ML20237E488
| ML20237E488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/26/1998 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9809010003 | |
| Download: ML20237E488 (93) | |
Text
.
v i. a )i a. ~i L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l
Title:
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF ACTIVITIES WITH CNWRA AND HLW PROGRAM l
PUBLIC MEETING l
l Location:
Rockville, Maryland l
I l
Date:
Wednesday, August 26,1998 1
1 1
Pages:
1 - 65
//E93 l
9009010003 990826 r
.7 PDR 07 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i
(202) 842-0034 c.g t
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on August 26, 1998, in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or i : formal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect. final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed wit'h the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
l f
lt
4 1
'l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON 5
STATUS OF ACTIVITIES WITH CNWRA l
l 6
AND HLW PROGRAM 7
8 PUBLIC MEETING 9
10 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12 One White Flint North l
13 11555 Rockville Pike l
l 14' Commissioners' Conference Room i
15 Rockville, Maryland 16 Wednesday, August 26, 1998 17 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 18 notice, at 2:08 p.m.,
the Honorable Shirley A. Jackson, 19 Chairman, presiding.
20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
21 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 22 NILS J.
DIAZ, Member of the Commission 23 EDWARD MCGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission
('
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 10255 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
'2
-JOHN C.
' HOYLE,' SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION 3
KAREN CYR, GENERAL COUNSEL 4-HUGH THOMPSON, EDO 5-CARL PAPERIELLO, NMSS 6
JOHN GREEVES, NMSS 7
WESLEY PATRICK, CNWRA 8
MICHAEL BELL, NMSS 9
10 11 12-13 s
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21-22 ANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court' Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
\\
l.
3 1.
PROCEEDINGS
~*
2 (2:08 p.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Good afternoon, ladies and 4
fgentlemen. -The purpose of this afternoon's meeting is for 5
the NRC' staff'and the Center for Nuclear Waste' Regulatory 6
Analyses -- or simply the Center, as we will refer to it in 7-this briefing.-- to provide the Commission with an update on 8
the status of the NRC high-level waste programs and 9'
activities at the Center.
10 The Commission is pleased to welcome Dr. Wesley 11 Patrick from the Center, who will be providing at least part-12 of today's' briefing.
The last time the Center briefed the 13 Commission was ir. May of 1997, and I'm not sure exactly what 14, the interleaving of the discussion will be since I'm told 15-that both NRC staff and Dr. Patrick are working from the
.16 same viewgraphs.
17 So Mr. Thompson, the Commission.looks-forward to l
18
_ hearing from both the NRC staff and the Center today on the L
i 19 status and accomplishments and.what we have to look forward 20 to with respect to the NRC's high-level waste program.
21 So unless my colleagues have anything to add, you 22 may begin, but maybe you can introduce everyone and explain 23 how you intend to carry this out.
24 MR. THOMPSON:
Thank you, Chairman, and good I
25 afternoon, Commissioners.
L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
4 1
You are correct, we will have a briefing by both 2
the staff and the center today, and the staff obviously will
-3 talk about the high-level waste program, and the Center, 4
.with the technical focus and technical support of the staff, 5
will focus on technical accomplishments, and Mike Bell, who 6
is the chief of the Performance Assessment and High Level 7
Waste Integration Branch, will do the staff briefing, and 8_
Wes Patrick.will do the briefing for the Center.
I think 9
you know Carl Paperiello and John Greeves from the NMSS.
10 So with'that, Mike?
11 MR. BELL:
Good afternoon, Chairman.
Good 12 afternoon, Commissioners.
It's a pleasure to be here to 13 update you on the status of the high-level waste program.
14-As the Chairman mentioned, May of '97 was the last 15 briefing, and at that time, we were in the second year of a 16 very restricted budget.
We had restructured our program to 17 focus on ten key technical issues most important to 18 repository performance in the first of those two years'.
.19 In the second year, we had to zero out the Center 20.
work in three of those areas, and I'm happy to report that 21 this fiscal year, with increased funding, we are now working 22 again in all ten areas and making good progress, and I hope 23 we will reflect that in today's briefing.
24 I would like to start out basically with an 1
25 overview of the goals, strategies of the program, talk a j
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters I
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036
)
(202) 842-0034 l
l 1
u__________________________-.
5 1:
'little' bit about how it 's organized.
2 Wes will talk about some of'the technical 3
accomplishments to which the. Center has contributed.
(:
4 Since we're very late in the fiscal year for this 5
briefing, we will also give-some looking ahead to what we 6
might be-seeing in Fiscal
'99, and then we will summarize.
7 The slide 3 shows the goals of the program from 8.
the agency's strategic plan.
Basically, the first. bullet
'9 shows the overall goal for the Waste Management Division, 10 and then the'second goal is the present goal in the '97 11 strategic plan for the Waste Management Program, and it 12 focuses on putting n place the regulatory framework for 13 regulating the waste disposal at Yucca Mountain.
14 That framework consists of'an implementable EPA 15 standard, NRC's implementing rule, and then a Yucca Mountain l
16 plan by which we conduct: licensing review.
17 On slide 4,
~18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You didn't mean for disposal of L
19 waste at Yucca Mountain; you mean for the work related to --
20
'that we have to do under-the law vis-a-vis the assessment of l _
21-Yucca Mountain and our'various pre-licensing'and licensing 22 activity?
Presuppose the judgment if you took it at its l
_23 face value.
24 MR. BELL:
Yes.
