ML20212F246
| ML20212F246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/21/1999 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9909280090 | |
| Download: ML20212F246 (111) | |
Text
s-
"- l'?
~'
... -. :..~.:;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
NRC STAFF BRIEFING ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
FOR A PROPOSED HLW GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PUBLIC MEETING Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Tuesday, September 21,1999 I
Pages:
1 - 61 i
+>\\
\\';
9909200090 990921
{'. )
PDR 10CFR
.(i PT9.7 PDR
\\
r'
[E^024 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
s.
O l
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on
' September 21,'1999, in the Commission's office at One White Flint North,'Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain
' inaccuracies, l
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record ~of decision.of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this
' transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading'or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
1 l
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGUuATORY COMMISSION 3
4 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 5
6 NRC STAFF BRIEFING ON 7
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) 8 FOR A PROPOSED HLW GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY 9
10 PUBLIC MEETING 11 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13 One White Flint North 14 Building 1, Room 1F-16 15 11555 Rockville Pike 16 Rockville, Maryland 17 Tuesday, September 21, 1999 18 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 19 notice, at 9:30 a.m.,
the Honorable GRETA J. DICUS, Chairman 20 of the Commission, presiding.
21 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
22 GRETA J. DICUS, Chairman of the Commission 23 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission 24 EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission 25 JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, Member of the Commission ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
E 1
9 1
2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE-
{
l 2
KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel 2
ANNETTE L. VIETTI-COOK, Assistant Secretary 4
LAKE H. BARRETT, Acting Director, Office of 5
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 6
WENDY R. DIXON, EIS Project Manager, Yucca 7
Mountain Site Characterization Project 8
ALAN BROWNSTEIN, Director, Regulatory Coordination 9
Division, DOE 10 JOSEPH ZIEGLER, Boo:-Allen & Hamilton, Technical 11 Support Contractor to DOE Yucca Mountain 12 Project 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l
20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
3 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
[9:33 a.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Good morning, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
On behalf of my fellow Commissioners I would 5
like to welcome the representatives from the Department of 6
Energy, DOE, for today's Commission briefing on one of our 7
favorite topics, Yucca Mountain and the draft Environmental 8
Impact Statement, the DEIS.
9 DOE's completion of the High Level Waste Viability 10 Assessment was the last related major milestone the 11 Commission was briefed on, which was I think back in 12 February.
At that point DOE recommended to the President, 13 the Congress and the public to continue site 14 characterization, demonstration and testing for the 15 performance confirmation process, 16 I would like to recognize that this briefing is J
l 17 part of an ongoing constructive dialogue on a very important 18 topic.
Today'we will hear from DOE regarding the status of 19 the progress made subsequent to completing the viability 4
20 assessment as well as specifics related to the DEIS proposed 21 action to construct, operate, monitor and eventually close a 22 geological repository at the Yucca Mountain site 23 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 24 remarks that they would wish to express?
25
[No response.]
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
i 9
1 4
1 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
At this time, then, I would like 2
welcome Mr. Lake Barrett, DOE's Acting Director of the 1
3 Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and one of 4
today's presenters, and if DOE does not object, and Mr.
5 Barrett in particular, if you do not object, we may stop 6
your presentation from time to time to ask pertinent 7
questions.
However, we will endeavor to.let you get through 8
your presentation with minimum interruption, if any, and 9
then save our general questions until the end, so if you 10 would please take a minute to introduce your colleague and 11 then proceed with the briefing.
12 MR. BARRETT:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
13 I would like to introduce Wendy Dixon, who is our 14 Environmental Impact Statement Project Manager for the Yucca 15 Mountain Project.
She was in charge of the DEIS product 16 that we have so far and that aspect at NEPA.
17' What I thought I would do is take about two or 18 three minutes and put the Environmental Impact Statement 19 effort to which the DEIS is the first major product into 20 perspective in the entire program and then turn it over to 21 Ms. Dixon, who will present the details of the Environmental 22 Impact Statement.
I will move to the mike and the chart 23 here.
24 I believe that this will be on the TV and also 25 Commissioners will have copies.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
5 1
The viability assessment was completed at the end 2
of last year, and as the Chairman mentioned, to continue 3
. onward, the draft Environmental Impact Statement just came
~
4 out this past July.
It was actually published in August.
I 5
It is part of our integrated program at the 6
Department of Energy to determine whether the Yucca Mountain 7
site is suitable and, if suitable, continue onward.
These 8
symbols represent the next milestones, which would be the 9
site recommendation to the President if the site is 10' determined to he scientifically suitable, and then the 11 license application that follows that,. and I will describe 12 that a little bit on how the draft Environmental Impact 13 Statement and final will fit into that, and the interactions 14 we have with the Commission.
15 In the site recommendation, which we have 16 currently scheduled for July '01 to the President, under the 17 statute there's actions for the Secretary to do and there's 18 also actions for the Commission.
Basically the entire 19 milestone rests on our science and technology program, which 20 is an integrated science and technology program for both the 1
21 environmental activities, the draft EIS and the final EIS as 22 well as the site suitability, site recommendation process.
23 If you notice that under the statute the Nuclear 24 Regulatory Commission has an important role to play where it i
i 25 would provide under law, and I will quote from the law, "The I
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
)
6 1
Commission's preliminary comments concerning the extent at 2
which the Act depth site characterization analysis and waste 3
form proposal for such site seem to be sufficient for P
4 inclusion in any application submitted to the Commission."
5 That letter with any views of the Staff would 6
basically accompany the Secretary's letter to the President 7
at that time.
Also, the final Environmental Impact 8
Statement, which would be built upon the draft Environmental 9
Impact Statement, which we will be discussing here today, 10 would also be accompanied with that package.
11 Then if we finish that and the site is determined 12 to be suitable, then we would continue on to the license 13 application, of which the EIS would accompany the license 14 application to the Commission, so I think it is timely that 15 the Commission focus on the draft EIS, and also there we 16 will have the post-closure in our safety analysis report and 17 the pre-closure aspects to it of which the quality assurance 18 requirements will go all through all aspects of it.
As I 19 believe you are aware -- the Staff has briefed you -- we are 20 working very hard on our quality assurance to qualify our 21 data to establish the necessary documentation of the 22 processes that were followed for the license application.
23 As you are aware, we are under severe budget 24 uncertainty at this point until Congress later this month 25 acts on our budget, and hopefully there will be some ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
7 1
longevity to the decision that they may have, as to how we 2
are going to handle these milestones and their timing.
3 Our first priority is to focus on the site 4
recommendation to see if we have a scientifically suitable 5
site, and our second priority would be the license 6
application.
We would have to maybe defer this.
Now the 7
NRC sufficiency letter is an important part, so you are a 8
major activity within our site recommendation plan, so we 9
have a constant interaction with your Staff.
We run an open 10 and transparent scientific program.
All the information is 11 available to all the parties as we go forward, but what we 12 would do is we would defer the majority of the preclosure 13 activities.
14 This would focus on the buildings and the handling 15 facilities.
We know how to safely handle fuel and we 16 believe we can make an application that would address fuel
'17 handling.
What has never been done before is the 18 demonstration of the post-closure, 10,000 year performance, 19 so this is our main focus, and we will do what is necessary 20 in the pre-closure for the sufficiency letter, but our main 21 focus is here, so until we know the outcome of the budget, 22 we don't know what the schedule will be.
23 I suspect that the license application date is the 24 one most in jeopardy.
The site recommendation date we will 25 hold as best we can based upon the money available to do the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I I
8 1
necessary work-and also what we find in our science programs 2
as we go forward.
3 That is sort of in summary where we are.
We can 4
go to Ms. Dixon's presentation or whatever the Commission 5
would desire.
6 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Are there any questions on these 7
slides before we go further, anyone?
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Just one question, on 9
quality assurance, which you have in that vertical line 10 there.
How are you going to prioritize getting the 11 information you need for the site recommendation done within 12.
budgets.cnc can you get it all done in time for the site 13 recommendation, the quality assurance on the date that is 14 going to be underlying the site recommendation?
15 MR. BARRETT:
For the integrated science and 16 technology program for the site recommendation it has a lot 17 of components to it.
There are over 1400 datasets and there 18 are over 140 what we call analysis in model reports, and 19 then there are nine primary process model reports, which are 20 then synthesized'into the TSPA -- Total System Performance 21 Assessment activities.
22 We are working on the quality assurance 23 documentation for all of those things and we are tracking 24 those with metrics on the datasets as to how many are 25 qualified and how many are not.
Basically the work being ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut' Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i 9
1 done is world-class science and we basically are focused on-
.2 getting the best scientists in their field to work in a 3
particular area.
We are not working with them in the P
4
. National Labs and in the USGS and others to basically assure 5
that the documentation and the processes are prcperly 6
documented and were done under Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7
rules as the staff and we'have basically an improvement plan 8
that we have submitted to the Staff and discussed with the 1
9 Staff and your onsite Staff and the Staff here monitors 10 that, so we are in a process of qualifying the data.
11 I suspect in the site recommendation not 100 12 percent of the data will be qualified.
That will have to be 13 at the license application, so we don't know what -- we have 14 goals, we have commitments that we'have made to the Staff, 15 but it will not all be qualified at that time, but it will 16 be good data, but it will not have the necessary -- you 17 know, we explain to our folks that world class science is 18 necessary but insufficient for a Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission submittal, and we are working to do that with the 20 Staff.
21 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
If I could follow up on the 22 Commissioner's question and your response, I understand -- I 23
.want to be sure I understand this -- that maybe about 20 l
24 percent of what is submitted will not be qualified or 25 roughly in that ballpark.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I 10 1
Now looking at this Slide 4, would the bulk of the 2
unqualified be in that top tier, Total System Performance 3
Assessment, et cetera, or are there other places?
4 MR '. BARRETT:
At the period of site 5
recommendation, I believe the number around 20 percent may notbequaj{fiedasyetatthattime.
At the time of the 6
7 license application we expect to have 100 percent of the 8
data will be qualified.at the' license application.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
If I could just follow 10 up, in terms of you face this budget crisis -- which we wish 11 you well on and hope you get your full budget -- but how 12 high a priority is this, depending on what the depth of the 13 cut is?
Will you continue to make trying to get the quality 14 assurance -- getting the data qualified a priority, or 15 could -- you said earlier you are going to try to hold to 16 the site recommendation date to the extent you can and the 17 license application date could slide -- could there be a 18 significantly less than 80 percent of the data qualified at 19 the time of site recommendation or would you try mightily to 20 make that another thing that doesn't slide?
21 MR. BARRETTi We don't know until we look at it.
22 Here is where straight numbers -- 60, 80, 90 percent -- are 23 difficult.
24 What we have done to prioritize our work, we have 25 a repository safety strategy which is based on the total ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
n 11 1
system performance assessment and we are using that as a 2
guide for what data cnd what process models are the most 3
important as it relates to long-term performance, the 10,000 4
year performance.
5 If we have a dataset which are very important in 6
the long-term performance, that is the dataset that we put 7
our priorities on to get the best pedigree on that 8
information, whereas maybe we will have a lot of datasets, 9
but those datasets may be feeding a process model that is 10 not as important to the overall performance as the Staff 11 sees it or as we see it, so we work carefully so we try to 12 prioritize and put our efforts where it is most meaningful 13 to most effectively use whatever resources we get through 14 the process.
15 We don't use numerics so much as the guide is it i
16 the most important data in the processes that's most j
17 meaningful to the performance of the site and the l
18 suitability of the site.
19 CHAIRMAN DICUS; Commissioner Merrifield, did you 20 have a follow-up?
21 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
No.
(
22 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Okay.
Ms. Dixon.
i l
23 MR. BARRETT:
-Ms. Dixon.
t 24 MS. DIXON:
Thank you.
It is a pleasure being 25 here this morning.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
l-
I 12 1
. CHAIRMAN DICUS:
A pleasure to have you.
l 2
MS. DIXON:
As you know, the topic of my 3
presentation is tied to our recent release of the draft 4
Environmental Impact Statement.
On Slide 2 we discuss what 5
the Environmental Impact Statement drivers are, in addition 6
to the requirements under NEPA.
7
.Certainly the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires a 8
final EIS to accompany both the site recommendation as well 9
as the license application.
It also states that we need to 10 prepare a technically adequate EIS that can be adopted to 11 the extent practical by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i 12 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is something else as 13 well, and it provides a roadmap for the actual preparation 14 of the Environmental Impact Statement.
That roadmap 15 basically includes statements from the Nuclear Waste Policy 16 Act that stated that the EIS need not consider either the 17 need for a repository, the time of initial availability of a i
18
. repository, alternatives to geologic disposal or 19 alternatives to Yucca Mountain.
20 So DOE is the lead agency for preparing the 21 document.
We went out and competitively solicited for a j
22 contractor to help us prepare the document, and that 23 contractor is Jason Associates.
Jason has several 24 subcontractors, including Tetra Tech NUS, Battelle, and Dade 25 Moeller and Associates.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
13 1
To prepare the information for this EIS, we did, 2
as Lake was mentioning, rely on existing technical studies 3
and information that have been gathered and collected over 4
the last couple of decades by the M&O contractor, by USGS, 5
and by the national laboratories.
And where necessary and 6
appropriate, we also developed new information to supplement 7
the existing information.
8 Next slide.
9 The proposed action, as you indicated, clearly is 10 to construct, operate, and monitor and eventually close a t
11 geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel 12 and high-level nuclear waste.
13 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act basically says that 14 you can't put any more in the repository beyond the 70,000 15 metric tons until such time as a second repository is in 16 operation, so the proposed action is limited to that 70,000 17 metric tons of heavy metal, 10 percent of which is allocated 18 to the Department of Energy spent nuclear fuel and 19 high-level waste, the rest to the commercial spent nuclear 20 fuel side of the house.
21 The EIS describes and evaluates the current 22 preliminary design concept, and it also identifies design 23 features and alternative design concepts that DOE is 24 considering in the final design.
We recognize up front in 25 this DEIS that this is not necessarily the design that we'll ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
,I l
14 1
be going forward with, and the Department will continue to 2
try to enhance and improve performance of the repository as 3
time progresses, j
i 4
The analytical structure of the document is on 5
slide 5.
The real decision that this EIS is supporting is
{
6 tied to whether or not to recommend the site to the 7
President, and it has per our discussion two major 8
alternatives.
One is the proposed action to construct, 9
operate, and monitor and eventually close, and the other one 10 is the no action analysis, which in our calculations is 11 basically the status quo, leaving the material where it is.
12 There are two scenarios tied to that.
One is 13 dealing with institutional control for the entire 14 10,000-year time frame, and the other one is tied to 15 institutional control for 100 years, and then like'the 16 repository not taking credit for institutional controls 17 after that 100-year time frame is over.
18 What our attempt was was to provide a baseline 19 from which to compare the proposed action against.
In order 20 to understand the full range of environmental impacts in the 21 EIS, we looked at three different thermal load scenarios, a 22 high tied to 85 metric tons, immediate, which is 60, and 23 low, which is 25.
When we looked at what the impacts were 24 for.long-term performance, there were not great differences 25 as it related to long-term performance in the calculations, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
n 15 1
'but there were differences in the preclosure time frame,'
2 tied principally to the fact that the low thermal load is a 3
larger repository, it requires more construction material,.
4 more people to help support the activities, more land will 5
be disturbed.
So there are a number of differences, but the 6
larger difference are really the preclosure differences s',
7 rather than the postclosure differences.
8 We also looked at transportation scenarios.
We on-9 a national level tied them into two different groupings.
10 One was doing the calculations, looking at a mostly rail 11 scenario, and we said mostly rail because we recognized that 12 there were a few reactor sites that did not have rail access 13 or did not have the heavy crane capability to actually deal 14 with the heavier casks.
The other side of the house was the 15 mostly legal-weight truck scenario, and in that scenario we 16 drove all the transportation through legal-weight truck when 17 possible, recognizing that there were a few areas where you 18 could not use legal-weight trucks, such as the Navy Spent 19 Fuel, which is too heavy to, you know, be transported by a 20 legal-weight truck.
21 In the State of Nevada, we have additional 22 transportation scenarios that we took a look at, principally 23 because Nevada does not have rail access all the way to the 24 Yucca Mountain site.
So' we looked at the poter.cial impacts 25 of constructing a rail corridor in the State of Nevada, and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I I
s 16 1
i 1
there were five different alternative corridors that we 2
evaluated along those lines.
3 We also looked at the potentiality of constructing 4
an intermodal transfer station.
There are three intermodal 5
transfer stations that are evaluated, and then five 6
resulting heavy-haul truck lines that would come from that.
7 On the packaging side of the House, again trying 8
to get a reasonable understanding for potential impacts that 9
could. occur as a result of this program, we looked at two 10 scenarios.
One was mostly canistered, where the fuel would 11 come in canietered when at all possible, so that you would 12 no have to handle it again.
And on the other end of the 13 coin, we looked at the fuel coming in mainly uncanistered.
14 And obviously there are key differences in the size of the 15 waste-handling facility, the numbers of workers involved, 16 the amount of land that would be disturbed.
The worker dose 17 calculations are_different between the two scenarios.
18 Cumulative impacts is also an area that we spent 19 quite a bit of time in in the environmental impact 20 statement.
When we went out for comments for the DEIS, we 21 had a number of comments from various entities asking us to 22 look at additional fuel inventories that may ht some point 23 in time end up coming to the repository.
