ML20210B920
| ML20210B920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/20/1999 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-T-0132, NUDOCS 9907230275 | |
| Download: ML20210B920 (153) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, e a 49 y 3... , 7.;,;,yf gy.; :.; ;;; y y y n
.. .. .. c . , . . , . . . , . . y. . . y . .llw. .. . na ..;;; gg. :; .j;n:.y .u n ,)c. . p~-; >
V. i _ ;. __.7 .."7 . ; .a . ~ v ; 9, ;. g _.,yy 4 ,;.
- e - g, .. _
1 .c,- . . .
%.gM;iy.
g.
%.n? i 3 d
- 7. . +; . ; 7, . ; 7. ,. .,y . .g+:7), j.9
.. m :. e g, ;... .. .p .,; ,
- m. ^ ; y
$i.( Y.;* .
l pj , (g , y
/ ~ ' b- - :
" ( , #fO ' j.q . .. f{ -[ .,5 yg,grp. ,
7
.- . . .n a . ..; .- ,. ..g.., ( y : 3. . ... a t
.g.
.s. _,
, s(. 8.; .;,,u.g:. 4: : y ; ,. _
._.yy;g, t gr
-m: n ..
. '; . ._ . ,Y f '. .
. .?. .
*?$.h '?,: ' Ef L l l, _.fl_;}lnQ.""O jf6Q j s.
( .
- 2. e. .
. 4,d. .. . w t.. .
,y, R mm.mnm.L.m. ; .
-~ . .,.;...-
y ,. b.,. ?* ;, . p (-[ ?, ' ,I, ^; . (l.,' '.' . ; I 'l l l.5 y ' ., a [.. .
. 3 :.: _ 9: 7(c w,, y', l4;n'l . .;;r_
y y;}- . . L . , n'y [ . (. g.m. 7:p . ( y_ . -y$.-
; .- , . . . yg 2.;
- 3 , , .x ; .
..( ,
- .m.. ; : .
. ...w[0 P.Q ,. ; .f g .,"
.,..(. .._,f;] 1 , .l. %..'9:."s. . f. ;. ,1 ;m ."d:f,.$[M,W;r. 'U'Qr/ '/ [;. +.
3 . .
.o - -
lV:~ ,
. .l. , 6,.Q 4.f;f; A W : M
..'..V . ;: : .c. 9 . .. ; . f. q,;.ifJ K . % 3. n. . 3.,,e ,.. :.
..a e . .. .
.. - ; ' ',' \ .. : .//... W. .' .
. .: .y. . . .
; o c' 9 '. : , .:-,?;,, ..OJ.. .n; z q' k',3
- j
; J;$ P+f!L%q;p$,;.N -. . . "
.d ;1;., E, /.,,gi.r,-g
......M.< , ,. . . . ' _gp p:.:% , y . . .p. oy;g $$g .j {.p'
. s. < ,,.; . ; . - y / : , . ., . :
7 a: i ( , _g * ' .' ! f^
. , , . hl;y .. ..gyy.j. ': :.$.(.n g. .,gf . ,1.
. 3 - 3 ;(,S. k. . ( f;: L.4 i , ?: p . .g;..a;.y.::Ng, g.\
, 3 ,;
;, .a 9, -. .
. . . . . - < e .. , , , ~,.. . .;;
~ uy. .
.. . .g.: . ..
.. f..;.g.j.
. 29 y .' ' . . . . . . .:- .. r- ,
[M. f .;, , '[, * .
.:;,,p;. .'- 2,,, + v jf. )%wg} '.. ek; ,, . ;w. v ;*.y
.v
, p.
.~ ; : j ,.; , ...,
, . . . . , . 7,
. s . ; r
. .. , '. . - : . . .. -' '. ; . , (. ; .( , .L ^ ,y y ; *
.~ .,
. .l,.f g %.?
- ,% [ !
.. . .. n. .q. ,,
' . . ', _ [.} , ' f e
.e . .
' ::eI $ $ ', d
. ' ', l' ' 1 l
*i
. 4,
"'1
'. l_
l _ .
.l '
- l
'1 . - '"9' /. ' ,. L ; .. .[. } ,'.,i :l [ 1, g : *.c
[~j'% MJ;.;
,s .
y'f% .
~
- ". 3 Mh
- .~.f.- c.. 3;
,}_ .. . .
I'... t Y. f,,
,^.,
.. .' 2
,,1 '., ,
. /. y :
- 3. .;e
-r . . . : -.
,1,r 'f 7. [;,
. . $ , ', : 4 ,' ,
,.i t 4 - - .'.[' "
- 4. $ , ,.,.
'f,L y%( .
y j g Q'Gl ;. [., 0 (~*
.: .; .y; y.[q, ;Q;.,; T yk.1;, *:?m,n. + _ 7:- R :} f ,
' .,. . 7. ;p ;u & :. ..:. % . ..
;;.q:, ,; ..),
j , _
. l ; - ; _.; .
g3; l _ ;.' }^- e z ..y . j
. - , . . ~. g . . r. w. au a. : u. w?
n.r,.,bp .. . , (. . 3 $. ll . f ,, e :f y . ;g < l}%
, }'.. -l ;. :y. ,.; -
. . f [ . 3 f. :c . "%:!j:;; .,.- . .a . 4 yn; %[% n,d ..Y.%
m.
. :. ,}y ,.%.-
.a b :l . ,:::'. W.f N . y m .f# ,.
. n. ' . . ; ,w . V$e..: .
; p43:y#'. -C; >
. 3 . L:c, :.Y_ ,;b. H.,f,ff.L f.(Ny@y:yp[ R,.Qf j ; . f, a
.u V;; :, >,~a;c_s . .;E:n$.. , n ,.
. .:: 3. ' v .v . %, w)a * '
. .. 3 r. , .
..-' .x. . ..
,I gg. i
-{ , 5 .,C.- . 's . . , . , ., , [. 6 ' . f' , ,., . ),
. . . . y .. . .. ~ , .: ',7 n gq. AyQ;; ,,. 4.M t w y :. ~ . c ;, ;_ .
;,p p.,; ;p 3:9 . .y , y,
[ [ k 3. 'b
. ,[. .
i'
' , , , j .} -
.. .* j' 1 .g *
(, -..,4 g
**]':[ 5 i
.,;I.. ,. *,%. . . .
5 .. . . , - 9 -i
. 3 f ;. . , .- -, '.%.s, f ' , .. ; .' ', : ,. , I ' . ,,1 \ ' .g . . }
'/
~. . + -. ' + 37,7 - ' yjt 3 :. . c b.x :.;. ,y s..q j. . .
- j',
.-. g.,. ,
e . . . ,
- ; _ . . - l / ; [. [ Ql ll .
f_ ll*(fll % .h'
~ ; ;. . 9 ,i?
.g) , P f g'hy,.3 e .-.-' '
'1J..
.y: y. ,' h. '
y.1 i{ }.) jf y ;p ;; y ;q <
]71 g g , ,. -
,1 r
g 2 :.
'. { f ' : i ' M ,ug ] %g.w.b' bar.
- g. . 7 ~ +
w.
<..y..
,, q.- p 1.. . ,. o 7.s ; . .. . .,,,*l ,
. ~
v ..+ .
..y - . , ,.
,, 3 t ; , 4, ,.
E AcN#v 0/31 l f OR/GlAL ( OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS NUCLE R REGULATORY COMMISSION L ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE .
Title:
MEETING: 111TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) TR06 .ACNW-R E""JRN O R I G I NA' e~ i TO BJWHITE , ,# M/S T-2E26 -, 415-713C THANKS! I Work Order No.: ASB-300-863 1 0 9907230275 990720 PDR ADVCM NACNUCLE T-0132 PDR LOCATION: Rockville,MD DATE: Tuesday, July 20,1999 PAGES: 1 - 98 230035 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1025 Connecticut Ave.,NW. Suite 1014 O ,.y._, _ , Washington, D.C. 20036 572 W l i m e* q - tulS nc7 face uo?y- Rey l.
.fX1le'_i M ?eCa x it y
i
/ "'r
( )
%J l'
DISCLAIMER i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE JULY 20, 1999 The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory l f' ( Committee on Nuclear Waste, taken on July 20, 1999, as reported.herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date. This transcript had not been reviewed, corrected ) and edited and it may contain inaccuracies. rN l v) i c_
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 4 *** 5 MEETING: 111TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON 6 NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) 7 8 Conference Room 2B3' 9 Two White Flint North 10 11545 Rockville Pike 11 Rockville, Maryland 12 13 Tuesday, July 20, 1999 14 15 The committee-met, ;ornuant to notice, at 1:00 16 p.m. 17 MEMBERS PRESENT: 18 JOHN GARRICK, Chairman, ACNW 19 GEORGE W. HORNBERGER, Vice-Chairman, ACNW 20 RAYMOND G. WYMER, ACNW Member p 21. CHARLES FAIRHURST, ACNW Member 22 23 L 24 25 l l { ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036-(202) 842-0034
l 2 1 PROCEEDINGS '() ~2 3 DR. GARRICK: (1:0C p.m.] Good afternoon. The meeting will 4 .now come to order. 5 This is a continuation of the second day of the 6 111th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. 7 My name is John Garrick, Chairman of the ACNW. Other 8 Members of the Committee include George Hornberger, Ray 9 Wymer, and Charles Fairhurst. 10 The entire meeting will be open to the public. 11 Today the Committee will continue preparation of ACNW 12 reports, and before that we'll get an update on DOE Yucca 13 Mountain repository design matters. 14 Andy Campbell is the designated Federal official () 15 for.the initial portion of today's meeting, and as usual, ; 16 this meeting is being conducted in accordance with the ]l 17 provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We have 18 received no written statements or requests to make oral 19 . statements from members of the public regarding today's ; 20 session. Should anyone wish to address the Committee, 21 .please notify and make your wishes known to a member of the 22 staff. 23 The procedure if you wish to make a comment is to 24 identify yourself and speak clearly so that we can all hear l l 25, the important message that you have to say. l-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ON Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
3 1 We're now going to move directly into the Yucca 2' Mountain repository design discussion. This discussion will 3 be led by Committee Member -- as far as the Committee is 4' ' concerned -- Charles Fairhurst. So with that, I guess we're 5 ready to proceed with the first speaker. I think that's 6- going to be -- l 7 DR FAIRHURST: Paul Harrington.
'8 DR. GARRICK: And would each presenter introduce 9 themselves, say a little bit about what their role in life 10 is for the benefit of the Committee, 11 DR. FAIRHURST: You mean as far as DOE's 12' ~ concerned.
13' DR. GARRICK: You two must know each other. 141 MR. HARRINGTON: My role in life with respect to () 15 the DOE is maybe not as interesting as some of the other , l 16 roles I may play. ; i 17 I am Paul Harrington. I am the DOE design lead j 18 for Yucca Mountain activities. The way our organization is 19 set up, Steve Brocoum is the assistant manager responsible 20 'for regulatory activities, and. Dick Spence is the assistant ; 21 manager responsible for actual production of products doing ; 22 work activities within the M&O.. And I am the design lead in 23 Dick Spence's organization. 24' So I've been on Yucca Mountain about four years ;
- 25. now, having come from Rocky Flats, and the commercial :
, \ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters ,
1025 onnecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 j
4 i 1 nuclear world prior to that. [ 2 V) Before I talk, I'll say a little bit about where 4 3 we stand in this whole LADS process, though. We've broken 4 this discussion up into two sections. I'll give the 5 process, how LADS came to be, what it is wc looked at, and 6 what the several recommendations, enhanced design 7 alternatives were and a recommendation that's been made from 8 the M&O to the DOE. DOE has not acted on that yet. And 9 Dick Snell will give a more detailed discussion of what the 10 enhanced design alternative to recommendation really 11 contains. 12 Now the M&O made an initial recommendation through 13 Rev. O of the LADS report in the middle of April, on the l 14 15th, to the DOE. We did a technical review, had comments () 15 on it that resulted in issuance of Rev. 1. That is the rev 16 that the TRB and others have reviewed and made comments to. 17- We are still collecting review comments. We've not yet made 18 a selection or final decision on whether or not to proceed 19 with EDA-2 or something else. 20 DR. HORNBERGER: Paul, what's the time frame for 21 making that decision firm? 22 MR. HARRINGTON: Well, we have a TRB member coming 23 to the project Thursday, Friday of this week to try and talk 24 about the ve tilation issues. I'm sure you've seen the 25 letter that they sent us a week or so ago, and they continue ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. f~') A- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
5 1 to be interested in a cooler repository then EDA 2 looks IT 2 like. So they're coming out to talk about possible ways to O 3 achieve that. This is not going to be just DOE 4 presentations but much more of an interaction and listen to 5 what they have. That happens the end of this week. Lake 6 will probably take that into consideration and sometime 7 fairly soon after that come out with a conclusion. 8 DR. FAIRHURST: Who is the one -- which RB member 9 is coming out -- 10 MR. HARRINGTON: Dan Bullen. 11 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay. 12 MR. HARRINGTON: And a staff member, Carl DiBello, 13 with him, and I don't know of any other board members that 14 are coming. () 15 l As we were doing the characterization work, one of 16 the significant issues that came up were uncertainties with l 17 respect to modeling not just the engineered but the natural l 18 systems also. So we've looked at what can we do to reduce ' 19 uncertainties. That ultimately led to the LADS exercise. 20 Now there had been a number of proposals made from 21 a lot of different areas as to alternate designs that the I 22 project might pursue. Some of them were fairly narrowly i 23 focused, like rod consolidation. That's really something 24 that could be applied to most any fundamental design 25 approach. And there were other more broad design approaches l O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_sl. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r=
]
l 6 , 1 that were proposed, including both cooler and hotter l L[) i \_) 2 repositories. So.the attempt of the LADS exercise was to do 3 a comprehensive assessment of all of the different proposals 4 that were on the table at the time or that could be 5 developed during this process to try and reach closure on-
~
6 what a best-design approach might look like to us. 7 Now this was not intended to be a final design. 8 As we go through this, we'll see references to specific i 9 thicknesses of waste package. materials and drip shields and ) 10 that sort of stuff. The thicknesses there were for 11 analysis. They're certainly subject to being validated 12 through the continuation of the design exercise that we're l 13 doing from now to site recommendation, and then to LA, l l 14 assuming that a site recommendation is made, j
<^
i (%,) 15 In addition to trying to do that comprehensive l 16 assessment, NRC Regs 60 and 63 require that we look at 17 alternative designs. So there were a number of drivers 18 causing this. 19 As I said, we'll have to develop that further to 20 support and SR and LA. This is conceptual. The terminology 21 that is contained throughout the report addresses design 22 alternatives and design features. Design alternatives were 23 the really fundamentally different approaches we talked 24 about a moment ago, such as a high or low thermal load. 25 We'll have lists of them a little further in the [ '\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. f(. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 j l 1 l
h l' 7 1 presentation. And then the design features were the { 2- relatively minor changes that.could be applied to any 3 ' inherent approach. 4- We had just issued the viability assessment prior 5 to starting.this. .This really started in July of last year. 6 -But in the'-- or I;ot but, but.in the viability assessment 7 volume II was the design product, and section 8 of that had 8 a number.of'different alternatives. So that was one of the 9 bases'for starting this work, but we were not constrained i 10 just to following that. l 11 And if you guys have questions as we go through l 12 this, please feel free to go-ahead and address them. 1 13- DR. GARRICK: One of the things that I do have a 14 question on is if DOE has established a criterion or a 15 definition of what constitutes an. alternative design, at 16 what level'of change does it become an alternative design? 17' MR. HARRINGTON: As opposed to a design feature? l - 18 DR. GARRICK: Yes. Yes. 19 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. A specific criterion, I 20 don't believe we have. As we look at what they are, you can 21 kind of-see how we treated some versus others. And the 22- treatment of one versus another wasn't a major motivator in 23 this anyway. It was an attempt to group activities for 24 alternative evaluation. Rather than looking at 32 or so off 25 the bat, we tried to identify which ones we thought, and i t i ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut' Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L. m_...
8 1 again I don't'know that' specific criteria were more
-( ) 2 ' fundamental and which ones were less.
3 DR. GARRICK: Now has the Technical Review Board z4 been specific on what they mean by alternative designs? 5 MR. HARRINGTON: Not more specific than we have as 6 I can remember. 7 DR. GARRICK: Um-hum. 8 MR. HARRINGTON: They may have issued something, 9 but not that I recall now.
- 10. Dick, have you -- okay, Dick Snell doesn't 11 remember anything, either.
12 DR. GARRICK: .Okay. Thank you. 13 DR. FAIRHURST: But they have -- the Technical 14 Review Board has sort of almost accepted your definition of (G;J :15 alteilnative designs, because they-speak of them. They would 16 . prefer EDA 1 rather than EDA 2. Right? 17 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 18 DR. FAIRHURST: So they have in essence said these 19 are alternative designs 1and they're willing to accept this. 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, I think they're willing to 21 accept our definition of alternatives. I thought the l 22 question was had they come up with their own definition or
-23 .something more explicit.
24' DR. FAIRHURST: Oh, I agree. I'm not 25 ' contradicting your' answer. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034
9 1 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. 2 DR.'FAIRHURST: I'm just saying that they have in 3 essence bought off your definition. 4 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. I think they were
- 5. reasonably comfortable with what we had defined as 6 alternative approaches. They're not as comfortable with the 7 recommendation that was made to.the DOE obviously.
8 DR. GARRICK: Yes. 9 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. The LADS process went 10 through several steps. These next two pages enumerate 11 those. We went ahead and identified the objectives to use 12 for developing the concepts, and then we had a series of 13 workshops. In early January there was a two-week workshop 14 to look at the analyses that had been generated for the () 15 design features and design alternatives trying to find how 16 we might then structure those into a narrower set of 17 fundamentally different alternative approaches. 18 We used a consensus decision process, with the 19 LADS core team as the decision makers. Now, something that 20 has come up a number of times is the lack of a very 21 numerical approach to this exercise, and we weren't trying 22 to do a numerical approach. It wasn't really of value to 23 us. We didn't think to try and assign a number, a rating of 24 83 to 1 approach versus 67 to another approach. All we are 25 really looking for was relative contribution to performance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O* Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 10 l $ l J1 .and to the other criteria that we had. So that is another j () [2 3 comment that the project has gotten, and we will go further into detail in a moment. '
- 4. DR. HORNBERGER: Amongst your criteria, ideas to j l
l
'E~ consider, how fundamentally do workshops identify changes? )
t L. 6 Did you consider different tunnel diameters? Did you t 1 7 consider vertical emplacement of the canisters and 8 boreholes? I mean how far did you go? 9 J4R . HARRINGTON: With respect to emplacement, we 10 went back to vertical borehole emplacement, horizontal 11 borehole emplacement, short cross-drifts rather than the
- 12 .long-ones we have, putting packages into trenches with a 13' shield over them. We looked at larger and smaller tunnel 14 diameters.
() 15 There hasn't been much of a push to go larger. 16 Actually, that does provide some benefit if you are truly 17 trying to limit the temperature in the rock, though. 18 DR. FAIRHURST: You only want for the repository 19 in them, yes. 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Pardon me?
-21 DR. FAIRHURST: I said if you only need -- if you )
- 22. 'just want one to put everything in. j 23' MR. HARRINGTON: Yeah. But we did consider going 24 to a smaller diameter in more detail than the larger, and
- 25. did some scoping analyses on the equipment size to emplace ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l l 11 1 waste, to retrieve'it' backfill, drip shield, and decided
'2 that we really can not significantly decrease size. So we
~
3 tried to 1ook at a lot.of.different things. 4 This obviously has to be a documented basis to 5 support what we did. .And I keep saying "we," again, this is 6 the M&O process to develop a recommendation to make to the
'7 DOE, 8 There was something called the LADIG, LA Design 9 Integration Group. In December we realized that there was a 10 need for an overall policy coordination group, something 11 driven by the DOE, so we created the LA Design Integration 12 Group. It had senior members from both the DOE and the 13 contractor. It was chaired by Steve Brocoum, our AM for
- 14. licensing. It included senior members from the M&O staff, 15 Dan Wilkins, Jack Bailey was on it.
16 And the intent of that was to have a venue to 17 discuss policy issues. You may have heard that that was 18 another issue that had come.up at the TRB meeting a couple 19 of weeks ago was the -- there was a concern that the M&O-was 20 creating policy decisions. That is what the LADIG was there 21 for, and there will be a revision to the LADS report that 22 will. capture those LADIG policy issues. 23 One question I have for you. Have you folks 24 gotten to see the LADS report'yet, or is this really pretty 25 cold?
)
~
[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\~s/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
12
-1 Okay. I apologize for that. We could have
) 2 brought copies out. I went ahead and gave the NRC site rep
'" 3 i a copy, only about a week ago though. So, obviously, it "4 hasn't.gotten distribution here yet. Okay. I will keep 5 thatLia mind as'we are going through this thing.
6 So in the process, these are some of'the things l 7 that the LADIG looked at is, what is the decision 8 methodology? There were several different approaches we 9 could have'taken to that. One is a very numeric rank 10 ordered, here is what we looked at, here'is how we assign 11 numbers to them. .Here is the roll-up of that, and here is 12 the only real possible answer as a recommends. tion. 13 The other end of the spectrum was go out and 14 evaluate these different alternative approaches and provide () 15 the pros and cons of them', but don't attempt to make any 16 relative comparison, leave that to the DOE to do, to i 17 incorporate whatever additional DOE criteria there may be. l l
- 18. We ended up in this LADIG group deciding to take a 19 middle course, which is to say do a relative comparison 20 between the various approaches and come up with a 21 recommendation rather than being silent on what a proposed l 22 recommendation might look like.
l' 123 DR. HORNBERGER: You did a formal analysis, not an l-24 MUA,' but-something else? 25 MR. HARRINGTON: Not an MUA, a paired comparison [) U ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,' D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ;
Y' 13 1 analysis.
'N l
1 [0 2 3 DR. HORNBERGER: MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. Yeah, we will go through that a 4 little bit later. 5 Let's see. We also talked about what were the l 6 evaluation criteria to be used during Phase II. Now, Phase 7 II was when we had taken the design alternatives and design 8 features of Phase I, had the Phase I closure workshop 9 meeting to define what we were going to look at as 10 structured enhanced design alternatives in the Phase II 11 process. We reassessed what criteria to use for that Phase 12 II assessment and that went to the LADIG for consensus. 13 The desired product, sort of a restatement of the 14 first one. The first was methodology. The third one is, r (s 15 what does the product actually look like? The documentation ' 16 necessary to support this. ! 17 And the next slide is really a graphic of the 18 process. Oh, I am sorry. I have been talking to -- 19 DR. GARRICK: We are up with you, but you are not 20 with yourself. l 21 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay, great. Okay. This is 22 really a graphic of the whole process. The first one we do 23 the description of the alternatives and features. We have 24 talked through that. Much of that came from the VA work. 25 Second was develop the evaluation criteria for l l
/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I 14 1 that. There is a slide a little later on that describes ( ) .2 what that criteria was.
\_/ j 3 Third is then evaluate those alternatives and i 4 features.
)
5 The fourth was the workshop to develop the 6' enhanced design alternatives. l l 7 Fifth was develop the criteria that those would be j i 8 assessed against !
\
1 9 The next is then to do that evaluation and ranking 10 of the EDAs.
