ML20217F355
| ML20217F355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/22/1998 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-T-0122, NACNUCLE-T-122, NUDOCS 9804280138 | |
| Download: ML20217F355 (230) | |
Text
i ,
f' h $ffi -
bMQ,f '
NP M E
$Pk pg fl ITQf Syj y $..
. mrt% I , a n gm en _.
%,,,,_@[
% #p f' [' '7 '<Ty $3$! Tds . _
e siins
?$1h hj l { [ }
g gl f&W
[] (
l q
Ek h fl b g hhbh Q*w 1 -
A!$N .; l
-m + 9%<, - U
? -
kb ty $h ,
l lf ; ,,
D
~
-- m'_N u J( j ! me I J
(
f }
$ Q% eiMkdE e '
"*!*"I M M[ji-[;([g[kg__ l j Q
!iJidh i "gygM))sjJ!
l j ,
,. fl ,
h '
TRO8 (ACNW)
.mu%mp
% 5fP "
$9 d a G muo
}R},C pp ;
c ,
- ==-
M/S T-2E26 k =
.%/ .'a p8u ;
415-7130 h IN dni '- THANKS!
Ik , y rgs I
[ 1
! #!L q '7 l Bl 1 M -
O esa il m+ t e$ 4 !WE ~
re En g+ g P-Quam:[1j]%y?
i
~
'"X i in
}ipy n n -
%a - = - 1 lb :~ -
l WQ2 &j~~
e ; ( }< g& j g
lg gg$aggd$ N =g$y}d$a , g 3
g q Ji&= " * -
- gg4 l
Jg q
J3 j
' sc.
" T.
l I
s
- m, ,.
388' T-0122 86s l8sL PDR 1 "/ h
? -
- y. p i
L my W? ?wg :W , >O j g
jy .& . l i
1, hk Y gg&g .
- w m
,ws4 :
ysp k g f
3] [j = = Wj$d@gd
e wwp ; a us a _
m x .- -
Y 4
, - c k.
gts.;mggcggg'y %F$' IXIETRANsCRIFI' OF PROCEEDING
- 1 > 1 % .
^[w
~
..'y'-
,1 "
r , y
^'
. y y G,&l.: ')
e; r6,.,s % '
T' *,_
+ .\r U 1 1
' N@w* ,
( ' ,~,C .,
T ': >,
' 'qf, b',- -,0 e . S e... / <
> tlK? >,
y'.y'1 at . < g,. -.G
'**4 -
C a
f ; . , 'z E ,'.4 j
yy '
1 e i e#: -g 4 /,
";(. l 5
, , g ,
JQ,
+ dI4 ? *? NUCLEAR!REGULATURY$0MMISSION' ,
~2 m
2 .
b
, a%' N ,. , , ,
?NlW!O"5.h r W Od < s s'
%-l . ' ?
,t .~ i ;;p *1 ,
~ ~
L mg f%7, in, lE w'o O ADVIS - u RY,SOMNitTTEE ~ ,
ON?NUCliEI,RlWASTEL -
+ - .
ra a x, f - ,
w e u, k. e,><: , *<
. - ~ -
, 4 g p. 9 + 'e r
sh
,p ,
, 2 ~ i , .. o
' Q.';;'y. jU rp % '
z-Q: s .jf z .f% . W< M ., <
^
. , .g , , . . '. ; L
. . . ,\?>r . >
y.v .
, m .
E ,f$s ', /w~eTitle:,L NU'
, l. , (
,g
/.;j s i
, i HM 0.100TH.A.DVISORY/. 'y COMMIT. TEE ONA. .
,9 i.
,.Ew 1
' ;1
\ &. '
'l
, 4 '
p+. s i.v .. ? d . .- ,e
- ~. . . \ . . . i :? ..a Wl N e%g 7N.UCLEAR WASTE..(ACN~W)lMEETING1
.m ,
. s ;
= ~ .
~~
v
- m? y)fly! :! .
tj; 7,m q , . ,
,) ^ ._ ; , !Y '
.m i
., f l
n ,
V /E t .' W' O ' .
_ , %e!h '
, p ,
(m .e
- ,, -$(
R-3 de TRO8 (ACNW) f
. ~. n. i W ,. .yg, , & s .
s %., . .. x - pR ,
RETURN CRIGINAL
{ Docket Non g.f%gf ' ' , s : >
w, -
,s. To sawa1TE , -
M ,/.
p.
4 M/S T-2E26 SJ '
s.
% 'd - ~
415-7130 74
?!( $ r,4. % + ', -
,m l' M', THANKS!
- *- > 8 :v , ,
c '
A/
- cc.. Tw' oi, y kTOEde, r
- No'.::L yASB-300-249M,gg ,
u,.: , +. .4 '
a, ;
h> J.yh e. ,
4 s @ f, ,
,' # '~ ~'
- k. - ,
- n. , , ,
w: ,.
j$ @ Of:sM .
w d
? ,
, + <
i [r p4; ;_; ;N.'
4 v c t
1'; %,~g s[
I ',,.). .k .
, n[r a'
? g I
t ,.W"- 3',
ms I,. '
s -
f i
.t 3 ; - s a
- p+.
g' h '
i ,
, JJ.-j m'
- j .. . e
. ' ' ' 1},.p .
n 4
, d
~- +,
D'
- b l , q f l .; -
}
yR:Mj ...s f. - Q * ' 4 M Di dN I' , YO 1
,1 5 .i, pf MW a i
s'>'
- 1
' #3: '.
M *
, y ' ' <
L m,g ,j;,,$s).]
e
-. qn
, ym.. y< U.f., , ... : ( .
- r. . .
, , s
< ~~
,1 7 ;J a ' . y'
,e y
y [ ._ p..u4,3 <
s r, j, MM , 1 i
mw gtre s ;,: ,
s - '
<; p~ , s *if
_l '
[N t m, s .
p, 4 LOCATION: ' ,-
Rockville, Maryland .
/ %. , ,
3 ,- iN Y 'i om g i_sqq-i .. .
y , ?DATE: ~ Wednesday, April 22,1998 - PAGES: 160 - 360 4:Aj ,
p,,,+ ,
AIl ..h l G ' "
%.p j{dy , NO * ' ,.i w,
- t,r 4
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ]
M.W# 1250 i Street, NW, Suite 300 4
M j i
Washington, D.C. 20005 ;
~M s (202) 842-0034 '!
- w. c .., e- ,
w ... ;
. T6b C .
~
. "ACNW OFFICE COPY-RETAIN FOR I SBI yy - n.,i d40Ub[ .x~p RTHE UFEOFTHE COMMRTEE. {
u m_ nf,;; , ,
gng:'WWh[d"RP jpg i
y p[.e,;w %;g
- t a
II l O
DISCLAIMER f
l l UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S !
! ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE APRIL 22, 1998 i l-The contents of this transcript of the' proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory
( ) ~ Committee on Nuclear Waste, taken on April 22, 1998, as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
l l This transcript-had not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies. l l
1
\
l
l 160 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
( ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 3 ***
4 100TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON 5 NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) MEETING 6
7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory _ Commission 8 Two White Flint North, Room 2B-3 9 11545 Rockville Pike 10 Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738
! 11 12 Wednesday, April 22, 1998 l
13 14 The Committee met pursuant to notice at 8:30 a.m.
() 15 16 MEMBERS PRESENT:
17 B. JOHN GARRICK, Chairman, ACNW 18 GEORGE HORNBERGER, Member, ACNW I
19 CHARLES FAIRHURST, Member, ACNW I
20 RAYMOND G. WYMER, Member, ACNW 21 22 23 24 i 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034 l
161 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 SHER BAHADUR, Waste Management Branch
(
3 WILLIAM R. OTT, Waste Management Branch I 4 THOMAS NICHOLSON, Waste Management Branch l 5 JACOB PHILIP, NM 6 PHILLIP REED, Waste Management Branch 7 LINDA VEBLEN, Waste Management Branch 8 EDWARD O'DONNELL, Waste Management Branch 9 RALPH CADY, Waste Management Branch 10 11 12 13 14
) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
162 1 PROCEEDINGS
() 2 [8:30 a.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK- The meeting will now come to 4 order. This is the second day of the 100th meeting of the 5 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
6 My name is John Garrick, Chairman of the ACNW.
7 Other members of the committee include George Hornberger, 8 Raymond Wymer, and Charles Fairhurst.
9 Today the committee will first discuss / review the 10 NRC staff's total system sensitivity analysis for Yucca 11 Mountain; discuss staff guidance being prepared for the 12 review of the DOE's Yucca Mountain viability assessment; 13 hear comments from representatives of the Nuclear Energy 14 Institute; and, continue our preparation of ACNW reports.
() 15 Richard Major is the designated Federal official 16 for the initial portion of today's meeting. This meeting is 17 being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the 18 Federal Advisory Committee Act.
19 Should anyone wish to address the committee, 20 please make your wishes know to one of the committee's 21 staff. As usual, it is requested that each speaker use one 22 of the microphones, identify himself or herself, and speak 23 with sufficient clarity and volume so that he or she can be 24 readily heard.
25 Because of some recording problems yesterday, we O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
163 1 are carrying over some business matters to today to bring
() 2 up. We want to do a couple of things. We want to note some 3 items of interest and, also, given that this is the 100th 4 meeting of this advisory committee, it occurred to us that 5 some sort of recognition of that in the record would be 6 appropriate. So we will also do that.
7 As far as items of current interest are concerned, 8 Energy Secretary Pena announced Monday, April 6, 1998, that j 9 he will leave his post effective June 30, to return to 10 private life. He said he will seek employment in private 11 business and will not seek an elective office.
12 The Senate, on April 1, 1998, approved a measure 13 consenting to a low level radioactive waste compact which 14 provides for waste from Texas, Maine, and Vermont to be 15 shipped to a site in Texas. The bill now goes to a 16 House / Senate Conference committee.
l 17 The Department of Energy says it plans to open the 18 waste isolation pilot plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico, by 19 May 29.
20 In a paper published in Science on March 27, 1998, 21 a contractor to the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory 22 Analyses documents observations of horizontal crustal 23 movement made over a six-year period by global positioning 24 system surveys of the Yucca Mountain region. The 25 one-quarter extension in six years -- that is about a
(
A' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
, 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l
(202) 842-0034
164 1 millimeter per year -- is about three to four times faster
(N than the average velocity in the basin and range province.
) 2 3 The researchers from Cal Tech and Harvard Astro 4 Physical Observatory hypothesize that the region is 5 undergoing a period of enormously high strain, which may 6 last another few tens of thousands of years. The
)
7 researchers suggest that the results of conventional 8 geological methods of determining the seismo-tectonic 9 hazards have underestimated the earthquake and volcanic 10 hazards that may affect Yucca Mountain.
11 That hypothesis is only one of several which must l 12 be evaluated and the significance of the results is being l
l 13 evaluated by methods of system performance analysis, under 14 development jointly by the Division of Waste Management and
) 15 the Center staffs.
16 Another news item of interest is that the State of j 17 Utah issues a draft license for Envirocare. In particular, 18 the Executive Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control Board 19 has made an initial decision to re-license the commercial 20 low-level radioactive waste disposal facility operated by 21 Envirocare of Utah.
22 In conjunction with this decision, the Executive 23 Secretary and staff of the Division of Radiation Control in 24 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality have prepared 25 both a draft safety evaluation report and a draft
( ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
%- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 ;
(202) 842-0034 1
i 165 l
1 radioactive materials license for the facility.
[~\
d 2 Today is -- at least this week is a very special l
3 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, as it 4 marks the commencement of the 100th meeting of the l 5 committee.
6 As we know, ACNW traces its history back to the 7 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the ACRS Waste 8 Management Subcommittee. The subcommittee and its
- 9 consultants reviewed relevant waste management issues and 10 prepared advice for consideration by the full committee.
11 The growth of the DOE's repository program, the 12 need to conserve ACRS' ability to provide high quality 13 advice on the accurate issues, and the need for a 14 substantially different expertise on the ACNW were the
() 15 principal reasons for establishing ACNW as a separate 16 committee.
17 These reasons were discussed in SECY-8791, advice 18 to the Commission on waste management program, and have been 19 periodically reviewed since, with the underlying reasoning i 20 still determined to be valid. j 21 Since the inception of the ACNW in June of 1988, j i
22 it has provided more than 130 written letter reports to the 23 Chairman of the Commission. Those reports have covered a l i
24 very wide spectrum of issues, from highly focused reports on 25 topics such as considerations associated with groundwater ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
m -
166
(
1 travel time for the proposed high level waste repository, to I O 2 broader issues such as the elements of an adequate low level b
3 waste disposal program.
4 It has also tackled several rather thorny issues, l
5 such as the time of compliance for high and low level waste 6 disposal facilities. l l While not all of our reports have j 7 gained immediate acceptance by the NRC staff, we believe 8 they have provided the basis for good technical exchanges 9 and have contributed to improved overall understanding and 10 hopefully safety of the nuclear waste sites and activities.
11 Shortly after its inception, the committee 12 recognized both the need for additional in-depth information 13 and also its potential as a forum for technical interchange 14 and open discussion of the underpinning science, thus was
)
15 formed the working group concept, which, by devoting a whole 16 day or several days to a selected topic, significantly 17 contributed to the committee's understanding and to the 18 quality of its advice.
19 Recognizing that the challenges associated with 20 safe radioactive waste disposal are global, the committee 21 has hosted speakers from the United Kingdom and had a full 22 day of engagement with its counterpart committee from 23 Germany, the RSK.
24 In response to requests, members have addressed 25 groups in Asia and Europe, have visited our Canadian O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- V Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 167 1 neighbor's proposed disposal facilities at Panawa, and I
() 2 have presented papers at several conferences and meetings 3 aimed at addressing both high had low level waste management 4 and disposal issues.
5 The committee has encouraged participation in its 6 meetings by representatives of diverse groups and has had, 7 therefore, the benefit of perspectives from Native American i
8 states, affected counties, industries and other Federal 9 agencies, as well as stakeholders and other interested 10 groups, be they proponents or opponents of the topic under 11 consideration.
12 Full committee meetings have been held in Nevada 1
13 and the State of Washington and individual members have 14 visited relevant facilities in California, New York, and
() 15 South Carolina.
16 The committee intends to even more aggressively 17 pursue further opportunities as an integral part of its 18 outreach program, within, of course, the constraints of the 19 resource limitations.
20 We look forward to the future, fully espousing the 21 direction of Chairman Jackson as to both the relevance of 22 and the need for a risk-informed performance-based 23 regulatory structure. Our record in this area, we believe, 24 is loud and clear.
25 The real reason for this self-tribute is to pause, I
i O' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
168 1 recogni_e and express appreciation for the outstanding
() 2 dedication and leadership of the original members of this 3 committee; in particular, Dade Moeller, Marty Steindler, 4 Cliff Smith, Bill Hinze, and Paul Pomeroy, who have provided 5 a model of excellence for all of us to follow.
6 Finally, we, as a committee, want to publicly and 7 for the record express our gratitude and thanks to the 8 technical staff supporting this committee, which has 9 performed in an exemplary manner.
10 So with that, unless there are some comments from 11 the committee, we would like to proceed with our agenda.
12 This morning we're going to devote the time to the total 13 system sensitivity analysis for Yucca Mountain. The purpose 14 of this briefing is to review NRC's progress in conducting
) 15 total system sensitivity studies.
16 These studies are designed to elucidate the most i
17 important assumptions and parameters used in the NRC's total 18 system performance assessment code, TPA code. The scope of 19 this briefing will include an overview of the TPA code and l
20 conceptual modeling approaches, process level sensitivities, 21 for example, for individual KTIs, results for the nominal 22 case, including seismic and igneous scenarios, and system 23 level sensitivity studies, including alternative conceptual 24 models.
25 This review will provide a snapshot in time of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, I/I'D.
\~ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 1 (202) 842-0034 l 1
169 1 TPI sensitivity studies which are ongoing.
2 It is our understanding that no final conclusions 3 will be offered by the staff. Rather, they will provide
{
4 something of a status report on what has been so far and l
5 what they plan on doing in the near future.
6~ With that, we will turn the time over, I guess, to 7 Keith McConnell. Keith, I will leave it to you to introduce 8 yourself and the people who follow you.
9 MR. McCONNELL: Thank you, Dr. Garrick. I'm Keith 10 McConnell. I'm the Section Chief for the Performance 11 Assessment and Integration Section within the Division of 12 Waste Management. We appreciate the opportunity to come 13 back to the committee and update you on the status of our 14 TPA activities, particularly on the auspicious occasion of 15 completing the first century of meetings.
16 CHAIRMAN GARRICK- It just feels like it.
j 17 '
MR. McCONNELL: I believe we've been here for most 18 of those meetings. I am the first of five presentations 19 this morning, as Dr. Garrick mentioned. Mine is going to be
, 20 the briefest and it's designed just to update you, update j 21 the committee on the status of our activities. )
22 One thing you will note when I go through the j l
23 succeeding viewgraphs is that the'; probably look familiar l 24 and my concept was to keep the basic frame-work the same, so 25- there is continuity and, therefore, just update you on what l
l 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
!O Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
170 1 we're doing and where we are as of today, basically.
() 2. Basically, in over-viewing what we consider cur 3 integrated high level waste performance assessment program, I 4- we're using total system performance in three areas; one, to 5 develop the regulatory frame-work for high level waste i
6 disposal, that includes evaluating the implementability of 7 the proposed EPA standard, although the activity in that 8 area has been relatively minor in the recent past.
9 We are using our TPA, our knowledge gained in TPA 10 activities to develop a risk-informed performance based rule 11 and, as you're probably aware, we are actively involved in 12 developing that rule now, since we've gotten Commission 13 direction from SECY 97-300. And we're using the TPA work to
, 14 focus our review plan that would accompany the rule and
() 15 basically you'll see that, as I will discuss.it a little bit 16 later, in our TSPA methodology issue resolution status 17 report, which will eventually hopefully become the basis for 18 our standard review plan for high level waste.
I 19 We're using TPA activities to integrate and 20 evaluate the information across technical disciplines. That 21 includes evaluating the issues and sub-issues within 22 individual KTIs. We're also using TPA activities to 23 understand the influence of uncertainties on the compliance 24 demonstration or compliance calculation.
25 And as you're aware, having attended many of the i
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
)
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
171 1 technical exchanges, we're providing our feedback to DOE on
() 2 3
their preliminary TSPA/VA work. We've had three technical exchanges over the last year-and-a-half, I believe, and as 4 part of our TSPA/VA review, we're going to use our TPA 5 effort to determine the sufficiency of data necessary for a 6 license application.
7 Now, just to be a little bit more specific about 8 where we are and what we're doing. Again, this viewgraph 9 probably looks somewhat familiar.
10 In developing a risk-informed site-specific rule, 11 we're using the TPA activities to focus and explain the 12 regulatory criteria and we're doing that now, and it was 13 basically using our TPA activities that formed the basis of 14 the statement in SECY 97-300 that we intended to remove the
() 15 unnecessary and probably overly prescriptive design and 16 siting criteria in 10 CFR Part 60 that's currently in place.
17 Again, we're ensuring a clear relationship between 18 .the NRC acceptance criteria and the compliance calculation, 19 and that's, again, tying with the acceptance criteria in the 20 TSPA methodology issue resolution status report to the 21 compliance calculation that's being developed in the new 10 22 CFR Part 63.
23 And, finally, ensure that the implementing rule 24 reflects the site knowledge of Yucca Mountain in our 25 improved ability to assess performance over the past decade
(~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i l
172 1 or so. You will see that in 10 CFR Part 63,.the new high
() 2 level' waste site-specific rule and the IRSR.
! 3 In integrating the program within NRC, we've been l
4 using TPA activities in m&ny ways. We continue to upgrade 5 the TPA code to be user-friendly, to inc6rporate the design 6 features-that DOE is considering, and also to incorporate 7 more sophisticated knowledge. And we've done that. We've .
8 gone from 3.1.3, which we used to do the KTI level 9 sensitivity study, to 3.1.4, upgrading it to include things.
10 like the ability to assess cladding effects on radionuclide 11 release, and we're using 3.1.4 for the total system 12 performance assessment or sensitivity study.
13 Then, finally, we're in the process, as I will 14 discuss a little bit later, of upgrading it again for 3.2,
() 15 which would be used for the TSPA formal review.
16 We are identifying the key elements of sub-system 17 extraction, and that's in the TSPA methodology IRSR. It's 18 the lower tier in that three-tier diagram that we've 19 presented to the committee several times before. Conduct 20 the KTI level sensitivity studies, and you've heard about 21 that at the technical exchange and you'll hear more from Jim ,
22 Firth in his presentation later today.
23 And conducting the sensitivity studies for the i 24 total system to assess and confirm -- assess the importance l
25 of sub-issues and confirm resolution of sub-issues. We have l
[
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
173 1 used that to date as input to management in their budget 2 considerations in weighing which sub-issues are of higher 3 priority and which sub-issues are low priority.
4 So we've provided input to management in their 5 construction of our operating plan and our budget. '
6 Finally, the documentation of these results will 7 be in the IRSRs as they are revised in succeeding months.
8 Then briefly, to go over the feedback to DOE. I 9 don't think I need to cpend too much time, because you're 10 'well familiar with what we're doing in this area. We have 11 reviewed DOE's TSPA/VA plan and the preliminary information 12 that they presented to us at the technical exchanges and we l 13 have used 3.1.3/4 code to look at these and identify some 14 differing approaches in some areas where we believe that l ) 15 further study by DOE is necessary, and that includes 16 approaches in matrix diffusion. It also -- with respect to l 17 data limitations, the KDs for alluvium, which are very l
l -18 important as far as calculating the dose once it gets down l
l 19 into the Amergosa Valley area, and also the neptunium 20 solubility limits that DOE recently revised, i 21 We believe that there might be -- there is still a i
22 difference of opinion, I believe, on whether those neptunium 23 solubility limits are accurate.
24 Then, finally, the identification and treatment of 25 disruptive events. We have significant differences in how ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O\ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
174 1 we're approaching that, how we're approaching scenario (o
V
) 2 development, and how those scenarios will be included into 3 the final calculation.
4 We will use, as I mentioned, the 3.2 code to 5 review and independently evaluate the formal VA when it's 6 delivered by DOE and we will provide feedback on our 7 independent evaluations in the technical exchanges, the 8 IRSRc, and on the formal VA, on a Commission paper that the 9 staff will write after we get the VA.
10 Just to quickly run through the status of the 11 activities within the TSPA KTI, which doesn't include the 12 rule-making effort. Although it's still part of this 13 section's work, this only deals with the performance I 14 assessment activities.
7-~
\ ,) 15 The 3.1.3 code was completed. It was used in the 16 KTI sensitivity study and we're now migrating or actually 17 have migrated to 3.1.4. The KTI level sensitivity studies 18 are complete. We're going to combine them with the total 19 system sensitivity studies into a final report, which we 20 hope to get out towards the end of August.
21 You will hear a lot of that information -- well, 22 you heard some of it at the technical exchange and you will 23 hear more of it as we progress a little bit further today.
24 The completion of the 3.1, TPA 3.1 users manual is 25 close upon us. It's undergoing final review at the center, l
[~^) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\~/' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
175 1 doing their QA review. I believe we've provided a draft of
( 2 the users manual to your staff and we hope to train some of
'3 your staffs on the code up in the advanced computer system, 4 or CRADO, as it's now called, in the near future.
5 The 3.2 code, the users manual from the 3.2 code 6 we hope to complete by the end of September. It's basically l 7 just an evolutionary document from the 3.1 users manual.
8 The TSPA methodology IRSR is, again, very close to 9 completion. It's not quite in concurrence, but it will be 10 before the end of the week. So you should have a copy 11 within the next couple weeks, I believe.
12 The importance analysis is ongoing. We've had 13 some difficulties with that, because the senior people 14 involved have been hospitalized, both of them, over the
() 15 recent months. So we've fallen a little bit behind in that 16 area, but we continue to make progress and we still hope to 17 complete it, at least the conceptualization, in the April to 18 May time-frama, in time to incorporate it into some of the 19 thinking behind the rule-making that's now ongoing.
20 The KTIs will be updated in July, at least that's 21 the current schedule, and then the Commission paper on the 22 VA review.
23 So that's basically my presentation on the status.
- 24. CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thanks, Keith. Just a couple 25 of thoughts that might help the emphasis of the discussion ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s_ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
T' 176 1 as'we proceed.
() 2 3
I think one of the things that the committee is very interested in is something you mentioned; namely, some l
4 differences between the staff and the DOE with respect to l 5 important assumptions, like neptunium solubility, and also l 6 this whole issue of the approach that the two organizations i
7 are taking to structuring the scenarios that are under l
8 consideration.
9 I think, also, something that we'd like to i
10 telegraph up front that we're very interested in is how the 11 performance assessment work is impacting the whole KTI l 12 process, and there-are two things at least there. One is j 13 the KTIs themselves; has the performance assessment work 14 given us confidence that these are the key technical issues.
15 There is another issue, and that is that given i 16 what we now know about how to do performance assessment,
! 17 would we structure the key technical issues different than 18 they are now structured. In other words, are they a natural 19 outflow of the performance assessment of, if you had it to 20 do over, would you maybe characterize them slightly 21 'different.
22 So those are a few things that I think we would be i
! 23 very interested in looking for as the day progresses. I l 24 yield to the committee if there are some other things that i
25 may be up front here, acknowledging that we want to hear !
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
%_ Court Reporters i
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 t
177 1 about.
() 2 MR. McCONNELL: I would just respond that you 3 probably won't hear much about how the KTIs have been 4 re-focused today. The emphasis today is on giving you the 5 information that we've developed to date.
6 But I will tell you that we have used PA to 7 integrate and assess the significance of sub-issues and key 8 technical issues. But key technical issues and their 9 construct serve a broader purpose in the program.
10 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
11 MR. McCONNELL: So I think we're doing what you're 12 saying we should do, but as far as moving KTIs around, I 13 don't think that that -- because they have a broader 14 purpose, that will occur. But we are looking at the
( ~.
( ,) 15 sub-issue level and moving the sub-issues around, 16 identifying new ones or modifying the ones we have to 17 reflect the differences that we have with DOE as they relate 18 to the importance to the performance calculation.
19 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. The thing we continue to 20 ne looking for is the confirmation that this broader look at 21 the performance of the repository through the KTIs is, in 22 fact, reasonable and defensible. That's what we're sort of 23 aiming for here.
24 Go ahead. Excuse me.
25 DR. WYMER: I don't know whether anything more ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
178 1 will be said about the importance analysis, but that's
() 2 something we have a continuing and large interest in. So 3- insofar as.anything could be said about that, we'd 4 appreciate it.
5 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: It's hospitalized.
6 MR. McCONNELL: I think we'll probably have to 7 come back and brief you later in the year on that, once the 8 people on the disabled list are back to full speed.
9 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Don't they have laptops?
10 DR. WYMER: We think it's important.
11 MR. McCONNELL: They do. Okay. The next 12 presentation will be by Tim McCartin. He will talk to you 13 about the 3.1 code. Tim is the lead for the TPA activities 14 within the division.
) 15 MR. McCARTIN: Today I am going to try to give a 16 brief overview of the approach of the TPA code and some of 17 the things we're doing in the data. And by the stack of
.18 material I brought up, you can tell I could talk for the 19 whole day. It would be very easy to do that with respect to l
20 the TPA coda, although Dick, I think, has enough viewgraphs 21 also to talk the whole day.
i 22 And we won't try to prune our presentaticns dcwn l 23 and would seek questions on areas you're interested in, but 24 we have culled a lot of information down to a little bit. l 25 Hopefully we've hit the big things, but I certainly -- I l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
w/ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
179 l
1 know no one is shy here about asking questions. But we did
) 2 not attempt to present everything because it clearly would 3 get into too long of a presentation.
4 But in terms of the approach and hopefully based 5 upon, Doctor, your question in terms of the integration, I 6 will try to talk to some of the areas that -- where the KTIs 7 and PA are working together. I think although I'm 8 presenting this, trust me, there are at least 30 to 40 I
9 people that all worked very hard getting the TPA code 10 together. It is very much a multi-disciplinary activity.
I 11 I know in TA, I think we've been very happy with 12 the integration, for lack of a better word, with the other 13 disciplines in the other KTIs.
14 What I will try to do is show how what we've
/~^\
(_) 15 learned with the code to date and what we've learned about 16 what the approaches DOE is going to take in the VA, how 17 we're working with the KTIs to modify the code to 18 accommodate some of the things that we think we need in the 19 code for the VA and beyond.
20 In terms of overall the approach, the desire is 21 really to provide a capability and a tool and its 22 flexibility. What we have here is you will see as I go 23 through a number of different ways of looking at the 24 repository. There is a lot of uncertainty with respect to 25 which conceptual model is most appropriate to the i
[~
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
180 1 repository.
() 2 We want to have the flexibility to look at 3 different designs, as well as different conceptual models.
4 So we've tried to have developed a tool that's very flexible i
5 to accommodate a variety of approaches.
6 We certainly use a conservative model or data 7 range, as appropriate, to limit the development. There are o
8 some areas that if we see are very important to performance, l
l 9 rather than pursuing all those areas, we go to a 10 conservative approach or conservative data value. 1 l 11 I will try to bring some of those out. It's a l 12 constant effort between, well, maybe you squeeze one into 13 the balloon and the other then bulges out and you need to 14 tamp down a lot of different things,. but we are not trying
() 15 to accurately model all aspects of the repository. We're 16 looking at -- there are some key areas that we feel we need 1
17 to address adequately and those are the ones we're focusing 18 on.
19 We certainly are using site information and 20 laboratory experiments to the extent possible. I guess most l 21 important, in true PA fashion, we have a note and a caution, l 22 because it is important and I think we've raised this at the
\
23 technical exchange with DOE.
24 Yes, we have a computer tool, if you will, to 1
25 analyze the performance, but I think at this time, just 1 l
[T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i
\~ / Court Reporters #
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
181 1 because we are looking at a particular model, it shouldn't
() 2 be construed as a regulatory accepted model. For many of 3 these approaches, we haven't done any extensive experimental i
j 4 work, theoretical work to develop a basis for a license 5 application for that particular approach. That is not our 6 job. We are not applying for a license. We are merely l 7 reviewing it.
l 8 We want to have a lot of different possibilities j 9 to look at to try to get a better understanding of the 10 uncertainty, but just because we use a particular KD value 11 or particular model in the TPA 3.1.4 code, it certainly 12 can't be construed as an accepted approach to come in.
l 13' Certainly, all the insights and assertions are l 14 preliminary. We're still in the process of modifying the
() 15 code. We're still analyzing the results, et cetera.
16 With those caveats, let me go to how we look at 17 Yucca Mountain and from a very simple standpoint. We have l
18 the repository broken into a number of sub-areas. Each 19 sub-area has a one-dimensional stream tube, if you will, 20 with different layers for the different' units in the 21 unsaturated zone, which goes down to the water table.
22 Then there is a saturated zone stratigraphy, going
- 23. out to some discharge point, where there is a receptor.
24 It's a fairly simple view, although there are a lot of
~
25 processes that are incorporated into the repository; also, l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
182 1 the unsaturated zone and saturated zone.
() 2 For our particular approach, we're using seven 3 sub-areas. Why seven? It was a combination of efficiency 4 and also looking at the stratigraphy in the unsaturated 5 zone, in terms of where we were trying to represent some 6 aspects of the pinching out of particular layers in the 7 unsaturated zone. It accounts for that variation. Also, 8 some of the seven sub-areas have variation in terms of 9 de-percolation and variation in temperature and humidity 10 with respect to the thermal aspect of the repository itself.
11 We do use a representative waste package for each 12 sub-area. There is degradation of that waste package due to 13 corrosion and disruptive events and mechanical fracturing, 14 if you will, and release of radionuclides from the
( 15 representative waste' packages.
16 The saturated zone has four stream tubes that are 17 connected to the seven unsaturated zone stream tubes. In 18 the saturated zone, we opted to -- at one point, we had
- 19 different types of tuff units. We opted to just go with a 20 fractured tuff unit and an alluvium unit. Generally, in the l
21 saturated zone, we're looking at fracture flow only. The 22 difference in fracture characteristics between the different 23 units wasn't large enough to justify multiple units.
24 We looked at merely fracture flow in the tuff and 25 then force media flow in the alluvium.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Ce Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 183 1 There are really seven main components of the
() 2 3.1.4. code, broken down to de-percolation, basically l 3 determining how much water enters repository drifts, waste l
4 package degradation; when it fails, what type of failure it 5 is, be it due to the scenario failures, the mechanical 6 failures, or corrosion, and.how much water enters the waste 7 package once it fails; radionuclide release, basically at ,
l 8 what rate do radionuclides leave the EBS into the' 9 unsaturated zone; the unsaturated zone transport, moving the 10 radionuclides from the repository to the water table; j 11 saturated zone transport, basically what is the rate of l
l 12 radionuclides getting to the receptor location.
I
! 13 We also have the direct release due to a volcanic 14 event, looking at extrusive volcanism component, the 15 radioactive -- the radionuclides entrained in the ash being 16 transported to some receptor location; and, finally, the 17 dose calculation that sums up both the groundwater component
! 18 and the ground surface component, which would be the -- from i
19 the volcanic event.
20 I'll now try to hit on each one of those seven 21 areas in a little more detail in terms of what the code 22 does. It's a combination of both what the code does and 23 some appreciations of the parameters that we're using in the 24 code. For de-percolation, basically how much water gets 25 into the drift, first we're looking at basically temperature O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
184 1 and precipitation controls of the infiltration estimates.
( 2 We're. basically looking at a glacial cycle for 3 climate change, where the precipitation gets more, the 4 temperature gets less. That will control the rate of ;
5 infiltration. We start with an initial infiltration, which 6 is a uniform distribution varying between one and ten 7 millimeters per year. It will increase. We have 8 temperature and precipitation both increasing with the peak 9 occurring somewhere around the 40 to 50,000 years from 10 present.
11 The precipitation will increase by one-and-a-half 12 -- it's a sample parameter -- one-and-a-half to 13 two-and-a-half times present values. The temperature drops 14 ten to five degrees below current values. )
15 There is no consideration of runoff or 16 transpiration in this particular calculation at this time. j 17 That is something we will be looking at in the future. That 18 could decrease some of the infiltration rates.