So we added a 24 module that looked at the potentiality of 119,000 metric 25 tons of fuel coming to the repository, of which 105 would be
)
4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
)
Washington, D.C. 20036 j
(202) 842-0034
)
I 1
i
17 1
commercial spent nuclear. fuel.
And that was presuming that 2
all the reactors had another operating renewal lifetime of 3
10 years.
There's also the remainder of the DOE spent fuel 4
in that calculation and the high-level waste, DOE high-level 5
waste.
6 We were also asked by several parties to look at 7
other materials judged greater than Class C for cumulative 8
impacts in the EIS.
So we also looked at greater than Class
)
9 C waste from the commercial side of the House, and DOE's 10 equivalent of that, which is your special performance 11 assessment required waste.
12 On the transportation side of the house, under 13
. cumulative impacts, we went back to bacically 1943 to start 14 looking at cume impacts and moved it out in the future to 15 2047, and our cume impacts for transportation include 16 transportation of al'1 radioactive materials, not just, you
'17 know, tied to spent fuel and high-level waste, but things 18 that could occur or have occurred from the medical side of 19 the house, from research labs and so forth.
And it also 20 includes the modules that I just discussed.
21 Other cumulative impacts included impacts from the 22 Nevada Test Site, local mining in tl.a area at the Beatty 2'
low-level radioactive waste disposal site, Nellis Air Force 24 Base is just -- on the northern side of us is one of our i
25 neighbors.
And there was a list of others.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
.l 18 1
-1 The areas of analysec in_the EIS are on the next 2
slide.
There are a number that tie to short-term analyses.
3 This is the preclosure time frame, basically the first 100 4
years.
And then we looked at long-term repository 5
performance, no-action alternative, and cumulative impacts.
6 The ones that I underlined under the short-term 7
analyses, health and safety, accidents, and transportation 8
are the ones that I intended to spend the greatest amount of 9
time with'for this presentation, because we're of the belief 10 that those were probably the ones that were of greatest 11 interest to you, although the other areas are addressed 12-also.
13 Let's start out with health and safety then.
The 14 primary sources of information for the health and safety 15 calculations'came from DOE site data, NCRP information, ICRP 16 information, and DOE has a computerized accident / incident-17 reporting and record-keeping system that we relied upon as 18 well.
Potential impact sources include radionuclide 19 releases and direct radiation, silicar or cristobalite 20 releases, and obviously industrial accidents.
21 Next slide.
22 The impact indicators include the public, which 23 would be, you know, population dose and the hypothetically 24 maximum exposed individual, and then we looked at both the 25 involved and noninvolved worker, with the involved worker l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters
)
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
1 l
19 1
being the wor);er that's directly associated with the 2
activity that we're looking at, and the noninvolved worker 3
being the other workers that are in the general area that 4
could be affected by what that activity is.
And again we 5
looked at the population and the hypothetical MEI.
6 The analytical approach differs, obviously, 7
depending upon which category you're looking.at.
As it 8
relates to cristobalite, we estimated offsite concentrations 9.
and qualitatively evaluated the involved worker exposure.
10 Obviously, you know, we need to stay within the limits of 11 the law as it relates to the threshold limit value, and the 12 assumption is obviously the fact that we will, On the 1
13 industrial side of the house, we estimated the worker 14 full-time equivalent and used the workplace fatality rate of 15 2.9 fatalities per 100,000 FTE's to calculate the number.
16 On the radiation dose side of the house, we 17 estimated the dose from radon-22 and progeny, krypton-85, 18 external radiation from fuel and waste-package handling and 19 subsurface to ambient external radiation.
We converted the 1
I 20 public and worker dose estimates to human health impacts
]
21 using ICRP-60.
22 With respect to an overview of the impacts that we 23 found when we did the calculations for health and safety, 24 the highest dose rate to the public, and this is on the low 25 thermal load side of it, and the numbers that we're
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
{
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington.,
D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 L_
t 20 1.
presenting here'are for 20 kilometers, was 1.8 millirem, and 2
that came from radon during the preclosure time frame.
3 The highest annual population dose was 4 to 10 1
4 person-rems.
The rad. dose to the public in terms o'f impacts l
5 which we calculate in terms of latent cancer fatalities was 6
up to.4,.again contributed by the radon numbers over 100 7
years.
And then the radiological impacts to workers that 8
could result from this activity ended up being from three to 9
four latent cancer fatalities over 100 years.
l l
Industrial workplace hazards could result in up to 10 11 1 to 2 fatalities over the 100-year time frame.
- Again, 12 these were all done, you know, in the preclosure time frame.
13 Accident impacts.
The primary sources of 14 information came from the Department of Energy, the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission, and other agencies as well.
16 Potential impact sources were from radiological releases and 17 structural failures.
Impact indicators, they include the 18 public and both the involved worker and the noninvolved 19 worker.
20 Analytical approach.
We started out with 21 approximately 69 different scenarios, trying to come up 22 with, you know, what would be a reasonably foreseeable 1
23 accident scenario.
And from that 69 we binned a number of 24 them.
Some of them were not credible, and we dropped them 25 off the table.
And when we were finished, we ended up with I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 I
(202) 842-0034 l
21 1
16 different scenarios that were~ considered.
We used the 2
MACCS2 code, and our consequence analysis did not include 3
the probability of occurrence.
We just assumed that there 4
would be one, probability of 1.
5 Next slide.
6 On overview of impacts, our maximum reasonably 7
foreseeable accident was an earthquake which was estimated 8
to occur once every 50,000 years.
And the highest dose to 9
the public from such an occurrence was estimated at 320 10 millirems.
This is a really large earthquake, as you can 11 understand, and there will be bigger problems than perhaps 12 the 320 millirem release to the public from this.
We're 13 presuming that under this scenario, the waste handling 14 facility would collapse, the waste treatment facility would' 15 collapse, and the majority of the fatalities that would 16 happen on the site would be from the collapsed structures.
17 This is two times the design basis that is included in our 18 design activities, the design basis accident.
19 Under transportation, primary sources of 20 information evaluated included the information from the 21 Department of Energy, information from the Department of 22 Transportation and the Census Bureau, State accident data, 23 information from other environmental impact statements who 24 have done transportation impact analyses, and the Nuclear 25 Regulatory Commission.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
.I 22 1
Impact indicators included workers, again both 2
population and MEI, the public, which included populations 3
within one-half mile of the route and hypothetically 4
maximally exposed individuals within 50 miles for an 5
accident, and other resource areas within Nevada, such as 6
water biology and socioeconomics, and this is tied in large 7
part to the construction of a rail line or upgrades for 8
heavy haul in the State of Nevada.
9 Next slide.
10 Analytical Approach.
We used a number of models 11 in doing the calculations for transportation.
One included 12 CALVIN, which provided us with the numbers of commercial SNF 13 shipments.
We used HIGHWAY and INTERLINE to provide route 14 data.
We used RISKIND to provide us with MEI doses and 15 population doses. and we used RADTRAN4 to provide ub with 16 dose to the public and workers and dose risk from accidents.
17 With respect to an overview of impacts, the 18
. impacts from a legal weight truck resulted in approximately 19 29 LCFs and 11 traffic fatalities.
This is principally tied j
20 to very low doses to large numbers of people.
On the 21 traffic fatality side of the house, this includes commuting
)
22 and transporting materials and equipment, as well as SNF and 23 high level waste.
24 On the rail side of the house, the number equated 25 to 6 LCFs with 16 traffic fatalities.
The maximum ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
r.:.
23 1
reasonable foreseeable accident that calculated, depending 2
upon whether it was rail or truck, varied between 5 to 31 l-,
3 latent cancer fatalities, and the~ accident probability per l
l 4
year of such an accident occurring is 1.4 to 1.9 in 10 I
5 million.
6 Long-term repository performance.
Primary sources 7
of information evaluated included DOE reports, studies and 8
data, other Environmental Impact Statements, the National 9
Research Council report " Technical Basis for Yucca Mountain 10-Standards," information from the viability assessment, USGS 11 and National Labs, EPA, IAEA, and ICRP technical reports.
12 We did try to use the informati'on from TSPA 13 calculations that were integrated with the rest of the 14 program on TSPA calculations.
There is some small 15 variations from the TSPA calculations that were done for the i
16 VA.
This is a little bit more conservative in nature than 17 some of the VA calculations, but the numbers are not l
18 substantially different.
19-Impact indicators included impacts to the public i
20 within an 80 kilometer radius, the public within the 21 groundwater flow area.
22 Analytical approach, again, is tied to the TSPA 23 that was used for the rest of the program.
We did estimate 24 population and the hypothetically maximum exposed 25 individual, unlike VA, at four distances.
We did our impact ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
24 1
calculations at 5 kilometers, 20 kilometers, 30 kilometers 2
and 80 kilometers, and there was also a population dose 3
number that we calculated.
4 Under analytical approach, Slide 17, we did a 5
collective dose to LCF conversion using ICRP-60.
We also 6
did a calculation tied to the hazard constituents using the 7
MCLs and comparing them to MCLs.
8 With respect to the overview of impacts, and, 9
again, these numbers are all done at 20 kilometers, but, as 10 I indicated, we do have information on the other distances 11 as well, the maximum exposed individual during 10,000 years, 12 and these are in terms of mean values, we also did the 95th 13 percentile as well on the EIS, were
.2 millirems per year.
14 That equates to considerably less than 1 LCF.
15 Population impacts during the 10,000 years, again, 16 in terms of mean value, were.37 person-rems.
And, again, 17 this calculates to considerably less than 1 LCF.
And our 18 chemical analyses as it relates to the MCLs, they were all 19 below the MCLs during the 10,000 year period.
20 We also looked at carbon-14 as it related to 21 long-term repository performance.
These numbers were fairly 22 small.
The maximum release rate occurred at 19,000 years.
23 We are talking.098 microcuries per year, with an average 24 dose to the local individual of 7.8 times 10 to the minus 12 25 millirem per year, and the maximum population dose of 2.2 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
4 8
25 1
times 10 to the minus 10 person-rem per year.
2 Next slide, No Action.
There were a number-of 3
comments that occurred during our scoping.timeframe asking l
4 us to spend a lot of time and a lot of careful consideration 5
to the no action alternative.
And I guess I would say that 6
this Environmental Impact' Statement has more in the line of 7
' detailed analyses on no action than you would normally find 8
-in a no action discussion and Environmental Impact 9
Statement, and a large part of it was done to, you know, 10 respond to the-comments that we had during the scoping 11 timeframe.
12 The Environmental Impact Statement, when it 13 discusses the no action alternative, recognizes upfront that 14 we don't know what course of action might happen if this 15 program is not viable.
Va don't know what the NRC would do.
16
~We don't know what the utilities would do.
We don't know 17 what-Congress we do.
We don't know right now what the 18.
Department of Energy would recommend.
This is somewhat 1
19' speculative at this point in time.
So what we wanted to do
- 20
.was to provide a baseline for comparison, as I mentioned 21 earlier, for the proposed action.
And what we did look at j
22 was the long-term storage at current storage sites with 23-effective institutional controls for at least 10,000 years.
24 We tied it into the EA for Calvert Cliffs for the 25-IFSI as a typical, you know, storage facility and did our l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
[:
o 26 1
calculations, you know,-with that as our bases.
And t' ere n
2' is an MEI and a population dose tied to that.
3
-We.also.did a long-term calculation that has the 4
same information for the first hundred years, but after the-
'5 first hundred years we did not include active institutional 6
. controls.
And that was a very highly stylized approach.
We 7
relied on a lot of current site information from the sites 8
around the country.
We used population data and local
'9 information and the inventories that were available, but, 10 again, it was stylized.
We weighted the information to come 11 up five different regions, there is five different MEIs in 12 this calculation, there is five different intruder 13 calculations that we did for the no action, loss of 14 institutional control scenario, and, principally, we 15 regionalized in part to simplify'the information.
16 The desire that we had was to be able to compare 17 the impacts from leaving the material at 77 sites as a total 18 inventory with the impacts of moving the material to one 19 site for the long-term, same amount of ' inventory.
20 Primary-sources of~information evaluated included 21-the DOE reports and data, information from the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission.
We went to the NRC libraries, we 23 pulled-the EAs and NEPA documents that had been done for all
~24 the nuclear facilities that were available, and used that 25 information in preparing our analyses.
We also gathered ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
]
o 27 1
information from other NEPA documents that were tied to the I
2 Department of Energy and information from Total Systems 3
Performance Assessment.
4 Impact Indicators, we focused on no action 5
analyses on human health, that was our primary emphasis.
We 6
did calculations for the hypothetically maximum exposed 7
individual.
We calculated, as I mentioned, population 8
doses, and there is also calculations for both the involved 9
and non-involved workers.
10 Our resources that were evaluated, and they were 11 evaluated but they were more qualitative in nature.
12 On Slide 21, the analytical approach, when we 13 started the calculations we assumed that the spent nuclear 14 fuel and high level waste was already in safe dry storage.
15 This could be either in surface and below grade facilities 16 that the material is in stainless steel dry storage 17 canisters with concrete shields.
18 The hypothetical regions were used, as I 19 mentioned, to simplify the analyses.
They were mathematical 20 constructs.
We developed concrete storage degradation j
21 models to be able to do the calculations.
There wasn't one 22 for us to use from the rest of the program, so there was a 23 lot of effort put forth to come up with a degradation model 24 for this purpose.
25 We did adopt three process models from TSPA which i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 I
u
I c
28 1~
incl ded the storage canister degradation process model',
2 cladding degradation, and the SNF and high level waste 3
dissolution model.
4 On the next slide, tied to analytical approach, we 5
developed the facility active release model to estimate 6
release of the dissolution products to the local 7
environment.
The computer code we used was called MEPAS.
8 It's Multimedia Environmental' Pollution Assessment System 9
code.
This is the code that was developed by P&L.
It's 10 been used in a number-of DOE NEPA documents including the 11 WIPP No Action analyses in their EIS.
12 One of the reasons we selected MEPAS was because 13 it had the ability to look at transport through not only 14
' groundwater but surface water and air as well.
In the No 15 Action analyses, most of the impacts come from surface 16 water, which is a little different than obviously the 17 repository scenario.
18,
This computer code also provides information on 19 dose and generates latent cancer fatalities.
Next slide.
20 We realize that the No Action scenario was 21 somewhat sensitive in' nature.
We were very much concerned 22 that there could be'the optics, if we were not very careful, 23 that people would say you're cooking the books, you're 24 trying to make the proposed action look really good and the 25' No Action look really bad, so we were very, very careful ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue,.NW, Suite 1014 Washington,.D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
o 29 I
1 when we did our calculations.
J l
2 We did end up putting forth a senior technical 3
panel that we wanted to have help us in coming up with the i
4 analyses that we were doing and reviewing the assumptions 5
that we put forth in providing input into how we did the 6
calculations and on Slide 23 you see the members of that t
7 panel, who were very, very helpful, very critical and 8
provided us with a lot of good information and insight for 9
us to do the No Action calculations.
10 In most cases where there was a side to err on as 11 to whether or not you did the calculations which would 12 result in either more impacts or less, for No Action we 13 usually went down the path of the lesser in the terms of 14 impacts, again because we wanted to make sure that no one 15 could come back later and say, well, you have stacked the 16 deck on this, so we feel fairly comfortable with our 17 analyses.
18 There was a lot of spent on doing No Action in 19 this EIS.
In Slide 24 you see the overview of impacts, and 20 the No Action calculation we have on the repository side of 21 the house, basically the loss of jobs for not moving 22 forward.
In scenario 1, taking credit for institutional 23 controls for the whole 10,000 year timeframe, we ended up 24 with approximately 31 latent cancer fatalities and 25 interestingly enough almost half of that number happens ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
,l 30 1
during the first 100 years when our assumptions are that you 2
have an IFSI located adjacent to an operating nuclear power 3
plant and you are ending up again with small doses to large 4
numbers of people because your non-involved workers are 5
contributing largely to that dose number.
6 There would be approximately 1,100 commuting and 7
worker accident fatalities and again we did do calculations 8
on people going back and forth to work supporting the IFSIs, 9
just as we did calculations on people going back and forth 10 to work during the repository side of the house.
11 On scenario 2, where we did not take credit for 12 institutional controls after 100 yea s, you' find the first 13 100 years with the same kind of number for latent cancer 14 fatalities.
I don't have it here as a bullet but it ends up 15 being approximately 16 and again it's the same exact 16 calculation that you do for scenario number 1.
For the 17 remainder of the timeframe, we ended up with 3,300 latent 18 cancer fatalities and obviously the potential contamination 19 of all 77 sites and surrounding resources areas.
20 There was a lot of discussion on coming up with 21 reasonably foreseeable accident scenarios under loss of J
l 22 institutional control and a lot of dialogue, as you can
)
i 23 probably well imagine.
We did include in there, and it was
)
24 strongly encouraged to do an accident analysis for this one 25 as well.
The accident that we did for both scenario 1 and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 o
o 31 1
2, although the impacts -- there were really only impacts 2
for scenario 2 because at that time the facility is degraded 3
is an aircraft crash into the degraded facility and that 4
resulted in from 3 to 13 latent cancer fatalities.
5 Cumulative impacts -- cumulative impacts, as you 6
know, include the incremental impact of the proposed action 7
when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable 8
future federal and non-federal actions.