'11 And the last is to come up with a recommended 12 design. So that is really what this whole LADS process did 13 in a single graphic.
14 Okay. Again, for the Phase I, we took all of the (% ( ,) 15 design alternatives and features and did analyses specific 16 to each of those, and two pages back, we will get to those. 17 In tact, maybe I will just -- these next two slides are text 18 of what we had here in a graphic form, so I will just go ) 19 through them quickly. 20 Again, the development, the January workshop, then 21 EDA II or the Phase II part in March. Did the comparative 22 evaluation with rankings, comparative rankings. 23 I wanted to have EDAs, Enhanced Design 24 Alternatives -- let's see -- that were fundamentally 25 different. It goes back to just the regular design ([} Ad ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporterc 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l
15
'1 alternatives, I'm sorry.
- 2. As much of a definition of what a design
/) 3 alternative versus a design feature is, we are kind of 4 capturing here. Okay.
-5 i DR. FAIRHURST: Before you get off these, you have 6 almost answered' John's question. You said that is a 7- fundamentally different conceptual design.
8 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 9 DR. FAIRHURST: Now, what is fundamentally 10 different between. EDA I and! EDA II? 11 MR. HARRINGTON: Ph, temperature. The concern ! l 12 there, the big issue, the big difference between I and II is 13 keeping the rock always sub-boiling. 14 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay. So a fundamental difference I 15 is below boiling. 16~ MR. HARRINGTON: In the rock. 17 DR. FAIRHURST: In the rock. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 19 DR. FAIRHURST.: Or above boiling in the rock. 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 21- DR. FAIRHURST: That's one. 22 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 23 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay. 24- DR..HORNBERGER: You know, the real fundamental 25' difference is spacing of drifts, right? h \~/ - ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
1 1 16 i l' MR. HARRINGTON: Well, that just -- l [ 2 DR. FAIRHURST: Again, you know, this is -- you
\_/ !
3 are testing the argument. How fundamentally different is 4 it?- 5 DR. HORNBERGER: The argument itself, you could 6 ventilate EDA II for 300 years and keep the temperature 7 down. 8 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes, we could. And it wouldn't 9 even take that long. 10 DR. FAIRHURST: It is not a fundamental -- you are 11 right. 12 DR. HORNBERGER: That is a design feature. 13 DR. FAIRHURST: The thing that bothers me is 14 fundamental, it is not fundamental. O) q_ 15 DR. HORNBERGER: The drifts are a different I 16 spacing. 17 DR. FAIRHURST: Right. , 18 DR. HORNBERGER: They can't change that. So that 19 is why it is fundamentally different. I'm sorry. 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, we can change drift space. 21 DR. HORNBERGER: No, no, no. But between -- 22 MR. HARRINGTON: But the difference in concept -- 23 DR. HORNBERGER: -- the two alternatives. Between i 24 the two alternatives, one is that -- I forget how many meter l 25 spacing, and two is a closer spacing. That is a difference ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l (/v ' Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 \_
1 17
.1 that you can address withIa design feature. That is 2 difference, if you mine it out, you can't change it by
)
3 ventilating or backfilling or anything else. The design 4 features.you can apply to anything. 5 DR. FAIRHURST: No, if you want to, you can change i 6 it,.you can drive a drift between them. No, you can, 7- George. 8 DR. HORNBERGER: Okay.
; 9 MR. HARRINGTON: What we were trying to get to --
10 DR. FAIRHURST: Or you can go from 81 to 40 and 11 you are still different than the VA design. 12 DR. HORNBERGER: I withdraw my comment. 1 13 MR. HARR$NGTON: What we were trying to -- 14 DR. HORNBERGER: I am sorry I asked the question. () 15 MR. HARRINGTON: What we were trying to get to in 16 EDA I was something where you don't get into the vapor phase 17 for in the rock. 18 r DR. HORNBERGER: No , I know. I mean I know the 19 result. I was just -- I was quibbling with Charles. 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. 21 DR. HORNBERGER: He and I like to do that. 22 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. These are the design 23- alternatives that were looked at in Phase I. Now each of 24 these and the design features on the next two pages had 25- analyses written against them that we then used as the basis O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i i
; 18 1 for the workshop in early January to try and discuss how
() 2 3 each of these met the criteria that were assigned, or that we were reviewing them against. 4 So tailored waste package spatial distribution. 5 Is there some way we can orient or separate the packages in 6 some manner that would improve performance or give us some 7 other benefit?' 8 Low thermal load design, obviously, postclosure 9 . ventilation system. That is something that continues to get 10 interest. At the most recent TRB meeting one of the 11 professors from the University of Nevada, Reno, made a 12 comment that he thought we had prematurely terminated 13 assessment of postclosure ventilation, but let me talk about-14 that one for just a moment. A () 15 The concept there is that as long as you can pass 16 air'through a drift,-you can remove heat and moisture from a 17 waste package. If you can continue that in the postclosure 18 phase, then there may be some merit to it. We had a i 19 workshop that Nye County actually hosted in early December i 20 looking at concepts. One was a flow from outside a 21 repository through and back outside. Certainly that would 22 bring in dry air, but you were left with the problem that 23 the repository was not isolated. 24 We looked at a couple of concepts for circulation 25 within the mountain. i [) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. T,_/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
I 19 1 DR.'FAIRHURST: The bow tie arrangement. () 2
.3 MR. HARRINGTON:
there was another one. Yeah, there was the bow tie and And one of the big problems we had 4' with that was.trying to prove that it would perform that 5 function for a period long enough to be of benefit in the 6 postclosure world where you are really not having an 71 o'pportunity to monitor it or to act on it. That difficulty 8 versus the somewhat marginal improvement that we got in 9= performance from it, as I said, that didn't go forward. 10 ' Enhanced access design. We talked a moment ago 11 about' packages and drifts in the floor. One of the concepts 12 was, what happens if there is a problem as you are moving a { 1 13 package ~in or if, while it is in, you need to go into the 14 drift and do some maintenance, or if you have a retrieval ( 15 exercise, you have maybe equipment failure or something 16 else, what can you.do to the packages to make them more 17 approachable, primarily from a radiological perspective? So 18 that was that one.
'19 Modified waste emplacement mode design. There was 20 Lthe VA design, we didn't want to simply discount the
, 1 21 viability assessment. There was a lot of good thought that l 22 had gone into that. And the VA had some options that j 23 included backfill, drip shields and ceramic coatings, and 24 then a modular design in phased construction. That was more 25 of a surface issue we rolled into this to try and see how ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
20 1 that would affect a subsurface, but there was also some [~')\ 2 modularization of subsurface construction besides. l 3 The next one is design features. These are things 4 that were considered to be less fundamentally different and 5 could be applied to just about any of the basic design L ! 6 approaches. Ceramic coatings, drip shields and backfills 7 came out of the viability assessment as options. Aging and 8 blending of waste, certainly, the more you age it, the more i 9 heat it is able to reject, the less heat you have to worry ! 10 about in a repository. Likewise, if you do blending of j l 11 packages, you can better control the thermal content of a
]
12 waste package. l 1 13 The VA design -- design basis, 21 PWR, had about 14 9.8 kilowatts per package, but the max was up at about 18 r\ 15 kilowatts per package. With blending, you can keep that (s -) 16 lower, avoid hot spots as you go down through the drift 17 length. 18 Rod consolidation, it was more of an issue than a 19 performance issue. 20 Timing of closure, if you can delay or accelerate, 21 you may have longer ventilation periods. I 22 What do you have to do for maintenance of 23 underground features, particularly if you go to some 24 extended period? 25 Drift diameter, that came up a little earlier. l i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O- Court Reporters ) 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 21 1 Spacing, both of the drifts and of the waste packages within t l 2 a drift Self-shielding of waste packages. We looked at
)
3~ other shielding approaches to waste packages, including 4 trenches. There was a clam shell approach where the shield 5 was separate from the waste package but could be applied on 1 6 top of11t. Corrosion-resistant materials, different
'7 materials'than have been looked at in the VA.
8- A Richards barrier, that is a two grain backfill
- 9 material. The intent is to cause water to wick down at the 10 interface between the two. We actually did a test on that 11 out at our ATLAS facility on Russell Road, you may or may 12 not be aware of.
13 DR. GARRICK: Yes, we are aware of that. 14 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. t( ) 15 DR. GARRICK: Did you have the results from it
'16 yet?
17 MR. HARRINGTON: I don't. Dick, do you know what
, 18 we have gotten?
l 19 MR. SNELL: Dick Snell with the M&O. I was going 20 to say they did find one thing, you have to be careful 21 selecting the grain size and the materials in the two 22 ' layers, because the first one picked, the water went right 23 straight through the -- excuse me, the fine grain material 24 went right straight through the second layer.
- They had no 25 barrier between the two layers of material. But they.are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
f},1-(_ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 [
l 22 1 l 1 1 doing tests now with dissimilar materials, two layers, and f 2 we do not have yet any conclusive results. It does seem to
'3 be performing as anticipated, that is, it is causing 4 materials to move -- water to move at the interface between l 5' the two materials, to the side. Water is not getting down 6 into.the lower backfill material. But no firm conclusions l
7 as yet.
- 8 DR. EAIRHURST
- You are'also doing a heated test, l
9 aren't.you? 10 MR. SNELL: The heated test is to begin shortly. 11- It is set up for temperature testing and I believe -- I 12: .think'within a matter of a few weeks that test will begin. 13 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay. 14 , DR. GARRICK: Paul, in your evaluation or approach () 15 to evaluation and the factors you consider in the 16 evaluation, one of the things that there.was always been a ) 17 lot of talk about on this project, because of its magnitude 18 and its long duration, is the finding of a way to be 19 flexible and change the direction, even after the so-called 20 design is frozen. 21 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 22 DR. GARRICK: How much is -- and, of course, the 23 regulators are wrestling with that whole issue as well, 24 because that is a difficult one to factor into the 25 regulatory process. But, nevertheless, there is a certain ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
n L 23 1- amount'of sympathy because of the nature of the project i [D 2 'towards that. How much is flexibility in the design, how 3 much :Us that; entering into the evaluation process itself? ! 4 MR. HARRINGTON: Greatly. That was one of the 5 four major sets of criteria for the EDA II' evaluation. . 6 .DR. GARRICK: Yeah. 7' MR.'HARRINGTON: There are several subcriteria on i l 8 that. 9 DR. GARRICK: Are you trying to quantify that when 10 you do your evaluation? 11: MR. HARRINGTON: Yes, we did assign a number to 12 it, but the number is really relative performance between 13 EDA approaches, not to say that a number 2 equates to some 14 measurable item, but number 2 or a rank of 2 with respect to ( 15 flexibility means that one EDA is more or less flexible than 16 another. 17 DR. GARRICK: Yeah. Well, the thought here, of 18 _ course, is that as you get further down the road and as you 19' do more field studies, more R&D, learn more about the 20 design, you may. reduce some uncertainties about some of the 21 ' design features, for example, and decide that there is just i 22 not a good return on them, and you would either like to be 23 able to eliminate them or change them or what-have-you, such 24 as a Richards barrier or such as a drip shield. 25 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. i O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court. Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
24 1 DR. GARRICK: Because I think that some of these I b) 2 things come out of people's mouths awfully easy, like drip 3 shields, but when you stop and calculate what is involved, 4 not only in materials and costs, and installation and 5 what-have-you, but the whole support effort that is 6 involved, you know, we end up with huge numbers. 7 So I would think that would be an extremely 8 important consideration. 9 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. When we get to the rankings 10 of different EDAs, that was one of the things that caused 11 EDA I to be moved down, because of the area that it would j i 12 take, being a low thermal load. 13 DR. GARRICK: Right. 14 MR. HARRINGTON: It takes up all and then some of
/
(_j 15 the repository block if we are also looking at possibly l 16 having to put more than 63,000 MTU commercial in there. So 17 it was one of the less flexible ones. I think it is 18 actually the least flexible. 19 DR. GARRICK: All right. 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Let's see, these are just some of 21 the other features. I probably need to be moving on here. 22 These are the criteria we used for the Phase 1 23 evaluations of these design features and design 24 alternatives. Pre- and postclosure performance, assessment 25 assurance of safety, construction ops and maintenance, et [\/ ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034
25 1 cetera. And also our confidence in the above assessments. 2 We've been doing a lot of work to try and identify [ } 3 just what are the areas that the project thinks we have less 4 confidence in and what are the areas that we think would 5' drive performance more or less and use that coupling to 6 allocate resources for what it is we do in the future. 7 The DOE concluded an exercise, scoping exercise in 8 that vein about two months ago. The M&O's working up their 9 enhanced version of that, and I have not seen that final 10 yet, but we spend a lot of our focus to make ire we're 11 working on the right things. 12 DR. WYMER: Is dose kind of a washout in all of 13 this? 14 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. Yes, when we get to the EDA (O/ 15 2, you'll see -- actually I didn't put them in here -- but 16 we did curves for 10,000-year and million-year releases for 17 each of the five EDAs, and all five of them perform real 18 well at 10,000 years, but one of the EDAs that has a carbon 19 steel liner waste package material fails sooner after the 20 10,000 years than all of them with CRMs. So especially for 21 the 10,000-year period, dose really was not a discriminator. 22 Okay. So we did the workshop, and that was to 23 look at everything that had been done in these analyses for ; 1 24 the design features and alternatives to figure out how could 25 we structure a set of enhanced design alternatives to then /~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_s]/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 26 1 evaluate to try and make a recommendation from. So the (n) 2 intent of these, these enhanced design alternatives, was to 3 capture several fundamentally different approaches that were 4 not just one offs, which is what the Phase 1 part had been, 5 but that would be a reasonably complete design approach. So 6 within these enhanced design alternatives, we mixed and 7 matched different -- some design alternatives and design 8 features to come up with a design approach that was more 9 fully developed. 10 When I said one off a moment ago, what we tried to 11 do was look at each of the design alternatives and features 12 in the Phase 1 process as that one item compared to the VA 13 design just to try and make a more manageable comparative le exercise. The intent of the enhanced design alternative was O. () 15 actually to structure more complete design approaches that 16 would be relatively different from each other. 17 Now we came up with a couple of approaches to 18 low-temperature designs, a couple to high-temperature 19 designs, and some enhanced-access designs. We then decided 20 that -- there were eight in that first cut, and that was a 21 little too many. Some of them weren't really fundamentally 22 different, so we scrubbed it down to five. 23 This is the EDA discussion here. We did general 24 sessions to review it. We had performance assessment and 25 cost folks there to get some idea of the performance () \ms/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
2' 1 cce cributions of each of these things, and also relative () 2' costs. Did some design analyses. Wanted to know surface 3 doses:as.we were changing waste package materials and 4' . thicknesses, for example. Obviously the dose outside the 5 waste package changes. And that then came up to be the set 6 of EDAs. I'll put this up here. I think you will need to 7 refer to your handouts, though. 8 Now EDA 1 was really the low-temperature design. 9 The fundamental feature there is to keep all of the rock
.10 below boiling, stay out of the vapor phase water in the 11 rock. This particular design construct does allow the waste 12 package itself to exceed boiling, though.
13 There are a couple of versions of what a true
- 14. low-temperature design would be. One of them says that you
() 15 keep the waste package itself also below boiling, and I 16 think the end of that spectrum says that you keep the waste 17 package below the point that you would have corrosion other 18 than~ general-corrosion on it. So that would be from a waste 19 package of 85 C to a waste package of 96 C to a rock 20 temperature of-96 C. Those are sort of the three stages of 21- a' low-temperature design cooler than EDA 2 is. 22 Reading down through that, the aerial mass loading 23 is 45 MTU per art So for 63,000 MTU of commercial SNF, 24 plus ' the DOE Sh.' high-level waste, that would take 1,400 25 acres. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
e l l 1 28 1 Now it says point loading. What that means is the [
'] 'w, 2 waste packages have some spacing between them that's 3 dictated by the thermal content of the individual waste 4 package. The other ones are line load -- that means the 5 waste packages are butted up to about 10 centimeters apart.
6 Basically they are as close as we can reasonably emplace 7 them doing a remote exercise. 8 We limited the waste package size to limit the 9 thermal content of the package. There are 12 PWRs and 24 10 BWRs. Still, though, with the 5-1/2-meter drift diameter, 11 one of the things that we find as we try and shrink the 12 drift diameter is not only do you have less room for 13 emplacement equipment and other equipment to work, but 14 because that rock is closer to the package, it gets hotter (O) 15 than it would if it were a little bit bigger. This has a 16 43-meter drift spacing. 17 And all of them we tried to have a 50-year closure 18 period taken as from time of start of emplacement to 19 closure. Now that's something that we need to do more work 20 on, because the actual analyses that we did were based upon 21 all of the inventory being emplaced at once halfway through 22 the emplacement cycle and, yes, that was just to make it 23 numerically a little bit simpler, and then taking a 50-year 24 cooling period on that. So the intent is to be able to 25 close it at 50 years from start of emplacement in each of
, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
( Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ; Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r i 29 1 these EDAs, but we need to do a little more analysis to make
,m l ) 2 sure that we can do that and that the ventilation rates that \, ,/
l 3 we're proposing do that. 4 So this says 2 to 10 cubic meters per second per 5 drift for that 50-year period. We're really up toward the 6 top end of that, and we're closer to 10 than we are to 2, 7 especially in EDA 2. And it has 20-percent blending to keep 8 the waste package thermal content down from the 18 kilowatts 9 that the 21 PWR could have had with no blending. This is 10 limiting it down to 6.7 kilowatts in these smaller packages, 11 the 12 PWRs. But it also is requiring blending to get 12 there. And the waste package material is 2 centimeters of 13 alloy 22, nickel-based material over 5 centimeters of 316 ) i 14 stainless steel.
!, ) 15 Now these thicknesses certainly are subject to s-16 change through validation, through completion of the 17 calculations that we'll do, but that's what was used for the 18 basis of this LADS work. It does not have filler within the 19 packages. It does not rely on backfill. It does have a 20 drip shield. Titanium, grade 7, at 20 millimeters was i
21 considered for all of them. And because of the smaller 22 packages, then the number of packages went up to not quite 23 16,000. Okay? l 24 EDA 2, the intent there was to get an appreciably 25 lower thermal goal than the viability assessment, but not to
/"'i - ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[ wl Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
ll 30 1 drive it as low as EDA l'had to allow some of the rock to be 2 above boiling. But to keep a space at the center of the 3 pillar between drifts where it would always be subboiling, 4 and that would then provide a channel for flux to come down 5 and then drain between drifts. 6 One of the concerns in modeling flux was if we had 7 an above-boiling isotherm across multiple drifts, what would 8 that do to the water? Would it stay up? Would it find 9 fractures? Would it do something else? So doing this we 10 thought'took a significant chunk of that uncertainty out by 11 providing a relatively large subboiling region where water 12 could relatively freely drain. I l 13 DR. .FAIRHURST: Paul, on that -- 14 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 15 DR. FAIRHURST: And it's somewhat of a technical 16 point, but even though you've got the region below boiling, 17 .the rock is heated up. 18- MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 19 DR. FAIRHURST: And therefore you are closing 20 apertures-to total thermal expansion. Just by keeping it 21 below boiling doesn't mean to say that you've got an open 22 pathway in the middle. 23 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. You certainly would have 24 the mechanical aspects of that, but we would get away from I 25 the vapor phase problem with the water coming down through ) [) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. V Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 , (202) 842-0034 i
/ 31 1 there, So -- see, this -- 2 DR. HORNBERGER: You don't have vapor. You don't 3 get away from the vapor phase. 4 MR. HARRINGTON: No, you don't. 5 DR. HORNBERGER: You just don't boil water. 6 MR. HARRINGTON: Well, okay. t 7 DR. FAIRHURST: That's right. When you get-8 thermal expansi~n -- 9 DR. HORNBERGER: I mean, your humidity is going to 10 change, and so you are still going to evaporate water, 11 you're just not going to boil it. 12 DR. FAIRHURST: That's right. 13 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. 14 DR. HORNBERGER: And so you still see -- 15 DR. FAIRHURST: So this is -- see, this is this 16 question.about not taking into account discrete fractures. 17 DR. HORNBERGER- Right. They're still going to -- 18 DR. FAIRHURST: Because you close those fractures. 19 DR. HORNBERGER: They're going to close. Above. 20 DR. FAIRHURST: Because the rock's expanded. 21 DR. HORNBERGER: That's.right, above the -- 22 DR. FAIRHURST: Lineally with temperatures, not , l 23 going to -- and there's nothing magic about going above and l 24 below boiling. 25 DR. HORNBERGER: Right. Right. j O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 x ---_ .
32 1 MR. HARRINGTON: The degree of closure would be
.b 2' thermally driven; right?
3 DR. FAIRHURST: Yes. It's not quite lineally,
'4 because the stiffness -- there's a residual aperture in a
-5 joint that you can't close.
6 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. l 7' .DR. FAIRHURST: Anyway'-- 8 MR. HARRINGTON: So doing this, though yes, it
- 9. does'still heat up and yes, there will be some -- ,
10- DR. FAIRHURST: It's better if it's -- 11 temperature, right. 12' MR. HARRINGTON: It's lower than it had been in 13 the VA. 14 DR. FAIRHURST: Right.
- 15. MR. HARRINGTON: .Now this says we want to keep the 16 center of the pillars below boiling. In reality, in looking 17 at-the numbers that we've run so far with this particular 18 . spread, about 80 percent of the pillar is subboiling. So by
,19 the time I get to the center of it, it's appreciably below 20 boiling.
21 Because this is 60 MTU per acre, it takes somewhat 22' more footprint than the viability assessment design. So 23 we're..up to 1,050 acres. That would just about fit within 24 the., upper block of the currently characterized area. Now we 25 also'have the lower block available, too. Again, that's i t
, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j l ,_ / Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
( Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 \ l
33
'l .just for'the 63,000 MTU commercial, though. This is going 2 to.line loading. -( )
3 Now, something to point out there with respect to 4 drip shields, I mean yes, we do talk about some of these 5 things'as if they're fairly. simple, and they're going to be l 6 far more complex than that. In the point loading, the 7 concept of a drip shield was that it was a breadbasket. It 8 would sit over an individual waste package and it would have 9 ends'on it.. 10' When you have the waste packages in a line load, 11 -there's really no space to have a drip shield come down 12 across each end, and you don't want that, because you're 13 trying to get thermal transmission in between adjacent waste 14 packages. So the concept here is to have the adjacent () 15 sections of this continuous drip shield overlap each other. 16 Now obviously we have'to model what will happen with water 17- . potentially coming through that joint, but it's just 18- -something to keep in mind in this line load concept and drip 19 shield versus the point load. 20 We are back up to the 21 PWR, 44 BWR though, we 21 can.go with the larger packages. This is the VA size 22 package,.so it doasn't result in an increase in the waste 23- package number, again, with 5-1/2 meter drift, but the drift 24 spacing now been increased to 81 meters to try and provide 25 that relatively cool zone in between drifts. A- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. k/ m Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
34 1 The 9.8 kilowatts is a design basis, is the same () 2 3 as the VA ersentially, but now we have got blending in there to limit the hottest-package to no more than 20 percent over 4 that. We don't have the 18 kilowatts per package from the 5 . viability assessment design. 6 The same construction as for EDA I, no fillers but 7 with backfill over the drip shield, and we are back down to L 8' a.little.over 10,000 waste packages. 9 DR. HORNBERGER: Is the backfill just generic j 10 backfill tuff or to do you have getters or chemical things 11 in there? 12 MR. HARRINGTON: We are considering two different 13 backfill materials, generally. One is a crushed quartz 14 sand, I think, and the other I think was a tough. We did O
's,,/ 15 . consider getters and stuff as some of the design features in 16 the EDA I.