19 We do have reflux of water. There is an 20 assumption that there is the potential for the refluxing of 21 water to penetrate the boiling isotherm, getting dripping on 22 the containers earlier than, say, just the temperature alone 23 would indicate.
24 However, one important thing about the reflux 25 model right now, and it will come out with the corrosion, O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
185 1 our corrosion model does not account for dripping water.
() 2 3
Our corrosion model -- when we go into aqueous corrosion, it's based on the humidity. So there is no real impact due 4 to dripping water. If dripping water occurs early on and 5 the waste package is intact, well, you can drip all you 6 want, but no water is getting into waste. It really has no 7 impact.
8 So although we do have refluxing, there is sort of l
9 the effect of refluxing, because it occurs early on, is when 10 it's most dominant, that's when the waste packages are i 11 intact. So other than initially failed containers, that 12 really has very little impact on release.
13 DR. HORNBERGER: No effect on humidity, then.
14 MR. McCARTIN: Our humidity calculation is based
() 15 c' e conduction-only temperature model. So there is not.
l 16 We've looked at that. We don't believe that's that big of l 17 an impact in terms of time that the humidity would change in 18 a broad sense. It isn't impacted significantly by that, we 19 don't believe.
20 However, this is one of the areas that we l 21 certainly are looking at to improve our model to try to 22 understand -- to incorporate dripping onto the waste 23 container and how it will affect the corrosion of that waste j 24 container. It is a limitation. We are looking to improve
~
- 25 that. It's uncertain whether we will be able to do that by ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 L (202) 842-0034 l
l 186 I
1 our version 3.2, which would be for the VA, but we are 1
() 2 starting that work and obviously that's also done in 3 connection with the movement to a new container type, which 4 is C-22. This model is based on 625.
5 So there is a lot of work. There is an area where 1
6 I would say, once again, the integration between PA and the 7 KTIs, where it's sort of growing pains, if you will. We b
8 initially put in reflux, but the fact that the corrosion 9 model doesn't account for dripping, yes, we have dripping 10 early on, should it impact the corrosion. We need to 11 incorporate that, we're working with that, but, also, there 12 is a complexity of switching from 625 to C-22. We'll see 13 how important that is.
14 Then, of course, one of the biggies is actually
() 15 incident on the drift. We do have an average infiltration 16 for a sub-area. The question is how much water gets to the 17 drift, and there's sort of a mechanism we have for focusing l
18 or spreading out of flow lines, and it's a capture area.
19 And basically this particular factor is multiplying the 20 cross-sectional area normal to the flow of a waste package.
l 21 Obviously, if it's -- it's between .01 and three. When it's 22 one, you can sort of think of that as everything's steady
! 23 and uniform downward.
24 As it gets larger for a particular waste package, 25 there is a sort of capturing, hence the name capture area, O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I 187 1 of the flow funneling, if you will, to the waste package.
() 2 3
So we're getting more infiltration to the particular waste
~ package.
4 As it's less, then we're getting less. There is 5 not'a -- this is one of those assumptions that there is a 6 lot of heterogeneity in a sub-area. Having a uniform 7 infiltration, some areas are a little wetter, some areas S aren't, et cetera. We're trying to capture some of that L 9 heterogeneity that we wouldn't expect a uniform blanket of i
10 moisture moving down through the mountain.
! 11 Also, in connection with that, there is also the 12 fraction of area with dripping fractures. That simple is 13 between zero and one. These are coordinated parameters to 14 try to get a sense with the properties of the rock and the
(/ 15 infiltration rates. As it gets wetter and wetter, we would 16 expect the sub-area wet fraction, or there is dripping over 17 most of the containers.
18 As the infiltration is less, you would expect 19 there isn't a lot of dripping at the waste containers.
20 While these are simple parameters to put in, the basis 21 behind them is fairly complex.
22 The main reason they're here is to try to get a 23 sense how important are these parameters. We know we're not 24 capturing the true heterogeneity of the mtuntain, but does
- 25 it make a big difference. And depending on how important i
I [^ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
A- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l L 188 1 that is to the results, we want to do a better job of trying
() 2 to estimate these.
l 3 One of the things I think we were pleased to see 4 is in the DOE analyses, they were doing -- trying to relate 5 the results of their model.of water getting into drifts with 6 some of the niche studies. We think that's a very important 7 aspect to try to get at what are you seeing in the field and i
! 8 get that into the code.
l 9 I think it's useful and important for DOE to do l 10 that. Here, obviously, we don't have the kind of money to l
11 do those kinds of studies, but we were trying to assess how 12 important is it.
i 13 That's probably a good example of one of -- why --
14 is that acceptable to bring in for a license application,
() 15 just having this -- a couple factors there. Well, you would 16 need a lot of support for that. We don't have that support 17 for those parameters. I don't believe the NRC should be 18 getting the support for those parameters.
19 But whatever conceptual model the DOE would have 20 for water getting into drifts, they would have to support to 1
21 a greater extent.
l 22 In terms of -- to just make it a little clearer in 23 terms of the infiltration rate, this is, say, at least with 24 time, you can see this is present out to 50,000 years, then 25 to 100,000. You can see the glacial -- this is sort of the O, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
189l 1 glacial cycle we're representing in the code. Here is
() 2 3
precipitation. You can see while we're starting on the order of -- this is sort of a representative curve. It is 4 sampled, so it varies with each simulation, but on the order 5 of five to ten millimeters per year. You can see it's going 6 up into the 70-80 millimeters per year. So it is a fairly 7 significant increase in the infiltration at later times, on 8 the order of -- you know, it's starting to climb in the 9 20,000-year range, it's getting maybe twice, double what the 10 present infiltration is.
11 What we're doing is we have precipitation and 12 evaporation. We're accounting for that to get some mean 13 annual infiltration.
14 DR. HORNBERGER: Tim, were all your curves flat k 15 for the first 10,000 years?
16 MR. McCARTIN: Actually, they actually dip a 17 little bit for the first 10,000. In general, what you see 18 is that in about 10,000 years, you're back to current 19 conditions, in general. It actually is a slight dip. It 20 actually gets a little drier. We haven't bottomed out in 21 terms of the dryness for the curve we're looking at.
22 MR. CAMPBELL: Tim, is that based upon the 23 Molinkovich site, that general curve?
24 MR. McCARTIN: Yes.
25 MR. CAMPBELL: If there was early -- is there a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I 190 1 sensitivity study done along the line where you look at the
() 2 3
possibility of a much wetter climate in a shorter period of time?
4 MR. McCARTIN: Currently no, other than we've done 5 some analyses to 10,000 and then analyses beyond.
6 Obviously, a 50,000-year analysis will get the peak and you 7 could compare the doses from the two.
8 MR. CAMPBELL: I'm just wondering, at the higher 9 flux of water early on --
10 MR. McCARTIN: If it came earlier on, yes.
11 MR. CAMPBELL: -- corrosion of waste packages.
12 MR. CODELL: This is Richard Codell. I think this 13 will come out in the course of events, because we sample 14 larger values of infiltration. Although we're not
() 15 explicitly looking at a wetter climate, in just the normal 16 sampling, you would see the effect of the wetter climate.
17 MR. McCARTIN: Right. Although -- well, not in 18 terms of corrosion of the waste. package, though, because 19 it's conduction only. I mean, that part of the release.
20 We're looking to better understand would dripping on the
- 21 waste container change the corrosion rate significantly.
22 With 625, we weren't as worried because the 23 pitting corrosion was occurring in the two to 5,000-year 24 range. With the C-22 going much further, we may need to --
25 well, we are looking at that to understand that better, but O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
191 1 it's -- in terms of that part of it, I don't think it would
() 2 3
make any difference earlier on in terms of the corrosion.
But more water clearly produces more releases.
4 So the waste package degradation, when it fails, 5 what type of failure, and how much water enters the waste 6 package, there a couple ways the package fails. The waste 1
7 package corrodes. We're looking at the temperature, 8 humidity and the chemistry at the surface of the waste 9 package to do that -- to select the right corrosion model, 10 be it dry oxidation, aqueous corrosion. ,
11 We are using a representative container in the 12 sub-area for determining the corrosion of container, such 13 that when that one container corrodes through, all the 14 containers that haven't failed by other means in that
) 15 sub-area are assumed to be failed. We have thought about a 16 better way to do that and what it means. Depending on when 17 things' fail, if the failure time, once again, for 625, the 18 failure time, if it was short enough between the first and 19 the last container due to various conditions, it wouldn't be 20 that big a deal.
21 However, with C-22, we're still looking at that 22 model that's uniform corrosion. We have thought about this.
23 It becomes very -- one of the dilemmas is do you try to 24 represent all the containers, and clearly that's not l 25 possible. But we are looking at approaches for maybe ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
192 1 looking at a finer set than just one per sub-area.
() '2 Critical relative humidity for aqueous corrosion l 3 to occur is sampled between 75 and 85 percent for humidity.
l 4 When the numidity is at that range, we are going into an 5 ageous corrosion environment.
6 We also have mechanical disruption of the waste 7 package. There is fracture of the outer overpack due to the 8 thermal embrittlement. There is direct disruption due to L 9 faulting and igneous activity and there is rupture due to 10 rock faults and due to seismicity, and we account for all of 11 those when the disruptive events are turned on.
12 We also have initially failed packages. Once-13 again, here's a parameter range that there was some looking 14 at properties of other types of manufacturing processes to
() 15 get some number that might be representative of a high level 16 waste container. There wasn't a lot of work, but the I
17 question was one of does it make a difference if you have a !
18 small percentage of the packages fails early on due to -- be 19 it a manufacturing defect or damage during emplacement, and 20 you can see we have basically a 100th of a percent to one 21 percent.
22 It's one of those things, did it make a big 23 difference to performance. And then diversion of water.
24 The question is one of once you have water flow at the 25 drift, how does it get into the container, and, once again, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
193 1 here is an example of where we have 625. The failure mode
() 2 3
is anticipated to be pitting corrosion.
pits.
So we have little How does water get into that little pit?
4 We have a parameter that looks to divert water 5 away from the container and it's due to both the diversion 6 around the drift, that some water will come in, but go 7 around the sides. It won't all drip onto the container.
8 Some of the water that drips onto the container 9 will run of f . Not all of it will go into a pit and we have 10 basically a lognormal distribution that sampled between .01, 11 .2, for -- that's the quantity of water that actually gets 12 into the waste container.
13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Tim, you said something kind of 14 interesting that maybe this sub-area division approach
() 15 you're taking will accommodate the consideration of a graded l 16 failure process of the waste packages.
l 17 The sub-areas, as you indicated earlier, were 18 established on the basis of natural setting issues and 19 temperature and what have you, not on trying to do this.
j 20 Do you --
t 21 MR. McCARTIN: Well, the code does accommodate --
22 I mean, we aren't limited to seven sub-areas. We can have 23 more sub-areas if we would like. The question would be, it 24 may not be prudent to go to more sub-areas from the stream 25 tube standpoint, but in terms of breaking -- looking at a
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
194 1 particular sub-area, can we break it down to finer 2 disparitization to account for some of the heterogeneity in 3 the temperature, possibly water flow and humidity, et 4 cetera, would it make a big difference in terms of if the 5 failure is spread out over a longer time.
)
6 Now, part of that -- I would say computationally, 7 you keep adding more and more complexity to the code, it 8 gets slower and slower. We initially want to look at that 9 from the standpoint of will it make a big difference, before l 10 we incorporate it, and we're looking at that issue.
11 Part of it is tied to -- let's say, for example, 12 if I had a 5,000-year -- a mean, if I accounted for some of 13 the heterogeneity in characteristics of containers, as well 14 as the near-field conditions, and my mean lifetime is 5,000 15 years and maybe it only -- the variances maybe 4,500 to 16 5,500 years, I would argue that it probably isn't worth 17 trying to simulate that.
18 If it's much different, as the differences grow in 19 terms of the earliest versus the last, it may be worth 20 accounting for that. And the other dilemma is, once again, 21 with 625, we felt that the range was fairly narrow. With 22 C-22, I don't want to commit to knowing what that is. We're 23 still looking at how to improve the models for C-22.
24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. It may turn out with C-22 25 that what becomes critically important is the whole quality
[
\
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 195 1 control of the fabrication, because if it turns out that l
() 2 C-22 can perform like the first readings are indicating, 3 then it seems to be much more a matter of the integrity of 4 the package itself.
5 MR. McCARTIN: Right. I agree. For example, 6 right now, our model is dependent, for 625, to temperature 7 and humidity. Variation in that will affect the time it j 8 corrodes.
i 9 For C-22, it may be much less sensitive to that 10 and, therefore, maybe I wouldn't want to go to a finer 11 disparitization. I just don't know and that's -- certainly 12 one of the big areas, if you look at it, has the integration 13 of PA in the KTIs. I think there is a very strong message 14 to the container people that we really need to understand
, O( ,) 15 the behavior in the performance of C-22 much better. And 16 they certainly agree with us whole-heartedly and I think 17 that's a good cooperation.
18 Also, the near-field people, trying to understand l
19 what is the relationship of the conditions we expect to see 20 relative to what makes C-22 vulnerable. That's all very new 21 activity and clearly that was not incorporated into this 22 version of the code.
23 As you know, our waste package, we've told you f 24 before, is a bathtub type model. Once again, that's i
! 25 something we're looking at with 625, where the dominant l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\s- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
196 1 failure mode was pitting corrosion versus if C-22 is uniform
) 2 corrosion, that's something we're looking at tc see whether 3 this model is still appropriate.
4 We do have the ability to do a flow-through model, 5 which is a very low bathtub, if you will. But for now, 6 water goes in, in one pit, and there is some other pit at 7 some lower depth, the water has to rise to that level and 8 then it goes out.
9 In terms of the release, what rate are 10 radionuclides leaving the EBS, and, in general, once again, 11 it's probably worth pointing out that we're looking at 12 release from the container. We aren't accounting for any 13 hold-up in the backfill or in looking at the inve ,, et 14 cetera, at this particular time. We're looking at 15 approaches to maybe account for transport through that part 16 of the EBS. But for now, when it gets out of the container, 17_ it does get to the unsaturated zone immediately.
18 We're looking at the chemistry of the water 19 contacting the waste form. We also look at the surface area 20 of the waste form contacted by the water. Our bathtub 21 model, we have a uniform distribution between zero and one 22 as the height of that outlet point.
23 So you can see when the outlet is very low, at the 24 low end of the range, the bathtub fills up very quick and 25 releases occur early on. However, there isn't a lot of fuel O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
197 1 that's submerged. The surface area of the fuel that's
() 2- wetted is lower because-of that.
3 Conversely, when the bathtub is.up near the top, 14 it takes a while for the bathtub to fill up. Sometimes, at 5 the flow rates we're talking, on the order of 1,000 or 2,000 6 years to fill up. But when it fills up and releases, there 7 is a lot of fuel that's wetted.
8 So there is -- we have sampled that parameter to 9 try to get a sense and it is important how much of the 10 surface area is wetted.
11 We have release rates and solubility limits.
12 Finally, we -- to get the total release, we have obviously l 13 different failure models. We have containers that fail due 14 to corrosion, containers that fail due to the embrittlement I ) 15 and the fracturing, containers that fail due to the 16 scenarios such as faulting, volcanism, et cetera. We sum'up 17- all the'ones that are wet. Once again, that sub-area wet 18 fraction that I talked about before, the only containers 19 that can release are the ones that actually get wet.
20 Unsaturated zone transport, once we get to the --
21 get out of the container, we're into the unsaturated zone.
22 We're accounting for the -- the sub-areas account for the 23 spatial distribution of the flow and as I noted, the climate 24 change accounts for tempo variation in flow over the seven 3 sub-areas.
O
\~s' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
198 1 There is also the fracture versus matrix flow.
() 2 -That's done on a per-unit basis. There's -- for each of 3 those sub-areas, they have their own individual stratigraphy ,
4- between the saturated zone and the repository.
5 We look at the hydraulic properties and the 6 percolation rate to determine whether we have fracture 7 versus matrix flow. Here is one area where we simplified 8 our model versus IPA phase two. In IPA phase two, we tried 9 to account for both matrix and fracture flow. In this 10 particular model -- well, when we went-to this latest 11 version, we noted that that really didn't have that strong 12 an influence, that there were units that were primarily 13 fracture all the time or primarily matrix all the time.
14 So we just looked at that and it's either fracture k 15 all the time or matrix all the time. We aren't looking st l 16 partitioning that.
17 That does tend to be a little conservative for i
18 some units if you are close to the -- just a little bit over 19 the matrix conductivity, it would be all fracture flow.
20 One of the differences between some of the DOE 21 modeling and ours is what's going on inside the fractures.
22 Basically, the retardation along the transport path. We 23 have considered matrix infusion and sorption on fracture 24 surfaces to not be very significant in the unsaturated zone.
25 So we have conservatively assumed them to not occur.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 1
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
199 1 We have no matrix diffusion in the unsaturated
() 2 zone and we have no retardation fractures in the unsaturated 3 zone fractures.
4 However, there is a Calico Hills vitric unit which 5 has an extremely high matrix conductivity. So it will 6 always be matrix flow. There will be sorption for a number 7 of the radionuclides in the Calico Hills vitric and I would ,
)
8 say that's one area that there was a slight difference I 9 between the way we represented the stratigraphy in the 10 unsaturated zone and what DOE did at the last technical 11 exchange, and they have the Calico Hills vitric in more of 12 the sub-areas than we have.
13 That is certainly a difference. For the 14 radionuclides that are retarded, that is a difference 15 between the two. We certainly will be looking at that and l 16 trying to incorporate some of that. Lut once again, I guess 17 I would always like to point out that we would expect DOE to 18 have a better characterization of the unsaturated zone and 19 the saturated zone at Yucca Mountain than we would have and 20 we certainly look to what they're doing, assess their 21 numbers and try to incorporate that.
22 But at this particular time, certainly in terms of 23 a difference in results, that would show up. Just to --
1 24 I'll just talk to these very briefly to make the point in l 25 terms of -- say, for the Topapah Springs welded unit, you l
1
)
\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[~'l
\~- Court Reporters
- 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 842-0034
200 1 can see the conductivity for the matrix varies between em
( 3 2 6,000-thousandths and six-tenths of a millimeter per year.
L) 3 Well, it's easy tc see that when we're varying our 4 initial infiltration from one to ten millimeters per year, 5 that, in general, we should have fracture flow just about 6 all the time, and that's one of -- that's a unit where we ;
7 feel fairly comfortable with the modeling approach we have.
8 The Calico Hills vitric unit, as I mentioned, its 9 conductivity in the matrix varies from 600 to 60,000 10 millimeters per ye;4r. With the infiltrations that we're 11 looking at, it's pretty easy to see that that will always be 12 matrix flow. I 13 Some of the other units, the zeolitic, these 14 numbers actually changed and the more recent data made them
() 15 a little higher than what we had in our TPA calculations in 16 phase two. So this one, it is -- partitioning that would 17 tend to be a little more conservative in the units where 18 those are present. And we are looking to revise these 19 values and it may be worthwhile trying to partition some in 20 those particular layers.
21 But in terms of the stratigraphy, as I noted, the 22 Calico Hills vitric is the unit with the highest matrix 23 conductivity. It would have matrix flow and the sorption 24 that would with matrix flow. And you can see, for our 25 sub-areas, there's really only two sub-areas that have that
[)
(./
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
201 1 particular unit.
l
() 2 DOE had it, although they aren't necessarily very 3 thick in those -- in some of these sub-areas, but they had l 4 the Calico Hills vitric in more area-wise, more area than we 5 did for our particular calculation. That's something we'll 6 be looking at to see if -- to take into account their later l
I 7 stratigraphy.
l 8 The one thing that I guess to temper that, though, 9 in terms of the -- just slightly in terms of the 10 retardations, some of the nuclides that we're most l
11 interested in are the ones that aren't that retarded. So 12 it's sort of -- it's sort of a little hold-up a lot of i 13 things, but things like neptunium tend not to be very 14 retarded, and that does -- accounting for a little bit of
() 15 retardation of neptunium doesn't necessarily buy you a lot.
16 In the saturated zone, we have the seven sub-areas 17 connect into four saturated zone paths and as I mentioned, 18 we have really two units. One is the fracture tuff, 19 approximately 13 kilometers, and then alluvium the rest of 20 the way to the receptor location. And in our model, our 21 transverse dispersion is neglected. We are accounting for 1
22 longitudinal dispersion, although the stream lines of our l
23 flow paths do go wider and narrower and we do account for
! 24 that spreading of the stream lines, if you will.
l 25 In the fractured tuff, we are assuming the l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
202 1 transport is only in the fractures. We do have matrix 2
( diffusion. We have added that to the model, with 3 retardation in the matrix. The fracture velocities vary for 4 our model approximately 50 to 500 meters per year.
5 So the fact you can see 13 kilometers with no 6 matrix diffusion at 500 meters per year, the pulse is going 7 to get there in 26 years, at the high end. At the low end, 8 it's 260 years. So it gets through the tuff rather quickly 9 without matrix diffusion.
10 In alluvium, it's porous flow, with the 11 retardation associated with the alluvium, although there is 12 a fair amount of uncertainty with the retardation values in 13 the alluvium and we're hoping to learn more about that and 14 encouraging DOE to explore and get measurements on the
,-~
15 alluvium KDs.
1 16 The velocity is significantly different. We're l 17 looking at three to five meters per year. You can see an 18 upper bound, two orders of magnitude slower than the 19 fractured tuff. Retardation factors, neptunium, we're 20 looking at one to 320; technetium, one to 33; thorium, some 21 of the ones that are retarded quite a bit more, 1,600 to l
22 32,000. So you can see for some nuclides, you have 23 significant retardation that are going to hold it up quite a j l 24 bit. Neptunium, technetium, still at the low end, we're 25 looking at them unretarded.
1 O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l i
203 1 Just briefly, to give a sense of -- I got things
() 2 to the receptor location, but before looking at those, I 3 just very briefly, in terms of the disruptive events which j 4 are affecting the container lifetime. Faulting, we have 5 faulting event with -- the time of which occurs with a J
6 finite exponential distribution between 110,000 years, 7 recurrence probability of ten-to-the-minus-five per year.
8 What does it all mean? Well, in general, when we l 9 sample, it's going to be sampled -- you know, it will look
! 10 almost uniform between that distribution of when it occurs.
11 There is a fault length, a width, to determine a 12 -- just from a geometric argument, through the repository 1 13 and depending on its area, we're assuming a uniform 14 distribution of containers. That's how many containers are j ) 15 failed, given there is a certain displacement, l
16 It's just based on a displacement argument. If 17 th'e displacement _is at least X when it's sampled, it will be l
18 failed because the containers la that area will be failed.
l l 19 Seismicity due to rock fall and at the technical 20 exchange, we were still in the midst of revising some of l
21 this and I can point to one of the changes from that, but, 22 once again, we have recurrence rate of certain seismic 23 events.
24 Up here, the question is what's the rock stability i 1
25 type. We have five different rock types, but you can see l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 4
)
l 204 1- type four covers approximately 63 percent of the repository, i
() 2 3
type five covers approximately 36 percent of the repository footprint. So it's really type four and type five that are 4 going.to dominate the effects of the seismic event.
5 There is a joint spacing. Rock type four is .63 6 meters, five is .36, and there's a column height calculated 7 depending on the particular event, be it a .lg versus .2, et 8 cetera. You have a different column height. There is a 9 weight that falls on the container. There is a calculation 10 done based on the ultimate strength of the container to 11 determine whether the container is damaged.
12 One of the things, and this is a model we're also 13 looking at to improve both the model for the -- based on i
14 rock mechanics and the model for the ultimate strength that
() 15 we're using for damaging the container.
16 So we do anticipate further improvements in 3.2, 17 but one of the simplifications that we have is that -- let's l 18 say you have the, whatever, a seismic event and you have i
19 rock type four. Do all containers -- do all containers 1 20 experience a rock fall, and the question is no. There are 21 some -- some do, some don't.
22 This heterogeneity factor is multiplying how much 23 of that area would experience rock fall, and this right now i
24 is sort of one of those parameters that is an educated guess !
25 based upon the people involved in the work, the engineers O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
205 1 and the geologists, trying to capture how much of the
['
L 2 sub-area would fail due to a seismic event.
3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Just to push you a little bit 4 on this, Tim. Based on what you all now know, what is your 5 assessment of this as an issue?
6 MR. McCARTIN: Well, in terms of the way it 7 currently is modeled in terms of the number of containers it 8 affects, it's a relatively small number for 625. We're 9 looking on the order of a few percent of the containers, in 10 general, in general. So it's not very big.
11 The question that we now have, and it's kind of a 12 -- you know, this is one of those areas where we're right in 13 the middle and you also caught us in terms of changing 14 material types, which is a very difficult thing.
(Oj 15 Now, for 625, we had a very simple model that was 16 conservative. However, the -- we were looking at pitting 17 corrosion resulting in a failure of the container in the --
18 I'll say roughly the two to 5,000 range for a large number 19 of the containers. So we weren't overly worried by the 20 seismic event because the containers were already failed due 21 to corrosion.
22 Now we're stepping back and with the addition of 23 C-22 and the prospect of a container lasting much longer.
24 Well, the conservatism we had for a rock fall is maybe too 25 conservative for -- now that the container lasts much longer
('N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i l
l 206 l 1 and we need to improve it. j (G) 2 Right now, though, it isn't dominant in terms of 3 the effect of the results, but part of that is due to the 4 fact that the corrosion was occurring at an earlier time. !
5 But that's one of the areas that we're looking to try to get 6 a better sense of how the models here should be improved for 7 something like C-22.
8 Jim, you want to add something?
9 MR. FIRTH: James Firth, NRC. Another aspect of j 1
l 10 moving to C-22 that's not covered in how we've modeled rock 11 fall in the past is it could cause accelerated corrosion and 12 anything that could cause accelerated corrosion and earlier 13 failures for a very long-lived waste package could be more 14 important in a relative sense, n
( ) 15 So that's not something that's not in our model, 16 but is something that we're having to look at.
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Accelerated corrosion as a 18 result of deformation or --
19 MR. FIRTH: Adding stresses to the waste package 20 and possibly also finishing off the outer waste package 21 earlier.
22 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.
23 MR. McCARTIN: However, I'll say we're not 24 anticipating it to be a big problem, but as the corrosion 25 makes the containers last a lot longer, you want to make
(~}
(_/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters t 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 207 1 sure you're doing a good job on the other kinds of things
() 2 3
that could fail the container.
CHAIRMAN GARRICK: You also want to make sure that 3 l
4 when something like this pops up and that there's a l 5 possibility to make an easy fix, that that's considered 6 sooner rather than later. That's, of course, a DOE problem.
7 Charles, you had a question.
l l 8 DR. FAIRHURST: I was just wondering. What do you 9 mean by type four and type five? Is that a definition of
! 10 fracture frequency or something?
11 MR. McCARTIN: That's way -- I'll have to ask for l 12 someone in the audience. But it's basically different rock l 13 types and it has to do with the properties of the rock.
14 MR. FIRTH: James Firth, NRC. The way the rock t
() 15 was divided was based on the joint spacing in the rock. So 16 it was categorized into five different categories and that 17 paralleled what DOE was finding in terms of characterizing 18 the ESF.
i 19 DR. FAIRHURST: I don't want to get too deeply '
I 20 into this, but if you have a type four rock, type five is a 21 more frequent fracture, right?
22 MR. McCARTIN: Yes.
23 DR. FAIRHURST: Do you assume the same volume to l 24 fall out and if so, do you assume that it's as a single mass l 25 or is it a broken up to have little impact?
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
208 1 MR. FIRTH: The way it has been modeled is the
() 2 area of the rock falling on the waste package is going to be 3 the square of the joint spacing and then the height of the 4 rock could be as high as the yield zone based on some UDEC 5 runs in terms of the thermal stability of the drift.
6 DR. FAIRHURST: But then do you assume that that 7 comes down as a single block?
8 MR. FIRTH: At this time, yes.
9 MR. McCARTIN: Or if not a single block, a single 10 weight. It's coming down at once and whether there's a --
11 it could be -- that column of rock could be fractured in 12 between, but if it's all coming down at once, the weight is 13 the same.
14 DR. FAIRHURST: The weight is the same, but the
() 15 impact is going to be quite different. Maximum stresses 16 induced in the canister will not be the same.
17 MR. McCARTIN: Okay. Well, we're certainly 18 looking to improve -- we recognize the limitations and 19 simplifications both for the way we've characterized the 20 rock fall and the way it damages the waste container. We're 21 looking to improve that a little better just because we
! 22 expect the container -- before corrosion wa9 going to 23 overtake it soon enough that it tasn't a big deal.
l 24 Now, with corrosion, and we have to do a better l l
25 job.
O' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 '
(202) 842-0034
209 1 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Just one more question, Tim.
() 2 3
Are you aware if DOE is, in their attempts to design out this problem, for example, are looking at both the 4 engineered barrier approaches and tunnel design 5 considerations for doing that?
6 MR. McCARTIN: In terms of precluding rock fall?
7 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Right.
8 MR. McCARTIN: Backfill would preclude the rock 9 fall. I mean, that would be the simplest fix in terms of --
10 I'm not aware of anything in terms of designing the tunnel 11 to prevent it. The biggest problem would be just the time 12 element. Once you get a couple thousand years from present, 13 what design you would do, but I'm not aware of anything.
14 But I will say that's not my -- rock mechanics is
/
(Oj 15 not my specialty, by any means.
16 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: According to one of our i
17 esteemed members here, there are some things that you 18 evidently can do with the natural setting that could have a 19 significant impact on this and I was just curious if DOE was 20 considering that in addition to -- I know they're talking 21 about fillers and what have you and barriers and backfill.
22 MR. McCARTIN: I do know that -- I believe at the 23 TRB, they are going to talk about their approach for 24 seismically-induced rock fall. So the fact that they're 25 doing it in their PA calculation, I would assume that there g
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
210 1 would be some feedback to repository design. But other than r)j
( 2 that, I'm not aware of anything explicit.
V 3 In terms of the direct release, the volcanic 4 event, the extrusive component, there's entrainment of the
- 5 spent fuel in the ash and it's basically based on, once l
6 again, similar to what's done for faulting, a geometric 7 argument, how big is the volcanic conduit relative to an 1 8 average number of waste containers per unit area. l 9 In general, you will see one to ten waste packages 10 affected by an extrusive volcanic event. There are certain 11 parameters to incorporate -- have incorporation ratio of the 12 spent fuel into the ash. i 13 It certainly is affected by the spent fuel 14 particle size, which is a difficult thing; what is the
( 15 particle size of the spent fuel when this volcanic event 16 comes in.
17 You then have the air transport of ash and 18 deposition of -- at the receptor location, once again, 19 particle size affects that. You have the wind speed and 20 direction and the eruption energetics. Probability of the 21 volcanic event, once again, we have a time of the igneous 22 event. Similar to faulting, it's a finite exponential, with 23 a very low recurrence probability.
24 It somewhat ends up that this becomes a uniform 25 distribution. It samples uniformly between those time
/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 J
211 1 periods.
() 2 3
CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
as you can, Tim.
You better move on as quickly-i 4 MR. McCARTIN: Okay. Has it been 40 minutes? I'm 5 close to done. The dose calculation, we're looking at 6 dilution of radionuclides in the groundwater. We're looking 7 at the pumping well characteristics and water use. Right ,
8 now we're looking at the Amergosa -- 20 kilometer Amergosa 9 Farms kind of environment, where you have farming and we're 10 looking at a fairly.large pumping rate, consistent with 11 farming in the area.
12 We're looking at dilution of radionuclides in the 13' soil, plowing and surficial processes. That's primarily 14 from the direct release. There is a mass loading factor for
() 15 the air pathway, which is the dominant parameter for 16 determining the dose, how much stuff gets up in the air that 17 is then available for an inhalation.
18 And those conversion factors we are looking at 19 lifestyle, diet of locally grown food, and we're using a 20 representative person. We don't calculate doses to a lot of j 21 people and average them. We're looking at a representative 22 person and doing a single dose calculation and we're !
l 23 certainly using a reference biosphere and cautious and 24 reasonable assumptions, we believe.
l 25 In summary, we certainly have -- the TPA 3.1 code i O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
212 1 is being used to look at different aspects of repository
() 2 3
performance, like the stresses development is iterative. We believe there's a lot of flexibility to analyze a lot of 4 different situations and I think you will see that in Dick 5 Codell's and Jim Firth's presentations; in the sensitivity 6 analyses, where people have looked at performance in a lot 7 of different ways.
8 Input and parameters, we have a TPA input file 9 that's 2,000 lines, organized by module. It actually is a 10 fairly easy input file, I think, to read through to see what 11 the parameters are. We are going to document the input file 12 with conceptual models and the sensitivity results. We hope 13 to do that in the late summer.
14 We always like to include our caution, of course,
() 15- and then what you're going to see next is Sitakanta Mohanty 16 from the center will present the results of the total system 17 analysis with the scenarios for the reference case. Then 18 Jim Firth will present the sensitivity analyses at the 19 process level, where KTIs were calculating for a particular 20 module or a.particular process and looking at the 21 sensitivity of their module, their process.
22 Then finally Dick Codell will present the system 23 level calculations in terms of the total system analysis 24 where we varied all the parameters, including alternative 25 conceptual models.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 213 1 Let me stop there. I think there is one last
- 2. slide, but I can -- in the interest of time, I'll forego the
!()
3 one.
4 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: All right. Do you want to ask 5 some questions now or wait a while? We have a break I
6 scheduled for now and I think we'll take it. I think, also, J
7 I would like to comment to the staff that it's my 8 understanding that there is some cooperation between this 9 presentation and the viability assessment presentation to 10 get the material in that you desire.
11 The only thing I would ask and encourage you to do i 12 is to do the planning such that we do finish the viability i 13 assessment guidance presentation by 3:00. That has to be --
14 okay.
() 15 With that, I think we'll take a 15-minute break.
16 [ Recess.)
17 MR. McCONNELL: Keith McConnell, again, from the 18 NRC staff. The next speaker or presenter is Sitakanta 19 Mohanty, from the Center for Nuclear Regulatory Analyses.
20 The center and the NRC staff work closely together on the i 21 development of the code, as well as the conduct of the l 22 sensitivity study.
