520 05 09 437 1 And so basically you know it would probably { ) AGBeb 2 reduce to the situation of trying to verify whether indeed 3 their models reflect the real-life situation. And our 4 program, the technical assistance program, basically will 5 help NRC to put together methodology which we feel that we 6 have confidence to use to evaluate whether DOE's claim for 7 their waste package performance is adequate or not. 8 MR. STEINDLER: You indicated that you expect the 9 Department of Energy to complete those four items you have 10 up there. Is that your judgment of what DOE is supposed to 11 do? Is that the NRC's judgment, or is that a statement that
'12 is written down someplace so that all the parties can 13 understand that very clearly?
-{ } 14 MR. JOHNSON: I think that those kinds of things 15 are what DOE is doing right now, and that's what we expect 16 to see as part of the license application. 17 DR. SHEWMON: Will that data base be available to 18 use soon enough so that you can use it for your evaluation, 19 or is it just available to tnem? 20 MR.-JOHNSON: In order for us to do ao 21 evaluation, all of that information that goes into that 22 license application would have to be available to us at the l 23 time they submit the license application. And we are hoping 24 that we can get access to the information as it is generated () 25 so that we don't have to wait for the license application ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3346M6
8520 05 10 438 1 before we first see a lot of this information. ()AGBeb 2 DR. SHEWMON: How much are you getting currently 3 that would be in the data base area which would.... 4 MR. JOHNSON: I think that the data that we' re 5 getting is limited because the programs that DOE has in the 6 waste package area have been pretty limited. 7 DR. SHEWMON: How long will you have to review 8 this package after it is submitted? 9 MR. JOHNSON: The plan is for a three-year review 10 period of the license application, although their current 11 mission plan gives us 27 months. 12 DR. SHEWMON: Now this three-year review is 13 before the hearing begins?
}
14 MR. JOHNSON: I think that review includes-- 15 MR. GREEVES: The thr3e years I believe Tim is 16 referring to is the hearing procesa. The license 17 application hits the door and then three years later the 18 hearing process is supposed to be over. 19 DR. SHEWMON: My question was how long this data ; 20 base was going to be in your hands before you were able to 21 start making decisions. 22 MR. GREEVES: In theory we have access to data 23 essentially as it is produced. We have an agreement with 24 the Department of Energy that states that Staf f has access () 25 to the data as it is produced. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8J0-336-6M6
8520 05 11 439 1 Now I think you are fully aware that the ( ) AGBeb 2 Department proDably produces enough data to inundate 3 virtually everybody. And these Appendix 7 -- or the visits 4 that Tim mentioned earlier are the mechanisms whereby some 5 of the Staff would be able to, on a selective basis, go out 6 to the site and take a look at some of the very recent data 7 that the Department has been generating. 8 So we are not going to wait until the license 9 application hits the door before we have visibility of 10 data. We are going to be looking at that data essentially 11 quickly after it is produced. 12 DR. SHEWMON: It's one thing to go across the
~) 13 country to look at it. It's another to have it in printed (V
. 14 form so somebody who wants to indeed use the data base has 15 it. Now that has to be in written form. You don't trust 16 somebody's memory or trip notes. 17 MR. GREEVES: It is not a trivial problem to 18 achieve what T'm sure your goals would be, but mechanisms 19 are in place. Congress set up-- 20 DR. SHEWAON: Are or are not? - 21 MR. GREEVES: Are in place. 22 Congress set up the site characterization process 23 in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It allow for consultation 24 between DOE and NRC as DOE was gathering this data. And we I) C/ 25 cannot-- None of us can afford to wait until that license ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 86
i i 8520 05 12 440 _()AGBeb 1 application hits the door before we have access to and begin f I 2 reviewing and looking at data and even asking questions. 3 DR. SHEWMON: And when is-that first one supposed 4 to hit the door? 5 MR. GREEVES: I was referring to the license 6 application. 7 DR. SHEWMON: So am I. 8 MR. GREEVES: That's the document 19-- 9 MR. JOHNSON: -- 91. l 10 DR. SHEWMON: We've got a few years then. i 11 MR. JOHNSON: I think that's a real good question l 12 because my feeling at this point is that DOE really needs to {} 13 put a stronger emphasis on the waste package program in 14 order to be in a position to submit the data by 1991. 15 MR. CHANG: 1991 may be the wrong time, but I 16 think to address some of the long-term data, you know, I'm 17 not too sure we really have that much time. ( 18 MR. ETHERINGTON: Is there a mechanism for l l 19 exprescing any reservations that you might have before the 20 application is submitted by DOE? 21 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, there is. One mechanism was 22 our review of the DOE's environmental assessments. 23 We also, as part of this workshop program,-- 24 That's another mechanism for us to provide them feedback. () 25 The next major one is the site characterization l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8%336-646
1 8520 05 13- 441 t' 1 plans, the documents that are supposed to be available (}AGBeb 2 during 1986. And these documents will contain the test 3 programs and plans that DOE.will undertake in order to 4 qualify the waste package. 5 And I think that will be the first time that we 6 see in detail exactly what they want to do in order to 7 demonstrate compliance with Part 60. 8 (Slide.) 9 Here is our program objective for our technical ! 10 assistance program. Basically there are two objectives. 1 I ] 11 One is the program is supposed to put together 5 12 methodology to assess whether the DOE's waste package design ()
- 13 will meet the performance objectives of 10 CFR 60.
14 And the second objective is to identify
- 15 information needed for NRC, you know, to do this job.
! 16 And I want to emphasize Number Two because i 17 basically on Number One, we are not expected to do DOE's 18 job, and we do not have all the resources. So basically our 19 emphasis is really on Number Two. 23 DR. SHEWMON:- Where are you on that now? 21 22 23 24 () 25 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage F00-336-6646 e
8520 06 01 442 1 DR. CHANGE: I think as I go through the ()AGBwrb 2 Vu-graphs you will probably have some kind of judgment 3 regarding where we are. 4 (Slide.) 5 To put it in engineering terms, what does it mean 6 by this? That means that at the end of our TA project, TA 7 program, rather, we want to be able to say according to 8 NRC's methodology what is the predicted number of waste 9 package failures as a function of time. That means, you 10 know, we plot it in terms of number of failures versus time' 11 up to 10,000 years. i' 12 DR. SHEWMON: What is a failure? Is that a l ~ (]} 13' pinhole leak or busted in half and scattered around? 1 14 Someplace in between, presumably. 4 l 15 DR. JOHNSON: A failure could be a pinhole crack r 16 if it results in the release of radionuclide materials. l 17 Again, the failure criteria is, as I discussed { , 18 earlier, it's a substantially complete containment. So the j 19 waste package has a number of different components, and l 20 because one of those items fails doesn't mean the entire
- 21 waste package has failed.
l l 22 DR. MARK: This is not hung on the leach rate at 1 4 23 1000 years? l 24 DR. JOHNSON: There are two criteria: one is ) () 25 containment and the other is release rate. The failure l I i
- ACE FEDERAL REPORrERS, INC.
. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 l 8520 06 02 443 ) h,AGBwrb 1 analysis that Dr. Shewmon was referring to I think refers to 2 the containment performance objective. The release rate -- 3 you would have a release rate after you've had failure of 4 your containment features, or components in your waste 5 package, and you have a mechanism for radionuclides to get 6 beyond the waste package boundary. 7 DR. SHEWMON: But you're getting all tied up 8 shoveling smoke here. 9 DR. CHANG: Probably No. 2 is more definitive in 10 regard to answering your question, because failure may not 11 mean very much. 12 DR. SHEWMON: It doesn' t tell me from what you've 13 said so far, but it should; so try again before you get rid ( }) 14 of the slide: let's try to get an answer. 15 DR. GREEVES: Tim explained to you the 16 significance issue earlier, and that is, essentially, to my 17 way of thinking, an answer to your question about failure. 18 DR. SHEWMON: It's not to mine. Maybe I'm just 19 slow. 20 It seems to me there has to be a question of how 21 many curies per minute, or how many grams per hour, or 22 something we are talking about which leaves the waste 23 package. 24 DR. GREEVES: We're talking about rate at that () 25 point, and I think Tim explained earlier the analc;y of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-(M6
l
\
8520 06 03 444 1 10 to the minus-5 as far as the significant failure that he
- ()AGBwrb ;
1 ' 2 essentially said was our position as far as the containment 3 failure. Containment is either there or it isn't there, l 4 and... i 5 DR. SHEWMON: Sorry; 10 to the minus-5 is neither 6 here nor there, it is a finite rate, t i 7 What I'm trying to get is, if you have to talk i j 8 about what a waste package failure is you have to know one 9 when you see one, you have to have decided how big a hole it 10 is, and what mechanism is carrying it through the hole. Or }
- 11 at least I don't know how you calculate a rate without that.
I
- 12 DR. JOHNSON
- I agree that all of those pieces 1
(} 13 are part of determining what failure is and determining what l 14 the rate of release is; and all of those pieces are going to I 15 be part of our evaluation. i s 16 Now, DOE-- It's not quite as simple as saying, i 17 well you have a crack, you have a failure, because-- A l 18 crack in what? The design is a multi-component design, 19 there are certain features that are going to have dif ferent 20 rates at which they allow access to water and contact of 21 nuclides with water, and transport of the radionuclides. 22 DR. SHEWMON: I agree all those things come in. 23 But your goal is to predict the number. And if you can't 24 identify one when you see one, then I have great difficulty () 25 knowing how you're going to predict the number. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
8520 06 04 445 1 MR. STEVENS: Let me take a crack at this ()AGBwrb 2 question of failure. 3 If, for example-- Now, whan we're talking about 4 the waste package here, we have to remember that we're 5 talking not only about the waste form and the cans, but the 6 packing material as well. NRC might some time in the future 7 define a failure to mean any release of radionuclides of an 8 observable quantity outside the package. If that were 9 true-- 10 DR. SHEWMON: It depends on how good your eyes 11 are when you get to " observable," then. 12 MR. STEVENS: Or you could define an amount which 13 you could model, have some sort of threshold, a calculated ,
/}
! 14 amount. Then if you have that criteria you could, with your 1 i i 15 modeling, tell how many failures, package failures, you had 16 had, That could be defined to be very restrictive or very I 17 loose. i i 18 The point right now is, that does not have to be I 19 defined, and it probably should be deferred until you see j 20 the whole picture. Because the question of reasonable
,21 assurance and the degree of protection afforded by the ;
i l 22 geology and all the things that enter into the t 23 general determination of " reasonable assurance" will end up 24 as part of that definition. () 25 What we are doing is developing a methodology so i I l ! ACE-FEDERAL' REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(M Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L
l 8520 06 05 446 that NRC can tell how much comes out, when. And then the ()AGBwrb 1 2 failure can be defined arbitrarily or by judgment. 3 DR. SHEUMON: Well, could we rewrite that slide l 4 up there to say: The product of NRC's analysis of DOE's l l 5 waste package performance will tell how much is coming out, 6 when? 7 DR. CHANG: Basically the source term, then. 8 MR. STEVENS: The reason this occurs is that 10 9 CFR 60 is written to have two requirements: the I 10 substantially complete containment independent of how much 11 comes out and the idea that whatever comes out stauld be 12 smal' not pre-defined. (} 13 DR. SHEWMON: But Tim said earlier that they had 14 defined some sort of a rate as to what could come out, and 15 that wasn't zero. And so there is a finite leak rate that 16 fr possible. And it seems to me that before that first 17 sentence can have any meaning that at least I can grasp, 18 there has to be some way for getting between number of 19 whatever is called failures in the words that he's using up . 20 there, and whatever these words are Tim was talking about in 21 terms of how many curies come out. And that is what I'm 22 trying to get a handle on. 23 MR. STEVENS: When Tim was talking about that 24 poli:y that ties it to the amount that .is allowable after 25 the 1000-year period,-- ( ): ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364 6:6
i. 8520 06 06 447 1 DR. SHEWMON: Yes, but he also said that ties it ()AGBwrb . 2 to what's allowable before the 1000 years. I 3 MR. STEVENS: Precisely. Now, inherent in that i 4 is a certain amount; which means that you could have a large 5 number of packages failing, with failure being a very small l 6 release in that case, or a few packages perhaps with total 7 release. ! 8 And so the number of failures that occurs depends 9 on what you define as your failure criteria. l
-10 DR. SHEWMON: So that there is yet another i
11 dimension up here, and this predicted numbers of failure is 12 a multi-dimensional space where there is predicted numbers (} 13 of different sizes in addition to predicted numbers? 14 tiR. STEVENS: It is at the moment. As time 15 progresses it will become more clear. 16 DR. SHEWMON: You're an inveterate optimist. l 17 MR. STEVENS: Always. 18 MR. CHANG: Okay. No. 2 is, basically, you can l t 19 calculate the source term. Because in order to answer the i 20 second requirement, which is 10 to the minus-5, no more than l 21 10 to the minus-5 on the radionuclides to that environment, 22 you need to know what the source term is. l l 23 I'd like to remind you that 10 to the minus-5 is 24 designed for an engineered barrier, it is not specif cally a , () 25 part of the waste package. That means that they could ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
8520 06 07 448 1 design a system in which case you can end up with more than (' /) AGBwrb
~
2 10 to the minus-5 getting out of the waste package, but it 3 would not get out of the engineered barriers. 4 DR. MARK: That 10 to the minus-5 doesn't apply 5 to each package, it applies to the whole content of the 6 repository? 7 DR. CHANG: That's right. 8 DR. 4UUU(: So you could have one out of a 9 thousand things fail completely, or one of 10 to the 5th 10 fail completely and you're ctill okay? 11 DR. CHANG: That's right. 12 DR. MARK: The others are tight. (} 13 DR. CHANG: Of course if you can satisfy that 14 requirement with the use of a waste package, basically 15 you've got the job done. 16 DR. SIIEWMON: If bentonite keeps everything from 17 moving, you don't care about the waste package. 18 MR. STEVENS: And you haven' t got a failure. 19 DR. MARK: I think I don't care about it already, 20 but... 21 (Laughter.) 22 DR. MARK: The ber. tonite and the rock will look 23 after everything, and that's the one comfort we have. 24 DR. STEINDLER: Is this Item 2, Source Term, () 25 anything other than an origin code? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
8520 06 08 449 1 Your description sounded as though it was simply {)AGBwrb 2 an enumeration of nuclide contents of the waste. 3 DR. CHANG: Okay; by " source term," we mean what 4 gets out of the waste package. 5 DR. SHEWMON: Out of the engineered barrier. 6 DR. CHANG: That way you can keep the 7 calculation. 8 DR. STEINDLER: So it's a source for a subsequent 9 geologic migration into the near field. 10 DR. CHANG: That's right, 11 (Slide.) 12 We have five projects in the technical assistance 13 program. The first one is 3164, which basically is an , (} 14 review of the overall DOE waste package program. This 15 program started in 1981 and is going to end in 1985. It is 16 being done by Brookhaven National Lab. 17 DR. SHEWMON: What division? Who, up there? 18 DR. HSU: I'm Peter Hsu, Brookhaven Lab. 19 It's in the Nuclear Waste Management Division. 20 In that division we just work for the NRC in high and low 21 level. 22 DR. CHANG: The second project is a review of f 23 waste package verification test program, and basically is 24 done by the same group at Brookhaven National Lab. () 25 The third project is basically a continuation of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M486
8520 06 09 450 1 the Brookhaven project, because the Brookhaven project is ()AGBwrb 2 going to phase out within a year or so. 3 The NBS has started-- 4 DR. SHEWMON: What was your statement, that BNL 5 is going to do what over the coming year? 6 DR. CHANG: BNL -- the work at BNL is phasing 7 down. Basically the project will not continue any more 8 after '85. The kind of work that will continue in this 9 program basically will be done by the National Bureau of 10 Standards. And the emphasis will be more on the test data, 11 DR. MOELLER: Will the Brookhaven group then just 12 close shop? (} 13 MR. JOllNSON: Maybe I should go into a bit more 14 detall as to what has transpired here. 15 Thc program that we had at Brookhave was run by 16 Dr. Sweitzer, and Dr. Sweitzer decided that he would be more 17 effective -- have more access to DOE information and be more 18 ef fective to the repository program by doing consulting work 19 directly for the Department of Energy. That obviously put 20 us into a dif ficult situation, and we had decided to move 21 our resources to do the same work but with the National 22 Bureau of Standards rather than Brookhaven, because of the 23 programmatic decisions made at DNL. 24 DR. Cil ANG: The fourth project that we have is at () 25 Oak Ridge. This project is also going to be phased out. ACE.FEDERAt. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nation *ide Coserage 800 336-6M6