17 DR. HORNBERGER: But they are not here. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: No. No. One of the concerns 19 with.them is, would they still be there and able to function
-20 when you needed them? .You know, at the point that the waste 21 packages would finally. start failing and you start actually 22 releasing material, would that getter that you placed really 23 be there?
24 EDA III is the most similar to the viability 25 assessment designs, and we have two versions of that, A and l
'[ '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
35 1- B,~and the only distinction between them really is the waste () 2 3 package material. So if we jump down toward the bottom of the page, you can see that A has to the two centimeters of 4 Alloy 22 over the_five of stainless, but B has a three layer 5 material with titanium sandwiched in between the Alloy 22 6 and stainless. 7 The thermal goals for III were the same as for the 8 viability. assessment. All of these were trying to protect 9 the' cladding on the fuel so they have a 353 degree C clad 10 limit. This one tries to get the waste package.to cool down 11 to 80 degrees C before the. relative humidity comes back to 12 90 percent. On the curves that we did, we defined the 13 window of susceptibility of materials, and that is 14 temperature-humidity driven, hnd if we can keep the waste f) 15 package temperatures out of that region, then we expect to 16 have enhanced waste package life. So EDAs III, IV and V 17 were not es successful in staying out.of that region as I 18 and II were. 19 This is back to the 85 MTU of VA design, so it 20 took the same 740 acres that the VA did. Line loading,
'21 though, instead of the point load. Again, 21 PWR, 5-1/2 22 meter. This is up to 56 meter spacing, though, the VA
'23 design at 28 meters spacing between drifts. Again, with the 24- continuous ventilation'during a 50 year preclosure period.
25 It says limited blending, that is just simply to not exceed ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 9
n 36 1 18 kilowatts in the hottest package. The reference is still l l) 2 9-1/2~for the 21 PWRs. 1 L '3 We' talked about the materials a moment ago, No 4 fillers, no backfill, it does have a drip shield. And this 51 is also slightly over 10,000 packages. L 6 EDA IV was the concept that was taken forward as 7 the most likely shielded package. Rather than trying to 8 deal with unshielded packages and in a shielded environment I 9 like a trench or a short emplacement drift or something like 10 that, or a shield that was placed over the package after the 11 package was placed, all of those had real operational l l 12 difficulties in that you weren't really protected while you 13 were working on the waste package itself, while you were 14 doing the waste package emplacemeit. They were all sort of () 15 after the fact exercises. So to get the true benefit from 16- shielding, we decided that the package itself ought to be 1 17 shielded. 18- So this one, the big difference here is it is 30 19 centimeters'of carbon' steel. Okay. That brought the gamma
'20 levels down to I think it was couple of hundred MR per hour.
21 The numbers are in there. But it was appreciably less than l
'22 the other ones.
)
23 Just as a point of reference, the VA design was 24 about.20 R per hour or 20 to 50 R per hour and the EDA II 25 desigel, because it is thinner, is about two or 300 R per l f ! O
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
/ Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
37 1 _ hour. So this one was to get it down to a much more 2' manageable level. (} 3 'In 200 degrees C on the drift wall, the intent 4 there was to let it head up, to use that to keep the drifts 5- dry for' thousands of years. Okay, it has got 200 MR per
-6 -hour on here as.the primary goal of this EDA IV. 85 MTU, 7 same placement'or same density as VA. Line load, this also 8 is a 56 meter drift spacing.
-9 Pardon me?
10 DR. WYMER: You are saying R per hour. 11- DR. FAIRHURST: He was, on the other designs. 12 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes, this one is 200 MR per hour. 13 The others -- the other EDAs, except for EDA IV, are two or 14 300 R per hour. () 15 16 Again, a little bit of blending'to make sure we don't exceed 18 kilowatts per package. This does have an 17 integral filler to it, it does have backfill and drip
- 18. shield. Because these are 21 PWRs, it is also a little over 19 10,000 per.
'20 EDA V was an appreciably different concept. That 21 says heat might be advantageous in that, if it drives water 22 'off, and can keep it away,- then you can keep drifts dry and 23 promote or extend waste package life. So this is 24 ' appreciably hotter than the other designs. It allows the 25
~
drift wall to go up a little bit, from 200 to 225 C, but it (\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_s/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
38 1 is-now up to 150 MTU per acre. Because of that, it takes fq ^ 2 less acreage. One_of the thoughts associated with this one
'N 3 was, since it is appreciably smaller, we might be able to 4 find some more advantageous section of rock to locate it in.
5 That would have been pursued more if we had gone further 6 with EDA V. 7 Line loading, drift spacing is now down to 32 8 meters between drifts, again, trying to keep it hotter. To 9 avoid hot spots, though, within a drift, there is blending 10 so that you don't have exceptionally hot packages as you go 11 down the length of the drift. So we are back down to the 12 11.8 kilowatts as a max, 20 percent over nominal. 13 DR. FAIRHURST: All of these calculations were 14 done with fresh waste, right? There was no aging
/~T (j 15 considered?
16 MR. HARRINGTON: I believe that there was some 17 aging considered. The fresh waste would have given us the 18 18 kilowatts per package. So the 9.8 is assuming some 19 aging. I don't remember just how much, but the design 20 package of 18 is about where we would be if we had all five 21 year old fuel. 22 DR. FAIRHURST: So the blending is age of waste as 23 well as type of waste? 24 MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, that's -- I'm sorry, I wasn't 25 clear earlier. That really is age of waste. This is all I~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\s- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l
l 39
- 1 commercial SNF that we are talking about here, it is not the
() 2
'3 DOELSNF or the high level waste.
a second. I will talk about that in This is just commercial, so it is as fresh as
- 4. five years and, if so, if we had a 21 PWR with five year old 5' fuel, it would be 18 or a'little bit higher in terms of
- 6. kilowatts. We recognize that some of what we get will be 1
7 older than that, so'this blending here really was referring 8 to taking cooler, older fuel, mixing it in with hotter, 9 . newer-fuel. 10 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay.
)
11 MR. HARRINGTON: Now, this whole discussion really 12 is focused on commercial SNF. The approach for DOE SNF and 13 high level waste is to use co-disposal packages. They are 14 physically about the same size as the commercial packages, () 151 they are about 2 meters in diameter. These 21 PWRs are 1.6 16 or:7 meters diameter, and they are all about 15 feet long. ;
- 17. The DOE fuel and waste are both very cool so they don't 18 figure into the thermal calculations, so as we do these 19- calculations, that is just using commercial stuff. The 20 'i ntent with the DOE material is just to space it in between 21~ the hotter commercial packages.
Because of the 21 PWR we are still a little over 23 10,000 packages. 24 What was common to all of these? They all had a 25 drip shield. They all had carbon steel ground support. One ; O ANN R1 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)1842-0034
[ .^ 40 1 of the VA designs -- well, the VA design had a concrete l () 2 3 liner to the drift. That came about several years ago, about'three, three-and-a-half years ago when we recognized 4 the need for a very robust low maintenance solution to 5 ground control in drifts that were not going to be able to 6 be accessed very readily, once waste gets emplaced. 7 Since then, over the past year or so, in looking l 8 'at not just the engineered but the natural system modeling, 9 we have identified that there were some issues with water 10 flowing through that concrete, its effect on the PH of the 11 water, and then on the waste package integrity. So going 12 away from the concrete liner removes that uncertainty, and I l l 13 right now we are looking at carbon steel, 14 We had a couple of meetings with a drift stability
) 15 panel, one in December and another one-this spring, to look 16 at different approaches to doing that, try and identify just 17 what the mechanisms would be for the drifts to become ;
I' l 18 unstable. And I asked them, as a secondary question, what 19 an appropriate set of ground support might be for that. We 20 are taking that report under advisement, along with some 21- other input that we have got. We haven't reached a 22 conclusion. 23 See, all of these had 5-1/2 meters. They all have i 24_ preclosure ventilation, they do not have postclosure 25 ventilation. This is all for 70,000 MTU. This is 63,000 [~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
41 1 worth of commercial, and the 7,000 remaining is two-thirds 2 DOE high level waste and one-third DOE spent fuel. And they [} v 3 all have a steel invert with a granular ballast of some 4 sort. 5 These were the variable features among those. The 6 thermal goals. What were we trying to accomplish? Did or 7 didn't we use backfill? What materials was waste package 8 made of? How much, if any, thermal blending was required? 9 The spacing between the drifts and of packages within a 10 drift. And what the location was within the characterized 11 area? 12 Constraints that we tried to apply to all of the 13 EDAs were that we protect the commercial cladding. We 14 didn't see any reason to purposely damage it. There are (~h ~ () 15 certainly some issues as to how wel] characterized is it. 16 How well does anyone know what either existing failures or 17 incipient failures might there be, and how much credit we 18 might be able to take for that? Setting that question 19 aside, we simply didn't see any reason to knowingly do 20 something that would compromise it beyond whatever it might 21 be right now. 22 We also had to have the ability for personnel to 23 access these waste packages for off-normal events, either 24 maintenance or some DBE. For the non-shielded waste 25 package, the concept there is simply that you have to bring I / V
j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters , 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034
F f- ' 42 l l 1- in portable shielding should you work in a drift. 2 Certainly, the first' approach, say, if you had drift l [N-l 3 maintenance to do, would be to unload-the drift so you could 4 go in unrestricted. If there were a problem, if the 5 equipment had broken or you had'a rockfall or something such 6 that you couldn't unload it, then you would have to go in 7 with portable shielding. j 8 DR. WYMER: At.one time you were talking about 300 l 9 -years, now you are talking about 50. l 10 MR. HARRINGTON: That is the difference. This is 11 a constraint. We wanted to have a design that could be i 12 closed at,50 years. 13 DR. WYMER: Why? i , 14 MR. HARRINGTON: Institutional control. For us to () i 15 come up with a design that had to stay open 300 years really 16 presumes a lot for future generations. 17 DR. WYMER: You must have known that when you 18 selected the 300 years. 19 MR. HARRINGTON: We didn't select it. No , what we 20 said we were going to do is come up with a design that could 21 be closed relatively soon,-50 years, or it could be left 22- open if people chose to do so. 23 Now, we'didn't want to come up with a design that 24: had some inherent feature that would prevent people from j 25 continuing to monitor, if they chose to do so, but rather l [ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 1 (202) 842-0034
t 43 1 would be relatively maintainable for whate"er features might
,\
2 be necessary. So that is really the difference between the l (k ,) ! 3 50 and the 300. 4 That is one of the concerns about looking at 5 extending the preclosure ventilation period for EDA II, if 6 you then end up with a repository that has a minimum life of 7 125 years versus something that is more controllable. 8 Now, these next several slides go through in text 9 what we talked through from the table. 10 DR. FAIRHURST: Well, I think, you know, we have 11 seen -- we are pretty much familiar with the EDA I through 12 V 13 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. Do you want to skip 14 through this? ( ,) 15 DR. FAIRHURST: So why don't we just jump over 16 that? 17 MR. HARRINGTON: Great. 18 DR. FAIRHURST: At least we have them here for 19 reference. 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. There were five EDAs. As 21 we looked at them, we thought that all of them actually were 22 viable. They all had good releases, especially through the 23 10,000 year expected regulatory performance period. That is 24 the second bullet, they all met that criterion. They all 25 had defense-in-depth. One of the criteria we looked at was i I fT
\m l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 8
I
l
)
44 1 the extent of defense-in-depth, and that was defined in part (q Q ,l
; 2 as the number of separate features within a design, and they 3 all could be closed as early as 50 years from start of l 4 emplacement.
1 5 And I will put the same caveat on this bullet that I l 6 I mentioned earlier, the analyses were based on 50 years 7 ventilation, so we just need to work this issue. 8 What were the criteria that we used to evaluate 9 it? They had to be consistent with the repository design j 10 objective. We got to multiple subcriteria to try and better 11 define just what it is we were looking at within the larger 12 ones, and again because we were not trying to do this l 13 multiattribute utility analysis, we didn't go to the point 14 of saying that they had to be mutually exclusive or () 7 15 comparable within criteria, that sort of thing. That wasn't 16 really what we were trying to do with it. 17 They were there so that we could have a consistent 18 set of information and judgments across each of the EDAs, 19 and to provide a basis for this pairwise comparison that we 20 spoke about a little earlier. Again, there was no numeric 21 score assigned to them. 22 Okay. These are the criteria. The screening one 23 was simply did it meet the regulatory criteria, and I 24 certainly that's still proposed. EPA has not acted on it, 25 but what we used was the 25 MR per year at 20 kilometers j 1 l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l [/ A- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
45
'l 'over.10,000 years. Each of the bullets within the criteria
/~
[b[ 2l 3 boxes'under the main relevant factors, those were all subcriteria. 4 So for each of them, we looked at the five EDAs 5 and did a paired comparison to say does this EDA perform l, 6 better-or worse than the other EDAs with respect to each of l 7 those bullets or.subcriteria. We did a numerical ranking on
- 8. a 1-to-5 scale, but'again1the intent was not to say that a 5
~9 -assigned to degree of defense in depth meant the same thing l
10 as a 5' assigned to maintainability. They were simply 11 relative.within a particular subcriterion. 12- Now you had a question earlier about flexibility. 13' Obviously that was important to us. The first subcriterion 14 was increased disposal capacity. The.87,000 MTU comes from (f 15 the total amount of SNF that we project would be created if 16' all of the licensed plants ran to the end of their license 117 lives. Thel 105,000 MTU commercial comes from having half of 18 those plants have 20-year life extensions. These are the 19 same numbers that the EIS used, so for the EDA or for the 20 LADS exercise, we wanted to be consistent with that and~look 21 at how would each ofLthese perform if we had a greater
'22 inventory to work from.
23 Now the -- 24 DR. HORNBERGER: Was there any consideration given i 25 to this phased or modular construction? That is, are any of l
.['}
(_/- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut' Avenue, NW, Suite 11014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034- j L_.
p 46 1- these EDAs more.or less friendly to, say, construction on a l#'T 2 phased basis, where you could anticipate design changes from
\ss/
3 . module to module underground? 4 MR. HARRINGTON: We looked at that somewhat in the 5 Phase 1 of this and found that it wasn't really much of a
'6 . discriminator. All of them we' thought, given that you're 1
7 going to buy waste packages over a long lifetime, they all 8 could pretty much be made to suit whatever design. modes 9 might come around. 10 Preclosure period, this says 10 years. The reason 11 that.says 10 years is a~ year or so ago OCRWM headquarters in
- i. 1L2 our highest-level requirements documents put a requirement 13 :ba there that the repository be able to be closed 10 years 14 after emplacement of the last waste package. That was
() 15[ driven by a consideration-as to how long it might take us to 16 get enough data from performance confirmation to make an 17 adequate case to request closure. We're removing that 1 j 18 because all of these require enough ventilation'that a 19 10-year preclosure or postemplacement closure period really 2 CF just isn't enough, and it didn't have much of a basis to 21 start with.
.22 DR. WYMER: But I'd be safe in assuming that you
'23 -were looking~ ahead, and doing all this looking ahead to how 24 to' write your environmental impact statements, you 25 discovered that there wasn't much difference among these i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 l , l
47 1_ various approaches that it made any difference?
), 2 MS. DEERING: Roy, would you use the microphone, 3 please?
4 DR. WYMER: The question was, and this is sort of 5 leading ~into the next presentation, which deals only with
'6' EDA 2, but when you were doing all this work, I presume you
,7 ~ looked ahead to the time when you were going to have to 8 write an environmental impact statement and get it accepted.
,9.. .Did you discover that -- and I would assume you . night 10- have -- that there was not enough difference in tne 11- environmental impacts from one to the other that that wasn't 12 a consideration?-
13 MR. HARRINGTON: No. We spent a lot of time 14' . coordinating this with the EIS preparers. As you know, s we're getting close to issuing the PEIS. And when we set up
-16 the EIS a couple of years ago, we tried to identify what the 17 bounding designs might be, and at'the time -- and we still 18 think.thatithat's really driven by the thermal load and the 19 'AML per acre, the areal mass loading.
So in the EIS, 25 MTU 20 per acre is the-lower bound We had an upper bound. I 21 don't remember offhand what that number was. I think it 22 'might have been 85. Now certainly one of these is higher 23 than that. And there was a middle range of 50 or so. I 24 : don't'know. ) 25 DR. WYMER: All of these other factors like the l 'I ANN"RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
\~, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
48 1 number of packages you had to load in and that kind of 2 . stuff.
'3- MR. HARRINGTON: We thought that would be bounded 4 by the AML thing. Certainly amount of excavation. With the 5 'real low environmental impact statement lower-bound design, 6 'I think-that even used smaller packages, just to try and
- 7 - keep the temperatures vn. So that would have picked up 8 the larger number of- ;kages that EDA 1 has.
9 DR. WYMER: Okay. 10 MR. HARRINGTON: So the brief answer is yes, we 11 ~did this in. conjunction with the EIS, and we think it's 12 . consistent with it. 13 Let's see, design changes hot to cold. If we 14 wanted to take a hotter design and move it to a colder ( ) 15' design such as taking EDA 2 and moving it to the goals of 16 EDA 1, could you do it? And also, the other direction, 17 blending backfill, unanticipated features. 18- I'm afraid that I'm about out of my time here, and
- 19. I've got a. couple more pages. So if you have other 20 questions on this one, I'll be happy to --
21' DR. FAIRHURST: I think it would be best to move
.22 on. '23 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. Great.
24 Okay. .Again, we did the comparative evaluation 25 ; simply to rank them against each other to come up with a ; 4 1 h \~/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034
I 49 1 recommended design. The pairwise comparisons and the inputs 2 were -- everything we had done after creation of the EDAs in [%-]N \ 3 mid-January to this March exercise. l l 4 Now under the four major evaluation criteria, l 5 here's the relative ranking of each of those. 6 Under performance certainly because of its cooler j 7 attributes EDA 1 we thought would have the highest j l 8 demonstrable performance, followed by EDA 2. I i 1 9 DR. HORNBERGER: So that means you agree with ; 10 TRB's basis. 11 MR. HARRINGTON: With respect to nothing but l l 12 performance, yes, we agree. 13 DR. HORNBERGER: So you agree that a cooler 14 repository is simpler to analyze and you have greater ()
;x 15 confidence in your analysis.
16 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. But the rest of this says 17 that EDA 1 has other not so positive attributes. Under 18 flexibility, because it took the largest volume, and in fact 19 if you looked at the 105,000 MTU potential, it doesn't even 20 fit within the repository block. It also has smaller, more 21 expensive because there's more of them, waste packages. So 22 under construction, operation, and maintenance EDA 1 is ! 23 relatively low. EDA 4 is a little lower, just because of 24 the m"ch heavier packages; 5 got the best one because there 25 was less excavation involved. j [~T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( ,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r: 50 1 Under cost, the first line has several of them on 2 therebecause they're all about the same.
, The life-cycle 3 cost for each of those range between 20.0 to $21.7 billion.
I 4 EDA 1 was $25.1 billion. .It was about $4 billion extra. )
.5 That.'s.why it was separated from the others.
l
.6 DR. FAIRHURST: That cost -- what's that the cost
- 7. of?
f l 8 MR. HARRINGTON: .That's the repository life cycle
- 9 cost. That doesn't include the transportation.
10 DR. FAIRHURST: No. No, no. Okay. 11 MR. HARRINGTON: That is, though --
.12- DR. FAIRHURST: But the construction cost is about l
-13 what, 25 percent of that, right?
14 MR. HARRINGTON: Oh,_I don't remember just how O Q '15 much -- 16 DR. FAIRHURST: From the VA, at least, that's the 17 ballpark figure, what it was, I think. 18 In other words, what I'm saying is that the actual 19~ cost of constructing these is not that large. A lot of ) 20 other things affiliated with that cost. 21 MR. HARRINGTON: It may have been 25 percent.
.22 DR. FAIRHURST: Handling, et cetera, et cetera.
23 DR. HORNBERGER: I.think it's a smaller package,- ! 24 i'sn't'it?
-25 MR. HARRINGTON: Well, the big contributors to .O
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
51 l { 1 this one being more expensive is the increased number of ( 2 packages. When it's 4,000 packages more. > 3 DR. FAIRHURST: Yes. Underground construction, l 4 play around with these designs, as distinct from what you i 5 put in, is nothing like these numbers. l l 6 DR. HORNBERGER: Right. 1 l l 7 MR. HARRINGTON: Number 1 also has a lot more l 8 drifting. It has more than twice the amount of drifting of ! l 9 the other ones. 10 The recommendation was made not using an explicit I 11 value-based model, but trying to consider consistency in l 12 ranking across them. If you had one that performed real l 13 well in one spot but did significantly worse than others in 14 every other criterion, it might not be your first choice. gs ( 15 And the opinion of the M&O in making -- 16 DR. WYMER: The weight is equal on each of these 17 four. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: We did not try and make an equal I 19 weight. l 20 DR. WYMER: Yes, but that has to be a qualifier of 21 what you said. 22 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes, that's true. That's true. 23 DR. WYMER: Okay. 24 MR. HARRINGTON: Again, with respect to l 25 performance, we think all of them would give a very good ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( (k._/) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I i 52 1 10,000-year performance. Now in the post-10,000-year () 2
.3
_ period, the EDA 4 fell off quicker than the others simply
.because it was carbon steel. It didn't have the
{ 4 corrosion-resistant materials that the others do. In the 5 report, and I'd be happy to make copies or however we can do 6' it today if you'd like, we have curves in there, performance l 7 curves of predicted. releases for 10,000-year and 8 million-year. , And the million-year was to pick up the peak l 9 release. But'-- 10 DR. HORNBERGER: You just did that for a base 11 case, Paul, is that right? 12 MR. HARRINGTON: For a base case? 13 DR. HORNBERGER: For -- you just -- 14 MR. HARRINGTON: For each of the -- O) (_, -15 DR. HORNBERGER: One set of parameters and 16- consistent from one to the next. 17 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. Basically as defined on 18' that chart that we had, the comparative chart, it was done j 19 based on that. 20 DR. HORNBERGER: Yes. But, I mean, your 12 1 - performance assessment has a lot more parameters -- 22- MR. HARRINGTON: Certainly. 23~ DR. HORNBERGER: Than are on your chart. 24- MR. ~ HARRINGTON: Certainly. 25' DR. HORNBERGER: You just picked a fixed set of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\~~ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
53 l 1 them. I-I
. 2 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes.