23 Sitakanta will be talking about the nominal case 24 and some of the selected scenario outputs.
25 MR. MOHANTY: As Keith pointed out, my ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l
1 1
214 1 presentation is the use of total system performance
() 2 3
assessment, called version 3.1; to be more specific, 3.1.4.
I will be presenting to you the results from a nominal case 4 and selected scenario outputs.
5 The objective of this presentation would be l 6 twofold. First is to outline'the main outputs from the TPA l
7 3.1.4 code using a referenced data set and also to present 8 some intermediate outputs from which we gain some insight 9- into the code. Another input or function alternative 10 outputs to give us some feel for the correctness of our 11 computation.
l 12 To briefly present various modules in the TPA 13 code, here is a flow diagram. Essentially, it has two j 14 parts. The base case part and the disruptive scenarios.
() 15 The disruptive scenarios along with base case we'll consider 16 our reference case. The boxes along this line represent the
! 17 base case. That include the precipitation history.for the 1
18 infiltration, then the~6 hallow and deep, near-field 19 environment surrounding the waste package inside the l
20 repository, followed by the computation of waste package l
l 21 failure due to corrosion, then the radionuclides released i l
22 from the engineered barrier system and subsequent transport 23 in unsaturated and saturated zone, and final computation of 24 those individuals.
25 When we combine with faulting displacement, O
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
.215 1 seismic rock fall and' igneous activity events, that would
() 2 constitute the-reference case. The faulting displacement 3 and seismic event will contribute to additional failure of 4 these packages and the computation is for groundwater
! 5 release and subsequent dose, whereas the igneous event would l 6 contribute to direct release of the radionuclides for ground I
7 surface dose.
l 8 Here I should point out that by the nominal case, l 9 we imply that the seismic rock fall is combined with a base 10 case because the seismic rock fall at this point we consider
! 11 that as contributing to the natural evolution of the f 12 repository.
l l
13 In the set of calculations, first we determine the 14 shallow and deep percolation. The shallow and deep t
() 15 percolation are heavily influenced by the climatic events.
l 16 The infiltration, the solid infiltration is .
I' 17 computed as a function of climate change, soil depth and 18 soil hydraulic properties. As Tim pointed out, we do not 19 take into consideration surface runoff and transpiration, 20 but evaporation is taken into consideration.
21 In this diagram, we are presenting the average t
- 22 rate of infiltration in millimeters per year as a function 23 of time. Here we are presenting the results to 50,000 24 years. As he pointed out earlier, this infiltration does 25 not change very much up to about 10,000 years, but it's k/~')
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
m ,/ Court Reporters
, 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l
\ \
216 1 subsequently included because of a glacial period.
(~ 2 In our computation, the switch from the current 3 climatic condition.to glacial climatic condition takes place 4 somewhere around 12,000 years.
5 This infiltration rate is later on modified for 6 determining how much radionuclide is going to leave the EBS. d 7 This infiltration rate is used for the unsaturated zone and 8 transport calculations.
9 Once we determine hcw much water can'potentially 10 get into -- get near the repository, then we compute the 11 temperature and the relative humidity that is subsequently 12 used in the computation of waste package failure. In 13 addition to that, the temperature reviews to determine how 14 the incoming water -- from now on we will call that l L(A) 15 isothermal infiltration -- is subsequently moved because of 16 the heat generated from the disposed waste.
l I
17 In this particular -- in the best case, we l l
18 consider that no backfill' is present, because that is the 19 reference design at this point, and the relative humidity is i 20 calculated by taking into consideration the temperature of 21 the waste package surface and the temperature of the drift 22 wall.
23 In this figure, we have presented temperature and 24 relative humidity. As temperature goes down as a function 25 of time, the relatively humidity goes up and subsequently i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s_ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
217 1 becomes one, once the repository cools down.
() 2 DR. HORNBERGER: Sitakanta, could I ask you a 3 question while you're here? I realize I'm anticipating, but 4 I know later you're going to show us a figure where we see a 5 significant fraction of the waste packages failing early on 6 in this first few thousand years. Is it because this figure 7 you have relatively warm and wet conditions from about the 8 year 1,000 to 7,000 or something?
9 MR. MOHANTY: That is primarily the reason, but I 10 can say more about the temperature than the relatively 11 humidity because the relative humidity, the critical 12 relative humidity, we are using that as a criterion for the 13 failure. But, yes, the temperature has a significant 14 impact.
() 15 Now that we know that isothermal infiltration and 16 we know the temperature in the near field of the repository, 17 then we compute how much of that isothermal infiltration 18 which is represented by the red cur 7e is modified because of 19 the reflux. I want to point out that the reflux takes place 20 in about 100 meters about the repository, within a 100 21 meters of the repository horizon.
22 In this figure, it is evident that most of the 23 reflux is taking place in about two to 3,000 years. In 24 other words, as the temperature comes down, the reflux 25 approaches, by isothermal infiltration, and after that they
[
s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 218 1 would be the same infiltration.
() 2. In this particular calculation, we have chosen the 3 rise and fall reflux conceptual model. That is one of two 4 models we have. In one case, we are relying on the amount 5 of water that is driven out of the matrix. In the other L
6 one, we essentially rely on how the reflux takes place in 7 the fracture.
1 8 This information is used for the radionuclide 9 release calculations, as Tim pointed ~out. We are only 10 taking relative humidity into consideration for the waste 11 package degradation.
l 12 By showing this figure, I would like to make a 13 clear distinction that once the water is refluxed, it does 14 not necessarily get into the waste package, nearby the. waste
() 15 package right away. That water is modified, as Tim pointed 16 out, because of the heterogeneity outside of the drift.
17 So this modification protect us because of the l 18 heterogeneity of the' fracture, so flow could focus. It l
l 19 could also divert. Also, it depends on the presence or 20 absence of backfill and pits. If it is a pitting type of l 21 corrosion, then pits will allow only certain limited amount l
22 of water to get into the waste package.
23 Also, these factors do not change as a function of 24 time. By using this factor, we also determined how many 25 waste packages got weight and amount of water that was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
)
219
.1 coming as a blanket, as Tim pointed out, that may have
() 2 focused into only a few waste packages.
3 In this particular case, we are presenting 4 infiltration as a function of time. If this one represents 5 the amount of water that comes in after the reflux, this 6 represents the amount of water that truly gets into the 7 waste package. So it is much less than that.
8 So the difference between these two curves would 9 be a combination of these factors, but of the constant, 10 because it doesn't vary as a function of time.
11 DR. FAIRHURST: Excuse me. Is the reflux 12 something that's happening all the time or is it something 13 that's predominant only during the thermal cycle?
14 MR. MORANTY: It's predominantly in the thermal
() 15 cycle. That's why the --
16 DR. FAIRHURST: The thermal cycle is finished 17 fairly early, right?
18 MR. MOHANTY: Fairly early, within about two to 19 3,000 years. That's how the graph is showing now, the 20 current calculation.
21 So now that we know the temperature and relative 22 humidity, we also use externally computed chloride l
23 concentration and other chemistry, near-field chemistry and 24 related parameters to determine waste package failure.
l 25 In our nominal case calculation, we are using l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
220 1 carbon steel, A500, 16 grade, 55 outer overpack, and 625 as
[ \ 2 the inner overpack. The mechanisms that are considered in V
3 the failure are dry oxidation, uniform or localized 4 corrosion, and mechanical failure.
5 In this particular graph, we are not showing any 6 faulting or volcanic events related to waste package 7 failures, but we have included seismic related failures 8 because seismicity is a part of the nominal case.
9 Also, in the corrosion failure, especially for 10 alloy-625 inner overpack, galvanic coupling is not taken 11 into consideration and the importance of having no backfill 12 is that it changes the temperature that would have been if 13 we had the backfill present.
14 In this figure, I would like to clarify that
() 15 frequency is nothing but the fraction of total number that 16 contribute to a particular failure, and the distribution of 17 failure time. So this column represents that nearly 18 to 18 19 percent of the waste packages -- 18 to 19 percent of the 19 time, out of 400, the corrosion-related failure or 20 seismic-related failure took place a around 2,000 years.
21 Once we have computed number of waste packages 22 that have been affected by corrosion and seismic failure, 23 then we compute the water that gets into the waste package 24 and the subsequent release.
25 For the base case or the nominal case, we are r
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
221 i i considering the bathtub model and in the bathtub, the l
I 2
( release is congruent or the diEsolution is Congruent for the 3 spent fuel. Out of the three dissolution models, we are 4 using the one that has dependency on calcium silicate and 5 the pits that we talked about earlier for determining amount 6 of water that gets into the waste package, do not offer any l 7 flow resistance because of its size. We do not take any l 8 credit for the cladding because we are not sure what is the 9 right number.
l l 10 Also, DOE, at this point, is considering not to 11 take any credit for cladding. Here, again, we are l 12 presenting a frequency like the previous diagram, except 13 that here we are presenting the peak release time. One 14 thing to note here is that for a particular nuclide that we 15 have chosen here, technetium-99, the peak release time 16 approximately coincides with the failure time.
17 That is why we are seeing this bi-modal L 18 distribution and one thing I should have pointed out earlier 19 is that this bi-modal is coming from the localized corrosion l
I 20 effect and uniform corrosion effect. The uniform corrosion i
i 21 effect has given rise to much longer failure time, 22 Responding to that, we have presented here the i
l 23 peak release in curies per year and these are the CCDF l 24 curves for various sub-areas and the important thing to note 25 here is that this variation amongst sub-areas is coming from l O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
l l
t
r-222 1 the number of waste packages that are present in the
() 2 3
sub-areas. In other words, they are directly related to the size of the sub-areas.
4 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: So these release rates are from 5 the region of the engineered barrier system. This is the j 6 source term.
7 MR. MOHANTY: Yes, that is correct.
8 Here is another way for presenting the results.
! 9 In this particular figure, which has three CCDFs, are I
l '10 cumulative release at the end of 50,000 years. That i
l 11 includes the cumulative release just outside the waste 12 package, outside EBS and just outside the unsaturated zone 13 and just outside of the saturated zone.
14 As Tim pointed out, in the unsaturated zone, there
() 15 is no matrix retardation and no matrix diffusion. I would 16 like to correct this word, this should be diffusion.
1 17 And for the saturated zone flow and transport, we 18 have fracture tuff and alluvium and the matrix diffusion 19 option is there, but we have it turned off in this 20 particular calculation. The receptor group is located at 20 l 21 kilometers.
(
l 22 One thing to note here is that although we have 1
l 23 three curves, we see only two. That is because the l 24 unsaturated zone, accumulated releases from the unsaturated 25 zone are very similar to that of what we get from the EBS.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
223 1 However, this highlights that certain retardation of time
() 2 3
difference taking place for the cumulative release because of the saturated zone.
4 To give you some idea about how fast the nuclides 5 or the water is traveling - .not nuclides -- that carries 6 the nuclides, here.are two CCDFs. The upper one is 1
7 representing the unsaturated zone and the lower one is 8 representing -- the bottom one is representing the travel 9 time CCDF for the sat zone.
10 As I pointed out, the receptor group is located 20 11 kilometers away and the similar thing is to 50,000 years.
12 Here we have presented results for seven sub-areas and this 13 dotted line represents the average groundwater travel time 14 for the whole repository and this is approximately a 1,000
) 15 years here travel time.
16 Here is a similar one for the saturated zone. We 17 saw that for a 20 kilometer distance. The average 18 groundwater travel time is about 4,000 years.
19 Another point I would like to make here is that in 20 the unsaturated zone, sub-areas one, two, three and four, 21 less travel time than five and six. This is because in five 22 and six, the flow is controlled by the matrix flow, as Tim 23 pointed out earlier. But in this case, the flow is j 24 essentially fracture flow.
1 25 Then we compute the groundwater dose and the 1
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
224 1 receptor group is located 20 kilometers away. Again, the j ) 2 computation is for 50,000 years. And here we are showing 3 various CCDFs for individual nuclides and this figure shows 4 outputs from 400 realizations out of 20 groundwater nuclide 5 studies we are considering, we are presenting here the top 6 seven to eight nuclides.
7 This dotted line represents the total of all 8' nuclides and in comparison to the total, these CCDFs present 9 a big dose for the top seven nuclides; that would be 10 neptunium-237, americium-243, and thorium-245, likewise.
11 So in essence, we saw a big variation in terms of 12 the dose contribution and the mean peak groundwater dose is 13 14 milligrams for a year. That's what our preliminary 14 calculation is suggesting.
15 Now we do a comparison between the 10,000-year one 16 versus the 50,000-year one for the peak annual dose, and 17 these are two CCDFs. This represents 10,000 years and this 18 represents the 50,000-year peak dose.
19 Just to point out, again, that seismic event is 20 taken into consideration in representing this peak dose 21 curve. For 10,000 years, we get 1.7 millirem per year, 22 whereas for 50,000 years we get about 14 millirem per year.
23 DR. FAIRHURST: Have you made any attempt to go 24 beyond 50,000 years to see if that continues to rise?
25 MR. MORANTY: It may rise. We have not done any
[')/
\~s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
[ 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-3034
225 ;
l 1 of our final runs for beyond 50,000 years. I do not know if
() 2 3
Dick Codell may have done some.
it.
If he has, he will present 4 DR .. FAIRHURST: Because one of the Academy's 5 concerns in the Yucca Mountain report was that the dose was 6 going to keep ris!ng over quite significantly longer 7 periods. So it's something that will be raised as an issue, 8 I think.
9 MR. McCARTIN: Although in general, our peak dose 10 is typical of neptunium and there are certainly in the 11 50,000-year time-frame. It isn't that retarded. So there 12 are certainly some of the realizations represent the peak. l I
13 In general, obviously, until you do the long-term l l
1 14 calculation, you're not certain, but we do not expect the l
i 15 doses to get much larger.
16 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I guess also when the Academy i 17 was first looking at this, they were talking about much ,
18 smaller percolation fluxes and lower infiltration rates and l l 19 the peak -- evidently the peak goes out into the hundreds of 20 thousands of years. ;
21 MR. McCARTIN: And one thing to add, I mean, one l 22 of the reasons will -- certainly we would expect to see i
23 doses increase to 50,000 years is, if you remember the !
24 climate change. Infiltration is increasing as it continues l
25 to increase. It's not too surprising that we would expect
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
226 1 to see, as we're getting wetter and wetter conditions, it to l
2- increase.
3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I'm curious as to whether or 4 not these analyses have-revealed any surprises to you. I l 5 didn't have a chance to look at it too long, but it looked 1
6 like the neptunium was still the driving radionuclide. And 7 as the percolation fluxes increase and infiltration rates 8 increase, there tends to be a switch between neptunium and 9 technetium.
10 I didn't see that on this.
11 MR. McCARTIN: Neptunium, I guess, is a pertial 12 surprise. Certainly neptunium tends to be way -- very, very 13 dominant. Now, this is at the 20 kilometer, so the alluvium 14 is accounted for. Surprise is -- I guess I'm hesitant 0)
( 15 because we're still looking at this to see what it means and 16 certainly what it has done has certainly got us to look at 17 some of the release mechanisms in the source term.
18 With respect to neptunium, we're looking at 19 secondary minerals as a way of do we need to be a little 20 better on our release model for neptunium. So there's 21 things like that.
22 I don't know, Dick, if you wanted to add anything, 23 but I guess we -- you know, we would have expected a few 24 other nuclides to show up, but neptunium is very dominant.
25 MR. CODELL: This is Richard Codell. The i
! (~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
! Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 :
227 1 technetium is way down really compared to neptunium and l'V ) 2 americium. It just doesn't seem to show up.
i 3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I understand. But as we moved 4 away from the very low infiltration rates in some of the '
5 earlier studies done by DOE, I thought we were observing
)
6 technetium coming into much more prominent position.
1 7 MR. McCARTIN: Right. And one thing that we 8 probably need to be a little cautious on and we're sort of 9 right in the middle of analyzing it, but one thing that we 10 are going to look at it and one of the -- when you look at a 11 peak annual dose, it's sort of you camp down that dose and 12 maybe the technetium at that time wasn't large, but maybe 13 its peak occurred three or 4,000 years earlier and you're 14 not seeing it and maybe it -- so you need to look at the
() 15 whole spectrum of the doses, and we haven't done that as 16 much.
17 And so say neptunium at whatever, 12,000 years, 18 its peak is say 20 millirem, technetium is 18 millirem peak 19 at 5,000 years, you don't see it.
20 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. I understand.
21 MR. McCARTIN: So there is some of that interplay 22 that we haven't completely factored out.
23 MR. MOHANTY: I used to have the graph that would 24 have shown the time during those. I do not have that with 25 me.
(~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
's s Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i I
228 1 l l CHAIRMAN GARRICK: We will eventually see it, I'm j l
(r- ) 2 sure. 1 3 MR. MOHANTY: In this viewgraph, we present the 4 results for 10,000 years, but here we have combined other 5 disruptive events. In this CCDF, which is a plot of the 6 peak annual dose versus the accident probability, we 1 7 essentially have four different curves. This one is the 8 nominal case. This curve represents the faulting CCDF, and 9 this one represents the contribution from volcano.
10 And when we summed them together, then this curve l 11 is the total curve. I would like to point out that the 12 faulting and volcano doses are combined as annual dose, but 13 if we really want to determine the facility dose, this could 14 be about 10,000 times -- it could be much larger than what
(~%
(s,) 15 we are presenting here as the mean annual risk.
16 Compared to the 10,000-year, here we have the 17 50,000-year, similar, and, again, this represents the 18 faulting, this represents volcano, and this is the nominal 19 case. That is the base case under seismicity. Under total 20 curve, it is represented by the red one.
21 You will again notice that in the peak annual 22 dose, this would be event per year, the mean risk here shows 23 identical to what comes from the nominal case. Once again, 24 if we determine that the facility dose, it is going to be 25 larger than this.
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
229 1 In summary, we have made an attempt to present
() 2 3
some of our outcomes, our results from TPA 3.1.4 code. And we have used a nominal case and we have shown in combination j 4 with two other disruptive events and this presentation was 5 primarily for demonstrative purposes only, and currently i
6 further modifications are going on to move from 3.1.4 to 7 3.2.
8 At the same time, we are also modifying our 9 reference data set as new and more better data are made 10 available to us.
11 With that, I will conclude my presentation.
12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any questions? George?
l 13 DR. HORNBERGER: Sirakanta, on the reflux, I am l
l 14 trying to make sure that I understand this as well as it's
() 15 pos;ible for me to understand it, anyway. As I understand 16 it, you people -- you use a one-dimensional model. So what 17 goes up has to come down ultimately.
18 MR. MORANTY: Yes.
19 DR. HORNBERGER: And I understand you nave your l 20 factors that displace it around the openines and whatnot.
21 I also understand -- I think I understood from 22 what you said that you find that the results are not very 23 sensitive to reflux right now because you're looking at 24 pitting corrosion and it's only humidity driven. Is that i 25 correct, also?
l f
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
! I
)
\
230 1 MR. MOHANTY: Yes, correct. As part of the waste 2 package degradation is concerned, we are not taking that 3 into consideration. But as far as the release is concerned, 4 we do have some initial failure, as Tim pointed out, varying 5 from 100 --
6 DR. HORNBERGER: Right.
7 MR. MORANTY: Those definitely would be affected l
8 by the reflux.
9 DR. HORNBERGER: By the reflux.
10 MR. MOHANTY: Yes.
11 DR. HORNBERGER: But that is just because you have 12 more water to transport the radionuclides away, is that 13 right?
14 MR. MOHANTY: Yes.
i (/ 15 DR. HORNBERGER: And last point. So then as you 16 go to C-22, where dripping on the canisters may be 17 important, I am curious. Are you confident that the 18 one-dimensional model of what goes up must come down will be 19 adequate to study that case, as well?
20 MR. MOHANTY: For the reflux, is it as opposed to 21 being diverted or -- !
22 DR. HORNBERGER: Well, the way I think about it, l 23 if I put a single heated spot in a wet rock, probably what's 24 going to go up is going to go into a convection cell and i 25 come down not on top of the opening.
I i
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
{
l 231 i
1 MR. MOHANTY: I agree.
1
[~ 2 DR. FAIRHURST: You say that the other effect is
' \_)) j 3 that as you heat up the rock, then the fractures over the i
4 opening close, offset shears. So you create preferential 5 pathways outside.
6 MR. MORANTY: In our models, we are not 7 considering the change in fracture weight as a function of i
8 temperature. Besides, in the particular model that I I 9 presented, in that case, the amount of water that is 10 residing in the matrix, the inside of the rock, but in the 11 other model that is not the case. The other one is fracture 12 only and we have some plans for the future of how we want to 13 improve it.
14 And one of the considerations for that improvement l r
( 15 is to see whether or not all the water from the matrix would 16 come to the fracture, eventually coming into the repository.
17 MR. McCARTIN: If I could just supplement it with 18 one thought. I guess the desire in the TPA code was that j 19 the one constant that we have been seeing is that when 20 people do heater tests, things tend to get wetter and that's 21 basically what --- early on -- and that's basically what our 22 model is designed to do, is make things wetter earlier on, 23 and as a simple abstraction of, gee, that's what people see, 24 how does it impact performance.
25 We are looking to see how those wetter drips might
(~'g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_/ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
232 1 affect something like C-22. They may or may not. I mean, im e
O i 2 we need to evaluate that to see whether it's worth putting 3 into effect.
4 The other part is in the TEF KTI, they are doing 5 some very sophisticated non-isothermal hydrological modeling 6 to get a better sense of how the repository will interact 7 with the system and in terms of the refluxing of water.
8 We're keeping our eye on that, but obviously that 9 type of detailed modeling is done off to the side. We never 10 hope to incorporate into the PA code, but they are looking 11 at that issue. But it's one of those things that I think --
12 the thing we're trying to look at is with C-22, we need a 13 joint effort to look at, well, what's important to C-22 in 14 terms of how it's going to degrade and making sure that the f~~
( ,)f 15 other work is coordinated to get us what we need in terms of 16 assessing the performance.
17 Maybe C-22 isn't that sensitive to some of this 18 and we can sort of move on, if you will.
19 DR. WYMER: I was interested in your americium 20 results, a little surprising. I assume you assumed to try 21 to deal with americium and I wondered what retardation 22 mechanisms you considered.
23 MR. MOHANTY: I would like to pass that question 24 on to Dick or Tim.
25 MR. McCARTIN: In terms of retardation --
l'~T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
ksl m Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
233 1 DR. WYMER: Of the americium. I would expect some
() 2 interactions with the --
3 MR. McCARTIN: In fractures or in -- I mean, the 4 only -- generally, when we're in fractures, we're not 5 assuming retardation in the alluvium.
6 DR. WYMER: In the alluvium is really where I 7 would expect it.
8 MR. McCARTIN: Yes. Certainly we have -- I mean, 9 I can look real quick. I don't remember what value it is.
10 We certainly have retardation for it.
11 DR. WYMER: I don't need to know the real value. >
12 I just wondered if you had taken it into account.
13 MR. McCARTIN: Yes. Yes. For alluvium and in the 14 Calico Hills vitric tuff, but exactly to what extent --
15 DR. WYMER: And it's based on experimental 16 information, I assume.
17 MR. McCARTIN: As best we can, yes. Yes. There 18 are some areas where we have extrapolated from similar 19 radionuclides and for americium, it's.one to 400,000 in the 20 alluvium. So we-have quite a range there in terms of a 21 retardation factor.
22 DR. WYMER: And what did you use?
23 MR. McCARTIN: It's a sample. It's sampled 24 between one, which would be totally unretarded, to 400,000.
25 And the 400,000 would -- it's a retardation factor, so'it O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
234
- 1 would reduce the transport velocity by a factor of 400,000.
?
l (,-) 2 So generally, you could see we probably won't see --
i %J 3 DR. WYMER: That is what you used. Okay. l i
4 MR. McCARTIN: Yeah.
l 5 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I should be educated by Dr.
6 Wymer before I ask this question, but I'll ask it anyhow.
7 In your waste package degradation model, you assumed a dry 8 oxidation, oxidizing environment. As the waste package 9 degrades, of course, things change as far as the chemical 10 environment is concerned. l 11 I just wondered if your sense is whether or not 12 that is an important effect with respect to the degradation 13 rate of the waste package. It certainly probably would be I
14 an important effect with respect to the transport, j 15 radionuclide transport and retardation and what have you.
16 You have utilized the distribution of so many 17 things to take into account variation. You did not on this 18 evidently and I guess my question is does it matter. One 19 reason for not doing is you have convinced yourself it 20 doesn't matter what the chemical environment is as a 21 function of waste package degradation.
22 MR. MOHANTY: That is something we have not done 23 as of yet, but that is a consideration for the future. But 24 we have near-field folks here who can address that question.
25 MR. LESLIE: This is Bret Leslie from the NRC l
[( N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
235 1 staff. I think, again, this is another example where the
() 2 design might influence how we thought about it. With 625, 3 again, we're thinking about pitting and maybe we might think 4 about more restrictive exchange with the surrounding I
5 atmosphere. Once you start going to C-22, where it's 6 general corrosion, you might not have that restricted 7 pathway where the reactive transport ib so important for 8 oxygen uptake.
9 DR. WYMER: But in any case, you have an outside 1
10 steel container, regardless of what you have inside. So you l 11 still expect the --
12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: So you still have a lot of 13 iron.
14 DR. WYMER: A lot of reducing iron. l r- .
(,,%) 15 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Which will change the chemical l l
16 environment considerably. !
l 17 DR. WYMER: Especially for neptunium, I would 18 think.
19 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. That's what I was 20 thinking of. Any other questions?
21 MR. AHN: Yes. I have a comment on that. Tai Ahn 22 of NRC. Christen Stockman of Los Alamos Laboratory analyzed 23 the oxygen concentration in partially failed containers and i
24 she did not see any depletion of oxygen due to the corrosion 25 of container, mainly because the fast transport oxygen at l
O
\ms/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
t 236 1 the temperature close to 90 degrees C. Especially outside l
() 2 3
the container, we don't expect any oxygen depletion at all.
In other words, once you have failed a container,-
4 you lose a substantial amount of structures, we don't expect 5 any oxygen depletion,-the dissolution rate of spent fuels.
6 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you. That's rather 7 surprising considering the amount of iron that's involved I 8 here.
I 9 DR. WYMER: Because of-the design, too.
10 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. McCARTIN: Just to help the recorder, the last 12 speaker from the NRC staff's name was Tai Ahn, A-h-n.
13 The next presenter is James Firth, who is going to 14 summarize the results of the KTI'1evel sensitivity studies.
() 15 These sensitivity studies were actually conducted by the l 16 KTIs themselves using the TPA code in more of a 17 self-assessment of the importance of parameters that are 18 associated with our KTIs and sub-issues associated with our 19 KTIs.
20 MR. FIRTH: Good evening. I'm James Firth. I 21 want to put the process level sensitivity studies in 22 context. As Keith mentioned, this is where we had each of 23 the KTIs look at specific aspects of the model and this 24 comes on the heels of several other NRC ufforts and it has 25 led up to our system level sensitivity studies which are i
j ; ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
! 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 237 l 1 underway now.
()
I 2 We used the TPA 3.1.1 code in the fall of 1997 to 3 do these analyses and we had the KTIs do the work. They 4 have been involved in the model development. But what 5 happened as we were doing the studies last fall is that we 6 realized that there were some changes that we felt we needed l
7 to make before we went ahead to the system level sensitivity 8 studies.
9 So we have identified some short-term modeling 10 needs and some long-range modeling needs. The short-term 11 modeling needs we wanted to have in place before we went 12 ahead and did the system level sensitivity studies.
13 Now we're doing the system level sensitivity 14 studies and then we should have the 3.2 version of the code q
(/ 15 available this summer.
16 The sensitivity studies that we did last fall 17 marks a very big change for NRC because we have had much 18 greater involvement of the different KTIs. They were 19 involved from the ground up. They were involved in the 20 model development and in doing the sensitivity studies. And 21 this is the first chance really that they have been using 22 the code and what we're doing is we're hoping that they will 23 continue to use the code for their issue resolution and also 24 looking in terms of what additional modeling we need to do 25 for later versions of the code.
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
_- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
238 1 But some of the goals were to also identify the 2 parameters with the greatest impact on the output, and this
-3 was on a module by module basis. Those that have very 4 little impact, we set two constants. For the system level 5 sensitivity studies, we tested the ones that were most
)
6 sensitive as variables and I believe we're also checking to 7 see, with everything varying, to just do a double-check on 8 what.we saw from the process level sensitivity studies.
9 Also, we evaluated different alternate conceptual 10 models.
11 It's not only are we identifying what the 12 paramet.er ranges need to be, but there are certain 13 parameters that due to their sensitivity or due to awareness 14 that we really need to get a better handle on it, because 15 there is a lack of data, and it's sensitive, we wanted to
- 16. identify what those were.
17 Also, we're looking at doing the studies in terms 18 of issue resolution. We're not doing the sensitivities just 19 for doing the sensitivity studies, but we want to feed it 20 into preparing for reviewing the viability assessment, the 21 license application, then do issue resolution in that 22 context.
23 Again, we have done -- had six KTIs involved in 24 the sensitivity studies and to give it a little bit of 25 consistency, this is the mean data set. Each of the KTIs ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 2 84 b34 l
239 1 would vary those parameters that they felt were relevant to ex 2 what they were studying.
( )
3 Some of the groundwater parameters were varied, a 4 couple were held constant because of the divergent factors 5 and the wetting factors to decree a lot of spread in the 6 results. So what we did was we kept those at constants for 7 the process level sensitivity studies so that it would be a 8 little bit clearer what was coming out of the modules.
9 And now I want to go through and identify what 10 came out of the process level sensitivity studies, both in 11 terms of modeling and then in terms of issue resolution.
12 Container life and source term and looked at 13 alternate conceptual models, then we're working on i
14 incorporating that into our code now. We looked at the
(
(_) 15 capability of cladding on release and that's something that 16 we also -- given its possible significance, we wanted to be 17 able to model more effectively in the future.
18 Again, we're looking at the fraction of waste 19 package wetting and how we're getting the water to the waste 20 package.
21 For the near field, there are some approximations 22 that we had in the 3.1.1 code and these did not allow us to 23 see some sensitivity. If they become important, then we 24 want to be able to look at those, basically in terms of 25 effect of sementitious materials and colloidal transport.
[~) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\> Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
240 1 We were saying travel times under a certain period of time 2 set essentially to zero.
(J)
~-
3 So if they're in that range where there are very 4 short travel times, we're not going to see sensitivity.
5 Igneous activity, we've already made a change from the 6 recent suspension approach to a mass loading model, and that 7 was done prior to the system level sensitivity studies.
8 Moving on to structural deformation and 9 seismicity. We wanted to introduce parameters and model the 10 fraction of weights that rocks fall causing the waste 11 package failure, and that's something that we've 12 incorporated now, because at the time of the process level 13 sensitivity studies, we were assuming that rock in the 14 entire rock type fell and hit each and every waste package
() 15 within that area.
16 What we are also looking at doing is linking the 17 failure criterion with corrosion effects. We do have 18 material like C-22 where you have gradual decline in the 19 robustness of the waste package. Then the waste packages 20 could be more susceptible to rock fall of the same 21 magnitude.
22 The thermal effects on flow, as has been mentioned 23 before, we don't really have a connection, in part, because 24 the refluxing water and the waste package corrosion are l 25 distinct and they are not being -- they are not linked at 2
(~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\_ l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
241 1 this time.
l% 2 Also, what's being looked at is to consolidate the V
3 two reflux models. There were two different models used in 4 the process level sensitivity studies and it was felt that 5 there was a need to possibly combine the two and incorporate 6 these. But the need for this is -- or the significance of 7 this is dependent upon getting the link between dripping and 8 waste package corrosion, and that is also going to be 9 determined by what we see for C-22 in terms of is dripping 10 going to be significant in terms of causing accelerated 11 corrosion.
12 For unsaturated and saturated flow, we want to 13 look at the contaminant transports and some americium and 14 plutonium made larger contributions in the process level
() 15 sensitivity studies.
16 Then for container life and source term, we looked 17 at diffusion versus the bathtub model and basically we saw 18 it is a viable mechanism. Peak dose is sensitive to the 19 spent fuel surface area. Since we're keeping it constant, 20 that's something that we also want to be looking at in terms 21 of do we need to make a change.
22 Cladding protection and particle sizes, wetted 23 area, they all relate to the surface area available for 24 release. The peak dose is sensitive to the time of waste 25 package failure from corrosion and time of waste package
("] ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(ms/ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
242 1 failure is also dependent on several factors. We looked at
() 2 factual versus no backfill. In each case, there were times 3 where the temperature and relative humidity conditions were 4 such that you would have earlier failures for one versus the 5 other.
6 But predominantly having backfill tended to delay 7 waste package failure and had later releases. Also, the 8 composition of the water contacting the waste is important 9 for waste package failure, the release for the dose.
10 DR. FAIRHURST: In what ways does backfill delay 11 failure?
12 MR. FIRTH: Okay. We were ccing a conduction-only 13 model for temperature and from that temperature, we 14 calculated the relative humidity. If the backfill caused
() 15 later periods of time for -- or if the outer barrier failed 16 later -- let me go back.
17 It's a function of temperature and relata '
18 humidity. You need very warm and humid conditions for 19 accelerated corrosion and the pitting. In some cases, due 20 to the parameter variation, backfill would have those wetter 21 and hotter conditions, you would have earlier failures. But 22 more often than not, you would have drier and hot 23 temperatures and then the wetting would occur later.
24 So you don't have as long of a period of time 25 where it is both wet and hot.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
243 1 DR. HORNBERGER: I thought that you calculated
() 2 your relative humidity strictly on the basis of temperature 3 and not on whether you did or didn't actually have water 4 there.
5 MR. FIRTH: The relative humidity is based on a 6 temperature of the waste package in the drift wall. So if 7 you -- and since it's very hot due to the backfill, you can 8 delay the time of the relative humidity.
9 MR. CAMPBELL: So it's the insulating properties 10 of the backfill that result in the higher waste package 11 surface temperatures and, therefore, lower humidities.
12 MR. FIRTH: Generally, yes. Then there are the 13 parameter variations. So there are times where things just 14 worked out right, so then you would have earlier failures
() 15 even though you had backfill. But more often than not, the 16 presence of backfill caused longer waste package lifetimes.