8520 06 10 451 ()AGBwrb 1 The reason is basically that this project basically defines 2 what parameters should be considered, and what are the 3 ranges of parameters, definition of some of the failure 4 modes, and to more or less qualitatively prioritize all the 5 failure modes that should be considered in NRC's evaluation. 6 The work has been more or less, 80 percent, 7 completed. 8 Finally, you know, all of the work done here we 9 feel like that we are at least able to do a first trial how 10 to analyze the waste package. 11 So basically the 4165, the Aerospace work, is our 12 first attempt to analyze DOE's waste package performance. (} 13 DR. SHEWMON: Are there yearly reports put out by 14 the BNL program? 15 DR. CilANG: Yes. They're all on the table 16 there. When I go through the individual projects I will 17 also mention a few things about the reports. 18 Now, naturally, I think with all of the 19 discussion yesterday and today I don' t suppose you expect 20 these projects by themselves to be able to do anything in 21 regard to solving the problem. 22 DR. SilEUMON: Can we get on the distribution list 23 for Aerospace's annual reports? Apparently we weren' t on 24 the ones at BNL and ORNL. () 25 MR. JOIINSON: Yes. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 800-33MM6
8520 06 11 452 1 DR. SHEWMON: Thank you. ( ) AGBwrb 2 DR. STEINDLER: Are the Aerospace reports issued 3 under NUREG CR documents? 4 DR. CHANG: A draft has been done, it has not 5 been published. 6 MR. STEVENS: It will be under NUREG. 7 DR. STEINDLER: The will be under NUREG. 8 MR. STEVENS: They will be NUREG 9 documents. There's a pretty broad distribution of 10 those. 11 DR. CHANG: All these five projects more or less 12 draw upon the findings that you have discussed in your (} 13 research project. And also, in addition to that, there are 14 also other technical assistance projects that are sponsored l 15 by other branches of our division that we draw on for 16 information. 17 DR. SHEWMON: Do you ever put out a wish list, or 18 how do you make your particular prioritized list 19 of needs known? 20 MR. JO!!NSON: I think it is done through an 21 interaction with Research as well as with the other groups 22 within our division. 23 DR. SilEWMON: It is handled by word of mouth? 24 MR. GREEVES: Not totally. We do periodically () 25 write formal requests to the Division of Research ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natinnwide Cmetage kn346646
8520 06 12 453 1 identifying what the areas, as perceived by us, are in most ()AGBwrb 2 need of research. 3 DR. CHANG: What I'll do, I will flip over the 4 list of research projects and technical assistance project. 5 (Slide.) 6 Practically all these have been discussed in this 7 morning's discussion. A couple of them may not, and I have 8 to find out which ones they are. 9 For instance, I don't think this one was 10 discussed. (Indicating) 11 MR. STSVENS: Yes, it was. 12 DR. CilANG: So basically these are the reseach {} 13 projects that we draw information from. I'm talking about 14 NRC projects now. 15 DR. SHEWMON: Do you find that it meets all your 16 needs? 17 DR. CHANG: I think our attitude is, you know, 18 basically we try to use all information that is available 19 from the DOE projects first, and in many cases we try to 20 identify the information needs that are not adequate from 21 the DOE project and then we reflect it to the Research f 22 people and they try their best to answer it. 23 In a lot of cases I'm afraid that, you know, we 24 don' t get all the information that we ask for. Most of them l () 25 trying to get information on how to develop a predictive t ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37(X) Nation *ide Coverage No.33M646
8520 06 13 454 AGBwrb 1 trying to get information on how to develop a predictive 2 model. It's a very difficult problem. 3 DR. SHEWMON: By the time things get submerged 4 someplace behind a computer code it becomes totally 5 inscrutable. If garbage went in, it's a lot harder to tell 6 by that time whether it did or not. ; 7 DR. CHANG: That's right. ! 8 (Slide.) 1 9 The other technical assistance contracts that we 10 draw information from, these are the technical assistance I I 11 projects. All of these projects are sponsored by our ) 12 division; okay; these are not sponsored by our branch, but 13 they are sponsored by our division. 14 You might notice that basically they are done by 15 Sandia National Lab and Oak Ridge. And, incidentally, 16 Virginia Ilunter, who talked yesterday, also came from Sandia 17 National Lab. I think they are basically the same group of 18 people. 19 Okay; with that, I am going to go through very 20 briefly each individual project in regard to what the past 21 is and, finally, you know, what has been done. 22 (Slide.) 23 24 25 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(1) Nationwide Cmerage RXh)3MM6
8520 07 01 455 ()AGBagb 1 In 3164 there are two tests. Basically test one 2 is to review the waste package data, and that means DOE
+ 3 waste package data, in regard to accuracy, reliability and 4 applicability in regard to licensing needs.
5 And we also reviewed the DOE waste package in 6 regard to DOE's technical approach and what are the 7 limitations of those data, whether indeed they apply to the 8 real world situation, also whether they can be modeled or 9 not, because some are information -- for instance, tney have 10 a lot of leaching data measured at room temperature which we 11 don' t find in a repository, you don't have room temperature 4 12 until maybe several hundred years, so it doesn't even apply 13 for the first 3- or 400 years. Your waste package basically ( 14 passes the test anyway. 15 DR. SilEWMON: Does this tie into some other, more 16 global code that talks about how it gets from the waste pack 17 breach to the engineering barrier or whatever -- yes, 18 barrier was the word you used -- and how it gets from there 19 into the near field or whatever Marty's term was? 1 l 20 DR. CIIANG: Okay. I think the majority of the 21 work is basically review on DOE's waste package data. There 22 is some work on reviewing the model but not too much. 23 DR. SilEWMON: You aren't answering my question. 24 MR. JOllNSON: Let me try to. DOE in generating a () 25 tot of waste package data -- ace.FEDl!RAl. REPORTERS, INC. 202.m.nm Nation.ide cmerage muuMo
8520 07 02 456 AGBagb 1 DR. SilEWMON: I want to know what NRC is 2 generating. 3 MR. JollNSON: That data is going to be used by 4 the Department of Energy to develop models and a performance 5 assessment analysis approach which will be submitted to us 6 for our review. It will be our objective to understand 7 those models, the approaches that were taken, the data that 8 was used in order for us to make an evaluation that, yes, 9 this data in the model does reflect reality that -- or it is 10 conservative and it will meet the performance objectives. 11 But our work is not oriented to developing those models but 12 it was to develop -- 13 DR. SilEWMON: I know this, I have been told it 14 six times in two days and what your responsibility isn't. 15 My question was it is halfway obvious to everybody in the 16 room that the waste package is not the be-all and end-all. 17 We have to worry about how it gets out to the environment. 18 DOE will have a program, will you accept their computer 19 program for modeling this or do you have your own for 20 checking? 21 f tR. JOIINSON: We probably will not develop an 1 22 independent set of models in order to bounco DOE's resulta 23 off of... Thure may be some cases where there are l 24 particularly pertinent areas which we do wish to model but l O 25 we just d n' t have the resources to do a total independent i
. ACII.Fi niinAL RiiPonTiins, INC.
l Mw.nm Nanon.ide cmerage me.n6 fM6
8520 07 03 457 AGBagb 1 confirmation of everything they do. 2 DR. SilEWMON: Will you set somebody else to run 3 theit program? l. 4 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. We will have access to their 5 codes, we will have people who are knowledgeable in the way 6 those codes work and what is put into them. 7 DR. SilEWMON: Thank you. ' 8 DR. MARK: This particular thing on the board is 9 essentially finished now -- 10 DR. SilEWMON: It hasn' t started. 11 MR. JOllNSON: This is the Brookhaven contract. 12 The Brookhaven contract itself is winding down but the same
] 13 14 type of evaluations of DOE data will continue under the National Bureau of Standards program.
i 15 DR. MARK: That's a dif ferent fin, though. 16 MR. JOllNSON: Yes, it is a different one. l 17 DR. MARK: And the DNL contract goes to '85, I , 18 guess that's fiscal so it's over.... 19 MR. JOllNSON: There is some additional money i 20 still left in that contract that will continue through a 21 good part of fiscal year '86. 22 DR. MARK: What do you call that in a generator, 23 it's the coastdown. 24 MR. JOllNSON: That's correct, right. Q 25 DR. STEINDLER: Let me ask a question: Acc FEDl!RAl. REI'ORTERS, INC. j 202 347.)?al Nation *ide Cmcrage Mak))MM6
8520 07 04 458 1 rue orooxaevee eroee et oae 't e wee e eetety O ^one96 2 large and, I guess viewed by some folks, as a fairly 3 competent group of people. You have told us about the 4 disappearance of one guy and the decision made to move the 5 program to the Bureau. 6 Are you buying the salvage, to some extent, the 7 institutional memory and the rest of the useful aspects of 8 the Brookhaven people that are not moving to DOE? 9 MR. JO!!NSON: The Brookhaven people that aren't 10 moving to DOE is primarily Peter lisu and half of Terry 11 Sullivan. The rest of that program that we had been working 12 on in our study is all now with the DOE program. 13 Now in terms of the institutional memory, we have 14 tried to phase out National Bureau of Standards beginning 15 last year and we are still keeping on BNL through a good 16 part of this fiscal year to try to smooth the transition and 17 allow NBS the time to gear up and understand what the 18 problems are. 19 (Slide.) 20 DR. CilANG: I think there was a (guestion on 21 verifying computer codes and basically we.... In A-1757, 22 some verification work was done by Sandia, we checked their 23 code and are relying on that. 24 (Slide.) O 25 4171 == t =e"et "ea 1" e co"'t"oe't " c Act!.Fl!DI!RAI, Rt:PORri:Rs INC,
, 202.m.pm NatLm ideCmerage mHW4 i
8520 07 05 459 AGBagb 1 Brookhaven National Labs' project. So you will find that 2 is very similar excepting we have added a couple of P 3 experimental tasks; that means we find some discrepancy in 4 DOE's task, we like to verify, you know, spot-check it. But 5 we do not expect that to be a large amount of work there. 6 (Slide.) 7 3167 is the second project we have at 8 Brookhaven. Basically there are also two tasks. The first c 9 task is to identify the types of tests needed by NitC for DOE 10 to do to demonstrate that the waste package can indeed moet 11 the performance objectives. The second part of task one is 12 to determine what are the test paramett.ca and what rangen -- l L1 what is the lowest level and highest they can take in the 14 waste packago environment in all three typos of 15 repositories. And after doing that if there are any gaps 16 then the project will identify them. 17 Dit. S!!EWMON: Is that largely completed? 18 Dit. CllANG: That's largely completed, yes. 19 And the second task is more or loss just a 20 short-term technical assistance program; moro or lens like, 21 you know, when wo have Scit review, then wo would request i 22 Brookhaven to do that or wo have a special DOE report that 23 wo nood to havo reviewod, wo would ask them to do that. 24 Dit. SilEWMON: What do you fool in the most O 25 worthwhilo idea that you got out of that? l Aci!l?tiot!RAI. Rt!I'ORTt!Rs, INC.
- o:.m.pm Nanon.ede nnum 9m )m rat.
-- . . - . = - .- - . - _ - - . -- . - .- . -- . .
( 8520 07 06 460 AGBagb 1 DR. CHANG: All these tests here? 2 I would say number one and number three, because ! 3 number one, more or less -- I l j 4 DR. SilEliMON: What types of tests did they say 5 could be used or would be most useful? I ask you for an 6 idea... i 7 DR. HSU One of the main functions in this 3167 1 1 8 program is to look at all the standard types of tests that 9 MCC, for examplo, was generating for the DOE side. For , 10 example, we look at say the MCC test for solubility -- l l 11 DR. SilEliMON: libat's MCC? i 12 DR. IISU: Materials Characterization Contor out Q 13 at PNL. They are the outfit that develops standardized 14 tests for the DOE community. 15 So wo look at thoso various loaching and , 16 natubility tests and, as experimentalists, we try and pick 17 holes in them, suggest improvemonta. And when the NRC l
) l 18 reptonontativo -- who is part of MCC as an observer at all 19 the MCC mootingn, he will transmit our commenta to the MCC I
20 group to try and suggont thono improvementn in thono tent j 21 methodologion. That's one of the principal functions that i i 22 wo had in thin verification tost program. ; i 23 Wo would alno look at nomo of the DOE roportn l 24 that might doncribo loaching and corronton and wo would ! O 2s ev t"#te whether era taa ct"#t ta#t methodotoute= that t"- - 4 ! i Aci!.FliolinAL Rt!PonTrins, INC, i mo2 m n m Nanon ide rmern,e w3wua4
8520 07 07 461 AGBagb 1 various DOE groups were using were good, bad or 2 indifforent. In some cases DOE, for example, would carry 3 out leaching tests that lasted for 28 days in the ionized 4 water. And a lot of this type of information isn't really 5 applicable to the real repository environment. And we would 6 come out with critiques of those reports and submit them 7 back to the NRC as well. We would also write them up in our 8 monthly reports and some of our bi-annual reports that 9 you soo hero. And all of thoso, I think, are read by the 10 DOE. 11 So on behalf of the NRC, we tend to give DOE 12 feedback on what the NRC sido fools is good about the 13 program and what -- 14 DR. SilEWMON: llow many of those corrosion tests 15 woro there from MCC? 16 DR. 118 0 : Thoro'n only one that really sticka out 17 in my mind and that was a standardized test for tont 18 corrosion cracking, and that one we critiquod -- 19 DR. SilEWMON: Aro wo including loaching tests 20 under corrosion? 21 DR. IISU : No, the loaching tonta are somothing i 22 noparato. 23 DR. SillNMON: Thoro's one of thono? I 24 DR. 11 S 0 : Fivo, low temporaturo, high i O 25 temporaturo, n lubility, they c vor the whole gamut. l Acti.FliniinAI. Riil'onTiins, INC. l 202.m.ino Nanon.de rmetan m)*wn
I i 8520 07 08 462 (])AGBagb 1 DR. S!!EWMON: Is there a uniform corrosion test 2 that has come out of there yet? 3 DR. HSU: I don' t think I've soon one but in many 4 canos MCC will take standard ASTM tests and modify them to 5 their noods. But in many cases ASTM and MCC casos are quite 6 nimilar. 7 DR. S!!EWMON: Fine. Okay. Thank you. 8 (Slide.) 9 DR. CilANG: Okay. The next part is from -- thin 10 in the part donc by Oak Ridge. Danically in all the work 11 dono, completed at Brookhaven, we gather all information on 12 environmontal paramotorn in the repository and also failuro 13 modon. Danica11y thin report more or losa consolidaten all j 14 this information and trion to formulato a apocification 15 regarding what kind of model DOE can develop and how the 16 model can bo evaluated by NRC. And no thin work in being 17 completed and it will be dono in a few monthn. And an a 18 matter of fact, a draft han alcoady boon -- the first 19 wording han boon fininhed. 20 DR. SilEWHON: "Prodict repository onvironmontal 21 paramotorn," in that chemical paramotorn or what? 22 DR. CilANG: Chemical, thormal and physical alno 23 in tormn of the hydrontatic pronnuro and no forth. 24 DR. STEINDLER: llow did you manago to comploto thin when, in fact, an far an I know, tho Dopartmont of (]) 25 ACl! l?I!DliRAl. Rl!PORil!RS, INC. j :o:w.pm Nck n.hte nnerm u 34 w6
mar w t m$ erem a etu.non% m?i m :o:
.CNI ,SllilI(luP!llI ,l A(lil)1.t'l !lrA roF .teopna tnoroffid a tuo ntniop ti ,rohtar -- 52 $
) odi11:( 42
-- flonti ol oc eht 12 ton ni tcejorp niht rof tropor ehT dNAllC .HD 22
.nodoc tusini 12 ruoy fo lla morf atad ytiliballor llarevo ,atad ytilibolloc 02 1
tnonerp lliw taht ,FDP ,tnemnnonna ocnamrofrep laniC l 91 i s a ni ttuner yeht dna rehtogot meht enibmoc ,nodoc laudividni 81 I morf n'FDP okat ot uoy nwolla ti ,roganam atad a fo l 71 f erom ni edoc eht dna ereht ni gnihtemon gninu ora ew tub won 61 thgir depoleved yletelpmoc era hcihw fo enon ,nedoc llamn !l 51 l fo rebmun a -- lla etargetni ot jniyrt rof mninahcem a ni I 41 no gnikrow yltnerruc ni ecapnoreA taht edoc ehT 11 g
, emit etairporppa eht ta nedoc tneroCCid 21 enoht fo lla tcaretni yletairporppa lliw taht ledom retupmoc LL eno otni rehtegot meht tup dna nodoc llamn esoht lla 01 ekat uoy od woh ni noitnauq eht won .nedoc llams fo seires 9 elo..w a gnipoleved f o naccorp eht ni ni EOD dna nretemarap 8 noisorroc ,sretemarap tropsnart ,nretemarap lacinahcem 7
,nretemarap lamreht ,snoitaredisnoc lamreht ledom taht ,yan 6
,nedoc rellams fo seires a era ereht ni ereh enod gnieb ni 5 tahW .gnihtyreve neod taht edoc a evah ew taht ni detelpmoc 4 ni tcejorp eht kniht t' nod I :NOSNHOJ .RM 3
.margorp tlasab eht 2
,elpmaxe roF ? era nretemarap eht tahw wonk t 'nseod ygrenE 1 bgaDGA h 361 90 70 0258
8520 07 10 464 AGaagb 1 instance, it identifies the pertinent repository parameters 2 that cannot be neglected if you want the analysis to be of 3 any meaningful help; and secondary, would be to identify and 4 prioritize qualitatively those pertinent failure modes that 5 should be considered like stress corrosion cracking, 6 hydrogon ombrittlement and whatnot, what are the parameters 7 that should bo included. 8 DR. STEIt4DLER: Are you saying that this program 9 han identifiod and prioritized the portinent failure modos? 10 DR. CllAl1G: Yes, qualitatively. 11 DR. STEIt1DLER: Well you are certainly well ahead 12 of DOE, aren't you? 13 DR. CllAtlG I think this work -- 14 DR, STEIt1DLER: -- matorials of construction and 15 you are already prioritizing failure modos, that utrikon mo 16 as boing a ilttle ahond of the gamo, 17 DR. CilAtlG: It in our first try. Wo don't claim 18 that wo havo identified all failuro modos, but wo have dono L9 it to an extant that we can. 20 MR. Joll?tS0ti I think the approach horo in to 21 develop a method by which you can ovaluato all the falloro 22 modon. It doonn't mattor if wo have chonon the correct onos 23 at this particular t.imo or not, but it pronontn a mothod by 24 which thone internettonn can bo rotated. O 25 ""- aratrio'"a' vo" c"" ao thro"u" '"a exerct""' Aci!.li )ltRA1. lit Rill'onII!Rs,1NC. Nac.nm Nekm.ide emerne m n Um.m
8520 07 11 465 AGBagb I I guess, but I guess my problem is if you can't evaluate 2 whether or not what you have done is correct the whole 3 oxercise may be nomewhat.... 4 MR. JOIINSON: Well I think the answer that comes 5 out may not be the same answer that DOE will get ultimately 6 with their project but the objective hore isn't to get an 7 answer, it is to develop an approach to handling this kind 8 of information and the data. 9 DR. STEINDLER: Yes, but what I'm saying is 10 having gotton the approach you won't know whether that's 11 right or wrong unless you got an answer and check the answer 12 against the real world, and if you can't do that then you 13 won't be ablo to toll whether that methodology makes any 14 nonno. Do I have thin all backwards? 15 DR. IISU Well in uomo canos I think that most 16 people who havo worked in the corronton fiold have a very 17 good idea of what motain liko thin are failed by or 18 muchanisms. For examplo,' carbon stool, mont people might 19 think that pitting in very important, niform corronton in 20 also nomething that han to be connidorod, hydrogon 21 ombrittlement. Thoro'n a nuito of diffotont corronion 22 muchaniumn that peoplo havo to connidor. And you may find a 23 tot of information in the open literature that will toll you 24 which onun of thono aro vory important and which onoh aro Q 25 trivial. ACl! li l!!