3 DR. HORNBERGER: Yes. 4 MR.'HARRINGTON: And the curve is also the 5 expected case. 6 DR. HORNBERGER: Yes. 7 MR. HARRINGTON: It's not the tails. 8 DR. HORNBERGER: It's not your expected case in a 9 statistical seo 4. It's some base case because you picked 10 some default as of parameters. In other words, you 11 didn't run 3,000 runs and find the median and say that's 12 what you're going to present. 13- MR. HARRINGTON: Right. Right. 1.4 . These next several bullets are things we've really () 15 talked to. EDA 2 was comparable to the other ones for 16 construction ops and maintenance. 17 DR. FAIRHURST: Your table probably summarizes it. 18- MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. Okay. 19 DR. FAIRHURST: Now let me ask a leading question. 20 Did_you show this table to the TRB? 21 MR, HARRINGTON: This table comes out of the 22 report. 23 DR. FAIRHURST: No, I've seen copies of the latest 24 letter, and it said that the process by which you selected 25 things was not sufficiently transparent. l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l 1
54
'l MR. HARRINGTON: We have presented this process to i 2' them. In fact, these two presentations were basically 3 excerpted from what we told them two weeks ago. So, yes, 4 they've heard the presentation, they've seen the report --
.5 DR. FAIRHURST: .Did they point out to you what was 6' missing from here that would ma'e k it sufficiently 7 transparent?
8 MR. HARRINGTON: Well, what they're really telling 9 us, I think, is that there's an appreciable benefit to 10 reduction of uncertainty by staying underneath boiling -- 11 DR. FAIRHURST: In other words, they're saying 12 that there's not enough information to get rid of EDA 1. 13 MR. HARRINGTON: That's right. 14 DR. FAIRHURST: All right.
) 15 MR. HARRINGTON: That's right. So this is really 16 a synopsis --
17 DR. FAIRHURST: Um-hum. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: Of the performance factors versus 19 the EDAs. Across the top is the releases. That margin is 20 simply the release, the maximum release within 10,000 years 21 divided by the 25 millirem. All of them were driven by one 22 waste-package failure, a juvenile failure in the 10,000-year 23 period that happened to be underneath a corresponding 24 failure in a drip shield. 25 As you look at the curves, it doesn't come acrosu ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
55 1 so well.here, but the 290, 310, 300,000-year -- well, that's () 2 3 Lime to 25 MR. As you look at the release curves, you'll see the blips on there from the superpluvial periods, and 4 when we identify where the peak releases would be, it 5 certainly corresponds with the superpluvials generally. 6 DR. HORNBERGER: Okay. So looking at this table 7 it would-be -- I guess this is what Charles said -- but it 8 would be fairly hard to favor EDA 1 over EDA 2. And so the 9 argument, as you say,.I guess that the TRB has is that they 10 don't believe nearly so strongly in your results for EDA 2 11 that they do in EDA 1. It's as simple as that.
- 12. MR. HARRINGTON: I think.that's fair.
13 DR. HORNBERGER: Yes. 14- DR. FAIRHURST: Because your got identical peak
) 15 annual dose of 85 millirem for the two, and that's the --
16 DR. HORNBERGER: .Yes. 17 DR. FAIRHURST: That's the bottom line, isn't it? 18 DR. HORNBERGER: Yes, and the margin is higher for 19 EDA 2 and the cost is. lower, and everything is better. 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Worker safety is an issue. 21- DR. FAIRHURST: Emplacement area. 22 MR. HARRINGTON: As you do an appreciably extended 23 . excavation and then handle half again as many packages, 24 you're certainly exposing workers to more risk. 25 DR. HORNBERGER: That's right, and that's real O\~/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
56 1 risk. () 2 3 MR. HARRINGTON: DR. HORNBERGER: Yes. We know that. Yes. 4 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 5 DR. FAIRHURST: This is all postclosure, right? 6 MR. HARRINGTON: Right. 7 DR. FAIRHURST: And you have not done an 8 analysis -- a comparative analysis of preclosure risk for 9 EDA 1 versus EDA 2. 10 MR. HARRINGTON: That's.really the construction 11 operations, and maintenance. i 12 DR. HORNBERGER: Yes. 13 MR. HARRINGTON: That's all preclosure. 14 DR. FAIRHURST: Excuse me. Excuse me. Yes, () 15 'you're right. You're right. And there you've got -- 16 MR. HARRINGTON: Um-hum. 17 DR. FAIRHURST: You've not got into any relative 18 risk for the two of worker exposure and things of that kind I 19 in the construction operations and -- 20 MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, in the EDA evaluations, when 21 we evaluated the subcriteria and did that assignment of a 22 number, the 1-to-5 ranking, that was to do that. 23 DR. FAIRHURST: Yes. So what did EDA 1 and -- 24 don't go back to the slides. 25 MR. HARRINGTON: I'd have to go in here and find
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Os Court Reporters 10-' r?onnecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
57 1~ it out. () 2 3 DR. FAIRHUROT: 'Was that in there? MR. HARRINGTON: It's not in my presentation. It 4 is in the report. 5 DR. FAIRHURST: Yes. But -- 6 MR. HARRINGTON: EDA 1 gets a lower ranking 7 because'of the additional packages that you have to handle 8 and the additional tunneling that you have to do. 9 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay. It's interesting, these are 10 treated separately, and yet, as we say, one is real risk, 11 and the other is hypothetical. 12 .DR. HORNBERGER: Right. 13 DR. GARRICK: So the key evaluative process here 14 is the LADS core team.
) 15 MR. HARRINGTON: The key process is the core team?
16 DR. GARRICK: The key intelligence behind the 17 evaluation is the LADS core team. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. The core team -- there were 19 about eight'or ten people on that. It was all M&O. They 20 were the ones who did the assessment of the input that they 21 got from the. lead discipline engineers, the spokespersons 22 for each of the reports and analyses that were done. But it 23 was the core team that did the actual ranking, and Dich ! 24' )Snell'is the manager of that group and will get to speak to 25' 'you in a moment. [~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i o
1 58 l il Now again this is just the M&O recommendation. It 2 came to.the, DOE, the Rev. O of the report came, and the DOE
.3 had quite a few comments on it. So that intellectual 4 content has been factored into it also. It's not. simply the 5 core team's report. This really represents the integrated 6 M&O position with DOE comments.
7 DR. GARRICK: But when you're challenged as to the I 8 transparency of the process, it's -- I~ guess it's the 9 inability'to adequately document the thought process that 10 these people went through and the arguments that were put 11 forth? 12 MR. HARRINGTON: Well, I'm not sure if it's that 13 as much as maybe a technical disagreement over the 14 legitimacy of the basis of some of the. numbers, the modeling 15 . approaches. And I think they see what we did. I think 16 there's just a disagreement. 17 DR. GARRICK: Yes. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: As to what the right approach 19 might be. 20 DR. FAIRHURST: I go back to something earlier. 21 You mentioned ventilation was going to be an issue in the 22 meeting. Did you ever run the case of 10 cubic meters per 23 .second throughput for the amount of heat removed? I was 24 given a curve showing the amount of heat removed using the 25 EDA 2 design for two cubic meters and five cubic meters per j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\d ) Court Reporters ,
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
l 59 1 second.. .You said you run them from 2 to 10. MR. HARRINGTON: ( 2 I thought we had run it at 10. l 3 DR. FAIRHURST: You may very well, and I'm just i asking, because I just got -- but there was 42 percent of 1 f L the heat removed in 100 years, 60 percent when it went up to
'6 5 cubic meters, and I was wondering what it was for 10 cubic 7 meters.
8 MR. HARRINGTON: I don't recall. 9 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay. Because the cost -- I mean, 10 the power required to double.that is quite dramatic, right?
'll MR. HARRINGTON: Yes.
12 DR. FAIRHURST: And the amount of extra 13- excavation. So I was just wondering whether it_was enough i 14 Lof an argument to say that you might get from 60 percent to 15 70 percent, but might get better results by doing other q I 16- things. 17 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. As you know, Dan McKenzie 18 is our subsurface design lead, and I'm quite certain he has 19 shown me various curves -- 20 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay. Yes. I would suspect you 21 had. 22 MR. HARRINGTON: I just don't remember what's on 23 them. 1 24 DR. FAIRHURST: It's easy to run on a computer. j 25 MR. HARPINGi.'ON: Yes. l
/~'\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
kl s Court Reporters I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
60 1 DR. FAIRHURST: It's not as easy to do. ( ) 2 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. 3 Other questions? 1 4 DR. HORNBERGER: Just more of a comment than a 5 question. 6 In looking at your tables, in the first table it 7 strikes me that the differences between your EDA II and your 8 EDA III-A designs are not tremendously substantial except 9 probably for temperature. 10 And then the second table, when you look at it, 11 one of the key things in terms of the performance, under EDA ) 12 III-A you have some waste packages in the aggressive 13 corrosion range for thousands of years, and the performance 14 turns out to be -- whether it substantial or not, just r~N i
, ) 15 looking at it, it looks like EDA II performs a lot better 16 than EDA III-A. And this would indicate that uncertainty in 17 water getting back to the waste packages while they are hot 18 makes -- can potentially make a big difference in what you 19 calculate.
20 And I know the NRC staff has continued to tell me 21 that they have concerns about penetration of the boiling 22 isotherm and things getting back into drifts when things are 23 still hot. I know that there is still some disagreement, I 24 . guess, that some of the DOE people don't think that the 25 boiling isotherm will be penetrated, but there are arguments [ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \_ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
o+ 61 1' 'about the solidity of that conclusion, I guess. 2 .MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. That was really what
}
3 caused EDA.III to be -- to perform less well than II, is we 4 talked about that zone of susceptibility, the EDA III 5 package spent'a lot more time in there than EDA II did. 6 DR. HORNBERGER: Exactly. 7 MR. HARRINGTON: Other questions? 8 DR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, but you are talking about 9 the potential for dripping through -- above. 10 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. I mentioned kind of early 11 on that the DOE had concluded a little while ago, and the 12 M&O I think is still working on the assessment of where the 13 significant program uncertainties are. The flux end of the 14 drift is one of them. () 15 DR. HORNBERGER: Right there, yes. I think it is 16 just one of the arguments that people make for keeping 17 everything below boiling. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: Other questions? 19 DR. FAIRHURST: Well, if not -- but we are going 20 to hear from Dick now, right? 21 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 22 DR. GARRICK: Is he going to say where we go from 23 here? ; 24 MR. HARRINGTON: He is going to give you more 25 detail on what EDA II is and what we do to go from here to l [ s'- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\_,I Court Reporters ,
1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ; Washington, D.C. 20036 ; (202) 842-0034 '
62 1 try and narrow that down. (, .s) 2 DR. FAIRHURST: But EDA II in the future, right? RJ 3 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 4 DR. FAIRHURST: Enhanced. 5 DR. HORNBERGER: The future of EDA II. 6 MR. HARRINGTON: Part of that will be given to the 7 contractor by the DOE and the DOE hasn't made its mind up 8 yet. So Dick won't have a complete answer. We will, 9 hopefully, have that in a couple of weeks. 10 DR. FAIRHURST: All right. It is on the fast 11 path. Thanks, Paul. 12 MR. HARRINGTON: You're welcome. 13 MR. SNELL: Does this sound okay? 14 DR. HORNBERGER: Yes, you're fine. /~ (N) 15 MR. SNELL: Good afternoon. As Paul said, I will 16 give you some more detail on EDA II. You were asking 17 earlier about the report. You know, this is the report. It i 18 is half an inch thick or so. ' You probably don't need any 19 more paper than you already have, but there are -- for each 20 alternative and each design feature that Paul discussed, 21 there is a separate technical report on each of those items. 22 They total, I think 31 documents. So if oomeone should want 23 them, they are available. They are finished and you can 24 access them as you see fit, or your staff can. 25 Let's see how these show. Again, EDA II. Some of [\d ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
63 1 this material overlaps from things that you have already () 2 3-covered in going through the discussion with Paul, but I
.w ill touch on them lightly. For EDA II we had some 4 temperature goals. As Paul mentioned, we did not want to 5 exceed 350 degrees C. We did not want to deliberately do 6 something that we thought would impair the condition of the 7 cladding as it was received.
8 We wanted to maintain a drift wall temperature in 9 the rock of less than 200 degrees C. That was believed to 10 be a relatively comfortable temperature for the mechanical 11 thermal stability of the rock. 12 As matter of fact, with EDA II the rock wall 13 temperatures are somewhat below that, they are probably 14 closer to 160 or maybe even less. And we wanted to maintain
) 15 the temperature in the pillars between the drifts at less 16 than boiling. We did not want to have boiling fronts 17 coalescing in the pillar space.
18 I will talk a little bit about the underground 19 ' facility, the waste package and some of the othe$ m ineered i 20 components in the system. The basis, again, fc the '+ ek
.21 that we have done was a 50 year closure, and keepinu .he 22 rock-below the boiling temperature in the pillar space, we 23 agree,.certainly helps to reduce uncertainty associated with 24 the flow paths that one could expect and with implications 25 for the: water chemistry ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 64
'l- And there are some. additional thermal management
() .2' 3 techniques. For example, a later closure that 50 years or the use of higher ventilation rates and so forth, which, in 4 the case of EDA II, could give you a design where you have
- 5. no rock above the boiling temperature, but it is subject to 6 some of those. limitations.
7 We are using line loading, that is the packages 8 abutted very close to one another end to end. We are using 9- blending, as Paul mentioned. That line laading and the 10 blending helps to keep fairly constant axial temperatures 11 and not -- does not give a lot of axial temperature 12 , variation along the drifts. 13 The aggressive preclosure ventilation, we have 14 talked about 10 cubic meters per second is currently a ( 15 rumber that we will probably proceed with. And we did widen 16 the drift spacing to 81 meters in order to promote that idea ! l 17 of keeping pillar temperatures below boiling. l 18 The waste package, we are talking about a 2 i 19 centimeter thick Alloy 22 corrosion resistant material, 5 1 20 centimeters of stainless on the inside for structural ! 21 capability. One of the concerns that was raised with the 22 carbon steel package, and it applies to a stainless steel 23 structure material as well, since it is iron-based, is oxide 24 wedging. In this case, with the corrosion resistant 25- material on the outside, the wedging is not so much a ANN.'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 3014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
r 1 L ! 1 65 1- ' concern until you have actually breached the outer shell, t 2 and even then, with the stainless steel on the inside, as (VT 3 opposed to carbon steel, it does tend to minimize any i l 4 -wedging that you might get once the breach has occurred. l 5 'The life of the corrosion-resistant material is l 6 quite long, as.you can see, compared with carbon steel that l l 7 was used in the viability assessment design, and the thermal 8 management techniques that we have been using the 9 ventilation, blending, reduced areal mass loading, all help
-10 to keep the outer surface of the waste package outside H11 -windows of susceptibility for corrosion.
12 There is a set of curves here and the chart that
-13 follows is probably a.little bit easier to read than this 14 one, but this gives you an idea of a comparison of waste
() -15 package, relative humidity considerations, and waste package 16- temperature considerations. There is a box that is shown up a
)
17 here which defines what is regarded as the most aggressive 18 of the corrosion regimes that we are dealing with. Waste 19 package temperature at about 80 and on up, and humidity is 20 from roughly 80 percent up to 100 percent. 21 The assumptions that were used to prepare these 22 curvs s, ina used a long-term average climate. The dual l 23 continuum refers to this line here, this bullet refers to l l 24 the modeling in the rock. Dual continuum is a model that j 25 they use that has both fracture flow and matrix flow in the
' - ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW,-Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202)'842-0034 ; i l l b
f 66 1 rock, and that is the reference to dual continuum. 2 They used a number of different waste package heat j 3 release rates. Fifty years, and here they used a 50 percent . i 4 heat removal, that is through-the ventilation mode. And 5 simultaneous emplacement at the middle of a 23 year 6 emplacement period. The average waste that has been used l 7 for a lot of the thermal calculations is a 26 year old 8 average -- average age-on fuel that has been received. 9 DR. FAIRHURST: So would that -- you say it avoids 10 the aggressive crevice corrosio/ region. 11 MR. SNELL: Yes. 12 DR. FAIRHURST: As I understood it, below 80 13 degrees and 80 percent humidity, there a"e virtually no 14 mechanisms of corrosion, right, for C-22 -- for the alloy,
'15 A-22, 16 MR. SNELL: I think I would agree with you, but l
17 others might not. What we have shown here, this region that 18 is shown here is what we believe is a reasonable definition 19 of aggressive range. 20 There are some thoughts that even lower relative i 21 humidities or even lower temperature regimes, worst case 22 scenarios, if you will, could give you some sort of I : j 23 corrosion environment. So we -- ! 24 DR. FAIRHURST: Because we were down at the j i 25 center, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis, and ; h V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ; Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
67 1 they were saying the same thing, that they thought 80 1 ( ) 2 degrees C was virtually a foolproof temperature below which 3 nothing would happen. 4 MR. SNELL: Right. 5 DR. FAIRHURST: And I think Shoesmith, when he was l 6 here, and Payer are also saying the same thing. So who is 1 7 saying that there are opportunities? 8 MR. SNELL: I am not sure I can ascribe it to any 9 particular individual. I guess I am rtferring to comments l 10 that have been made during the course of the work that we 11 have done. 12 DR. FAIRHURST: I see. 13 MR. SNELL: I can't give you a specific quote. 14 DR. FAIRHURST: I didn't know there was any {^h () 15 mechanism, I don't know. 16 DR. CAMPBELL: There is still corrosion that is 17 taking place, but it is general corrosion, as opposed to 18 localized. 19 DR. FAIRHURST: Yes. But apparently that was -- 20 MR. SNELL: He said it. 21 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay. You said it, it is general 22 corrosion, and that is such a low rate that it is really a 23 no -- okay. That is what you mean. 24 MR. SNELL: I am sorry, I missed your point. Yes, 25 the aggressive regime would be crevice type corrosion, the (' ) l \_ / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l 68 l 1- general would occur. (7 y} 2 DR. FAIRHURST: So it would be aggressive or u 3 crevice corrosion? 4 MR. SNELL: Right. 5 DR. FAIRHURST: It is not an aggressive type of 6' crevice corrosion. 7' MR. SNELL: Right. 8 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay. 9 DR. HORNBERGER: What are the lines on here that 10 start out around 170 degrees? 11 MR. SNELL: I honestly don't know. I just asked a l l 12 couple of the people who were working on the group with us. 13 There are some horsetails there and I can't explain them 14 right now. I will get you a clarification.
/~%
(v) 15 DR. HORNBERGER: Okay. 16 MR. SNELL: Paul may have an answer. He is going 17 to -- 18 MR. HARRINGTON: Paul Harrington, DOE. We asked 19 that question earlier. I think it is a TRB thing, and that 20 is the time of emplacemenc of backfill, if I remember 21 correctly. 22 DR. HORNBERGER: Is that what is was? 23 MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. 24 k DR. HORNBERGER: Okay. So that represents then a l 25 su(. den jump? l 1 l l , / \ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\~s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l
69 1 MR. SNELL: The backfill -- /' 2 DR. HORNBERGER: It doesn't make sense. ( 3 MR. SNELL: -- will alter the temperature 4 environment when you put the backfill in. 5 DR. HORNBERGER: Yeah, I know. 61 MR. SNELL: Temperature and humidity, for that 7 matter. 8 Yeah, but there is no -- okay. At any rate, all 9 right. 10 DR. FAIRHURST: What is it? 11- DR. HORNBERGER: They put backfill in then. 12 MR. SNELL: Yeah, the backfill gets installed 13 after 50 years. 14 DR. FAIRHURST: And so nothing goes above 30 () 15 percent or. low end. 16 MR. SNELL: Right. This is a somewhat different
-17 ' portrayal of some similar information, but this is the Alloy
-18 22 window of susceptibility again, that box, but this is 19 time scaled, and, again, plotted against waste package 20 temperature. There are a couple of different curves. This 21 is the -- perhaps one of the less conservative waste package 22 jtemperature models.
23 This one a little more conservative. And this 24 indicates that through 10,000 years, really, you are staying 25 outside that box. This is the box that portrays, again, a I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. [~Nx-). Court Reporters 1025~ Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite'1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i j
l) 70 1 return to a' humidity of.80 percent about 2,000 years; the 1 . r~y 2 first drip shield failure out of-this time frame at about ( 1 N_/. 3 9,000 years. This is EDA II with' backfill. And this says 4' no aging, but, again, the presumption is 20 fields going 5 into ---going into the repository. It's no aging beyond the 6 waste, as received. 7 Again, the drip shield is a two centimeter thick 8 titanium seven grade overlap. This was covered briefly 9 before by Paul. It's seepage protection. It's general 10 corrosion' mode and, again,.the first drip shield failure at 11 about 9,000 years. Medium failure with the information we 12 have now for that grade titanium is about a 50,000 failure 13 time. It does provide, in and of itself, some rock fall 14- protection for the waste package. We tried using a material () 11 5 .different that -- thSt was used on the waste package, so 16 that we did not.get into common mode considerations on a 17 material failure. And it helps to limit the transport modes i 18' -to a diffusive transport,.as opposed to any advective or j i 19 liquid flows.
'20 Talk about backfill, of the drip shields, as Paul 21 mentioned, one of the' attractive things about it, and it 22 does have-its drawbacks, in terms of the complications 23 associated with the emplacement and so on, but it does give 24 .
you a geometry that's more predictable. If you do not have L '25 . backfill and you'have a-drip shield and you began to-
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
71 1 experience some localized collapse on the part of the 2 ( emplacement drifts, it's very difficult to predict what form 3 -that's going to take. Backfill gives you a controlled 4 geometry, if you will, at least to the surface of backfill. 5 Above that, of course, you're at the mercy of the natural 6 degradation of the drifts. And it helps considerably with 7 regard to rock fall, which is a major consideration, in 8 terms of long-term stability; helps with maintaining low y 1 9 relative humidity. 10= Material is under evaluation right now. We're 11 looking at everything from a quartz sand, a very fine 12 imaterial, to a crushed tuff, on the other end, quite a wide ! 13 : range of materials. The thermo conductivity and other 14 characteristics of the material are part of those (/ 15 considerations. We don't have an answer yet. We'll be 16 picking material for backfill near term. 17 MR. IiORNBERGER : Does buffering have a chemical
-18 commutation.
19 MR. SNELL: Here? 20 MR. HORNBERGER: Yeah. 21 MR. SNELL: Yes. 22 MR. HORNBERGER: That was the intent. Also, if 23 you do have backfill over a drip shield, which has a crack 24 or a minor breach, the backfill does tend to minimize any 25- water flow through that -- through that crack. It does tend h \_/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ! 1
72 s 1- to wick. water.back away from the crack. 2 As Paul mentioned,'we earlier had looked at a i 3: -concrete ground support structure,.a lining, and one of the l 4 concerns was that if the. concrete -- presence of the 5 concrete elevated the Ph of the water that did get back into
- i-L y 6 the drifts'and move down through the drifts, that that L. ,
7 higher Ph might' tend to promote' higher solubilities on some 8, of the radio nuclides it would get out. And it was enough 9 of a concern and appeared to be difficult to resolve in a 10 timely. fashion, that we decided that we'd better go to a -- 11 either a steel and expanded metal mesh or rock bolts and 1 12 metal mesh, perhaps. There will still be a minor amount of 13 cementitious material, because we'll probably grout the rock 14 bolts. -But,_the quantities associated with that are very,
) 15 very small,; compared to the quantities that we would have
- 16. -had with a. thick concrete lining, and we believe that those quantities are small enough that we do not suffer a major 18 -problem with that.
19 It does -- we're using ballast down int he invert ( H2 0 area and it does allow us to do_some tailoring on 21' controlling drainage and providing some material properties 22' 'that are most beneficial for the design.
'23 DR. WYMER: What is the ballast?