17 MR. McCARTIN: I guess, Jim, the long and short of 18 it is that it's hotter longer, basically, and so it lasts 19 longer.
20 DR. FAIRHURST: You get rid of any rock fall 21 problem.
22 MR. FIRTH: Yes. Yes, if you have backfill. Then 23 looking at what does this tell us for issue resolution, the 24 viability assessment and the license application.
25 One thing that was noticed for the near-field
[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
244 1 calculations is that the oxygen partial pressure and the
() 2 3
chloride multiplication factors were both important and tl.)
chloride multiplication factor was, in part, due to some of 4 the uncertainty and variability in the near field. We took 5 some process level modeling and added the multiplication 6 factor to the chloride concentration.
7 And since the chloride concentration was very 8 important for waste package failure and the localized 9 corrosion, that multiplication factor was important.
10 Also, the oxygen partial pressure, if you have 11 boiling, using a one-D model, you may have depressed oxygen 12 partial pressure for a period of time, which could then slow 13 down corrosion.
14 Things that we're looking at that we need is the
() 15 spatial and temporal distribution of the water dripping.
16 But, again, we would need to connect that to waste package 17 corrosion to effectively use that, and looking at the effect 18 of episodic wetting and drying.
19 For igneous activity, there are several parameters 20 that we identified as needing further characterization, 21 including the re-suspension and the interaction of the waste 22 form and waste package to magma.
23 As has been mentioned several times before, we 24 need that better link between the thermal reflux and the 25 waste package performance. And we need this basically ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
245 1 before we can really get a good handle in terms of how
( 2 important is it and how important is it can help us in terms 3 of our issue resolution.
4 Under unsaturated and saturated flow, the well 5 pumping rates was important and we need to continue to look 6 at this. The mixing zone thickness and several other things 7 related to the climate and the fracture or matrix flow.
8 Another thing that we found was very important is 9 that there is an absence of data for the alluvium in terms 10 of retardation and flow properties. So that's something 11 that for a 20-kilometer group is very important.
12 Now I want to go through the structural 13 deformation seismicity and this gives a good example in 14 terms of things that we're seeing in the process level
() 15 sensitivity studies that we are then going to look at in the 16 system level sensitivity studies and looking at for issue 17 resolution, because this is showing something that we are 18 making some conclusions about, even based on our preliminary 19 studies from last fall.
20 The rock fall, there's a couple things that we 21 want to verify in terms of the rock stability analyses using 22 the UDEC code. This has to do with the yield zone and the 23 _ likelihood of rock falling on the waste package and how high 24 is the yield zone, because currently we're using the yield 25 zone to give us the length of the rock and as a function of O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 e . .
246 1 the volume of the rock, which would cause a waste package to
() 2 3
fail or not fail.
Then for fault-displacement, we made what we 4 believe are conservative assumptions and we believe we have 5 a robust analysis and as has been mentioned before, we do 6 not have a direct connection between the fault displacement 7 and the mechanical failure of the waste package. We have 8 assumed that once you exceed a certain threshold 9 displacement, all of the waste packages in the fault zone 10 will rupture.
11 Basically, what we're concluding, at least at this 12 preliminary stage, is the direct waste package rupture due 1 13 to fault displacement is not significant relative to 14 corrosion and if corrosion is not absent, which is a good
() 15 analog for C-22 at this time, then it still doesn't look 16 like it's going to be a significant failure mechanism.
17 And the fault zone wet, we believe we have made 18 some very conservative assumptions, was the most influential 19 parameter. And it's important as we go through these 20 conclusions to look at what they do mean and what they do 21 not mean. And so I want to give a little bit of background i
22 in terms of the some of the assumptions that we have made l 23 and some of the caveats. j 24 Basically, we were looking at assuming that all 25 known and appreciated faults would be stood back from. So O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
247 1 the only thing causing waste package failure would be from
( 2 new faults or faults that were known to be present, but were
)
3 not stepped back from.
4 Then we considered conditional recurrence rates 5 between 10,000 and 200,000 years. We've assumed that there 6 was a maximum of one faulting event within the first 10,000 7 years. And in some of the analyses that we did, we actually 1
{
8 forced the fault rupture to occur within the first 500 9 years.
10 We used regional recurrence rates derived from 11 paleoseismic results and it was considered constant 12 throughout the simulation period. So if new information 13 comes available, then we can go back and look at how the 14 recurrence rate figures into the analysis and we can see (Oj 15 whether we've bounded it already or whether we need to go 16 back and revisit it.
17 This regional recurrence rate had to be scaled to 18 what is the fraction of faults that actually intersected the 19 repository and that would slip. So we had to do an l 20 auxiliary analysis to scale, what's the likelihood of fault 21 movement in the region to what is the likelihood of fault l 22 movement within the repository itself.
l l 23 We assumed that 50 percent of the faulting that
! 24 would occur in the simulation period would occur on these 25 new or under-appreciated faults.
1
'O
\_ /
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
, 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 I
(202) 842-0034
1 248
.I l -1 We set a threshold displacement that was basically 2 equal to the minimum displacement that we would have for 3 fault moving. Therefore, if the fault slipped, it would 4 exceed the threshold and all of the waste packages within 1 5 that fault zone would fail, j 6 Then we made some assumptions in terms of l 7 geometric characteristics of the faults and an important 8 thing to know is that we did not combine the effect of the 9 fault moving, the fault slipping, and focused flow possibly 10 occurring on that fault, and that could increase the 11 relative significance of faulting on dose.
l 12 Then there's a couple caveats. We did not l 13 consider spatial or temporal activity, multiple ruptures, 14 such as co-genetic and co-seismic. We, again, did not look 15 at the increase in vulnerability due to corrosion. In part, 16 there is no link between corrosion and the faulting.
I 17 We also did not look at or did not consider rates 18 larger than those derived from the paleoseismic studies.
l 19 So what we're doing now is we're looking at these
! 20 in terms of dose in the system level sensitivity studies and 21 we're also going back to look at all of the assumptions and 22 the things that we included and did not include as part of 23 our issue resolution.
24 So we're taking another close look at it before we 25 can close out the issue, but some of the preliminary results !
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O. Court Reporters i
i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 !
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
249 1 show that faulting as a mechanism for waste package rupture 2 does not appear to be significant, but we just want to be 3 very careful before we go forward and close out or decrease 4 our emphasis on faulting as a mechanism. l 5 Thank you.
6 MR. McCONNELL: If I could just add. I think the 7 uniqueness of the situation is that the initial findings 8 were done by the structural geologists themselves, that this 9 factor may not be important, and PA will come in and do its 10 system level sensitivity studies'and confirm that and then 11 we'll be in a position to go out with issue resolution.
12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Some questions? George?
13 DR. HORNBERGER: Jim, the last few slides that-you 14 went through on the seismic were very nice, very detailed.
15 It seems to me that there is at least enough apparent 16 asymmetry, if you will -- that is, some of the things can be 17 looked at in great detail, some of the other things a.4 18 looked at in less detail.
19 And it's a person looking for his lost keys 20 underneath the lamp post question. Are we looking at the 21 things in most detail because they are the things that we ;
22 understand and the other things we don't look at in as much !
23 detail because we don't understand them? Is there a l 24 potential problem?
25 MR. FIRTH: Okay. Part of the detail that I gave l
I
[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
2 250 1 in the slides for the faulting is because we are making some
["')
V 2 stronger statements based on what we did find from the i 3 process level sensitivity studies.
4 But as you saw, we noticed that for the dripping 5 on the waste package, we don't have the connection, so we i 6 couldn't look at it in more detail. But what it told us was 7 we have a problem that we need to look at. Before we can 8 really look at it in, detail, we need a fundamental 9 connection between the dripping and the reflux to the waste 10 package corrosion, unless we determine outside of that that j 11 even if you have dripping on the waste package, that it's 12 not going to matter for the material that we need to 13 analyze.
14 But there is always going to be the risk that you
() 15 start looking at what you can and what level of detail do 16 you look at it needs to be to a point where you can 17 definitively say or have a good idea to say we have looked 18 at this in enough detail that we're sure that if we want 19 more detail, that we would not change our analysis or our 20 perspective.
21 But if you deal with things such as faulting, if 22 it was found to be significant and we have a very loose 23 connection because we used a threshold displacement, and we 24 saw that it was significance, then we have to ask ourselves, 25 well, is that significance because we've made some very ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 I Washington, D.C. 20005 1 (202) 842-0034
)
251 1- conservative assumptions or because we didn't have the
(} 2 3
ability to do a link to corrosion or mechanical failure.
And it's only in terms of asking those questions 4 that you can really get a feel for have we done enough. But 5 you can never always know what you've not looked at, but you 6 have to keep looking to see what is it that we have not 7 considered.
8 DR. HORNBERGER: Sort of a related question. On 9 some of the things where you have taken the approach where 10 there is a good bit that we don't know, so you used these 11 factors, the flow concentration factor into the drift or 12 something like that, and in the cases where you do the 13 analysis and it turns out that this is a no-never-mind, this 14 seems to be a really good approach because that means that
() 15 you can then not pay attention to it.
16 If, in fact, you find that this is important, 17 however, in your sensitivity analysis, to a certain extent, 18 that sensitivity will depend upon the assumptions that you 19 built into choosing the probability distribution of those 20 factors which are, as you say, you just characterized, we 21 don't really have a good link back.
22 My question, I guess, is what do you do then? How 23 do you know interpret the results that DOE presents for, 24 It's say, dripping into a drift based on a two-dimensional 25 or three-dimensional' dual continuum model?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Os Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
t
252 1 MR. FIRTH: Okay. If we find that it's not i
() 2 3
significant, then we can decrease our emphasis on it. If it is found to be potentially significant, that means that 4 we're going to be doing more studies in terms of is it 1D or
, 5 2D analysis sufficient. Do we change our answers if we go 1
6 to 3D? When is it enough? When is sufficient detail I 7 enough?
8 We may then -- this is the process level 9 sensitivity studies. It may then move to the system level 10 sensitivity studies and say well, when we look at it with 11 everything varying it's not as important, because we made 12 some fundamental assumptions in the process level 13 sensitivity studies, such as the mean data set, that could 14 change our answers, but that's why we want to look at things
() 15 varying in the system level sensitivity studies.
16 But if we do have something that we don't have a l
.17 good basis for, and as the regulator we're not the ones
)
18 going out collecting the data or having the resources to l 19 fully characterize that, it means that we need to do a l 20 better job in terms of preparing ourselves for looking very 1
21 closely at what DOE comes in with, and we have to look at 22 what their analyses are, what the supporting data is, try
=
23 -
and pull those apart to see do they hold up, and it's -- the 24 things that we don't have a good idea for if DOE does not 25 have a good idea for, then we have something that needs to i
i l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
I Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034 l
253 1 be worked on before a license application, and we want to be
() 2 able as a regulator to be looking very closely at those 3 things that we identify as being important or potentially 4 important that we don't feel we have a good basis for 5 narrowing the range or giving a different distribution.
6 DR. FAIRHURST: Now I'd just like to second what 7 George.has said, because you sometimes can get trapped into 8 being held to very, very conservative assumptions which were 9 never intended to really represent the situation, but as 10 you've done here with the structural definition seismicity, 11 just use them to show that even under those conditions this 12 is not a problem, so you take it out. But if you get 13 somewhere where you start it off with conservative 14 assumptions, and this happened in WIPP, and not be allowed
() 15 to move away from them, then you can be in severe 16 difficult 1y.
17 MR. FIRTH: And if I can add to that in terms of 18 what we're doing to allow us to document where we are in 19 terms of conservatism is all of our parameter values we're 20 working on documenting what are the ranges that we're using 21 for a given analysis, what is the basis for that, and in 22 some cases we indicate that we need further 23 characterization, more information, or we're assuming it to 24 be conservative, because we don't have any better idea in 25 terms of what we can use.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 '
J
l i
254 1 So as long as we're doing a good job in terms of e
( 2 documenting what is it we're using, what the basis is for
]
3 it, and if it's something that's assumed, and it's assumed 4 because we don't have a lot of information, as we get more 5 information or better justification then we can -- we he.va 6 reasons for backing away from it.
7 Part of the problem is if you use things and you 8 don't clearly document how you got those, because then 9 people will not see where that came from or where it applies 10 and where it does not apply.
11 Tim wants to add something.
l 12 MR. McCARTIN: Jim, if I could just -- I mean, 13 really our code and parameters is our way of trying to ;
i 14 prioritize how we would review the DOE effort, and it's a !
() 15 way of -- yes, there's areas where maybe we can cast aside 16 other areas. We need to prioritize what we're going to look 17 at, and using our code is a way -- we know how it works. We
) 18 know what the assumptions are. And so then it identifies 19 for us where we need to look closer at the DOE effort. j 20 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any other questions?
l l
l 21 N o response.]
[. I 22 Thank you, Jim.
23 MR. FIRTH: Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes, Richard, you're going to 25 take us up to lunch?
/"' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
255 1 MR. CODELL: Good morning. I'm Richard Codell, O
G 2 and I'd like to acknowledge Rose Byrne, who contributed to 3 this effort on the sensitivity analysis.
4 The purpose of my presentation this morning is to 5 show the sensitivity of performance measures to the input 6 parameters primarily, and also to alternative conceptual 7 models including in some cases scenarios. This encompasses 8 alternative designs and alternative understandings of the 9 design. And, third, to determine some measure of the 10 relative importance of the various technical areas to the 11 performance at a repository.
12 Now first I'm going to start out with the 13 classical sensitivity analysis on a run. Our base case run, 14 as I define it here, is the 625 alloy over -- for the inner 15 overpack, carbon steel outer, no cladding, bathtub model for 16 release, no matrix diffusion, no backfill, the 20-kilometer 17 receptor group, up to 50,000-year maximum time, no vulcanism 18 or faulting, but since this was an evolving analysis, some 19 of the runs were done without seismicity. Those are the 20 alternative conceptual model part. But the sensitivity 21 analysis did include seismicity and also the later version 22 of the code which has some minor differences in models and 23 parameters.
24 The sensitivity analysis relied on a number of 25 statistical tests, and we use these to analyze for the most O
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
256 1 important. radionuclides and the most important variables.
[)
V 2 Some of the statistical tests include a rank and other 3 transformations of input and output, correlations between 4 inputs and output both for the raw and the transformed data, 5 stepwise regression and fitted linear models of the raw and 6 transformed variables. So that's what you'll see next. I'm 7 just going to show a small representative sampling of some 8 of this sensitivity analyses which I think are most graphic.
9 Now this first of the sensitivity slides shows a 10 stepwise linear regression for 10,000 years, and this was on 11 the 400 vector set using TPA 3.1.4, the latest version, with 12 seismicity, and this shows that for 10,000-year dose, peak 13 dose within 10,000 years, there are approximately seven 14 variables.
(Oj 15 You can see very clearly in this plot which shows 16 as you add -- as you look at the most significant variable, 17 and then the next most significant down the line, and there l 18 are 157 variables in our analysis, that there are only about 19 seven that show up pretty significant, and then up to about 20 this point it starts to trail off into less and less 21 significance. So the seven factors for 10,000 years, 22 several of them have to do with how much water reaches the 23 fuel. That's this one, this one, and this one, and this is 24 the amount of fuel that's wetted, the fraction of the fuel 25 that's wetted. And then these two have to do with the waste
[~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
's-) Court Reporters i 1250 I Street, N W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
257 1 package corrosion.
2 There's -- you might ask why isn't it more 3 sensitive to waste package corrosion. Well, these are 4 mostly very low doses for 10,000 years, and most of those 5 doses, my interpretation of it, is that they're coming from 6 this very small fraction of initial failures that have 7 nothing to do with corrosion. So that's why they're fairly 8 down in-the noise.
9 DR. HORNBERGER: Dick, residual sum of squares 10 aren't that informative. How about fraction of variance 11 explained?
12 MR. CODELL: Well, I didn't do it for this case, 13 because of the way the code is formulated it wasn't easy 14 to --
) 15 DR. HORNBERGER: Roughly.
16 MR. CODELL: To do it. But for 50,000 years, 17 which is on the next slide, the seven -- there were seven 18 variables that were before the break point. Well, let me 19 put that one up a bit. I'll show you.
20 DR. HORNBERGER: Yes, I have a second related 21 question, and that is, when I think about like the factors 22 that you have there, the flow factor, the amount of water 23 getting to the -- the container being important, it would 24 really be related to the product of all those things, and my 25 question is, did you do a log regression? i 1
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
1
258 1 MR. CODELL: Oh , yes. Actually -- well, this was
- ( ) 2 a -- this was a rank regression.
3 DR. HORNBERGER: Yes. I 4 MR. CODELL: And actually the -- I had more --
5 more runs on 50,000 years because the 10,000-year data were 6 extracted from the 50,000-year data, and not all the 7 information was saved, so I couldn't go back and I'd have to 8 do a new run. But for the 50,000-year runs, it's the same 9 sort of curve, and this is also rank regression. But it was 10 almost the same using log transformation of all the 11 variables. And in fact of the seven factors that I 12 considered important from this stepwise regression, the 13 r squared of the logs was 79 percent. So it was pretty 14 good. And 79 percent of the variance was explained by these O
(,j 15 seven variables for 50,000 years.
16 So it is actually the products of all these .
17 things, as George points out. And in this case the l 18 sensitivities are different than the 10,000-year. Here we 19 See that the most important factors are how much fuel gets !
20 wet, how much is an action contributing to release, not how 21 much -- not so much how much water is getting there but how 22 much fuel is exposed. And these -- this first factor, well, 23 that's this factor, this factor, and primarily. But the --
24 the most important factor, which is pretty much equal to 25 these, is the retardation of the neptunium in the alluvium.
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i o
259 1 That turned out to be very important.
) 2 And then further down ti.e list are factors that 3 have to do with the corrosion of the waste package, and this l 4 one is retardation of americium in the alluvium, l
5 There are other tests, too, and they all pretty 6 much confirmed -- I just picked a couple that were clearest.
7 Now the next figure shows the relative importance 8 of the radionuclides. This is for 50,000 years, and this is l 9 a -- this is the average contribution of the radionuclides l 10 for all 400 sets at the peak, at the peak dose. And very i
11 clearly neptunium is far and above everything else.
i 12 Americium is second. Plutonium doesn't show up here, but l i
l l 13 we're looking into some -- we're looking further at some of i i
14 our assumptions here and may revise that later on.
! /~
l
( ,)f 15 The technetium and iodine which you think might be l 16 important hardly make a blip, i I 17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Now where's the peak on this?
18 On this time span?
19 MR. CODELL: This is peak within 50,000 years and I l
20 it's not explicit on this bar chart. But somewhere -- in 21 most cases it's at 50,000 years --
22 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
23 MR. CODELL: But the highest ones tend to be 24 earlier.
25 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: So you haven't reached the
/~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l
260 1 peak, I guess. }
f I /~'i 2 MR. CODELL: For the smaller ones. I don't have l lV l
3 that plot, but the few cases I looked at, when you have the 4 highest peaks, they happen before 50,000 years.
5 Now the next set of results are the comparing l
)
6 alternative conceptual models. The -- and these are 7 variationit in waste package, waste form, and geosphere. We 8 compare t hese to the base case, which is the sensitivity run l
l 9 we just saw, and now that was done with 400 realizations or l
10 vectors, but all these were done with only 200, but -- or 11 apparently pretty good agreement between 200 and 400. Two j 12 hundred vectors, using a very fast state-of-the-art work l 13 station, took 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />. So it's a fair amount of 14 computational effort here.
) 15 We considered only the 20-kilometer receptor group i
! 16 and looked at 10,000 and 50,000-year time frames.
i 17 The next two figures show the listing of the 18 alternative conceptual models. The first one is the base 19 case except for 200 vectors that we just saw, and then I'll 20 point out what these are. This is -- the second one is the 21 same but with C22 as the inner container material. Then we 22 have 625 material but with backfill, 625 material but with !
23 matrix diffusion, and this one is using the C22 material but
- 24. with a larger flow per container to account for the fact 25 that we're not in -- we're not talking about pitting ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(~}/
(_, Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
(
)
261 1 corrosion, we're talking about general corrosion at a later
() 2 time. But once it does fail, you'll have bigger holes and 3 more water getting in. So this case accounted for that 4 greater amount of flow.
l 5 This one is the base case but with cladding ,
6 protection, and the cladding protection was factored into
, 7' the model by saying that only half of one percent of the 1
8 surface area of the fuel's xposed.
l 9 The next six are on this slide, and No. 7 is -- we l
10 take one-fourth the number of containers and give them four l 11 times the amount of flow per container. So we have the same 12 amount of water getting in, but you might think of this as a 13 focused flow model. This is an alternative conceptual model 14 of the flow where maybe you have some sort of major
() 15 structures that are focusing the flow to more flow to fewer 16 containers. See what difference that makes, i 17 This one is looking at totally -- all the j 18 containers fail at time zero, and this one is no retardation 19 in the geosphere. This is to get a sense of how important 20 these two multiple barriers are to the total performance.
21 And flowthrough is an alternative conceptual model 22 of the source term where we have some researchers at DOE 23 suggest a very small amount of water getting into the 24 container but bathing the -- bathing the fuel with a very 25 thin water film, and this where you might see some ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
262 1 solubility limits start to kick in where you wouldn't have
,O
[~'\ 2 seen them otherwise, because there is such little water.
3 These two I've added since the technical exchange.
4 This is natural analog. This is where we used release rates 5 based on the Pena Blanca natural analog data and plugged i 6 those directly into the source term model rather than using 7 our dissolution model.
8 The second one is another flowthrough model, but 1 9 using the carbonate leach model, which gives you orders of 10 magnitude faster leach, and this was suggested by someone at 11 DOE to look at the case where you don't have any water that i 12 contains silica and calcium because it's coming from 13 condensation only inside the waste package, and this would 14 lead to a higher release rate, but where you might see once
' O)
,( 15 again solubility limits kicking in.
I 16 The first -- as a prelude to the results I wanted '
17 to show some results of the corrosion model for C22 versus 18 625, and these are histograms of the failure times as 19 reported by the code. They're only -- this is only an 20 approximation of the failure rate histogram of all the waste 21 packages, but makes the point. The first one is for no 22 backfill, which is our base case. This is the histogram of 1
23 failure times for the C22, and this is for the 625. They're i
24 dramatically different. We have a lot of early failures l 25 here. These are from pitting. This is only corrosion now, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l
[~T)
\s
% Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
(
a 263 1 not anything else.
() 2 And then these are general corrosion failures 3 trailing out. We don't have any of these in the C22 case.
l l 4 It's only general corrosion.
5 The next one is the same but shows with the effect l
6 of backfill, and, well, many of the same features are there.
l 7 The pitting corrosion is muted for the C22, and both curves 8 are pushed back further in time, because they stay hotter 9 longer.
10 These are the results for the alternative t
11 conceptual models showing the mean peak dose for 50,000 and j 1
l 12 10,000 years and also the percent of the realizations with l
13 dose less than the mean to point out how skewed these are.
l 14 These are -- the mean is being affected by the extreme high
) 15 dose calculations, and the skewness is obvious. And also 16 these are -- the results are presented several ways.
I 17 There's some CCDFs and also scatter plots done and a few I 18 cases where it makes a point.
19 Now the first of these two bar charts shows the I
- 20 50,000-year result. This is our base case, and these two
- l. 21 show the great importance of retardation to the mean, and 22 also the waste package integrity. Also, the C22 base case 23 is here, and it makes about a 50-percent difference from the l
24 base.
- 25. The backfill doesn't make a great deal of
) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s/ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034 l
264 1 difference. Matrix diffusion, which is in our transport 2 model, not too much.
( And the -- these are the percentages 3 ~1ess than the mean, and you can see that this -- they are 4 very skewed results.
5 DR. WYMER: What was your backfill material?
6 MR. CODELL: The backfill material was crushed 7 tuft, I believe, and the properties of crushed tuft were put 8 in there. It only affects the thermal model, insulating.
9 DR. WYMER: Some other things could have a 10 dramatic effect, of course, different kinds of backfills.
11 MR. CODELL: Right. Yes. I think -- I'm not sure 12 if that was sampled or not. I guess it was. Some of the 13 thermal properties were sampled for the backfill.
14 MR. McCARTIN: They can be. I don't -- I'd have
() 15 to look to be absolutely certain whether we did.
16 MR. CODELL: Yes. I don't remember what they are 17 offhand. There was a range --
18 MR. McCARTIN: They're samples.
19 MR. CODELL: Of properties. So we have more 1
20 detail on what the sensitivities -- it is not one of those 21 things that turns out to be very sensitive, because I don't 22 recall it in any of the analyses.
23 DR. WYMER: But it could be.
24 MR. CODELL: Yes. It didn't seem to show up, but 25 then we're only looking at its thermal properties, not any ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
265 1 other contribution backfill might have.
/~'\ 2 DR. FAIRHURST: So the flow model is really a V
3 one-dimensional so that what comes in, the only thing to 4 exit downstream is retardation, are the flow time.
5 MR. CODELL: All our models for transport are -- l 6 their extracted models are one-dimensional.
7 DR. FAIRHURST: What you're doing here is 8 one-dimensional.
9 MR. CODELL: Yes. Well, it's multiple 10 one-dimensional. It's -- because -- so there is some l
11 multi-dimensionality to it. It's because it's just a bunch 12 of parallel paths. So it is more than one-dimensional in 13 that regard.
14 MR. CAMPBELL: Dick, when you have flow through
) 15 the backfill, that is by diffusion? Is that how the 16 model --
17 MR. CODELL: The backfill -- the backfill does not 18 affect the flow at all in the model. The -- well, the only 19 way it would affect it is by keeping the failure time --
20 increasing the failure time because the -- we don't start 21 the calculation till the waste package fails. But there's 22 no effect of backfill on flow. There is a part of the 23 release model that looks at the contribution of diffusion 24 through the backfill. This is generally minor.
25 Any other questions?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
266 j l 1 Okay. The next figure shows the results in the I
() 2 same order as the first, but those we're ranked -- the first 3 one was ranked from highest to lowest. This maintains the 1
4 same order, but for 10,000 years, to point out that the
! 5 order doesn't remain the same, that some things become more 6 important, although the first -- the highest ones,
! 7 retardation and totally defective, are still -- turn out to
'8 be the most important thing.
l 9 Let me move on here. The result -- now to look at 10 the results in a little more detail, I have a lot of figures 11 in the back -- in the backup slide section. I just pulled l I
12 out a few. This one shows the effect --
these are now 13 plotted as CCDSs of peak dose for the 200 vectors at 50,000 3 14 and 10,000 years. This one compares the base case to the
'( ) 15 C22 case. The vertical lines are the means of the two 16 distributions.
17 The -- now this -- this curve shows rather 18 evidently that the C22 makes much more of a difference at 19 10,000 years than at 50,000. Because of the very long 20 lifetime of the waste packages, there is a big spread 21 between these two distributions. Not so much at 50,000 22 where in both cases -- in both materials they've already 23 failed for the most part at 50,000 years.
24 Now the next figure is exactly the same data but 25 plotted in Cartesian rather than log-log coordinates. I O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
[
267 1 just wanted to point out that how skewed these distributions
() 2 3
are. When you look at it in this light the -- most of the doses are rather small. There's only a few that contribute 4 to the mean.
5 Now the next figure shows you might have missed a 6 result. If you look at the result of -- this is the base 7 case now versus the focus flow. This is where we take 8 one-fourth the number of waste packages that would hava 9 gotten wet and give them four times the flow. You don't see 10 anything dramatically stand out in these figures, but if you 11 plot it a different way, that is, you plot the dose of 12 one -- if you plot the dose of the base case versus the 13 other, the peak dose of the base case versus the peak dose 14 of the focus flow case, you see that the slope of this line,
() 15 which is -- this is not a fitted line, this is -- this line 16 that has a slope of one-fourth, one-fourth being one-fourth 17 the number of waste packages.
18 So here this says that it's the amount of fuel 19 that gets exposed, not the flow that affects the release.
20 And so water flow isn't so important, it's -- at least in 21 our current understanding of the model. It's how much fuel 22 gets exposed. I think that's an important conclusion.
23 Finally I'd like to summarize these results.
24 Neptunium and americium most important nuclides. And that 25 there's different sensitivities at 10,000 and 50,000 years; ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N W. . Suirr 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
268 1- 10,000 years we have -- the most sensitive factors have to
() 2 3
deal with water flow and waste package lifetime, whereas for 50,000 it's -- has more to do with the retardation in the 4 alluvium and the fraction of fuel exposed, and then waste 5 package lifetime is down the list.
6 As far as I could tell I didn't see any great 7 effective of seismicity in the performance, even though we 8 included it in the latest model.
9 The statistical tests largely agreed on the 10 importance of the variables, and we did a large number of 11 these, and Rose Byrne helped with a lot of that.
12 Now the observations from the alternative 13 conceptual models are that there's a great importance -- the 14 retardation in the geosphere and waste package lifetime are 15 important, and the factors that contribute to long waste 16 package lifetime like C22 versus 622 are significant, and 17 when we looked at the case where everything failed, right 18 off the bat that made a very big difference. Things like 19 backfill and matrix diffusion don't make a lot of difference 20 in our results.
21 The fraction of fuel exposed is much more 22 important than the amount of water contacting, and we could 23 see that from the model which included cladding and focused 24 flow.
25 Solubility is relatively unimportant in our runs
{
O
\d ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
""""i"s'f"64?: 63 l
l
i 269 1 except for those two cases where we looked at the
() 2 flowthrough model and assumed a very small amount of water 3 getting in, and then at that point you did start seeing 4 effects of solubility of neptunium. Our values are about an 5 order of magnitude higher than DOE was using. That's in a l 6 constant state of flux. I don't know where it stands today.
l :
7 But if we -- there are only a few cases where solubility 8 seems to make a difference.
l l 9 And finally the natural analog data suggests that I
10 the doses will be considerably smaller than our base case. )
i l 11 Thank you.
1 l 12 DR. FAIRHURST: You mentioned the natural analog.
13 Where is that? )
14 MR. CODELL: That's in Mexico. Brett Leslie j
) 15 may -- was actually one of the participants in that, and he 16 could fill you in on a lot of detail. He recently published .
i 17 a paper on it. !
18 MR. LESLIE: Yes, this is-Brett Leslie from NRC
)
I l 19 staff. The Pena Blanca natural analog is a uranium ore body 20 in Chihuahua, Mexico, Pena Blanca uranium region, ore 21 deposits. It's remarkably similar, being an unsaturated l 22 silicic volcanic tufts. It's in the unsaturated zone. And >
l 23 it's basically based upon what we know on the amount of 24 infiltration and percolation and also the solubility of 25 uranophane. And so we've used that information to come up ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Os Court Reporters
, 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
270 1 with a release model based upon what we expect from temporal
() 2 3
constraints would be the release from the Pena Blanca site.
And then scaling it up to Yucca Mountain.
4 DR. EAIRHURST: You say you've recently published 5 something on that-. Right?
6 MR. CODELL: Brett is one of the authors from the 7 center, and it's in Water -- what was it, Water Research?
8 MR. LESLIE: Yes. We'll get you some information 9 on that.
10 DR. EAIRHURST: Yes, I would like to. I'd be 11 interested in that.
12 MR. CODELL: There's also a number of center 13 reports on the same subject.
14 DR. EAIRHURST: Just one publication.
()
15 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: It's obvious that you've been J 16
~
very busy the last few months.
17 In your technical exchange meetings, have you had 18 an opportunity to get a sense.of how your sensitivity 19 analysis stacks up against the sensitivity analysis work 20 that DOE has performed? You've alluded to it a couple I 1
21 times.
22 MR. CODELL: I think we see some differences. I 23 think the most obvious one to me is the solubility issue for l
24 neptunium. Now their solubilities are lower, and that makes l l
25 a big difference in the results. If you're only worried ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 )
(202) 842-0034 l
271 1- about solubility, then a lot of other things become I
() 2 3
unimportant.
fuel's exposed.
It doesn't matter how much surface area of the If it's solubility limited,~it's solubility 4 limited. And this is a big difference in our results.
5 That's the main thing that pops out at me.
6 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Solubility is a rather basic 7 piece of information.
8 MR. CODELL: It's basic but very hard to get at.
9 There's a -- maybe John did you want to comment? John 10 Bradbury -- leave these issues to chemists.
11 MR. BRADBURY: This is John Bradbury. The NRC 12 used information from experimental determinations by Heino 13 Nietzsche and somebody named Efford. They were experiments 14 done both approaching the equilibrium solubility
() 15 concentration from oversaturation and undersaturation. The 16 question arises as to what phase, what neptunium-bearing 17 solid phase precipitates out of those experiments from 18 oversaturation.
19 There have been some -- DOE has postulated that 20 the phase that came out of the oversaturation experiment was 21 metastable and thus is not expected in a situation where the 22 waste form is dissolving and secondary phases are 23 reprecipitating. If that is correct, then the lower 24 solubilities that they pick are appropriate. At this point 25 though we can't -- we're not certain that that postulate is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l
272 1 correct, so we're going with the more conservative number.
2 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.
3 Any other comments, questions?
4 (No response.]
5 We want to thank the staff for what I think was an 6 excellent series of presentations. This I believe was more 7 than we expected, and very well presented, and we appreciate 8 it a great deal. And I'm sure it will lead to some 9 questions later on. So please stand by.
10 MR. McCARTIN: One question I guess I have. There 11 was a roundtable on the PA. Is that sort of -- are you 12 intending to do something after lunch on that or I guess --
13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I don't think so.
14 MR. McCARTIN: Okay.
15 ' CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Not unless the members have 16 some burning questions that they would like to pursue at 17 this time. And I haven't gotten a reaction of that.
18 George? Ray?
19 No. I think not. I think we're satisfied.
20 Yes. Yes. Abe Van Luik of DOE would like to make 21 an announcement.
22 MR. VAN LUIK: Yes. I promised to keep it to a l 23 couple of seconds. This is Abe Van Luik, DOE.
l 24 Just in the interests of no surprises, tomorrow 25 when we show the results of our latest calculations to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
273 1 TRB, they will be different from what is shown in the
() 2 technical exchange a few weeks ago. The main cause of the 3 difference is that we are now taking credit for cladding, 4 and we have basically abandoned a three-dimensional 5 groundwater flow model, the saturated zone model, to go to a 6 much simpler ID representation, very similar to what the NRC 7 is doing. The other changes that were made were minor in 8 comparison to those, but we made these changes for a number 9 of reasons, but some of the comments that were made about 10 the difference between our sensitivity analysis and the 11 NRC's have kind of faded away, I think, because of that.