)l!RAI, Rlil'ORil!RS, INC.
Mm.nm Non.ide rmerne m)w mm
i L 8520 07 12 466 1a ter ee eev, e#iror cerr to" ter e O ^one98 1 2 canister maybe this thick (indicating), nobody really thinks 3 that this is going to fail by that mechanism so that might 4 be right at the bottom of the pile. Well in respect to 5 pitting, for examplo, that might be somewhere very high up. 6 And if there is disagrooment betwoon NRC and DOE then that 7 comes up for negotiation. ( 8 But what the NRC trios to do is to make sure that , I 9 no potential failuro modos slip through the cracks. We want 10 to make sure that DOE addressus all possibilities. 11 And in some casos the NRC does sponsor research ! 12 to try and identify failuro modon. I know in the early days ( 13 when we started to work on titanium-based matorials in a 14 sale, repository environment, the people at Sandia woro 1 15 saying that crovice corrosion was not a problem. Ulthin 16 about six months of starting nur problem in the rosearch 17 offico, wo decided that it was and I think that DOE is now i 18 actively considoring this an a substantial failuro modo in a f 19 salt repository program. 20 DR. SilEWMON: Okay. 21 DR. CllANO: One of the main reasons wo go through 22 this project is banically wo havo to go through tho namo 13 stops that moro or loss DOE has to go through in ordor to ; 24 put together our methodology also. O 2s <attae > ACI!.171 Dl!RAl. RI!PonTI Rs, INC.
- oza4mo Natkin.ue cmeran m j u, u,44 ;
8520 07 13 467 AGBagb 1 So before the project goes quite so far, the 2 final step is really the Aerospace project of trying to 3 ovaluate all of the methodologies that DOE has presented so 4 far for long-term performance of waste packages. 5 And in doing task one, wo have also tried to use 6 task two. Basically task one and task two are completod. 7 The bulk of task two is more or lona a survey of 8 qualitatively outlining all the failure modos which should 9 be considered. And we have tried to crank out a few , 10 ovaluations but we found out the job is really very 11 tangled. 12 And the third tank here is banically to perform a 13 performance annosament of DOE'n wasto packago design. 14 DR. STEINDLER: You say thin program started in 15 '83? 16 DR. CilANG: Yon. 17 DR. STEINDLER: And you have not yet innued tho - 18 first annual roport? 19 DR. CilANG : 110 have a draft methodology report 20 and that in the next item I am going to cover. i 21 (Slido.) l 22 Okay. Thono are reports that wo havo complotod. 23 Under 3164 wo have an annual report an well an nomi-annual 24 report. O 25 "o* wn#t we aid ta ar oxneve" t arter co otettao . l ACl!.171iDliRAl. Ri!ponTi!Rs, INC. x w .) w Nmon.ia,cmerne am ) 9. u a
8520 07 14 468 AGBagb 1 a semi-annual report we would compile and update information 2 we did in previous years so that, you know, by looking at 3 the last report you had some idea of what the previous 4 report is. We have a total number of sovon volumes and 5 there is an eighth volume going to be completed within six l 6 months or so, and that will conclude on this project hero l 7 (indicating). 8 The second project, the second group of reports, , 9 comes from 3167, also done by Brookhaven, and we have i 10 completed six volumes and I believe there is a soventh 11 volume coming out. [ t 12 okay. The other reports basically are also donc ! t 13 in Brookhaven's work under 3164 and -67. Thane are actually 14 -- Do wo have a GTP for thin? ; 15 And this here, wasto package reliabilty, 16 basically generates that information of the GTP that was 17 discussed yesterday. ; 18 DR. SilEUMoti: Whora doen that ono como from? 19 DR. CilANG: This one here? 20 DR. SilEWMON: Who wrote that ono? l 21 DR. CllANG: Brookhaven. 21 DR. SilEWMON: Which part of '85 in that coming ! 23 out in? If it han a NUMG number, doon it noan it'n on tho . 24 ntroot? 25 HR. WICK: The report han not boon inauod an a i Acti FliolinAI. RI!i>onTI!ns, INC. 2o m.Um Nadonalde Cmerge mn 14 u#,
- __. _ _ _ .,_.- __._.~ _._--_ _ _ _ _ _ __ . _ _ _ . . _ .
8520 07 15 469 AGBagb 1 NUREG. I hope to get that issued in November as a NUREG. I 2 handed out the report as I got it from Brookhaven; it was i 3 one of the handouts yesterday. 4 DR. CilANG: And this is the report that I 5 discussed with you just now. This was completed in '83 and 6 in regard to the Aerospace report we have a draf t done and 7 that was completed, the draft was dono in May 1985 and I 8 have copies of all of those reports right here, so if you f 9 want to take a look at it... 1 DR. SilEWMON: The question was on seven and you l 11 have told us about six other reports now. When you point at , 12 the table, do you have a draft of seven on the table? ! i 13 DR. CIIANG: I have a draft of this one, number 14 noven. 15 DR. SilEWMON: When you point at what's on the 16 tablo -- , 17 MR. STEVENS: That's a combination of Brookhavon, 18 Aoronpace and Oak Ridge. I 19 MR. GREEVES: Thin entiro packago is a , 20 combination -- 21 DR. SilEWMON: I know, but five minuton ago ho ! 22 anked about number novon and... 23 MR. STEVENS: Lot mo addroun that. The Aerospaco 24 . fork -- it started lato in enlondar 1983. The Acrospaco O as <x ne= "eea aoc"=e" tea ia # ""m'er or ==ett rev et eaa r i ACl!.l?l!Dl!RAl, Rl!!'ORIliRS, INC,
- n2.m.nm moon.de rmeuve m o i16 tua
8520 07 16 470 AGBagb 1 there he has listed the methodology report, the major one. 2 That's the one he's talking about in answer to your 3 question. 4 DR. SilEWMON: That didn' t answer my question. 5 DR. STEINDLER: The reason for the concern is 6 obviously that should be a very important report to have DOE 7 read to understand what you're driving at, that is, what NRC 8 is driving at when they talk about assessing methodology. 9 The sooner it gets out on the street the sooner the DOE 10 program can react in some way. 11 MR. STEVENS: This particular report has already 12 gone through two deafts and has been distributed to all of 13 the DOE repositorios, DOS headquarters, Dr. Pickford and his 14 people, they have all got inputs which are partially 15 reflected in this version and will be totally reflected in 16 the vernion coming out as a NUREG approximately in November. 17 DR. CllANG: Basically we are in the process of 18 making changen in those reporta to reflect the comments. 19 DR. SilEWMON: I wan just looking for the report 20 that Everett said he handed out yenterday and I guenn I 21 found it. It in nomething with a table of contents on it. 22 Go ahead. 23 (Slide.) 24 DR. CilANG: So banically what doon thin mean, O 25 tai revorev se cer wn e ne= it ao e c r "ac oener ea a -- 4 Acti. Flint!RAI Rl!PORTl!Rs, INC.
- o w.3w Nmon.we emerne mn 31m tuo
I l l I
.e 8520 07 17 471 l O AGBagb 1 because we are not at licensing time yet. S I have 2 summarized four areas where these reports have helped us, 3 the materials section, in our work so far.
4 Basically in March 1983 we completed NUREG 0960 5 which addresses the BWIP draft, the site characterization 6 report, and we used this report here to support a large 7 argument that we made. 8 The second area is the recent draft EA that we 9 completed a few months ago and we also used these reports 10 extensively. The work that is being done on this project is i i 11 also used to support the waste package workshop that we 12 have, for instance, in NTS our waste package workshop in 1 C 13 July. And other than that we have also developed short-term j 14 testing capability at Brookhave. We are able to do 15 short-term testing and corrosion, leaching and so on. I 16 DR. S!!EWMON: It seems to me a fundamental 17 question which, if we have heard an answer to it, I have i 18 missed it, which had to do with given these various areas 19 which you have what kinds of pour-through it is going to 20 constitute, what kind of a leak rate over time. The fond f 21 hope was that as we covered the Aerospace -- my fond hope ! 22 was we might learn something. I haven' t learned anything 23 about it yet except it is a hard problem. 24 DR. CllANO: The Aerospace project, we only
. t O 2s addreesea ene waste geckage.