9 We already mentioned the national transportation 10 of radioactive material on the Beatty low level waste 11 disposal area, inventory modules, Nellis, the Nevada Test 12 Site, other DOE complex-wide waste activities that could 13 affect the Nevada test site, low level waste intermodal 14 transfer station at Caliente, a proposed Timbisha Shoshone 15 reservation in the general vicinity, Cortez pipeline gold 16 deposit projects that would be a cumulative impact tied to 17 one of our potential rail transportation routes, APEX bulk 18 commodities intermodal transfer station, and shared use of 19 DOE branch line are examples.
20 Primary sources of information evaluated DOE data 21 and reports, other EIS's, Native American tribes and 22 federal, state and local government agencies.
The impact 23 indicators are the same as that which was used in other 24 resource impact areas.
Analytical models and tools from 25 other studies provided the data for this study.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I 32 1
With respect to impacts, on Slide 27, the impacts 2
for the pre-closure timeframe -- you know, there are fairly 3
short-term impacts in some study areas such as cultural 4
resources, aesthetics, electrical power, longer term impacts 5
for pre-closure when you do cum analyses for your toxics and 6-rad materials, and obviously some additional increase in 7
atmospheric radioactive releases if you have more 8
construction underground for your module activities.
9 Incremental increases in groundwater transport of 10 radionuclides could also occur.
We looked at the potential 11 migration of NTS materials to the area of interest for the 12 repository and based on the information we had available 13 there is a potential cum impact there of two-tenths of a 14 millirem per year dose to the MEI, less than one percent 15 increase in linked cancer fatalities when combined with 16 other national transportation activities.
11 There was a potential for some transportation 18 impact increases at Caliente.
Cask manufacturing -- we 19 looked at the potential impacts of manufacturing all the 20 casks that would support this program and obviously you are 21 using resources to develop those casks and potential, you 22 know, for small increases in impacts from'the Carlin rail 23 corridor as it related to the Cortez gold mine pipeline 24 projects.
25 Other areas of analyses that we looked at in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
e 33 1
EIS -- land use and ownership.
We're right now on federal 2
properties.
We would hope for a permanent withdrawal of 3
approximately 150,000 acres now under federal control'.
Of 4
that amount there would be a disturbance in total of 370 5
acres until closure that in reality it's only a disturbance 6
of approximately 500 additional new acres, the rest already 7
having been disturbed from the site characterization 8
program.
9 Depending on whether or not you constructed a rail 10-line and which line you would constract -- as I mentioned, 11 we looked at five -- you could disturb from zero to 5,000 12 acres of land for Nevada transportation.
13 Air quality -- the criteria pollutants were less 14 than 5 percent of the regulatory limits, Cristobalite 15 exposure estimated at.026 micrograms per cubic meter for 16 the public hypothetical MEI -- well below the threshold 17 limit value.
Slide 29 --
18 Utilities' energy, materials and site services --
19 the use of energy, materials and community services would be 20 small in comparison to amounts used regionally.
21 Transmission lines to the site would require some form of 22 upgrade.
From a waste management perspective, our 23 radioactive and hazardous waste generated would be a few 24 percent of the existing offsite capacity.
Solid waste would 25 be managed offsite or potentially at an onsite landfill.
We ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
,I 34 1
looked at both.
Hazardous waste would be shipped offsite 2
for disposal.
Low level radwaste could be shipped to the 3
Nevada test.eite for disposal.
We recognized there were 4
different places it could go, and one of the places that we 5
did look at and. analyze was the NTS.
6 We also looked at the potential for generation of 7
mixed waste, and we believe that it would be a fairly 8
unusual occurrence for it to occur, but we did recognize its 9
potentiality.
10 In the biological resources / soils side of the 11 house, this is principally _ tied to amount of acres 12 disturbed.
Impacts to plants and animals and habitat would 13 be localized.
Impacts to wetlands and soils would be small.
14 We do expect that as a result of construction activities and 15 land disturbance, some individual tortoises, which are a 16 threatened species at the Yucca Mountain -- a threatened 17 species would be anticipated to be killed, and that there 18 could be localized vegetation and animal community shifts 19 possible for some temperature changes at the repository 20 block.
21 From a floodplains/ wetlands perspective, there 22 could be some small ef#ect to floodplains in the Yucca 23 Mountain area, no effect to wetlands.
Along rail corridors, 24
-the effects to floodplains and wetlands would be small.
We 25 do recognize in this DEIS that there is the need for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 I
4 0
35 1
additional floodplain and wetland assessments when more 2
information is available, and that is tied to the selection 3
of a rail corridor.
You are talking about an awful lot of 4
work and we have five corridors, and that would happen at a 5
later point in time.
6 Cultural resources, again, these impacts are tied 7
principally to the fact that workers would be in an area and 8
land would be disturbed.
We do recognize that activities at 9
the repository could cause damage to cultural resources 10 because you have people in the area.
There is also the 11 potentiality of illicit collecting at sites nearby.
But we 12 do have programs in place to mitigate these impacts and 13 those programs would have to be. continued through this 14 entire period.
15 Studies are also likely needed in additional 16 detail than what we have done to date along the
'17 transportation corridor lines.
18 From a socioeconomic perspective, the key counties 19 that we looked.at as it related directly to the repository 20 were Clark, Lincoln and Nye Counties.
Other counties were 21 looked at as it related to the construction of a rail 22 corridor.
Estimated peak repository employment, i.e.,
you 23 know, new hires coming in was 2,400.
That was direct and 24 indirect.
The peak would occur in 2006.
This is less than 25 1 percent of an increase in regional employment.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
36 1
Approximately right now 79 percent of the workers at the 2
site are residing in Las Vegas.
3 We estimated peak transportation construction 4
employment would range from 1 percent to 5.7 percent of the 5
total employment by. county.
6 Slide 32.
Noise, low impacts expected from the
-7 r'epository and from rail construction or other 8
transportation activities.
Aesthetics, again, this'came out 9
as a low adverse effect to visual or scenic resources in the 10 region.
And environmental justice, there were no 11 proportionally high and adverse impacts to minority or low 12-income populations or persons with subsistence lifestyles.
13 Hydrology.
There would be some small effect on 14 recharge and on floodplain and drainage channels.
15 Additional delineations would likely be needed.
We looked 16 at water demand and we are expecting to use no more water 17 for the repository construction and operation than what we 18 have for the site characterization program, and that was 19 reviewed in the EIS.
We also looked at the potential 20 withdrawal of 320 to 710, again, depending upon what rail 21 corridor you would select, should you select one, for the 22 construction of a rail line, and that would occur over a 2.5 23 year period of time.
24 So, in summary, the Draft Environmental Impact 25 Statement assesses impacts of constructing, operating, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
6 37 1
monitoring and eventually closing a geologic repository at 2
Yucca Mountain, the potential long-term impacts of 3
repository disposal, the potential impacts of transporting 4
the high level radioactive. waste.and spent fuel nationally, 5
as well as in the State of Nevada, and impacts from not 6
proceeding with the proposed action.
7 The DEIS was distributed to the public on August 8
6th.
The Federal Register Notice came out on August 13th, 9
and we are now in the period of public comment, which will 10 last 180 days.
And the next slide walks through the number 11 of public hearings.
It is missing one, we have also 12 included Carson City, which will probably be 12/2, it is not 13 on this list.
But there are 17 hearings total scheduled for 14 the DEIS.
15 And on Slide 36, it shows you where.we are today 16 and what we have -- you know, where we have come from, I 17 guess.
I guess I would like to put it all in perspective, 18 say that we did go out with a Notice of Intent and scoping 19 for input into this DEIS in August of 1995.
The scoping 20 period ended in December, and, as some of you may recall, we 21 ended up with a really dire budget year in 1996, so we 22 terminated the DEIS activities for '96, resumed again with 23 the hiring of Jason in 1997.
Juni our first ef fort was to 24 deal with the comment summary document responding to the 25 comments that we got from scoping, and then we moved forward i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
,t 38 1
with collecting our data, developing the DRAFT EIS.
And we 2
have pretty much maintained our projected schedule despite 3
that year and are looking forward to initiating our hearings 4
here in very short order.
5 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Okay.
Well, thank you very much 6
for a very crisp and I think rather thorough overview of a 7
lot of work that has gone on and that you have accomplished.
8 I would like to begin with a question.on 9
defense-in-depth and also design basis considerations, 10 accident considerations, and to what extent these have been 11 dealt with, I know a great deal in here.
But I would like 12 to discuss it just with you a little bit.
13 You know, our Part 63 defines defense-in-depth, 14 and I probably don't need to go through that, but it has to 15 do with being sure that the barriers are diverse, that they 16 are independent and redundant, so that if one barrier 17 failed, that does not necessarily mean failure of the total 18 system.
19 Part 63 also defines the Category 1 or Category 2 20 design basis events, with a Category 1 being events that 21 might occur one or more times during the period of time that 22 you have under consideration, with Category 2 being an event 23 that would have at least one chance in 10,000 of occurring.
24 So my question would be, could you discuss how the 25 DOE has designed and engineered defense-in-depth into the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
e 39 1
total system performance modeling for the operating 2
preclosure periods, and how the integrated safety analysis
^
3 approach, which is criticality safety, chemical safety, fire 4
protection, et cetera, was factored in or might be applied?
5 MS. DIXON:
When we did the-calculations for our 6
accident analyses in the EIS, we used the standard approach.
7 If there'was a probability of something occurring one time 8
in 10 million, 1 times 10 to the minus 7, we did the-9 calculations.
So, that was our rule of thumb.
And, you 10 know, as I had mentioned, you know, before sometimes we had 11 to work out a lot of scenarios to try to come up with 12 something that was a credible, you know, and fit within that l-13 guideline.
.14 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Okay.
Commissioner Diaz.
15 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
On Slides 9 and 10 where 16
~ you talk about some of the real doses or potential doses.
17 And the question that I have is, because there are three 18 different scenarios, one DOE, NRC and EPA, on the 19 hypothetically maximum exposed individual and the public 20 impact indicators of NRC, the average members of the L
21 critical group and the EPA, the reasonably maximum exposed 22 individual.
Practically speaking, for the environmental 23 statement, what are the significant differences of these 24 three different approaches presented to you as a matter of 25
-resolving?
And if there are significance differences, how l'
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
40 1
do you plan to reconcile them?
2 MS. DIXON:
I am trying to --
3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
On Slide 9.
You start talking-4 about the hypothetically maximum exposed individual.
And~,
5 of course, that is your scenario.
6 MS. DIXON:
Right.
7 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
We have a different scenario, 8
and EPA has a different scenario.
I don't know whether you 9
have considered what are the practical differences for your 10 presentation of the final EIS.
What do these three 11 different ways of calculating or doing things, what do they 12 represent as far as the EIS?
13 MS. DIXON:
The three different ways tied to the 14 analytical approach.
15 MR. BARRETT:
What we have done in the EIS is we 16 have portrayed the environmental impacts based on 17 conventional EIS type science that the NRC has done, DOE has 18
.done many times, based on the precedents set, and also those 19 in court case law regarding NEPA.
We.have not done a one 20 for one analysis against the NRC standard and the EPA 21 standard, as yet, you know, they are not done.
So we have 22 not -- we have used what is usual and customary in the 23 maximum exposed individual.
We did not get into the 24 discussion of, say, critical group versus the REMI and some 25 of those issues that are being discussed in the regulatory-.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
41 1
So we tried to stay out of that, but,, basically, 2
.take the curie releases and the source terms and project 3
them into the environment as traditionally done in NEPA 4
documentation, recognizing that defense-in-depth, as the 5
Chairman mentioned, in the regulatory, preclosure criteria 6
of Part 63, we will address in the license application in 7
detail at that time.
But for the defense-in-depth, for 8
' example, the EIS does not go into that.
In preclosure they 9
collapsed a whole building in a hypothetical earthquake, 10 which was the maximum event that we could analyze.
11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes, I understand.
But the 12
. question still is, you know, if you consider for the 13 Environmental Impact Statement, especially in the area of 14 doses, the -- let's call it three different approaches, does 15 that make a difference?
And if you don't have the answer, 16 maybe sometime we could have the answer.
j 17 MS. DIXON:
Yes, I am going to give a crack at it, 18 and then I will turn to Steve and he can add to it.
But if 19 the question is, did we look at all pathways in doing our
'20 calculations --
j 21 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
It is the maximum 22 hypothetically exposed individual versus the average member 23 of the critical group, versus the reasonably maximum exposed 24 individual.
There are three different, you know.
25 MS. DIXON:
This is Joe Ziegler, who is supporting ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
.I 42 1
our.EIS--from Booz-Allen.
Joe.
2-MR. ZIEGLER:
Right.
The way the calculations 3
were done in the EIS, the Draft EIS are the same as was done 4
'in the DOE viability assessment.
We assumed,the average 5-lifestyle and habits.of a person in Amargosa Valley, Nevada.
6 The only difference there in that assumption and what EPA 7
has put in their 40 CFR 197 draft is that we assumed 8
something like 1.8 liters of. water per day for the all 9
pathways dose. calculations, and they have specified 2 liters 10 per day.
11 The way the TSPA'models are being run right now 12-probably don't match up exactly with 197 and the different 13' alternatives they have got about taking a cross-section or 14 slice of.the plume at Amargosa Valley.
And I think the 15 project has some decisions to make as to how they are going 16 to go for site recommendation on that.
17 The final EIS will use the methodologies that the 18 project decides to use for site recommendation.
And because 19 there are differences between the way NRC has specified and 20 the way EPA has specified is we will try to resolve those, 21 reconcile those differences to the degree possible, but 22 since they are different, I don't know how we can be the 23 same as both.
~
'24 But I don't think there is much difference in the 25
-analytical results, you know, and I will tell you why, 1
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
43 1
because, basically, it is just a different shade of zero 2
dose.
3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Well, but, no, it is a 4
different shade of a slightly larger than zero dose.
And 5
the issue is, you know, since you have to consider the 6
possibility that, you know, either one of these scenarios, 7
it would be a good idea to bound them.
Say this is this 8
level, this is this level, and what are the differences in 9
that slightly larger than zero dose?
And I think that will 10 be a helpful thing to have.
11 MR. BARRETT:
Excellent comment, sir.
12 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Commissioner McGaffigan.
13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Let me ask a.few things.
14 In looking at -- in one of the slides, you talked about low 15 thermal load case, and you said there would be more 16 disruption because it needs to be a bigger repository.
But 17 on the other side of it, as I understand it, both the 18.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and our Advisory 19 Committee on Nuclear Waste both are enamored of the low 20 thermal load repository at the moment.
21 Which one, which is the current design?
Is it the 1
]
22 more dense repository with the heavier thermal loads?
I 23 know you are analyzing both, but which is the current DOE 24 design?
25 MR. BARRETT:
The Draft EIS looks at a high, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
44 1
medium and low.
'2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
3 MR. BARRETT:
The viability assessment design at 4
that time was close to the high.
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
I 6
MR. BARRETT:
We have gone to the alternative 7
design, which is an enhanced design, which has a lower 8
thermal load.
It is comparable to the medium, it is not at 9
the low.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
11 MR. BARRETT:
It is basically the medium, and it 12 has the flexibility through ventilation to basically behave 13 thermally like the low without having the large area and a 14 lot -(NE tunnels with the additional cost and also radon 15 exposure of the additional tunnel, so it is the more compact 16 design.
17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
But when you are i
18 weighing at the end of the Environmental Impact Statement 19 process, when you have gotten all the comments and you are 20 trying to weigh which way to go, you will have -- apparently 21 you will have greater environmental disruption because it is 22 bigger, weighing against perhaps greater licensability.
Is 23 that a fair thing to take into account in making a record of 24 decision?
I am asking you a hypothetical question which you 25 can run away from.
But is it fair consideration if, you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
m
=
45 1
know, ACNW and Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board continue 2
to press for the repository that they think will have less 3
licensing problems.
4 MR. BARRETT:
With the Technical, Review Board, I 5
believe we have resolved that.
We have answered their last 6
letter and we had our meeting, and I think it was last week, 7
with them.
We explained to them and documented our 8
rationale, which was heavily weighted with policy 9
considerations of maintaining flexibility, not foreclosing 10 options in the design of a repository, to be able to have it I
11 monitored for extended periods of time, and those issues.
12 So it doesn't come down to strictly one number or 13 another, it is a balancing of many times competing goods, as 14 one would say.
The design that we have, it is Engineering 15 Design Alterative Number 2, basically does not disturb more 16 area.
We basically just arrange the tunnels, they are
^17 spread apart more, the tunnels have larger spacing, but we 18 put a line loading, we put the packages closer together, so 19 it is actually compared to the VA.
There is not more 20 disturbance with the design, but we basically have drainage, 21 free drainage between the drifts, whereas, in the viability 22 assessment, we did not have free drainage between the 23 drifts.
So this will make it simpler as far as the 24' uncertainty case that we are presenting to the Commission 25 and the license application, and when you review the SR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
.t 46
{
1 aspects.
2 So we.think we have that behind us, but we don't 3
really want to change the viability -- the Environmental 4
Impact Statement.
We still want that to encompass a broad 5
-- because there will be further design enhancements as the 6
design is constantly improving with time.
For example, as 7
the Chairman mentioned earlier, in defense-in-depth, we now 8
have backfill which is a Richards barrier, besides metallic 9
components and a titanium drip shield, as well as an 110.
alloy-22.
So we are constantly evolving design, improving 11 the design, and also the interface between the design and 12 the natural environment and natural system that we find at 13 Yucca Mountain.