24 MR. SNELL: . Ballast material, it's going to be a 25 graded material in the bottom of the -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
l 1 73 1 DR. WYMER: But what is it? f 2 MR, SNELL: Oh', what material? Again, we're not
)
l- 3 sure. It's going to be considered along with the backfill 4 ' choice; if anything, from a quartz sand or a crushed tuff, 5 ~and more likely, I would say right now, probably a -- the 6- crushed tuff or something like that. 7 Kind of a busy picture, but it gives you some 8 visualization of what we've got with EDA II. A cross 9 section of the emplacement drift, something like this, was
~10' shown the waste package with about a 1.6 meter diameter; the 11 -larger one, the two meter diameter, which is the largest the 12 waste packages would be here. The drip shield, just large 1
13 enough to clear the. largest of the waste packages. Free 14 standing, that is it's not leaning on or supported, in any () 15 16 way, by the waste package, but it's free standing on the invert and then backfill' material over the top of that.
~
17 This is not precisely the scale, but 18 >approximately, so you get some_ idea in terms of the thermo 19 portabations. The expectation with EDA II is that the 20 boiling region, something like this around the emplacement 21 drift, the space from here to the adjacent drift and fairly ] 22 .large. We're probably talking about a non-boiling zone in l l 23- here of -- on the order of 80 percent of the pillar width, l l 24 something like that. I think the other points have been l , 25 covered. !
/~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
-Washington,'D.C. 20036 !
(202) 842-0034 1
r . 74 ) i I 1 A little bit of a closer look at the cross section
/ 2~ 'for the drift, I mentioned it briefly a moment ago, but down
)
3: here, the invert area and support rails here for the carrier I j 4 that would bring waste packages in. And I think as Paul l 5 mentioned briefly, this portrays a 5.5 meter diameter l 1 6 emplacement drift; two meter, the largest of the waste 7' package size. We did spend some time looking at emplacement 8 equipment getting in. -It's very difficult to get a drift 9 diameter much smaller than that and still be able to get i 10 those packages in there fairly readily. When you look at l 11 the section that shows the equipment, and what they're l 12 considering right now is something like.a variation on a
-13 straddle carrier, if you will, where you can roll it in on 14 rails and you're carrying a package underneath. It's a )
g 15 fairly tight fit with the -- with the inside of the rock 16 face on the emplacement drift. 17 DR. FAIRHURST: Is that large time on the drift 18 based on getting material in or getting material out -- you 19 know, retrievability? Retrievability, you just pull it out 20 and put it in an empty drift, right? 21- MR. SNELL: Both, I suppose, really. 22 MR. HARRINGTON: Charles was looking at me when he 23 . asked it, so I guess -- how does Paul Harrington deal with 24 -- I 25 DR. FAIRHURST: No , he answered it. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O,, Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
- Washington, D.C. 20036 f (202) 842-0034 l
75
- 1. MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. It really was more
'l) 2 excavation and emplacement technology, than simply 3 retrieval, since retrieval would use the same equipment as 4 emplacement, as it was used to emplace it. It's really the 5 same question.
6 DR. FAIRHURST: In retrieving, you're going to 7 ~ pull out'into the drift and park another empty drift, right? 8_ MR. HARRINGTON: Well, real retrieval would be -- 9 DR. FAIRHURST: Over the other is what I'm saying. 10 MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, no, no. 11 MR. SNELL: That's correct. 12 MR. HARRINGTON: At one point, we talked about the 13 ability to move a package over an adjacent package and 14 five-and-a-half meters was conducive to that. That was not
) 15- the-only thing,.though, that was driving the five-and-a-half
'16 meters. Even if we don't continue to maintain that
- 17. capability and going to this different type of carrier, 18 probably, we won't be able to do that. We're still looking 19 at a five-and-a-half meter drift. So, the ability to pull a 20 package-over another isn't really what drove us at 21 five-and-a-half.
l 22 MR. HORNBERGER: Dick? 23 MR. SNELL: Yes. ) i L 24 MR. HORNBERGER: The shield -- the drip shield -- l i l 25 MR. SNELL: Yes. I l 1 [\ s#
'T RJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
76 , 1 MR. HORNBERGER: -- you know, this long mailbox -- L i l () 2 3 MR. SNELL: right. MR. HORNBERGER: It's going to go in.in sections 4 that are about as long as the canister and then -- a little 5 longer, because then they overlap? 6_ MR. SNELL: Probably, as we understand it right 7 now. The idea would be the mailbox sections would overlap 8 one another and you'd do kind of a -- you'd back out along 9 the drift, as you install the second -- 10 MR. HORNBERGER: As you install, right? 11 MR. SNELL: Yeah. It's somewhat instructive to E 12 compare EDA II with the VA design. Some of the comparisons 13 have already been drawn. But, it is significantly lower-14 mass loading. And, again, it's really temperature. Mass O, (, 15 loading is a number that falls out. It's the temperatures 16 that are -- the critical items for the design. But, with 60 17 MT per acre, it lets you control temperatures better. The 18 drift spacing, as you can see, quite a bit larger, in the 19- case of EDA II, in order to sustain that non-boiling region 20 between the drifts. 21 Somewhat different invert design, again, to get 22 away from concrete. And the same thing with ground support, 23 going to do the steel sets or rock bolts and mesh, as 24 opposed to a lining. Approximately the same number of j 25 ' packages total in the repository. Line loading for a more ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l J
77 l'- uniformed temperature distribution. Sizable reduction in () 2 3 the length of emplacement drifts, because of the fact that you're using line load. You've got the packages close 4 together and you get more utilization of the drifts for the 5 same quantity.of packages. l 6 Quite a change, as has been noted, in the waste 7 packet materials, with the alloy 22 and alloy 22 on the 8 outside'of the waste package. Still uses 21 PRW assemblies. I 9 The peak ways package temperature is substantially below 10 what it was for VA. Here, it was about kilowatts and we're 11' down to about 11 roughly kilowatts maximum heat output here. 12 We do have the drip shield and there was none here. And the 13 backfill, there was none here, although drip shield and 14 backfill were options identified in the VA design. Same O( ,f 15 closure period, 50 years. And quite a difference, 16 obviously, in ventilation. Here, the ventilation was really 17 an incidental item; but, it's really important to us, in 18 terms of temperature control in the EDA II design. 19 Comparison of the two cross sections, the design 20 on the left. And, again, essentially, same diameter, E 21- concrete lining here versus steel here. Essentially, the 22 same package geometry and a very similar appearance in the 23 bottom, except that here, we're going to a granular material 12 4 in the invert, rather than concrete in the VA design. I 25 MR. HORNBERGER: All your schematics show roughly 1 i I
, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r 78 l L -I half of the drift filled with backfill. How do you decided
- A 2- how much to put in?:
3 MR. SNELL: We have really not decided yet, is the
'4 truth. It's TBD.
5 DR. CAMPBELL: What's the -- in the cross section 6 hede and)in~the two pages previc.usly, the dotted line? The 7 previous' view graph said large waste package. 8- DR. FAIRHURST: A previous package. 9- DR. CAMPBELL: What is that for? 10' MR..SNELL: Some of the -- some of the packages -- 11 or some of the fuels, rather, and materials we get require 12- somewhat larger package. The most common one, the large 13 majority, will be the smaller 1. -- 14 DR. CAMPBELL: Is that for a defense, high level ("\ ' ( ,) 15 waste class or what? 16 MR. SNELL: I think it may well -- Paul is nodding 17 his head, yes, DHLW. 18 MR. HARRINGTON: Codisposal. 19 MR. SNELL: For the -- yeah, for the codisposal 20 package, where you've got a -- I think it's a five array on 21 the'outside and one central canister inside. The sum total 22 of that gives you -- 23 DR. CAMPBELL: That's the five glass containing -- 24 containers and then a central -- central DOE canister. 25 MR. SNELL: Yes. Five canisters are on the l-f
~[ T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
E \/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 1
79 1- outside, one canister in the center -- [I G/ . 2 DR. CAMPBELL: Okay. 3 MR. SNELL: -- for disposal. 4 DR. .GARRICK: You may have answered this, but why 5 have you made the tolerances so close between the large 6 container and the drip shield? I mean, is there a reason -- 7 MR. SNELL: No -- no intent, at this point. We 8 have shown them close; but frankly, I don't know whether 9 that close a clearance is desirable or not. I'm inclined to 10 think that it's too close. 11 DR. GARRICK: Yeah, just from an engineering 12 standpoint, why would you want to make that a precision 13 situation? l 14 MR. SNELL: I agree. 15 DR. GARRICK: Yeah. , 1
-16 MR. SNELL: I agree. It was graphics license, I I 17 guess, in this case.
L18 DR. GARRICK: Right, right; okay. One of the 19 things I wanted to ask, and I don't know where -- when's the 20 ' appropriate time to ask it, but in the previous 21- presentation, you had all of the designs compared and you 22 had the performance information. And the implication is 23 that-they're all with the same degree of prevision. And I 24 doubt that that's 'true, given that the VA was analyzed up 25 the kazoo for months and month in advance and, yet, to the O V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut _ Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
-(202) 842-0034
80 , ( 1 out' sider, you would look'at this'and'say, my God, you've 2 done what you did for the VA in just a couple of months for 3 five designs. So does that raise some question about the 1 4 quality of the analysis that was behind the performance 5 calculations and, therefore, raise some question about the l l
-6 selection process? i 7 The reason I was asking it, I was going to ask a 8 specific question of what was the impact on performance of 9 replacing all the concrete of the VA design with the steel 10 of the EDA II design. Are you able to see those kind of 11 specific -- specific -- maybe you asked this question while 12 --
13 MR. SNELL: No, no. 14 DR. GARRICK: -- I was out. 15 MR. SNELL: Well, I'll take your first question 16- first. It's a reasonable question to ask. 17 DR. GARRICK: All right. 18 MR. SNELL: And I think the answer is that first l 19 of all, we benefited greatly by the work that was done for j l 20 the VA design. When we started this effort, we worked with 21 the performanca assessment people all the way through. And 22 one of the first things they did was look at the PA models 23 that were done for viability assessment and we said, to what 24 extent does that same model correctly reflect or portray l 25 these various enhanced design alternatives that we're O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- k. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 f
l 1 81 1 looking at. We came up three sets of situations. f) V 2 One was the design is pretty close to VA, the PA 3 models are sufficient, more or less as they stand. The 4 second set was the model is broadly reflected with the 5 design, but there's some specific aspects that are different 6 and, in that case, PA went in and made some adjustments to 7 the PA model. Typically, those adjustments were in the form 8 of assumptions that were input to the PA model, to more 9 correctly reflect those design. The third case that we had, 10 and this fortunately was the less frequent case, was that 1 11 the PA model, in its then current form, did not really tell i 12 the tale properly and they actually had to go in and make 13 some modifications and some of the process models that l 14 supported the PA runs. So, they started that work early and I [) U 15_ they did, indeed have to make some changes on the PA runs -- 16 or the PA models that they used for runs on a few of the 17 EDAs. 18 Certainly, work was done more quickly than it was 19 done for the VA. But the fact that we had the VA model and 20 they were able to go in and either change input assumptions 21 or modify the model somewhat, allowed us, we think, to do a 22 pretty fair appraisals on these designs. 23 DR. GARRICK: I see. 24 MR. SNELL: The second question, I think the 25 answer is, no, we probably do not have enough fidelity in l (~'T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( ,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i l
82 l' the models to see differences, as a result of some of these () 2 3 changes that you've mentioned. DR..GARRICK: Right, okay. Thank you. 4 MR. SNELL: Some advantages of EDA II over the VA 5 reference design, we think, in the drifts, we've talked 6 about these a bit already. It gives us a somewhat higher 7 confidence in the modeling and somewhat higher confidence in 8 addressAng uncertainties. The line loading is helpful in 9 getting a uniform. temperature distribution. Repository 10 rock, obviously, with the lower thermal load and 11
~
temperatures -- lower heating, in terms of temperature, and 12 also shorter time periods with the package designs and 13 emplacement that we're using. And, again, the drip shield 14 benefits, which are really significant in getting you beyond () 15 a time period, when you're in some of the most aggressive 16 conditions. A drip enield is very helpful, if that initial 17 failure not occurring -- predicted, anyway, until some 9,000 18 years into the period of performance. 19 Backfill, again, in a summary. It kind of helps 20 protect the drip shield, itself, from rock fall and also 21 from iron contact. There's been some concerns expressed 22 about hydrogen and brittlement and interaction between iron 23 and the titanium in the drip shield. Switching the 24 corrosion resistant material, the outside of the waste 25 package is a major benefit. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
i 83 1 DR. WYMER: Doesn't the drip shield rest on a {O) 2 piece of iron, though?
%)
3 MR. SNELL: I don't know if we've even got that 4 detailed yet. Frankly, it's free standing, but we could put 5 it on some material, other than iron. And I don't think 6 we're there yet, frankly. 7 The oxide wedging, and, again, we -- with CRM on 8 the outside of the package, we've got a better situation 9 than we had with VA. And, again, steel ground support, 10 rather than concrete, we think is a move in the right 11 direction, in terms of grade, nuclide, mobilization and 12 transport. 13 MR. HORNBERGER: I don't think I understood your 14 answer to Ray's question. You have a steel ground support. p) q 15 You have a canister. But, you're not sure whether the 16 canister is going to sit on the steel support? 17 MR. SNELL: Your question was the drip shield, 18 right? 19 MR. HORNBERGER: Oh, that's the drip shield? 20 MR. SNELL: Yeah. 21 MR. HORNBERGER: The drip shield won't touch the 22 steel floor? 23 MR. SNELL: The drip shield might or might not 24 rest on a piece of steel in the invert design. And the 25 question is a good one. And I think given any concerns we ( \ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \s l Court Reporters
'025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
84 l 1- might have with' regard to the effect on titanium with having
- 2. iron contact --
.3 MR. HORNBERGER: Right.
4 .R.LSNELL: M -- we might choose to put a -- you
-5' know,;some kind of a' liner, separator, use a different 6 support form. We don't know yet.
7 DR. CAMPBENL: Let me' clear something up that now 8 I'm. unclear about. The invert consists of what? Before, it 9 was some sort of a cementitious material. It was provided a
.10 flat surface to roll things in. What is invert now?
11- MR. SNELL: Well, to use the term " invert" -- 12 DR. CAMPBELL: It is just a -- 13 MR. SNELL: -- is probably an oversimplification. 14 But, there's a' structure at the bottom of the emplacement () 15 ' drift, which includes the rails and the supports for the 16- rails that allow a. transporter to get in and out. It
- 17. includes-the space.between the rails and below the rails, 18 -where-we've got' material installed -- ballast material, if 19: you will, if you want to liken it to a railroad. And those 20 are'probably the main elements.
21 DR. CAMPBELL: So the main structure of-that is -- 22 is it steel or.is it carbon -- 23 MR. SNELL: Right now, it's a steel structure. 24 DR. CAMPBELL: And then you'll fee it with some 25 sort of-filler material. crushed tuff, or something like i
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
L I 85 1 that, as a ballast material; okay. () Ll 2 MR. SNELL: Still talking about a comparison with 3 the viability assessment design, it's a little bit better 4 fror4 a defense ara depth standpoint with the additional 5 barriers. It's probably a little bit easier operationally. 6 We have a little more latitude with placement of the waste 7 packages than we might have had with VA, because the hottest 8 VA package was up at 18 kilowatts. We -- since we're using 9 blending and line loading, on the other hand, there are some 10 -- there are some operational complexity associated with the 11 blending operation, itself. That's not -- that's not a slam 12 dunk. I mean, that's -- it's going to require some fairly 13 complex surface facilities. 14 The design does give us pretty good flexibility, ex I ) 15 in terms of moving it one way or the other. If the element
%./
16 choice on a design is to make it hotter or make it cooler, 17 this design tends to be one where you can kind of its 18 performance, relatively easily compared to some of the other 19 designs. 20 DR. WYMER: Doesn't blending imply that you've got 21 quite a large above surface storage area, so that you can 22 store fuels of a lot of different decay times, and pick and 23 choose? 24 MR. SNELL: It could. Our problems is right now, 25 we don't have a really firm handle on the waste receipt O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. kj Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
86 1' screen that we're going to get. Obviously, there's a wide l 2 array of fuels out there in the inventory; some hot stuff, 3 five_ year old, that we could get. There's a lot of older l l 4- fuel. 'And right now, we're trying to anticipate what the 5 storage -- surface storage receiving storage might be at the p 6 repository. We need some storage anyway, just to deal with 7- operational upsets,1with interruptions or irregularities and 8 deliveries. And, adding blending is another item in the mix,- 9 'in terms.of what we need on the surface. So, it's_probably 10 not a good answer to your question right now, but certainly 11 there's an implication for more surface storage to handle 12 blending, yes. 13 DR. WYMER: Yes. 14 MR. SNELL: Paul' mentioned the cost and the fact () 15 that the' net present values are -- for EDAs II through V are 16' fairly close; somewhat higher for EDA I. 17 Some recommendations with regard to design 18 refinements, these are contained in the'last report. But to 19 go through them briefly, things that we have to look at, as 20 we go ahead, the design basis heat output for the waste 21 packages. We've picked some heat outputs right now for the
- 22. purpose of this work. We've-got an 11.8, I think it is, KW 23 heat output. That's a max and nine point something average.
24 We need to pin-that'down a little more closely, so we can do 25 some.more detailed analyses. l-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
1 i-l 87 1 Modular is probably a bit of a misnomer, but s 2 phased construction on the surface anyway is a (v) 3 consideration. And we need to be able to consider, if we 4 need to phase construction on the surface, how does that fit 5 with EDA II, as it's presently configured. 6 Ventilation, segregation of waste types in the 7 drifts and so on, there still are some thing that we can do l I 8 there, we think, to improve or enhance this design. We 9 don't necessarily have enough information quite yet to be 1 ( 10 able to do. But, there are some refinements in thermo 11 management that we should be looking at, as we go ahead. 12 Right now, we're based on a 50-year pre-closure 13 period, not only to not preclude a longer period, but there 14 is potentially some advantage to a longer pre-closure is )) 15 period, should that become a possibility for the program. 16 We probably have some opportunities for standardizing waste 17 package designs. I think that might represent some cost 18 enhancement, maybe some improvement and so forth, that we 19 might be able to take advantage of. 20 We need some more focus, development work on the 21 waste package designs with this alloy 22 on the outside. 22 There's a reasonable amount of work that's been done so far, 23 but there's more to be done. We've got to what amounts to a 24 slip fit of the stainless inside the alloy 22. There's some 25 items at work that have to be done with regarding fit up I(>') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 j
88 1 welding, closure welds, and so forth. We need to put some () 2 attention on that. 3 In cases where we do not have zirconium based 4 cladding coming in, there's some cannisterization techniques 5 that we might be able to use, similarly to what we're doing 6, with the defense ~high level and the DOE waste. You were 7 asking about'the invert a moment.ago, and we - obviously, we 8 have some work to do there, with regard to what's the 9 . geometry and what kind of materials are we going to use, how
- 10 ' we're going to put them in, and so forth, 11 ~The drip shield design right now is conceptual 12- only. We picked two centimeters. We picked titanium seven 13 for diversity in materials. But, we don't have a great deal 14 more than that. I mean, we need to do some refinements on
() 15 that. Right now, it's presumed to be -- essentially a 16' smooth shell overlapped from one section to another, but
- 17. considerations -- should it be ribbed before additional i
18 structural stability, you know, things that might promote 19- drainage, once we get,any water on the surface and what no.
- 20. We have to look at those things.
-21 And then our backfill design, again, the selection 22 of backfill materials, like the invert materials, 23 considerations of thermal behavior and so forth are
-24 important. And backfill, I am the drip shields, imposed 25- 'some complications on the installation. We're talking about ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 l c (202) 842-0034
89 1 drifts that are full of hot waste packages going in with (N 2 large remote equipment and placing these things in a 3 controlled manner; getting a geometry that we expect, when 4 we -- when we finish the emplacement operations. Those are 5 going to require some attention. That's pretty much where 6 we are right now. 7 DR. FAIRHURST: Brett, do you have some questions? 4 8 MR. LESSE: I'll wait until you're done. 9 DR. FAIRHURST: John, do you have questions? 10 DR. GARRICK: Well, I'm just trying to visualize 11 what the impact of these different -- these changes might be 12 on the general operation during the pre-closure phase. And, 13 of course, one of the things that comes to mind is this -- 14 is what Ray has already raised, is this blending question, () /~n 15 and I just want to understand that. Are you really talking 16 about blending at the individual fuel assembly level? 17 MR. SNELL: Yes. Not to say that you have to 18 blend with every set of fuels that you get in, but it's the 19 thermal output of the waste package that's critical to us, 20 in terms of controlling temperature. So, I'm going to have 21 to do some mix and match and some blending, so that we don't 22 exceed, at least the maximum desire to heat output per 23 package. 24 DR. GARRICK: But, it seems to me with a little 25 planning, one might be able to -- at the originating site, [ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_]j/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I I f 90
'1 . do that in such a way that you. don't have to do it at the
-2 repository.
N 3 MR. SNELL: I agree. I think there may be some-4 -real opportunities for us. Paul, I think, is going to i 5 volunteer a comment, . at this point. l 6 DR. GARRICK: Right. 7 MR. HARRINGTON: Paul Harrington. We certainly 8 agree with that. Our receipt folks in headquarters remind 9 us, though, that.we have little control over incoming waste 10 stream. So, 14 hat we've asked the MNO to do is design a 11- solution that is as-much as possible waste stream lL2 l independent. If we are able to have more control over that i 13 incoming waste stream, then we can simplify some of these i 14 operations. l 15 DR. GARRICK: Well, I don't know, I don't know how 16 much time you've spent around a nuclear power plant, but l 17 handling fuel samplings is not something you do in a hurry. 18 And, of course, you've got lots of time. 19 [ Laughter.] 20 DR. FAIRHURST: George, do you have e question? 21 MR. HORNBERGER: Yeah. I'm still somewhat
=22- interested in the procedure,'I guess, that Paul described, L 23 in coming down.to EDA II and your consideration, I guess, in 24 the phase one. It strikes me, again, just looking at some l 25 of the performance comparisons that you did for the 1'
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
E [ 91 l' alternatives that you' considered. Water contacting the pi 2 waste packages is really important. V MR.-SNELL: Absolutely. 4 -MR. HORNBERGER: And if you turn those canisters 5' -on its end, :L . e . , if you put them into a vertical bore hole,
- 6 ;it seems to me you get at least an order'of magnitude
-7 . improvements in performance just by doing that. _Now, I 8; .believe that you looked at this and you must have some 9 reason why you discarded those options.. But, is it a simple
_10 reason int is it'a'- :I mean, I know you've put in drip 11' shields to ke'ep' water off and everything else. But, there 12- are some other things that seem very strai3 htforward that 13 you could do, that -- I mean, if you. turn the canister on 14 its end, nobody can argue that, well, maybe the drip shield f~ 15 will corrode. I mean, you really have cut down the cross 16- section area. 17 DR. WYMER: Yes. M18 - MR. SNELL: I'll'have to go back -- or we'll have 19 to go back and look at the report, where we looked at the 20 alternative waste emplacement models to give you the 21 particulars. -I'm not sure that there is any one simple 22- answer, as to why we did not carry that one forward. 23 I guess, Paul, were you going to make a comment?