l ACit Fitot:RAI. RitroRn:Rs, INC,
- o2.wmm muonsu, cmaage m nw.m
A520 07 01 472 O ^one9 6 1 on saswao": ruere ere ett11 earee barriere te 2 that waste package and there is a fundamental question about 3 how big a hole does it take before indeed the waste package 4 leaks significantly. And you guys define significantly, 5 nobody else. Now when do we get an answer to that or who is 6 working on it? 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 L5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 Acti FriotinA1. Riii>oRTt!Rs, INC. 202.)4717tri Nation *ide Cmerage Wik.1)MM4
8520 08 01 473 ()AGBagb 1 DR. CHANG: We have done some scoping 2 calculations and, Ken, you may want to address who is 3 responsible. 4 MR. STEVENS: There are several barriers in the 5 waste package, the outermost being the package material 6 which to a degree may inhibit water coming in and 7 radionuclides going out. Next in you have the overpack and 8 there is a separate canister inside and finally the waste 9 form inside. 10 What we are doing is looking at the process going 11 in and coming out, that is, how much time is required for 12 the water to get through the package, how much time is
~T 13 required for the water to corrode the overpack and go in (J
14 succeedingly, then leach the nuclides from the waste and 15 then transgress out. 16 Yesterday, when we talked about these probability 17 distribution functions there are certain delays provided by 18 each of these barriers so you can use that to find the time 19 of egress of radionuclides from the whole system. Along 20 that process you can also calculate the amount of 21 radionuclides coming out. 22 DR. SilEWMON: And the amount is also proportional 23 to the cross-sectional area at each point very often. 24 MR. STEVENS: Yes. () 25 Now DOC has not decided whether they in their ace. FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC, 202 347 37u) Nation *ide Coserage 83b33MM6
8520 08 02 474 ()AGDagb 1 own analysis will take credit for particular barriers or the 2 way in which they will take credit. 3 For example, one of the DOE projects has said 4 that until they develop a good mechanism for relating this 5 cross-sectional area to release, if they get any appreciable 6 hole in the container they are going to consider it failed 7 just by definition and then they don't have to worry about 8 that. 9 DR. SHEWMON: I don' t know what " failed" means. 10 Does it mean that everything there stands stark naked or 11 does it mean there is no resistance from a square millimeter 12 someplace in the can? 13 MR. STEVENS: If they take that approach and they ( }) 14 say we have defined this package to have failed, one can 15 assume conservatively obviously that the package is no 16 longer there. That's very conservative. 17 What we want to do is to develop a capability to 18 be able to tell realistically how much protection is or is 19 not afforded, irrespective of what DOE says now or later it 20 is going to claim because they might get caught with 21 their... 22 DR. SHEWMON: Their can down. 23 MR. STEVENS: -- with a need to come back for 24 more credit. We would like to be able to have the () 25 capability to analyze this. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336-6M6
8520 08 03 475 ^ ()AGBagb 1 DR. SHEWMON: If we come back next year maybe I 2 will get an answer to my question, is that what you're 3 telling me? 4 MR. JOHNSON: A lot of the information that goes 5 to answering the question you asked is going to be generated 6 by the Department of Energy. In other words, if you have a 7 canister, you have two pits in there, how fast does water 8 get through, how fast do the radionuclides come out; we are 9 depending upon DOE to provide that information if they 10 choose to go in that direction of taking credit for that 11 kind of scenario. 12 DR. STEINDLER: What you have just heard is that () 13 you are not going to do that, what you have just heard is 14 you are going to do a more realistic calculation in order to 15 be able to evaluate the situation. 16 MR. JOHNSON: We are going to try to have the 17 mechanism to do that but we are going to try to be depending 18 a lot for the details on the Department of Energy. 19 MR. GREEVES: I think what we need to do is 20 revisit one of the slides that Hub Miller put up yesterday 21 and it is this busy one in Seth Copeland's handout and it 22 essentially is intended to portray a picture of where we 23 need to be in license applications and we're not there yet. 24 The calculations have not been made, these folks are () 25 struggling trying to get in a position to be at the point ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 1
- ~ _ _ _ - - _ - . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . - - - _
L' 8520 08 04 476 .()AGBagb 1 shown on this chart. We're in the waste package 2 environment anyhow. We will be utilizing codes and models 3 not developed independently by NRC but once it exists and 4 we have had a chance to revalidate it at a level. We need 5 to be at that point at the license application stage and 6 these folks are in the process of getting there. 7 This particular approach is laid out in what we 8 call our licensing assessment methodology document, the 9 strategy document, and we would be happy to provide that to 10 you. It's just I think a little bit too much to absorb at 11 this meeting. I would ask you to revisit -- 12 DR. SHEWMON: Y'es, and what I am afraid I would () 13 get would be something that shows 64 boxes connected by 132 14 arrows pointing in all directions and it still wouldn' t 15 really comfort me a particular amount. I guess what I am 16 looking for is some idea that somebody has sat down with a 17 certain number of models and said if it goes by only 18 diffusion that is a failure, if it doesn' t go by dif fusion 19 and you've got hydrothermal reaction, if there too vection, 20 it takes out this step and goes this fast with a given 21 cross-sectional area. 22 But so far all we are doing is generating 23 diagrams that talk about things we are going to plan to do 24 some day. () 25 MR. STEVENS: No, the work we are doing is now in ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6686
8520 08 05 477 ( ) AGBagb 1 process and we are doing just what we want to do. It is not 2 completed yet and it won't be completed for some time. But 3 we share your same concerns. 4 DR. HSU: There is a small amount of work at 5 Livermore which might be leading the way experimentally and 6 this comes as the leaching of spent fuel with cladding 7 around it. What they've done is to put end caps in small 8 sections of clad UO2 fuel from the reactor and they have 9 actually drilled small pinholes and made small cracks in it 10 using a laser and they have placed these in water and 11 measured the radionuclide increase in the surrounding 12 water. And in some cases, they are looking at the periphery (} 13 of the cracks and the pinholes and they are finding that 14 there is a small amount of deposition there of some of the 15 fuel that is being leached out, so there may be a plugging
- 16 mechanism, i
17 DR. SHEWMON: Well you're an experimentalist
- 18 apparently and so am I, but it seems to me in this case you 19 have to have an analytical basis for taking experiments and 20 expanding them to areas where you don' t have --
21 DR. HSU: That's right, yes. 22 DR. SHEWMON: And that's where I have not seen 23 anything other than very big generalizations. 24 DR. HSU: I think that maybe we are in a () 25 situation where the modelers are trying to be the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 08 06 478 ( ) AGBagb 1 experimentalists, but some of this data coming out of 2 Livermore -- which I think will also be expanded to try to 3 look et real failed pins with real natural defects like go 4 into the reactor which might give us a leg up and help the 5 modelists. 6 DR. SHEWMON: Thank you. 7 Are there other questions? 8 (No response.) 9 DR. CHANG: That's about all I have. I think if 10 you want to discuss a little bit more on the Aerospace 11 project Ken would be prepared to discuss for you on several 12 programs exactly how much we have done because that might {} 13 give you a little bit of an idea. . . . 14 MR. STEVENS: One thing I might mention is that 15 this preliminary analysis of the BWIP waste package we hope 16 to complete towards the end of this fiscal year, around 17 June. 18 DR. SHEWMON: Now is that the draft that came out 19 in May or is this -- 20 MR. STEVENS: The draft was just a report 21 discussing the methodologies that we are using, we have gone 22 far beyond that draft now in terms of what we are actually 23 doing and we hope to complete this preliminary BWIP analysis 24 around May or June of fiscal '86. () 25 DR. SHEWMON: Now when you do that do you take ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 6 6646
8520 08 07 479 ()AGBagb 1 best estimates or do you do some sensitivity analysis with 2 regard to range of variables to see what the effect is -- 3 MR. STEVENS: Each of the barriers will have 4 models relating to the time required to fail that barrier. 5 Corrosion, for example. And we certainly hope to have not 6 only uniform corrosion but a pitting corrosion model of some 7 kind in there that will tell you when you project that 8 barrier will fail. It won' t be a one-number estimate but 9 rather a distribution of failures which will affect the 10 fuzziness. 11 Now once this is done, you can run the model 12 repeatedly changing the inputs to do the sensitivity /~T 13 analysis. Of course, there are efficient ways of optimizing V 14 that sensitivity analysis. 15 MR. GREEVES: I think that's what you've been 16 looking for and we're just not quite there. 17 DR. SHEWMON: What I am looking for partly is 18 some evidence of what kind of physical thinking you have 19 going into the model, I also haven' t seen any evidence of 20 that. It's partly a strategic question with regard to what 21 you choose to present and partly a package for us as to who 22 we ask to come in and talk about it. 23 MR. STEVENS: Our role is one of an integrator. 24 We have helped NRC pick a methodology for putting the pieces () 25 together. We heard this morning from the research people ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l I 4 8520 08 08 480 , j()AGBagb 1 talking about understanding the phenomena such as corrosion , 2 and then such work gets translated into a model and then the 3 models get ultimately turned into probability distributions 4 for things such as radionuclide releases or barrier failure 5 time. We are putting those pieces together to try and i 6 insure that the railroad tracks, while although parallel, do 7 not go like this (indicating) . That's our goal. 8 Now of course it is an iterative process and when 9 we see holes in the available information that's fed back to 10 NRC and DOE and the appropriate research is sought; in many 11 cases it already exists, it's a cuestion of digging it out 12 in some cases. {) 13 DR. SHEWMON: When you talked about failure as in 14 corrosion failure, is there any cross-sectional area of 15 penetration at that point in time or does the canister 16 disappear as an effective barrier from that time on? 17 MR. STEVENS: The methodology is set up so that 18 you can choose whatever failure criterion you want. You can 19 either have a pinhole, a tiny breach, or you can have the 20 whole thing fail or anything in between, you choose. 21 DR. SHEWMON: Fine. But when you have a pinhole 22 then does that mean that you communicate with tha outside 23 only through a pinhole and you have solved the problem of 24 the flux through that pinhole or does that mean that the () 25 canister has disappeared -- the pack, I guess, is your word ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
8520 08 09 481
-()AGBagb 1 -- that the pack has now disappeared.and that the package, 2 that hunk of steel, is no longer a barrier for communication 3 with any part of what is inside?
4 MR. STEVENS: We ultimately hope to be able to 5 have the capability of relating the degree of fa lure of the i 6 package to the releases from the package. We don't have 7 that yet. DOE doesn't have that yet. 8 In their past program at BNL the performance 9 assessment system study or whate/er they are trying to do 10 that, they are confronted with the same challenges. It is 11 difficult to relate the protection afforded by the partially 12 failed barrier before we and they have that capability. We 13 just have to either bound the problem when we are talking (} 14 about releases from a failed container, make conservative 15 estimates or whatever.
! 16 DR. SHEWMON: So it's a bunch of things in series 17 in which one is rate control as the way some of us are 18 brought up to think about things and that's part of what's 19 frustrated....
20 DR. STEIN')LER: This morning in the Battelle 21 presentation, the question was asked concerning the i 22 relationship between the results to be obtained on spent 23 fuel and the models or the application in some fashion or
- 24 another was number one vague or number two postponed until
() 25 this afternoon when we were going to get the answer on how ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4 l 8520 08 10 482 ()AGBagb 1 those two things fit together. And I must say, we have 2 gotten to the end of the viewgraphs and I haven't seen how 3 they fit together. I don't see yet how the result out of 4 BCL's work is going to fit into any model that I've heard 5 about. 6 Can you enlighten me? 7 MR. STEVENS: Yes. In order to get these failure 8 distributions for individual barriers you need things such 9 as leach rates from the materials so things such as the 10 Battelle Columbus work would feed directly into that, 11 We maintain the close contact with them and the 12 other projects to have access to their information and work
/'T 13 it into whatever we are doing.
V 14 Another example is the work that DOE is doing at 15 Westinghouse Hanford specifically for the TUFF program and 16 the leaching of spent fuel; Peter alluded to.that earlier. 17 And so what they're trying to do is get rate functions for 18 leaching from spent fuel as it comes out of reactors, not 19 assuming any further degredation but just simply the degree 20 of the failed fuel that comes from the reactor, whatever 21 that is. And they are doing actual experiments that are 22 also synthesizing holes in not failed fuel and things like 23 that. So what we do is take that information and use it to 24 turn into distributions. () 25 DR. STEINDLER: The comment I made this morning ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 t
8520 08 11 483 ()AGBagb 1 indicated -- or at least I thought I was trying to indicate, 2 the fact that you get a result out of experiments, at least 3 as I understand them, is very much geometry-dependent. If 4 the experimental program is going to work its way through 5 all conceivable geometries of failures of various sizes of a 6 single fuel rod, neither you or anybody else is going to 7 meet the schedules that are required. 8 Further, you indicated that the model is going to 9 be ready fairly soon -- 10 MR. STEVENS: The first pass. 11 DR. STEINDLER: -- the model will allow you to, 12 at least on a computer, pick any failure criterion you would (} 13 like. That to me sounds like a disconnect between the 14 rather slow and perhaps guided, but not obviously so, 15 experimental program and the model development. 16 Do I have a wrong picture? 17 I'm worried precisely about the kind of track 18 that you just held up, namely, the left hand rail of 19 railroad A is going to meet the right-hand rail of railroad 20 B somewhere even though they are both six feet two inches 21 apart or whatever the gauge is. 22 MR. STEVENS: One of the challenges in this 23 business is the realization that simplifications have to be 24 made in order to get the job done. And, as an example, our () 25 first pass will not include the degree of protection ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
8520 08 12 484 ()AGBagb 1 afforded by a partially-failed barrier except in_a sort of 2 gross' ratio sense or something like that. We certainly 3 hope that as better information comes in from DOE and NRC 4 research programs and our own work we will be able to 5 whittle away at these simplifications and get better and 6 better at it. It may be that it will be in NRC's best 7 interest to simply rely very heavily on the models that DOE 8 is using and convince itself -- NRC, that is -- that they're 9 good models and then run it using NRC's inputs. There is no 10 reason it has to be an either/or, that's balanced against i 11 what we're doing -- i 12 DR. SHEWMON: Finish your sentence and then I i j {} 13 have one more. 14 MR. STEVENS: I'm finished. 15 DR. SHEWMON: Tell me a little bit about the 16 hydrothermal aspects and how you would model that. It seems 17 to me the fact that you've got a heat source here and a heat j 18 engine has to influence an awful lot of the flow. Is that 19 part of what you are modeling or does that come next year? 3 20 21 ! 22 l 23 i 24 l O 2s I ' ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 L
8520 09 01 485 AGBeb 1 MR. STEVENS: We are going to rely very heavily 2 on the model that has been done by other people in this 3 regard. DOE has done some hydrothermal modeling using one, 4 two, and in some cases three dimensional codes which look at 5 the hydrostatic flow as well as the temperatures. 6 So what we are doing is taking the results from 7 that work and hypothesizing the environment that the waste 8 packages in the respository are subjected to and looking at 9 the effect on individual waste packages of things such as 10 temperatures and pressures. 11 DOE has indicated that they will probably make 12 some relatively homogeneous assumptions about the 13 temperatures that packages are subjected to, at least in 14 their initial work, and not do a lot of very sophisticated 15 hydrothermal modeling. At least they haven't so far. They 16 may ultimately. We certainly are not in a position to do it 17 more extensively than they do. 18 What we have discovered is that there are ways to 19 get response surface functions and run models a few times 20 and see basically what the environment is there, and then l 21 plug that into the analysis without having to try to 22 simulate everything at once with hundreds of variables. 23 That would be an untenable problem. 1 24 DR. SHEWMON: The problem, though, that is O 2s r##ae e eet be' =ev " t be ##eemebte te te ebe rete i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
_ _ .~___ _._._ _- _ .__ _. _ _._._. . _ _ . _ _ __ r 4 8520 09 02 486 ( 1 controlling the process usually a static fluid, is it ()AGBeb s 2 thermal hydraulics in terms of its heat generation that i 3 pumps it around, or is it the rate at which the local river 1 l 4 is flowing past this thing? 5 How would you go from that-- Which one of these j 1 ; l 6 is the model to try to use it seems to me is fundamental. I i
! 7 MR. STEVENS: Yes. Now you may be familiar with !
i 8 DOE's model and one that BWIP is using now, CHAIN-T-MC, 9 which is a Monte Carlo ra'dionuclide release and transport 10 model. It is a rather sophisticated model that tries to l 11 couple as many of these things as possible in there.
- 12 And even though it has not been validated in the
(} 13 formal sense, it is rapidly proceeding toward that state. 14 And we have access to that model and we hope to be using it j 15 as well as looking at where its weaknesses might exist. 16 DR. SHEWMON: That's all I have. I 17 MR. KASSNER: Getting back to this corrosion
! thing, in these charts there was some information on the 18 l t
19 thickness of the containers. If we go back there simply, 20 were those things -- were those thicknesses of the container 21 based on any measure of expected corrosion rates, or were 22 they just picked on available sizes?. j 23 MR. STEVENS: During the design process, DOE has I 24 worked a number of assumptions into the container design. () 25 Many of the container designs, as I understand it, were ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80l>33MM6 l
, _ - - - . -_-~. _,. _ . . - _ . , _ _ . . _ _ . ._ . . . . . _ _ __ _ - _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ - - - .
8520 09 03 487 1 based essentially on uniform corrosion. In some cases there ()AGBeb 2 was some sort of fudge factor thrown on for the non-uniform 3 corrosion. 4 My understanding is that even though DOE has not 5 yet very extensively looked at pitting corrosion because it 6 is very difficult to quantify, they recognize -- and NRC 7 articulated it rather firmly in their comments on the 8 environmental report -- that it is necessary to look at 9 non-uniform corrosion. 10 The design process that DOE has set up has an 11 iterative process and if another failure mode is 12 hypothesized or if you can get a handle on it, then () 13 appropriate design changes have to be made. 14 The policy apparently is that there are certain 15 things that we want to assure. We want to assure that the 16 can is going to be there for the required time, considering 17 mechanical failures and corrosion and other things. So if 18 it turns out that we are too close to the margin we'll make 19 it thicker or we'll use another material. 20 MR. STEINDLER: Are you suggesting that radiation 21 reduction or shielding was not an issue in the design 22 criteria that DOE used? 23 MR. STEVENS: Oh, no, it is. In fact the 24 self-shielding design such as the very thick, say ten inches () 25 or so, or even more for the salt program had a great deal of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
8520 09 04 488 AGBeb 1 effect of radiolysis which, in turn, has an effect on the 2 chemistry which, in turn, affects the corrosion. 3 So the salt program has put a lot of emphasis on 4 comparing the self-shielded and the not so thick designs the 5 other repositories have but to a much lesser degree. 6 DR. SHEWMON: Thank you very much. 4 7 I guess that concludes our session for today. 8 The Committee will now go into executive session to consider 9 our report. I think that means that you are free to leave 10 or abuse yourself in any way you want to. Thank you for 11 coming. 12 (Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the meeting of the 13 committee was adjourned.) 14 15 a 16 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 2s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
.m _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
)
l i l i CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER J lO This is to certify that the attached proceedings before i the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the i
] matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS l l SUBCOMMITTEES ON
- WASTE MANAGEMENT AND
! METAL COMPONENTS i
i l 4 j DOCKET NO. I j PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C. f l O o^rs: ra'o^v ocro88a 2s 198s 1
- I were held as herein appears, and that this is the original
, transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear , Regulatory Commission. l l I i (sigt) b I. M (TYPED) ' . ANNE G. BLOOM i Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Reporter's Affiliation i i j !O
, ,-.-___-,_,-o_---,,-----..w.-,y~ -
,x ..-..s ,'~.-,,w+.,- -
.w.--
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEES ON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND METAL COMPONENTS DOCKET NO.: PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C. () DATE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (sigt) _ (TYPED) DAVID L. HOFFMAN Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Reporter's Affiliation i ()
, . - - _ . - ~ _
e , 9 t l l OVERVIEW 0F !!LW MATERI ALS TA PROGRAM 1 1 1
i .- . ) O O O i i ) A { i ) TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED ! I ,
- 1. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
- 2. TA CONTRACTS IN FORCE
) 3. RELATED CONTRACTS !