Assuming the site is found 25 suitable.
I l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
)
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202).842-0034
6 1
MR. THOMPSON:
That's correct.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's right.
3 MR. BELL:
Okay.
Absolutely.
4 Slide 4 basically shows the strategy for our 5
approach to the high level waste program to put the 6
regulatory framework in place.
7 Since the publication of the National Academy 8
Technical Basis Report in 1995, staff have been working with 9
EPA to try to get in place an implementable standard for 10 Yucca Mountain.
We have been sharing with EPA staff the 11 results of our own analyses of repository performance and 12 having discussions with them on what a technically sound 13 implementable standard should be.
14 Because that standard is taking so long to get in 15 place, the staff provided to the Commission in December of 16 last year a paper on a strategy to proceed to start 17 development of its own implementing rule, which wan approved 18 in March of this year.
19 Work is underway to develop a site-specific 20 standard for a repository that might be built at Yucca 21 Mountain, 10 CFR Part 63, and the staff is on schedule to 22 get a proposed rule to the Commission by the end of 23 September of this year.
24 As I mentioned earlier, in --
25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Could I just ask a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 102'S Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
7 1
question on that point?
We had.a meeting yesterday -- Carl 2
was here -- and we talked about the advantages of the Part 3
35 approach to rulemaking that -- where we had draft rules 4'
out on the Web before the proposed rule came to us, and some 5
.significant discussion of issues occurred prior to the rule 6
coming to us.
?
With it only a month away, you're probably already 8
sending us the paper, getting'it in through the system, but 1
9 is there any advantage to getting the Parto63 rule out 10 knowing that it's a pre-decisional -- I mean, we haven't 11_
' decided to endorse it, but just to get the advantage of an 12 extra month's comment on it?
13 I just throw it out as a question.
I don't have a 14 preconceived answer to it.
15
-MR. THOMPSON:
I don't think we've probably 16 thought of that one either, but I think it's a good question 17 and we'll, I guess, discuss it amongst ourselves and get 18 back and make a recommendation if we think we want to.
But 19 I do appreciate the fact that --
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
What would be -- in a certain 21 sense, one could perhaps handle it another way, but I don't 22 think it presupposes anything, which is perhaps to just have 23-an extra month built into the -- but it depends on the 24 schedule in terms of the public comment period.
25 Yes?
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
8 1
MR. BELL:
Chairman, I mean, the current plan is 2
that when approved by_the Commission, --
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes.
4 MR. BELL:
-- a proposed rule would be put on the 5
Web page --
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
The Web.
.7 MR.- BELL:
-- and we would be accepting comments 8-on it in that manner.
9 MR. THOMPSON:
Mike wasn't at the briefing 10 yesterday.
I can explain --
11
. COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The only advantage, and 12 we may not have the advantage in this instance of having it 13 out on the Web page, even as you guys are working on it is 14 that sometimes there is a narrowing of issues that occurs 15 before the proposed rule, and if that -- if that's a
-16 possible advantage in this case,.I would be for it; if it 17 isn't a possible' advantage because of the constraints we're 18 under, then I would defer to the staff on it.
19 MR. THOMPSON:
Okay.
We'll take that under 20 consideration.
21 MR. BELL:
As'I mentioned earlier, back in 1996, 22 we refocused the program to concentrate on the ten key 23 technical issues most important to repository performance.
i 24 The program focuses on trying to achieve 25 resolution at the staff l'evel of these issues.
To ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 so
9 1-accomplish this, each of these issues-is broken into several l
l 2-
- sub-issues.
t 3
As an example, there is an issue dealing with j
i 4
igneous activity at Yucca Mountain-The two principal 5-sub-issues are what's the probability of vulcanism 6
destructing the repository, and then, if that were to 7
happen, what are the consequences?
8 Basically, to resolve that key. technical issue,,
'9 both sub-issues need.to'be addressed, and in fact, later in 10 the talk, one of the examples Wes will be talking about will I
11 be the work that has.been done on the probability of 12 vulcanism.
13 The vehicle by which we communicate with DOE on 14 our issue resolution program.is an issue resolution status
-15
. report.
These are documents which lay out the importance of 16 the issue to repository performance, how the staff is going 17 about reviewing the issue, what the staff's acceptance-18 criteria for an acceptable resolution is, and then' basically 1
19 the status.of achieving a resolution on the. issue.
- 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me just -- well, okay.
I 21 just wanted to know, what is the current schedule to receive 22 the viability assessment, and will the high-level waste 23.
program be ready to do its review?
i 24 MR. BELL:
I have a couple slides about the review
{
25 of the viability assessment later.
We can either talk about ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
-(202) 842-0034 l
10
~
l'
- it now or.take.it up in turn.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, you can just tell me what 3
the current schedule is and I'll be ready.
4 MR. BELL:
Basically, the-schedule'is that the i
5
. Department of Energy staff will get it to the Secretary of 6-Energy in September so that it is available to be published 7-at the end of this fiscal year.
8
-That's as much information as we have.
9 Essentially whether or not it will be released then or --
'10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, my question really 11 relates to-our review of it and how does that --
12 MR. BELL:
Well, we feel that we will be in a 13 position to review it if it comes out the first of. October.
14 Basically, all the work that we have been doing on issue 15 resolution of the KTIs is~ preparation for review of the 16
. viability assessment.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
So the way it's going to 18 work is that it's going to be approved for publication.by 19 the Secretary of. Energy before it would come to us --
20 MR. BELL:
That's right.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- for any review; is that the 22 point?