14 So the DEIS we don't intend to be a 15 decision-making document regarding that, it will be the 16 design evolution leading to the LA.
17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
And it brackets 18 everything.
Let me, on the transportation side, we just 19 went through an EIS on transportation issues and there were 20 various things that were sensitive there.
How did you --
21 what assumptions do you have about fuel enrichment and fuel 22 burnup in terms of your EIS?
What is the maximum burnup of 23 the spent. fuel that you assume?
What is the maximum fuel 24 enrichment you assume?
Do you know those numbers?
Was a 25 sensitivity analysis done with regard to those?
ANN R'ILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
47 1
MR. BARRETT:
We looked at a range after ta? king 2
to the staff on exactly what I know we went, we follow 3
what the intent is, and it went to the higher numbers.
I 4
thought it was -- Joe.
5 MR. ZIEGLER:
What we did, and I can't give you 6
the exact numbers, it shows up in Appendix A, but the 7
assumptions we made were we used typical fuel, but that' 8
really doesn't affect the transportation analysis, because 9
for-transportation analysis purposes, we assumed that the 10 doses were at the regulatory limit, which is a little bit 11.
more conservative than you did in your document.
And since 12 it is at the regulatory limit, theq, you know, the burnup v.
13 and things don't make much difference unless it changes the 14 number of packages, and we don't think it does that.
15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
That is the issue.
One 16 issue could be whether it changes the number of packages, or 17 do you go to higher enrichments and higher burnups, you will 18 have less transportation.
And then there are things that we 19 considered in our EIS, as you know, about longer cooldown 20 periods before you transport.
If you wait 20 years, then it 21 doesn't matter, et cetera.
So, that is fine.
22 MR. ZIEGLER:
I guess the bottom line is the EIS 23 does a bounding analysis.
We don't think the impacts would 24 be greater than that, and that is why we chose the 25 regulatory limit, to make sure we bounded and we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
.I l
48 1 l conservatively stated those impacts.
i 2
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
Because the staff 3
recently -- we are at 62 megawatt -- 62 gigawatt days per i.
4 metric ton uranium, I,think at the moment, and we just 5-approved Surry or North Anna going to -- with eight fuel 6
rods, going to 73.
And so our analysis, you know, may not 7
be conservative for those eight rods.
And if the industry, 8
o,er the next 20 years, can prove to us, and we approve 9
higher burnups, then there may be a change needed at that l
10 time.
l 11 The last issue that came up a lot, and we have a 1
1 12 petition for rulemaking from the Attorney General of Nevada 13 before us, is whether the terrorism scenarios that we 14 assumed are sufficiently robust.
And you are doing a much j
15 more elaborate analysis, and if you go down this path, and I 16 would be open to your comments, you would also have to look 17 at the no action alternative.
18 And, you know, you're assuming more robust 19 terrorism threats to the 77 sites where the stuff is 20 located.
But how have you handled thus far the criticism 21 that RADTRAN4, et cetera, don't allow for the really big
)
22 accident where somebody is using one of these rail cars for 23 target practice with -- I think in one of the documents I
]
24 saw everything including fighter jets were attacking the
.)
25 things.
1 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
I Court Reporters f
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
4
49 1
MS. DIXON:
Well,.we didn't look at fighter jets.
2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I'm sure you didn't.
3 MS. DIXON:
We did have -- there had been a report 4
done some time ago in part for the NRC, Sandia had worked on 5
it for, you know, sabotage / terrorism issues, and we did turn 6
to F3ndia for an update of that report, looking at whether 7
or not the impacts would be any different today than when 8
the report was done, considering the changes that, you know, 9
could have taken place or have taken place with, you know, 10 various types of,.you know, weaponry.
And those 11 calculations were completed.
The impacts really did not 12' change substantively from the original report that had been 13 done some time ago.
That is I believe a reference document 14 to the DEIS.
15 But to answer your question, and I believe the NRC 16 does have a copy of it, we did take a look at, we did update 17 the work that had been done before.
We did look at, you 18 know, what was reasonable with respect to a sabotage kind of 19 event, and those impacts are included in the document.
20 COMMISSIONER McGAIFIGAN:
Okay.
21 MS. DIXON:
With respect to no action and so 22 forth, a lot of those discussions are more qualitative in 23 nature.
24 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Commissioner Merrifield.
25 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
Lake, my first question ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i 50 1
goes to a followup of Commissioner McGaffigan in talking 2
about the design of the facility relative to a lot of 3
concerns that were in play at various points even relatively-4 recently, backfill, the shielding over the casks themselves, 5
concrete liners, whether it's natural circulation or forced 6
circulation.
And you had a variety of different things you 7
were considering.
And some of that, you know, some of the 8
thinking did change arguably over a relatively short period 9
of time.
10 How fixed are you at this point in terms of the 11 direction you're going on what you're postulating on some of 12 those design issues, and when do you have some sense that 13 you'll have a better -- if it's not relatively fixed now, 14 when do you.think you will have some time line on that?
15 MR. BARRETT:
The design process is constantly 16 changing in a controlled manner, and the design control 17 requirements tha,t this program learned its lesson eight 18
. years ago on design control.
So we've controlled the 19 design, and the design changes constantly as we go forward, 20 learning about the natural environment in Yucca Mountain, 21 and then trying to basically make the design as good as 22 technology reasonably will allow us to do it to basically 23 contain and retard the materials in this longevity, in this 24 lifetime.
25 When we did the viability, there's been an ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
n
.c i
51 1
. evolution.
Ten-plus years ago we were a thin-walled, 2
quarter-inch stainless steel package.
It was determined in 3
the early nineties that a more robust package was 1
4 appropriate from all parties, and we did that.
We had not 5
decided in the mid-nineties quite what the thermal load was.
6 We put a reference design in.
There was a Commission 7
meeting, and it was Chairman Zech at the time, on -- I don't 8
think it was; I don't remember who it was at that point.
9 But we did that.
We chose the design, which was the higher 10-design.
j 11 Then we learned more about the national 12 environment, and we changed -- we improved the design again 13 toward where we are at the viability assessment.
And then j
14 we recognized that there is still more work to be done, and i
15 the viability assessment design could be enhanced for l
16 basically the reference design to take us through site 17 recommendation and the license application.
18 We did a major study with our M&O contractor, TRW, 19 who looked at 26 different alternatives.
We briefed the 20 staff on this.
And we came to a conclusion that at this 21 stage for this evolution for the site recommendation and the 22 license application, we would go with the design called 23 Enhanced Design Alternative No.
2, which is sort of this 24 mid-level thermal load in kilowatts per acre, but it's a 25 line loading where the packages are together.
It is a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
m.
52
{
1 ventilated tunnel for as long as we're monitoring to remove 2
some of the heat and humidity.
3 And we also put in the backfill, which would be a 4
4 Richards barrier for diversity and also redundancy, and 5
_ titanium drip shields, which would also -- we balanced 6
operational considerations in the license to build 7
demonstrating the safety case to the Commission and also to 8
the President basically on a site recommendation, cost, 9
schedule, also added into it flexibility in the future.
So 10 the design, we've chosen that design, I've signed the 11 internal design control documents, that that is our design, 12 we have explained this to the technical review board, and 13 also we've briefed your staff on that.
14 So we have basically selected a decign for this 15 next phase.
We fully recognize that as we go forward in 16 this, as we learn more about the site and more about 17 materials and more about TSPA, we will refine that design 18 again.
But I don't expect major changes in the design on 19 EDA 2 unless there is some technical reason to do so.
20 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
So you would 21 characterize the changes as being evolutionary, not 22 revolutionary.
23 MR. BARRETT:
Yes, sir.-
24 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
In nature.
25 MR. BARRETT:
I do.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
53 1
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
That is not an 2
insignificant issue, given the fact that we have our Center 3
for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis, which is trying to -
-4 keep up with you to an extent in terms of trying to 5
understand the science that you're using for this, and 6
that's a challenge for them in terms of the resources we 7
have to do that.
8 A second set of questions I have regards 9
transportation issues.
Are you anticipating producing l
10 another environmental impact statement when a final decision I
ontWh'kiternativetransportationroutesareutilized, or is 11 12
.there some other method you're using to analyze that?
13 MS. DIXON:
On a national basis the answer is no.
14 I mean, we looked at not necessarily the route but DOT-15 approved routes that could in fact be used.
We recognized 16 that, you know, as time progresses, you know, new highways 17 could be built or States could come up with preferred A8,
alternative routes that currently don't exist today, but 19 they would have to be in the bounds of the DOT preferred
]
20 category, so we already believe that from a national basis 21 we have bounded the impacts.
1 22 From a Nevada basis the answer is not the same, j
23 From a Nevada basis, if the decision is made as an example 24 to construct a rail corridor and out of the NEPA process and 25 through the SR there's at some point in time in the future a f
ANN RILEY & AS30CIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
54 1
decision to construct a particular rail corridor, we believe 2
that there will be the need for additional NEPA analyses on 3
that particular corridor that would include, you know, 4
perhaps the flood-plain wetlands assessment activities that 5
I mentioned earlier, additional detail on, you know, your 6
cultural resources, your biological resources, you know, 7
socioeconomic impacts for that particular corridor and 8
potential variations in alignment at that corridor.
9 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
I know your list of 10 meetings that you have coming up, 17 meetings, includes a 11 majority which are in Nevada, but obviously do outreach to 12 other areas of the country and other cities.
To what extent 13 as it relates to transportation are you specifically seeking 14 to get comments from other States on transportation issues?
15 I mean, this is an issue which encompasses a vast majority 16 of the States, or at least has the potential to.
17 MS, DIXON:
Obviously we can't go to every State 18 in the country, nor is there any requirement under NEPA.
We 19 have strongly encouraged -- and this document has gone to 20 every single State in the country and, you know, political 21 representatives of those States soliciting input and 22 soliciting comments, and anybody, no matter whether or not i
23 there's a public hearing or not, any State can provide 24 comments as it relates to transportation issues within their 25 particular State or whatever concerns they have in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
(
55 1
. entirety of the environmental impact statement.
2-There are several public hearings that we --
3 places for public hearings that we selected that were tied 4
to the. fact that they were transportation hubs.
There's 5
Saint Louis, there's Atlanta, there's Denver.
We do have 6
several that are there for that particular purpose.
7 We also -- and this is somewhat unique to EIS's --
8 but in the short-term impact analysis, transportation could 9
have been a subelement in chapter 4 dealing with short-term 10 impacts.
What we did, because of its import and its 11 national interest level, we have a chapter in the DEIS 12 designated solely to transportation.
So if you're a 13 different State and you don't really care about all the 14 things that, you know, could occur as it relates to Yucca 15-Mountain site-specifically, you can turn to chapter 6 of the 16 environmental impact statement and focus just on the 17 transportation work that exists there.
18 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
No further questions.
19 Thank you, Chairman.
20 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Okay.
Let me ask just a couple 21 of questions.
One of them has to do with your-Part 963, and 22 how would you envision -- this would probably go to you, 23 Lake, but maybe anyone else can join in -- be able --
24 envision that being able to crosswalk with NRC's Part 63 25 from a risk-informed performance-based base point.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I 56 1
MR. BARRETT:
Basically our Part 63 references 2-what you're going to do in 63, and we follow you in the EPA.
3 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Okay.
4 MR. BARRETT:
So, I mean, that's really how -- now 5
exactly the wording, you know, our staffs are working on it 6
now to find the set in the OMB review process.
7 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Yes.
I recognize it's a work in 8
progress.
And one other question.
It's a budgetary 9
question.
It has to do with the licensing support network, 10 the LSN.
Could you address DOE's LSN budgetary commitment 11 for FY 2000, and given the fact that you may have some 12 budgetary reductions, both in 2000 and any out years, how 13 that might affect the LSN.
14 MR. BARRETT:
Our intention would be in a 15 constrained budget situation to do the minimum on the LSN.
16' Now the minimum, we'll work together and define what that 17 would be, the staffs.
18 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Okay.
Commissioner Diaz.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
On slide 14 you have a 19 20 series of transportation-related LCF.
Do you have a 21 breakdown between workers and public?
22 MS. DIXON:
Yes, we do.
The env;4 onmental impact 23 statement breaks these numbers down and fairly -- in a great 24 amount of detail.
And there's differentials between loading 25 operations and materials going back and forth and the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
l l
57 1
general public, and those breakdowns all do exist.
Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Okay.
All right, thank you.
l 3
CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Commissioner McGaffigan.
4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
On slide 6 you talked 5
about cumulative impacts, and you had these modules for 6
larger amounts of waste.
And then when you discussed 7
impacts at the end, I'm not sure you addressed quite how --
8 is it proportional?
If I go from 70,000 to 119,000, do I 9
just multiply by five-sevenths, 1.57 -- 1.71 -- and get an 10 answer, or is there any nonlinearity in the imphets when you 11 go to these --
12 MS. DIXON:
To the modules?
13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
To the modules that 14 are --
15 MS. DIXON:
I'm trying to recall what the numbers 16 were for the cumes.
Do you --
i 17 MR. ZIEGLER:
Yes, I can't recall the numbers.
j 18 Basically the proportionality is for the commercial spent 19 nuclear fuel component, which you start off with 63,000 i
20 metric tons of commercial fuel, so you go from 63 to 105, 21 and that's relatively proportional.
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
How does -- could Yucca 23 Mountain hold 125.1 metric tons of stuff -- it's --
l 24
."S. DIXON:
It's 190.
25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
It's 119,000 metric tons ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
I 58 1.
and then another 6,100 cubic meters of greater than Class C 2
waste in SPAR.
3 MR. BARRETT:
We believe from a technical point of 4
view it could -- it is rather moot, because there are B
statutory.
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
I understand the 7
statute.
But technically it could hold.this amount of --
8 MR. BARRETT:
When we have the final EPA NRC 9-regulations -- it's premature -- we're not saying the site 10 is suitable today, we're,saying this is the best science can 11 do to project it.
12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
13 MR. BARRETT:
If you look at these numbers against 14 reasonable standards, it probably would meet it at the 15 higher levels.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The greater than Class C 17 waste comes up, you know, because there are places like 18 Trojan that is shut down, working to decommission itself, 19 and it will have an ISFSI there.
And it will have a bunch 1
20 of dry casks with high-level -- with spent fuel in it, and 21 then they'll have one or two that will have some greater 22 than class C waste in it, and if that doesn't get off the 23 site, then you still have 77 sites around the country where 24 something's left behind in dry storage that looks -- DOE I 25 guess has a mandate to come up with a solution for.
And so
^
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
(.
L L
59 1
I think it's interesting that you -- and I commend you for 2
looking at this within your site, but the no-action 3
alternative, if everything isn't off the sites, then you 4
still have some sites where the stuff is still there.
5 MS. DIXON:
We did look at whether or not there 6
was room available, spacing available for the material, and 7
the answer to that is yes.
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The other broad question 9
I have is you've, in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, EIS 10 process, how much of what you're doing here is built on that 11 foundation?
I mean, was there a big learning curve for DOE j
12 in doing the EIS for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and i
13 were there lots of lessons learned, or was it so different 14 because it's true and not high-level waste that it didn't 15 help you much?
f 16 MS. DIXON:
I think that the WIPP EIS did help us, 17 and that there were -- I mean, that's the only EIS that's 18 out there that's really a 10,000-year --
19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
20 MS. DIXON:
Environmental impact statement, and l
21 there were a number'of things that we looked to to 22 understand how WIPP did it and how successful were they and 23 what precedents had been established through the WIPP NEPA 24 process.
So yes, it was very important to us in the 25 construct of this environmental impact statement.
l l
\\
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 j
(202) 842-0034 i
I f
L
60 1
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Thank you.
2 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD:
I guess more of a 3
statement than anything else.
It's brought out by the 4
Chairman's question on the licensing support network.
We 5
are at'the point now where we are beginning to become 6
engaged in getting that all put together as is required.
We l
7 have given the responsibility of that to.our Atomic Safety 8
and Licensing Board panel, and they have begun hiring of 9
staff, and we feel that's an important resource to be able 10 to respond to the concerns of individuals who live around 11 these sites and around the country who want to know, want to 12 have access to this information.
13 I'm somewhat concerned by your comment, Lake, that 14 you will fund it to basically the extent minimum you can get 15 away with.
We'll have to obviously be engaged on that 16 issue.
This is an important one that the Commission has 17' taken some important degree of responsibility for and has 18 been actively involved with, and we certainly want to make 19 sure has the resources necessary to function effectively for 20.
the users of that system, i.e.,
the public.
21 CHAIRMAN DICUS:
Commissioner Dia=.
'22 Commissioner McGaffigan.
23 Okay.
Well, on behalf of my fellow Commissioners, 24 I would certainly like to thank the Department of Energy for 25 another very informed briefing for us today.
I think it was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
61 1.
clear from our discussions that progress has been made 2 ~
toward narrowing total system performance, variability, and 3
uncertainty, and improving quality assurance implementation 4
and controls, and clearly though there's yet a lot of work 5
to be done, which I think we all recognize.
]
6 And I think as we have expressed today and that 7
you have expressed today, the implementation, documentation, 8
and maintenance of a quality assurance program 9'
characteristic to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, is essential 10-to pursuing the licensi.ng process if it is to occur, and in 11 demonstrating performance, reliability, and availability of t
12 all safety-significant structures, systems, and components 13 critical to waste isolation and containment.
A solid QA 14 program provides defensibility and traceability and allows j
15 for prompt and adequate deficiency identification, root-16 cause analysis, and implementation of corrective actions 17 necessary to prevent recurrences.