- 4. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFICS OF TA CONTRACTS 1
I
O O O REGULATORY ISSUES OR LICENSING FINDINGS TO BE SUPPORTED BY Tills PROGRAM 60.11A(6), CO.11A(7), 60,11A(8) CONTENT OF THE SCR 60,111, 60.112, 60.113 OVERALL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES 60.135(A) CRITERIA FOR THE WASTE PACKAGE AND ITS COMPONENTS 60,137, 60.140 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION 60.142 DESIGN TESTING 60,143 MONITORING AND TESTING WASTE PACKAGES 60,150, 60.151 OUALITY ASSURANCE
4 O O O l l I l i (A) HOW IS DOE EXPECTED TO APPROACH THE WASTE PACKAGE LICENSING ISSUES? t i (B) Il0W WILL Tile PROGRAM HELP ASSESS THE DOE DATA OR ANALYSIS? I l i I ! I i i . J i I
~
O O O - (A) DOE EXPECTED T0:
- 1. DEFINE WASTE PACKAGE ENVIRONMENT
- 2. PERFORM EXPERIMENTS AND TESTS TO DEVELOP DATA BASE FOR MODEL
- 3. MODEL PERFORMANCE OF WASTE PACKAGE IN TilAT ENVIRONMENT
- 4. PERFORM TESTS TO VERIFY MODEL PREDICTIONS (B) PROGRAM WILL HELP NRC BY ASSEMBLING THE METHODOLOGY WilICH NRC CAN USE TO EVALUATE WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE
n. O O O PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
- 1. ASSEMBLE METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS WHETHER DOE WASTE PACKAGE DESIGNS WILL MEET PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES OF 10 CFR PART 60
- 2. IDENTIFY INFORMATION NEEDED TO ASSESS WHETHER DOE WASTE PACKAGE DESIGNS WILL MEET PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
O O O i i : 4
- l. PRODUCTS OF NRC ANALYSIS OF DOE WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE ,
l ! i 1. PREDICTED NUMBER OF WASTE PACKAGE FAILURES AS A FUNCTION OF TIME. i
- 2. SOURCE TERMS t 1 l A. TOTAL l 1 B. INDIVIDUAL RADIONUCLIDES I 1
l J l l l i i ! , l l i l i i i i i
}
[ i f l s t
O O O ilLW MATERIALS TA PROGRAMS l CONTRACT FIN CONTRACTOR TITLE PERIOD i A-3164 BNL REVIEW 0F DOE WASTE 1981-1985 PACKAGE PROGRAM A-3167 BNL REVIEW 0F WASTE PACKAGE 1981-1985 i
; VERIFICATION PROGRAM i
A4171 NBS EVALUATION AND COMPILATION 1985-1987 0F DOE HLW PACKAGE TEST DATA B-0288 ORNL EFFECT OF REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENT 1983-1986 ON PERFORMANCE OF WASTE PACKAGE / ENGINEERED SYSTEM COMPONENTS A-4165 AEROSPACE PREPARATION OF ENGINEERING 1983-1986 ANALYSIS FOR HLW PACKAGE IN i CE0 LOGIC REPOSITORIES a P
O O O SOME RELATED RES CONTRACTS CONTRACT FIN CONTRACTOR TITLE PERIOD A-6764 BCL LONG-TERM PERFORMAllCE OF HLW FY82-86 PACKAGING MATERIALS A-3237 BNL CONTAINER ASSESSMENT FY83-85 A-3269 ENL PITTING CORROSION FY84-86 A-3040 LBL GE0 CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT OF FY82-84 NUCLEAR WASTE ISOLATION A-2230 ANL LAB ANALOG OF LEACHING FY82-86 A-2239 ANL MODIFICATION OF BACKFILL FY82-84 MATERIALS B-7278 MSC EFFECT OF MANUFACTURIllG FY84-87 PROCESSES ON MATERIAL PROPERTIES AFFECTING FAILURE MECHANISMS IN HLW CONTAINERS A-1266 SNL DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGY FOR FY83-85 RISK ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR WASTE ISOLATION IN ALTERNATIVE GEOLOGIC MEDIA D-114G NES STATISTICS OF WASTE PACKAGE FY84-86 FAILURE BY PITTING
O O O SOME RELATED TA CONTRACTS CONTRACT FIN CONTRACTOR TITLE PERIOD A-1756 SNL GE0 CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FY84-87 A-1158 SNL REPOSITORY SITE DEFINITION AND FY79-87 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER A-1165 SNL TA FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FY81-87 A-1757 SNL TA IN NUMERICAL MODELING FY84-86 ASSESSMENT OF HLW REPOSITORIES B-0287 ORNL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FY82-84 GEOCHEMISTRY B-0290 ORNL LAB. EVALUATI6:4 0F DOE FY82-87 RADIONUCLIDE SOLI'BILITY DATA, RETARDATION PARAMETERS, LAB. TECHNIQUES
O O O FIN A-3164 REVIEW 0F DOE WASTE PACKAGE PROGRAM , TASK I: REVIEW OF WASTE PACKAGE DATA BASE FOR: A. ACCURACY, RELIABILITY AND APPLICABILITY B. TECHNICAL APPROACH C. LIMITATIONS OF Tile TESTING OR DATA COLLECTION TECliNIQUES D. SIGNIFICANCE OF Tile DATA REGARDING RESOLUTION OF WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE ISSUES TASK II: GENERAL TECilNICAL ASSISTANCE
O O O FIN A-4171 EVALUATION AND COMPILATION OF DOE ' WASTE PACKAGE TESTS DATA TASK I: REVIEW OF WASTE PACKAGE DATA BASE FOR: A. ACCURACY, RELIABILITY AND APPLICABILITY B. TECHNICAL APPROACH C. CONCLUSIONS DRAWN D. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING RESOLUTION OF WASTE PACKAGE ISSUES TASK II: IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL DATA REQUIRED AND IDENTIFICATION OF TESTS TO GENERATE THE DATA TASK III: EXPERIMENTAL TESTS TASK IV: GENERAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
O O O FIN A-3167 WASTE PACKAGE VERIFICATION TESTS (BNL) , TASK I. EVALUATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION TESTING
- 1. IDENTIFY TYPES OF TESTS NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WASTE PACKAGE CAN MEET PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES OF 10 CFR PART 60
- 2. DETERMINE TEST PARAMETERS (AND THEIR RANGES) THAT WILL REPRESENT THE WASTE PACKAGE ENVIRONMENT IN BASALT, SALT AND TUFF REPOSITORIES
- 3. IDENTIFY INFORMATION NEEDS NOT PRESENTLY IN TEST PLANS THAT MUST BE SUPPLIED AS PART OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION TASK 2. SHORT-TERM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AS REQUESTED IN WRITING BY THE
~
hT4SS7ROJECI MANAGER
~ ~
O O O FIN A-0288 EFFECT OF REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENT ON PERFORMANCE OF WASTE PACKAGE / ENGINEERED SYSTEM COMPONENTS, (ORNL) TASK 1: SPECIFICATION OF A MODEL/METil0DOLOGY TO PREDICT REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS TASK II: EVALUATION OF MODELS TASK III: GENERAL TECilNICAL ASSISTANCE
O 'O O l CONTENT OF NUREG/CR-4134 - MAY 1985
- 1. IDENTITY OF Tile RELEVANT REPOSITORY PARAMETERS
- 2. IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE PERTINENT FAILURE MODES
- 3. GUIDANCE ON FEATURES OF THE MODELS/ METHODOLOGIES CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE FOR WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
- 4. A
SUMMARY
REVIEW 0F EXISTING MODELS/ METHODOLOGIES CURRENTLY EMPLOYED IN DETERMINING ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS RELEVANT TO WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE 1 i )
O O O 1 4
- FIN A-4165 PREPARATION OF ENGINEERING ANALYSISF FOR 1
HLW PACKAGES IN GE0 LOGIC REPOSITORIES (AEROSPACE) ' i j TASK'I. EVALUATION OF METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS LONG-TERM i PERFORMANCE OF WASTE PACKAGE l 1 TASK II. FAULT TREE / EVENT TREE CONSTRUCTION TO DEPICT i FAILURES OF WASTE PACKAGE AND TRANSPORT OF ! RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE WASTE PACKAGE TO REPOSITORY FACILITY AND HOST ROCK i TASK III. ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF DOE WASTE PACKAGE DESIGN i P I
}
~ '
O tO O . REPORTS COMPLETED TO ADDRESS VARIOUS ASPECTS OF WASTE PACKAGE EVALUATION '
- 1. REVIEW 0F DOE WASTE PACKAGE PROGRAM (NUREG/CR-2482. 7 VOLUMES FEB. 1982 - SEPT. 1984)
- 2. REVIEW 0F WASTE PACKAGE VERIFICATION (NUREG/CR-3091, 6 VOLUMES TESTS APR. 1983 - JULY 1985)
- 3. WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE AFTER (NUREG/CR-3219, VOL. 1, REPOSITORY CLOSURE AUGUST 1983)
- 4. WASTE PACKAGE RELIABILITY (NUREG-0997 - 1985)
- 5. REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENTAL' PARAMETERS (NUREG/CR-4134 - MAY 1985)
RELEVANT TO ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF HLW PACKAGES
- 6. POST EMPLACEMENT MONITORING (NUREG/CR-3219, VOL. 2, MAY 1983)
- 7. DRAFT, METHODOLOGIES FOR ASSESSING (AEROSPACE)
LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE OF HLR WASTE PACKAGES i 1
o
- O O O UTILITY OF PRODUCTS TO DATE IN NRC'S WORK
- 1. NUREG-0960, DRAFT BWIP SCA, MARCH 1983
- 2. NRC COMMENTS ON DOE'S DRAFT EA'S FOR NINE POTENTIALLY ACCEPTABLE SITES FOR THE FIRST REPOSITORY, MARCH 1985
- 3. SUPPORT WASTE PACKAGE WORKSHOPS
- 4. SHORT-TERM TESTING CAPABILITY AT CONTRACTORS
, 7 a .
O O - 4 PROJECTED SCHEDULES FOR ' WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
- 1. USER'S MANUAL FOR ASSESSMENT OF BASALT WASTE' PACKAGE SEPT. 1986
- 2. BASALT WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
- SEPT. 1988
- 3. ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
- JAN. 1989
- 4. SALT WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
- MAR 1989
- 5. TUFF WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE ASSESSME11T REPORT
- SEPT. 1989
- 6. GRANITE WASTE PACKAGE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
- MAR. 1990
- INTERIM PRODUCTS WILL BE READY IN TIME FOR NRC REVIEW 0F DOE's SCP.
llH V4C (M. QWHM MM M*Wo*Mw rw* Atomi "c Energy Act of 1954. as amend. tynd6 mon's io"the Regionst ddmints- 48 FR 28219. June 21' 1983)
- tion or ranstruction, as components of -
radiegraphic, rf tion monitoring, or ed.(b) Any employee who believes that (Otre.cor of the approprhte U.S. Nucle 2r Reg.ya. tory Commission ort. RegionIl Office A.,.-./ similar equipmQr instrumentation. he or she has been discharged or oth- v m Appendix D. IMrt 20 of this chtpter or the Director. Offlee of Inspection and En. (a) As early as possible af ter com-1160.M lteporting, recordkreping, and ap- erwise discriminated against by any forcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com. mencement of planning for a particu. plication requirementt Omit apprmal person for engaging in the protected misst n. Washington. D.C. 20555. lar geologic repository operations area, not required. activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) 147 FR 30458. July 14.1982) and prior to site characterization, The information collection require- of this section may seek a remedy for DOE shall submit to the Director a ments contained in this part affect the discharge or discrimination Subpart B-Licenses Site Characterization Report. The report shall include t fewer than ten persons. Therefore, through an administrative proceeding (1) A description of the site to be under sect'on 3506(c)(5) of the Paper- in the Department of Labor. The ad- PREAPPLICATION REVIEW ministrative proceeding must be initi. characterized, work Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. I. ated within 30 days af ter an alleged (2) The criteria used to arrive at the 96-511) OMB clearance is not re- 9 60.10 Site characterization. candidate area; quired for these information collection violation occurs by filing a complaint (a) Prior to submittal or an applica, requirements. alleging the violation with the Depart- (3) The method by which the site ment of Labor. Emp)oyment Stand. tion for a license to be issued under was selected for site characterization: this part DOE shall conduct a pro-(47 Fit 13774. Apr.1,19821 ards Administration, Wage and Ifour gram of site characterization with re. (4) Identification and location of al. 9 60.9 Employer protection. Division. The Department of Labor spect to the site to be described in ternative media and sites at w hich may order reinstatement, back pay, such application. DOE intends to conduct site charac-(a) Discrimination by a Commission and compensatory damages, (b) Unless the Commission deter. terization and for which DOE antici. liccisee, an applicant for a Commis- (c) A viola ion of paragraph (a) of mines with respect to the site de. pates submitting subsequent site ston license, or a contractor or subcon- this section by a Commission licensee, scribed in the application that it is not Characterization Reports; tractor of a Commission Ifcensee or ap- an applicant for a Commission license, (5) A description of the decision plicant against an employee for engag- or a contractor or subcontractor of a necessary, site characterization shall include a program of in situ explora. process by which the site was selected ing in certain protected activities is Commission licensee or applicant may tion and testing at the depths that for characterization. including the prohibited. Discrimination includes be grounds for. wastes would be emplaced. means used to obtain public. Indian discharge and other actions that relate (1) Dental, revocation
- or suspension (c) As provided in 5 51.40 of this tribal and State views during selection; to compensation, terrns, conditions. chapter. DOE is also required to con- (6) A description of the site charac-and privileges of employment. The (2) Impositbn of a civil penalty on duct a program of site characteriza- terization program including:
protected activities are established in tion, including in situ testing at depth, (i) The extent of planned excavation section 210 of the Energy Reorganiza- the(3) licensee or applkant' action. Other enforcement tion Act of 1974, as amended, and in with respect to alternative sites, (d) Actions taken by an employer, or (d)The program of site characteriza- and (ii) plans for in situ A conceptual testing' design of a geologic general are related to the administra. others, which adversely affect an em- tion shall be conducted in accordance repository operations area appropriate tion or enforcement of a requirement ployee may be predicated upon nondis- with the following: to the named site in sufficient detail imposed under the Atomic Energy Act criminatory grounds. The prohibition (1) Investigations to obtain the re- to allow assessment of the site charac-or the Energy Reorganization Act. applies when the adverse action occurs quired information shall be conducted terization program with respect to in-(1) The protected activities include because the employee has engaged in n such a manner as to limit adverse vestigation activities which address but are not limited to: protected activities. An employee s en- effects on the long term performance the ability of the site to host a geolog-(il Providing the Commission infor- gagement in protected activities does of the geologic repository to the le repository and isolate radioactiv mation about possible violations of re. not automatically render him or her waste or which may affect such abili-extent practical. quirements imposed under either of immune from discharge or discipline (2) The number of exploratory bore- ty and the above statutes; for legitimate reasons or from adverse holes and shaf ts shall be limited to the (iii) Provisions to control any ad. (11) Requesting the Commission to action dictated by nonprohibited con-Institute action against his or her em. extent practical consistent with ob- verse, safety related effects from site inc aW7 ri-ployer for the administration or en. siderations. (e) Each licensee and each applicant taining the information needed for characterization'ams luding forcement of these requirements; or site characterization. ate quality progr ( 111 ) Testifying in any Commission shall post Form NRC-3. " Notice to (3) To the extent practical, explora- (7) A description of the qualit .v' Employees, on its premises. Posting tory boreholes and shafts in the geo- surance program to be applied to data proceeding. logic repository operations area shall collection; and (2) These activities are protected must be at locations sufficient to even if no formal proceeding is actual- permit employees protected by this be located where shaf ts are planned (8) Any issues related to site sele ly initiated as a result of the employee section to observe a copy on the way for underground facility construction tion. alternative candidate areas o assistance or participation. to or from their place of work. Prem- and operation or where large unexca- other sites
- or design of the " col"o"te (3) This section has no applicaton to ises must be posted not later than 30 vated pillars are planned.
any employee alleging discrimination days af ter an application is docketed (4) Subsurf ace exploratory drilling.