12 The neptunium solubility importance goes way down 13 when you take credit for cladding. Cladding fails in our 14 model about a thousand times slower than the C22 fails, and
) 15 this is kind of consistent with what we're seeing in the 16 batch test degradation testing at Livermore. And given 17 that, the exposure of spent fuel now becomes the more 18 important parameter, you know, in controlling the near field 19 releases.
20 I thought you'd want to know that.
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Thank you.
22 Any other questions from the Committee, the staff, 23 anybody else?
24 All right. I think we will adjourn for one hour 25 for lunch. Thank you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
274 1 [Whereupon, at 12:00 noon, the meeting was O
g 2 recessed, to reconvene at 1:00 p.m., this same day.]
3 4
5 l 6 7
8 ,
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l 22 l
23 j i
24 25 l
l O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
275 1 AFTERNOON SESSION
( 2 (1:00 p.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: The meeting will come to order.
4 This afternoon we are going to talk about 5 Viability Assessment Guidance. The lead member of the 6 Committee on this subject is George Hornberger, so I will 7 turn the microphone over to George.
8 DR. HORNBERGER: And I see Mike Bell is already 9 getting wired up. We are going to hear from Mike on the 10 topic of VA Guidance.
11 MR. BELL: Thank you, Dr. Garrick and Dr.
12 Hornberger.
13 As I know, the Committee is well aware that the 14 end of this fiscal year, the -- well, actually, for the O)
(, 15 benefit of the transcript, my name is Michael Bell, I am the 16 Acting Chief of the Performance Assessment and Integration 17 Branch in the Division of High Level Waste Management, and I 18 am here to talk to the Committee today about the guidance 19 that is being developed for the staff's review of DOE's 20 Viability Assessment.
21 And as I know, the Committee is aware the 22 department is required by statute at the end of this fiscal 23 year to prepare an assessment of the viability of the Yucca 24 Mountain site for further development as the national 25 repository for geologic disposal of high level waste.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
276 1 You were I guess briefed to some degree by I
()
l 2 Margaret Federline, our Deputy Division Director in an l
3 earlier meeting, and I believe we shared with you the 4 preprint of the paper on this topic that is going to be l 5 presented next month at the International High Level Waste I 6 Conference in Las Vegas, and I will just today be touching 7 on some of the highlights of that paper and perhaps maybe 8 even be able to give you some other insights into the 9 management thinking in how we are approaching the VA.
10 To refresh everybody's memory, the Viability 11 Assessment has been characterized by the department as a 12 management tool. Basically, it is an investment risk 13 decision-making document, so that the Congress, given the 14 costs and some information about the likelihood of success
() 15 of being able to develop a repository at Yucca Mountain, can 16 decide whether the country should continue to fund the 17 project.
18 NRC, in the appropriation bill that directed the 19 department to develop the VA, was not given an explicit !
20 role. Our expectation is that when Congress gets this 1
21 document from the department, however, since there are very l
' l 22 significant regulatory matters addressed in it, that the i 23 Congress will be asking the Commission for its views and we 24 are getting prepared to review it so that the Commission ,
1 25 will be able to respond to any Congressional questions that O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
277 1 we may be asked.
l() 2 Not on the slide, but since this document will be 3 a synthesis of where DOE presently stands in its design of 4 the repository, its total system performance assessments, 5 and will lay out its plan for how it is going to get from 6 'where they are today to the license application, just for 7 the ongoing work that we are doing in the program, it just !
I 8 makes sense to review it and to factor it into our 9 interactions with DOE over the next several years.
10 Presuming, of course, that Congress's risk investment 11 decision is to continue the program.
12 Now, our objectives in reviewing the document are 13 quite a bit different from DOE's in preparing it. As the 14 potential regulator of the facility, we are going to use it
() 15 to essentially see where we think DOE stands in their 16 program to eventually prepare a license application, 17 currently scheduled for March 2002, just about four years 18 from now.
19 We want to be able to identify any potential 20 licensing vulnerabilities that we may see now. Identify any 21 shortcomings we may see in their test plans, the other 22 accivities that they are doing that will lead up to the 23 license application, and point them out to the department.
l 24 Basically, I think in previous raeetings you have 25 probably heard us use the expressien "no surpriser", and, l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
278 l' basically, if there is anything that we see in the DOE L
() 2 program that is deficient, we want them to be aware of it so 3- that, you know, for the success of the national program, I 4 which we are all participants in, they can take the 5 appropriate steps and deal with that in the next four years.
6 Now, the Committee is quite aware from the series 7 of briefings over the last couple of years that basically 8 our program was refocused about two-and-a-half years ago.
9 We are essentially focusing on the ten key technical issues 10 that we identify that are important to post-closure 11 performance.
12 There are a number of aspects of the DOE program 13 that will be addressed in the Viability Assessment that our 14 present program does not encompass. Things like handling in (k 15 the surface facilities, many of the pre-closure activities, 16 and even some aspects of post-closure that don't fall within 17 the scope of the key technical issues at the present time.
18 But we would focus on the knowledge we have gained 19 and the work we have done in the key technical issues that 20 is being summarized in the Issue Resolution Status Reports, 21 the acceptance criteria contained in the IRSRs. We will be 22 using the results of our own sensitivity analyses with the j 23 TPA code that you have heard described this morning.
24 And didn't the staff do an outstanding job, both l l
25 the Performance Assessment staff in presenting it, and the 4
[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
279 l 1 KTI leads in answering the questions that came up? I have 2 rarely seen a more professional presentation before one of l 3 our Advisory Committees.
4 DR. HORNBERGER: We agree.
5 MR. BELL: And, as you can tell, leading up to my 6 third bullet, to the extent we can, our review of the VA is 7 already underway. We are reviewing all the DOE work, their 8 total system performance assessment that is going to be 9 synthesized in the VA. We have reached an agreement with 10 them. There was a technical exchange. In fact, we used 11 this very room about two months ago to go through all the 12 supporting documents that they were developing for the EA 13 and essentially had a discussion on which ones we were 14 interested in that we felt were most important to the kinds O
V 15 of things we were going to be reviewing.
16 They are the kinds of things where we have been 17 participating in the expert elicitation meetings that DOE 18 has been conducting. We have been observing those in a l
l 19 number of areas. We have been observing their workshops 20 where they are doing their own model abstraction work. And, l
l' 21 basically, we have been allowed, we think, to get a very 22 good window into the process that DOE is using to develop i 23 the models, do the technical work, and that will eventually ;
l 24 be documented in the Viability Assessment.
25 And we, in the IRSRs, have been real-time O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
280 1 considering that information, writing down our assessment of 2 it, and using it to resolve open issues with the idea that I
[J) 3 they will have feedback in all the areas we have defined as 4 important to post-closure isolation before they come out 5 with the VA.
6 Basically, the last bullet just says when the VA 7 itself actually comes out, if both parties follow the "no 8 surprises" approach, our review of the VA will really be 9 just confirming what we have already been observing and l
10 reviewing this last year, year-and-a-half, and writing it 11 up.
12 Now, because of things that happen in a large 13 program like this -- you just heard this morning, Abe said, 14 well, everything that we told you last month has changed.
() 15 Just within the last couple of months they have changed the 16 material of construction of the corrosion-resistant barrier.
17 So, to the extent that -- now, there are major changes that 18 may pop out in the VA document when it finally gets 19 published. We can't actually sit down and write our report 20 to Congress right now. We will have to wait till it comes 21 out and compare what we know now to what actually gets 22 printed.
23 I just think it is worthwhile going through the 24 four major parts of the Viability Assessment, as DOE has 25 laid it out, and talking about what we, in fact, would be l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
281 1 able to do. The four major parts are listed here.
() 2 Basically, the preliminary design concept will primarily be 3 focusing on the designs that affect long-term performance 4 and post-closure.
l 5 Because they have got to do a cost estimate and ,
i 6 tell Congress what this whole program is going to -- what 7 this facility is going to cost to build, operate and 8 eventually close, they have got to include a lot of detail 9 in the design concept to develop that cost estimate, that we 10 aren't really going to look into very much. The receiving 11 facilities, handling facilities, all the surface facilities.
12 Even things that potentially are important to 13 safety handling systems for surface facilities that will be 14 a major decision when NRC finally authorizes construction,
() 15 because we aren't dealing with them in our key technical 16 issues now, we are simply going to say in our comments that 17 the scope of our review is limited to certain areas, you 18 know, we are not commenting on these other areas, but we 19 think there is little likelihood that there is some fatal 20 flaw in some of these areas, whether because they are the l 21 kinds of activities that have been conducted before in other !
22 kinds of facilities, and that the' industry has experience in l l
23 dealing with.
24 The total system performance assessment', we will 25 review in as much detail as we can. I mean that we see as j i
i i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
282 1 the principal technical focus of our current program and it
() 2 3
will continue to be all the way up until the time of the license application.
- 4 The license application plan we see as another key l 5 piece of this, because, basically, every area where we see &
I 6 I l vulnerability, some parts of the model that there is a 7 disagreement between DOE and NRC about what is the right way 8 to approach an area, the LA Plan should have something in it 9 for DOE over the next four-year period to try to gather 10 better data to either confirm their model, improve their 11 model, justify their data, and we see the LA Plan as being a 12 very important piece of the VA as far as the NRC is 13 concerned.
14 On the other hand, our review of the cost of
( 15 construction and operation is going to be very limited.
16 Basically, the cost is mainly a matter that DOE and the 17 Congress can work out between them. But what we do want to 18 do , is if there are any regulatory costs that need to go 19 into this, we want to make sure they are recognized. And we 20 also want to make sure they are not over-inflated. We don't 21 want to have a situation where the department goes to l 22 Congress and says, well, this is very expensive, but it is 23 all because of NRC laying on a bunch of -- l 24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: You have heard that before.
25 MR. BELL: -- conservative regulatory i
i I
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 '
(202) 842-0034
1 l
l 283 1 requirements.
() 2 DR. HORNBERGER: Mike, I assume that when -- the 3 kind of things you will be looking for when you look at the 4 LA Plan would be the lists from the acceptance criteria in 5 the IRSRs. Would that be the primary basis for the plan for
)
6 the review of that?
7 MR. BELL: Well, I guess that is the starting 8 point. But then what the IRSRs and the acceptance criteria 9 in the IRSRs may end up doing is defining some piece of 10 information that is needed. Basically, then you ought to be 11 able to go into the LA Plan and see some line item there I 12 where DOE will have that piece of information by the year 13 2002.
14 The products of our review are actually going to
/~5
( ,) 15 be in two phases. The first will be done rather quickly in 16 anticipation that the Commission won't get very much time to 17 respond to Congress. That within two months of the VA being 18 published, we want to have a paper on the way to the 19 Commission and, hopefully, in about three months, the 20 Commission would have completed its review of the staff's 21 comments and be comfortable with what they might say to 22 Congress.
23 Because this level of review is the sort of thing
-24 that the Commission will be talking to Congress about, these 25 are not the detailed technical issues, they are really ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(N Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I
)
I 284 1 focused on do we see any fatal flaws, licensing viabilities
() 2 that Congress ought to know about before it makes its 3 decision on the future of the DOE program.
4 The other level of review will be ongoing, longer 5 than a two to three month time frame we will be continuing 6 to look at the data, the assumptions, the details of the 7 models in the VA, factor them into our interactions with the 8 department, and we actually have a Rev. 2, I think, of the 9 IRSRs that's planned that would include anything we have 10 learned, any new information that would be incorporated into 11 the IRSRs, which are growing, living documents, that, 12 hopefully, by the year 2002 will all be complete and the 13 issues will be largely resolved.
14 I guess one thing of interest to the Committee
) 15 might be where would they fit into all this. And, 16 basically, the three things that are listed, today's 17 briefing, the ongoing interactions which, from time to time, 18 either Committee members or Committee staff have been 19 attending. The nearfield environment and engineered barrier 20 workshop is scheduled for June. And there has got to be an 21 opportunity, I guess, to come down and talk to you in the 22 fall, and perhaps we will work something out on that Friday 23 morning.
24 So, basically, that is my summary of the approach 25 we are taking to the review of the Viability Assessment, and O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
285
'l I would be happy to-try to answer any questions.
2 DR. HORNBERGER:
( Thank you, Mike. Let me ask a 3 question, just to start off here, Mike. I guess, was it 4 March that Margaret gave us a very preliminary briefing that 5 -- well, at any rate, it was several months ago. It might 6 have been February.
7 MR. BELL: Yeah, March was just last month, so it 8 must --
9 DR. HORNBERGER: So it must have been February.
10 MR. BELL: -- have been February.
11 DR. HORNBERGER: Okay. At that time I recall that 12 Margaret had expressed concern about the ability to look at 13 alternate designs. Is that still a concern? And if it 14 isn't, why isn't it? And if it is, what are you going to do 15 about it?
16 MR. BELL: Well, the issue arose because of the 17 TRB's annual report to Congress. TRB is pressing the 18 department very hard to not only look at the reference 19 design but at alternatives. And a wider variety of 20 alternatives than the kinds of things DOE showed the 21- Committee here, which were mainly alternative engineered 22 barriers.
23 The TRB was talking about different layouts, 24 different heat loadings, different -- you know, do you 25 really want to continue this large, I guess, 15 -- or is 12 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
286 l
1 or 22 fuel element waste packages or do you need to go back
() 2 3
and revisit some of those designs?
They were concerned about things like
)
l l 4 maintainability of the drifts and some of the kinds of l
5 issues that Dr. Fairhurst was alluding to this morning. Are 6 there things you could do if you rethought your thermal l 7 loading and the size of the drifts and such that would 8 improve the stability of the rock openings?
9 And our concern was that such fundamental 10 rethinking this late would really end up in a very 11 ' superficial VA that would not -- well, we would not be in a 12 position to review and probably would not help the national 13 program very much.
14 When the Commission -- the TRB actually came in
( 15 and met with the Cr.nmission within the last month and they 16 appeared to have modified their position somewhat, more 17 along the line of the staff's, which is to ensure that you 18 do have a robust reference design, but to the extent you 19 can, look at alternatives. And after VA, you ought to do 20 more work on alternatives. And I think they modified their
- 21 position. So, to that extent, I think that problem may be 22 behind us.
[ 23 DR. HORNBERGER: And so you are confident that you
! 24 can effectively evaluate the kind of differences in design l
25 that are less severe, such as including drip shields or O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
'(202) 842-0034
I 287 1 things that we have heard about from DOE?
() 2 MR. BELL: Well, see -- let's see, there are only 3 a limited number of alternatives that DOE had proposed to
, 4 address in the Viability Assessment. I don't remember if l
l 5 the drip shield was one, was it? I just don't remember.
l l
- 6 But one interesting one was that they were going 7 to look at the case with backfill.
8 DR. HORNBERGER: Right.
9 MR. BELL: And we have been gearing up to be able 10 to review that.
11 DR. FAIRHURST: Thermal loading, might have to 12 expand it.
13 DR. HORNBERGER: Questions? John.
14 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yeah a couple. We keep hearing
( 15 that the NRC has no official role or official requirements 16 with respect to the Viability Assessment, and that is 17 usually followed with --
18 DR. HORNBERGER: But we are going to review it 19 anyway.
20 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: -- what we are doing today, l 21 that Congress is expecting to -- we expect Congress to ask 22 the Commission. Has there been any signals or any_
23 indication that that won't happen, or will happen?
24' MR. BELL: No, as a matter of fact, I think -- you 25 know, we get Congressional questions on our budget and such i l
l 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(f j Court Reporters i
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
(
l 288 1 like that. We get questions to answer about it from
() 2 Congress as to what are our plans to review the VA. So 3 we're anticipating there are at least some committees in 4 Congress that are expecting to see NRC's views on it.
5 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Supposing Congress is silent?
l 6 Is there any -- is there a plan B with respect to what NRC 7 might do or --
8 MR. BELL: Well, it's still useful information to 9 proceed to interact with the Department on. So, I mean, 10 it's not lost effort if in fact Congress doesn't ask. It's 11 --
12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yeah. Now, is the Department j 13 -- given that there's no official regulatory requirement 14 with respect to the viability, has the Department of Energy
) 15 indicated anything relative to resources that they may make 16 available that are required for the NRC's review? In other 17 words, is there any problem there, or do you have an 18 unofficial plan? l 19 MR. BELL: No , I mean, it's the resources to 20 review it are included in our FY-99 --
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yeah, but what about the DOE's 22' resources, they're --
23 MR. BELL: Oh, meaning, are they budgeting to 24 interact with us?
25 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Right.
l O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
5-s Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
289 1 MR. BELL: You know, in some fashion I'm sure they
( 2 are. I think it really can be viewed as just part of the 3 ongoing prelicensing consultation between the two agencies.
- 4 And it just happens that it, you know, at this point in time 5 is taking a form of this document that the Congress has l 6 asked for called the viability assessment.
7 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Has there been any discussion 8 within the staff regarding the value of the viability i
! 9 assessment exercise with respect to the revision of 10 CFR i
10 60? I don't know what the schedule is for the revision of i
l 11 Part 60, but one thought can't help come into people's minds l 12 that given that this is moving in the direction of a l 13 facility-specific regulation or at least some part of it, I 14 given this milestone which is rather significant, one might l
() 15 say that the timing of the revision of Part 60 should allow 16 for lessons learned from the --
17 MR. BELL: And I think it does. I mean, the i
l 18 present schedule is still the one you saw in SECY-97-300 j 19 which is to get the proposed rule to the Commission at the
-20 end of this fiscal year which would suggest the proposed 21 rule in the Federal Register in the fall, is it 75-day I
22 comment? 75-day comment period and so that would be 23 transpiring, you know, over late calendar year '98, early 24 calendar year '99. When we have had the chance to review 25 the viability assessment the Department, if it had any ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
290 1 insights from the viability assessment that it thought
) 2' should be brought to bear on the new Part 63 would, I'm 3 sure, be submitting comments on the proposed rule that would 4 reflect what they've learned in the viability assessment.
5 I don't think we're too out of sync there.
6 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Charles.
7 DR. FAIRHURST: Do you know if you will be asked 8 to look at the potential of leaving the repository open for 9 100 to 200 years?
10 MR. BELL: Let's see, we , I guess, learned that 11 Lake Barrett is discussed with the TRB that --
12 DR. FAIRHURST: It was mentioned here when DOE 13 gave a presentation last time.
14 MR. BELL: Well, they are now considering a design
( ) 15 so that if the future societies chose to -- you know, Part 16 50 only -- or Part 60, and I presume we'll probably do the 17 same thing in Part 63 only requires a 50-year 18 retrievability.
19 The Department had already decided on their own 20 for 100 years of retrievability and in either case you're 21 potentially leaving to, you know, our grandchildren and 22 great-great-grandchildren the burden of deciding, you know, 23 to close the repository or not. But you could envision a 24 situation where you would foreclose the option if you didn't 25 design it properly so that the openings could be maintained.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
291 1 And I think all the Department is saying is, they're going
'\ 2 to modify the design of the openings so that if 50 or 100
[O 3 years from now the decisionmakers at that time decide that 4 it would be a good idea to, you know, watch this facility 5 for another generation or two before making a decision to l 6 close it, they're not going to foreclose that option.
l l
7 DR. FAIRHURST: As I recall Margaret Federline who 8 is here said that you intend only to look at post-closure i 9 performance; right?
10 MR. BELL: Well, I think the presumption would be 11 eventually, you know, some generation would decide to seal 12 the facility. And, you know, whether that happens 50 years 13 after inplacement or 150 years after inplacement, we would 14 want to make sure that for the long-term the facility was f%
.( ) 15 save.
16 DR. FAIRHURST: But there are a lot of things you 17 could do in that 100 years that could significantly change 18 the long-term performance, you know, ventilating the 19 repository, for example, and keeping it and cooling and 20 change the thermal --
21 MR. BELL: Well, you're absolutely right. I guess 22 we'll have to see what kinds of reference design and then 23 alternative designs the Department may come up with.
24 DR. FAIRHURST: I was only thinking, you know, 25 that if Congress feels that that option exists they may very
('T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l 1
r i
! 292 1 well -- some of them may want to go over that. There's a 2 strong political push to do that.
i (J) That's pure conjecture, 3 and you're right.
t 4 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: That's an interesting -- it's a 5 little bit off the path, but it's an interesting commentary 6 because we're talking about a facility that will be 7 operating longer than any facility that's currently 8 licensed, probably, et that's not even the licensing.
)
9 That's not even the period for which it's licensed.
10 There are two reasons why this is very 11 interesting. One is, it is a facility, it is a nuclear 12 facility and it will be operating for a long time before 13 it's closed, whether it's 50, 100, or 20'O. I 14 The other thing that's very interesting about the rh (j 15 operations phase is just as you say, Charles, there's an 16 opportunity for the way in which the facility is operated to 17 impact the long-term performance. And one of the most 18 obvious areas that you could impact is the thermal loading.
19 But you could also imagine that you could have a major l 20 impact on the containment of the waste package and a variety 21 of other things. Because the more you have it around and 22 the more you can make measurements, the more information you 23 gather, the more input that you can provide in the long-term I 24 performance analysis and reduce uncertainty.
25 So, one of the things, I think this committee has f]
Ad ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
293 1 had some interest in is maybe learning a little more about
() 2 eventually the NRC's position relative to the operating 3 phase. And even some people might even be saying, that 4 might be the only phase.
l 5 Anyway, as we say, that's a little bit off path, 6- but I think it's something of considerable interest.
7 MR. BELL: Well, and I think some of these are 8 exactly the kinds of considerations that TRB is trying to 9 get the Department to, you know, reconsider. For a long 10 time the approach at Yucca Mountain was the hot repository 11 and placed the wasted and take advantage of the drying out 12 which, you know, has some advantages on in some respects, 13 but an alternative of, you know, waiting and cooling long 14 enough so that things are very cool and corrosion rates 15 aren't very fast compared to 90 percent relative humidity at l 16 90 degrees centigrade may slso have advantages and they l 17 would like DOE to go back and do those kinds of tradeoffs 18 which were done -- done once, but the program and some of 19 the thinking has changed since.
20 DR. HORNBERGER: Mike, one of the other things 21 that has come up before, too, you talked about how you --
22 the LA plan that DOE will put forth is also an important 23 aspect of the review for you. Concern has been expressed l 24 that the LA plan is important in terms of providing a road 25 map for how to get from here to a final licensing. And the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 1 l
l-l i
294 i concerns that have been expressed is whether or not that --
() 2 3
the overall plan will be robust enough to do that.
l And I guess the question I have for you is, it's i
4 easy to think in terms of the details of looking through the I 5 LA plan as to whether or not this particular data set of 6 plan has been put in place to collect thase particular data.
7 But how about just the overall -- the overview -- the 8 overarching view of can we get from here to whe2:e we want to 9 be? Do you know what I mean? It's sort of a higher-level 10 review almost of the LA plan. I assume that you'll be 11 looking at it that way as well?
12 MR. BELL: Well, yeah, I'm sure we will, but I 13 think we've probably already jumped to the conclusion that 14 the devil is in the details.
() 15 DR. HORNBERGER: Okay. Okay.
16 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Ray?
17 DR. WYMER: No.
18 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Okay. Thanks a lot, Mike.
19 MR. BELL: Thank you.
20 DR. FAIRHURST: Could I just throw something out.
l 21 I might be getting off the track a bit, Mike. l l 22 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Maybe you had better stand by, l
23 Mike.
l l 24 DR. FAIRHURST: No, I was just wondering if 25 there's any interest, although not required, to have any i
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ,
Washington, D.C. 20005 '
(202) 842-0034
295 1 other independent international look at the plan? Yeah, in
() 2 3
the VA just to make sure that you've got -- people have got similar problems and do you get --
4 MR. BELL: I mean, you're thinking of some sort of 5 international peer review like was done at WHIP or something 6 , like that?
7 DR. FAIRHURST: Sure. Yeah.
8 MR. BELL: I think maybe you ought to ask Lake 9 Barrett that tomorrow morning.
10 DR. FAIRHURST: Well, it could equally be NRC 11 saying they want to be assured of international credibility 12 and not just overlook something that you and DOE have been 13 together and working this out, and somebody who hasn't may 14 see some things that, you know, you would say, why didn't we
() 15 think of that. It's just purely --
16 MR. BELL: Well, I think this Agency has 17 traditionally viewed the fact that we have eventually got to 18 go to a licensing board to do an adjudicatory proceeding as 19 being more thorough than, you know, an international peer 20 review that might be convened --
21 DR. FAIRHURST: Okay.
22 MR. BELL: -- and take place over a couple of 23 months.
24 'DR. FAIRHURST: I was just thinking of the 25 Chairman's constant insistence on being international.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Os Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
! 296 1 MR. BELL: Well, I may get recalibrated.
() 2 3
[ Laughter.]
MS. HANLON: Dr. Garrick?
4 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
l 5 MS. HANLON: I just wanted to make a couple 6 comments on some points that came up.
7 This is Carol Hanlon, I'm with Yucca Mountain l 8 Project, Department of Energy and I'm in the licensing 9 branch. And I think Dr. Hornberger asked --
10 DR. FAIRHURST: Hiding behind a pillar.
11 MS. HANLON: -- hiding behind a pillar.
12 And Dr. Hornberger asked, I think, whether or not-13 in the license application plan we would actually have 14 listed the acceptance criteria for the issue of resolution (O,j 15 status reports. And in fact, it is not our plan to hae 16 those. I think we've talked to you and we want to make it 17 very clear that we're clearly correlating with the KTIs, the i
18 key technical issues, we're correlating with at least four j l 19 places in that. Probably in the first chapter also in the 20 design description wherever a KTI is appropriate we will l 21 identify whether that's appropriate. We'll also identify 22 throughout the TSPA and throughout Volume 4 which in fact L 23 will have a matrix which shows where KTI is addressed. I 24 However, at the level of detail that we're dealing with in 25 the LA plan we probably will not be going down to the level ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
297 1 that you may be looking for which looks for specific
()
2 activities or specific tests that will be performed. So we l
3 do not plan to have those acceptance criteria lists at this 4 point. We're looking forward to the working draft LA to 5 incorporate them at that time.
6 So, we're trying to give a correlation, but we 7 won't be able to have the full discussion of how we're going 8 to resolve that. Does that answer your question a little 9 more closely?
10 DR. HORNBERGER: That helps.
11 MS. HANLON: And also we've very much looking 12 forward to the NRC's comments on -- on whatever comments 13 they may have on the VA. And, of course, we will forward 14 those and incorporate those into the working draft LA, so we
/~T
! ) 15 definitely allocated resources and we're looking forward to 16 continuing the prelicensing on that. Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you. All right.
18 Thanks Mike.
19 All right. A miracle has happened.
20 { Laughter.]
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: We have finished a presentation 22 and a discussion well in advance of the allotted time. The 23 committee has a great many reports to consider and matters 24 to consider. It's our understanding that the NEI people --
25 some of the people will not be available until the scheduled i
l
(~
(,)) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 1
l 298 1 time of 3:15. So we can't move that up. But what we would l () 2 like to do is start our session having to do with the 3 preparation of ACNW reports.
4 There may be a couple of things that are rather 5 straight-forward that we can get out of the way.early that 6 I'd like to suggest. One would be the memo of understanding 7 between the ACRS and ACNW on activities of common interest 8 to the two committees and how we're going to work together 9- on those. The other would be we have a draft of a charter 10 for the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste which we revise 11 periodically and that period is here to revise it.
12 DR. HORNBERGER: And it's in my office --
13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: So we maybe ought to consider 14 those two items right now because I think they're rather
() 15 straightforward and we can get them settled.
16 As far as the division of responsibility between 17 the ACRS and the ACNW the procedure is that we have drafted
- 18. a document that is proposed that it be signed by both the 19 chairmen of the two committees and basically sent to the 20 committees that identifies those key areas where there is a !
21 strong interest on the part of both committees and that 22 within those areas we attempt to come to grips with how 23 we're going to work together or separately on those 24 subjects.
25 So, the procedure will be that we, the ACNW, will i
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 842-0034
299 1 look at the draft and give our comments. The two chairmen
() 2 have looked at it and are in essential agreement.
3 ACRS at their meeting, 1 guess next week, is it, 4 will similarly review the document and then it will become 5 the basis for our resolving how we're going to handle the 6 subject.
7 So with that, I think all of you have a copy of 8 it.
9 Oh, yes, this part of the meeting we don't need to 10 have a record.
11 [Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the public meeting was 12 recessed, to reconvene at 3:15 p.m., this same day.]
13 14
() 15 16
.17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 I
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
)
300 1 AFTERNOON SESSION [ Resumed]
() 2 3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK:
[3:15 p.m.]
The meeting will come to order.
4 We are now going to have an informal discussion 5 with the Nuclear Energy Institute on Yucca Mountain, the 6 Yucca Mountain viability assessment. For NEI Marv Fertel 7 will lead the discussion and Marv, why don't you !.ntroduce 8 your colleagues.
9 MR. FERTEL: Thank you, Dr. Garrick. With me i I
10 today on my left is Steve Kraft who is the director for our 1 11 high-level waste program. Steve has overall responsibility 12 for all of NEI's activities related to high-level waste 13 disposal particularly as it relates to the ultimate disposal 14 at Yucca Mountain and the interim storage related to it. l
() 15 On my right is Ralph Andersen who is our lead 16 person in dealing with the regulatory issues related to ,
17 Yucca Mountain licensing and particularly in interfacing !
i 18 with the ACNW. And I think you all have seen Ralph in the '
19 past and you probably will see more of him and probably more 20 of us too if that's useful to you.
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Good, good. Welcome. Glad to l 22 have you here.
23 MR. FERTEL: Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yeah, and we've seen Ralph a 25 lot.
["' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
301 1 MR. FERTEL: We're certainly pleased to be here.
() 2 Within NEI about a little over a year ago I got 3 responsibility for a number of things including the overall 4 waste program. And as Steve and Ralph and I and some of the 5 others looked at it, what we found was we were focused very 6 heavily on the DOE program. We were certainly focused very 7 heavily on legislation and we still are. And probably with 8 the e::ception of Ralph who was doing yeoman's work, there 9 wasn't a lot of attention being paid by us to what was going 10 on in NRC's space.
11 One of the things we thought was we ought to begin 12 to spend more time programmatically both in NRC space and in 13 DOE space and I think over the past year, a little more than 14 that, we've probably done that and we've done that to our
() 15 pleasure and our interaction with NRC staff and with what we 16 know of the program, I think during the discussion today 17 we'll give you our impression. And we're very pleased with 18 how the staff is working and what we saw down at the center 19 when we visited there during the DOE /NRC technical exchange.
20 We interact quite extensively with DOE on their 21 issues and we would hope to continue to interact quite 22 extensively with NRC. And as I was telling Dr. Wymer, we 23 certainly welcome the opportunity to come here and interact 24 with ACNW on not only the waste issue, but other -- as I 25 understand it, my colleague Ralph Beadle, who will be here ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 302 1 in June to talk about things.like low-level waste and
() 2 decommissioning and radiation protection safety.
3 I think that at NEI now we are very involved in a 4 lot of issues. We probably visit with the Commissioners --
5 at least weekly, someone from our senior management is 6 probably speaking with a Commissioner. And Joe Cowan has 7 emphastzed on a number of occasions the value of the 8 industry input to the Commissioners. We continue to do 9 that. We in all honesty haven't been doing that in the 10 waste area except tangentially. I was at a meeting with the 11 Commissioners about three weeks ago on Part 70 licensee 12 issues and did comment to a number of the Commissioners 13 including the Chairman on how favorably impressed we are 14 with the NRC program in waste right now. But we have not
) 15 made any.special visits on waste and I think we probably j 16 will start to do that. And, again, I would like to 17 emphasize, we would like to be as helpful to ACNW as we can ]
I 18 be and just ask. Again, Ralph hangs around, you know, will 19 give us a buzz and just say there's something that you would 20 like some input on.
21 I know that Ralph shared with you our annual 22 report and our organizational chart and I'm not going to 23 really talk about NEI except from the standpoint to just be 24 sure you recognize all of the licensees in the U.S. are 25 members of NEI, all of the power plant licensees, all of the O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 2
303 1- major material licensees. We probably have about 250
() 2 members. Maybe a third of those are international members j 3 including most of the larger utility companies 4 internationally. Almost all of the fuels facilities and a 5 number of research universities, all of the 6 radiopharmaceutical folks in fact. In fact, they're all l
7 meeting in o'Ir office today discussing Part 35 issues and I
8 other issues like that.
L 9 So, from an industry standpoint NEI kind of prides l 10 itself on being able tc represent the industry on generic 11 issues before NRC or before EPA or before our Congress or 12 the administration depending upon what the issue is. And 13 you should again feel free to look to us as a vehicle or a 14 window into various segments of the industry.
() 15 We were asked to talk about the VA today, to DOE 16 viability assessment and what I would like to do is focus on !
17 our view of the DOE viability assessment. Both Steve and 1
18 Ralph can go into greater levels of detail than I can and we l I
19 are prepared probably to discuss any questions you may have ;
20 and get them involved.
21 I'd also like to touch on the pre-licensing j 22 process and give some views that we have on that. I know in 23 the note that we sent in we indicated that we might want to l 24' talk about spent fuel storage, basically on-site storage.
25 What we'd like to do is kind of defer that, and it's mainly ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 4 (202) 842-0034 l
l l
304 1 because we've had a number of discussions with the staff
() 2 since our note went in. We had a number of discussions with 3 industry folks that are involved in that and there appears 4 to be a pretty significant change in the way things were 5 going and we'd like to get our arms around that before we 6 gave you any insights we have which may be old. So we would 7 rather make sure we're more current and more accurate if 8 we're going to give you our insights, particularly in this l
9 case where they woul'd have been pretty critical.
10 So, before I start, I'm more than willing to keep 11 this real informal, so interrupting me is just fine. I 12 heard when George was going through your report he talked
~ 13 about the King's English written. I couldn't write the 14 King's English and growing up in Brooklyn and going to
() 15 school in Boston I don't speak the King's English. All the 16 "R"s are there if you do a mass balance which engineers and 17 scientists do. I just put them in where they don't belong 18 and leave them out where they do.