18 So again I would like to thank you, and unless my 19 fellow Commissioners have any further questions or comments, 20 then this meeting is now adjourned.
21 Thank you very much.
22 (Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m.,
the briefing was 23 concluded.)
24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
e e
1 I-1 j
ij
?
CERTIFICATE This is to certify:that the attached description of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
NRC STAFF BRIEFING ON DRAFT d
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
FOR A PROPOSED HLW GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING:
Rockville, Maryland DATE OF MEETING:
Tuesday, September 21, 1999 was held as herein appe'ars, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company Transcriber: Rose Gershon Reporter:
Mark Mahonev
ll l
ll t
1 n
ac
~
e dc menu" eh aYa t
t t
c d
e l
ar e aa n
e t
rj t
o Sou v
o gP r f Ft e e
i a
t s
nn n
cy sN o
s a oy rr is i
a m9 Mi s
a t
g m
i oaWtyh m9 a
r pt e
t z
e m
e o
ci n
C mis c e n o1 jt l
9 e eE r
t yr I
o u v u oC o
cf o
t t
r a
a o
p 1
P r
l aeNio l
u ny a
n R
t g
t r2 S h e
e nRt cCioro t
I r
t t
e ECml a
na e
eceo e
a ab
,et uc t l nt r
N y
num oia m i pd N
s i
e S
p h g
e ge x
e e
t n oS a
eRp DiD et n
o i
t ol n
f e
t i
r a
o o o R n,
P r
t rS R n S.
a t
i a
u n
ie l
a e
yoU l
e vGa et se l
dM r
n vn P
c n
s u
e a
Kao e u N
Wcc pL o
l r
9 j
s 9
u 9
aoihM Y
1 rf D
Dig 1
2 re I
b m
I e
tpe S
1l
2 t
n o
n o
t i
t d
e a
e d
t 1
m n
p e
o e
m d y ar t
m o
et a
o ba t
c l
n e
nu o
i S
s r
ag s
s e
ce y
i r
m R
o m
t t
t r
) i a
t o
c e
As h r s
C i
a t a o
y r
a vP e
p o
y Sl e
t pi Wn Eu a
a g
a I c r
n l
i u
a r
Np eN t
e mD f
l o
a n
R m
s u
r t
(
a ae y o o
e I
t o
uh pM l
t c
i c
c qt s
u l
c N
i i l
)
Aa ey b d a
y a c
e db r
c c
aS h
l t
yton a
r oii t
a g u o
t I
c yl ei v
oY o
e t
s n
n i
d o
al o
e (H i
St l
l I al b o
o i
i t
pl aa s
a e
t a
oEc t
e g s n
i cc n
r t
i e
Pl e
s m
l ii i
ap nt oa ot e
nt i
r c
c i
s P
e nph a r
s t
of t
ia cr n
of o
e e
n s
f v
v epo nd eii e
a a
t i
t t
s t
e ma a
o Wee s
9 s n a n d
e s
n n
9 eei e
ni t
r r
9 r
e e
e e
1 axme rt r
c t
t i
r nh h i
l l
1 i
a ul pemS TTAA 2
v e
qd r
e eeoI b
n cRaPtrhCE m
l e n e
E u
t p
N-e
=
S
3 tn e
e h
n nt m
o oy e
l s
ib p
t l
a a s a p
J mio en u
rt s
S S
I E
oii o
f vt I
EO nia t
tcN y
E eD i
n d a r
o d
a i
h r
nnn s
s s
t t
e a oa s
m i
e gd si e
m h
n un eaS c
o e
C zG n
y i
t i
di r
t r
a c:
urS o
s f
pas st t
eU a
a t
lu r r o
et o s l c
g a
r, n
e r
nt e
a r o o
R poc c at i
a t
r n
Ca nh c a
a t
i i
e r
r c
c l
o ot n oh ca t
m N
u r
r s
f cet r
i oo s
e t
ypc Atet n on h
is o f
o o
t a
c pb d
g gC ni t
u n
n a
o n
u sS i t n
r eS U
ai nO wmt it d
r t i a
a glanN r
e s u&s e r n
l i
e a
cah e
no p
xdMid s
l e
e e
f r
i c
o P
e d
ns e
n d
r ei ahteTleMn eS o p g r
e caa e e o pM t l
a o n P
l eir t d d o sTBDieWr t
l Tct e
a a 9
o el o
ei s
t 9
b vs 9
i vRa ei S
1 l
s e
EIEARdCLDe e
x1 2
O re b
D m
e tp e
S
4 e
h t
fo y
r
~
r o
adf l
d a
n ng ns i
a m
n a oe
)
pt Wi si l
e r
s
)
s roia F
L e
r e
d w
N H pt r
ud t
i i
S
(
ne e
) (
a s
e n
n t
oh v Ml e
o nf o
t t
e s
i n
mr s
i e
c s
t u
a oc HF r
n m
i Wui r
gs m
o df a
T r
i n
o o
a l
i e
e c
s a
yi Ml eE C
t rd v
y edO c
e oa
(
c e
r h
o uL t t t
r l
sD a
t ai A
r sl aN l
e u
t h
s e oe e
t it g
ppv n
g ef a
R e
d oe e
mepH at h i
t i r
rl u
nt ae yS d l
e s
c l
e t
ch vl n
ad t i u
ci g
ai a a
vip N
s ugi e
c F
e o
e e
o r
oh r
h c
sl h
e N d
s t
t l
n o
od f
mS na o
n p
n e
n o
t o
oga mE a
o d
c it c
s oO s
a nn r
al n
c tn o
e D
e a
g e
t e
u oM b
P s
i e
t Mitps P
s sf r
r e o cH e
sl a
r T
H c
r e
i cd n
s c
T e
o e
eM t
ne g
Md ovi 9
pyl c
m0 ol s
9 0 0 S
ci u
l t
e 9
r a
pu n0 0, 0 I
n ad 1
t t 0
3 0, E gn 1
Enn 0, 6 7
ei rl 2
s e
a r
Oe e
e t
n b
h el vp0 i
m s
7 Td af De e
tpe S
l
5 ev i
t d
a er n
ye l t r
t s e
! si on t
Mca lA n
l U
no e
i tc g
r A
n no i
u N
k s
g o
i l
a s
i ca m
t P
m c
o de C
u yr e y
l tst r
oi o
s r
Mn a
t a
t o
l C
u t
t g
S o
e n
. k R
l r
a c o'e gu ar r
1 e r l
r LT k
e l
e "
a c
l h 'h yt u
c a
e t "
ll h r
u t g T
N e "
si c
W h "
n oe e
LMW h
o A
A i
t i
t s
ao
~
N D
/l o
t t i l
ul t
r r a
O A
d a
n 1 o a y
l l
pn s e I
V ml o
i nc T
E n
nv a
y l
t aS l
o ea i
t A
N r
n it s t e T
N aao nH a
l e
I s
i dt r r
e y
a oa r
n l l vepn P
t i e
s a s e v
oR Nnc M
aS A
i t
r l
a T
a i
n R
r 9
e 9
t 9
l l
1 A
n 1
2 o
t r
i t
d e
c a
e b
os t
m A
Li o a
i r
d e
l e
t I a a m
p n
me r
e e
S r c t
eS n
h I
T hg i
i l
la e
s v
nl o
s i
oa pe 6
i i s s t
t r
i a
a a e d
B t
t l
s e
r a e
ut l
opm et e t
s c mcS i
v a r s e ge wo a
t n
upe ai nl F
s v
nwe i
r t
r CmTt vi c
a a omloiA i
l a
tc s
rI d ni ya s r e
a odlat oie t
via c ail h l
h e a oed et t
r t
f s
NNoLB rNO a
t O
n c
o i
s a
s i
m p
m oC m
E y
e O
r vim s
o s
D e
t t
o b
a I
n c
l af a
e u
u r
l o
o L
r d
g is u s o e
i e
h t
t t
d n t
u nM R
la c f
a ar e7 r
e r
c a
v t
m4i a d mf l
e n
o e
r a p0d l
e c a pt c
s i
o ni2 e t
n u
i oh oMReich e2 N
t p
i s s
t t
r md e
s a e oe a
n nt 3 pn h
t t
s4 s si a t
a a9 iah o
l l
l r
Aw1 HwSl t
u T
no i
t m
a tnese u
rP C
F F
FN FN NSW NSW 9
MSE L CR 9
MSE L H C O H H C O H CA 9
1 s
T0D T0D TP 0
0GS e
0 0
1 M 0, 0 5, 3 M 0,0 5,2 00 2
00 l
3 r
u d
e 00 5, 1 e 00 5, 1 mm 1
05 e
05 b
u 0, 1 21 00 m
o u 0, 1 21 l
l d
9
- d 9 -
- 00 e
, 0, p
t 1
M o
1 o
1 1
1 24 e
M M
+-
S llllllll}ll f
ll llt
a 7
s l
io S
s s/
n s
o i
d e e
i n cs ss s
ar e c
i t uc n
m l
y s
eor m
ui a
c l
Wseom m
oC
/Rs a
s eo yr ynl s
r o
aRn gi a o
c n
o ta ol cl i
a c t
l pgr e e
f u
i lod ouoeh r
g A
r e
ist cis e
R d ol t
yooluo oe P
r i
l a
HFBCSNA e
f y
lcu r
e o
N s
o v
e e
t i
s h
t s
s i
t t
o s
s a
c t
y a
l l p a
o n
a no i
p r
p i
aih er t
e a
e e
e m
t ns t
n r
a c
t r
An Mtn s
e R
e i
l s
t I
e A
A r
w y s
,e u
P e
ym J
m t
t mO e
c n
v f
a genl r
a rd a
p e go r
t i
n S
ai n
e o
t e a yd m n nta e i
a 9
Eat mT T ei n t
I t
9 l
s, M ro n c
t 9
l s
u a a n 1
t Uuh e e ep o g
A m
r d
i 1
s r
o d Ql t
t t s n n
2 i
i i
v r
nr a c l
t r
n o
o u
aa i
e haie c
LAH A UWTE b
S L
N C m
e tpe S
l
8 no n
g no n
oi i
s p
it s
ai e
m e
i k
da m d
Ro r
o nC c
ol e
a R
y l
n n
ic o d
o t
ni n
s i
t u a a
s e
on g
m i
Cr n
m f
e i
o l
t t
a n r
C a
nI o
y od p
r S
t n
e n
o i
t a a R
o a
l i
N) t u
t a
g d
n
( P n
e i
e d
R sR o
n d
a r
n oC i
r a
i c
e t
N) n c
c t
i
)
l a
t a
a(
I z
P /
e u
m sR n
t r
N i
t i
r n n s d e
~h o
a eC e
h d
ed t
f gmI (
c n
o i
r c
t n
oe n c
r a
t n
e ui A u
l i
r o
s o
o e
i a
f c s t
t s
o n a c d s
a e
s a
s t
t a e e e
s n
en e
t z
t e
a dMoi) c e
e e
s e
s l
r rS iu d
r I
ec a
gdP eR a
r l
P e
i t
I r
t nl uI p e r
c t
c a
d e
a ud n a a pA mi c
t e ni mC c
l i
o l
i l
e d og o(
u a
a s
t i
ni oCml 9
n b r
i t
t 9
a o
o s
9 s e c o e
i i t
l yr E
pei Et t
d s
u 1
e t
d s
Oy n
a r
d aOd o i
1 a
n 2
r n
mDI PR DS eRCI r
t e
i o
b m
rP P
e tpe S
1 ll(
)'
9
)
gm
)
I 5
n e E
)
e 8
ir MI s0 E
t u
n e 0
( E au O
o c s 5, aM D
pf c2 l
l t
t a
a ul v
e yr a
)
d a
e s
r u p c, i
c ks vi y
u mi t
,b l
t d
e e
d yu ib i
l nh v
n ns h u n
t p t
i a
e l
i o
t gg ar d
p a
)E o
on eo e
y E Tri hf n
t i
s h
a TP pd l
l o
)
o c
pd u
P nF is
(
x n
q (0 d n a
s s0 na mC m
i ah uL m
e a
d t 0, 2 y n n
n h (y e
o a
e0 o
y 0 2 g l
C l
l ai s
a1 2 a ot t
t i y
t ml n
v
- k a
r l
i r nc s a o
o e
u ue oa et i
t i
t a
a x
qpd p af u
p t
l a
a f
mpo r
e s a e g
(
n e e rt mr t
e e
a i
s i
t t c R
mi m a l
e s n r
a s
ow e a a
c r
c i l S
t a e
n r
e i
a fd ec t
l tek o
c l
st l
u r
c uf en on N
h o
f s a d
t e
9 ol d e o
w t
r t
e p
e2 d e r a h
i u n el s
yd f ekf ef ok o
t n
r h
e f
1 r ot o u t
i r
v o
a h
s n
o cteo wt m mt o=)
n a
d e
a o
l w
s aioird mr i
a v
a ap er t
ta n
x sf adr e e t
s ni ome ay e t
h n
nl nrk e
r o
n r
t i
mi oa 0o e
a r
s t r t
oio ps eia ein c0w P
l r
t t
a n
pek t
t r
st s ar i
l alud Ae o ef oieb 0, r l
a a
c p n d dt w: e a x u2 o a c nr e p(f o
a t
i i
l d
e n (p d a
ad ia ol t t
l l
0 F an r6 9
e rl e
cb pta ne e
C 9
i I
i c
v ov t
ri vPL 9
s i
t k
l il i
1 t
l o
t s o u r d eb nR I
cb v
yivd o a
t 1
nwReaCIxmoC=
1 r
a u
n l
n 2
pPI aCiI re n
b mA me I
tpe S
l i
0 1
d r W
e l
uv n
oo L
s e
t o
c)
H i
s d
s n t
e a
eo d
i l
h) r id n
a
)
g2 t
t i2 %
vr f
i a a
a h 2 9 F
i t
t n9 c%
N 2
)
n co a9 S
1 d
(
y9 i
o m
o l
r b a m
o (>
t n
r o
t n
o p
u i
c p%
r sF f
u s
e r
s i
i i
(
(9 oC u%
n t
m l
l n
p m
a9 o
eL i
s 0 t
o u
s r
y d (>
e7 C
4 l
r r
u y
e m0 d
(~
i s
r t
vmp o
l e
o i
t e
d e0 r4 u
s r
a f
oF d
u l
n r 1 1
f g
m4 c
cC l
i e
i0 u
R a
e8 e
b r r
l s L o
d r
s s
u o e4 c
a S
e 1
k s
s o
o pm lc r 3 r d u
p8 d x
ee o
a r
N r
wo e a
d e0 n
h r e
t y z h
o n
o m0 a
t yai o o t
t n
t h
o l
a t
s e0 t
lad l
s r s
r1 e
n s
e u
t t
a mt e
c o
tcia p
cp c
nr a
a i
t
+
o a
a oel a xmp p0 p
t s v p
n h
pai m1 mr ok s es t
m mt 8
e r r r
l e
s a
i i
p )t oa P
e u
l l
l l
a e n
a0 a0n we i
f cs n
c8 ci0e y
a oio a
g r
2 s g 8,m la0 i
ted e
wh ona o9 ei0 t
r 9
s l
el gt 1 9
i l
o s
t a
e ot yi 0a 9
I e
o uh) n g2 d u0 d 0n ur i l 1
i p
ad e I
v y ni2 Re0 as R6a 5,m I l
v 1
2 r
i o
eHaH2 r1 re b
v m
O e
tpe S
ll
o I
I e
s d
t on de )c e d
re mic d
e c is t
a s(
no ye cS cn ye e d
l r
or s
l e
anCu i
s c
c n
i n
ge c o
t e
r i c o is nf s
c g
s o e o m
i a
re 9 u a
e k
6 qy m
r t
r ei o
h o
msl C
p t
ni o
w o o a b
y s
r o
r m
d e
d f Cb t
n r
a e
s o
a u
t l
v s n r u
i l
p g
i l
n a
o ye e
I o
f l d e R
ni v
ai n
ncd r
s l
t os ar n
a c u a
i e
l i
i n
m u
o d A c) lc t
t nr u
a c
n eRiu N
m e
mo l
u d
aOt c e
i r
o c h
t n
rC s
s a
eCno d
oy ed t
t o
dLdo t
f r
c n
s i
nEi t
n r
no r
a e
d o
hiMs d
c i
u t
i a
s k
t cd(
e a
i o
e r
f lu s
o ae sm t
c og s
a s
w o
uSl n
d2 y e
u s
A e
t e
r rl as e
seR cl od pcCn s
r e
a P
c r
a r
t e
nCa v
pi f
a p e al A s A ei r
c e
d c
o o
s iMn a ul miiv c
lc d
n l
r e
o u
i 9
u ni aa e ud 9
sN nh qe 9
l n
c et e z i
c a
o i
1 y
i i t
l t
cd sy i
rE 1
s e nl t
d cb y
a 2
aO n
a a
u l 6 s o n r
mD eR pP a1 UCa e
b t
n m
i mA-r o
e P
P tp I
e S
2 1
y t
e i
t l
i s
b a
W e
a k
b d
)
ad o
e n
r s
i u
n p
p q
6 u
t h
o 2
a 3
l tr r 0
n l
a g 0
o d
e 0
c n
o g
a n
nl 0
m o
g i
a c
0 o
n s
s 1
(
r i
s(
f m
i
(
m d
m i
s s
l t
r e
r i
o n
a r
e u
C s
e e i
k B
y d y l
t l
r r
ic0 o
g o
i c
c0 m
w n
ta l
a i
u a
0, 0
d d
e l
g e
2 e
n R
0 l
p 3
v a
r b 5 a
l a
e y o
H e
m l
e r v
c e
u s e I
n t
N e v E
i s
I o
M o
a e
r e
h Wg t
t f e o
c c
h n
t yn t
i t
ni n
s l
n l
t b o b
a id o
e i
c a r u
l t
d 9i a
e a
n u p
3 u n
t r
e p
oc o
o sB d
ms o) e y
n P
s c
e a
at t
r i
ie r
ye r
on s
f t
o o
u n
c j
a m o
mdi d
ns c
ue a t ) ig mt t
a wmt r
sF e n e
9 s r 9
a e eC ed AT A
eiml ri 9
h 1
i x
e gL vl i v
ait c
1 c
f e u 2
i ems r
e a HoSb re v
b m
O e
tpe S
!ll
\\lllIllil jiv
%NoA
%s 6
3 N,
I 0I I y
0!