'To the extent that the information inctt prohibited by this section who, acting and remain posted while the applica- excavation, and in situ testing before catn1in uenu 2 throud 5 appean in an En without direction from his or her em- tion is pending before the Commis- and during construction shall be **""#"*"'"D*'"'*
sion, ployer f or the employer's agent), delib- and for during the term of the license, planned and coordinated with geologic $"'""" " ' "#"#* erately causes a violation of any re- 30 days following license ter- repository operations area design and site, it rna be irIc$r rate i rkto t> t quirement of the Energy Reorganiza- mination. construction. Characterization Report by reference. 568 569
O Q O 10 CFR Ch.1 (1-1-85 Edition) Nudear Regulatory Commission s 60.21 s 60.11 repository operations area which the an Indian reservation) and to the Gov- decision I>oints reached and modifica- ment of wastes at the proposed geolog DOE wishes the Commission to ernors of any contiguous States. tion to schedules were appropriate. ic repository operations area. reuew . Also included shall be a de-(e) A reasonable period, not less Also reported should be the DOE's (3) A certification that DOE will senption of the research and develop- than 90 days, shall be allowed for com. progress in developing the design of a provyde at the geologic repository op-ment act n ities being conducted by ment on the draft site characteriza. gmlogic reposhory operations area ap- erations area such safeguards as it re-DOE which deal with the waste form tion analysis. The Director shall then propriate for the site being character- quires at comparable surf ace f actittles and packagmg which may be consid- prepare a final site characterization ized, noting when key design param- (of DOE) to promote the common de-rred appropriate for the site to be analysis which shall take into account eters or features which depend upon fense and security, including research comments received and any additional (4) A description of the physical so c haract ertzed, the results of site characterization will planned or underway to evaluate the information acquired during the com. be established. During this time. NitL curity plan for protection against radt-performance of such waste forms and ment period. Included in the final site staff shall be permitted to visit and m- ological sabotage. Since the radiation characterization analysis shall be spect the site and observe excavations, hazards associated with high-let et packaging. (b) The Director .shall cause to be either an opinion by the Director that borings, and in situ tests as they are wastes make them' inherently unat-published in the Pt'DFH AL RFe!STt.a a he has no objection to the DOE's site tractive as a target for theft or diser-notice that the information submitted characterization program, if such an d"U"' (h) The Director may comment at sion ,no detailed information need be under paragraph (a) . of this section opinion is appropriate or specific ob. any time in writing to DOE. express- submitted on protection against thef t has been received and t hat a staff jections of the Director to DOE's pro- ing current views on any aspect of site or diversion. , review of that information has begun. ceeding with characterization of the characterization. Comments received tion (5) A description of site characteriza The notice shall identif y the site se- named site. In addition, the Director work actually conducted by DOE; may make specific recommendations fr m States in accordance with 5 60 61 lected for site characterization and al- shall be considered by the Director in at all sites considered in the applica-ternate areas being considered by to DOE on the matters pertinent to formulating his views. All correspond- tion and, as appropriate, explanations DOE and shall advise that consulta- this section. A copy of the final site ence between DOE and the NRC in- of why such work differed from the tion may be requested by State and characterization analysis and the Di- ciuding the reports cited in paragraph description of the site characterization local governments and Tribal organi- rector's opinion will be transmitted to (g) shall be placed in the Public Docu- program described in the Site Charac-zations in accordance with Subpart C DOE. terization Report for each site. ment Itoom. W he SafeW Anabsts Repet shah of this part. (f) Neither issuance of a final site ea es &scM. in para-(c) The Director shall make ava11- characterization analysis nor the opin- graphs (a) through (h) above consti- include: able a copy of the above information ton by the Director shall constitute a tute infamal confennm Ween a (D A hn, Won and assment M at the Public Document Room. The commitment to issue any authoriza- prospective applicant and the staff, as the site at which the proposed geolog-Director also shall transmit copies and tion or license or in any way affect the described in i 2.10lta)(1) of this chap- te repository operations area is to be the published notice of receipt thereof authority of the Commission the ter, and are not part of a proceeding located with appropriate attention to to the Governor and legislature of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Ippeal under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, those features of the site that might State and to the chief executive of the Board, Atomic Safety and Licensing as amended. affect geologic repository operations municipahty in which a site to be Boards. other presiding officers. or the area design and perfarmance. 'Ihe de-character zed is located (or if it is not Director,in any proceeding under Sub- (46 fit 13980. Feb. 25.1981, as amended at sCrlption of the site shall identify the 48 Fit 28219. June 21,1983) location of the geologic reposHwy op located within a municipality, then to part G of Part 2 of this chapter. If the chief executive of the county, or DOE prepares an Environmental LICENSE APPLICAT!oNs erations area with respect to the to the Tribal organization if it is to be Impact Statement with respect to site ' located within an Indian reservation) characterization activities proposed U 60.21 Content of application. ent-and to the Governors of any contigu- for a particular site, it should consider (a) An application shall consist of (1) The description of the site sha!! ous States. NRC's site characterization analyses general information and a Safety also include the following information (d) The Director shall prepare a before publishing its final Environ. Analysis Report. An environmental regarding subsurface conditions. Tht.x drait site characterization analysis mental Impact Statement with respect report shall be prepared in accordance description shall, in all cases, includ. which shall discuss the items cited in to site characterization activities pro, with Part 51 of this chapter and shall such information with respect to the paragraph (a) of this section. The Di- posed for that particular site. accompany the application. Any He- controlled area. In addition. where rector shall publish a notice of avail- (g) During site characterization, stricted Data or National Security In. subsurface conditions outside the con ability of the draft site characteriza- DOE shall inform the Director by f rmation shall be separated from un- trolled area may affect isolation tion analysis and a request for com- semiannual report and by other re. classified information. within the con, trolled area, the de ment in the Fronut. REctsTER. Copies ports on any topic related to site char- (b) The general information shall in- scription shall include such informa shall be made available at the Pubhc acterization if requested by the Direc. clude: tion with respect to subsurface condi Document Room. The Director shall tor, of the progress of the site charac. (1) A general description of the pro- tions outside the controlled area ti also transmit copies to the Governor terization and waste form and packag- posed geologic repository identif ying the extent such information is trir and legislature of the State and the ing research and development. The the location of the geologic repository vant and material. The detailed infor cluef executive of the municipality in semiannual reports should include the operations area the general character mation referred to in this paragrapt. which a site to be characterized is lo- results of site characterization studies, of the proposed activities, and the shall include: cated tur if it is not located within a the identification of new issues, plans basis for the exercise of licensing au- ( A) The onentation distribution, ap munie:pality then to the chief execu- for additional studies to resotte new thority by the Commission. erture in-filling and ongm of frai tive of the county, or to the Tribal or- issues elimination of planned studies (2) Proposed schedules for construc- tures, discontinuities, and heterogent ganization if it is to be located within no longer necessary, identification of tion, receipt of waste, and emplace- ities;
os rr n oe mht it i ti abns air ef - r sere .,t tun sr et or
, ) . .
2 s d , a ig t o re vece siotnhsknl an e lsa ue t f f nj . 2 e s n a g m g s t uao a iex rde o et ica h t iywg a t spp o lhs . t h h seu hs aell r ri s r sdlen o. opir sll rsoncecy or ra e inin o xf a e rsu esw e f ; in lhegh y l eo pr t Wc j or t o M p ih-r gdsg p e i s e
, wnr laaet dnp
.i t
p t ua l t acaa sd h endo et r u msh t la hi rt r s ht o dat bi et c ds e se l langt r h m. aaive es t ec as T p N c n gnn erci Adohnt c p soct a amret Esie s wd Erissi u s hoirgtaee t t . n n y o A st s l e o a na uapes .heE su gapt ao ynbjw t d e C ud a, e h yl D itOp n Ot p p el o lcei I s e inb h R s ab t a D nn a. l r b r i n w g ibn r l s d e et l i bf ter ot u Da wme o r t E T in nbnt, i se hnoe p i c N A rI o fi n o u m moid, t ise p t oiDac rblsOna ara snaoa i n e 1
)
hci c c a eof o rt
)
I R t a emi hiepsa ce t a rro t i P c hr en, n t a .nf re c 's ts psa r ,t (
. cag sl sb C ir sodt r rs e nf e c c ei oan rao s s E. o t
n t t n lag ado oseiudirv f i yh o ep su ol o o( G a IH ns e er O e i cert l e acbs anoipursh grd .t s t o t N t i i sboe drn f m n u s H me D ll rNs e n rhr r t ya
,t i
ab idutigti r pti o w gd d e g hrh g t p in a I T cg og ec ir l a endtiioo t i n ldssns es p L et f a e ror I oipoedvfi o N r n o gogn t po ei o heavnlaire ro e nd e .r cg S n gpersirt en or rt ea t W iufi f o f ire r iol al ru dv l jnedeTo f eigrie i it c eo qo stainteaehael a S Arpo onses incp pol l o es p tho et a r s ses . O a rp lu r i e cn ab nt ra a t r r ht rf dsr t . o ei t t lan e D N I t lo r t n a e t neo eh p a dsny Aoo neocior l oc nm,oiWoef aWonp o t sl bo s ir 2 1 pt inl
)
is get h t o rc a act gi o 2 e tn l rmt s ,e otf m ) n) it e (
) aiheb t t esml cveye 1
c c 1 d t . r s e A. 2 o e ot ) bne t ef ytl a 0 a( n erant e age t a a ot si( o2dd I c d ds e h igag rr aol eo roa nofhoihnm t d ohiuahe sherr( hmpa au dn s 6 id m n S n nal l t 9 acot vcti C; sn aa 6 N A a ucarg ct csst git tf e O eee C e e - - -
- see sa ye e ds-rc erllarn o a onso e r ndotoe l
re ner ee eoi rg s n[ ps mmdrt e er e a rh h ;sict ta th bhv r nul t nf e tf s o nt niobe oe rn l, a pn ut rr t ( o a i m o o pa et at o r r y P adc t tt t s r iaf y aye c t it h c pa1 rscite e Cs .e ws i catn f ptivp I I t ivtl wnahyu nt y t rro c or;sie s . s0ca e a igtadat w e v n em J eyt rdossfi nia ufibdt c tr o mfj naot ga rpn oh i t i 0 ot ohs g o v e o h oc gn e e isb
- 0. i t n lo hnpt e>yC hf a on u e ae ,see ei t hr c c st a o a n mf ai podic , mm0d i ipt t n n s ia n eedwr s h1 lii0 l 1 ana t
ut os m a t ir
.c e dohe ehkt baom lece t gs ewdrai eprd nn ua t
n sec me sssigt i tvogctnya t e e ol speo rt f re a n o n loeh einw0ee nv st rim or sgt e rb o eh gt a n onhu e s h m mtona i s t de f .st a ar a cr ain d f o hj ep oa i lcdo i c o i lalot bme enaamfoe r t t s en t inic o r t a y bre apri r so rym e ol pe id al ris de uf o ymmda rr t m r u r tu es adof u mi ac udc r c e f ee b sl r od mm ef r l heeryl a at e t sc ha o ei vct eb e v irr m o het eehlarcmCict cau ssarph uu aapo gc t a eacsm no hra aeid se av r t d ee teAn p a rn oE ah edeisnreup yesr
- qsf u ao C t c xf es seqn sl s ee t mt t t t el t
e coe
- nt dc .o yf nt ymsthm,a e k ;r os er ree een gd e ht ef byrdeninpimev oadi al l y eo eel ne ene , s df cp lade i
y rii r g e yraheoel o y t ri rr t ni t a i l l aipes ii l r rh;a no lat mhccot ar t isnanm e hol e a nt rd e. r y isa ioai00 d el l ovyi nl li cbmo lco e vc s ae pcnmrmism cf e at cegchl y nuee r e s oor al t t a wnec0r l obh rtat aaeiac l cl l cel a utbt rp eauieprti m nd s n a c ayo a ,f a as o gabea er st ont e n y n gi i t uf gt wugooe e t ei nf a yu t b s t c npitbs lu o u n t t yroo q a a n e c ainl e r sd i iei g ll r n1 ot os ed n a t t ohg hl eoinl re r l amdopme s C :e y s d A e d apo g n pt ae o nt t y e loa ei l t v iaa e t ddt t id r n spmdoa ho n a c mi p oi e r n ehhurc rdos R f hs pd a alcnfhoateen t ou ocYmiar e t r dzh s t n r e t m ts,h t e he a ltAahnTh ,u ahTerPegA pl my o ai di e d t l ef . o i i l ct t aal ko t da od Oo d - leesnt n) nl r t 0rtnnee , ol e eyet e ir e tt iso) t ty rra) 3 t hg) ro) nr a md0 e e h pd yd leuua rt g er .) se e nst vt e it d4 pl o c ue S s vl e e o 0. t snt sepscct a s r l t I t e re bnhvco nbshga ast vho( eau 1mtebc(2diaec( rya aet niehel f n( n ge( fov d uro( mtoswt sl et c i u t i s r0aea ripalaad e l ee a e Oa riaku msps Pwtl t i i acbtd oa i o N ye0hrpmfooval sp1 t ccbywd
* ,- e!
iliI
- - - - ye :
ndr- ; i r
)
h e
- r dds e e. . - e osd r
. i dt e el ent eddneirg seiuc gedf nhn o re e hde m. e rent eydcioo ahl e a inmol ay mie enaentnt n l
n otf t en arherndv a iggdt e arf nda e ria r ia e a t c aest t p gahmt c se a b nn epmp Ee a ney e ye rafrt it a rdt ena t ntsg a r rgtn htiannt i o r e s rt orr mtdprpo t enl ei ia t i cy lem ra o t ghs t ne e s r a nbna e gl siat urigi pnssi ynbioin r ne a s d b h binmo ct igd) haal d nr eeih ncl yop e ci ia m,ha s a E ao l
) iaoi cl t ot d t eifhe i p r st et siuaar i e sde u t an e emia adhrme ecdus r w eo nre i t
s t r be syh eio t e re t . t l t i c3 mi l a wst mvrns Tlaan old wbe c u yd 5 8 r o op s st r rl oe n n h ac e s ic e t r ru asn(isg ( s)h- nyietBmlbsgsoopnt Cliar a en a( nl p u ppav er rr riee sn s t u dg e np sOf e t ner ae l aerduelot s ape e aeWseibkstMai hidraio seo n da db f 1 r e l msE ie o t po ol ,v g mn aewsspr f e
- e r pc hin stf sa lc n) t nt m nf h s gd eihrig ee n endeL e a a so on o . emiAn I
1 ( srraamt ro h e f otne ism m( thn a e oa s st l t s s byadhgniedIbot t hnrl st a a o eg i mo ig gas o n oitryt yc t emuer l s et ng nf l dnr .he g e t n vynrdco 1 sstu :s s w d;deetFoshohhel i r elo er. nbe l t e ef vi ret t t cl a e eiaol io od y a r e en ot se yi s st wio ivmn nibepe i aans eg t h C t s e ygu itdo o cet cn a r/sasysnb udnr al c cs t r o.bwphas e n e en ri s t e cds e e e m t ehdt n c g t amps t e v s ooa euyht s ss eni ciye ds e spif e sais e h s R s sern er e arel e co ead oe Ada ep me r rt eeirti dn s c e e, nd it g s t ah ll eo r p l r e a ydogfhe eme m ml o f F C a r r t hl t c c e ogoi inbisdn i v rbihnti uads scaiopt ai c fo r rir aer rihdbedim t nl pnteti orisehemni siol l iol nrnstbcng apei t l rakoo a oiarm pt let e 0 eo n gi og .eae ol rbt l ii n r e e r a aie l osua ar sl e cdiwat r zi f vi c de a .l apt cfC e ho n n rm au ehr o i hf ne oet gd e e adehstnh t nsdr flecpprt a ef n a etcica 1 l l l' a eb bos se tl s ofberen whcydr s f reta tne sdoptna e t t es a e f n etl e i mgeab e obtn aost f e o nua . s 3 o r G sW g arp r odcol otalebdep gI din ee mmteC ee b I Tf 1 ce e e hh 2t r t s ss isey snP h n r t 1 1 ir c
) dddsLnmi ee en ecHirr ens rr e r e ra l
rpl anici) irt p a) ept l ht n l e 1 j p h dea l l e s enl l 0 a ruha er oa epn rumiusini et aont isiAsm a oyo u t l ah o e d 0 Tnhheacaadel tde ueegrf ie el vaovro ng( uyic( n" i 6 c ea bae onv 6 ( io l amrreabt wcbc1 s i at sl M i nnspodtbsl nat oscagcas qsL c
*t desseee . e o.ridi a3 m d s-
- - e . i ye .