23 MR. THOMPSON:
Right.
24 DR. GREEVES:
But we are ready October 1st 25L effectively -- we're saying that by October 1st, if that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
9 11 1
were the day,-we have got a' plan in place to be in shape to
+
2
-do this'.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
4 DR. GREEVES:
In fact, we're getting pieces of 5-things. _ Mike is going to mention some of the things --
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
7 DR. GREEVES:
-- we're getting early.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
9 Yes, Commissioner.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The issue resolution 11 status report, there is one for each of the ten key 12 technical issues and they are updated periodically?
13 MR. BELL:
They are -- the ten key technical 14 issues, one of the issues involves review of the EPA
~ 15 standard and developing the rule.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
17:
MR, BELL:
There is no issue resolution' status 18 report in that.
19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
But for the other nine?
20 MR. BELL:
The other nine will have issue 21 resolution status reports developed.
In fact, we have 22 already transmitted to DOE eight of them, and by the end of 23 this fiscal year, we will have documents out on all nine, i
24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
And are these documents l
25
-- you don't say you -- the eight that you've already sent, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2
84 - b34 L
L t.
12 1
they don't say we've resolved the issue; they say, --
.2 MR, BELL:
No.
'3 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
-- here is the process 4
for resolving the issue?
5 MR. BELL:
They're in various stages of 6
resolution.
'7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
And is the public 8
given a copy of these?
Do they go into the PDR or whatever?
9.
MR. BELL:
Basically, what we're trying to achieve 10 here is resolution at the staff level, reach the point where 11 on a technical issue, the staff has no further questions or 12 issues with what --
13 MR. THOMPSON:
This dialogue --
14 MR. BELL:
They are all provided to large 15 distribution lists that includes the state, the local 16 governments, industry.
17 DR. GREEVES:
DOE has commented back on six of 18 them, Mike, already?
19 MR. BELL:
That's right.
The feedback is DOE 20 finds them helpful to --
21-CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
And so basically, all 22 of the entities and groups encomp&ssed in your last bullet 23 on this slide basically --
j i
24 MR. BELL:
They're on standard distribution, 25 that's correct, i-l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
_----------------a
7, 13 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
They're involved and aware.
i 2
Actually, a question I had, going back to the 3
rulemaking, have these same groupings had any opportunity or 4
involvement relative to the actual rulemaking, Part 63?
l 5
MR. BELL:
Well, basically, we have briefed -- at 6
the high-level waste conference in Las Vegas last May, we 7
presented a paper essentially on the strategy that the staff j
8 is using to develop Part 63.
We briefed the ACNW in a 9
public meeting.
We have taken the opportunity to present 10 papers at other conferences.
11 We have not essentially -- if you're asking about 12 soliciting input on what should be in Part 63, we have not 13 reached that stage yet.
r l
14 DR. GREEVES:
There was a meeting with the public 15 that Mike conducted out there in May, in the evening, to try l-16 and facilitate that process, and we have a question, don't i
17 we, in from affected units of local government?
They want 18 to come in and meet and subsequently meet with the l
19 Commission.
I have a letter in from them.
20 MR. BELL:
Yes.
There was a public meeting-the 21 15th of May that -- we took advantage of an opportunity.
22 Since we were in Las Vegas for the high-level waste l
23 conference.that one evening, we held a public meeting.
But 24 it did not really focus on Part 63; it was more the program, 25 what's NRC's role, how we interact with DOE in this ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 f
E 14 1
relicensing consultation.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner?
3 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Just one other question 4
about how this process with the issue resolution standard 5
status reports works, 6
You sent eight over.
You've got six back.
It's c
i 7
transparent.
Is anybody else participating in the dialogue, 8
say the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board or these t
9 entities in Nevada or whatever? -Are they watching the paper l-L 10 flow and taking it seriously and --
11 MR. BELL:
Well, there are any number of people 12 watching this program.
The ACNW, you know, has been 13 briefed.
In fact, there have been several 3etters.to the 14' chairman on either individual technical issues as well as on 15 the whole process.
16 We have made presentations to TRB on some aspects 17 of the work.
The --.you know, we try to keep the process as 18.
open as we can to have people have visibility.
19 DR. GREEVES:
Mike, just to give the Commission a 20 feel,'we had a meeting with DOE, I believe it was last week, 121-
.and we do these video-conferencing, and the stakeholder are j'
22 at this meeting.
They're sitting there across the TV, if l-L 23 you will..And in this particular one, I believe some of the 24 elected cL'ficials in Nevada were in the audience on the 25 other end.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
1 1
15 1
So they are paying attention.
Are they writing 2
letters in and comments on a specific IRSR?
I don't think 3
they're doing it that level of detail, but they are 4
participating in our meetings in the sense of being there.
5 They have an opportunity to ask questions, make comments.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
What you're basically saying is 7
that in a certain sense, this is, you know, a technical 8
issue resolution process as opposed to a rulemaking process.
9 So there are some nuances of difference, but you're saying 10 that all of it has, you know, been in the open, had the 11 various stakeholder.
12 MR. BELL:
That's right.
And there has been --
13 one example, the KTI dealing with seismicity, in that case, 14 the state actually had its own experts with their own 15 seismic models, and they made presentations to the NRC and 16 DOE staff that were taken into account when we developed our 17 issue resolution status report.