19 [ Laughter.]
20 MR. FERTEL: So King's English is not my forte, 21 but Ralph and Steve may help.
22 If there's no questions on anything I've said, 23 I'll start off with our impression on the viability l 24 assessment.
25 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Well, I think one of the things i
[~S ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
f I l
305 l
1 that the Committee is pleased to hear is that the industry
' I D. 2 has renewed interest in the waste field. I think one of the O
3 things that I've been openly critical about to my colleagues 4 in the reactor field and in the electric utilities is that 5 once the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was written the 6 nuclear utility executives seemed to forget the problem of 7 waste, and I think that was a very serious mistake. Because 8 I think the. industry push, industry ideas, industry 9 inspiration is very much needed.
10 And if on the one hand the industry -- and I'm now 11 thinking more broader than the utilities, really believes 12 that waste is the achilles heel then we've got to start l
13 acting like it and give it the kind of totalis and l 1
14 priorities that is necessary to get us through these next
( ) 15 few years and finally get to a position where we can look at 16 the public and say, the problem is solved. So, we're very 17 pleased that there seems to be a new consciousness about it.
18 And we hope to get input and feedback from you quite often 19 on this subject. So we're happy that you're here.
20 MR. FERTEL: Well, thank you, John. I think we l 21 are fully committed and reengaged. And I think you're 22 right, I think the industry stayed engaged, but it was in 23 legislative space as opposed to in the programmatic and the 24 technical space. I think people like Steve Kraft stayed 25 involved with all of it, but at times he probably felt like I
i
./^% ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_) Court Reporters l I 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
306 1
l I he was the lone ranger. And I think going down the road now '
() 2 3
we'll stay more engaged and more so engaged certainly in programmatic whether or not we get legislation because we 4 need to implement the program if we get legislation we need 5 to implement the_ program if we don't get legislation.
6 So, I think you'll see us more engaged, more 7 involved, and I appreciate your desire for that involvement 8 and desire for input.
9 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you. )
1 10 MR. FERTEL: On the viability assessment, I know 11 you've been briefed extensively by DOE and NRC staff.
12 Clearly we're looking at the viability assessment for what 13 it is which is a snap shot in time which will provide a 14 reasonably accurate picture of what a design, a cost, and a
() 15 schedule looks like at that snapshot. What the TSPA or the 16 total system performance assessment looks like. And 17 particularly I think from this organization's view the 18 feasibility or the licensing plan for going forward, and 19 from our standpoint that's a very important effort. Because 20 I think -- and I'll come back to this during the discussion 21 that the submittal of the viability assessment, unless there 22 is some phenomenal surprises that we're unaware of is almost 23 a milestone for a transition from a real focus on just 24 studies and science to a focus on moving towards real 25 licensing of the facility. And I'm not trying to prejudge l'
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l
307 1 the total outcome, it just seems like you get through that
() 2 and that's where your emphasis starts to move which means 3 that licensing becomes so much more important and the 4 challenges get even greater in that area.
5 The other thing the viability assessment will do 6 is it's going to inform, basically the national policymakers 7 and the public on where the Department of Energy, and to 8 some degree when NRC does what it will do, where the 9 regulatory body see this particular project standing. It 10 isn't an NRC compliance document. It's not a licensing 11 document and we're always concerned about how it could be 12 looked at. It's not intended to get a license and we don't 13 expect that NRC should review it for compliance sake, but we 14 do see tremendous value of an NRC review focusing on how to
() 15 get to closure on those licensing-related issues.
16 It itself does not represent a decision and-we 17 don't pretend it does, and certainly DOE doesn't. But it 18 does represent somewhat of a fork in the road for moving 19 down a clear path. Obviously if the site is not viable, 20- it's a very different programmatic approach after this and 21 where do we go. If the site is viable we are now moving 22 down to try and complete the science, move into the 23 licensing phase, and basically try and get a repository 24 licensed and operating in line with the program schedule.
25 Also, it's not the final snapshot of where the O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
308 1 Mountain is. There will be another snapshot, obviously,
() 2 when the license application is filed. And given what Lake 3 said at our meeting in Savannah a few weeks ago where it's a 4 monitored repository project, my guess is there will be a 5 number of snapshots going down the road even after licensing 6 is completed.
7 The thing that the VA can do and we think that the 8 role that ACNW can play, and certainly us in commenting to 9 the staff is that it should have a real meaningful effect on 10 focusing the DOE and NRC licensing efforts. And it should 11 produce real good insights that would allow the scientific 12 program, we think, to be narrowed, and by that we mean 13 focused.
14 We would hope it would allow some issues to get to
() 15 closure. And in licensing space we know that NRC and DOE 16 have been working objectively and openly at trying to get to 17 closure on some of these issues. We would hope once they 18 get there they have a process that allow them to remain l 19 closed absent some information to reopen them. And it also 20 should allow -- and this is where we think the NRC focus 21 should be on the VA -- the licensing requirements based upon 22 what the licensing plan laid out by DOE is to be firmed up 23 so that DOE gets some real guidance.
24 Recognize that there is not statutory requirement 25 for NRC to review the VA and we also recognize that NRC
[~') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\~ / Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
]
L l
309 1 expects that there may be Congressional inquiry as to it,
() 2 and in all likelihood if I were a Commissioner I would want 3 to know at least what NRC thinks of the licensing plan part-4 of it, if not the rest of it to some degree.
5 So clearly some review will be required. And we 6 recognize that and we think that that's valuable. We just 7 think that it's got to be done the right way.
8 We think that the review can serve to help to 9 improve the prelicensing program by, one, enhancing the 10 technical exchange of information between DOE and NRC; and 11 also to move towards more and better integration of the 12 program elements, and I'll come back to integration a number 13 of times during this set of comments.
14 It provides an opportunity for NRC to share its l
( 15 perspective on what remains to be done for a complete and a 16 well-documented license application.
17 I think that we need to keep in mind that DOE has 18 never licensed anything. And in this case NRC has never 19 licensed the thing DOE is trying to license. So everybody 20 is trying to break somewhat new ground. And that's 21 something that we shouldn't lose sight of.
22 I know that some of the DOE folks think they have 23 licensed things and the only thing that I would say is the 24 DOE folks that feel that way worked at NRC. And I've said 25 this to NRC staff, so it's no surprise to John and his l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
(
l
310 1 folks. If you've worked on NRC staff, you've never been a
[ 2 licensee. And it's a real different side of the coin.
3 So, I think the more help you can give DOE and 4 what's expected of the licensee, the better off the 5 application will be, the more smooth and effective the 6 review will be. Because you're reviewing something for the 7 first time, they've never submitted anything.
8 We think that if DOE does the things or if NRC 9 provides DOE a critical and objective assessment of 10 particularly the licensing plan part of the VA and if DOE 11 does those things that are identified by NRC, it shoW d 12 result in a license application that is acceptable when it I 13 get submitted, if they do the right thing and no new 14 information comes up. And, again, we think that that's in r
5 15 everybody's best interest. DOE, NRC, the industry and i
16 fundamentally serving our national purpose of getting a 17 waste disposal program in place.
18 The VA provides NRC a timely opportunity also for 19 some sort of self-assessment and we don't mean that in a 20 critical way of you're doing things wrong.
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Marv, to get this to maybe the 22 level I think you're interested in and less formal, do you 23 have some views, you or Steve, or Ralph on what some of the 24 things are that the NRC should be doing to --
25 MR. FERTEL: Sure.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
l Washington, D.C. 20005 1 (202) 842-0034
I 311 1 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: --
to smooth the licensing
() 2 process? Some specific things?
3 MR. FERTEL: I think one of the more obvious 4 things, John, and this is not a surprise to the NRC staff, i 5 they want to do it, is to develop their standard review 6 plan. We think that is an absolutely essential and 7 important component of what would be useful to facilitate l 8 the licensing process with the VA providing good input 9 because of what's been laid out and what you see as 10 deficiencies or strengths.
11 One of the things we'd say in that is when you 12 think of the standard review plan and we know that the NRC 13 staff has done an excellent job in the face of budget 14 constraints of refocusing their program by basically going
() 15 to a KTI approach. And we think that was very smart, we 16 think it was well done. In looking at the standard review 17 plan process what we'd say is, you need to look at a broader 18 perspective than just the KTIs. You need to be looking at 19 what's required to license the handling facilities, the 20 above-ground facilities which are not part of the KTIs 21 because they're all looking at post-closure items.
22 So we think that one of the things the NRC staff 23 can do to help the DOE is to step back when they get the VA, 24 look at what's in it, look at what's been dealt with 25 effectively, what DOE thinks they still need to do and then I
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
312 1 have a standard -- have your comments go back which helps
() 2 3
DOE understand, yes, this part of your document is really good. We agree with you, and these items would look like 4 they're in great shape. We think that for these other items 5 you still need to do these kinds of things to satisfy us and 6 there's a whole bunch of dimensions maybe they've forgotten 7 because they too may be focused on certain areas that had ;
8 been the ones that had been hot and heavy.
9 So we think the real important things is not like 10 a Part 50 licensing where, you know, we've gone through it, 11 you know, 107 times and I know what goes in or I'm pretty 12 sure I do. This is going to be a case where, gee, I didn't 13 know I had to put that in this and how do I put it in. So 14 we think the standard review plan becomes a very integral
() 15 output from the NRC staff after they've looked at the 16 licensing plan that's part of the VA and that becomes an 17 input to how the DOE can respond.
18 Ralph, do you or Steve have something you_want to 19 add to that in particular? Steve?
20 MR. KRAFT: Well, reserving the right to some 21 future date provide you a specific list of those items, it 22 has been my observation that there's a need to close issues 23 and hold them closed. And part of that may not be 24 necessarily we all agree on either side of the table that X 25 equals 29 and Y equals 35, but that we agree on the pathway l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\s / Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l I
313 )
l 1 to determining those answers and doing it in such a way
() 2 whether it's through the commitments made by NRC, and DOE, 3 in the course of the VA and its review or in some other 4 manner for doing that.
1 5 There have been some attempts at doing that.
6 Issues like these big -- or the list of big issues, severe 7 erosion and groundwater travel and all that sort of stuff 8 that have associated with them the need to first determine 9 what are the ways we are going to analyze them.
10 A good example without going through the details 11 is the recent working paper in Science Magazine. We now 12 know there's another way to look at accumulation of 13 strength. What ways are we going to use? What is the 14 acceptable way we're going to do that? What's the way NRC (O/ 15 is going to ask it to be looked at.
16 Another good example is when we were at the 17 technical exchange in San Antonio. I was really -- I was 1 18 very impressed with the extent that DOE is taking TSPA J 19 modeling. It is frankly beyond anything we imagined it 20 would turn into. I mean, it is so complicated and so ,
21 complex now there are submodels that won't add up and they-22 have to have basically simplified models to add to get to 23 the top model. And then NRC is trying its best to envelope >
[
24 it with some conservative boundary kind of modeling which is 25 appropriate to do. But how those two fit together I don't l
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
N./ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
314 1 think is too well defined what NRC is going to be looking
() 2 3
at.
They're all part -- this is all part of the same 4 issue. How do you get an issue closed and how do you hold 5 it closed once it is closed? Absent some additional 6 information.
7 MR. FERTEL: Yeah, and absent new information that 8 causes you to open it up again.
9 I think in the same context one of the things 10 that's probably important when NRC writes up their review of 11 the VA is clearly most things that NRC turns out not just in 12 a waste program, certainly in Part 50 space, or Part 70 13 space, the intent is not to write a whole document about 14 this is good and it's closed. It's here's what's missing or I
( 15 here's what's wrong. And I think we need to make sure that 16 the NRC document that comes out on the VA it's recognized 17 that the audiences that will read that are much broader than ;
18 just the DOE AKRIN program, i 19 Within DOE the technical review board will be 20 looking at that and they'll be looking at it from what 21 context is NRC saying there are prchlems or there's 22 strengths. Clearly the Congress might be looking at it.
23 The public will look at it, Nevada will look at it, the 24 industry will look at it. And one of the things that would l 25 be most helpful when it goes to Steve's closure issue is for O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
315 1 whatever you say to indicate where you think things are
() 2 3
good. It's not just where are there things that need to be improved. Because if I'm going to write a license 4 application and 50 percent of what I gave you looks real 5 good to you, I ought to know that as opposed to only the 6 places where you feel there's holes and there's more 7 additional work that has to be done.
8 So I think -- and I'm not saying that because NRC 9 might intend to just paint the negatives. The inclination 10 is normally to lay out what's missing, what still has to be 11 done. And what we're saying in this case, it's real 12 important to lay out the full picture.
13 MR. ANDERSEN: I think a couple of things that I 14 would add in response to your question, John, first and
() 15 foremost the viability assessment will cover the entire 16 landscape of the facility, not just the post-closure issues.
17 And 1 think it's an opportunity for the NRC at large, not 18 just the division of waste management to take its first shot 19 at how they're going to integrate all of the programs in 20 licensing Yucca Mountain. And this gets back to the 21 above-ground facilities and also issues that won't fall 22 under a risk-informed regulation. Retrievability is a very 23 simple one.
24 But, you know, our view is there's a lot of 25 efforts going on within the NRC that will all have to be (T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\ss/ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
316 1 brought together at the time of the licensing far beyond 2 what is defined within John Greeve's office.
3 MR. FERTEL: Ralph just made an interesting 4 comment that -- let me just expand on. He said some of 5 those aren't risk-informed regulation. When we think about 6 Yucca, we think in terms of risk-informed, 7 performance-based. When you think about some of the 8 above-ground facilities they are probably more 9 deterministic. When you think about licensing NRC has never 10 licensed anything in risk-informed, performance-based space.
11 I mean, Part 35 is attempting to do -- Part 35 12 right now is a regulation the Chairman and others are 13 looking at changing rules and we've got the maintenance 14 rule. But really the licensing of the repository will be j 15 the first risk-informed, performance-based licensing effort 16 NRC has ever had. And it's not straight that way either, 17 it's going to have to integrate deterministic licensing when l
18 you pick up what Ralph just said and recognize that your 19 licensing a multitude of different activities and facilities 20 all of which need to be looked at maybe slightly 21 differently. So it's really a very unique licensing 22 exercise.
23 MR. ANDERSEN: I remember, John, that several 24 meetings ago when spent fuel projects office was up talking 25 more explicitly about the on-site storage issues you raised f
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l
317 1 that question then as to whether opportunities had been 2 missed to go down a risk-informed road for licensing on-site 3 storage. And it struck me at the time that this is all 4 going to converge at Yucca Mountain. So, I mean, you're 5 going to have different rules and requirements coming into 6 play. And it's that integration that I think the viability 7 assessment provides an opportunity for the broad NRC staff 8 to take a look at and begging to figure out how they're l 9 going to do that.
10 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yeah. And I think some people 11 think that the position that the Yucca Mountain project is 12 in is an advantage. The problem that the reactor people are 13 having now is how to convert the transition from the 14 traditional way of licensing to a more risk-informed way.
15 And the frustration with the industry is that contrary to 16 the PRA policy statement it's adding burden, not decreasing 17 burden on the part of the licensees to accommodate the 18 transition -- license in the Yucca Mountain, we're at least 19 not burdened with that. We're going to be put to the test 20 immediately as to how to do this. And I think that there 21 will be some advantages taken of that because in principal, 22 at least, they won't have to do it both ways.
23 MR. FERTEL: You have the opportunity to have at 24 least a partially clean sheet of paper to write it up right 25 the first time. But you do have stuff on the books that do I
0 r ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
318 1 affect the licensing of some of the portions of the project.
() 2 But it is a time, again we look at the viability assessment j 3 as the point in time where you really are entering the 4 licensing phase and where NRC can really take a tremendously 5 important leadership role in laying out in pretty 6 comprehensive detail the path forward for DOE to follow.
7 Because we are convinced that otherwise they won't know what 8 to do.
9 I think the other aspect on just the closure i
10 points that Steve is making too are important that somehow l 11 historically issues never stay closed. So we need to figure 12 out how to keep them closed, but we also need to recognize 13 that historically you didn't have the relationship between 14 licensee and regilator that NRC and DOE have had in this
() 15 prelicensing stage.
16 And, again, we're very impressed with it over the l 17 last year the interactions we've had on both sides. And 18 we're impressed not because they're getting answers we like, 19 we think they're working very objectively and the scientists 20 are doing real good work. At some point they're going to 21 change that mode and go more into the conventional licensing l 22 mode once that application is filed. And even preparing for 23 that transition is going to be very important. Because 24 right now it's very easy to have these technical exchanges, 1
25 very productive, and very open, and this is all done very l
1 O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
319 1 professionally, it's done openly, there's been public
() 2 3
involvement, there's Nevada involvement, there's industry involvement. But once the application is filed the dynamic 4 will have to change.
5 And, again, I'm sure that John, and Margaret, and 6 Carl are thinking about that, but it's real important that 7 they not only think about it, but that the DOE side l 8 understand how that change is going to occur and how we're 9 not going to lose any steps in working together when that !
10 change occurs.
11 MR. ANDERSEN: Perhaps a more mundane level I also
)
12 think that this would be an excellent opportunity in 13 reviewing the viability assessment for NRC to reevaluate its 14 resource needs through the period of licensing. I think
() 15 they'll have a much better feel for what those -- what the 16 true needs are going to be both internal to NRC at the 17 center.
18 Earlier today you talked about external 19 contracting at the center. I think some of those needs are 20 going to become very apparent merely to do the review of the 21 VA. It's quite different than doing the segmented reviews 22 that have been done in the past. And, again, I want to l
- 23. suggest that those resource needs extend outside the 24 division of waste management. j l
25 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Is industry going to do ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
G\ Court Reporters
+
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
320 1 anything with the VA voluntarily or otherwise?
() 2 MR. FERTEL: We'll certainly internally review it.
3 -I doubt whether we would publish an independent assessment 4 of the VA, but I'm sure that we would communicate to DOE and 5 to NRC any thoughts we had on how to go forward to achieve 6 the licensing process and strengthen the project overall.
7 Right now we don't intend to necessarily publish a critique i 8 of it.
9 MR. ANDERSEN: I'll mention a fourth important 10 player of our team was here at the last meeting and not at 11 this one, and that's John Kessler at EPRI.
12 MR. FERTEL: Right.
13 MR. ANDERSEN: So when you say the industry, the 14 collective industry certainly will be looking at it. And as
() 15 John mentioned to you at the previous meeting, he's 16 positioning himself to do that.
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Yes. I'm pleased to hear 18 that you're collaborating on that.
19 MR. ANDERSEN: Oh, yeah, we see each other 20 frequently.
21 MR. FERTEL: Just on that, John, is there 22 something you think industry could do that would be helpful 23 to you? I 24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Well, you have noted some very 25 interesting issues associated with the licensing proce.ss and 1
i
/~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 (s- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 1
321 1 I agree with you that once there is an application filed I~N 2 that things may change quite a bit. And I think that the
(_)
3 experience, the experience that industry has with licensing 4 could be extremely valuable in this whole process if somehow 5 it could be brought to bear. And so ways in which you could 6 do that, I think would be important. Because it is right l 7 now even though there's high sensitivity especially with the 8 Office of the General Counsel about keeping separate DOE and 9 NRC, there is nevertheless a rather collegial kind of 10 relationship which I think is frankly very healthy and 11 enhances the communication a great deal. And for a while, 12 at least, this problem is being approached in a more 13 scientifically traditional fashion than in a manner that 14 makes it very difficult to deal with the issues and benefit f
l
() 15 from each other's thinking.
1 16 So that probably is going to change. And I guess i i
17 anything that industry could share with NRC and DOE to )
( 18 facilitate that change would be a major contribution.
19 MR. FERTEL: Okay. Well, we'll certainly be l 20 looking at the viability assessment with that in mind and we 21 certainly won't hold back any thoughts we have on what can 22 be done to make that transition.
23 Steve, do you want to touch on the technical 24 aspect of improving the safety standard from --
25 MR. KRAFT: Oh , I think Ralph is probably better ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Os Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
322 j 1 able than I except just as an introduction that I think
() 2 3
probably the most important thing NRC can do and you're on the road to doing that is having a regulation which includes l 4 a radiation safety standard that is going to last long 5 enough for NRC and DOE to actually use it to do licensing.
6 I mean, you know, there's so many -- and I go back 7 in this program before there was this program. And I don't 8 know how many versions of that EPA standard we all looked at l
9 and commented on and took them to court over and everything 10 else we did, but it is still not settled. NAS reports 11 notwithstanding, it is still not settled. And I think that 12 the pathway that NRC has embarked on now, having read 13 appropriate SECY and SRM for Part 63 is exactly in the right 14 direction. And that's got to get done. And I think what
() 15 will come out of the VA probably the most telling l 16 instructions to the staff in the SRM is to practical and 17 implementable because that speaks to the notion that NRC l
18 wants -- believes that you need to have a repository in this 1
19 country for ultimate health and safety. And then you're i 20 going to write a regulation that is going to be practicable 21 and implementable, not one that can't be met. And I think l l 22 that's an extremely important point of view. I' l
23 And that's probably the single most important 24 thing that the staff can do, read the VA, understand the VA 25 and that will tell you what is practicable and i
l O
\>
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ;
Washington, D.C. 20005 '
(202) 842-0034 l
323 1 implementable. Now, I'm not saying you write a standard
( 2 that makes Yucca Mountain successful, but you're going to 3 have to inform the writing of that standard with Yucca 4 Mountain in mind since it's tailored to that site.
1 5 Ralph, do you want to comment? )
l 6 MR. ANDERSEN: Yeah. First of all I'll expand on 7 that a little bit. But if one takes the technical basis 8 from the National Academy of Sciences issued to support the 9 radiation standard, it would seem to me that the VA provides 10 an opportunity to reassess that technical basis. Because 11 knowledge will have advanced significantly since the time 12 that the NAS committee issued that report. And I think 13 that's where that's of great value. It's really redefining 14 the technical basis ft: 'e standard to assure that it's ;
o 15 practical and implement. .e. It's not adjusting the 16 standard to fit Yucca Mountain. And, in fact, I've already 17 been looking at the NAS report in that context. I can 18 hardly wes' .o get the full viability assessment.
19 I think that overall the timing is extraordinary, 20 that the staff has a strategy for doing a rulemaking and has 21 approval to proceed with that. And suddenly right in the 22 midst of that they get to what in my mind would be any 23 rulemaker's dream which is to get a mock submittal against l 24 which that rule will be tested. So I think that's of 25 tremendous value for them to take the concepts that they've O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
U Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
i l 324 l 1 described for the rulemaking and to test those out on the l
() 2 3
viability assessment again with the thought of practical and implementable.
4 Some key things that I see is, I think it will I
- 5. help them clearly identify what are the relevant site 6 characteristics and design features since their intent is to 7 move away from the Sears Catalogue listing in Part 60. So I 8 think narrowing that down will be greatly enabled by a 9 review of the viability assessment and their own review of 10 it.
11 I think additionally that it may help them better 12 come to grips with how they're going to handle the issue of 13 defense in depth with regard to the multiple barriers in the 14 absence of setting specific criteria. You know what I mean?
1
() 15 I've read a lot about it, I've heard a lot about it, and I l
16 know a lot of people are thinking a lot about it, but it's 17 another one of those issues where this will be a first-time i i
18 effort.
19 And, again, I think the VA and their review of the 20 VA gives them a real opportunity to test their concepts out 21 and see if they get meaningful conclusions when they do 22 that. Because from my view, and I don't mean it critical, I 23 really admire the concept that they're pursuing, but it's 24 still kind of mushy in my mind as to how it all comes 25 together. But once you understand the interrelationships ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s/ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
325 1 and the uncertainties that's fine, but what do you do with
( 2 that information in terms of a licensing decision. How much 3 uncertainty is too big? How much defense in depth is deep 4 enough? You know, I think it helps them begin to engage 5 that effort.
6 And then quite obviously it provides the 7 opportunity to begin developing those assumptions that 8 they're going to build into the biosphere and critical group 9 definitions. I mean, that certainly will be a part of the 10 viability assessment. I recognize that the NRC has been 11 working on that at great length with DOE. But, again, I 12 think this is the litmus test of whether they've got the 13 necessary information to do the rulemaking in that regard.
14 Those are just some examples, but I -- again, I l
() 15 can't stress, if I were a rulemaker this would just be a 16 dream. It's a grand opportunity.
17 DR. FAIRHURST: Do you have any specifics of where 18 you think the science has advanced significantly since Tim's 19 report?
20 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, I think that one of the areas 21 where one might begin to better question is in the timeframe 22 issue. To better understand whether the uncertain -- the :
23 sort of stock phrase, depending on which side of the coin 24 you're on, is that the uncertainty blows up so great it's 25 . meaningless. I think that's a real clear example. And I O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
326 1 appreciate what the Academy did, it's just that they didn't
() 2 3
have in hand all of these assessments and uncertainty evaluations that now people will have in hand to look at.
4 So I think they can answer some of those tough questions 5 better about peak dose and reasonable timeframes and so
, 6 forth as to whether that will fit.
1 7 Again, the criteria, Dr. Fairhurst, is ultimately 8 that the standard has to be practical and implementable. So 9 it's a great opportunity.
1L MR. FERTEL: Yeah, it's not a criticism of where 11 the Academy ended up as much as --
12 DR. FAIRHURST: Oh, no, no, no --
13 MR. FERTEL: -- progress and the knowledge --
14 DR. FAIRHURST: The specifics.
() 15 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: That's all right. You can 16 criticize him, he was on the committee.
17 MR. FERTEL: I know.
18 [ Laughter.]
19 DR. FAIRHURST: We appreciate that very much.
20 DR. HORNBERGER: We criticize it all the time.
21 [ Laughter.]
22 DR. FAIRHURST: Some inside stories, too, but --
23 (Laughter.]
24 DR. FAIRHURST: -- yo'u can read if you read some 25 of the parts of it.
/~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 L
1 l
l
327 1 MR. ANDERSEN: I want to give credit where credit
() 2 is due. Dr. Carter is the person who in conversations with 3 him has helped me think hard about this relationship with 4 the VA, yes --
5 DR. FAIRHURST: Mel Carter.
6 MR. ANDERSEN: Beg your pardon?
7 MR. FERTEL: Mel Carter.
8 MR. ANDERSEN: Mel Carter.
9 [ Laughter.]
10 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Margaret, I want to invite you 11 or any of your staff to pitch in on this informal fireside 12 chat if you're so inclined 13 MS. FEDERLINE: Okay. Let me ask Mike Bell to 14 join me up here at the table.
() 15 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I guess it's legitimate to make 16 it as informal as we'd like.
17 Ralph, you were giving us some of your points.
18 MR. ANDERSEN: That's pretty much it. I intended 19 only by example rather than an exhaustive listing. But, you 20 know, the idea is it would be a shame if when all was said 21 and done if the only activity on NRC's part, and I know they 22 would go beyond this, was merely to offer constructive 23 criticism to DOE. It's a great opportunity for self 24 assessment and in our reactor business that's just the way 25 we always think. So that's why I think they could take O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
328 1 that.
2 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yeah.
3 DR. FAIRHURST: Do you have any ideas about how 4 one should deal with human intrusion?
5 (Laughter.)
6 DR. FAIRHURST: You're actually talking about 7 things and events --
8 MR. KRAFT: Well, I'll tell you what we think 9- about human intrusion.
10 MR. FERTEL: Steve did this earlier too.
11 (Laughter.)
12 MR. KRAFT: I've got the sound bite down.
13 MR. FERTEL: He's got it down, so we'll let Steve 14 do this.
15 (Laughter.)
16 MR. KRAFT: We know a whole lot more about 17 predicting geologic events in the future than we do human 18 behavior. So to say that we can sic here today and project 19 10,000 -- 700,000 years into the future is in fact probably 20 not something you can do.
21 So our view, and we made this clear when we 22 submitted our recommendations to Tim's group is that the 23 adoption of what we referred to at the time as a " building 24 code standard" that you design certain features into the I 25 repository to make it as resistive to human intrusion such O
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
329 1 that those intrusions end up in violating the standard that
) 2 you set ia possible. And you do the best you can do and 3 that's about -- I hate to say that's about all you can do.
4 Because if you start trying to include probabilistic 5 assessments of human intrusion in the future you will be 6 chasing your tail forever, and you will never come to a 7 conclusion on how to predict human intrusion.
8 Let me take it a bit further. There is always 9 this underlying concept in every regulatory document I've 10 read and every discussion that I've had that if we remain a 11 technologically advanced and advancing society, then there's 12 no problem. We will remember what's at Yucca Mountain, or 13 if we forgot, if we ever go back there we'll figure it out.
14 But there's always this underlying belief that there's the
()
,~
15 possibility without saying what that probability might be 16 that there will be a cataclysmic event that will return man 17 to the caves. That we need to protect future generations 18 living in those caves who will become once again hunters and 19 gatherers and all the things that we've looked back on our 20 own past and determined -- and see what we -- to get to
(
21 today.
22 Now, in terms of protecting the cave dweller of 23 future from contamination of groundwaters that they will be 24 drinking and growing grains in and what have you, that is 25 accomplished through the design of the repository and that O
\s / ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
330 1 activity. Because what you're talking about is whether or 2 not those individuals who will have the capability of 3 intruding into the repository and not' knowing what they're 4 picking up. Well, if those -- you know, future society 5 developed the technology to intrude into that facility at 6 some distant time in the future why do you believe they 7 would not also develop the other technologies along the way 8 that will allow them to know :: hat's there? We certainly did 9 as we developed to this point.
10 The concept that Leo Duffy, former Assistant 11 Secretary of Nuclear Energy during the Bush Administration, 12 used to like to say, he constantly has to explain and deal 13 with the intelligent neanderthal. The person capable of 14 drilling 3,000 feet into the crust of the earth without the 15 intelligence of knowing what he's pulling up. And it just 16 doesn't seem to make sense because it didn't apply to us as 17 we came as we developed. So that's why we are comfortable 18 recommending that this concept of a building standard where 19 you create -- and I'll repeat it, where you create 20 conditions that minimize the possibility of intrusion as 21 much as possible, but you do not attempt to predict the 22 human behavior.
23 Oh, and there may have to be a policy 24 determination in this country to make that kind of work that 25 way. And that is why that language is included in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ;
Court Reporters I 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 331 1 legislation pending before Congress.
2 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Charles, I think the Academy (V9 3 came down with about the same view.
l DR. FAIRHURST:
4 Yeah, but it's just interesting 5 that this issue is brought up internationally and everybody 6 is trying to deal with it. You saw, that was one area where 7 I don't think scientific opinion -- scientific knowledge has 8 gained very much since the Academy put out its report. But 9 it's interesting to see. I mean, we said it was 10 scientifically without merit. I don't know what the exact 11 words were but --
12 MR. FERTEL: It's interesting we're worrying about 13 that for something that's a deep geologic repository, but 14 not for landfills or chemical dumps that will still be there
(~
'( ,)j 15 at the same time and probably a hell of a lot more 16 accessible.
17 DR. FAIRHURST: You don't have to persuade me.
18 [ Laughter. ]
19 DR. FAIRHURST: I'm saying that there is a i 1
20 perception and there's a repository very close to being 21 licensed, well, human intrusion is the only criterion. So 22 while you're in a political climate like that you're able to 23 just say, get away. This is nonsense. I don't know if you 24 all -- whether you can pull it off.
25 MS. FEDERLINE: Could I just add something here?
[~)
(_/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
332 1 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
() 2 MS, FEDERLINE: One of the concepts that's being 3 explored internationally is the idea that we're designing a 4 reasonable test for repositories based on current 5 information, what we know today. And I think that's a very 6 reasonable standard. It's the way we make decisions every 7 day in life. You know, we don't sit and try and predict 8 what's going to happen a hundred years from now and base our 9 life insurance on that. We make reasonable predictions 10 based on what we know.
11 DR. FAIRHURST: Well, in fact, this is what was in 12 that report. They examine what we think would happen with a 13 single intrusion and somewhat along your lines see how you 14 can design so that that does not result in anything 15 significant.
16 MS. FEDERLINE: Right.
17 DR. EAIRHURST: And if you've done that --
18 MS. FEDERLINE: You've done your reasonable test 19 for society.
20 MR. FERTEL: I think, John, on the discussion we 21 were having a little while ago on specific examples and sort 22 of relating it to your question about our review of the VA, 23 clearly after we look at the VA we would welcome the 24 opportunity to come back and maybe give you our impression 25- of more specific examples that we see either in licensing O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 j
333
.1 space or in scientific technical space that we think it
()
I 2 might be worthwhile if NRC staff has not picked up on those l 3 which I tend to think they probably will maybe they should l 4 consider.
5 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Yes. I think that would 6 be a good idea. I think we're all going to try to get as l
7 much out of the VA exercise as possible in spite of the lack 8 of an official requirement.for the NRC.
9 And it was even referred to by one DOE person in 10 the corridors some months back as kind of a trial license 11 application. And so I think it's an extremely important 12 exercise and will be a strong indicator of what we're going 13 to see over the next few years.
14 MR. FERTEL: Just another comment on Ralph's
) 15 comment about resources. We think that probably-is very 16 important. It's probably important on the DOE side too and 17 we'll probably share our views with Lake and his folks on 18 that. But clearly for NRC staff to look at the resource 19 requirements as you move into the licensing mode. And in 20 the context of all the licensing activities that the staffs 1 21 who are involved in, as the guys are saying, it's broader 22 ~than just Margaret and John's group as you begin to look at 23 .this. So we think you should look hard at that and I think !
24 that right now you actually have NEI support for the l 25 resources and budget request that you all put in for the l
t
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
334 1 waste program. We're very supportive of that. Our
() 2 testimony supports it and certainly our discussions on the 3 Hill with Hill staff and Hill members support this.
4 There's other parts of the NRC budget that we have 5 a problem with, but's not the waste problem.
6 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Yes, I understand.
7 MS. FEDERLINE: Could I just clarify what you mean 8 by "other pieces"? Because as currently envisioned surface 9 facilities will be licensed under Part 63.
10 MR. KRAFT: Well, is a Part 63 staff going to do 11 that or will you in essence subcontract out Part 72 staff, 12 or are you going to bring in Part 72 staff?