- 24 MR. HARRINGTON: I'll volunteer a couple of things 25 I do remember from that. One, it introduced a great deal of
-- r ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
\ .
. Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
-Washington,.D.C. 20036 l (202)~ 842-0034 )
92 1 complexity to the criticality calculations. When that 2 finally does-start to go to degrade mode and you end up with 3- it all. piled down at the bottom of the canister, unless we 4 limited the individual packets to no more than, I think it 5 was two or three assemblies, then there's a potential for
- 6. criticality. In addition, because of having to go to 7 smaller packages, you end up with an awful lot of them. And 8 there were mechanical handling complexities, also, with 9 . moving in and rotating and translating and stuff like that.
10 But, it would have been a little tougher. There are a lot 11 of things, but criticality was one of the big ones. 12 DR. FAIRHURST: Was that not an issue for the 13 Swedish design? 14 MR. HORNBERGER: Right. 15 MR. HARRINGTON: I don't know enough about that to 16 comment. 17 DR. FAIRHURST: But, that is a KBS III design, 18 isn't it? 19 MR. HARRINGTON: Smaller packages than ours, 20' right? 1 21 DR. FAIRHURST: Yes.
- 22. MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. I'm sure they're having to 23~ deal with that, also.
24 DR. FAIRHURST: I was just wondering why in this 25 design, if you've made comparisons of that kind, what other l l
,O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
~,. ). Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ~,
L L
93 1 people had come up. Anyway -- 2 MR. HARRINGTON: I can't speak to theirs, yet. 3 DR. FAIRHURST: Any other questions, George? 4 MR. HORNBERGER: That's it.
)
5 DR. WYMER: No , I asked mine as we went along. l 6 DR. FAIRHURST: All right, Brett, now is your 7 chance.
- 81 MR. LESSE: Brett Lesse, NRC staff. I had a 4
9 question that you touched on a little bit on page five ari 10 10. You talk about 50 years at 50 percent heat removal. 11 And it's not clear whether that was a calculation or an 12 assumption. If it was a calculation, where is it 13 documented, and would it be possible for the NRC staff to 14 get that, as well? 15
) MR. SNELL: We can give you the calculation 16 information. I think the 50 percent may have-been an 17 assumption, at the time. We've used 50 since then. We've 18 Edone some calculations that suggest that higher percentages 19 are. achievable. If you'd like to get a copy of the --
20- MR. LESSE: We'd be interested in looking at the 21 ventilation calculations -- 20 MR. SNELL: Sure. l
- 23. MR. LESSE: -- and which kind of codes you're I 24 using..
25 MR. SNELL: Okay. l l i 1.(_,
/'" ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters ; 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite.1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
l 1 1. 94 1 DR. FAIRHURST: It's been done. () 2 3
'MR. LESSE: Okay. And the second question really had to do with something that you mentioned twice, which is
- 4. that the choice of ballister backfill ranges from sand - or 5 quartz sand to tuff. And it's my understanding it's either 6 quartz sand or tuff, which is different. Also --
7 MR. HORNBERGER: What's between those two,'Brett? 8 [ Laughter.] 9 MR. LESSE: Well, it's also been suggested that 10 limestone was possibly one of the material. So, I'm kind of 11 unclear on whether it's a range of materials you're looking 12 at or are you looking at two materials, because that affects 13 us, how we try to assess some of the processes that could 14 occur in performance assessment. 15 MR. SNELL: It is not just two materials, as I 16 might have suggested. We're looking at any materials that 17 might be suitable. I mentioned quartz sand and crush tuff, 18- because they kind of represent a range of mechanical sizes 1 19 and mechanical characteristics, quartz sand being fine grain i 20' and. crushed tuff being relatively coarse. But, the use of a 1 21 carbonated based material, limestone or something like that, 22 is also a consideration. It has some potential chemical 23 benefit, as well as just its mechanical characteristics and l 24 thermo characteristics l 25 MR. LESSE: And then a follow up question, which ( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s . Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
-(202) 842-0034
p r 95 1 is probably to Paul, which is: my understanding for the 2 site recommendation consideration draft, that the deadline f( 3 for data is in August. When will the decision for a design 4- be made relative, so that we can focus our performance 5 assessment on appropriate materials? For instance, there 6 are details associated with the design that have performance 7 aspects. When DOE-chooses a design to go ahead with SR, 8- will it'be at a gross level or will it be at a specific 9 level? When might that decision be made? 1 10 MR. HARRINGTON: I wish could remember. l 11 [ Laughter.] 12- MR. HARRINGTON: As you're aEking me that, I'm 13 sitting here thinking, okay, what were those. dates. I think
- 14. it's November of '99, was the date that the design folks
() 15 were to feed their basic design approach into the PA folks, 11 6 for PA to use as a basis for their work. Also, let's see, 17 'about June of '00, somewhere right in that time frame, if I 18 remember right, and I just don't have the schedule here, was 19 the date that-the design group was to have the first cuts of 20 the SR writeup done for transfer to the licensing guys to 21' start assembling the product. I'may be somewhat off on 22 those dates. 23 MR. SNELL: I think. April of '00 is when the; were 24' 'looking for it. 12 5 MR. HARRINGTON: Okay.
'\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
96 ( 1 MR. LESSE: Thank you. ( ) 2 DR. FAIRHURST: One of the discussions that I was 3 at, there was a third defense of concrete, saying that the 4 problems with Ph could be, you know, dealt with by using low 5 Ph concretes. Is any work being done on that? j 6 MR. SNELL: Some work was done following those 7 discussions. I think that was about the workshop time or 8 thereabouts. l 9 DR. FAIRHURST: Right, right. l 10 MR. SNELL: Some work was done following that, 11 quite a lot of research in this other sources of data on 12 concrete behavior and the ability to use additives and 13 control chemistry. The conclusion'we came to was that even 14 with the use of concrete additives, we still thought there (O/ , 15 was a fairly serious risk of moderately higher Ph results by 16 having concrete in large quantities present in the drifts. 17 And still, even where Ph control looked to be fairly 18 promising, there's still a fair amount of uncertainty in 19 being able to achieve the Ph control with a lot of 20 confidence. And I think it was more -- probably more of the 21 uncertainty of Ph control than anything else, which caused 22 us to drop concrete as an approach for the ground support. 23 DR. FAIRHURST: Because, that tends to rule out 2'4 shotcrete, too, doesn't it? And if you rule out shotcrete, 25 that's a technique that's quite valuable. Are you looking ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. f~/)
\-% Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
97 1 at any alternative to some sort of projected concrete or [ 2 projected materials that would bond the surface?
\_
l 3- MR. SNELL: It does tend to rule out shotcrete, 4 you're right; same problem, cementitious material. 5 Shotcrete would be probably thinner, lesser quantity -- 6 total quantity, but.the same fundamental concerns. So, 7 again, the issue, I think, would be -- l 8 DR. FAIRHURST: That's of great value, initial I 9 stabilization of an excavation.
.10 MR. SNELL: Yeah. I suppose with more work, you 11 could say, you know, the use of shotcrete in limited 12 applications might still be available to us, because we're 13 going to have cementitious material associated with the 14 ' grouting of rock bolts.
N
- j 15 DR. FAIRHURST: Yes..
16 MR. SNELL: If you -- if you've got into areas, 17 where you had some questionable ground or you had some j 18 -localized concerns about ground support, maybe you can still 19 use shotcrete and not really jeopardize performance in any 20 major way; possible. 21 DR. FAIRHURST: I was thinking that maybe some i 22 other agents that.you could use for bonding, rather than 23 sand. That's just a hypothetical question. 24' MR. SNELL: It might be others. Some of the 25 things that you might use as an alternative are t) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. (_,/ . Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
r-98
- 1. hydrocarbons, and those are no good, either.
2 [ Laughter.] l l- 3 DR. FAIRHURST: I don't know. 4 DR. GARRICK: How about salt from Carlsbad? 5~ [ Laughter.] l 6 DR. FAIRHURST: Well, depending on the l 7 probability, I think we've used sodium silicates, and you 8 can actually bond stuff with that. But, I'm not sure that's 9 any better than concrete -- well, not just for Ph.
~
10 Any other questions? What this space with 11 interest. Thank you, very.much. 12 MR. SNELL: Okay, thank you. lL3 DR. FAIRHURST: We take a break now? 14 DR. GARRICK: Yeah. I want to thank Paul and 15 Richard for an excellent presentation, for doing it on time. 16 Now, if.you'll just carry that talent forward to the 17 project. 18 [ Laughter.] 19 MR. SNELL: A suggestion duly noted. 20 DR. GARRICK: We'll take a 15 minute break. And 21 also after the break, we will not need the reporter. 22' (Whereupon, the record portion.of neeting 23 recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 21, ! i
- 24. 1999.) l I
25 l
~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l k's,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
( REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE ' This is to certify that the attached proceedings es ( ) before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
%.)
the matter of: l NAME OF PROCEEDING: MEETING: 111TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) CASE NUMBER: PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, Md were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear ,s N,) Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings. C & Mark Mahoney 0 Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. D '\b
o N IT y v gi r e t _ AAC ) S e n Ei on c a t CTE .. [ f d am e CNJ . D
-4 oR eg t
n n a UU O R
;;A e i mlvM i
a n a . Y OP t 2- A. r
, 6 aC i
et M 4 pf e s a T( DoeW S.
. c U f i
f _ n O _o i t c e.. e S n g
, i c'- s .
e t e s s . D s W a _ e nc o o l r a e c i t r u y g aP c N n r e n i.d pn o e E f e pa i t t o t m nn mgn oe gm _Aw t ei e : oi t : ynt oCe r nr v s t d ye bi ra d r p g e rM e a e e e t o t nHD nsh c v ei s vt1 el s r u S. O _iT O red PA1 1 e PPU a 2.
2 t _ p . p _ o 9 _ d 9- _ o e f 9 1 7-n t i r o t n o g s u st i n n o a _ e q H _ r in M e Y i t e h se / W N c c r sm i C - A r a e s
/
o e s n dr o _ e ba o c s i t a l r e s o t n e e i f ps l a r e P s e r S i t d po s ps N s e _ ne aht s p a r n na G i er s o O g de e i nf go n ie M _ ci v t i kn g s i sn esn ew i ri s ogn eo e l e e De w e di t d i e c S h o nvo re nd o n idv u e v nes g rt a re ipp t i - i a i t a v t al z a n r t a n sme e o c cO r n eo r Dc i r r - e o i l eu t t l t f t n ec p ca ala l a odn p an dt i f i t i vg A r an ene o a oi h i t at n c r s e cse e uos o i l p pe pe d s gi c l a i t po n tn n Atdi ev i n vet n a a eni r e i u amt i i a dC e e et a c nt r cmt r iR sdn i ir eo er e s n L t n cfr ot c nN je e nr ee o one Cup r en Pdu Cb oy ct t inl Lia ~ ~
3 d n d s t n p _ e g dna p . o 9 o 9- _ p i s e i 9 1 7-e n o ip f t u t n o g deiu n o l ee vs t r t o no l o in H M a i en n er As Y
/
emdG W - t N c de r i Vn C A
/
s e c ri e s) g eg n io t l e eL f asn si t a n e o s s f h ei e e r il P tr d rk S s n dle ur h d c ihp o) n u a ywt a t G a r yla aseWA f l O _ l g en V M _ t af s( bne _ i bo n dot a s i e )s net gv n ew i da t et i l ud meiie nirdp De) id on aie v st amado i r ar onvu e wem dtadn s np t o eC ri t n n r s e s p _ n n (s t s o sa e i o t pm u r t v( e f st enAs l c e r s aO c o o _ c n c l sainA e u a o e e t n ugy t i l p cR r dgosi l i t ba de - oei - n te l p di s sei t ff i A iS gi a e n Dba ton dt n e s efo o d g yi t(i rV na de s n ss so ssi n d t r o ae et n i i aee t whcdod ds wivb e noit i c t l apa pci wa epr e eol wta to eu iren e L uul ir ssp p vpt art p ver i O e n epeya et e Raw l RiA Radbc
s 4 . s t . p _ sa n p o o s e 9 _ o 9- _ n t 9 _ n 1 c i s mta i o 7-n o o rd i t s e n g t n r n e v r a am er a u i H n a g d o M P i s i u e s as t ef l a Y
/
W N g r n v C _ e A n be od oi e / n o s o s i d: a y i cd d t t a n _ s Sep e i l be v n s e t c ae m Do a P ic r s _ ut u e di t Al s h p e t pb h ea L e t n G a r l t dn v O e e & ei r s nr h e M ct e e te t d m S t i-nta u s l wtc g t aa n o se d - ste u cgd sj g si n n na e or j - r i e w )a ou cp o o s i l t c a o f e t aoit as r a r e v rh pt t s D ep on l i t l s i l ot ice ted nbe o a n i cf r nn i s gmb o a e (c no ia d , i ng d e i f h sc np cisd e t st e n ao uu t n a ss ea igv se l d ssg j e c ch t i cs pv ur n m i l o ee oe s kr ei u p rd jd b hs ds n a e c o
,e e e p pn og kmv smn d A S a ep si n r ri ooc t ni o ng s e
e Dsi ei ft o wts ep c one d secds i s Ait n ev l sn eis i i v - Li v e e s ar sen o - n eid d r e P r - O e hc t I Ubp Uda _ i c Ta - - - - - L
- p 5 -
u t p t p t n u- 9 p . O o n t e 9-9 1 e 7-r s d n i s e t o g G n m n l l i r r a _ e o o r) H M Y yn gt a n c
/
W o A t N C bo n e A h n U / s n c am i o a ;M t a dt a t _ n n( e er Meg o r os n P s e r dg p y i i r s o ic s da pt ey i h p a ie nn ai s t e t a G r ct l O e n aa l i r iar cn d & M Em db ei u y a n e _ DI r x s uef a by t m _ s n) O D )O e si l t c m mAi l e gG & uE t o _ i I mM trO d Du c o( sD n Ee t e Os eusD r r r d sd a _ i sD A L f st o e sl a s e n i a r f u ob gi r d t e sn( ec s y n te ntt ne so ir va e r gi g i r ia k - m ei t t d ose c ni t u t a n n r ual ca oc t no d l ad od o t : md c o eC i ri s s hu oa l t a c ug s Plp eg e tept u n e n a di l r u os d yp pi t s mec v r e p u o i v eA ea i s nn n r K e Rr e oo1 si s c e ei 1 do p p si s r s O s GO e ei cht i a sc & i n I D d c h ee M e An oDwP Dd O i c La P r ~ L *
- 6 - _
t - p - p o 9 9 9 9-9 9 9
/
5 ds
/
8 n 1 1 ee 2 i a 7-n ci v
/ /
s o n 1 nt a a n 5 o e t i g n n i o h r) neA Et D l pAE ( d n e m H M Y
/
W a t o n m N _ c 9 l eg vi s 9 o C A
/
e 9 s 9 ee / 3 .c n o
/
4
/
DD 1
/
a it t a l n e 1 3 e s e r
+
P S s s ic h p 9 a r 9 ns ge A s
/
3 1
/
3 G O M DsF " s ic eD "A s o t ad u n
*D er 8 l
aa v i" DP 9
/
0 3
/
2 E 9 9
/
4
/
One i osa 1 AF 2
+
t 9 ah i a 9
/ a Fr e 4 i, i
cP - Dt
/ i Ar D C
/
2 ^e 5, l po pon "o n pw oi t 'i l ea
- vu "
8 el *o 9 Dav 9 a AT
/
2 / 9 v 1
/
E 8 E 1 1 / e 1 1 s AF I I n e e n g )A iDnF
) s a
i c 1 s( gD e si D eves (s h L e eiDr eu bt ia P s crndt r na O a seae et DA l F h8 9 P/ 9
7 t p p . 9 O 9-9 1 7-n n t o g in r o r a H M i Y
/
W t N c C A
/
e s n o it t a l n e P e s e r S h s ic p a r n G O gs s M ip F s e D et DS d n nno Ons ose a s i oi r a at e t i t A i a c r ur c n i D e c o o l f t i r a i ir o c v h c a t l pP n p n ead e ene t p o no pi o eh s noa t vt s A i t i m a mk oh u aim t n e u pr isl r a s l a o wo t k a ar oe v ag c o n v l ey u wl pagr e e e vr l a l mn n c I ea vhc es oigk i e d u n er a cn i s L s ah a AaJ A MP Aae RD O h D D - D P E - E - E - - ~
8 y t r , p p o Os s 9 9 - t e 9 1 e i 7- . s s o n v t g t o l y i n r r a i t n p as
, H M
a e r e r s np Y
/
W N n e t au C A
's r
e f f i f o e i so u r it t n o a n e d ec g s . o e t P r t u n l s y it ic Ase l l b ih a vh eg h G p a r - nr a r n ri O M gut t n t ps a e r t _ e-y n e s a r to i eeF mr ao o o o v - D di t t A dt n ns nD e y en se Of og uo f p mn ad -
) re ea i : bn -
ns oe Ar eot l dee ps _ D o ): ep D i i t f a (f F d i du en e t nirno l udn i vg i Dd (d e dg _ aa v t a s n e e r a d i nw a e E rd t ue e s - t el a a bc Fri v Dedr e i l edn a _ e Aut Fl umn dl ol s np no a i gec i gc r a ha n o skr e h sn st a rf e OP eo e h e Aat Dt p Dsi n t Dc ~
9 t p p . 9 9-O 9 1 7-n t o g n s i n a e r H M N W t u N C A
/
s n a o it t a n eI e s e . F e r P _ s n ic n s n o n h p gh a a i i g g G O r - i t & i u s s M e e sP b e- i r d d n t n e o DS i s o d i t dD d i t o c u a m nA l a l r _ i t OaLs i t t n t n s _ a e e n _ ei n p s v m o c v n e n e id e g r g c s d g s u i a n s e at e i t a s s k s e od e l p o a na e c d l i t p h r el u v a p da t c s s m e o/ p t a i t s e e n l a e o o c t h g AvE n r t s a a l l p s c a s a t i wse i n g t e wmuo r d e d wn g n d g r e l d u i s A e h n c e s s a n f i i a d de de du i l e n r o t i wn i t D i g l i a o o h n oA A o s T L C E MV V M O e D - - - - - - - -
I 0 1 t p
) p .
O i9 c9 9 1 m7 n o at g s r i ea n r e r t r cM Y H r - o / t u p p dW N nC A a u s l a/ sno it a eI d t at n e s Fe n u eP s e r n s mh ic o g a ( p ar r sG O ih g l aM sP d i r D e- n a t e a S s g e n m dD) n d n r u i c t n OaAu e t n o a a p a e i t Li t n t a f s s _ s o e g s i e nC l ( t ei t n ed r n g n e r v i s e u u i kad id a v s o l n o g c e o a te t w r f e l c r ah i i s n o ru p r a y e s o r
- g s r d ef r elu s s n o n to n t s
l e o t a e g i l d ei t c oi u a s c l AvE r u i t n n r a o o e pd sf p e e g a g r we,g e n t a s l b sl i e a g a od d u o r ct n ei nk c c k e n o n o a mc cl i ci e sf a a a s F i h l a u o g n a p p p gi n c n tei d l e n msf a i k nt nt s te te D i g r ei p r ci a g nd i o o mifaii r f t r s s a a s CDB T MDDWW i ACR O e D - - - - - - - - - - - -
ll)I !i ! l11 ) u O . s e r o m t u m c, a _ eI n Fe o i n s gh a e g a i t c u r e o. sP k t s D e- c a p n o S e e c dD) n d e t s g g n OaAu s Li t n n o a wk c a i r u n o e n( C e a d i t i h p t a v d d
)
e t e s s n e n v sl e n i u r g a te t i t n n et si e o m n ei o d st i - n r a c ( n ab l r t p a o nd a u w ml e o ei t o elu : s r r e ei l r a zl o t a e e eh t sf t r t ci r l r i r i r ok i f o a l AvE u r a r r a e a n sd p p od ci h m n t B a u r o y r g a b d d e s sd mr e i e dr s e n v u te vd r e l e eit tr oh s F i r i c s e e n h a s e ut t i st i i nf - u r f o a p hg D i g i cf f i e ad nd o r a e u ei r s R D GCAGN S R H O e D - - - - - - - - - -
l1 . l1 ll j 2 n 1 t p O i o 9 p 9-9 t 1 a 7-n u t o g inr l r a a H M Y v / W N E C A
/
s n i o e ita t n e s s P e r s a s ic h p h a n P G O r o t s e c s M i t n t n a n a e i a n l u g t e m s a a n s s v e i O d a n s E e m o s t e s i t a a i a c e e n r e e u n c c o e v l a n ni d o s a v mamt yt at a i s ba a e r o e p r e n h r e p o e r fof a c f P F o ch t D e r s c l p ef a p o g n t a n e i d o n e n r e e ni u r ci r tc e e c a s u n e ul o s u mn n e A l cl o r a e r nt s det od Dia r t s e ui c s g nh i s v n r fi he o r s n o c o n o ct i P P AE CS CE C O ar EC - - - - - - - - - l l
3 1 5 t p p O 1 9 9-9 1 4 7-n o y t i g n r r r r a a o H M Y s u f s
/
W N e n t p C A
/s a n i
v J e c it t o a n e s e t p n P r a o o s ic h s n p h c t p G a r f r s n e O oet k r i g s a c n M t l o e i r o nA e n w d f s t i e c n r m O mg pi d t e t o e i t o c a n t r o a u o s s l o s e t i l e s l a i t a i n a eD i c r e v u r s s s e n n v a b l vl a n gigg f il F v ois i ed n de D e t s ees e De c i asa d 1 1 s nd dd es d ph n e oe s n e oP a s i a st r u r u e a p o l e n A h sa r r ca t a c e n fD fP e vi e h sp epd n l e d o o o t m me - E v oi uet e c n e t t wwot a e e k whg ha . d : u al a v v aoin l i i s A99 Ge o v e e eLHE R R B r " _ O D 9 - - E1 - - .