~ 18 Slide 5.
The status of Part 63 is that it's out 19 for office concurrence at the present time.
Essentially, 20 the staff has completed its working draft.
To, you know, 21 get additional input at this time would, in fact, slow the 22 process down, but -- and we're looking forward to getting 23 input during the comment period.
24 As I noted, eight issue resolution status reports 25 have been issued.
The ninth, the one dealing with l
j.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
16 1
' radionuclides transport, geochemical retardation during 2
' transport,.was one of the areas that was zerced out at the 3'
Center last fiscal year, and so that one is behind, but work
- 4 is'now ongoing.
As I mentioned, by the end of the fiscal 5
year,: we.will have an IRSR out in that area, plus we will 6
have updates for the others.
7 Another major accomplishment is the improvements 8
that have been made to our total. system performance 9
assessment code.
We used to have a code 'that only ran on 10 the mainframe and had to be done by the contractor.
Within 11 the last year, we have made it more user-friendly, brought 12-it in-house.
It can be run on a workstation NRC staff 13 routinely use it in their work.
14 One.of the. reasons this is very important is that 15 this is the. tool that the staff will use to review the 16
. license' application.
When you want to-make judgments about
- 17 what's important to performance and implement a 18 risk-informed performance-based licensing program, this'is 19 the tool that we would use to do that.
20 Basically, it's the framework that we're using to 21 support Part 63 for reviewing the DOE's program and for 22 prioritizing our own program.
23 The next to the last bullet on slide 5 -- just let 24 me expand a little bit more on that because I think the 25 earlier discussion may have been somewhat confusing.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,.D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
17 1
Chairman, you asked will we be ready to review the 2
VA in October.or whenever it comes out.
Basically, through 3
the interactions we've already been having with the 4
Department -- for example, reviewing its total system 5
performance assessment -- we're already reviewing parts of 6
the document.
7 All of the work the staff has been doing really in 8
Fiscal '98 is getting in a position to do a very rapid 9
review of the viability assessment when it comes out.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes, Commissioner Diaz.and 11~
Commissioner McGaffigan.
12 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
All of these.
1 13 interactions and development of the key technical reviews, 14 where are we with EPA?
What are our interactions with EPA?
15 How -- are we divergent or convergent on whatever issues we 16 have?-
17 MR. BELL: 'Well, EPA is really interested at a 18 much' higher level, what the overall performance standard 19 would be.
Much of the in'teracting that takes place with the 20 department, the technical work that goes on at the KTI 21 levels, are technical aspects that have to be considered in i
22 performance so that you can assess the performance of the j
23 entire system against that standard.
24 This is the kind of information we're sharing with 25 the staff of the EPA, like the -- I mean, types of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
18 1
assessments that have to be done of groundwater systems and 2
what it takes to calculate those, and the approximations and 3'
. assumptions that have to be made in those --
4' COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I understand, but what I am 5
asking is when we make these interactions, are we convergent 6
in a series of issues that might allow us to get some 7
reasonable distance within EPA when actual -- you know, the 8
standards are promulgated for the potential site, Yucca 9
. Mountain.
Is there a convergence process going on or --
10 DR. GREEVES:
You might have thought we could 11-have, you know, prior to now had some convergence.
I mean, 12 I think we know what the issues are, the decommissioning 13 program, et cetera..There's a couple'of tough issues laying 14
.out there.
15 I think all the work that. Mike and the staff are E16 doing, we have to do that regardless of what the standard 17 is.
We have to --
18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Oh, I understand that.
Since 19 we.are communicating with the public and DOE and so forth, I 20 was wondering how are we communicating with EPA.
21 DR. GREEVES:
We're communicating.
22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
All right.
23 (Laughter.]
24 DR. GREEVES:
Not always agreeing, but we're 25 communicating.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
19 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Is it fair to say that you're 2
communicating, but there's not convergence --
3 MR. THOMPSON:
We haven't reached agreement on a 4
number ~of key issues, and I think we're continuing to 5
recognize those important ones, to have an open dialogue, 6
and we continue to do that.
So we will continue our efforts 7
to have a full disclosure and discussion of the issues.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
This is a related 10 question, really.
What is the overall performance standard 11 that DOE is using in its viability assessment?
And what are
-12
---when we review it, and you say you're ready to review it 13
- ,ur response to the Chairman, are you going to'be 14 re._tu ig it against a performance standard as well, the one 15 that we suggested to you all in the Part 63 rule or --
16 MR. BELL:
Yes.
The staff, for its work, is using 17 a 25 millirem pathway standard, 18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
But is DOE --
19 MR. BELL:
-- and I believe that's also what DOE 20 will be considering in the --
]
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
And these other issues
'22 that are out there, the 10,000 years peak dose, et cetera, 23 you have -- I mean, if I were DOE at the moment, not you, i
24 and I was trying to figure out how to write a viability 25 assessment, and I didn't have a standard yet promulgated, it i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
20
~
1 would be a little hard.
2 So I guess I would choose one and then -- well, 3-did.they end up talking about multiple standards if the 4'
standard were'X and if the standard were Y, or how are they 5
going to deal with that?
Did they end up talking about 6
multiple standards if the standard were X and if the 7
standard were Y, or how are they going to deal with that?
8 MR. BELL:
The viability assessment is not a 9
licensing document.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I understand.
11 MR. BELL:
Basically, they are not going to try to 12 show that they have a licensable facility or that they meet 13 any particular standard.