13 MS. FEDERLINE: No.
14 MR. KRAFT: So you're going to create your own
) 15 capability inside Part 63 to do --
16 MS. FEDERLINE: Well, we already have our own 17_ capability because we've developed a staff technical 18 position on surface facilities.
19 MR. KRAFT: But, Margaret, the surface facilities 20 are going to be closer to in infancy than they are to a 21 repository. And that's what Ralph is talking about is that 22 there are other --
23 MR. ANDERSEN: Yeah, I was specifically referring 24 to the receipt, the transport, and fuel handling aspects 25 which I guess I had envisioned would draw heavily from the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
335 1 central NRM storage standard review plan and the spent fuel 2.
( projects office expertise.
3 MS. FEDERLINE: I think it's true that we will 4 draw on the standard review plan. I think that's very true.
5 Our plan is to piggyback on top and we also for preclosure 6 are working -- I don't know whether you know -- with DOE on 7 a binning concept of preclosure issues focusing on the use 8 of accepted industry codes and standards and looking at the 9 more critical unknown issues, retrievability, and those 10 sorts of things as the issues that we'll be focusing on most 11 highly.
12 MR. FERTEL: But what you're saying Margaret is 13 that the licensing of the receipt facility which again looks 14 very much like a PFS facility probably would be licensed
,( ) 15 under Part 63'using resources that report to you and John, l 16 not using resources that report to Charlie or other folks.
17 MS. FEDERLINE: Well, that's the current plan.
18 MR. FERTEL: Okay. Yeah, our only point is that 19 if the resources are elsewhere you really need to look at 20 the integration to be sure that they're available. And we
- 21 mean for both things. We may come back in three years and 22 tell you you're using resources that should have a higher j 23 priority in something else, I don't know. But we want to l 24 make sure that you're looking at it in an integrated way if 25 you're borrowing resources from other programs.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
336 I
1 MR. ANDERSEN: I consider that very good news. I 2 was just curious, I wish I had asked you this question 3 previously, but in doing the VA review as you envision it i 4 will be requested by the Congress or some other person, were 5 you envisioning limiting that only to the post-closure 6 issues?
7 MS. FEDERLINE: That's our plan is to focus on 8 post-closure. We are reprogramming SIMM resources in the 9 next fiscal year to begin to work on pre-closure issues, the 10 critical pre-closure issues.
11 MR. ANDERSEN: Okay. Why don't you do this.
12 MR. KRAFT: One matter that the conversation kind 13 of walked away from the VA in itself. And one matter that I 14 would like to address is that it seemed to me that having )
15 been in on some of the early discussions with DOE.when the j l
16 VA kind of began developing this as a concept, and I think i 17 you probably know this history, but it started out when i
18 Congress reduced the budget for the program and DOE was 19 faced with this notion of completing $900 million worth of l 20 work and having nothing to show for it except a couple of j 21 holes in the ground. And they began asking themselves the 22 question as all good project managers should, well, what can 23 we actually accomplish for the amount of money available to 24 us and how can we get there most efficiently?
25 I remember an old manager of mine many years go l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters t 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 l'
(202) 842-0034 l
1 337 1 when I was in project management said something to me about j 2 when you get your budget cut you figure out what you're 3 really about. And that is certainly what happened to DOE.
4 And I recall very early conversations with Yucca Mountain I 5 project staff about what they were going to do along those 6 lines and began to emerge this concept of what we now call i
7 the viability assessment. And of course you know they 8 searched the lexicon of the regulations and the statutes to 9 find words that were not used any place else so they bore no .
1 10 relationship to existing terms of art, or statutes or j 11 anything else. And what they meant was, an internal.
i l 12 business decision that a business might make. You know, 13 look at a project and say, is it worth making that next 14 round of investment? Is it worth taking it to that next 15 level?
16 And that is still fundamentally what this is. Can 17 we convince ourselves -- can DOE convince itself in its 18 internal decisionmaking it is worth taking that next step?
19 And I remember former director, Dan Dryfuss explaining to 1 20 me, he says, " Steve, the way you'll know a program is viable 21 after I read the book is the next day the program is still-22 going." That's what that's going to mean. And I still l
[
i 23 believe that's what this is supposed to be about.
24 But it has had a lot of other stuff added to it.
25 They are now adding alternatives to the design. They are
[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
338 1 now adding alternatives to waste packages. They had to come
() 2 up with their own -- and performance measure because there 3 was no performance measure out for them to use. Others are 4
looking at this and saying, oh, you know, this isn't really 5 a duck, this is a cow, from my perspectire, when in fact 6- it's really a duck. And what I'm getting at is that, if you 7 think about what this is, it is not a license application.
8 It may be a surrogate for one that could be useful for 9 learning experiences, but it is not a license application.
10 It is an internal DOE document for them to decide 11 whether they're going to take the -- what does that require.
i l 12 That requires a single case that meets the grade. It 13 doesn't require a whole lot of alternatives. And that case l 14 isn't necessarily the case they offered for licensing. All
) 15 they have to do is prove to themselves there was one way to 16 do this job that meets their internal notion of what is 17 required on a public health and safety basis, a financial l 18 basis, the ability to get it licensed, the ability to design I 19 it down the line.
20 And I think what's happening is that there's a lot !
, 21 of other forces around in the system that are looking at I 22 this as something that is beyond that and demanding lots of 23 alternatives, why aren't you looking at this, and why aren't 24 you looking at that. When I know for a fact what DOE is 25 doing -- Margaret used the word "binning", I think that's a l
t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\%
Court Reporters
, 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
' Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
339 1 very good term for what they're doing here too.
- 2 As the engineers and scientists, and we all are j i
3 one of them here, comes up, oh, they look at it. Oh, wait a 4 minute, what if we did it this way over here? They say, 5 great, stick it in the LA bin. We'll deal with that next. l 6 And that's where all the churning is going to happen in 7 terms of the alternatives. And I've been saying this to as 8 many groups as I can because I would like to get the !
1 9- expectations in place as to what it is this document really ;
i 10 is going to be. And that that document may not look at the i 11 alternative that you personally like, the one you believe is 12 the right one, and the doesn't mean it's not a good 13 document. What it meant is that's an alternative that they 14 can consider later. Because the purpose of this document is
- 15. to convince DOE internally it's worth taking that next step.
16 MR. ANDERSEN: I guess I would like to add 17 some. thing to that thinking back in reactor licensing space.
18 I see that the VA provides an opportunity through this i 19 reference design concept for the NRC to baseline its own 20 review. And it makes a lot more sense to get that done 21 however imperfect it might seem to others so that then NRC 22 has something to work off of to evaluate alternatives.
I 23 I kind of worry that we're going to get caught 24 evaluating alternatives before we even understand some form 25 of a base case that we can refer things to --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
340 1 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Ralph, when you guys use j
() 2 alternatives what are you thinking of?
3 MR. ANDERSEN: You mean within reactor space?
4 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: No, within the viability 1 5 assessment?
6 MR. FERTEL: Alternative design concepts.
7 MR. ANDERSEN: Yeah, I'm referring specifically, 8 for instance, whether to use backfill, whether to use --
9 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: So you're thinking of the 10 details? You're not thinking of global alternatives?
11 MR. ANDERSEN: No. Details and design space.
l 12 MR. FERTEL: Alternatives to repositories as a 13 global alternative, for example? Or alternatives to some i
14 other --
h 15 MR. KRAFT: Well, no,-I think it's pretty much 16 settled in this country that we're going to do deep geologic 17 disposal absence an ability to find a site. You'd have to 18 change the policy of the country to.do otherwise.
19 MR. FERTEL: Well, John was just asking what we 20 were talking about and we're talking about details.
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: But alternatives could also 22 mean alternative geologic sites.
23 MR. FERTEL: Right. And we're not talking that 24 here.
25 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: And you're not talking about
,Q ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\m/ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
341 1 that?
() 2 3
MR. FERTEL: We're talking details in the design process and the defense indepth concept and --
l 4 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yeah, okay.
1 5 MR. ANDERSEN: I think my comment is coming -- we 6 talked' earlier about division of labor. So I tend to view 7 the high-level waste program from industry looking over the 8 shoulder of NRC rather than industry looking over the 9 shoulder of DOE. So for instance when I had an opportunity 10 to glance at the recent report from the technical review 11 board in which it recommended some other alternatives might 1
l 12 get folded at the last minute into the viability assessment.
13 I just -- I think that would -- looking over the shoulder of 14 the NRC, I think that would be an unfortunate decision to go O)
(, 15 ahead and do that because I think the NRC would lose a lot 16 of the opportunity to focus on a base-cased design from 17 which then to work towards a standard review plan and i 18 licensing.
l 19 I'm getting a sense that people are 1
20 misunderstanding what this VA is. It represents knowledge 21 as of a certain date, not'an-open invitation to try to 22 invent new knowledge in a short period of time. So we'll 23 probably make our input to everyone that we can that we 24 think that probably wouldn't serve the process very well.
25' MR. FERTEL: Yeah, I~think Steve characterized it O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
342 1 right. We would like to create the expectation that this
() 2 3
ought to look at a base case which may or may not turn out to be the actual one that gets submitted for licensing l
4 assuming you move down the path. But it's not a case of !
.I 5 looking at 12 different designs at this stage to see which I j 6 one you might like better or not like better, or how you ,
l 7 would license this one versus that one.
8 DR. HORNBERGER: But it seems to me that we're 9 also at a point where we can't be speechless about this.
I 10 You know, when the Swedes came out with that KBS-3 plan with 11 a 10-centimeter thick copper canister that you could look at l 12 that as a proof of concept too which is what they did as a 13 base case. But even at the time nobody believed that they ,
14 were really going to do that. It was simply to demonstrate
, ) 15 that it could be done. i 16 DOE is well beyond that and to the extent that the 17 base case has to say something about being the least l l 18 considered a feasible --
19 MR. FERTEL: Well, I think, as Steve said, they ,
20 won't submit it if it's not feasible.
21 MR. KRAFT: No question about that. But --
22 MR. FERTEL: It may not be optimal.
l 23 MR. KRAFT: Exactly right. Exactly right.
- 24 MR. ANDERSEN
- That's sort of where I'm coming 25 from too, George, is that there is a time constraint. If l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 I (202) 842-0034 l
343 1 everyone does what they're supposed to do, then in October
() 2 this report will be sent to the Hill. And the. schedules the !
3 DOE has put before us over and over again stress that the 4 door for innovation pretty much had to close about April to 5 accomplish that. So I'm just thinking, it's an inopportune 6 time to suggest expansion of-scope.
7 MR. FERTEL: But on the concept of innovation 8 there's probably something that we would encourage NRC to 9 think about, and that's probably innovation and licensing ,
10 which might be looking at phased licensing approach. What 11 could we do to start construction sooner? What could we do 12 which would probably be our greatest motivation ':o receive 13 fuel earlier. How could Part 63 be written to facilitate 14 that and permit that?
() 15 So I think while we're -- we don't want to stymie 16 innovation and design, we're just saying that for the 17 viability assessment of work you ought to freeze it and then 18 be innovative as you go down the road. I think in the 19 licensing space we would say think innovative right now 20 because you don't want to lock yourself into a path in 21 rulemaking that doesn't permit you to do something that two 22 years from now you say, boy, I wish I were able to do this.
i 23 But the rule is already passed and I've kind of locked 24 myself in because I didn't give myself enough flexibility.
25 MS. FEDERLINE: Could I just add one point on the O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
i Washington, D.C. 20005 !
(202) 842-0034 i
I 344 1 design? I know when I met with ACNW about two meetings ago h
~J 2 the staff discussed this. We're very concerned about this j 3 too and we're concerned about it from the perspective of a 4 transition from pre-licensing to licensing as you were just 5 talking about. We believe that it makes sense to make 6 changes in the design through a logical design control j 7 process where the decisionmaking process will be apparent
(
8 once we get to licensing what the strengths and weaknesses l
9 were of adding additional aspects to the design.
10 So although I hate to find myself agreeing with 11 the industry, since I'm already on record two meetings ago I 12 will.
13 [ Laughter.)
14 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: That's all right.
15 MR. KRAFT: We feel the same.
l 16 MS. FEDERLINE: I knew Steve would say that.
17 [ Laughter.]
18 MR. FERTEL: I think, John, those are probably the I l t 19 guts of the comments we wanted to make, but we certainly are i 20 enjoying the dialogue, and if there's other questions or
[ 21 dialogue, we're here at your convenience.
22 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Well, I don't know. I think i l 23 that the parallels and the differences that we're talking 24 about between the waste and the other licensing activities l 25 have been an important part of this discussion. One of the O
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
V Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 345 1 things that I'm quite encouraged by though that might offset (33 v
2 some of the problems of this being a one-of-a-kind, 3 first-of-a-kind in many respects, not just with respect to 4 the facility, but with respect to the whole procecs of 5 licensing the facility, is the fact that there seems to be a 6 pretty rational and deliberate effort to be prepared when 7 the license application is finally submitted.
8 I don't know if you were here or any of you were 9 here this morning when we were talking about the total 10 system performance and the performance assessment activity.
11 I can imagine had we been able to do something like that 12 prior to the first reactor license life would have been ever 13 so much different and I think simpler. So in spite of its 14 uniqueness and in spite of the tremendous obstacles there (D
q_,/ 15 does seem to be some activities going on that are going to 16 enable us to be efficient. I wouldn't say take shortcuts, 17 but be efficient in coming to grips with some of the 18 licensing issues. And I just hope that spirit of enthusiasm 19 and interest continue.
20 And I~think the industry is very important in this 21 whole arena as a stimulant. One of the things that I don't 22 particularly like about the waste business is it's not 23 competitive enough. It's kind of a captive business to the 24 Government. Industry plays a role, but primarily in the 25 context of captive contracts and so there's a real lack of
[]
\m/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
346 l 1 competitive fire in the process and we somehow have to find
() 2 a way to compensate for that. And that process is further 3 inhibited if industry just sits on the sidelines as they 4 have from 1982 to about 1992 and expects the Government to 5 get the job done.
6' So I think that you hold a very important card in 7 hand in keeping this thing moving and doing what'you can to 8 stimulate the DOE, the NRC, and all of the contractors to 9 move ahead.
10 DR. FAIRHURST: We're certainly committed to doing 11 that, John, and I'think you'll see us doing more and more of 12 it.
13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Yes. Well, I'm 14 encouraged to find a few utility executives that three or
() 15- four years ago showing no interest in the waste field that 16 are now extremely active and involved and interested. So I J
17 think there has been progress made in that regard. And part 18 of that may be as a result of NEI's activities as well, I 19 hope so. I 20 Comments?
21 DR. HORNBERGER: I wanted to address a question.
22 I think the term " defense indepth" came up a couple of times 23 and it was more the charge to -- I think Ralph said that the 24 review of the VA would provide a test for how things like 25 defense indepth would work. But I'd like to throw this back O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
347 1 to you because as you probably know, we've wrestled with 1 ) 2 this issue of how multiple barriers and defense indepth is 3 to work and you people clearly have thought about this. So 4 how do you see.it working in terms of the waste -- of the 5 high-level regulation?
6 MR. FERTEL: I think there's probably a diversity l 7 of views, not necessarily not congruent, but a diversity of 8 views. And I think that clearly defense indepth and 9 anything nuclear makes sense. I think that the industry has 10 subscribed to it in every space I know whether it's 11 materials or it's reactors and we subscribe to it in waste.
12 I think that the balance that's required is to understand 13 how much defense indepth you need for the risk that you're 14 trying to deal with. And I think that's where when Steve
() 15 refers to the alternatives that you're looking at, I know we 16 could design a defense indepth that would look today 17 impregnable. And at what cost would that be for what risk 18 involved?
19 And I think that what we would say is that as the 20 DOE moves down the road, what they'll present later this !
21 year will be something that we expect will work, will meet 22 the standard as they envision tQe standard, will involve l 23 some-defense indepth concepts and certainly TRB and NRC and l 24 -others are looking at strengthening I think what DOE is 25 looking at. And I think DOE Is probably looking at l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
348 1 strengthening it too. I think the challenge will be to keep
() 2 3
your eye on what you're protecting against as you do that.
In the most recent TRB report they refer to the 4 fact that while they don't truly see any added-safety value 5 there may be a value of dealing with the perception of 6 safety for just doing full testing on all casks and things 7 like that.
8 Personally, from a public policy standpoint, I 9 don't find that particularly helpful. If there's not 1
10 incremental reduction in risk that necessitates the costs i 11 and if there's no increased value to safety, saying I'm 12 going to deal with the perception, I can probably deal with 13 perception a lot less expensively than saying I want to 14 fully test all casks. And I think that when we look at 15 defense indepth for the repository design it's got to take 16 on what was the term that Ralph and Steve used before, l
17 practical -- or the Commission really used a test which '
18 says, okay, what are we getting for this? And particularly 19 if-we're going to continue to monitor. l 20 So I'm not sure we have an answer that says, this 21 is the design that satisfies it. I think we have a 22_ philosophy that says, defense indepth always makes sense in 23 the business we're in, but defense indepth that looks at it :
24 in a prudent way from a risk management standpoint is how we 25 should approach it. We know the technology will get better O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N . W .. , Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
349 1 with time. 'And Steve, do you want to --
2 MR. KRAFT: Well, I think that completely 3 consistent with Marvin's views is the use of the TSPA as a l 4 management tool. We proposed many years ago with EPRI the 5 use of a TSPA type of activity that DOE had not yet begun to 6 consider early on in the project. And we didn't propose it t
7 as a licensing kind of activity, we were looking for a 8 management tool. Something that they could use to assess 9 their activities to determine which ones are truly important 10 and are non-important. Okay.
l 11 That was fundamentally the problem with subsystem 12 performance standards. That you end up focusing on things 13 that in reality of the TSPA may not have been important. So 14 I think you have to run the TSPAs and look at where spending 15 the extra time, money and resources -- and I don't know that 16 I can come up with a concrete example, but -- and this is 17 probably wrong, but going to using your example, going to 18 10-centimeters of copper compared to what you're planning on I
19 now, you've got to run the TSPA case and say, is that really 20 going to get me out here in the biosphere of the reduction 21 that that looks like I need to get to make that worthwhile.
22- If it's not, don't bother trying to defend indepth with that 23 matter or with that item.
24 At this point I-don't think we can predict what
-25 those are. But the TSPA must be used as a management tool, i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
350 1 not just as an analytical tool, not just a regulatory tool,
() 2 3
but a management tool.
doing that.
And I think DOE hasn't actually been You look at a proposal from any particular 4 scientist to look at a different design or a different 5 study, and you look at its contribution in reduction of dose 6 through the TSPA. And if it looks like it's going to be a 7 big contributor, then great, you do it. If it doesn't, do 8 bother. And that's -- that's where I think NRC's views can 9 be helpful. That's certainly the work that EPRI has been 10 doing that kind of shows how that should' operate.
11 MR. ANDERSEN: Actually, picking up on that theme, 12 one of the things that struck me in John Kessler's 13 presentation last month was how he was able to graphically 14 display stripping away various barriers and the effect of
() 15 that. What struck me at the time looking at that is that 16 the VA itself would provide an opportunity to begin thinking 17 about how to display defense indepth that that's going to be 18 a responsibility for both DOE and the NRC. Also it will be 19 an opportunity for the first time to review someone's 20 description of the defense indepth. I mean, this will give i
21 a total product for NRC to look at in the context of getting I 22 ready for rulemaking. And finally, to begin to think how j i
23 they're actually going to evaluate it which is where I think 24 the real challenge is. Is it good enough?
l 25 And what I would suggest is that if the overall l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I J
351 1 concept in the viability assessment is deemed viable by
'l 2 whatever means, whether that's Congress, the public, the (G
3 NRC, somebody thinking to themselves, well this doesn't look 4 like a bad start. Then at least you have, as with the 5 design alternatives issue a base case to begin work from to 6 at least see whether you're improving defense indepth by l
l 7 whatever criteria you're using to evaluate that, or whether 8 you're moving away from it. And that's what's been lacking 1
l 9 up to this point as I see it. And that's what makes it i i l 10 murky for me is it always implies a starting point to decide 11 if -- somewhere you have to say, well, okay, that's the !
12 starting point I don't know if it's good, bad, or ugly, but l 13 at least now I can tell which direction I'm going in. And l
14 that's where I think the value is offered by the liability 1
() 15 assessment in that context. l 16 I'm still having difficulties in my own mind i
17 separating reduction and uncertainty in actually reducing 16 the bottom line itself and how to weigh those two and their 19 relative importance in looking at defense indepth. But this l 20 will force the staff to come to some decisions.
4 21 Said another way, if I had the answer I would 22 probably become an NRC contractor. So -- or a DOE
! 23- contractor.
24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Ray, you had a question or a 25 comment?
/ '
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 i
i (202) 842-0034
352 1 DR. WYMER: George asked my question.
2 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Charles?
3 DR. FAIRHURST: No.
4 CHAIRl4AN GARRICK: Margaret, Mike?
l 5 MR. BELL: Actually, I have a question for the 6 committee rather than the NEI visitors. I mean, having --
7 [ Laughter.]
8 MR. BELL: Having heard my presentation on the l
l 9 staff's approach to reviewing to EA and now having heard the 10 VA and having heard the NEI's views on the VA, do you see ;
11 any disconnects between where the staff is heading and where .
> 12 these gentleman are suggesting we should be focused? 5 13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: The simple answer is I don't.
14 I think that we're thinking pretty much the same way. And I
() 15 was encouraged by morning's session because I think we're 16 beginning to really accept the concept of taking the 17 performance assessment seriously as insight into
! 18 prioritizing what we should be doing. And I'm encouraged 19 very much by that and I think that's exactly what Ralph has 20 been talking about and so, no, at least at the global level 21 I don't see a problem.
22 DR. HORNBERGER: I guess the only thing that I 23 would say, Mike, is that we might give some thought to the j 24 suggestion that perhaps 100 percent of the effort doesn't j 25 have to go into post-closure. That some thinking on i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
<O f
Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
353 {
1 pre-closure issues would be very valuable. And I know you
() 2 didn't say 100 percent.
3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I would agree with that.
4 DR. WYMER: I have the impression, Mike, that 5 these folks are trying to squeeze a little bit more out of 6 the liability assessment than maybe I got the impression 7 that the NRC was that you're in the middle of the details of 3
8 the liability assessment and they're thinking more grandly 9 in how you might apply it on a broader front.
10 MR. FERTEL: As a tool from learning from in order 11 to better define a licensing process going forward.
12 MR. KRAFT: And recognizing that others will apply 13 it more broadly than even the authors or the primary 14 reviewers will. And that's our point for one of the reasons 15 why we make the point saying that you've got to recognize 16 who are the audiences for the review. And, you know, 17 Congress, the Administration, the TRB, all the other parties 18 that have interests in this program will be looking at the 19 NRC review as one of the primary reviewers.
20 And I would just repeat something Marvin said very '
21 early on is that there is a tendency, it's human nature that 22 NRC-and DOE staff have been interacting in a collegial 23 manner for some time now and as in their interactions NRC 24 staff says, well, you know, why don't you take this action 25 and DOE says, fine, we'll do that. Okay. That's already O ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 354 1 checked off. . Why not this other action and DOE says, no, we
() 2 don't think that's worth it.
Okay.
We've got reasons why that's 3 not worth it. Well document that in the VA. And you 4 review the VA and you tend to ignore what you've already 5 agreed is done and focus on those. So out of 6,000 element, l 6- you know, 5,500 of them are fine, 500 are not, and the 7 report is on the 500 that are not and leaves a very 8 misleading impression to the public. And I don't think that 9 would be done intentionally, I think that's just the nature 10 of the process that needs to be guarded against because all 11 the other parties that are reviewing 12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I think lest there's the wrong 13 impression about these references to a collegial 14 relationship we need to point out the technical change
() 15 process and the interaction that has taken place has taken 16 place in a very open environment.
l 17 MR. FERTEL: I think I said earlier it was very 18 transparent and open and professional. I mean, I think it's 19 been great. But I do think that that too will chance once 20 the application'is filed and you need to prepare for the 1
21 change, not that it won't be professional and not that it
{
22 won't be open, but it will be different. I 23 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes, I think so. Charlea.
1 24 DR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, I would just like to l i
25 elaborate on what George said about thinking carefully about i 1
i l
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 j
355 1 pre-closure issues. It goes a little bit to defense 2 indepth. If one thinks it's going to take 30, 40 years to 3 put this repository in and one might want to keep it open 4 longer. It's a great opportunity during that time to ,
5 demonstrate to the public and everybody the degree of ,
J 6 understanding you have of this system and at what point you 7 may or may not need to add a component which is an extra 8 defense indepth for example, and I think there's a 9 tremendous amount of learning that will be done and public 10 acceptance or public understanding can be developed if it's 11 done in an appropriate way. And probably NRC will have a 12 significant role in that. So I too feel that this 13 preclosure is not a negligible part of the whole exercise.
14 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Right. I think that the 15 concept of the operating period, a long operating period and 16 even more so if there's an interim storage facility offers 17 the opportunity to reduce some of the most significant 18 uncertainties associated with the performance assessment 19 such as, for example, the thermal load. If there's one 20 thing we know how to measure it's thermal load. And with 21 time and with the right kind of preclosure operating 22 procedure there's nothing to prevent us from being very 23 quantitative about what goes into the mountain from a 24 thermal standpoint and even control that. So there need not l 25 be uncertainty there. But I think that if we don't think l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters {
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 j (202) 842-0034 i l i l
i l
l 356 1 about it at the preclosure stage, you know, we lose that
()s-2 opportunity as well.
3 The same could be said about inspection of the 4 waste package and verification of the integrity of the waste 5 packages to reduce the uncertainty associated with waste 6 package failure. So I think there is a real important i
7 connection between the preclosure operations and the )
8 post-closure operations.
9 Another thing that's kind of interesting that I've I i
10 said before is that we're talking about an operation here 11 that's going to be longer than any reactor application 12 before it's closed. And we wouldn't think of operating a 13 nuclear facility for 100 years or 50 years, or much less 200 14 years without doing everything possible to assure ourselves f)
( j 15 that that operation is also extremely safe and we have 16 measured everything we can measure to enhance our knowledge 17 of the post-closure conditions.
18 So I think this committee is on record with 1
19 thinking we ought to learn more about that.
20 DR. FAIRHURST: It contributes a great deal to the 21 public perception and public understanding.
22 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Right.
I 23 MS. FEDERLINE: Could I just clarify a bit? I 24 think we're probably talking different things when we talk 25 about preclosure. When we talk about preclosure we're
. l I 1 l
[~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\~s Court Reporters !
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
357 1 referring to those Part 20 and design requirements that
() 2 really apply to the safe operation, ventilation, those kinds 3 of things. There's another preclosure component which is 4 for post-closure, it's monitoring of all of the relevant 5 processes that go on that will provide you some insight as 6 to whether the repository is behaving as it should behave.
7 And we're sort of splitting the two. John just 8 reminded me, we are focusing on post-closure comments in the 9 VA as those things that are going to be fatal flaws to the 20 future safety of a repository. That includes any kind of 11 thermal experiments that need to be done over, let's say, 12 10, 15 yerrs, you know, from now. So we're not just 13 focusing on what the 10,000-year issues are, we are focusing 14 on that interim period that will give you confidence that
() 15 the repository is performing.
16 The thing that we're not going to be commenting 17 on, we're not going to be providing comments on costs, about 18 engineering features, and we're not going to be providing 19 comments on the adequacy of ventilation for some Part 20 20 requirement because we feel those have already been tested 21 in the regulatory arena and that we can call on that as we 22 move closer.
23 And just keep in mind, there is a structured 24 review process. DOE is going to deliver a draft license 25 application. We're going to use the same acceptance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
358 1 criteria that we're developing in our issue resolution
() 2' 3
reports as a result of our performance-assessment to review that draft license application. So we're going to have a 4 couple of iterations of moving into licensing after the 5 viability assessment.
6 In our view the viability assessment has a very 7 special purpose. It's a management decision. And we want 8 to provide input to that process rather than sort of 9 focusing on the licensing issues. l 10 MR. FERTEL: The only thing I would maybe add, 11 Margaret, to what you're saying is that the issue closure 12 reports are really important to the KTIs that you're dealing 13 with, but we believe you've got a broader spectrum of 14 requirements to license the repository and the project. And I
() 15 we'd want to make sure that you're looking at that broad 16 perspective so that when volume, whatever it is that the VA 17 lays out their licensing plan, if all they're dealing with 18 is the resolution of the KTI issues, it's not going to be a 19 complete licensing application to you all. And if all you 20 do is comment on what they've done and not tell them that 21 that's not complete, they will proceed down the road 22 thinking it's complete because that's what they've laid out l 23 as their license application.
24 So, again, we'd encourage you and you may be 25 saying this and I'm not understanding it, that when you i
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suice 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 ,
(202) 842-0034 l l
359 1 review the VA and it is a management decisionmaking document
() 2 3
for them, but where you're going to help their management decisionmaking in all honesty is on that part of it that's I
4 laying out what they think is a licensing plan. So if their 5 licensing plan is complete and you tell them that, that's 6 great. If their licensing plan is incomplete and you help f 7 them understand what's necessary to make it complete, that's l
8 very important because then you're helping them implement i i
9 their management plan for going forward.
l 10 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any other comments, questions, i
11 issues?
12 [:No response.] j j 13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I think we've had a very good 1
I 14 discussion, Marv, and I hope as we said at the outset that
() 15 we have a chance to do it again sometime.
i 16 MR. FERTEL: Well, we're more than willing to do 17 that. We appreciate the opportunity. You will see Ralph l
18 around here quite a bit, maybe even Steve. Feel free to ;
19 (
grab them at any time, feel free to call me if you want more !
J 20 NEI involvement at any point. And we will plan on getting 21 back with you for sure after the viability assessment comes I 22 out to follow up on more specifics.
23 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Very good.
24 MR. FERTEL: Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you very much.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 t
360 1 All right. The committee now will move into the.
() 2 agenda item having to do with the preparation of reports.
3 From this point on I don't think we need to keep a record.
4 [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the meeting was 5 recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, April 23, 6 1998.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14
(/ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[~
E} ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\) Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 ,
(202) 842-0034 '
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings
() before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: 100TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) MEETING DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court
() reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate. record of the foregoing proceedings.
l Yv A bv Gerald Brooks ;
1 Official Reporter I Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
l l
t i
l
O S
E I
D U
TS S EI n
YT o TI e I
V e h
c n
VIT I
t t
B a
r im TC I m it n
o SA C o vt nr o eg g
. mt a
e N A c en s,,
/&
8 ye t l r
n gI E 9 r e P 9 oss a ln@aW nMaL n
S T 1 iWv CKoI MH e dn O
c
-
- 2,d r Mt9sa
- C F 2Aa e L 8 a 2Wen t
- RO iel l
- . N S
r pt hu AoN c h7f t -
i5e ns K 1 4oe
/s om i s s
s OU t n
1 ivA 0i 3De T T i o c n
a NA t
t a m r
n o O ST I
e s
e f
P r
e T P r
CD UN DA O
R _
T N
I O _
s O i i
t e
S i v
E I
t c
T A I )
V A I P -
e T T
( i t e c n C t n
s no n o
Q A
i e d at e ml a i t
m r u a T s m r oc c s o i
N e f f
r a l l p
E s n sec ep p
s i n e a
- M A k s
i l
pmn c e S e i r
s c iea n S S n dr p ct s sp i
l e c
' E a ao i Dym si dl s l CS m r n e a v l
o e s ro RS o t e n a
alac ct yf NA f
sd el r
n on ay i
E e
Aot l
p h t o c n nr aas FE P cf os a OC m e
t n E se w
e e Tst i e mase N edi i
v smi n r
o Vc O WA t
s s
y ms poi et i v
e r sr a o et f
rAe n eP EM I l a
l opc e ro ait t
n f
o r t r c n nc e PSa mTa t
VR t vpAt a ne Ai RO I o e DfoTum Pn n es u t e 's d f EF g op i o uf t s o sE yO o VR i n
o k
oi ynMl r t o as e mb i
c SDy c OEP i
g l
wid a v e r un n en
- n b ec e a e f ose u ot e ai O mtn a nc d ndl E uic W a i
r e gY s u I eai nf n Ol aff Dvu m
L o F m e r uc t ase o es H f r
ylegfo of r pd l ueh ut t ye l
h D s o a k t t
u t mle eut o l Ei v sd s
n cnt aee E p aiwr a bd n ue oc l
T t A d et d ni A O u gt anip e ukiT f n ar aue t
s eem epr R Rl ec e F e te l
g ae ead vn G n t r vs ps t e dnD e i
s oEUsU aEU r dI E U p g i v
p e T e u t o r
N r S - - - I n - - P - -
I A
O e:
Wto . . .
e rh ut Of o -
e h t e c ic n
a t wna -
nm i
l p
, er 7 g
m tsfo 9 9 -
. o i s re 1
e; C 9
( )
e nP o
1 2
i0a 0 h Ceh r p
r t A e3 t -
d et r
i7r n a s s C Y9 a ne y a as rC i r
l P s oE e A ).
t a S l
ua i
C t
r i
wor et S gir e vyR -
ee c eit Ril y I
D Ritr n b g E nc a ME i an t
p dAloe o RU L l pg e dn t r aud c a O
F R E e xs i c
i coo o h NC d A );
sd t e
d C S R sn AaM I I F nd KI an RR S EC I
s
,a NI dnipteA RP ug ny aS S P S cin eg OE
- ot eo enT i/
wo i l l F s ua3 LT ,c t d Rn6 t EI yi eo V S f i
r e Bh gut n o ra E l pn pe t _
n MP i
D me t hM i _
ig Sr s ear o o nA oP mcF cC t y i
t S l e u r pY0 s a aT i
e s t s l
R g e ,
i me( h 1
ve et n i
r .
hf g ic t ae i c e e( t os An n l Cno t
a e e gD h
Au P e ai t a t d e d el el n Tc a r u u wa r
el u sl c s oe sp na nni t Ur e EC EKS
y r
o d O i t
s og t
s n a
p .