4 1 t p o p h t 9 9-9 i 1 7-w t n o g y n ir r c H a n M Y e
/
W s t g N C e s t e A
/
s n v s i o s o [] it a se t n _ n e s i C p o e _ t t s P r a o c d po s ic h n ed p _ n a _ h d c G r _ n a n ec f r s O oet k r a s t n e o a cf M t l o t p t s u r nA e w) e c m s es s d s _ n t) _ d n e e oP A _ m g)de u e u o s t D Opit in n t an c A s se (W E l o sC e( o t i i l t ni e w e sy eg fo c a i eD v co a v e n a l ak nc t e s ed f (c r aa e De c i n9 to m r o np ge t a 9 s f d d9 n r it n e s ss i e1 o Pev ea d n a p i h o5 s s hi dwa l e t ia t
"e n, tc n e-1 s wtn mi o a E v4 e y l
aa ri we s i t t a de dr er e ie l l v rp ent v ai s u n a e t ei r e e Re i r r AnGc Da Rr " v A O EJ - - - -
5 s 1 e t p p . O u 9 9 - 9 1 i 7-na s n a e 'm
/
s t n o g n oV y to i r 0 d r le r a rd 1 e ee H V fon o sm uu vt os y a M 2 gm t i A s 2ss Y n r D du o 2e / t E tsh @ da ini x yn
- l W
c eig % 0 5 C 5 2 ir t f dla per ev ee 0 5 0 2 e n 1 5 2 s r a beW e y 0 % nm le 0e1 ck W du8 8 k loi l Ast mm cc- - a o s 0 o e 0 9 3 N C A
/
s n o 3 2 Ks 1 4 U 25 3 5 2r1 9 25 N N Y 1 it a ise s t n e c *
/
e t afa m s SeD s r le e r r oa e su s 0 1 e P r V f e o r o gn t s s I yy r deh g/ t 2 d i n ic A do f a am n o r h D E s s mk c e @ le br le p a t i d ma apm r a l n f s b i f r r n r W c G C da g e0 a de kW la 3 gs T ps e r e it t 0 m: g 1 O e hu 0 0 0 e y it 0. k es se 2, & 5 0 o mas 2 5 4 n 1 5 6 0 m 8 5 0 4 t e 0 M 3 2 Kt Uwto 8 7 U 2 5 5 5 U 1 9 3 InY Y 1 ie /s r e r e sv l he bty
'm 0
1 o gn R 2s v o s oevs 2e 22os yn vr
- 7le ei t l
l I i t y- in A i% 2 d i n W P loi lTa t l a loi Mdm0 t D e As Ams Da
@ r E h u9 s lb o mm mcm o s r de Wf C t e e C a kW cc - - < 5. c - 3 _
svh e 214 n 25leo 1 . ac it a e y it
- 0. k le 2, 0 0" 0 e o o s n
5 3 Nl ee r r 0 2 5 8 4 7 u 1 5 6 2 5 5 0 i 5 L m 85 19
)
a t) sb ts N N Y 1 e 0 _ Onr it oe I I s r la) i C lp" f o (9 6
/s
'm o 0 d 1
t o sm e uu 5 m o r e v ol t A sg 2 t gm 2e aA D r ei n ixni 2e - t E @ da ys tnilo s nm lo s eb r le c l W Aslne c a beWck 9 C C
- pw 0 e 3 eo 5 e y k mi o s s 0, 0e1u8 8 0" 0 0, n d ca ee l 5 e e 0 in 5 3 2 0
Kb 0 6 1 u 1 25 1 8 0 5 2r1 9 2s
- t N Y Y 1 pg /
s
'm do t 5 m
c-pis I A 0 e 1 t o sm 2 gm uu r e v ol Ae D 2e E ni ix 2e - t
@ da ys s nm lo s eD a le r l C 0 t e b eWc W Ase 3 0
0 C 0 n y %uk k mln s 9, 5 6 5 4 io 2 5 3 0 - 0e d76 ca- t i o o e 5 3 9 4 1 P 1 5 4 5 2r65 2s N N Y 1 sd n e T N e g t n e t s e r a u M H T M 0
)
R W P t t t a u p u t e s 9
)
b b 9 l ia ec n o E a m r 0 ( a 9 r s M k n e , e o at w e e c o p g 0, iz 1 t a g E L a pe n iv r m g i n 0 7 S it la eh R O M k a i c n E N G s ta g o in au S G d I ea srt f Ws c t f i a w n r D D et f i r P t e r a ll i g g d a o Lsr)e s ca f r d e ( o ao gr )m )m ae g V
)s L kc e n e et r n t
a m ic ( it n e e gt r anm(eaM keu a cmmacW W)& PeM gk gS k e g a c a P ld ts c a e La h D h mC r e
- d E la la e * * * , a/
MM laH eT rM ci o P ia p s [aP eD a/e st e t r n aF r ir A U W_D D P f t a u S o lc e r We peir a ea c x s pM tl a m e pR aA v C( s P W t e a l li F B l l r fk S s i ie e h e c ipa a r o W l t T A( D.T n O E
O - n - g - i e - ss t s ee a - Dr u w -
)
dt e a M - c e H - n F T M an ( t h o l a s a Enm t t l r e l a Of m o p m b oo p y v r a sC u s n a l u n e e t ) n ei v d n miohs t a r u 5 a g mta o 5 l i n o h l enr r g ( r t n e t t i Eet l e t e v inct r e w e e e t iA cl d l e t s mr t eme r s a i h n i a u s me v c n B s od l o0a0l i l p br t c 0, p e e 0mt e f O i r a ri r D C D P 7e S ~
~
7 - 1 . t p - p . 9 9-9 1 - 7-n . o n t g . i n _ rr - a i g M
/
H Y W s s C N _ e e A/ s - n o it Dr t a n e dt u s _ er P s _ ic ea h p a ce a G r nF e r O M a e a hl d nb e z Ea r i i r s e o Va f l a g t i n c s r e i a t e c a r a nv ei t a mg p h t s c ma e n s e g i d n e g i n r n h l Ee t l a a e g a t o k n k i cl g c b l i c c w iA a a a n s l a l p l a p p o a mf l i e ms e t i B r k t s r t t s c a e c a a e f i r a o h h T B WT D WL
8 1 f t o p p . O 9 9 - 9 1 t 7-r n a t o g i n r r t a H s M Y s
/
l W e t r e C N u A/ n t s n o e it f f t a n r a v a P e s er e e s s ic h p a l r G r s l c a a O me M t n u y i n r a r t o0r t n n- 5et s e p f e a O n f o r l o s uro C l r s a o ot A i c f l c n r s e D eC s ym E e mo0 c o e r m5 ca tsl ca i o3 op c< e pm l ng n e i ai n n r e tn d o wte i d s r os aa e l a O Mlc P l Aw ~ ~
r 9 t a e 1 r e v o t p p O t o h 2 9 9-9 c P 1 7-a W 2) n o e yS t g n oS( i r , n a r g l M H e n l Al e Y
/
W t a iW d nk mt e 3 C A N
/
w e 7 cs 0 s n io dP l 9, t a b 6 2s 5 t n e i eWl z a x al e
. l
- s 1
=
P s e s r r e ma i r n s ic uz h a p e mteia P r r sis s G O e) ht t u at s W & M rR pW % p m t Pc ma l t 2P 0u o 1( 2 W5 T _ I A O D 5 E I C 4
~
A69 ) L e s D< M r P c El l a A ( aW o sg 0 m t w t ni n 0 4 3 mfr t i ii cf t ed a 1 t a 3 4 d r ~ f m i c nd mlo de ng =t gnk ei l esersr ud i i i n e 2 c m3 pa E a ca qa a e1 st n n m/elog pc= n s ah sa i glaH a Mr ti l t n ctf p g srTe l aM i eiai r opr mne o- e A M A P s D El O G D - - - - -
0 _ 2 t p p _ P O 2 9 9 - 2 WWk , y 9 1 7-n o g8 l o t g n ir n l r a i1 A H M d1 n . m 9 e r N W N P exa c 3 0, s u C A
/
s Wbm2 l n o S 10 o it t a l n el at e aS = C l s z e r s mu P i i s ta rmP s rp e ic h p R hetu t c a 5 Wif l l G a r C Wt P %ta o M r l a k O M 6 0e Pet o c a 9 1 2 2h Wv T B
) - - - - -
l l t s f O A i d r D Cne E I I 0 e s e P A02t w r c W a m k m e D i i p e mc P r a r t G y R d" O t t c5 a W & M
)
i d Wte P i m51 r r l a b i m i*m* Pee vv t o .
& u 1
2 L WooT ( a h e - - - - v g O 1 1 i t n - 1 1 l a i c A e a . 1 1 - r p . D ace r S E D0 o s P e Wm m E0f2 e r 6 k o<b c m5 t t s e a c = 5 ca C r 5 n l l c 40 g 0 n h= i f 0 w8< e/7a 1 i c tg i cf t mM d
~ t a a p n ei r e l eHT e g r n s e l pdc eMi u d ft ft i
snf a q a r i i n5 8 e r sairt u g ~ r l od d a e p p an s l i L i s M e imm n oaP e A A r O GMW D L E E
2 2 l e t p p O P t e 9 9-9 s 1 W n 7-t n o g gW o t n r r a nk br H M i Y d0 a / W n c N C A e8 m 3
/
n s l 1 b . c 1 e r it t o a n P x u e s l 0 2, s P s e r r a Waamm3 e r l
- 0 1 l o ic h
s p e z etu a = c G a r y i s ht p i r s t O r t e P a & M f h R du t a Wif l o /r l Wteo ml a k dsm P it ma P t c V ie o a I n0 a0 1 2 Lh WT B s2 O A u< o e D VCh t ca E I 0 yf A02d r ru s P D<d El s eW r 6 m k m nP e c a m 5 o aaW l c = 0 _ wtot s r c 0 0 g 6 - t t 4 n h= cftr h a n /a 7 1 i e eM - t c tg i i f a a n _ idtss H r p mT c o e g s e f r n l ei pad nidr Y l eMi u d q ag i t f f t e5 e i r i r stnpi on 8 d d t n ~ r l i siemaei gL a e e n ac p p l aMKL i s M r ip mm . o- - - e A A Ls E E O G D - - - - -
=
3 2 t _ p p . O 9 9 P 2 9 1 WW2 7- _ n
,k y t o _
o g _ n _ ir g8 l r a i n 1 l A H M Y
/
d1 9 W N n . m C P exa c 3 0, A
/
s n o Wlbm2S it _ a _ 0 t n _ e e _ l s _ s r z at l aS 1
= P e
r s mu s a i i r s ic e y r p R hetu ta c W e mP h G p a r O f o Wt P %ta o m5r a l M s 0e Pe v to d n 1 2 2h WoT V a s A u O o D VCh t E I 5 y A22 r s P D<d El dn e e r c W m 2 3 m k m _ l r a c 4 o aa s c 0 = g 5 t wto t /a 2 0 n h
=
t cf r h nM 4 1 t i c t g i i f eH d
~
a a n s mT p _ e g e i c dt Mi r n s f e 0 u d l . eini pad r l q i t f t f _ e5 1 e ag dr dr i i n ~ ra onc p p stnp l i sie ae iM gL e e n a mm aMK l r ip _ o- - sA e A LS E E G D O
4 . 2 _ t p - h o p . 9 9-t 9 1 i w s r 7-t n o g n a n m a o e y H M Y
/
W N i C r 0 A
/
s t e 5 t n o it a n e i s e r s P r a s d c ic h p a e r g y G O p n l M - r . oi n a y e l . e e r a v re st n e c h a e o m d t p m e r s e e dme e u e cn d s c S wnig n l o a A s ar i cl p ma e e D E A D r o emsn bme E f e nf e eb rl f e ao c t l pa d r b t r s a a e e e v At d v ei a Ds i e ms n h Em v o o l l l i l ol l F Ac A Af r ~ ~
i n O e n a h t h t o f i w _ t ea d oebe _ afo e t r l u t a at p ob a _ a s u l r v e l a eepda _ a ei v v br _ oum i t i r oce e qo e t ajb a t t i r dec e tr ro _ e i i r r e o C t e t i r don ,a i rh c e nei r n ct bs t nreiesi t v o f h u e i a ur i t ot i sacl t o e c O a t e w e s yl c u st n l p n xle id et hep l a aet l t e ra s, lyt i v f ys ut c mur ssa i l l u E gyum i i t s nn n f t A eog tos n i nl au t s s r nmo D dci t a E i o r ee s so a ,r t ad i sc e tyt n c st y nd hi a i ar o n t l i e r c a e unt do eho al s st t o i ia ul apr ea p ss r r i a rAo uDp i t e r a t u cmee erdi t O PEr e Cn Bfon c i r ~
n O i o r ; e g t ei r n a g s c ie nb e n i wh a di r c ed i ve r i aa mlu a oe pe e o i r r pi n e n vw e i i g h h t a s - t i o n t t t e s e t ri C r id f owirog t n c - sn s a s n in u qf o s na si k s ie od) i o n a n o e O tn u t ai o b a n sl ng - aio t n uta ar n - uC( l A e a vin t eoi _ amD l t - a vr d ie aaa v eoEf vvir hne im E Anh o r r "s b A Dic f a pa e r on md - D Eoe et so nt oca r cl E he o osn "sat e t sf i t ca ont s aol f t i i u s a tapr e tene ar imo l i c l os r i mep va r e e r p ensgd emmh u t aa p O ho TcjTc u ho Nmi n ~ ~
7 _ 2 _ t p p O 9 _ 9-9 1 7-i w p a _ n _ a _ H
) M _
r Y y s r y r
/
W _ . a t 0 o e i 0 N _ e l i 3 f C A e y b d _ v
/
eht 0 a ; r e s n h 0 e ) y r o _ t m h U l iu , it i o or s 0, t T00 e u) qn t a n t r0 a1 d M 1 f l eio e s t n l . rf ri rt a e yi n y 0 ;ak f
) c e
/m a t eu P r
A 0 0,e c c ne . mk ne eL l a s urt s - n c : . e0 oso 5 0 mub g n l as f _ ri a s r2 i ne en;i vno fp _ o mta l l r a id l ab 1 ct gd t r t 5 mka mi r s ann n nc ,r e G _ c 0l e O fos 2p 0 peidf ere i _ a u 1 e sgu & F f np r o 0,m spnr en s M t o or i ep 7 el eo ri pso _ et o l t n sg pf o s 8 ( r abs e a r s r e n t e enlc i _ l v al a o r e ytec;r t e io cd yi c d /y h um a e t f rd u nin _ Ai r l R e n 0ir 0c t ek mpsi s ae do pmntch e rdl t eotece er nd t i t n o a i c a elot ar p mc ymel afe d d a n l a n g, an nC 0 ,a a0 ot i ist ais m c1( cor a l ani r a 0 f y rf r oytpn f M 1 or o /o5 2 e s pb e o sf i l adld(Hu t oit oo . c r. s t g nr iei t m gf eno eie aa nnmcc y ion t t s proo oi r es n szo a t (tian _ Oin nbs o ri cl ysce t v i i t t imp of sh yl t s eygd s r mit mie t i i i ige e ip- ne ot e m - so t w ee di et gn eb fat asbloc l d 5 ata , emr t a ene ccs onga n am dr ef l 5 t _ s 2 dRf nt im r sc na oh pci dr a n oea l n oia e n eu . ei t o etui inmr sst pni c na io _ d gi t to a n: etiage an eegr einri er t r rt atali r o aoigt aht l i k sr ndo n elc ein e c ar Da kr aet e evo mvr e gcmigv aen o nn r neinf o opaaef r - WCOMHPO f c re een r csa mteep u nPRDU i i i Pap TLMDUt EE I Tso dl - .. .. . . . . . ..*. * . *. = . ea cv y r o / nE t a s l u n o a i n o r g e r s y i t a r e h t i e t e e ei it l O p e n C r mtsn ge cb n at ar
/
in n oce lu d e E y t i nm ms r n ca un it h c ner ei oo tr e l i b S euq f r m st n i
/t r ee ni x e s c PD oa o Sr e CM l
F C O
8 2 t p p O 9 9-t s 9 1 s n 7-n i n i o t i o g n n a a t a H a g M i r a u Y
/
W e l e N t s a C A v v
/
i s r c A e n o it a is D e t n e n a n t E s e r o h P n o s l t ic i l h t a r p a rt i a o G r u n O ea l a e f s se M t l u v e n e wyao i sr Ala r g t l eebc n v ui o s e bt alache s gE f e d msr a n o apnt i Oiseev h d t e t e s eh ts i s c u i t s dn er r an ej Dt a n e opo: t t i a m c mir n o dr S ot e o n e a g a m D ci r taia i ; cp s oc A e c mer nm a o Ae D r L ywi i s n rt o oi r E a b rt f cn h C i a n h et a e d e a pl uief h E t t : a ot e k v g cdv ni r u o e et c s s o a r r a n dnt hh r n c u a i i p r oo k oe a nCMeSa og O u TT a - - P - - R -
9 2 t p o p . 9 9-9 1 7-n t o g n V i n a
, H M
V I Y
/
W e N t s n o b C A v l / i l s n o I C , io t i: a a as t l n e t i l s e r ai r r i I I P s n e a p / s ic h G p a r rt n O t eim r i t o M l A t CCo a r e ec pn Oa nse gns
/n in ne ot V l i
l a 1 1 b l i l I V I t i i i ca ois aW uM r eg- r t s n DAi a C o d gP y enn t i l i b b l l I V cio a V l i , l I k n nd l x e l i l I a ae e F h Rs c y n a nt ai l B mb i E r a or b a V f t r s i l l l i l i V I en l l Po m e D O
0 3
;n e t p
o p io a 9 9-9 r 1 s en t i i 7-t n o g n E r cl y H m a O e gh M N D W e N l pi C n i h A
/
s is v i y t l ugn n o it t a n e a n t t i l mik e P s e r c n o i s ic b sn n h p rt i i x sa or a G ar ea e r l a O l o M t l u f r o ct a e b e Ala f gl nb l b nv gEd ) e i g n ia kr ne a n o u f n w a r rer s oisei evC t n o l l o np h e a e ( a i r yi at i Dt a nl e
, o e c r n d dr od o nt ea i v _
a i t ei r n o e cp a m t s ciy r p d s i l nm a o n ue el c es sl al n on r o t o h C n mvr mi ao t p dl cio e l p ed d e g r wn d E oi c n o e u clpi dga j e xtc
~
i no l l R ee siwA nk o antr D A ole Ns Cr o E o D E - - - e a
1 3
, t y p o
p s 9 t i l a 9-9 1 i h 7-n b o a I e t g . i n t r cA H n a sd nD M Y ne aEos / W e N ol p n t t e C A v o mu e udg a / s n io is n eo t nbe t k t ta n e - t ; i
,ac s a n dc e -
s e a sle pa P r n o a ce n c ci en mar s ic h p a an nsn dnEet Dse r i l G rt l O ea A ma r m aeo ar u sa mi i M t l u D or frfo oio t r n s shsw ,es Ala E er pep f rt r ar r o nt o oyre i n v ) t a e pce c ioe t t om gEd e u g t nr ts nuge r e a at f n n ea el sd oisei evC t ( n o i v l l ey e e bok a pb oa e r na t c r Dt a i i r c0 et a ,a u s r x0 hcp n pst dr a a gn e0 e 0, tepe e t o iml of r i e nid dst s co cd ee cp i si vr1 i e ucr s e rf oo vr o a r spr nm a o sd ed psr pid rhwt t si nl o l ndm o h C c s o l wna cAay _ n o rd eatDan nr s l dy l o Dl aa l l pnEi aa es e ,on t Eni E e l t t m emI us v )M at i t a h vi r sce i t / r s aOeb i gmf c Aic t u ol r o s l .
/
l Dar eCpu _ o c Ad Epp i R( os _ O he Tr _
2 3 l l n t p p Aito 9
; 9-9 s 1 Da A 7-n o
e Ei l t g t D n in l ;n E H a bs e i l r M Y
/
sav e W e N sor oge h C A
/
s i v s pe g t o n e t t a n e o a n f r n t s e s ouo t P r n o s a t l e ic h i l sahs l p a r rt l mreie t b G O ea A r pwu e msiq a r M t l u t D )d nel n a p Ala Eeit a o h m n v ) t uI n a nAige c o c gEd e u gt iDset s i sei t n n o i nnEert o nn gunt e a iI l l A evCi ( v c aar MAD hhee DE i Dt a r( r t cpg dr a n erma Er o gl e a nibo s xt ye t a n hf t r cp i i i s e eiec r m we h nm a o sd ed l f epomt r a awl a h dg ei h C c e o l cee r i a y n od r ml vh cl t on E pn s aeti sa einhr sc t h m ll oc e iah t ai f i g m u o Aidn t o t s ogn D dar o c Eaco i Cs he Tr - - -
3 3 t ns n p or ia i p . s O se 9 f oy e 9-s o r r 0 g n 9 V ino0 r sl l a 1 a sa c i s A D E 0 0 0 e y m e r m o r ly y cl r aai to Cn
*t is se Pv0 Wi1 eee s
s> 0, 9 i g n s e r c a hg cn sc ea r p i io l l i b n io l l i b n 7-t n o g n s y 5 2, 1 0, 0 0 3 0 0 2 6speo mgn 9s
>er e oga Sar r g 3 0,
0 1 k 4 5 m d le B n 0 2 4 ius Rd qt ei fr A
/
N 0 0 2 8 0 1 i H M Y
/
n a t s n ; s e W l io sr s lac a o P r n N saa Wll g C s m o r s e e a A V s r n y fi / r k k t m s a sy oi0 ,dc c in o r n n n I A e m oro cg0 nnh a i n o y e r r e 1 oat b s pr .f o io it D 0 0 r cit as ib a s s it , gf e mp e i l l l l a E m agno r i i t A Cp o n 0 0, 0 0, 0 dip a y 3 1 m icnh . c a t e P b 7 b 3 e s
- e i dl 0
8 0 0 0 2, 6r 9f mWl u r a 2, 0 k 0 blrd ae am n p 0 4 hW A ig 1 2 1 P e r Ht o N f / 1 1 1 1 >o Hoe 1 6 Fwh e 7 $ $ e s ic f h o v s b p r a f e l a r e o g n i t n G b y t s a t n i O l 0 o r s lan i s i l I
/ 0 r.a r
dt uag e e g a m st l l I 0, 0 m e s s noy icf r e f osk isa ec a n
/
nn
/
nn M t l a. A D s 1 3
/
r m o r y cr ao seo P vs Wis0 inp nr o-a s e h g cn sc i ioo ioo l i l l i l u rn l l l 0 0 iil E 0 0 t s0 3 t aiaol r c ea ipr ii bb bb 0 Cis ee0 csi r a 0 0, 1
/
- o mg r 1 1
2, k m noe us qt 1 3 74 0 5 6 p b rr t 0 A 01 01 5, 9 9e ogr 0 5 ao a ei fr s e Saf o 4 1 / 22 1 1 1 2 2 >r 1 5 Fcm 7 Rd N $$ $$ r et s
'm la s
s r y r e e g f o r e g fofo lele
. s RlA r n t 1
a r t n vd O n n n de o 1 er f a e s n A e y vo o eer v ;m e lo n io D 0 m eft s sfi t oin so ge r c so s m lio l l l E 0 e d e nsi s 9 incl a ei r t ed r i b i b l ia ie segrer or l r 0 Crdr m dlaf i an pg 5 5, 3 0, 0 1 3 5 8 m '6 9t nu
>ih d
o n ogo Dac 3 0, 0 1 k 4 5 n pk lema Beb c 0 5 0, 1 Rv ul qt n i e e RcP ul p quA eo $ 6 0 2 0 1 1 nndA f t o g i i n n eaP r cs ne I A D s r a C 6 9 w o t r r eo n is c o o r tsdi cnd aan psle imeb g; as s mso pef logs e ale vk e cd n n e eev lakf e dao i E y le n cir t pm io io rD r 0 m b t ois io pr ad c s r l l l l a i i 0 e r s y ns 3 m t a e gle ir ed b b - 0 0, a s reeg 0 k r eg e 0 ur 1 4 P d m p 0 5, 0 w egn oga 9, 2 er pon 0 4, A qa u 5 3 2 9 2 5 8 l A Dar 5 1 3 1 Omlo 1 N
/ el o Roc f
2 1 e e s s e r u e t fi s n. s e u a eM oe t r et u t ore u e u c r et m o e t s D ods r ga gar e D t a g a it nI s aH nr ne e la r n T ha pe V t t t a fi s m la e W n ca? ap u , c eM L n ier o g 5 2 o u n n p m e k Po c an f ose r eg f oec e m t r s sn n no a oin e m0 Cme e0 oT h Ce oT m iC yt r oo s t n e s e a t e ign t A T e is h a t c 0, a t yr t ye r s r a r e k k t o ba t Cat r 0 e oe P mkc t a c sr glp yei n lp7 it t lih plc C a m o a or n epa mr iw l t e ua em bo ig bi ey e h KOM i M T P R WC NP LE Efo AL AH RC N m r n a m r o t i y d n t s r o c E e n, a' l f r eib a e c c o s, " C P n n ar n F c o* i a at s t y ms mns ui"ra*s t it l O r r r r oo r o oo t sr o ib f t r c f r mt ne"t ix t s ee ac c o ea op# a le _ P PDF CO F C -
4 3 nE y t p p c O 9 g 9-iO e n 9 1 7-sD e i s t e t n o g in r dr o w s r a s r i s H M N e n l f a uy s i a n W N C vi o e A t i t v p o / s n io is pi l i g c t t a n e t au eb t c n n P s e r ci x n e i s o s ic h nlc r ol e j b d u d G p a r e n cf o e n e O M t l o hme v o s a AC l t iu l p o i r b wmiv e n:s gs l ex u i t l e y t i r c d d e Oies ba ml a l n im h e e c t a t c u c a Dr o pg e n e m n i mie l f t n m d P omr o t s o e n c r a c n c e c o so i r s i a r a ni st e g i at a e s n t t p a t pe r h u ci i r e eit oa c c ds en cr nl r r n n nc Ea v pb n:s o o c ko ns ol ca l o i ai r r E is t a n a ns ic se u i g sp gs c o er l a v s e Amio Do e s r c O Dp E D Ec Da ~
O N y "
- IT gi r *'
AAC e _ n t n CTE - ,t .lg E #e f CNJ -. r o "" m t n*n " a e g _ UU O .