They basically are going'to say,
.14 here's our reference design, here are some alternative 15 designs we're considering, and here's how they perform, and-16 here's what it will cost to --
17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The "here's how it
-18 performs" I think is the interesting question because the --
19
.you know, I may -- in doing that, they're going to have to 20 say here's how it performs over an extended period of time 21 and here are some reference values for how we think the 22 performance is.
23 MR. BELL:
Right.
'24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
It's not a licensing 25.
document like you say, but it's a -- I think I remember the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
21 1
former head of the DOE, Mr. Dreyfus, saying that the 2
viability assessment was greater than 50 percent probability 3
that it was worthwhile going ahead with -- I mean, they were 4
just trying to get to the point where DOE thought that it 5
was viable and there was a greater than 50 percent 6
probability that it was licensable.
If I recall properly, 7
that's what he said to us.
Therefore, you have to get at 8
least a little ways towards this licensing discussion.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think that really in some 10 ways the question boils down, to me, to the following two 11 questions.
One is, has DOE selected some kind of a 12 reference standard vis-a-vic their doing their own viability 13 assessment.
Two, part B, what are we using?
And C, or B 14 sub 1, do they comport, at least at that level?
And I mean 15 that's kind of abstrar. ting it from whatever the EPA standard 16 might be.
But relative to kind of a working standard, what 17 is DOE using, what are we using, do they comport?
18 MR. BELL:
And I believe both DOE and NRC are 19 considering the 25 millirem pathway.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
So for this particular 21 stage of review and for the viability assessment, that's 22 where we are.
23 MR. BELL:
That's right.
l 24 DR. GREEVES:
And 10,000 years is a number that 25 both DOE and Mike and I, when we meet with our counterparts l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters
}
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l
S 22 1
-2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
'3' DR. GREEVES:
That has not been an area of --
4 CHAIRMAN' JACKSON:
I think it is important for us
.5 to understand and for the Commission to understand, you 6
know, and if you're not totally sure, then maybe you can 7-kind of get the answer to, you know, what is DOE using for
'8
.its viability assessment, I think we know what you're using g
10 DR. GREEVES:
Right.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- and do they comport, and if 12 they don't, where do they not, so we at least know -- I 13 mean, because otherwise, we' don't know what the reference 14 point is,-what the normalization point is.
And then there's 15 the separate issue of to what extent we're coming to any 16 concurrence with EPA, although in the end, the way, you 17 know, the Commission approved your doing the rulemaking was 18 to leave it where you would have a placeholder, but we have 19 to put in the EPA standard.
i I
20 MR. BELL:
That's right.
21 CHAIRMAN' JACKSON:
Right.
Okay.
22 MR. BELL:
I would like to move on to slide 6, 23
'where I try to show some of the activities.that are 24 currently ongoing and that we anticipate will take place in
'25L the coming years.
And one of the things that I would like-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
23 1
to point out is that basically in Fiscal
'98, our main 2
activities are putting a regulatory framework in place and 3
. working on resolution of the technical issues.
4 In Fiscal
'99, a number of new activities, 5
starting off with a review of the viability assessment the 6
first quarter of the fiscal year.
About the middle of the 7
fischl year, DOE plans to publish its draft EIS, which the 8
Commission is required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to 9
adopt to the extent practicable, and in order to make a 10 judgment like that, we'll have to conduct a review of it.
11 MR. BELL:
We plan to begin in fiscal '99 to begin
-12 working on that third part of the regulatory framework, the 13 Yucca Mountain Review Plan, essentially taking the' work
]
14-that's been documented now in the Assue resolution status l
15 reports using those review procedures, acceptance criteria 16 and tieing them together into a review plan that, at least i
17 for the post-closure review of the repository which is, we 18 think, the key part to licensing, would be available in time 19 for DOE to prepare its license application to the Commission 20 in year 2002.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me ask two questions of 22 you.
Has DOE committed to finalizing its standard by any 23 particular date?
Has DOE committed to finalizing its 24 standard by any particular date?
25 MR. BELL:
Do you mean EPA?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
24 1~
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I'm-sorry, EPA.
I'm sorry.
2 You're absolutely right.
3 MR. BELL:
Our best estimate from the discussions 4
that have been taking place are that about the first of the 5.
calendar year they might be in a position to propose a 6
standard.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Second question.
Where 8
does the -- I assume somewhere in here, inherent in here is 9
the actual site suitability determination.
10 MR. BELL:
Yes.
Actually --
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And that's something that we 12 are legally required --
13 MR. BELL:
The --
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- to comment on.
15 MR. BELL:
-- third from the bottom line labeled 16 Commission's sufficiency comments.
17 THE COURT:
Commission's --
18-MR. BELL:
Sufficiency comments.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Sufficiency comments.
20 MR. BELL:
The triangle at the end of that line in 21 the year 2001 is the recommendation that DOE has to make to 22 the President.cx1 the suitability of the site --
'23-THE COURT:
Okay.
24 MR. BELL.:
-- which has to include in it the NRC's
-25 views as to the sufficiency of site characterization and of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
25 1
the design work that's been done, so that basically these 2
interactions of DOE take place in the year 2000, 2001.
i 3
There is -- the line above it, though, is important 4
groundwork for that.
The way we see that taking place is
]
5 that the department actually plans to submit to us a working
)
l 6
. draft of a license application later in fiscal '99 that the 7
staff would review essentially for completeness, like an 8
acceptance review, give comments back to the department on
-9 where the work.was still deficient so that they essentially 10 would know two years before the license _ application was to 1
11 be submitted what still had to be done.