)
n f e (e R e o
- R e S m e ); )
o R e cs s t
e wt ei r a I y
v o
nn ao R
S r
u i
_ Np g p t
r t R n o o o a I i
t n
er d p up l
d o I m pe r mb
(
t s N" o o l
e i r
C l
cA h d i
e e l
o %"
_ l l i n ne t e o ht D p e
i
,h M M t R
W d y )s s
sg e d eW s A f e ed s
u n
i N as P t ng s u t a
O a bl e S e n sB t I
e nd T d a A o S
_ T S v oo , i h ot n A E a o c iMt g t n o MN H a . t x l i
i e E et t RI L e ts d e ( s vu ep u
ua l
t OP k l W r t
a n L n o FI o c pic s N C s o t n i
e
- I S d Wis t i
t c uh md ee R ED I
a e
,i a Oc tsi d e T L yh r e u A A L l d
p t teT yv s
.O LU C
e u
s i n o eS b A
s iA a de P Sro l
a P i
s n
I r e 4
- AN s F r mT S t o g.
, i s
r o i
VH m r T e eM
_ l E C a e eE e (e i
c s t t t DE i n Ue t s nO h s i
v NT h e ar y
s I
n/
D t e
i t
c
_ AS c b o b oC ta u E S e u s A T opr S s R s s TO t eN eb i
e e co );
y s AR r i i e o d n d u e
- RC K d n2 f ui uS h G A oI s Se t
d t f
t E r e Cd 3 t n ys So f o
T nA yn N
h O
t AaP P
e m
t i(
v U i t
vi o t s
I h
TsT ed e i id t s it t u l
u s
s ee l i sr E sl n o t
n e C' tu an i
y s R W Ra e SeN ee n
o Ne4 F K t a SR t
t n
e i
t en 1
3 f
y ct a u cm ur m a
r t
ag i t d D df i
u e dpep i
sA n nd nnd c p
o UDT d e
Ca on oo CCa n D o
o I
C O I n . . * * .
t u
p n
O i d
n s e
o t y a t g s
h c n lo
_ a a o e t N h o r o d O c r p p o I a p h ,
AT o m t e
r A i g;
ViAC p p y ) t s t s M ;
r
_ EI L A a y t st l
u o A CP NP A i n i l
in s
e M P S )s
=
AA V - i m b e uv R e s Te ME A P
ler nl o Se oE '
s h
o gn
. g
_ RS P i s E t .
a ON S v O eh FE T n upi D e (
c RC e o f f
i Np t i n
' sx EI t t D;ru e m R E x ms a
h t P L u g a r e Sl a T ui u R c MF D
_ l i i t
a s r i t v la e I n
i EA E v i auf o v D n hn T R egMl at: l E s t o i
s c S D o n e dvin o n ne l
Y t yut SD n i
dt i l
t s s nel oT N N i o o uss r l e ot m eR d e
i t
ag OA t a P nc hK ae d nAo u .
.O EA m
r t
oic(
AonasT r EPM pTl l
a (e v s OV D
o d e V rpion e a E e 5
- f n dh u t i A Us pat - i t Aptas nitt ni OP i
r e I
We p ev i TS e nSgmc i
d dt K T h eTni ne ns c at n o n c eA t
e L l p
_ i O b sr r wsC u eg s E' ffeae AN B d t f f ee d d n i n
D A haOiai nt L a DDD D fff iRn v I n
ee ReAa EP E s e n d nooo Vrs h m
- FA a o i nnn o - e t
m Y V -
l p Ceb ooo t eP e At f oo L i i i C
R A A t t t P V-4oaaa
/
t ccc dSoTa me c k cr A
E S 3. eiiit dfi i i f f C ear an bh ae T A 1 t t 2 ar pm r d t E F P ; .t nnn eO Sr s3 c e eee 3 pe DO mbf o e
I V S T et A pIddd F dn O weP I I Ao or P r e ea R
P E W i emTEx*
a
- T CPP d) i vR I
vr e oS V ea s r E RP - U - - PI R R
O * . .
O W N ;
yie s
d g C n t t ag e n r eit A i n e os pe k v i d E d i b i et r
.tc n
a Tub a r oR a e. a t t t sp i(
E ag r A ,
s T di n f ors id e w t sP g e t eo f t ed e e hT i
d a d g n f et ut s i v i gm ;,
amSe i
v o s "k t
u d e o t saye r e r n fo r s s r pt o r t t n A i
s) O t
y s u ed Wai N
pvi V en i
v c b e i
t o - d o C di n st A ui t is oi d i l i
t d t v Aa ne P c c s el S n a o
n e
s r
o op
. r tossa i
s b
T ir
- s t
cneba r
f n
f nt d a nil i a o l
e i i u eb v f S v y y p dl d a d ef e r r n iv a et r o E T l a aI s otu n e e s
r us I
N -
n n: es r pe ad T E m p u ct n mWic i
n i
t cem m e I
M e o e V M t
s im l iNr f a n cd u b Cme eCx e l
I T O y e r r r oon o C C S P PAe DCd a T inle A
A n n
O P T
N i
t o
a i
t o
a F DO d t t 6
O EI e n8 n8 8 8 8 8 TT E le t
e9 / e9 / 9 9 9 9 S C U E L
P p m8 u2 m8 /
9
/
7
/
0 4
/
J OM m c/ u2 c/ 2 1 3 2 T RO o o8 o8 5
/ /
7
/
9
/
4 A PC C D0 D0 0 0 0 0 T
S la n l a u o n d n it iF e ma e z oM lp gw n
i l
a f r
s t e m i e u n 'r f a e S
t e o oi v g
t p oe r t C r e is Dlep gc e l
U e p t uU T s r eR nn l
A T
u m o
a e
d nA i eo lo1 v
amo n
S i n C N UO BC E3 i
F c e s R d e 'r o l e
f o s d e S C v o s R e n 'r C U I
- 3. ot l e
l oe 2 2 y
g 1 g vy et my is t
eU 3 3 l o
3 n l i t
et i lp1 Ao v A i
At r s v s m.la Al a Pd P a )4 Tis I
i it ie yt ie o 3 u P P u So K
i Tig K sd Ssd CAn a T Tn Tht O
S A
T 1
.M 1
( 3 2 s s
.netu 3 s s
.et nu 4TM
.P 5
. .a 6M 7M e
4 s i
e d
t u
sE yO ,
it D .
7, w v ;
i e im t
io v s r "h e
r nf e d g l
a Sev m mi r
o o r ec f f er A .
o no V- f ni A it ea S P durm E S I
T l o
T I e cf nn r
V o i i l
I T
f e i d l
n C B Wa A
A h s
O P T
F t
n o
m 7
O 8 9 3 S /
0 +
U T
3
/
4 8
9 8
9 -
A 0
/
7
/
9 T
S g
i n
o g
n O ,
/
n V- _
o n i
oAP -
- t l
_ " a T i s
e z K
- c i l sST n a e i
a st u t m n _
a t
r ip oyes d ps mow or e -
.mna no U RS C. pv pl c ei O
0ae 9I.R I
8" Ac 1 PR
O H E S i n
a h
c n
C A t n
u B a
r A C M o
a i n
o O E t
c t a nr c eg u
R g Y mt en e
PC 8 e nr io t f )
n v8 1
gI a
nW PN s s 9 e s 9Ms i
y io6 t
r a g.6MHaL AER 1
. ,Wan l Ccr5 -
ed O
4E.
gY,).
. 2 2 C iAty l
r N A ph v At0i i
i t
cn1 t n M@4a m3) Wne im0f 1
Ti t 3 o m sa t
s 1 F 0s n
( (
ns oes
. E 1 S
e i iss vA 3R t m
e s
i De c
n a
AD S l
y m
r o
PN t a
o f
r e
TA
)
T P 8 9
9 1
0 2
l ir p
A
(
3 R
V.
A P
T W
N O C A
A
1 G
m m N a
r o I S
gt r UI S oi s f
o f 4 N Y r s nl s 1 I
TL P s a t y
i oed .
NA t e t 3 nd i s ao ON e n r a a mm A CA ma v r P o s T YI SDE s e a d t f s s c en nec n R TT e r s e s n e um i
d or i
r c e
A NI H
s a Amr d
i s ep n p t ena NEM I I n b o a et MML C eo o ye l
ts e d mp a
I P N r e cf L c ave A n re a p o md ni e ta l
ac c E L R
O P VE ED O
O ml r
t y er me pa o ar l
ge id r y R t r e or EES f
r e i
l nh at pm o RDA P
i ev r ,t P o b
i x
r u xo erf l
ea A LB P en e af ys dl u og SE S t r ao NDT A vo l
i t
f df r t ol mer OO U at s h t u T MP I
t r d as 4 r eh i
o ee r ore h s c a T
. t g w l e n b ad RDU E
SNO I i 1 ' sn s l o
o d
oe l a dn o r e pur SA Y g a
. i C e t mh pt ARE R 3 R d
/yls t n )s sn as A r n D T t eeit i NiAid v v d t u nei o a oc NE N A oPib oim l
f I ors t i l c
l u AMM P t r
pTpamal vo r t i n mtc na i ceb SAI L T a osadcne p t ' E s e ,
(
nr ort s t
r aT TRE HAR
)
8 s d eOa a nt o vb i
pO GPP 9
_ a pDst ci soa i t na aN I 9
1 o ep r p ae S 2 f d ms A f d N 2 v cefoo
- 4. leoi r u P ol u
l I - - i r r 1 v e so nep f o ot e o A p
r os p r 3d wpcua ng o sh : (
e io p Us N g n
Asi e apl O it e
P av t inu : I e Twe r - - S as E T
T U
M W
O A
- - N C L
~
~
2 O l s ). t n
o i
h ' P t
a y' - e g
r a
P - -
- ~
h c
~ s t X~ i D
r o .
/, .
p )s se zl i nn _
ao rZ y i
c g
4 Td e o E R
R t
h 4 l
at a r
. R nru dy H _E R
ot a
- _4 i
R sS n / < j R _
oed n w .
w i
ma w Ded t m
ear e nu -
Zu n) oe l
)
l e
u Ot as d d d _
eo o f n ',~
t aM r
M _
uTF T -
oU "
t aZ F
Z n(
o 'U(
s nU 'S (
e n
)
8 9
9 1
i
~
o 2, t ,
Z 2 c d i t e l i
r p
a p r u A
(
e t
a g S n D it e
e M
O f. W N
C A
3 g
a
) e r
)
n )
a m e w b u v o u i
v e l f s u s l l N a h l t
o c c a a
O i
t d d
eye r e n I
r a T it h v mpa s f o ,
P I
i l r ey t d f
f u
gmi e t R t i ot ui d t a d C ( natr ss m l u e r
S sa sa hu(
a e v st u
E e e nd ega ec D
r n aoia on ek gc b ar uf g
b zt t (
u dl e a aa L s e or k ps e md ar e A 7 t ar r e a c ut c a ted ps i
ee C r d l
o upe r c t e au t s s i
I S
nt ap p t s wno e n s eme i
af n o oc Y d ne e ud t wod i
H d nr a z s P
i i
viii nnn e vi of di e et r
)
8 9
d nnn i t o 9 yiii ooo ta a d e ae t
r p 1
2 r t t t oaaa n t
ege ar as uo t r 2
l ir p
i t i i i r r r s el ap A saaa e e s o
(
ovvv r d r r g
n p
e p
e uw ot i
t e
e R - - - R - - F -
M w
g 1t
4 O r o
t p
e c
e r
e h
t o
n t
t n
i o e n
o t ) p p ?
n o
m o
i r ) )
i t c a
c ?
P
?
e c o
e v
s W n o l i
s e h e
d z r o
t u
r t
D t s
r )
e t
a p
e c
x e
y e r e e
?
t S u r b
) n B t
a e d )
Odo e
? ?
s E s h e n r t s o f
t e e e t a i i
r t h h a le t a a C d y
r w
t e
v t
r e i e
v e
r e l c
o o h a t r n r r 4 .
i t
s c
u l e
s e
s r
a s )
a s t o
p o
p m e e e t
n e e 1 e nw o
d i
tr di d
i ed vl i c e
. r s
io ta h l
c ol c p tr c l
e cu r 3 r u s u o u cn e t
e dd an n
o n aio n p n si o i
ni o h
t n
A r ei d ad e g a s a rd nd car t e ,
a r Ta aa r r l
o a )
8 r
Dp e e r P ne o a t
ey l
e e do no od T o (
vf o ns oo e 9 9
1 _
T i l
t a w gt at k a R
et e Z d ta e
ed n e ot et sn au i
l t d a e 2,
2 oh d a e r Z ar eo uh l
i -
cc ch ir r r
e u Paw l ct ua t
at r a d
ea t l
em)
Ran l
ct as A
(
p Pm en nh uh t ah t t o Ci t g pw t e sh i ow t aw r u w cat i
ea it n
e e o a d t s t t t eh r
a c
sh e e
nA Wo oW D( H W( W R(aA U( aA S(
i D( l D( M W
N O )
1
)
2
)
3
)
4
)
5
)
6
)
7 C
A
5 o
ms r p d
g
]
5 C ei r 2]
hd t
5
,5 on
. , i s e 1 0 h s/:
r y[ 1 gw n )
) i
? emt s .[ l i e P s
t :
oc W f
t ami m Ds t b n a f i
r i
e o) iEts]0 mr D h m Ndy 1
,om t
ef r
o ad e e Oo I
r t i n[1 f io o
r n f o n t r ae r p l r t a a l e
)
d e
Uintar i
t a
t ar r t Ti o s en n sel a e o r ,
U,. pi n o o Ap l t
f n x i
)
). s pt icr e t (
u r r
L e n oax n c c t o
r I i
t ma ar oe t f e] c s0 ar (c Or se l obl r
u a mt t e n
f ss s3F Ct n i ]
t r i l nts c in ad e s e ft o
,g0 h
Re i
oi ac l a cz i r
r 1 n CDga i i f
D c 0. pi 1 Er e l gf f f u m s0 p0 Pt nmtat o r ( o - sin )e ne[i ol p n: D 0 i
r a i t o r ( an emt ra [
u Pw taf e t i i
er b r nl oh t :
i pup nl i gf n en eut i
t n Eh i
i c
i t
no ai no dc(mbuwio Ec u e nuh n o r
,l a cad r n e t
i i
r au t
Dm P toMCi i
t e or t
r i n
r "a
er eiAt ts eb r i r
w d an ear r r a co c D s )
o nr al t io t t d ue t ewf ot t
aAl aoD f i 8 9
9 i
ag c H
(
e r
u f
nt aai i i r s p en Wimf n ee f
Wemnm f
r ur o ot oi r 1
2 2
t l aipo f xia ut pnt ocf l ir aicmc r t e r eo olf et t aga i A
p ei pInPTn xeio n f l
nCor u" LFU n (
g ur (
o it n
m l f
m e e e e T - R - A - -
M W
g i
~
~
5
+ 6 e
0 O -
1 n '
i o
t a
r N 4
+
e 5
\ 7 l
t n o
i it n f tao ipa t s
I n ~ ictr eil r f Pn
~ )
k e
I l - t a
l laa uu p )
- u 4 r a nn nn t n +
e e
(
y u AA nn aa a
lp 0 m 5 i n ee MM -
n
(
o T n
A n
/ -
/
4
+
e a / 5 e 2 M '
O g -
i n -
0
+
e t 0
- - - 0 a 0 4
0 5
3 0
0 3
0 0
2 0
5 1
0 0
1 0
5 0
i m 5 gr t t .
s _
E _
t o ) _
8 _
9 h 9 1
c ,
a 2 2
o li .
r _
p -
r A p A L
(
g p I O
- ggE' j
n it
- W e A F S .
e -
u agga M
W .
N -
O = < e C A
7
]
% d 5 n]
f 8 a2 9
)
d eo g
n 0
% u a n k o 5 o1 r 0 cs i
7
[ a
)
ao pr n [0 P
eo r
t t i o:
W t c s n st r
s i e s e ag D ei m vD h
t winn l a l e i dl a
ns r f
omr i
m r
t t y
(
em oe i
o r t e e bi gr i
t ne t
ct N mi v ao a f ae ;
ec t k n cg r r d n ay ]
ao de u n o l a t 2 PL at r a si i s si e gw t o muic e );
a de e eom r 1 st s r t eh ys r
o h ni s 4 ai p r u c ge Dc u t sa s t
ois 1 e
Wre mr e et d y i
em u o genb
[ at n
gw e a e a ua : g n e 9
ao h b u k d d t s
kh cus q c ak nc ge i i
r o et r a pciu t D t cd ea r n er an t an o epalud n m E t Pa , wir f
y t
s a ef r ai s f r
o ww a
ep e d ni e
n i d
t wot vol l a
i n l o f t y U F o st n o aa t i
m f r oe t uk ef s , t y at a s tyn en nt i
u nud c oonr o oio go el i Whw r d c ome r i h
e i tph eiot o ai k c t
d ib r ca i
)
te nn c ui v v t c a 8 9
n i
ut p ar i i e eh t a
t a r ue PF a f d 9 1
h g aener
,t l
r e i d
sf o sdi r u d e e v Wo f n a n 2 2
W
(
k r enl cu sia l
a ed er r l i
i t oot f l
i r
p at ae r ta c ut ct c ut ac i nt cr i A
(
F e pre pnt i
i i
n ar cep ye f
iao d g n
e e or a r i u s r n it e
a D l
t pr cC hf d r l r F e sm e i
c M v
i a e e t i
n i W
- W (t M- D N
- - - - I - -
C A 9
8 O
b n l t-ioF t S c e e ,a e d le v
v/ /@ .
fr ht t f e o o l
f o
r w w M
ev o/ b -
u id t u
iq l
j l e
h v t le a .
r e B O
r t a f O
tn!4' t_ .
w g
n o
. iyr n
Ny av o
t i
- lo t ic m i c
a n p n
_ d y
e _
io D
t F )
cS ae r
f h yt r f
/
/,/ 8 9
9 1
do 2, 2
l i
r p
A
(
g n
it e
e M
W N
O C A
9 0
0
[ n O
- o n i t
o l a
i t u u c
) b i
l a
? r c t
S s a B i D e r
E l e a m d s e r o e e eh t o c g m a a s f i
k ave n f r h r c eU g u a eae t al
, u o t ss h
p l
wev i
e e sl m yeL h
r i
mit t s) e t
Re d r oH b t
w l
yl w ase w i
el c f p d e r
o it e u
wd" te d l
l i d oe r du n s n et t a c
f d
bf ut ema aW l
i l
o aa wno t n
a l
o n s e i
aet f r a O ci d nl oe p l uh uar gi nt a cd i
d t
d s nf l
ai l
a n t
n o i t r ct m o
m sr e ao r f et o i od an r te c sn vnt i t e nc ol f a l
l g teo oer ca dt e i
on et u e n pi at r u s er ef f ara co r c t
s p a ec l
ed d
eo l
sf f ad i
e( o n Rt e ua s s a t n wno f c l
as l ego ao ei d )
h f d r l
e r ni 8 w wie oc eo t f r t n f oya i t 9 9
f t ab n e e r r 1 t oan eu e sn d ur n ae 2, A yo r t i o vd 2
(
r t b a h] mo l cg i t e sn i l i
r p
gi un i
sr a et c a 0. ra p t
no amo mic A
(
mc e f aB1 f o r
i d
oc m
t it g
n e
h u a u M e
C - S - - - R - S - -
W N
C A O
l 0
e 1 O e n
h t
o d i
t e l
em b r y
r r
e ae d T) t t o i s
e t x R? en r e d i
s o
n o
i r
t Oo a to t p e
c t
a m
Pzd wd r e
o n h Se a e e h g t h t u s t s i e h Nr u on m c a
(
t Ata t o yt r a i
f o
r f
r u
n a
Rs e ol t o s s i f
c Th t i
s c oe r
h t
a e
r u
i n
g r p Ee pp t i s
t e t c a
Nn e w o
r p e e r
o p f r i t
n h e Ose u l
f t d s n f
n o c O Zd i o
n md o n a
r n i
r t
o l
c aw t i o v Du n i
t e ug f
r so g n
i t
p s Eo aifel l
r o
l o
l i
b n wct r x l i
H Td a i r a ts h oitr ei pt r a s o
Ao l
r c f e oa s n d n c ei o i
xv Rd d e l
a t as i
t r epm r r t ua a
n i
l a
e ab cs tcrd C Ut a omae r
pi r ml gs u l
i aa i o
s n)
Tr mcab l
i swl or ev r t f er u iy ni t
)
8 Aah t
emu u st o r n f t f nov i i 9
9 1
r r d e i
t r s e) d ai t t Sw d e e o yr nd e cac 2, 2
nt n vp h u s oi cbif xid u l
l l
NtA age r ir d i t i r t p l n v ent c r a n a i
a u t at nano dr no r mie agt A
(
U( i ao es turt uf r
sr c g n
t a
l c taied t i
t e
p a r ea a e S - - F - - R (r w- -
M W
N O . . .
C A
i g
, 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 3 3 3 3 3 3 S
E I
]
1
]
1
]
1
]
1
]
1
]
1 0 0 0., 0 0 0.,
T $
1 1
1 1 1
1 R 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
E [ [ [ [ [ [
P O) ]
7
+
]
7
+
]
7
+
]
7
+
]
7
+
]
6
+
Rty )
r y 5 e
5 e
9 e
9 e
9 e
4 e
Pi vi l
m 2 2 1 1 1 9 t , , , , , ,
Cc u I
(
m 3
+
e 3
+
e 3
+
e 3
+
e 3
+
e 2
+
e L dn K 5 5 9 9 9 4 2 2 9 UoC [ [
1
[
1
[
1
[ [
A r Ro f m 5 3 3 5 4 7 Ds p 1 1 2 1 1 1 Yn o Hi ut 2 3 2 8 8 2 Eb i r $
m 1 0
3 0
3 0
2 0
2 0
1 0
Nt s OD Zl i
]
a ) ] 0
]
Dmr l r
y 6
0 0
0,
]
0
]
0
]
9 6
0 Eo m 6 0 1 3 9
6 Tg n (
m 0 6
- 1 3
0 0 0 0 AoL m 0 0 0 0 0 [ [ [
0 )
K [ 0 6
[ 8 R( [ 9 9
U 1
2 T s g
t a 2 l
A l i r
i n F p r r A S t i S p
l s e d
l sd e s t e
a
(
g n
N U n h) l i
He d
l l
i Hl ec d )
s a) C r
g it e
U ad pe o Ped o e c w- ) owi r c nl t e r M od ni c wld f i
pe l p l a ot a ooe i
o l r i
l oe r p l
u W N
T (w C (n vi C (n z P (w U B
~
2 o
1 e
cT 7 9 0 3 1 0 1 n 9 2 4 3 6 4 4 t
aW 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
) so it m D
(
S - 2 -
S F 3
E B - - - - - -
E N K
N C z 0 8 7 8 6 3 O F I
H 7 2 5 5 5 3 6 C 6 1 1 1 Z T U D
D N 4 9 0 4 8 6 3 E A P 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 P
T S o A R
R E
Y z 3 6
4 5
2 2
2 3
4 U A H 1 1 1 1 1
1 L C T C A I H v - - - -
3 5 -
S P H -
1 1
2 1
N A C U R G 3 6 0 0 0 3 1 I
w 1 1 2 T S 3 1 2 1 2 5 1 A T
)
8 9
R 9 T 1 S a 3 2 e
r 1 2 4 5 6 7 2 a # # # # # # # l i
r p
b u A A A A A A A A
(
S S S S S S S S g n
it e
e M
W o N C
A
3 1
)
?
n i
o t
a c
Tl or )
n o )
Ro i t
l b
e Ot p a c i a
r Pe c o a v
Se r l
r e Ne t o b ny r
Ah t p
e a/
cm Rt c e xn0 r
y ]
Ta e r o
i t
r as5 i
o0
/
m 0 0
Ei vr t mfu d f n 5 ]
0 2
d Nr a t n ei a h d n a
0 ]. 3 2 3 Os i
r t x0 3 3 0 .
p) ni5r 3 ,
Ze d t ok m i t n a n n 0. 0. 6
,0 i
o d e ome e e 1 1 1 Dl u c f 3 1 nc t
i t
aiw n e nw
[
[ [
En y~il r
oe dr d t ot e n o oo nn s ae e i To i o( a t g e e r t v b
t ab i t t t u uu ii Ada t f c if sulo n
n t
u reloyr ch d y r r a a b bb i
nv va i i r r r Rr ot pd oi r o at i t
e v ss sst t t Uod wx se r ri s r i i i eet r r pr s f h e oDDD uecpe n nt rit i i t wcoFacmmm t t Te (
t s c eis i
lyioai c i i
)
At a ht f arr d f n su mo l wleni f or roo f f r 8 9
9 Sr t a n a e fu of ff e ovonnn i i 1
t s t i ov l i u uu 2 h
a pime y r
Tr o d ee f mtaggg 2 d pxmr u s ud ooo l w wlavuvs l
i e si r ut c movauir L LL ir A
p oiu n a t r nt a
l ao a u olr ut epch
(
ur m (v r l
t i l g
f nl rat i l A r i t t c
f vpaRNTT n
(
u a u it e
e o
l r l F F A- - -
M W
N C
A h t
- i ll
4 1
O
]
]
5 5 1
1 s
r 5
a 5 2 e 2 y 1 1
[
] [
0 ;
0 ;
s s r
0, r e e t
0 1
t e e
- m m 0 ]
]
5 0 -
5 6 1 7 3 G [
2 ,
N t 5 5 s 0 I i D )r s 0 T
[
r [
a e :
O l
L a e y t
e . t i
t t
s s U nr ee m i D
i D
A
]
np 0 a o 0 a t F p~ 5 0 t
e e x0 B B E1 4
[ ,
, )
te:
- ) t y t t s s it n a e ii nl i t
a e w Fb s h h
,a n t t gb r r o o o
)
no i r C N N 8
9 9
l t p , ( ( 1 u e h h h 2, a t 2 F c g t t l n n d i
d i
ir p
f e e A orr l w w (
g eu l t l t l t n mce it u u u e i a a a M e
T (r F F F W
N O . . . .
C A
- lflfllllIl ! ll l i .
i?
5 1
)
s r
y O 0 )
0 g 0, )
g 4
0 40 (
2 g
)
0m
(
s 4
5 r
e m7 0 t 5 2 u e 1 d r m 8 ;
) n h )
l a t 6 ) ;g l g3 f
a ;
s r
1 s
3 0 3. 0 y e) 0(
k p%
y 5
- (
m c 0 0 T 6 e m 3 o
r 0
8 t 3 y5 p y 5 . 1
( -
i l
i :
T 71 g b5 s
)
)
s y t e a r gg r 3 e 22 e 2 Sp i
t 0 k t y t e 00
. t e /
m O c ;
. c o
, m ( (
m h N i s r
y R% 3 mm ]
2 t
g9
]
n e
]
6 m 0 r9 o2 50 .
[
- e 5 i
s 0 4
f e 6 0
- t 6
); )g 1
t n t r 5 s 4 0
e 2 g: 4 hg g a 5 a4 ei e1 1 t
s e1 -
S g
- r e
vpe p
y h 0( 0 n
o t
a9 me r
o 0
e 2 .
oyt Tn(
(
C i 1 t t 1 c[
0 c ;
- gu53 mm m e
, l u3 a: )
8 e; s l
a enl c e[ 1 F t 9
e% mio n 9 u ac c 59 t r r 5 a g yis 1 ay a :. t iD r a 1 l l
pl 45
- : t s k ts e 2
2 e0 c0 f
o:3 o v sa i
d ci n a l
l ir n5 t k f ee pp aD p e gmr A p
e n -
l l n c yy l
l a
l o
(
r r
ug i
o1 f ai kjr oo TT f e a t r o en g
n t e cp k
c s m it e
c1 ay c o a ro t g eo e e0 o
R(
r F (t R - - R WN HL M W
N C
A O
l )l il1
' 6 1
O
)
n o
i t
a s
r c
o t e
l r e t
o m p ]
e t c i8 e
r u7
) d t e n ,
h nht e o o 52 s c[ a n nt ot c: c o i .
i t s Epn e nt i
n a r a
Smn oo ai s cD a
c c
o e y
Acp l o
l o
l Ee o m
vmr v r
o
]
0 d Li vc se yo o t p 0 a Euvr s i bf d n i
t n e c 0, 0
y e
Rt u xr eU i
l e e r 1 e",
O T (e et x t
pt ei f
u t a 0
- p Ctny b hsrc du t e 07 n
~
Ee vd ae t n 1 0 o )s e z i
n [
RE aes nn Cgs ep s o :
1 I
c i i e eit t t y Die ne ar l
l ers c i
af z k oi s l
c c e nst ei i ce r uenc i tr i r s mvDi l
b l
oa ft anaao i
cpit e ad ct i sEl a a l
c p i nsibt Vs e nt l ai d
en poVt oer t r
h sd ng d e au co ep n or i
lc scf aops na a anare l o en )
u f d n v n oe 8 oor owi ae onee n f f o
t l g pc 9 9
i d t r e0 r of u t ri t oe pn f I ofo xE enr 1 a t 2 r ne eb e1 pt oiso ps i y r 2 mm mor n t
et eu l
f t o t o e s od p i i
r p
nui a bi mic l
t n c p npneiu a
i n e A
(
u o
i a n D (1 n s r
i t
r d wer b i
a T F (r it g
n m
a t
n i r o r
e e
t a
E - - - A - - - P -
M h W O W
( . . -
N C
A ll
7 1
s n
i o
t
)
?
p n m u
o )
s s Ni t a
e s
o s
a Oo I l c
y d
n l
b e
a o
To r d
a i t
a n
o Atpe /
la g
l h
a eae mr s
Lc e i n
eu d Ur e r e7 es e
]
d n
s lpn o a Ch t t u3 ar e1 t a
c df te n u o s L t wta6 ,
) e r laoio Aae it d
n we m i ut 5 s )
d lcpu ea ud y r Cs o a c c i
o n [4 n o r a l
i o ca ewsa f cr ot n ed d g s :. sl sh s r t na Ee ni tc si t
nve ost a
cp o
od e o e d r i
Sh t i
sD i s mo sd osf e h r
eem si o r r ou ouncs r r t er pa i Oi s d co i
t r df eio i lar
( t o ct noao f h p Dtha l uhU af cra n i l
ccc i ufafr ca t
anwsoir r b F e oep nc nru uf ns pr g pe ap e c W
( ol e os s g oeyv ee n )
8 d le a i t i l 9
awR d o dni n i
sml ri t c i
at aie v r 9 at r e ad a e(
1 vel o n ae t t f r gg 2, f nn f s go f
e vr r 2 oiipp o anleis nlyo s e o f l i
r ner ws ot st r e s p nmm ouu o l
oa Ceepne A
(
i pP it lpm f i el d r cu i
e os g n
t t c u uer s it e
l i
l i i o e D - - Dd ( - D - - - - -
M W
N C
. . . A
j
~
t s 8 1
O p e
t s
e _
c B er n _
n 4 o o mtu i
t c aar 1
. a d e 3 t n n n
a Tt e i A e i o
l L dn s P s t a
s T t T e G
e K E a l u
r t n
h Oe n P N
I c
a C R Dl u s
e i
r c e yn se Y E B
o r Ndd no R
y en t
et a t oe nirt R s p
p nam o i t
v mp ht aaP e a r e l
A a o nl er y sy c h
de seb i
t e a c f o
i s ac Msd n M a o
r t y s yd al e B aniz n
e pa r y or SP Cm e
r oi _
M pf pa at f i e
r a sAa n
n S
d l ,t o
nhRr
.l i
e U ea i s n t p t v oyg r r a dl u sinr S nA i
a t o g nFid e e
r R uiaO s mer o .s r O r uW e
z y
bi ixss r
l t uet
, l d
e h s i
ta J ne od 4 cN fo C l
a i sAie nn o c a l nii ui an t s n D l M ad 1 e d e a d n d 0m oe r
l csl o c a nolc u v nvt o na0 l
a )r pu 0o m
. r _
3 iait t
aCr y a a
st a2C t
uept pmas r n Ciab eaC t
e -
A t
nR ei t e at uDutoi h ema c ul co sl ul a
d l _
Cl ceu t l eNi b i
s l n s u vo P
eyi x si aAb w o ce a eh T r p bt e l VR a d Ceib t r t
eCL c s eWl i
r f r e e ,aaT s )
eDe r y t el pO nleml t 3
9 e
i E mr t Nf n e
l i
de aN r veu 9
1 _
sT pa mCpe f _
i Ao s n gt f d eet s f L seyr 2
2
- 4. G ee s l a r s ,
- i. mu n enol u e l i
r a teAc eo RsSL p i.msh I
1
. Tvc P aP o a s L A
(
3See tpuUs l
elaA g E d ui mTD n t c i a ci n it AV P pt l
l o it ot r i e
e TI N - - I n Es - F(uD- i nPi n -
M W
O . .
- e N
C A
9
) 1 e
r l
u i
f a
P _
E W _
S eo n _
_ e A g l
_ )e
_ t g
n s
e C nl af a
_d a
h a
S s s
hk E e E Cc
_ o C S c C er o t
e Y o
_ (
t r N t _
af o _ S a L p E m
_ E m A r is .
_ S i No R l Cc t _
_ L Y
l C A s E S e _
A Y e F E + ff
_ + l E S a
_ N )
T du I
S )
s( _
A s V o R A ny Y
n I T m L oit _
o E C i c
_ T i t
I S
l t _ I i a
H i i V d s N u O d m _
n s n l
_ I e E d T I R oi
_ T o d S i
F A ce S I
S c o L d i
v N y _
N y M E n O
a+ _ E a E
d m S d l a V i C _
E f o
nytr u S ) s g t
)
S t nyr i n
_ L L T n _ E e p n eo a st oe S o V
i t _
N st es c l u
_ E esc n S i t
E l
E r i o a
_ L r i ph o a ph V F _ C u N _ (
(
n
+ + _
M nC O a l
)
d o _ E d o R v 8 O ei t e
e _ TS br eie t v P e 9 9
P eb s r t a s s ai t t n 1
a tui a a Y tuia o 2 M Csi c p
C C S esisin cr p
d 2
l i
r O l a
i d e nr l
a l
a
_ ad ee t e
s A p
C n U (p n n Cnr U (p A l
s
(
g i i i u n m
_ e it m m_ _ s c e o o o _ a o M e
N - N N _
_ B - - F W
_ N
_ C
. - A
-