~h g e a
YOPR .
. i y,.
m*Me t r
- h. a M i [2 pI e
t s a I D *" W - I S. 6' t U f n A)
)
e - I m K e ( i n f e e s iRv m e t t s y a r S 9 no rf e y r o t e s t s a i t s _ o KnnP l a Wr l a e c R p e r u e i gd N g a s e n n o n a a M Dn d o i e e t t s n o m i e ti mgn aO t e er& l
- c p :
oCe oi t : y l n pM 9 ni r t d y e b SO S 9 9 a c e rM o d ed r yM 1 h s t nsh t n sha pW e t u 0 2 n )e ei s vt1 y O - K I ed r PA1 1 e c eR ri PRDC l J u
2 t p p . 9 9-O 9 1 7-l le n S M Y
/
W N C A
/
s n it o t a n e s e r P s c ihp a r G O n M i o C t 6 p 9 i r <
) s c s t n
s t f e O e i r d n D CC n o p e l l 0 0 e A 5 0 3 2 t wy m o e t c D l s<ra e gs n
,c h
G O p a r a mla My iu ds M t r m R4 k nu o C 10)Pleo nf c at cf r e< a t su y h ((W b,ow P ir t n t e e nd st f o mgio n es i e r t a i etek ataw i o t s n e l r e f if l ci2t ot e n c l i a is u heel l a n2 pey W s t e e (v o os r s g n rt t o nsst l l a nA l r ol e i l f g A cnd howe e mhn i e t g b r )A et o D 2a w na e gsi r c (Vnio ads E 2t s e yf d t ot st n a or l oo i x o l demao vrc l Aml a r u a r eml s age
)
a f c ml t cp es mnc r i i o5 ieums ien r edv ae mreMsScATlo t t osh ;c c o 2o v - - - ~ ~
5 t p p o 9 9-n r 9 1 o a 7-e y l le n
- S -
i 3 M t 2 Y l a --
- T f
o e 0 0 3
/
W N O u F U i d - A
/
s n o N d l c Ds i ms tage it t a n e
)gca 3 t l
eel t a ea h a a v n em P ic s e r s t a cP s o ma - 0 h n y e mWmi er cte ere - 5 2 G p a r von i t _ i l l c uvt a se - O gg i i sg emiapt g t ae ms i - M Aloo se a , t h - e a eR r r gn e ue mn%s v u s0 ug w
- or go Ai s eor a nre5 on mipf r
eor t neon ei r a s u 0 0 2 C Ndy h t dC i o r o ec
- t cnaid gl e euo navymi
" LDS5spoue0i e t
r u t e r a
,h v ai -
r e l s ev l
* * * * - p l P r Ofi a WC 2
- 50 T m
e km e2 . h - - 1 e TA - '- g _ cr a k ae ]
- - - " P c
a Bh t e s (t - a I t e - a 1 0 0 1 W I a Am
- x Di t % -
Es e -
}
4
- 5 0
l - - a r t - - - " n
- - - O e %
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C 0 1 9 8 gI5E5 t 7 6 5 l!&y8glh i i 4 3 ii 2 1
6 t p p o 9 4 9 1 7-y 0 l le S n t i t 0 0, M
- _ Y l - -
_ ~ p 0 1
/
W _ n y ,
~ot i -
N p g C
)b i r d er Dleu
~isl
= r ob i
i a; A
/
s n gi t t i l - r t op i a,. _ it o a np i shi a rSf =Cec
=es g
, t n
e s i gc e - F
- cu vS P
e r s
- r o w.
~i ef
. .Mlfl 0 0
0, ic h p a w_ Asu ~Cw 2 o yn d 8 G O M r oS ~2 i l l oW 4_
~A Nf o sio*m
, gy~
,w 0 r
- 7 0 y l %
0 - c
,.Fd iP- -
0, t l h 6 p 8 i i f o t o s Q*& 1Sa
~
e c e kd n r k: . ; w._ R r ocn ai
- t u
e r y
- k a, taw-h-ym1 g. -
t f e a e B W
- t - w 0 m o
i y0.-. p.{
- 0 _
d . d 0, i i
; F= w T o in_
- m 4 _
e
~ -
7 u d n w m_. h ht h e chr.Wo,~ i w o t i m - 1x E=.
, t o f t
r i T i-7 t s s e e _ Wid 4f - s ht
$W9a 4 .
rV3,
- lo ra .
( o -
.- , P c f P
0 0 0, I v - -W W 2
- y -
I a - gN As _ - DP EW
- l
- l i' 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 e 6 2 4 2 2 2 0 2 o e5i{ 8 1 6 1 4 1 2 1
$E.En. ga!
0 1 8 s 4 2 h li ! T O
~
7 t p . p . 9 - 9-O a 9 _ 1 _ 7-r X e f o S M Y n
/
t W r _ e o N C A l s p
/
s n o u s it t a n r s t h t p n a e s e r e n P i l s w a P t r ic h p r e i a m W s e G r r n r e v O a o d e e r u i M _ l e h n h l s - Bp i t o t i a u h e i f f e f f s h s o dm i d d t o n o e r o p g n r r o P m
)w eC i
d r i r osr c a s i t c Wno o u er e e ms l Oe) nS
)
7- d e l aya r 0 e t ot h m (o p no i e0 0 y r t i g a fc gB ( T a n e9 0,0 l h o t r nE p g ~ 0, l a t e 7s e y v _ wre05 f E( n s e k Mi t n _- mo ol u e l -
~ i c Ri b I
I m uit msa mroCit ss l i d d At e f n o i n c o r od i t e n op ai r ef t l ee mr e e Pe Ds a t s P eirh u Wp Ey i u si l o eh _ S t gWd pf a s f t f is en t . kn s er n i s d e . ci f d a e c ha _ ipt c i l t i d aud tsfc i - hp e gr sd e v se i t i t a to nFM i o eR in mg - mr o l r n r s i i P U c eP L Ls - O v - - - - - 2o ~
8 . t p p e r _ y 9 _ O e 9-h 9 . t 1 _ i t 7-t r i v a l le n f o t c w S M Y
/
u s W N t n C n d A
/
s e i n n a it o . o a t t _ m c e n e s n e r r t s o r l a d l P s ic h p n e i a v m r i G O r e n e y e h s M n d t i d h t p o n i n g i r p a mo ui i n d y s r ) m r h o r e d t e ero d e odeu
)
s m l l a i v c i s k c OCi t n n o d l e o e f k c o t l ade z n o a r S( C i g r ei r l c ( c r h a d e . B e t _ s r u u o wc o i e d e sa i r r _ E ol . p s b a f h eB c csd i _ l f i r o f o tn s oy e g ar I I l n d n eor d c r t a i ni A t e rf l e s c ob i i b ych o n s er i D h araR i t t p o c as bef i r o rl E r e s e s up l l i f u ei vpo l a _ e wb v h t dd oat o i s id a n sceu agl l l c ra mnd e rek n l l l l b i i i f oi m kt te R i i f t aSl E t ceS i k sB x aic au c a EE E MwBd o B - - - -
9 s t p p m 9 O a 9-9 e 1 7-l le d b S n M n l e Y
/
a e W N C A n t s
/
s n i o t t o it a n t r e e a e s e r t s r s i z e v nt rt s P s ic h u l p n n i b t e i oa G a r t o r ) O e c u i t o c n gs pl l a M n r i d m e o c i nnb r a r e o p t s n o d t o et h ved t oi to i t c l c e r u cl c y m e d n u n d yu l p ode
)
v u o r e l n p u n o t a l aioa OCi t n n o i d r g i d a wt nrda os i C r e S( g te wl l n n a a o n a B d i s p e ooi psk l l f E t r ng e e d dn ca I o enh s i t s e n a br I p pi ge n n a A p egma d a i i l a ( egf o u l d t r k na s en D s l l d n e c l a eiat i e E d in wa a n g wd r r e u t dn s p n dtst l i t ero or u eeo ssb k sri o bf p o r ulee c eo cpa v t slola r g et o usy aiea d pSR dnB l l Ti l e y ear a e T Rt B O t S - - -
0 1 t p p O s r 9 9-9 1 a 7-l le n e n w g . S M Y
/
Y h o s %[j W N C A
/
s n n 0 i o g
'}
, ;xb#
f S P o it t a n 0 e r
~
1-
~W
-N No
,ho W
t f o n e s e 8 r 1 l h t r t o P l a .
?tak o ni eg ic s
t m s 4 a?:n cd i \ tx e ER h p a a L t g r sn h e a y"-[ e! h! t o r
! G O
uB e t ' F M n a v ht 3 r 'j 0, l i e . t h f. a t a r h s_ n r t y r o s, J' e ?g i s o - ('R O p ; / f t e r y l ~ s l s e l A i t e r n e r a e y [1, ~ s s e c i s a em t r n he n o r ia t t f 0 o 5 I(; @N p n er de g l a r o de io cn r t t p ra u o l c f p l l a i i p t g u et r t p f s t y a e n in ol c a op us k c e i s s h f o lio oi bg bu R e f t o c n r r k s o a n no g o or t 9 D 2 n t 9 e T e t t ie
%F 2
x n d 2-z S t g 1 v - i s 0U e e n a f e iit n A d 4 R' D n 5s N d a n o ws n d o eD n rmo n e e a i C. 2 T e n pe zaisod xs t N i t g l i E e v3 ;e o T o X r f i o o on f' A))f@g l it E l c g n m u e m J a oi br r u n o o o e r f X A n r u o imc n oc na M. i:
' ... d g l
isni n q : -,@m d g d d w d. e r ec iz anm a e e it o boin n ot ~ (;\ :W c r h s e f i t a t o l u la d c mf u l ai o p a r o pi c d r h e emtna l l e me oi e R sR L E P l G. O n ngueu
- * - = . . M oas sVD t
O E NRA*
- 1 1
t t p p d ei fr . O l 9 i e t sD 9-9 h fo a 1 n - S iP eWi i t e l 7-l le n r f s9 S eg e D oea r P gk M Y
/
t a r c W sk ac L Paa N C A f WaP 9
/
s n f 9-o 2 io t 2-t a 6 n
/r d e s
c. g e r i n P m .
.. .. D.
w a r s ic h e e
. , . . . . p w........
..~.,...
T C E S - G O a r
. . ... ..m, . . .- .s". .......m.
t r
- X &
s u A c.... . c. _y 1
. . 1 A M
.. . . D
.. ..__g.
E ys
=. ,* ..,.
.. M . . .. . .e . .. ,. ,)i . .
O _
;u..
../;.......
M So
...r. .
+. ;. o . W . ... . v. . . . J ' . . m wt
- m. .. . .. .. .s.. . . . . . -
rl . eC , ,. ... . :.:,. y../.
, . . .. .w..t w . n,: . . . v. ~.
i r r m.. . .. ... - . r e Oat B A f r..._.. e,....
..~,
/,
\. -
dI .
.- . . . .. .. Q .....,:.::.i.'
eI ,. ...?.
.?.. ..;.......e..V._#
a. rA ..:. . m
~
. . . . c-e ...? X? .
w.- G ....... c. . .~.;".. eD c
/m. . * . . .
,. r;..~. ... -,,.~
. . .. X.
nE m.. ". .
.s.A.....s. . ..
_.+.- i . . g . . ... . . t f NI O V n n E t l n i f l e k c la m s el a t s c ia B e aR d lp e P m E O
2 1 t p p O 9 9-9 1 7-l le n n S M Y s e / l e W g N ) e2 e2 t - sy i l b g a r r N C A G g s s
/
i e r nl o m ee s n s I S r c i n n gieet boA l e vw a o it o a e E a nr e s t n D i ia s ep e
/
M e l e dvm a r a m a v s e _ D oP r A H t e t o gl cc R s P - V T r e r 0 l n ar m bW a r /s a s ic M m m n c c 0 t i n cve k m2r W R e e e h p n ia ce P n n y m a A 5, % r ope 7 5 8 5 o o G 8 2 5 C C 0 1 P S (s 10 0v 1 o 1 2 5W o o 0 1 9P N N 5 0 O V M t o l l e R l v m W _ a r c Pr e A g 5 L s ew r m r6 e go e 1 1 o c D i ap O v 13 bl A d 0 o r D e n 1 2e m l ee vg E E r c a : g 2e e s aa s n - t ys s ek _
/a vo a c
h oss Ra i _ f M t d 7- s /s _ o a i l _ H wts o l bp i r T 9 l m Ae Wl aet T a m e 3 min P l l M m m ela e 0, e k s m s y 0 n 0 1 5 6 8 5 Sb el t a t S e 0 i L n 4 5 2s cat 1 2
%a 0
2w c e 0 1-2 Y 5 2 o 1 i s n r S e o g a p
.C I
T S i d n a t r t e e t f i s r D e y a g ei t k) cg d o i t l i t a NIR o o s g f ot g t c an sapa Pid i r n GE L g te r p a a a e p e p w hn Wa v s n e I m ST u k t e k en e e EC i s c m f os c gm n e as m Ce sl c t e d r r o S a l DA a a a re Pg ab e u u R M p d eg e c Pl a ug i h l s s i S D tr n ba ei n L a ei ma W (r S f o l o C i A l a ft ft e u mk c t ap ts e l l r ik k e p kc c c l i c sa x c a a aw H e o e eo r a e t r r r v r u a ap om aa MP r et t C i i i r a A D D n i G Np WS TE WM PP D B P Pr O
~ 3
** 1 t _
p p 9 h :*
- 9-mO *
. ;1r 4
e s-9 1 7-4p c ;, + . 7 I
!e r !*
- b. Apf.j o.
n N S
-)sf Y 9
j .
- M y p. x,7Qg" .
S o". " ) - Y r y;:s[$ v ga %g?
, ' . /
C :;g . ..: ypj;;; : TC _ W N
%glgq,, A . ~;! '" :7,w.;,Jr.
A .f E S C
. I A
;g eg,
~
i,pS f ,,;f ,# ",**
, .1 n A D
P / s n g
~m&rb' E
o V 3 f q ' c ;;>;,' , . ; j-o< wWw.k(s f e ' il M it a
~. ,
sl t n
%;f [ ,smdg ' 4. , .
p : f e f
- -: j; : ~ !:!::: !:
ee s e gs-Q3
$r
.h !:
!: i: i- .
Dvt r QnM;..[%ely @r:.. d P N i!: i i:! i:! i i *+ i!: :!- s - Qp i!: i:! w' ?,7;e:3 :'.'* i 3 _ i!: i:i
!!: i : i-p da ic n sj 4 y
h ;c c
!!: i:i
!!: i:i i:i i:li-i:
3 en cr h p a a
!: i: r .
.w i: i: - : G o es;fywK4f)6.:.
g y i:
$ net O 4 " ' .,,.
twb.g; y , i* h al M 4 d . .~; i hA Q I 9 a c :. j . 5 . . ." . . n tf,m.w.m%,Q2g:.}" c' " ,1 E g#' . c J,- .m.",. e <i. g l A g; f _ _4;y. d' ;n!K i . , " . .
.~
lt ~
/ .M~
n , " :- + . c"
,?
D ..g.. , { ' ,- 3g l - 3 y ~ c}
*v c fnd.h A;
. :h. '
. '4 ,y3l ,JVgrpg\
E
'(, -
f n)% o n 1 .
.l .)
t . M# jzg i o ,1 1
'$% j f v m,p i j
t . c : e,. -- - e nQ+ g1 y S- t ye t n _ im s l
- is bs s m.' ae o
i Vss _ r A C
)i g ah, Qed *ar -
s
.P:t
[% v J - ) ' , ( i 4 [, p^g;=,<V,g ,
~) .
% .i* {; .
s* \
4 1 t e p o s p . 9 g 9-e a 9 1 7-e c k l le n n y d c S g a t i x o a p M
/
Y W t a n m l e p e r i r e e C A N
/
s r p n ng mt u t o o o a e sd l it t a n ai f r c r ao s e e vs m wh r _ P _ e g e p i s s ic n e h de p si n t r e orh p a r AD G ef t l e m O r i r od e t r gt M t e ud mm t o n n - nc sf o o s r h s i po an el e s o r i pi s cer l c f i odr rr o t c d n f i s n n u c mo f k ie ea e c onf od p s r o o ge n nf ei t r o r y f rd r e iR pd m r ei z S i ene a o t aa l s A sd t e iw n e s e i s wco eV i t nibce t c u o p t sl nw de i i a g ogn d e r eo vht t r l o r f vle o e od i p o e rb r r c dryh de g g ps Pe v n uh s i n noidon l a eo t l
- s di t au h h c l
O e l t i l d ai A e rmrmob l i si t c eP e et r s pi l D uh ii s ns e r n i t E d T e - Ld L Du O R - - -
5 e 1 d i t p p O s 9 n l c 9-e o l a e u 9 1 7-e c r r r n l le n u i n u o S g a d t c l i M Y
/
a n i n u a d W N C t m a r f a A
/
s r g r n ng o l l a t s n n t o it a n e ai f r f e i g i s e de vs e p k c o h t d e i s e P ic h r s p a s nt e r r t AD G e t c w O m e iear M r e t e u o r t o d t r c nc s o f r i x o en co an d p nc i cer l t c l i h e e g d s u o f ed
)
s s a i o st ee i e o p k v zu Onfugei t n n o p i r c a p a i md i RC( n d l e it n r S i m e e io s t t mps s A u s s e i a n eV i t n t n a w br o t r n oa pt r de i i a i t f o a p vht t r t s e c u dn o r r e c t c e d i s f M o R d n s a Pe v n) ud o r p t u o nC o r ui n o i ot O d e r a l l l t n tafo z e nu l ic o n e gi A ci f k cn a t Ml e l i l i mdo eb l D ut ao R h i eo E dne o Bc Cs EmSm l t O R (c - - - - ~ _
6 d 1 e r t p os p . i 9 u y t a 9-9 qit 1 7-exy e r l le r et u 3 n g slpx e i s c c M Y
/
gml e W t a n a op l a o o s N C A
/
s n ng k cm g t s ito t a ct a o e o n e ai pelnc r s e vs c r u P s de t ema s e n t a r d l e ic G h p a r AD a ciat wlpra o e p i h s O M t e E m e p nc Ome p t i r an D e o r d sr e i ce r r e saei l w o A V l f ) l i ed e u ol oer m r o o onfn i cis t gei t n o yf o u qt h r e e i RC( t i xgr ei w h l b S en gt i g a r s A a s h r l pcni u p eV i e r r med o nib u a e r dr a m o de i a cqlog w o c b e r e vht h e l s ea t u o t pr s a dlis nl d e l ae r r ee v n n i i f Vr u Pev di i oa dl no i d t s n el o t gao o n
- d a r n g p O
l l e i y m sc i
- egne t e ef _
ep l A ptaic i b Pr o os da l _ si t nf r i e n D nl u s ol eu b i a t em E f eM sNBS xC t sNi o-t O e e l e D - L - - F - C
7 s t 1 n n t p p o t e 9 o 9-r np 9 1 i e es p 7-l le t n g n a i n sEO S M Y n s be s o l aD ,N F
/
W d g n: e t ne ep l e i c N C A n i g o d r)S
/
s n o e so k a t mty e u eWf mLo sn it t a gt e
, e eit c y l c er s e
m da a p d u as na e r mHngP oDoai s c rd aw p h p a m one e t s mg t [ c(i t k eccO G r o f t s a n o n o n stsraa& p M c emwi l ai t o e z af e e t wl l dmr a c u ma r g d i s ag R moc f t o t r s hr ee t u eema l gvsl r u n t g b ae r n t n ee rR t p o f e os d o k l chfd o i o e a u c ts n
, i r
ag pihng ec st e od e n fio e ia m ni t a a ei t p t et ap l e oS h e n na ei l e r ss r anee n ie t s i g s bt n u s wedb f i f ah i s de o 'g e d to e dt a de1 1 nv l cn ndn n no b rA a s eo i z ), ]a n R et n aD t sa ri pt a iF) drNFc a mro g uE l sh n i s dh cocu )s at rl en i aSNt dCS a g mier d ot i e (s rt ye v n((h i op a n r w h s f i - al l t s ct et t ed 0 f t ees s uue e en h s hn t et e r ue 5oe s eff t r rb i l D r e i l es aqt pnr i a md aaam e l amb r e a is si vn mh ap uoluee sir accs l l e r t e n Es Rc eo Ct ocese Ap seEnnavuus u vi ef e O t u Sr 1 2 3 4 5 . F
- 8 s n g
1 n t p i p . O s l 9 i o d e e v e l l a t n e 9-9 1 7-l le t l l e n e - i S a e t ch ag t e r e m e M Y
/
W d t s tnh i s t a c a A N C n s i f d n ml p
/
s n o e s t o e u a l a m it t a n e s l n otn
, i e e m i a he t
t s a t i n d P ic r s n h _ i i p m t s w m e l l a n a G a r . o a O _ e isv r b s & M v eo s - c l r r a a a e l i obp l r 2 mm u 7- e - R 2 e i r n a i T t a y ssde m r t g _ o ai g n g nde
) l l
s h i n O eu n A F n n No t i w s u i d it n a SC n u - mC e( o n f t r g l c o o g. e n i i n t n od nn i i v n d s e i n f e t ds i g e l ma ar eezl d l e i s e R p r cte i t o s i h d tedi s f s n l e - l s sen ot r l naca ng oip i v f g e i p r k c d ab pd a i s P cr u s u i a b e We diup d e ds r m o p p D s in e e nl o o do n u e l u s ot eh e c n c s i v vt r o or a fe or e ee F CiwRgD z Dm u 0 O t u 6 7 8 9 1
. F .}}