1 12 That work would also provide the basis. eventually 13 for the Commission to be in a position to comment to the 14 secretary to include in his finding for the President that 15 the work was complete and, in fact, should lead to a l
I 16 situation where the license application that would get 17 submitted to us in the year 2000 would be complete.
'18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me just understand 4
19 something.
Are you saying, suggesting -- I mean, are you 20 saying to us that the NRC review of the draft license 21 application is the vehicle for the Commission making.its l
22 sufficiency comments?
j 23 MR. BELL:
It's the tool that we have available to
' l i
24 us, I think it's a perfect tool for the staff to have that i
25 stuff in front of the staff that we can be making comments
{
I i
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
26 1
and --
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, but isn't there a 3
subtlety of a difference between the sufficiency of the 4
application in terms of the groundwork that's covered and 5
all of that versus the sufficiency of the informc. tion?
I 6
mean, it strikes me that 7
MR. BELL:
We would not be trying to make the 8
licensing decision.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay, right.
10 MR. BELL:
Only, you know, is this a complete 11 application.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay, and so then our statement 13 then, back to DOE, is that this is a complete license 14 application.
You know, we're happy with it as a license 15 application and therefore that is our vehicle by saying that 16 DOE's site characterization and all of that is sufficient.
17 Is that what you're telling me?
18 MR. BELL:
That's right, or we may find ourselves 19 in the position that you have some models, some data that 20 you don't at the present time have an adequate basis for and 21 you know, is part of your performance confirmation program 22 for the repository.
Do you need to gather additional 23 information.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I think it's important 25 that the Commission understand what the specific elements i
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
}-
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
27 l'
are that form the basis of the sufficiency comments, and how 2
they play or don't play against the elements of a license 3
application, okay, but without putting the Commission in the 4
position of de facto making a judgment on the license 5
application --
6 MR. BELL:
Yeah --
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- before we actually have a 8
process, a licensing process.
9 MR. BELL:
The staff's understanding of what we 10 need to provide to the Commission for the sufficiency 11 comments would essentially be something.that would be akin 12 to an acceptance review for an application, essentially 13 saying --
14 CEAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Well, I think you need 15-to propagate that to the Commission.
16 MR. THOMPSON:
We'll do that.
It will be part of 17 that process.
18_
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Sure.
Okay, Commissioner?
19 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yeah, and I am sure that you 20 have looked at all of these activities and already of kind f
21 of determining when will the NRC activities be in the 22 critical path and you're ready for that if we -- we'll I
23 supposedly be at the critical path sometime when things come
]
24 together, and when will that happen.
Have any idea?
If 1
25 everything goes according to this program schedule, what
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
28 1
activities will be in the critical path and-are we ready for 2
those activities?
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
This is more having to do with
-4 aut integrated schedule, I think, and insure that we're not 1
5 at.the pinch point.
6 MR.-THOMPSON:
I would just say what we're really 7
doing is. laying out;the framework for us to be able to start 8'
our licensing review.
Once we have the license application, 9;
we are clearly on the critical. path at that time.
That's 10 why I think.in some-of the budget submittals we've given you 11
-- you've seen some areas where~the high-level waste program 12' goes up for us to deliver those things which we believe are 13 necessary.to be~able to do that' licensing in the 18-month 14 time frame which we have to do our. review.
We are -- we'll 15 be clearly on the critical path when we get the license 16-application.
-17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
- 18 MR. PATRICK:
Commissioner,-if I could comment 19 further on that.
You know,'this isn't really a PIRT
-- 2 0 _
. diagram, but if you can catch the flow of some of the
. 21 -
language here, what we're trying to communicate is we've 22 started several things as early as we possibly could to be 23 able to get as much information as.possible in front of the 24 Department of Energy, or in the' case of the feedback we 25.
provided: EPA, in front'of them, with regard to what the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
29 1
staff's thinking is.
I 2
In the case of the EPA standard, they were the 3
critical path, but staff came to you some time ago l
4 indicating that that had delayed to the point that for the 5
staff to be able to complete a rulemaking, we had to start, 6
even in the absence of a rule.
7 That third line,.though, is a critical one and 8
Mike has touched on it several times.
Those IRSR's contain 9
a lot of information in them and more than that,.they have 10 the nuggets that feed into the Yucca Mountain review plan, 11 which, if it isn't done on time, it becomes a critical path 12 item.
It is being used in our rulemaking activities.
It's 13 kind of a close loop there.
Write a rule.
See if'it's 14 implemental by doing your own internal test.
If it isn't 15 make some modifications to it, feed it back.
16 So, those acceptance criteria and review methods 17 are crucial, and you can see from the chart which begins 18 before '98 that we have done that, we've used that as a 19 vehicle to feed into several of these other areas that could 20 get on the critical path very easily were that work not 21 ongoing at this time.
It's going to be a matter of 22 reformatting and reconstituting.
23 The other thing that those IRSR's contain in them 24 is the results of our digestion and review of everything 25 that the Department of Energy has sent forward.
So, that's t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
30 1
considered in all of those issue resolutions, and that comes 2
back to the point of we're looking at everything we can get 3
our hands on in preparation for the VA coming out this fall 4
and we'll continue that process all the way through the site 5
suitability process and eventually the license application.