eaet eli ds d e er r ep I' et t pamiet dn l pvt h a nvt hehurt rt oan o ehehuua ,i r a ol l rnmhmseme iaen r
. pnpoeap s t
e snb h, 1 eso ca ca ohoat aht hei .Ta h u i si nt p odei it t pa! as l t opl a b t cenm t t c nc y t crci a wn l c e gs e
- s a y yo o ceyt y as ep ahl a a osioreee ih t y y) t oaro h rt r e s ed rr u io o s ndo g g t orhi o u ,isl hi aecbc1 n( nrose sv ut r nbsr f s e c0 e n t prgnsi ,ct r gni c r
- s. e ni n oio t
s s5 ped re nn t f i t e at i e r rt loo adide ds a t i atseba aati h bodeege.oeratshwfai tati eda ol mogor t a o he g wl o o eieohe are e v er t t o e rl gh r icd i et ae nssn it hpaml ot rhl dr ons gaefs a rewfoprsl l f r a ah t t f l r n hoa lor o a o bt p r c e t r p i n Asar a r pl hre opieo gd a npndef iedw t f i cf e t t ot frshro ei do sCrgre iof sr oisgd e i nht rae t o e u sde2 prbotee d 0 ao ai p a vih c dates n t m.reda c so u ema rsdsn pih t o epng ihf mr t a n ea ni t s n f a cdrosteseen f t fooeht i t a n e t ea
- o. asobs n s y c it t O i s co t irw* rmi lpaee l bt eht r hasi eh a o age a sed sasem r mt a fol u eepunt E en iege gal l oxertupacarl el et si i nPad al srrn eetot y rdergny t d mf robmremcso ihs i l suieypf,rd t ee e caa o e. ae ol lc t
c a .m g lol e s r ean ea t ne eina f r ni r a ti lpl e n f a ed t oa N t ea n ePaho o e e ymu vTe n o ednirb ou sne g o so t n odrn mind l r l f s eh e A M mnu r nregh t enbl b e i sgt rd epr gha hn o ane dp o echcqnhr n uod ohumo nsn s - r P so m e s dga aaosi s ue ,r pc H o"l etina u el e t et t pe adc rh es t
. b s c ise e l r s o aiote o f c ce tdhana , obf hs needw la, t ah ao d f e epnys c r ois i
sf otio u wst i s ct a a i a at nsikl an t F r e ) nTreaidst c aet rr dp f h . rlel vet as t t t ao pel t e ua
"' ne t al amae ep tc st u lahmt R t l f o r e r w l' r ro sse eoim r oce e aissmbnaiccc ep rb ahr t ts ep emhea t
rr vl n e r us aaigwi t is p 1 P
" n Persanp s e .l ea msdny oRi g np cb e e r i emrTdb t
oah f o 1 1 t t P" mna a r r ml d emteti i r st na enu amirnbloat o g t w e si t cn s r t oe m ndmdsoaeo6 r tr ri o e w ne oe h Pnt Unvmc o tiono t 0 5 I. u uwt i m i. t t i e as inr t e ol i em l mimr vioi oy a te er i r i micwfr'tuomr yt s n.
{ 60,133 10 CFR Ch.1 (1-1-85 Editirn) Nuclear Regulotory Comminion I g g'g dismantlement to de same extent as releases from the underground facility ing, gas generation, thermal effects, noncombustible form unless it can be would be required. under other parts in accordance with the performance mechanical strength, mechanical demonstrated that a fire involving the of this chapter, with respect to equiva. objectives of 9 60.111(a), stress, radiolysis, radiation damage. ra- waste packages containing combusti-(2) Assure continued function during lent activities licensed thereunder. normal operations and under accident dionuclide retardation. leaching. fire bles w'll 560.133 Additional demign criteria for the conditions; and and explosion hazards, thermal loads' of other waste packages, adversely underground facilsty- (3) Separate the ventilation of exca. and synergistic interactions. aff * * ' ~~ (b) Spectfac cnterra for flLW pack- pone t m t (a) General criterna for the under. valion(h)and waste emplacement Engineered areas. barriers. Engineert-d age design-(l) Explossee pyrophorse. promise the abilit ground facility. (1) The orientation. barriers shall be designed to assist the and chemically reactive materials. ground facility t geometry. layout, and depth of the un- The waste package shall not contain isolation derground facility, and the design of geologic formancesetting in meeting objectives the per. for the period fol- explosive or pyrophoric materials or (d) Design criterna for other radioac-any engineered barriers that are part lowing permanent closure. chemically reactive materials in an g- & A cha M wask of the underground facility shall con- (i) Thennal loads. The underground amount that could compromise the ther than IILW will be ad. tribute to the containment and isola- facility shall be designed so that the ability of the underground facility to [gpes ressed on an individual basis if and tion of radionuclides. contribute to waste isolation or the when they are proposed for disposal in (2)The underground facility shall be performance objectives will tw met ability of the geologic repository to designed so that the effects of credible taking into account the predicted ther. satisfy the performance objectives. a geologic repository. disruptive events during the period of mal and thermomechanical respanse of the host rock, and surrounding (2) Iree hquads. The waste package pg,F RM ANCE CONF:RM ATIoM oDerations, such as floodmg. fires and shall not contain free liquids in an WRMEMS explosions. will not spread through strata. groundwater system. amount that could compromise the the 56&l38 Design of seals for shafts and ability of the waste packages to 5 60.137 r I (b)facility Flest $:laty of des Jn. The under. boreholes. achieve the performance objectives re- forma c confi""**i""- ground facility shall be designed with (a) General desigra crtterton. Seals lating to containment of IILW (be-sufficient flexibihty to allow adjust- cause of chemical interactions or for- The geologic repository operations ments where necessary to accommo- for shafts and boreholes shall be de. mation of pressurized vapor) or result area shall be designed so as to permit date specific site conditions identified signed so that following permanent in spillage and spread of contamina- implementation of a performance con-through in situ monitoring, testing, or closure they do not become pathways tion in the event of waste package per. firmation program that meets the re-that compromise the ge<!ogic repost- foration during the period through quirements of Subpart P of this part* excavation. (c) Retract al of waste. The under- tory's ability to meet the performance permanent closure. ground f acility shall be designed to objectives or the period following per- (3) llandhng. Waste packages shall Subpart F-Performance Confirmatie" permit retrieval of waste in accordance manent closure.of materials and place, (b) Selection designed to maintain waste contr.in-pN"" with the performance objectives of ment during transportation, emplace. ment methods. Materials and place- ment, and retrieval. { 60.111. g ne (d) Control of scater and gas. The ment methods for seals shall be select- (4) Unique identt/scation. A label or othe isI oted'
. 83, unless design of the underground facility ed to reduce. to the extent practicable: other means of identification shall be shall provide for control of water or (1) The potential for creaths a prefer- provided for each waste package. The u 60.140 General requirements
- gas intrusion. ential pathway for groundwater; or (2) dentification shall not impair the in-(e) Underground openings. (1) Open- radioactive waste migration througti tegrity of the waste package and shall (a) The performance confirmation ings in the underground facility shall existing pathways. be applied in such a way that the in- program shall provide data which indi.
be designed so that operations can be formation shall be legible at least to cates, where practicable, whether: carried out safely and the retrievabi- DESIGN CRrTERIA FoR THE WASTE the end of the period of retrievability. (1) Actual subsurface conditions en-PACHAGE lity option maintained. Each waste package identification countered and changes in those condi-(2) Openings in the underground fa- 9 60.135 Criteria for the w aste package shall be consistent with the waste tions during construction and waste cility shall be designed to reduce the and its cornsmnents. package's perrnanent written records. emplacement operations are within potential for deleterious rock move- (a) llagh level-waste package design (c) Waste forrn criteria for IILW. the lignits assumed in the licensing ment or fracturing of overlying or sur- liigh-level radioactive waste that is review; and rounding rock. in general (1) Packages for IILV. shall emplaced in the underground facility (2) Natural and engineered ystems (f) Rock escaration. The design of be designed so that the in situ chemi- shall be designed to meet the follow. and components required for repost. the underground facility shallincorpo- cal, physical, and nuclear propertie s of ng criterna. tory operation, or which are d signed rate excavation methods that will the waste package and its interactions ,1) ( Solidification. All such radioac. or assumed to operate as barrie cs after limit the potential for creating a pref. with the emplacement environment do tive wastes shall be in solid form and permanent closure. are f unctic sing as crential pathway for groundwater or not compromise the function of the placed in sealed containers. intende d and anticipated radioactive waste migration to the ac- waste packages or the performance of (2) Consohdation. Particulate waste (b) The program shall has bec cessible environment. the underground facility or the geo- g ri shall be consolidated (for exam. started during site characte t/.atior' (g) Underground facahty s entitation. logic setting. p y ncorporation into an encapsu- and it will continue o ti! The ventilation system shall be de- (2) The design shall include but not . lating matrix) to limit the availability closure. signed to: be limited to consideration of the fol- and generation of particulates. (c) The pr
- 41) Control the transport of radioac- lowing factors: solubility, oxidation / " nit mg abo tive particulates and gases within and reduction reactions. corrosion, hydrid- di t s t$a e du [ r t 590 591
- y. w . . . ~-..y..~.. .. w,- -.----....a.~4 -. ~ 6. e u n -
# tive as stated above. ferences and the recom d toring program shall be duplicated an 4 60.160 General re.% ment [' '
(d k& program shall be implement- changes reported to the Comrm the laboratory experiments- i i ed sd 't : (c) In situ monitormg of the tn . e waste package monitoring Operatmns of ( ms and cow
.o- nents that hate brEn)identdkd as tillt does not adversely affect the mechamcal response of the under- program shall cont ume as long as portant to safety in the Safet> An.
F abihty of the natural and engineered ground facilit y shall be condut te d pa ialup o he ine of permanent sts Iteport and m the beense shall clements of the geologic repository to until permanent closure to ensure that um K meet the performance objectnes. performed only by trained and t e C the performance of the natural ud ited personnel or by personnel un
- 42) 11 provides baseline information engineering features are within de..ign Subpart G-Quality Assurance the direct visual supervismn of an u t
and analysis of that mformation on limits. \tdual with traimng and certificat t those paramete rs and natural process-a es pertalmng to the geologic setting M 60.l l2 Design tesung. Souncr: 48 FR 28228. June 21.1983, unlas in such operation. Supertisory pers r ot herose noted. nel who direct operations . hat air that may be changed by site charac-3 terization* const ruction, and oper- (a) During the early or developmen- portant to safety must alv> be erria 4 60.I50 Smpe. in such operations. I tal stages of construction, a program t attonal
- 43) Itactivities'and momtors analyzes changes for in situ testing of such features as As used in this part. " quality assur-a f rom the baseline condition of pararn- borehole and shaf t seals, backfill, and ance" comprises all those planned and n 60.161 Training and errnfitat " '
gra n
. ters that could af fect the perform- the thermal interaction effects of the systematic actions necessary to pro-ance of a grologsc repository. vide adequate confidence that the geo. 1 OE shall establish a prograrn 3
- 44) It provides an estabhshe d plan conducted. logic repository and its subsystems or tra} ming. proficiency testmg. errt s for feedback and analysis of data, and (b) The testing shall be initiated as components will perform satisfactorily tion and requalification of opriat
.' imptrmentation of appropriate action. carly as is practicable. In service. Quality assurance includes ad mwrmory powl- ' (c) A backfill test section shal. be quality control, which comprises those M60162 l'hpical requiremenh ' 4 6n i18 Confirman..n ..f xcotechnical and constructed to test the effe ctiveness of quahty assurance actions related to design parameters backfill placement and compaction the physical characteristics of a mate- y , , tal Durmg repository const ruction procedures against design require, rial, structure. component, or system eral lie iti f t rs ri i rt i e d and operation, a continuing program ments before permane r.t backfill which provide a means to control the operations that are import ant of surt ed" *e. measurement, testing, placement is begun. quahty of the material, st ruct ure. safet y shall not be such as nur ano geumgic mappmg shall be con- (d) Test sections shall be established component, or system to predeter* cause operational errors that could e duct ed to ensure that grot echnical to test the effectiveness of borehole mined requirements. danger the public health and saf e and design parameters are confirmed and shaft seats before fu:1-scale oper- My condition which might cause : and to ensure that appropriate action ation proceeds to seal b9reholes and M 60.nl Applicaitin* paired judgment or motor coordu is taken to inform the Commission of shafts. The quality assurance program ap- tion tion must be considered in the s 1 changes needed in design to accommo- of personnel for activities that .. date actual fictd conditions encoun- 9 60.143 Monitoring and tenting w aate plies to all systems. structures and important to safety. These condam terrd. package components important to safety. to need not categorically disquah f s ab) Subsu rf ace conditions shall be design and characterization of barriers person, so long as appropriate pr'o momtore d and esaluated against ta) A program shall be established at important to waste isolation and to ac- sions are made to accommodate su. design assumptions. the geologic repository operations area ttvities related thereto. These activi- conditions. sc) As a mmimum, measurements for monitoring the condition of the ties include: site characterization, fa-shall be made of rock deformations wast e packages. Waste packages cility and equipment construction. fa-cility operation, performance confir- Subpart I-Emergency Planning and displacement. changes in rock chosen for the program shall be repre, stress and strain, rate and location of sentative of those to be etnplaced in mation, permanent closure, and decon- Criteria (Reserved] water mflow into subsurface areas. the underground facihty. tamination and dismantling of surface tb6 consistent with safe operation at
, PART 61-LICENSING REQUIREMEN1 chances m grounda at er condit ions. -
rm k pure water pressures including the geologic repository operations FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF RADIC area, the environment of the waste 4 60.152 Impicmentation. ACTIVE WASTE those along fractures and joints and the thermal and t her nomechamcal re. packages selected for the waste pack. DOE shall implement a quality as- subp.,,A _ c...,.Ip,,,;,;.., sponse of the rock mass as a result of age momf oring program shall be rep. surance program based on the criteria des clopment and operat ions of the resentatis e of the ens tronment in geologie repository. w htch the wastes are to be emplaced. of Appendix 11 of 10 CFIt Part 50 as Q applicable, and appropriately supple" ti2 Def ,' t d > The>r measurements and obser. (c) The waste package monitoring mented by additional criteria as re. 61.3 Ucense required s at ions shall tw compared with the program shall include laboratory ex. quired by 1 60.151-original design bases and assumptions. perunents w hich focus on the internal 91.4 commumcat mns C ' .5 In t erpret ations. If significant dif f erences exist between condition of the waste packages. To Subpart H-Training and Certification the measurrment s and obsert ations the extent practical, the environment 61 s Exemonons. of Personnel 61 7 Concepts. and the original design bases and as- experienced by the emplaced waste 61.8 Itrportmg. recordkreping. and app . sumptions. the need for modifications packages wathin the underground fa- " to the design or in construction mrth cility durmg the waste package moni- Sounct 48 FR 28229. June 21.1983 unless r ur otherwise noted 61 9 Emplobre protretton 592 593
O
' ~
O O r CBJECTIVES i IDEhTIFY LIKELY FAILURE F0 DES OF HLW WASTE PACKAGE IDBITIFY BNIRONENTAL DETERMINAhTS OF WASTE PACKAE FAILUE IDENTIFY CRITICAL TESTS AND ASSttPTIONS NEEDED TO DB10NSTRATE LONG-TERM KASTE PACKAGE RRFORMANE PERF0PM SELECTIVE EXPERIFB.TS TO TEST ASSlFFTIONS AfD RPFORMANE DBiDfSTRATION TECHNICES
O
~
O O APPROAO! TPACK DOE DECISIONS ON WASTE FORM AND OVERPACK l'ATERIALS EEGIN WITH EXPECTED REPOSITORY EfNIR0fPETRS DOE'S PESPONSIBILITY TO DDUNSTPATE ITS CASE NRC f%T KfG! WHAT CONSTITUTES A DDENSTRUT0N
O O ~ O I'ATERIALS ID! GLASS WASTE FORM SPENT REACTOR FUEL LOW CAPEON STEEL OVERPACK STAINLESS STEEL llIGH PURITY IPft1 ISTONITE PACKING /BAOTILL/ SEALS BENTONITE / BASALT CUENT BASALT TUFF WASTE PACKAGE ENVIRORENT (CRCtMMATER) SALT GRANITE
O O O
~
. naaea
'aSTE RR1 DEVITRIFICATION ANL,PLL LEA 0 LING OVERPAO: PITTING COPPOSION I?!L, BCL, NBS, FSC STESS CORROSION l HYDROGEN B TRITTLB O T FMf0FACTURING CONCEPfS i
PAO:If0/BAGTILL/ SEALS DIFFUSION ANL, LBL, U. OF AZ HYDROTEft%L ALTERATION P0fBOLE, SWFT NO FRACTUE SEALIts KASTE PAO'AE ENVIf0fER GFDLND WATER E00D11STRY l BCL,LEL, COUPLED PROCESSES i l l,
O O O B7278: C0f TAII!ER F#.1JFACTURIrb PARWETERS: PWUFACTURIllG SCIEFES CORP. OBJECTIVE: ASSESS TIE EFFECT OF VARIABILITIES It! VRUFACTURE Off EXPECTED OVERPACK PERFORMANCE. SCOPE: PRODUCTI0ft OF SAMPLES OF OVERPACK FMTERIAL FOR AfMLYSES AT BCL. PROBLEM: PPOVIDE BASIS FOR HEC PEVIEW OF 00E CA/DC PROGPM1 FOR O'KPPACK VN."JFACTURE.