0S a
2S gO d
g s
o o
b T
EFeA 1.#
&q s
$L g
@ju A t
n A
o n
is 2
s e
p4 i
m i+
m
@i s v
o o
Wo C
j Mu E
y N,
t r
r f
o 9 f ta i @l lu f
$k g
o
$k R
h 4
e
$l r
e a
e Ddi
\\,
e l
i c
i uN e
n
%M e
o, h
i t
i o
l Hy t
~
N a.
n e
!Ml o
$i.
i t
m M?
a t
l i,
n ese cA s
t i
rP O
T y
i;, ;o 5
D+
WaA N,
n 99
[J 5' e 9
1 Mi t
cd 1
e e.
2 D
r e
! 'g.
'o b
s Nu,
m e
i :A 4 tp Q%
e S
- 0 4.
!ll l
{lll jli 1
l3 3
1 lac i
t) e s d.
ht t n e
o e s
pd y o
yi g p
hc o x
cl e
da o nri u
y aob l
f n
a l
e r
o e
a t s e i
m uet s
r n
d u
oi a s
l i
m i
e )n B x
r mw m
o aos t
a f
o i
uiu m
o0 t
g C
l a s e5 y
t l
l n (e r
n a
ame i
o a
vr c
mi ta eoC h a i
l t
u t
f e
ft d g
l i nnd h
awa R
e r
oin o
o h
n t
v o
a l
e r
i e
a p
e aN i
e t
l n
s af o s
y n u c
i l
p md h
m od n u
i i
N t
i d
n vh i
s r
n a e
m n
t i
t oa i
h r
n o
o a
h d w i
t f
t o
nt p C
s in s
t a
i r s n
wi s n
on y
o d a o
i r
f pa a r
i n e e ta t
o os r) r t
T oeTa t
s a
r o a n
t i
s e
s d
a rl t
o u
apec s
e s, f l
e i
t u
t p
xc l
r o n u e rm P
c e
g ao d nd s e c p) p u o rit e oyo n u u e i S R i (lap s
l ot cI d
s u (l e o sS mcEr r
a rc
( t a
a n ed cmr e 99 r
r eikivi e o 9
yE a e el t
r i
l aOe ah u
c od bxhc i
i 1
r pt c
u at 1
t aWiPmOo t
n 2
mDDSON s
p re r
- m-m i
b P
I e
tpe S
l\\1 ll l
l!
l
4 1
m
)t o
n r
ef s
d k e
i i
s s
ci d
t e
i c
r n
l i
(
e a.
a t
a
)
i t
l s
s a
a s
o F
f t
t ed C
c f 7 a
s i
n o
);
L f
r 0 n
f o
d e
e1 s
n n
9 a
i r
c x s
o s
oi 2
t n9 i
t tu r
6 a
m n
i t
c1 m
c e
a o
o 1
m o
o l
r t
u(
m d
nt C
(
p p s e
n e
h o
r r
at t 7 y
i r
nla0 o
s a
p e n
s k
n e
1 a
t t
F a&r o
F d1 x l
d o
s Ci3 4 gu o
N r
c eI w
e L c o1 e
S E
u p
at R
t i
oM &
6 r
l e5 r a
t a
0 r
r a e
l a
c R
);
i c
0 ob l
o e c
i 0,
me mr N
r l
a y
u eb t
eE 0
n u
r mNi e e 6
r s e e e
t p
mI u
t e r p h
t o
oL o
e u
n r h
o oo ny o
c R (r t
t sb sf oi t
r sl n
p h
f E s
o t
e y r i o
cA oT e
t eb i
l s
e a:
pb pa a
t c
s a
rs N o
s k
s 0 a b
n t
eI d o
pc e0 n0 o e
n ob s
,o0 D
mrui 1 r
e r
d I t
p r
s 0, t a
pmnE i
a P
t l
5 i
t a
e1 n pu aM4 t
t f h a
u r6 e r
aNY N
ogf o m0 d ADAs e cb u0 c i
T aN WNRt wwf A m 4, A i
l i
I n
c 9
f 9
Te el a
i9 9
cV I
t L HKDi d i a
r x
i 1
l GS Ac vgt i a yAI RM a
1 I
c r
e1 2
laCHRRa eLI re n
v b
m A-O-
e tpe S
~
5 1
~ ygr a
e c
n c
E u
c Y
i y
m ro o
r f
tA o
s i
n s
l t
a a
o is i
d B
n s
o i
s m
e l
i e
t a
t m
o a
c a
o n
C c
u n
r i
pnl h
e yr
~a c
n t
o e
a e
T s
e u
t v
e I
a a
l
,t r
g Rmi yr s
a e
t n
r co u
R w
o o
np i
r p
ee d
o ea t
a e
gr al mr l
at r
r f c
a Al u
o md l
a r
r N
c ic ni e
e rf t
t e
r d n
s on e
a h
o n
u b
t e
r f
a a
cc it h mw o
n o
t l
t Cs nl ee od n
Te s
i n
o l
e t t d
e a
o i
i mn rP k
u f
h r P
od ca i
ta o
t u
s oPR s 0 r
n t
rd r
e g
n e
a aC o8 g
s i
s s
a s
t l
e e
e r
I t
n n
P a
s c
s st Ntnd aii n
s eS ch h r
t u oS R Ad e n r
s t
t o
n n ma i i i y
d ww opI l i a
ny n
9 s
eE aa t
L r o ni S oc c
c 9
i r
nt l
i r
i i yE eiub Gin 9
t l
l ve cb b 1
raOh a o aS ng t
a u
u 1
t i
mDONMVUEA pPP 2
r e
r m-i b
m P
I e
tpe S
l 1
l o
6 1
ta l
y a
d e et u
s n d
n n ai i
a r
a o et v
z l
r i
ed n e e d
ta e od c
n l
r y
wf s n e
i i i
t t
a a a u d
r-r) z r g
s e
f e ai u r
s a ei t
d o e
o
)
t o
l n
a e
t t
m,b s
s nt e
p a
n o
t c mx y
o i
i n
ymd i
l a e i
e a
s c g n
t o
l s
d oe a n pl y
P i
s o
m s i o a k l
e oidd l
e m
l c
a o
k o
t rl e s 0 m
a C
a p (c t
a s d c 8
l a
e i
L u yu r
,s r t
x y
mh n u r
d u
a n
o l
ot e d o
m i l e
s ai a d
i t
l a
d s a b e
k l
ma n o
a l
u t
Rc
,u mt a
n g
o n
r r n
c a
e e e r
R l
s i i mh nt F
a e h t
r t
r n
s t
e
(
a s
o o u u h
e i
y t
,i ma se et pa piq wt s
l a
r c
o s n s
d nwe n n
p e
u s o a N
ah ch o
y e
t Az m
n c i e
r r
r t
gt a oe t
h m
h ed ct a
c e e t
e d mp d
o l
o t
l n a e e e o u
n i
t Troh p a k
n a r gt r t
l u ns e a r o
yh n a o
n 0
lut i
rC p o 8
a i
t c
ad s p e oi n
i f
a osd t
r s t
e t
d e
f n a e o t
a gr o
r l
t n
s a n s
e r
e ul l
ii pP e
,r d o e
u a
r c rb ne ps P
sMs h y ad e
o oe 0 p mt rb n
,t a
ud d pc 3 oP a
e nsd n
on d d a 0 t
e i
l s o r
s a e
et a
yi mr t
L t
t s 2 9
t e olal a
ai 9
cS a e e mmd 5 9
p e
r h n i
l t
al ci s E d 1
t r
i i iogn Oo t
t u
1 ytof e n a s
s o
2 DmE Ef l
n r
aTiget re n
b m
A e
tpe S
7 1
F s
C) e s
u Lr l
l e
e a
1 k
v v
r e
= oL na s
mwt r
e a
)
ea n
m s
e r
a e
y r
n r) 0oi u
0 l
0f m
o s
a r
0 t
t 5, F a
a v
0, no 2Ct e
n i
n (L
o e
0 s
i n
y a
s 1
i 0
s o
61 C 0
m
) 0 m
g m o
s 0,
n P =
m r
o p (c Rmu e0 s
u y
ir C t
1 r
Ce m
e a
d o
r mg e
t e
s a
I r i x
e n0 a
n y
Llu Rc i
g o
r 0
C o00, M e
l u
0 4 Mr
)
)6 R
i i
d r2 o
k 0
0, 0
s n
a l
1 m
a )t e
e t
1 a
0 x
wl vd s
0 u
o6 o 8 o
u r
x1 r
c n n t
2 d
N a
c r
g l
n o
a t
v e
oi e
ob h m (o c c a 7 n
m1 e
i r
e ip ai e
t n /y t
r r
t cFl m
d
(
t o
u b
5 n
m6 d
n r
Cui s
t Toh 0
o 0 a
n i
t e
Lpl o
a cd r
1 s
s 1
ni c
oe c
a e
m1 c
e t
r xit x
a t h s
a p 7 mt fa i
n grroet m
p o2 2 p7 6 a
e t
s mp2 m3 n
sf e
(
(
er nepooh x0 F F
oP i
i pd r c
e 0 C c
f oC n
o L oPa ebed o
mt L o
l t
v e
9 a
u5 i
1 aimr) wm0 l
1 t
3 c
t as a
1 i 9 9
c ce pL ei0 u0 m9 I
iem mC l
t l
i x
p e1 v
a ylor o
h oM oC(
eM-1 r
P C2 laCf re n
v b
m O
A e
tpe S
8 1
yr)
)s o
r t
t a
no i
n e
is y
l s
i s
o a
m 0
u m
o o
p (c 0
d C
r i
y 0,
v e
ea ro e
9 r
t i
a s
y Re 1
a d
lu o
r g
(
e n
r d
e R
c y
i a
p e
n e
r r
l e
n a
ma t
e a
e a
y o
m l
c r
p c
r i
e N
u o
e t
r m
r s
e e
l p
a e
h l
n e
s i
t r
a r
o mu o
o t
To e
u t
e p
s n
r o
c l
e r
o e
a i
t e
o mp p
n f
r r
s t
c o
gr e
2 s
m m0 mid e
1 1
r ne 4
P u
e0 u0 oP m8 1
g1 m1 9
a x
x 2
L ni0 r
8 i
9 0
e7 x
9 o
x 2
9 a
v a
1 b
M*A M-1 2
r r
a e
C m
b e
tpe S
9 1
s sd d
n e
e sl ei o
v e
u s
t i
t oie e
l c
r o
a e
gws pi v
v i
f bi t
n oi t
c f
a r
s a
e e
e.os Cied P
s n
ff o
or e
n t
e e
v e
s pt h
h r talid h
l t
t a
i h
t n
t f i
e n
i i
oA w
wy o
t t
ue h
is a
e r
m s
t t
n s s s0 i
i e
er e0 m
s e
m ws o
n uw t a t
ei1 m
r i
i s
o s
o n
et s
y y C r
oo c
o o A i g0 ge y
c n
oe el e
c pe n
r a0 at or s
t e
r ri r a i
a r 0, oml ta r
at a
r e
o nt 0 o
u l
ue or t
at t
pane s
si g
A 1
x e
ne t l r
c t
t uc c
mt e
s nt n o R
s r
r f
ue n
sh ea ep a
out or e r p c
r e
e nr u
l r
e cl f w
ul ua u
n hl l
t a wy ri ot c a c r t
N o
i l
oo sf er e e e
ta c
nh f t t
h oh ohf t
ri g
i i
h e
ai ed s
t f t
a o
t t
t s
t t
mt h ne yt al al o
s s
n n
c l
s d
a c e o e o i
i t
e mus ei l
r r
a o
n c
n a
gt gt A
ncMa t
z n
a e
a pan an e
i s
o i
r r o o
s mto o
e d
s c
c r
g mb t
P t i sl sl o
od a
aEi e
l a
a e
a c
eOga mn mn c
n c
r N
nir o r o t
ei ei r
u ydDint t
t t 9
S EYro v
,ut gt gt 9
i s
u u
9 e
Of i
i 1
t on c
o os os nt nt I
i E Dis pifoopLiLi r
1 n
n 2
e e
o t
r h
ek p
oc yh m
e e
b h
a e tab Tt t
r t
e tpe S
l 02
)
t n
oc d
(
e n
ta o
i s
s e
d t
u s
n l
i a
m v
e e
la v
m ta m
u e
o i
C u
u d
y t
i l
c t
v l
y a
a o
n r
e o
i v
d e
d d
v t
a n
e i l
n m
e t
t v
u i
a g
c s
d oi e
l t
r n
nAs e
R vl e
s o
o y s o
n a
r e
a i
i u
t s
c s
i e
p n
q t
a s i A
x o
lc l
u i
o e
n e
N l
m mP e
r A
c h
y d
o e
r ml n
t l
h n
o l
m l
f o
a a
a a
a t
t o
n aC n
m e
m t
d e
t h
e r
n i
n e
r x
o i
a y
o s
v e
mf n
a i
f d r
el t
o od o
n r
a ms o
w a
t s
i s
n a
o e
r ml o
v n
t s
e ad n
r P ou s
e e
e al i
c n
c r
ui t
v mta h
i t
o r
P c
s g n r
e e
c n
ei s
u c
r t
t r
oh a
e o
u oR E t
i t
A s
l k
s o
u y d d p p o r
9 op r
e l
r a
s er a
nS n
e y o 9
yEl ol u H~ PWr e
i s
e 9
r ci a
t 1
c c
h o
aOu a
o a
o*
t 1
t t
.mDNNT pF O
2 N
r e
r
- m-m i
b P
I e
tpe s
1 2
s tcu
)
r t
s t
no n
c e
l c
a n
o.