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The Yucca Mountain 7
review plan, we're not going to have rev Zero of that until 8
fiscal 01,_2001.
It strikes me that it would be, if I were 9
DOE, again, I might have liked that to be sooner, and even 10 if I'm the staff, I might want it to be sooner for the two 11 things that follow, the reviewing the draft license 12 application.
I have to have something to review it against 13 and then the staff comments on the sufficiency, the 14 Commission's sufficiency comments.
Is that a budget 15 constrain issue?
16 MR. BELL:
Yes, a budget constraint.
Basically 17 some of these activities essentially we're required to do 18 either by law or as a practical matter.
One of the few 19 things on this chart where we can use it as a rheostat to 20 adjust to fluctuations in the budget is the review plan.
21 One of the things I did want to point out with regard to 22 this' table was all the new work that begins in '99 which is 23 basically the reason for the increase in the requests for 24 fiscal '99 that's under consideration down on the Hill now.
25 Basically, if we get straight-lined at the '97 level, in 70Ri RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
l 31
.1 order.to do these things that are down here, the only way to t
2 do it is once again, by cutting into the technical work and 3
slowing down issue resolution.
4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
And that's -- my nexe.
5 question, and I know it's already in the Chairman's letter 6.
to the Hill, but the impact at the House level as opposed to 7
the Senate level, is this based on the Senate level?
8 MR. BELL:
This is based on the 17 million level.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay, and the rheostat, 10 as you say, if we get the House level, is the standard l
11 review' plan --
12 MR. BELL:
Well, that is stretched out even 13 further --
14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
-- gets stretched out 15.
even further.
16 MR. BELL:
Other things will be impacted.
17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Other things -- that 18 just stribe6 me, von know, as I say,.we may be able to do l
l
.19 it.
Maybe there's a rev sub zero, a minus one or something L
20 that:you would have that would be the stapling all the issue 1
011 resolution reports together, but it does strike me that even 22 though it's a rheostat, it might be important to some of the 23 other items that have hard deadlines to them.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Maybe a digital process.
25 MR. BELL:
In the absence of the review plan, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
A 32 1
basically the department then is faced with having to go 2
through individual issue resolution status reports and 3
picking out the appropriate material rather than having an 4
integrated review plan.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Dr. Paperiello?
6 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes.
I want to get back to the 7
original question, critical paths.
There are critical 8
paths.
The final rule has got to be done because the rule 9
drives in some sense the KTI resolution, the licensing 10 capability, the draft licensing application, and the 11 Commission's sufficiency comments.
This is the fundamental 12 rule.
13 Secondly, the viability assessment that we owe 14 you, and thirdly, the waste confidence paper that is also 15 due the end of next year.
So, for over the next year, those 16 things I think are the critical paths.
17-When you complete those, then you pick up the 18 licensing capability and the draft licensing application.
19
-This is a unique animal.
Most times you write standard 20 review plans so they can be standard.
Everybody is rated 21 against the same plan.
This is sort of a one-shot deal, and 22 in a sense, when we talk about developing licensing 23 capability and then reviewing the draft license application, 24 this is the iterative process to communication with the 25 public and the stakeholder process, only this is a unique ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
33
)
1 thing.
We.only have, you know, one applicant.
There's a I
2 lot of different stakeholder.
So, it's kind of a funny 3
little thing, but-I think that, in my mind, is what the 4
critical path is, is the rule and waste confidence in '99, 5
followed by the licensing capability and reviewing the 6
license applications and along with sufficiency in the two 7.
vears.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Where is the waste confidence i-9 on this?
k 10 DR. PAPERIELLO:
The last slide.
J 11 MR. BELL:
The last slide.
Actually, we haven't j
12 had a chance to talk about that yet, but the Commission is 13 committed to revisit this waste confidence --
l 14 MS. CYR: 'But I would say-that you have, in the l
15 same-way that you have statutory obligations to meet the 16 others do you have a statutory obligation to complete a j
)
17 reassessment of your waste confidence on any particular time
{
18 line.
The Commission said at the last time it did it that 19 it was about ten years or if they had some dramatic inquiry 20 that they would go back and reassess that.
It seems to me 21 that that's something -- it does not have the same kind of, 22 you know, binding requirement behind it in terms of the 23 actual timing of when that occurs.
24 You know, if you really ran into some budget 25 crunches in terms of getting things done, you might have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
34 1
reason to say well, in a sense, I may have to slip that six 2
months or something else in terms of the commitment to do 3
that.
4 MR. THOMPSON:
I'm not sure we have a binding 5
requirement also in the viability assessment.
I think 6
there's -- I think we just anticipate that the Commission 7
would want to know the staff's view and probably the Hill or 8
others may want to know what the Commission's view is on 9
that, so we probably would have to look at that.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And to the extent that the 11 waste confidence decision itself addresses any potential 12 points of vulnerability in a licensing proceeding.
13 MR. THOMPSON:
Right.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
It begins to be relevant.
15 MR. THOMPSON:
Exactly.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
17 MR. BELL:
I think we've pretty much covered 18 everything on slide 7, and I'll just quickly touch on a 19 couple of points on slide 8.
Basically the work is 20 conducted using interdisciplinary teams of NRC and Center 21 staff.
The Center under its contract has the capability to 22
. augment its staff with outside consultants.