~
~
O O O 2 ATE 9: PImfE CORROSIOri Eld. OBJECTIVE: ASSESS C0f1FIDEf!CE Irl EXTRAPOLATIfG S10RT TERM LAB TESTS TO LOfE TEPM PITTIfG PATES. ) SCOPE: OBSERVE RATE AfD CHEMISTRY CF PITTIfE If1 ARTIFICIALLY AGED PITS (LOW CARB0fl STEEL). I i PROBLEM: PROVIDE BASIS FOR ASSESSIfG DOE'S EXTRAPOLATI0ft CF SHORT-TEPN OBSEPVED PITTIfE PATES TO LOfE-TEPE PATES ( 3(1) YEARS) USED Ill PERFOPtWJCE DEM0fiSTRATI0fl. i i t
O O ~ O D11ti6: PITTIfc STATISTICS NDS OBJECTIVE: ASSESS Tile VARIABILITY If1 PIT DEPTHS WITH PIT AGE N!D EINIP0fMErlTri C0f0!TIONS. SCOPE: ExmIf:E FLUCTUATIOf!S Ill PASSIVATI0fl CURREffT AS A POSSIELE PRECUPSOR TO THE Of4 SET OF PITTIflG. STATISTICALLY N!ALYZE DISTRIBUTIOff 0F PIT DEPTH N!D SIZE WITH PIT AGE. CORPILATE PESULTS WITl! BCL NID BNL (PITTIllG CORROSI0ft OiEMISTRY). PROBLDt: PROVIDE N1 IFEEPEfiDEllT ASSESSMEffT OF THE STABILITY OF TlfE PROCESS OF PITTIf0 (MOST LIKELY FAILUPI MGLE) Ill EXPECTED REPOSITORY EINIR0fNEllTS, NID THE EFFECT OF CHNEES Ifl THAT EfNIR0fNEffT.
O O O A3237: CorTAir:ER ASSESSMEffT OBJECTIVE: EX/P.IIE THE QUESTI0flS OF CREVI& CORROSIOff NO II EMBRITTLEMEllT It! TI ALLOY NO CARB0ri STEEL OVERPACK t%TERIALS. SCOPE: PERF0FN EXPERIfDITS TO ASSESS CREVI& CORROSI0ff Iri TI Arm h UPTAKE Af1D ITS C0f! Irl STEEL OVERPACK MATERIALS Ill SALT ND BASALT REPOSITORY EtNIR0frEFITS. PROBLEM: ASSESS WHETHER ll EMBRITTLEMEffT IS A Cor;ERf1 ITI BASALT NO SALT REPOSITORIES; ASSESS CREVICE CORROSI0tJ BEWNIOR OF TI CODE 12.
O O O ~ E6764: Lac-TEP t PERFCFtWEE OF HLW PACKAGIfn FATERIALS (CVERPACK) BCL OBJECTIVE: IDEFITIFY LIKELY OVERPACK FAILURE #0 DES Uf0ER EXPECTED REPOSITORY C0faITI0f1S (BASALT, TUFF, SALT). SCOPE: OBSERVE PATES NO C0f0!TI0f!S FOR VARIOUS OVERPACK FAILURE MODES: GEllERAL CORROSIOff, PITTIfG CORROSIOrl, STRESS CORROSIOf , H EMBRITTLEf1EffT. PROBLEM: PROVIDE BASIS FOR ASSESSIIG C0flSISTEICY OF DOE'S DEMot! STRATI 0ft OF OVERPACK IfiTEGRITY FOR 5LT)-1000 YE/RS.
s .- - - --- - O O O
~
E7fA: LOfs tem PEPFOPFATE (WASTE Fem) BCL OBJECTIVE: ASSESS RNE OF EXPEC1ED PERFCff/JE OF IfLW GLASS ATO SPEllT FUEL AS fiLW WASTE FOPM. SCOPE: PERF0m USOPATORY EXPERIEllTS TO EASURE LEACH RATES OF I!LW GLASS NID SPEtiT FUEL l#0E F1JE OF EXPECTED REPOSITORY C0f0!TIGis. PROBLEM: PROVIDE NPf WITH A BASIS TO EVALUATE DOE'S DEM0f! STRATI 0fl 0F COMPLIATE WITH THE C0flTROLLE RELEASE REQUIRENEllT OF 10 CFR PART fe. 9
Q 9 9 1225': 4 GLASS AraLOGLE STUDY /dl CBJECTIVE: Uf1ERSTNO "IGIfG" PPfCESS OF ILW GU.SS. SCCPE: DEVELOP AfD STUDY taTUPAL At:D ARTIFICIAL GLASS M!A1.0GUES To HLW GLASS TO C0 PRELATE THE AGIfG PROCESS GSEIMD Ill faTURAL GLASSES TO THAT EXPECTED If3 llW GLASS. PacsLEM: ksESS TO WAT EXTEllT S10FT-TEPN LEACHIfG EXPERIETITS OF Situ.ATED W6TE GLASSES ARE EPRESEF:TATIVE OF THE LCfG-tem LEAOlift CF 300-10,000 YEAR OLD liW GLASS.
O O O
- ~
ISfA: LGn TEPM PEPEC&N.tE (ErNIR0frErtr) ECL CELECTIVE: ASSESS TIE EFFECT OF OVERPACK CCRROSIGI Gi THE LOCAL OVERPACK EINIR0ffEfiT If1 TUFF EEPOSITORIES. SCCFE: DEWLT ND TEST A GROUDGTER GEOCHEMISTRY HDDEL OF PREDICTIfG THE EFFECT OF O CCMOSIG! PRCOUCTS GI LOCAL WASTE PACKAGE ETNIR0f7Erfr. Wm: PROVIm #1 ASSES 9EffT OF TE LOCAL STABILITY OF TE OVERPACK - GROUf!DWATER SYSTEM. I
~ '
O O O ISV,6: COUPLED IFREPE T!0ftS LEL OBJECTIVE: DETEFMITE IDI PP.ESEFEE OF WASTE PACK /4E AFFECTS ITS BNIR0f7EfR NS VICE VEPST. SCcPE: EXNiltE HYDROTHEFFAL SYSTEM AS N'ALOGUES TO TIEPf'AL PERTURBATI0t;S GEFEPATED BY DPLACED HLW. PF0BLEM: PROVIDE ASSESSTEIIT OF IITTEPACTIVE CHAfEES Ill TFE TIEPFAL, HYDPOLOGIC, CHEMICAL, N1D fECHAtllCAL SETTI!E OF THE PEPOSITORY - STABILITY OF BEITEERED SYSTEM DNIR0fNENT, MO E\DLLTTI0d CF TIE IfYDPOCIEMICAL SETTIfE.
E3040: SITE GEOGEMISTRY (WASTE PACKAGE EINIR0ffiEffT) LEL OBJECTIVE: f.SSESS GE00EMISTRY OF REPOSITORIES Irl BASALT ND TUFF. SCOPE: PERF0ffi EXPERIMEllTS NO ASSESS TRERICAL mDELS OF THEPFAL ALTERATION OF HOST ROCK, GROUf1D WATER AfD PACKIf1G MATERIAL Iff BASALT NID TUFF. PROBLEx: PROVIDE ASSESSMEllT OF THERMALLY-If0UCED CHNJGES Ill 111E OiEMISTRY OF THE GROUlD WATER / HOST ROCK / WASTE PACKAGE SYSTEM.
EffE7: SEALIffG RcCK FASSES U. OF AZ OBJECTIVE: PEEFORMAflCE ASSESStelT OF EXISTING ROCK MASS SEALIfG TECHfl0 LOGY FOR THE SEALIfE OF SHAFTS, FPKTURES, AfD BOREHOLES IN BASALT NO GPRJITE. SCOPE: PERFORM LABORATORY N O FIELD TESTS TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEALING TECHNIQUES. PROBLEM: PROVIDE tiRC WITil A BASIS FOR ASSESSlfs DOE'S DEMONSTRATION THAT SHAFTS AfD BOREHOLES WILL FDT BE A SIGNIFICNIT PATIMAY FOR PADIONUCLIDE MIGRATI0fl.
O
~
O O HLW REPOSITORY PROGRAM RESOURCES FY '86 FY'87 FTE $M FTE $M DWM 110 6.7 107 7.9 RESEARCH 14 3.0 14 6.8 DOE' 342 481 424 698 (DOE FTE INCLUDES THE MRS AND TRANSPORTATION) ACRS BRIEFING: 10/24/8h 5
.. . - _ . - - . - - . . .. - - . . . - _ . - -- -. _ - . - . - . _ - . - ~ _ . . . _ .
1
~
O . O 1 I l HLW - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE i
- 1. CRITICAL RFVIFWS OF DOE DOCUMENTS i
i ! 2. PREPARATION OF GillDANCE i 3. ACQi!ISITION OF MODELING/ LICENSING ASSESSMENT l ' CAPABILITIES ! 4. SELECTED CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS l ._. _._ _ _ _ _. l i . i 1 I l, l
e* f
/' )] .
Y I Spmt Ftrl Waste Package O mrpack Preparksged Packbg h I Cadum Stee0 Sectums of F%kwated Steel Gap
/' ////N/////////A//////////2'///)
/
~
-\;
/
1 f/ // // N // // - - // // // - - - // - - // - // // // // - // - f k I i lb _ // Access
/ f \ Tumel
/ /
-. L / \ /
$/ // // f H // H // // // // // // // // // // // // H // H // V/ // // H
/ _ _
_u _.
///////////////////f//////// /////2 Carvster Consolidated g Spmt Fuel Rods b
Cormweal 1%h Lewd Waste Package CHLW OW Prepackaged Packing in Carbon SteeQ Sectons of Perforated Steel Gap
/ /
%f;bQW- Qggl:y % : fQ.'/] ]?$
-~_'k $$$f.?N$$NNik.Wf$
\. ,l '
l
= .
\ . _ : : e n] L ;
/ v/ // // v/ - // - // - // // - - // // - // - //- w
/
$- // // - ,i Aid : W =
/[
/L .. -
A
. M@ViQ["
- _ -a:: __,
// // - - - - - // - - - - u - - - -
/#W0 %
H? ~ f&eiis]-XG s. x>v i!Q:Q
+ 1 r.0. %' :/ E$#ii.t '
' ' .W
. _ ' __ _' f; ' - _
Y / / Caruster ,. Glass Waste Form Figure 5.1. Reference Waste Package Conceptual Designs in Basalt (Short Borehole Horizontal Emplacement)
!g g s-i 5-i w.s,. o.c% c_ gQ y r* c7neo s n M r* c p s.=
/ i; ..
?,.w...: ~
; / / BG ^'4%? % JV 3 gyu _ w n. -.;
e
/ / y n um /
8 s*j / /Lym .. _., pg.0/
/[/ 3 c- p,e e 1 :.:w.
i..
/ /M, ~rgs;n. /
/ ;;;;.. f " :9, 8
& ;^k . ~
WA; 1. . f: /
/g&"'!m.]gg;. Q;:M/ 7 ,_ .,.gj
/}E/
7 /jgf ^ g/ l
/ : g% - -q l/ /k
/j/ h b f__
$//
l
/%
//g%
%/
h / 4 4 l/ g / I g
/ cas w.m % 4
/
! /L% - .h/ c - .o.1.o 9 Mp:'re:M/ g l / 44 A[S"' '"' " "' / Miesfw / hM4 g l / p/ g D/ q crusneo sen / / g; p/
/-.l '
,b k$
/
/
1
.g
$h[crusneo Q
g
/
/ c ruster s.k
/!* k l ,b y /
V / / co4L ssT) g N
/
/
-g g
/
p t /
/
% q q /
/ q k
/
/%
y
/q k
/
/ % cA"Itki>
//4 4 h/
fg % overg.c= ce st.en_ $/ <
/ %
g-
/j/ 7 4 4
* / ,
/
% /
/ k
/
/l
%/ /% q /
/% %/ // k q /
q/
//hq %f
%/
,/
- q/
/d e s e g ,$ / / t/
/ /h %/
/ / / / / / /' p/Vfsspy/
////// /. .
Figure 5.2. Reference Waste Package Conceptual Designs in Salt (Vertical Emplacement)
~
v 5-3 t L m
e Spent Fuel Waste Package Commeroal High Lahel Waste Package pr Tunnel Floor Tunnel Floor u, ;iu
/
/ ers ; u :a
/
/
/ l ! k l
/ l E R j/ ! ! ! ! py // ! ! ! !p ,
/
5
- y l
l l [ shied Pksg j s
; e 5
i j f [' Shsed Plug l l' Mk' ,
/ l % J!"s Liner em wwwwd j l
A [j -
.i Carvster lj , Y j+ up- ss'> : : : ;/
I // l ' 7 7l
/: 'j~~l' \/
. , i
/ - -
/
Glass Weste l-FormM,/
' c
/ :
/ ~
,/
/
/,
/ ;
l / l /
/
//
R / Consoldated .l ,i
\ Spent Fuel :l / Caruster /
Rods . :
/ (304L SST) l
- / s
/
l 'm, / : :
/ / /
- / : / ,/ /
\ / ! / / /
; / : / / .
/
/
/
ca. / /
/
- / .-'
i / : a / .
/ .
,/
/ /_/////
/
! // !
/
sl l /, : . / ~ ~e
/ :
- /
J / .
/
!! / .
/ .
p / - V////////////r'[
,/ Su,,oe ~e
///// / .
l Figure 5.3. Reference Conceptual Designs in Tuff
- l. (Vertical Emplacement) t ,t l 5-4 1
um rc r T_J gm M E CCb m O '"' G Table 5.1. Comparison of Some Waste Package Parameters for the Reference Conceptual Designs BWIP ONW1 SF CHLW NNWSI SF CllLW SF CllLW SPENT FUEL Package Diameter (cm) 50.3 45.6 83.5 89 Package Length (cm) 65.0 32 411 y 325 448 (PWR)* 457 433 (PWR) 300 Borehole Diameter (cm) 89 84 89 (PWR) 94 overpack Wall Thickness (cm) 71 (PWR) 61 5.3 8.3 12 15 Packing Thickness (cm) 15 not used not used 15 2.8 (or air gap) 2.5 2.0 (gap) 14.5 (gap) Loaded Weight (tonnes) 7.6 2.7 20 16.9 4.5 0.82
*PWR = Pressurized Water Reactor 1}}