d c
a l
i a
m e
t c
i r
h ml o
(
s e
e f r
n e h d o
e te a
oP t
i e
s c
m m
r s
i m
m v
n n
m o
e o
t c
s o
i i
s t
e h
s a
y C
i t
g yd S y
t i
r a
l a
wa a
l o
t r
a a
r n
g t
l n
o s
a s
s r
e o
u t
g e
e yd T e
r yi s
e t
f R
m t
i r i i l
l e
r n
p u o
d l
a i
t n
c a
r n
e mdof o
c l
a c
i d
u i
f i
l e
e s
ml s t
n n
N a
b e
g o e
a o
e A
d a
t e d d
,i h
o a
r g o r
n u
a t
t r
od a
t m
g ol o
d g
t e
r t
s s
o e
o i
n t
e wy u t
s d
a s
n h
mo o
s s
s d
n e
e r d r
s i
t i
c t
c e
a d a
u l
o a
s e
t o
t r
n l
o s b e
e o
s gW e
i r
r i
e s
a e
g c p
n i
r d
e t
e n
a d L r
t pWa n s
r e
c gH P
o c
pL s
l e
e s
a c
r t e
n e
c d h n gi &
aH c
A d
l i
t l
a n
t e
e a
d F f
e pd mr ad r
a h o
e o
a i
N 9
n u
t t
l 9
s t
l c
a t
i S S o
e ps S CS 9
e 1
t F
p v os o
yN y e d s 1
2 aS HDAA l
N re n
b m
A e
tpe S
4 2
f 2
o e
)
sa e
t le n
r e
o ta m
c it
(
se no o
i e
s t
s t
i e n m
l v
d e m
i om oC t
mn y
o r
a e r o
t si r
a n
a v l
i e n a
ug l
e d
e r
e r
n R
rl o
a r
e a
f a
e c e
r t
)
v od c
l e
.i l
u e
t l
t t
n c e s
a N
A ah u
w s
e o
ot e
e te h
i t
ciod i
o
( d c
l t
t a
a of a
n n
h r s c
r a
t o
t i
c yc r
u F
a t
s o
ai t
u e
t r
n t
d u
r e
e oio l
s e
c e
i r
c p
t r
a n
r t
p af p m w
a P
c pad n od C
e o c
n t
A l
pi S
u e
ne t
a ou A
o s
t 9
r o
a 9
cl l
i e oP GDL 9
1 t
v s
E o
y e
s 1
aDdiM-2 l
N re n
b m
A e
tpe S
32 sre t
t n
r b
o e
m p
e m
s d
r s
l n
e n
u s
a l
e a
v n
e i
r e
o n
a s
t s
l f
M o
a i
a h
t d
e on i
a t
id gd a
n c
is i
e h
a d
a n
m s
i l
m r
a n
a m
d g
r e
t ne g
o m
i o
i C
lu ad e
t r
n y
l r
d a
o r
a m
e e
d f
o t
e un m
a e
u r
a l
P f i r
r g
d a
o g
p e
t r
t f
e d
R il n
a n
d e
ar l
c e
e o
e e
u t
t a
nml l
y a
c c
c s
u t
r s
ue a
i N
c o
l g
s ng w
e i
i e
h i
d es t
a c
t t
o a
s n
r e
a n
n t
a e
o s
f i
n r
pt ga o
h i
k s
s n
e a
t t
l r
s e
i c
eir s
n o
t n
z t
n e
r e
r t
s e
l i
er h
n P
ed s
a e
a l
l wDt S
d T
o nl l
s u
Ma We n
e AmB e
v S
m r
e s
9 i
i J
9 r
d n
nn o
We Ha
.t 9
c t
1 e
a r
h ra o
r hh e
i e
p n
ohi pc b
1 2
n d
s r
aid c
v e
e o
be a
ol i
a n
t i
e Db Ar Re S
mR me t
S pe S
lllL lll
~
42 00 1
s
)
t e
s s
c r
r r
i t
a f u
e g
o n
y n es i
0 r
r o
0 u
g s
1 d
n c
e i
r s
i d
t e
e i
n
(
i l
t t
l a f u
n i
o t
l r
a a
o o
a r
s i
e f
t r
s t
l a
n t
of u
i o
n r
s s
m v
s m
c e
t t
d n
n F d F
o o
e C
n i
l i
c d L
a C
C t
a c
L y
n c
i a
o s
a l
c r
0 s
3 o
a c
t e
n a
0 e
F r
t y1 a
i t
n uC k ol 3,
l i
t u
s i
a 3
l 3
g L
r i t
7 i
e r
i it o
t r
r 7 c
r R
1 u
t s
wt s
o a
o r
e n3 l
f a
i u
s d ml d m
i r d t
a e
t r
o n
l a
n n
e f e
e c
r u
l o
i r
od f
m i
N a
n g
r d n
n r
o e
A e
n r
n o
n o
o g s h
s f
a s i e
r t
b e
it n
r t
e o
ok o
u t
e a d p
mig t
a d
n p n o0 n
s j
n s
t o
t f
r i
i c
oi e me t
0 mtn 0,
t 0
i r
u 0
t i
a p o c
m 0,
a d
o a
t h 6 n
s c
t p
s e 0 o
m 0
o a
e n
s 2 e
r 0 0 s
i mlo t
C 0, 0 N o
0 c
r r
c 6,
c 0 P
i 0
1, 0
l c
f y1 7 1
7 6
a t
i f 0,
2 a6 o
r t
t t
t t
A wir b b r b b
oi 9
o o
u u
o us u
n r
or o
e c
o o
a t
r 9
t i
i s
a a
e e
o nAA nAy AP A 9
1 i
p e e
o v
e c
c 1
r 2
eRS S
N re v
b m
O e
tpe S
5 d
2 e
dd er a
u e
t nt i
e u
S f
t h
s e
e wl T
b a
s n
a d
t o
e.
a e t
e vt n
i c
e n o
c s
e i
a a
e Ni n
ss l
i r
e a o
m i
d o
hC p
ef t
s t
a m
l t
t o
a ga s
C m
s y
i n
r ol r
in y
e e
r t
on f
o pb t
ci a
o s
t I
oa et a
m f ai n
l t
r n
s a
a u
f t r
g po e
)
a s r
v s t e
nv e
r r t
R e
s e
s l
e ef e c a e oi i
r v
h aic t
l i
s ed n a
r t
snRrejol t
et a
a i
e i
o l
r co e
v a
nl c
i f
ai d
c t
r i
u i
t od d
t e p ua N
a a e al nt e r nlar e t
e a
s a oi nh h
t s
s edh oic c
a rf r t
u ts os ps n e oAc o
l a
o e e a n
t mh u
pt d nl s e a
o ai g wr di r n
o eisd n eS dib t
meFt i
t m
o( a et d
a ooE psR d n al i
s a
tn h
gmO e
t i
s e i
e r
e s
l noi et wei s
l r
mD a
p o pD u e
t d ci sb e u
r t
r S x a P
n miof s
n nn e o ot e o
mF sl wi c
l C
ma t
et a s r a e p Te pk e sd l
p a a W yi T m e d i l r
s t
nl oAa o v e pu u r
e e
9 r
n yt sd cl s zbd 9
- oe x e 9
c rl ot ni aE wpt t
r 1
n e
ai el v
r e a t
a l
h r
a e v e eOor oph o
1 i
eNBInNNDLPCAS 2
t e
od re h
e m
b TtoF e
tpe S
lll lll
62 o
t dn a
t
)
a a
s d
t e
b d
n i
e r
d t
i o
n s
v t
o a
c r
c c
a p
n i
r p
o
(
e s
i d
ms m
e ss i
i i
s eAi d
m e
t e
c u
m t
a c
t o
e n r
s C
u ve u
c r
y l
g o
e r
i a
t a
vNt a a s
o e
h t
a t
r l
e n
o u
p e
f g
oIS m o
m R
n s
e m
n s
o r
i r
a i
t E r s
f e
I a
e y
c l
r v
s u
mh l
e l
o a
o N
r t
g n
e o
ol a
h o
e t
t f
a r
v n
s c e
d o
t o
h n
n t
h a
o i
i r
t t
f ol o
c s
a i
t o
pd e n s
r al t
a e
n r a r
o od e
s of r
s l
ed o
e
,e t d p
r c
nt a
e p m P
u r
a a c
s u
a s i u
al m
t a y ot
,d s
l cd al d a n
a ai u
9 s
t c
yt 9
u yEe e i l
s 9
r i r
t mt a
1 s
aOd c
y ni C
mDF pS aAh e
a a
1 l
2 t
re n
b i
mA r
m P
I e
~
tpe S
72 la m
it
)
o n
s t
r l
e r c
)
f a
t
(
n o
oe s
o p
dj o
i s
e)
(
t r r i
l y
t e
el dI a
e r p n
t o
c vl iE r
al n
n c e u
et cMr e
n o
l l
o n
u e
i i
i l
s ee neh a
r l
a e mmit e
oh o
C p
t c
r ni n
aed ip o
l atoh t
(
a s r l
i a
r c
r t
r -
s d n e
a s
i u
ni f e i
s w
s Cc m
t l
a o
s u
e o
a n
m d
e eI t
l s
rd e
r h
o t
c aa ce or n
c t e C
c i r pai n
s h n y
sa gc s eb i
t i
r t
a ciM o
e on ny m s
t r
l i a
w a
t a
r a
o r
o c
p l
t e
c a
p id mtsd u
yydl p
l g
e n
p )e i co e
dl a u r
m p r ot me mi e
aG t
R u
t p wa eh i s s
p r
s ud a
wi w
nr a me r
z e
s n
s e
a edl of r
it c
e e
l I
mer l
s i
r u
c s ni t s c n o N
F owia umC an ni r ai eC s
xe o
t e
e o
ol r2 L ot d s(
h r
e g
npt t
ae o
r 0
n pl l
v i
u ev s a me n(
s a l
t i s i
t c c ov r
e e nd o
ri n
s t
i c
ct o
a a o n a ri s u st r
i t
c ai f ec ai t
i t
r t
a pt c
mgi n a
s c e v nl r t
c s a a o ri l
i l
e n
a pme l
r t
o e
ci e
c c t
ae r
at l s
milmd pa nl r o n a mn t
u ma e
ad c s i l
e t
r s
c s g P
u i
a%n rWf i
r f
e n mr a
i r n o
aiclad oi o
uf t
mot i
i 1
t t
a fL n
n t
nr l
e n u nt r s wht eh eo ar aL al e i
l oc a
r oie mim 9
i m )c h t
p t
t 9
u p nt ne 9
e s e
- s t
go eS s s ak el wh nmcT 1
i e v s
t p
r s n t
t v
C s
o ea oi a om 2
1 r
o e t
r eLaLaInNLt PpCPi r
re v
b O-me tpe S
s 82 c
w ib o
u n
n c
e o
s r
r i
s e
u t
e r
s a
p i
c t
o r
a 0
c o
m s
l p
a y
0 s
r l
i t
n s
g 0,
n t
n a
o o
l 0
u r
imcr i
a s
5 t
s s
i i
i 1
a l
e m
m n
f r d y
m o
c a
r 6
o A
a v
o2 C
l e
t a
0 y
a 0 w
7 N
ro lu0 t
a 8
r a
f f
o g <
l r
u d
of e
t I g
o r
aE e
ht
) d f
R e
e odM i
r w
c b
e a
s n
r e
t t l l
n a
u n
a a c
t a
u t
e mic N
p e
b s
c r i r i t
e h
a t
t e
in u d e
e h
sh t
r s
n s d p
et o
r nl d
n 5
e o i
t r p n
A e
e o a
o uy nP r e
l it t
c f
s sh a
w: n a
o o
n t
t of n
pc e
r On r
s a
i s
c o
u e
t xl e
e s
r u
eb P
r il d
t a
(
c l
u l
e pr a
p h
md n
e e
o t
i a
s 0
y pl r t
u e u0 ia bf 9
t a o e
sf s
s e
0 l
i O
Ua r
v 5
a r
or 99 e
t e
e u
1 t
s t
i t
o Sd i
ir e QrCCm c
t 1
I n
d Eu A0 2
r n
r e
i b
a m
L
'A e
tpe S
92 l
l if f
s d
r e
o n
o t
a f
c n
n i
n l
e a
l e
e t
t l
i a
c t
s S
r i
m m
e e
s t
s d
p n
s u
a o
e c
e r
w n
T r
b g
i e
a a
c
)
d p
f u
t d
l l
a a
l u
f a
a a
t o
o e
y s v
u no s
b o
e w
n i
l u
s n
l s
u d
a pN n
s i
o u
m i
s l
t i
e o
u n d t
o m
c f
o e
n i
o t
r d i
v e
w C
s o
o e
r c
r m
e e
d pf p
u y
c s
o e
r e
p c
o r
(
i s
t t
i c
t v
y a
oih o
a t
e r
e f s
u s
l r
i y r s
e nl e
t f
y g
i S
ul u
n o
e i
l e
a a
s b
n R
e mn q
e f
e g
f d o
t o
r o
e d r
e imi a
d e
l e
p u S
ogd l
l t
d p o u
c s
r l
d r
u a
e c e i
u c
o N
gh n d o
w a
s e
c A
nd e
a e w
s n
e s
a t
e h
s
,s e
u a b a
s t
t o
md w
a u
o l
s t
t l
s s
d y a
i w
n r
t l
at ri e
u e
i o
r i n
o a c b i
e o
v d
e r
t t
e u t
z a i
a d
e t
o s
a pl wt t
a c
x n
h Mm me a
t h a u
e a
e i
s n
n c
o t
o m
d e
a e
t s i i
r n e wa d f
P l
y yo mai s
s wa o
m t
O n
g gt o
e ef e
n r
r n r
g vf t
s l
i e o s
o s
u e
o e
ns s
a i
m t
a o
vl t
i n
ei n
c g wd e a a
9 i
Ef ma a n r
l s
r 9
ra m
~n Mitoid a
o e
9 op s 1
z wp n s
d s i e
a l
s e
1 e
o r
e a x o
a i
HLdoiG s
2 i
Re S Uc T t
t r
s i
e l
a b
i m
U W-t e
tpe S
o 0
3 l
la y
v mn a e
s e
h e
h m
b wr eo o
d nr r
l f
u oo n
e odd wer i
l o
b sbro i
i t
s a
s d oc
)
tr o
nt n
l o
o p
adi a
s i
t pd s
e e e a
lt er s
s e t
n i
a m
n z df ra wn i
f m
ai eh o
l s
n d yo o
rl l
t a
a n
C i
i a c k y a
amn c
dl ei n
s t i o
t t
o y
r a
o t
b n u
n nt
(
v a u
o t
c a
e e i
et om M
l a ml u
i s
Nb t
l e
g a
d m pss e
a yr a
d s R
r ohl e o c
oen l
t r
of d a a c c
oso a
e sp e
pl mia u
tid n l
a f
l Y
u c
r s
s e a s c l
ob m
od u
i s
e N
i prl s t
n t
A nl i
oe u ai n n l
i s ab e
o a a s
l r
t t
ms ct a h
S s
t n
l sd si e ei o
/ei i
r shd nd e
f t
t s n dl f wa a
v n
e et d a ni a e/a o
c a nd a o nps n
i t
ns add
,i t
a n s r s as a
h rdl ad oig oe on rl i t
l n
uef nt t
t o a o pn e
an ef t
ob os al l
l ddo s
t r
at a t
e ei oi Wt wr oa P
O s
u s nl eh r
r o
t t
u et e a e gc d
ol s r l
Ric pwi e
/
t ocf m d a v v er s
c t
l r ooi e
l e
aot t
t d du nf t i l
s0 ae0 s s n et i f c a nf a
u r
z r ae e r on 9
giio9 t
t i cc0 f
- i c c el e l
l f t
r 9 i
a5 a a ap pl e nie 1
a drl g0 oppmcmd mol do o
u o7 mmoo 1
a t
SLt o S N A A mh e
2 l 8OI I r
o o
e b
i l
B F
me tpe a
S
1 g
3 t
n la n
it e
c n
d m
e o
luy l
ig
'o l
n o d
o e
oc nr wl a
p i t n
tnm t
i t
a c s c
i i
t ee trl t e n ml c
r oia l
e a
i psdpr d c yt
)
o
( r oo nnmd e
l t
n t
ya aii 0p pf o
r r r
0 i
mo n
s ot oe r t z o 4,1 s
i et ei c 2<
n m
t a
i o
sd gm n
f n ne m
oa no oi oc o
pv ai i r C
c e e mi t
t i
t l e
y
(
rNamt nu cp r
a u
o e
d t
es t
r7 a
r r
e h
o o mr t
l oet s
u s
f s
p yd n
t 5
g t
e a
ad u e s ol oo R
s e a c n u
ct l
r a
e eb cl a po t
a r
n n e
rdpt mw oe r
lc r
c ul ng e
i u
6 t c at ui n y
ar N
A s
o r0 t e e
0i s o d
c 7
ml o0 r p h
a t 2 o
t 8d y o
p1 n r a i
t rd s n s
r t
n u a o ge oi n n o
t od p g a a e
s ol i
i t
f s r e e
rh a
eb c a oope r n t t n
t h
i p
n s k r e
r ks rf s s
e ;s c a u a s e
t uo e r
e r
r e yi e ct el P
n p
oe ct t l mpc O
s c a ai e s
od oed my sk e
n0 eyi nte) me ot l
R a 0 ib t
r n s
ytaf u 9
br0i r oac t
e o 9
e mrl meo atu5 v ai c
l 9
ied eiipi gc 1
r s ot n u osd mt t
n c
iEieEays 1
uit t
n rb D0AtaS 2
t r
l c
e u
o m
b C
S e
t pe S
i j
2 3
f o
r n
o s o
e yl i
r g
t y
o e
r s i t r
n oe f
o e
ni h
i l i
c me t
t
)
u n
c o n i
r t
t s
e n
s t
n t
s e
s t o
c ci s
i n
o r
s c
u as i
o pb m
o u
l ms m
i s
a e
i o
r h
C c
r et y
(
y c
si r
o i
r w ro n n e
ta t
e l
o vs u
s ci d n g
is s t e
a o
a a o R
r s
p or d r a
t r
e e
o ne e
r la p a p c
l r
m us h r uN s n go A
o a
e i
r i
f vr s
h h
t s
t n
d e
o o
m yo t
t r
ei l i n
t t i s o et o
r t
a c v t
e i
t ei cf e
al a
pt e
c n u t
h n
c f r op i
e x a f o t
o s
e e
s i t
e t
n y
u r p rP s
o e r J
o e O
t s ol pm ci r t t
a a ei a
o s
t r o pt s
v r
o n
pc mo cd p e
s n 99 p iat e
mi i
i 9
d s
wn e wr n
1 e
oa h
o e o ow 1
Nlo 2
r t
h r
s Lt Lt i
s r
i v
e o
e n
m b
.A E
N e
tpe S
P
3 3
s le w
n o
n l
a e0 h
b8
)r 5 d
c n
e a w a
g e
n o
s o a
yl l
n r(
e c i
l t
)
ia ed r
pl wu n
t d
e r
o t
et i
i s
s
)
e y
l n
&d e
pn s
i o
m e f l i
a t
o sd l
c m
n ei e
r n
ul o
i C
a e c n mia c
n a
e r
r l
y p
r mr
(
o d e 0
e t
ob 8
p oo a
l s
oy4 rf u
n f
g s
e l
le oo f
a t
r R
t e a nk g
e e a
r e
oi0 l
n f y e
5 l
l i
dl 2l e5 uc r
ni
( u r
N wd r
c2 A
a a
e s
r h
e s n
gn a 'r 0 e t
o 1
v r
r ai me o
t e
7 o n
h t e
n o
a di 0 s e
i c
t a
a e e g
2 e
n t
r n r
h e
n 3 r e
i nl aE t
e f a se t
o r
d wt oc P
e O
i t
l a
yt ah a
cl S
wp e
f n r
a yf o o
a r a )r t
g ei r
g 9
i t
sd d o 9
ol y
l i
9 d
oa/
h r l
a 1
d pvt d
t o
e ef y
mA i
1 d
S( RNc Wh r
2 a
re y
b m
H e
tpe S
43 y
e l
l t
a s
9 u
a
.n 9
w o
9 tn a
i e
ed t
1 a
v v
a c
,d e
vA 3
a i
t d
c e 1
v d
e n
aN t
o e
uN s
a if s
d o o
gd g
a p9 u
n n
la n n s
r e o9 r a ol a r 9 A a
o t
i i is ot p et P
1 s
l t
n s
vS d
a i
d m
n ui e
e e
n Y
i e
m l
e h 6 h
o n
d oo h
t t
s i o
mMyh t
s i t
n C
r g
h l
a a R
oini ub nl y
t g
u p
or d a t
hi wu ph n c t
is ed t
s a
A u
oh n gA a c l
i i u
y w
g p t a
n ni s
e gY t
i n
e l
i r
gyd oi
,t R
M t
nl e
c b d n r
l t
r o
t a
e a
oe a
a a f i
e i
m i
l e y r n c
l l
r c
r s
oo ob a
i e
u pi r
u pm N
M po t
v ot c
t p
pat o e
s
,i a
a s
n n t
e n c h
go p
a oh f e c o
t U
n p mt rl e
n o
ml t
i t
n i
t e
f uf o
e mb i
o c r mof o
t c
u it u c S
a op i
ri r
s r s
d t
tn g
e t
a t
e o
c t
e e
t c e c
t s
s n o al a
u N c v e
g pc pb i
r l
o o n
i r
P l
mie b e u
c e o mn r
c i
i t
t u
f gl e
s e
o t
s s
pr i
a l
i l
l n
a d
g s
s a
a yo e
s t
gi e
9 i
i s
at 9
t t
p t e
c n n
ns n
a R d
s 9
s ai e
e e
g 1
wl 0
s ps t
t d t
a a
n o
ml o
on o
1 r
8 i
2 I
c P
P a P
S e
1 t S
r I
e e
d I
E n e b
E e
D DF Am me tpe S
53 V
V N
N TU
,y e
V
,y O l
N t
V O
l C M i
a N
C V
V
,s s
VN a
e s
t r
e e
N n
g k i
g n
v n
e e
a u
t i
c V
L o
n e
n o
t s
L n
t e
n s
e s
o i
l l
i i
a D
e u
r a
a t
ss r
C R
A C
L S
S i
6 m
9 1
1 7
9 1
3 0
m a
/
/
/
/
/
1 1
2 o
1 1
2 2
2
///
C e
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
yr I
o t
a I
luge c
R ra i
e l
l V
cu b
N N
e u
C h
,y t
e D
o P
t A
l n
la V
V A
n C
o i
V N
N G
t o
a t
t S
g e
n a
s p d D
V e
a n
n s
l i
e I
og mi
,N I
t i
e r
n h
P P
H a
s r
u f
e a
e a
r d
s y
l t
n mh o
o E
A Wo l
i l
D a
A P
G B
L 9
1 6
99 7
0 4
5 1
2 2
4 9
2 3
/
/
/
/
/
/
1
/
/
0 0
0 0
0 1
9 9
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
re b
m e
t p
e S
ll lll
oA
- +/
g}f 6
N 3
y N,
.i a
Y d
fi o
$h 4;
+
d T
- iA
!s
@@s
/
R
%'S i
s 5"EgA t
1 no n
yN i
j s
jd s
e
?}i 4
m i
ar jh m
v jA@d g
s o
"'o C
H y
N, 8
r 5
o 99$
t a
1s lu f
2N I
ge o
0I R
ts ra e
\\
hh l
e 3M c
h$
uN n
2E 7f e
9$
o, h
i 9I t
1[
o l
t cdA N
a n
e o
fI i
ta m
- c t
5, n
0 ese l-t A r
iT WI P
5;;go 3
9'10 L,
Pi$
%N 6l 9
p;5aA 9
fJ 9
1 jteA 2
c 1
hb r
Y r,
e
$kA
'o m
b 6
9'1 A e
t 1
p 7
ts e
S
- k fI iD T
6 e
v-g A
.i 4
3 4
f PI}
M i
l A
x 7
f g
g Q
Q.'
i.,[_
./'
3
!)/
Le 6i esg 8
4 ep e
e H
.e 2 7 i t m-h p ab h O hl gg R & *W h a %w/
nM (Q 7
.c l@g %
m
- p. pi h
- O
%\\
,! ;g
..-llll L:: M gg s a 4
g
/ w.
. ' lw
- * '?
L QQ t
~
en A
?
N C
ele +,% 5
",q Q
g.1 Q
e,.
g a
4 s,,
.y b
U ! m>
NOQ 3."
l p-
.e ph.e.
s h
k qD u
g w
e
-: c y
l Q
'O LLI g ' Q lt 5
/
4 To 4
A,
$e g e,n o.p%
eg c_
mum
.c k Q,$ 3 fj/ f.
- g. e
'.5.E.
M%
vi
'~U O
i
%s, o (9 1, ve n
I 6
-s g
Lp;., :
j.
ah-O' A
w.
h&@ (p G.$
0,}4g kj t
y 9
a n
z.-
2 00 o m 4
e e eo i:
fj ti Q.
,0 em
- t-M J
J
.L.
oI O.J jir _
ib 3
s
e d ts n ea u aWo 2
0 c
r 1
lpog f
0 r
2 mt e Enden m
n *n ioo t i s
t 5
ca 0
uz ri t r 0
e2 so 2
nh otu C A no
- 2 t
00 s
2
/30 e.
l i
M 1
00 2
/
a.
7 s.
y 1.3w.>mg&w
- 9.,Q y
0 a
w-r i
(:.
4.,,,
QMm.s,.,L.n%p;q.;y^y
h$'Oq${y(i yg wi f y e.+.y b,
r
- k. wh.g
\\,lJ ;(y r
qy-
. v;n fcy t :r
$j:a -
Tgwa?p;w5-SAq%*-
o N
j; p;-
m, J
c
'.$.pp{3 gypeg 8
?
- e2 x 9
A
- p
- p t
/1 99 ye;
. n
- $J wg,yigwq 9t
- un^,,m pg;-
j i
/
7pw 's4g@gm yW.?
. jj.
r;y:, w&m q 7
5 R
s h.$l'o ?f.i Ay&g:.,:
0 s gbf
/
J;+ni.n gw nhy- >
?t46p y yd.s;%
o Kgga,gl thi; b. g
?
yt1g:gI?lQ;"ghq%_
',5Tkp :i P gw c,.ngWQ( y t
p i
,I lj,.
?:
s A
Mf;sNs?;yc,.
r.-
3igy n
ynw,.,a g:$v 8
ye h(ipr +.
9 f
im e
/
t i
a h-o 9
l 1
isbs i
p s,w;gN df(Ts.Na:s&nr; mD ei.
Mt;n1,%.M.p i
ae
/2
,.+.
Vs R
C h, Qg,myvg s
1 i n L'.m.4':e, y
- p+c [l$;w:
j-.fg A
$l r
. 7?
n 2
.g.1 A
,,i.'
r.
yS.rg,w%w;mg~3Qg-
} ;v -
-.w r
. 'Q' m.
lu t.
.wy o
P,. ym.Am. q mW; Q u. s.
l' l
e d
e-r d -
e 4 p. >.
' x,m',.e tsnt
+
h
..i,.
ae c s
c jm T' ;rt WmA
,s. " v 7
?
a a
s 89 ras ffd},s} &,
tr t
o a
1 eyn p
,+ -
ce Mn l
p c.,.; 11 lcim u
t uo s'
s p
P
~
t p
m e
,w+
h $w '..
e :r +It,pm {s ~
t y
b 1
s.
g
)
.e d
b
. m1 d
u u
(
3
, y ' Q.e C" 7~
- ~
, : r, t. l-d 2
p :. $ t (g~
n a
p e
~
K>
't MaVa,.wy#g-A e
t
- n. y.3 d
st ac 6. e S v ..U WA fne o C 2 r 8 r y p R 9 aic p N el a 1 lcP is o u e N it s f l*
99 /42 B 3 fta rD 0; 0 ' v. e eR d r ma ry u P HS cA t u_ 1' r fl('4N':;, L-i h Y t OO S U no i ta dn no ,n e ,o it i a St d a m \\m n a .n e m m Nm= m oce / n. R o c e R s e ^- i ,,A s n e o ss s t a, p t .e m cc p e ma n i ts ) y u wt b .m S Cu ( S r yp co r r e a f e 1 e ",e r tor en 2 m Po e B lal a e Z g p u d a go mmd e d e 'eets te S e RM A r has OS u yr P a e ee r s m !: l t C g lee a R r c a s c n u o ton E sNP n' TU N ccA R CR S SRM P P SETU R SZ BE NP
ll ll i ll 4 eY ru m tcu r t S '!~ E n ~ L o R [ r 7; i t n a u C i y c !+W ASSUR'ANCE h i w 6 l ( .? p %+ ~ 4
- OUALITY
' ~ p w, g u 1 t c A u n ^ d J }f = ir f e e o e r r i e Q ig n u P lsn l n og y R E s y, t g i c s o n s oD o s e l e 8.:?. e . J..a P c d n n r n h A,. i S e,. c oa c ic e e f
- A a
i c T t / p L l t a p r an De )b u ( t i a N c c e 1 2 c iS c p s n S !4 e 7 a e C B R ic N S
1 x..!> J I liti11 a 1 '3 l j jgM5 - i-*j. ji s 1 Jji .)
- j. jr 3
j 3, il I il l' 3 a II;a. ~
- ll' N
} a 1. 3 7{i j e hn ' h 3 g .aj s a 5 w.3}) a t y t i j c. h-fjl}l ~ h i \\ +1 3 f w ri jp' 1 1 ~$1 4 .s I O) .( E e ,,) .9 gi in! f!j ........:..] l~ ~ h. ^ h ij f i y Nj [ ju (( 31 a i 6 aj. n a 4, h! L g,1 i! a I i 3 ( 1 y-e la 'I ;> l!Il i a rn a g> U s .ij k E lN 5]ddi 9 -[$ I i
- il I
I i, h , j! c e .t* a e L_.____---._.-_.....
~.
- l,,
- ,.. :l: -s f
\\ c. s. a c i m u e c. m t he at i' m O i nS s-c nc, a e e n r -. M & y. vr 'y", = 4**' ' eh SR v~ 4 t m o. a W n o ~ i yt s e a r V %m lt la m [ t e ts v s e n s W A n S o y 6 a h c y 4 u b a 7:::. a, w k h r g eo = a i =' p H =" .of e ** -
- . f.
tc e e t R a = e t r s u% t r o e ./ f n t ..J,< n 6
- 4. 9' U
e" I d ?p, '**j',.,, / '~ o. s S. l o .r =. _ m. b U i my e e a m,Il S h y a r. t r o se s ,/ m
- w,~
'( Uu u t ,C m n s o 2 u W 2 S i t a S ~ le r n ..y, i n i a e i. t te t f l :: fI . ~ y h dsfe n ynys u r t a o r ty dse a e o nnlla gl t lahe a roi awVmVt M o s = dy nt a, n teot y ta a i b s r s k s f. t a s o edet c rkx ar i dL aco wYWl s \\- iPi i ioWfu c nl pnr laaa t p ewes u ea r t er v ehroha Y n gn ts z o t e t ine cNrf a ft e h arm iF f e eflc d ti laitt codnNou n Ne n o c n e o rdt de e onr ene atUstt a r a.nsn s ii nau h gv ~ mt t oae a nn r d leSepwp e n d .. f,a cPt lFTer ih oe e ts ee v ois eis s t IEE [ i h ve s i r ti ct E e s hst e eie g t h yd E a r hMg i nOmf O r !l e l o y 1 .//, de n el e dtta D.d erN D r i s ha a en tVe e N.b stce d l s d i es d de aAv n r e o n ko o s uWw p a n et Wt f or s ivs l HW a, cCn inaitv n e ct e e e l a e eo se aF i i gr a r l c .hs c spM su cnhned y r yo yf s sl a e a H d '*- ta rdot a ait g w m a e e n nh n era ns h A' e N tiada' al u s n cl r tin S a n ** I nle m f Y Su et wig v sr I e no o po h o dE m d ** EtnimsE te C ^ s 6es* ee n I e hetgeaO e, TSD* hl t ar sTpe a m, ,.w , e i E e. s h D t D t r s 0 r mt Ot e 1 c a: CN DN n o o t 9 w* + I S l er ug iF
(... l ipJ)' h3 i! i 1 ~ " - 4.3 } } "))* ' ' ~ ,j .. j g ~ .fi n j g p - h
- j 3,
g ll - j ~' i,jal I ~ + e 4; j p 1 e 1 t ,I s 1 y :.n.;}. k a F-L., y ?\\ - ,}. LjjJ n, f }( '] I g e 1 3 n J u l
- 4..)
S h I h \\: 9 I i 1 t. a g 1[ a 2 3 s y J gj H i 9 sp[ 19 2a 3 h* l{al p3 is{:f I i,jij. j l .5 .i L g i e iii i 8 e 1 ff j i d: i ,i 1 a 3 Ji 1 a jN i = 1 ai B al, E as sk .81 i s s Q e w l. f ( l
o.- Summary -..-.. Oregon l idaho I li! gi 1 i y:. i 'f welte s l Winnemucca 8 sa,.co,sy Elko Ri I.l g# ,f ' ' g g l Carnn 83 os we / i / ,./ Coaa'\\, l l I i y s~ / % gg-g I . - - P*wia.'_at -./ ' cerim earndor l l aiuw cower (520 kilometers)i ge i sf, l 5, s i Reno - ,. allon Ausen ilreka l
- '/
s ) e Cab. * \\ \\ l l W [.g, g.L**v. E.'.""* couniy _', (' N gr r' N i, 2::;, L, x 'N ")i \\ cau.nw oo.r.e. tis.er N, _ l se,no isinnom r) i I, \\ l Warm i ./ Spnnos l s \\, Tonopah 8 / r-- l g N 7 ' / Calknte-Chalk Panaca b8W hoountam corndo! l k (348 2**hr') Cahente 4 summune Caliente potentialrailcomdor coidrield, Nellis A e siko u ammuuns Carlin potentalrailcorndor Q g j muusumi Caliente-Chalk Mountain potential rail comdor g i Alamo un='un Jean potentialrailcorndor l T,'; unsuses Valley Modified potential rail corndor [ l l ucca '\\, h"'"**M - Variation of the Caliente and Carlin potermal rail comdors y esguite Vanation d the Caliente and Amirrgo ( e Caleonte-Chalk Mountain valiev is I comdors potental rail \\ l Variation of the Carlin potential rail corndor r Vanation of the Caliente-Chalk
- "*!,U**d
.s yM**.m j Mountain potentialrailcomdor tiss kilom.iere) t Vanation of the Jean potential rail comdor N outoer Vanation of the Modified Valley Cny / j,w,n, 8 potential rail corndor Jean i \\, /k Jean corndor ++++ Existing rait line (isi kiiommes) @ Interstate highway N \\ \\ 6 U.S. highway % Statehighway 40 o Mii.e N Distances are approximate. so o so xinom.iers To convert kilometers to miles, multiply by 0 62137. Figure S.13. Potential Nevada rail routes to Yucca Mountain. S-26
7'O s snt n g s. e a yo . o n yv a c. tiit at 7 ~. s e h t tw . tau a o w 3 i rhm 1 r fm . o ge 2 w .pdit 6 t a e .nv o a s r adaode y 6 t aT eT p a t r r r r n b e af v pv a. s m doof a e n3 y at o N g0 vnd s1 n W ip eennMne7 t u h Nmaefi o c9 m, s rt mcs 3 d n nt W ia i pgapnluR s aht etd r n s e e s ei p u t oF W e m cC s tDe o n w et b e u u n arDap 9 n o o hu a n e n rde ttsd i 4 o Wh a efi n M luvodsk an s y ava i iy n wl ol t vi r t a a e aic e s M e n c hNf vmu e t wt u c - o er rN k te igia lo a o u ye et c NHRF ScY attne e a v h s N pl m u ow u t uf a r ey l hb ehuh t e l = - la ep d l e mT s yt isvt a r l n d a s t u A itind b. ass e a g l v ssde e n h-L toeraorh u o e et duh et n o o c y PifldoowfTr o v T ae h m = A r s o EfI n f / P i a o c z a a n d n e a a n j v a 3, 'I '( 3 )'}' e
- "s e
s p a N a r. n a \\""== gs n c 9 l o o l r _s n o = M n
- 2. k uo i
c x dh oa s mo e c m r I.t1 rl t W i \\ i s sn a o u t W M 'v a no o g2.t7 ie g nm r ', J_ e atu g e l Jr a 7 /e t em nf i 2 \\ha s t a n r n S 4 St e k t , 3 o o k n 8 p M" _a~4 i d s i g 0 H n a T' n s ng N o s i a t in r a di \\ np c IS o l N n ~'IlI ll jl N o _>I
- I I
N ita i t s 7 re ,l t fs e n WW n .it N' a n r S y t a ,e %t %l s s l e la a J T V d e s. o \\ n s c* u n o' r o s e F "" t r n A" i i 4,k _c l 5 0 a 7 c i o 7 w s tn r N e 0 t 7 o o J P s J i o J@ le i i 7 N d 4 o o 1 = l l3 i(' -S \\%[L l o e s i< i r o u ~ g \\ F i ~}}