The work is 23' overseen by a management board that we've established, 24 essentially a team management concept where a representative 25 of the division, the two branch chiefs within the NRC staff ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i 35 1
involved, Wes, the president of the Center, and Booty Sager,
)
2 the technical director of the Center, have weekly conference l
1 3
calls where we do planning, set priorities, develop many of.
4 the budget and programmatic documents for the program.
5 On slide 9, I'd just like to touch on the recent i
i 6
ACRS ACNW report to the Commission that questioned the l
t 7'
technical. expertise and the flexibility that we have with 8
our arrangement with the Center.
I'd like to point out that 9
within the NRC staff, 89 percent of the staff have graduate 10.
degrees, 46 percent are PhD's with an average of about 20 11 years.of experience in regulatory matters.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You mean the ones in this 13 particular program?
14 MR. BELL:
With the NRC high-level waste program.
15 Within the Canter staff, 98 percent have graduate degrees, 16 67 percent are PhD's.
The Center and the NRC staff both 17 take part in international activities, including things like 18 peer reviews of high-level waste programs in other 1
19 countries..In fact, just today we learned that Booty Sager,
{
i H2 O the technical director of the Center, has been invited by I
21
.the IAEA to advise the Brazilian government on.its 22 performance assessment model.
23 In addition, we have, as I mentioned, access to j
l 24
--the Center has access to 54 external experts from I
25 universities, industries,' private consultants within the j
4 l
1 l
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
1
36 1
southwest research institute itself which has a lot of 2
technical capability.
3 The Commission, I think, is aware that R&D 4
magazine recently recognized the Center for its work on the 5
3D stress code with an R&D 100 Award.
Basically, that's an 6
award that's given annually by that magazine for the 100 7
most technically significant innovations in the country.
8 It's an award that's coveted by universities, industry, 9
national laboratories, and we think it's an example of the 10 kind of high quality work that the --
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I'm familiar with it.
12 MR. PATRICK:
I would say at this point I 13 appreciate the very gracious letter that you sent to us.
14 It's very much appreciated by the staff.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
It's a big deal.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I guess I'm still stuck 17 on your slide 8.
I'm taking you back a couple.
Most of the 18 discussion today has been about post closure issues and 19 that's where the key technical issues are focused and all 20 that.
If Congress were to pass legislation on interim 21 storage, the preclosure issues, transportation, et cetera, 22 would come to the fore, I imagine.
How we place to 23 simultaneously -- it's not the law of the land and it may 24 never be the law of the land but could we resource ourselves 25 to deal simultaneously with everything that's involved in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
l 37 1
licensing Yucca Mountain and everything that's involved in 2
dealing with an interim repository at the same time, 3
including the transportation campaign to the interim 4
repository?
5 DR. PAPERIELLO:
I would address that from two 6
'different viewpoints.
You would have to look at the 7
resource loading, but technically there was not going to be l
8 much difference between handling materials above the ground 9
in some kind of central interim storage facility or as the 10 surface. activities for Yucca Mountain than there is 11 currently for 12 NIFSI and we have developed a standard review plan for that 13 and we use it for, you know, the independent spent fuel 14 storage installations that we currently license.
15 So, you know, we have a-lot of experience in 16 handling spent fuel above the ground.
So, I really don't 17 really think that that would be all that difficult to do, 18 and we would -- I would take the existing procedures and 19 expand them.
Now, who would do the review and things like 20 that, I might have to start jiggling resources around on 21 that, but it's not -- it's a -- I have not been as concerned 22 with that part of a standard review plan for Yucca Mountain 23 because I've told people we're getting a lot of experience 24 in licensing above ground storage --
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -What about the transportation l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
1 38 l
1 issues?
2 DR. PAPERIELLO:
The transportation we currently-3 license.
The question would come in, and we have raised 4
this and this has sort of been the backwater of the budget, 5
is will we be expected to, say, upgrade the modal studies 6
and EIS's and that question's been raised, versus we know 7
how to transport fuel, but is it relevant if we had many,
.8 many.more packages on the road, are the existing EIS 9
acceptable?
Those questions currently due to budget 10
-constraints, these are the sort of projects that get put on 11 the back burners, but you kind of know the questions:that
-12 might be asked.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Do you' consider that kind of 14 issue within the context of an EIS, vis-a-vis Yucca 15 Mountain?
In the first place, you've still got to get the 16 fuel to the site.
17 DR. PAPERIELLO:
It would seem to me that an EIS 18 for Yucca Mountain in part would have to consider the 19 transportation component, yes, as well as the safety above 20 the. ground as well as the --
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
No, I'm saying, but what you've 22 spoken tua in terms of our own experience has to do with 23
_ safety above the ground?
24 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Right.
'25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And the issue then becomes, the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
?-
39 1
Commissioner raised, is you have the transportation piece of f
2 a campaign to get it to that site, the I'm asking, don't you 3
have to deal with the transportation piece to get the fuel 4
to Yucca Mountain period, even if you were just 5
DR. PAPERIELLO:
That's exactly right.
It's not 6
sort of --
7 MR. THOMPSON:
And it would be covered in the DOE 8
EIS.
It's a significant element, and you may remember early 9
on when we were doing the LSS.
That was one of the issues, 10 were we going to have the transportation material put in 11 there.
I think the' Commission agreed that that would be 12 included in the information that's available early on.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Where are we, slide 11 j
l 14 now?
I J
15 MR. BELL:
Yes.
Slide 11.
The Commission may 16 recognize this slide.
It was an attachment to the strategy 17 paper.
Basically what we're trying to illustrate here is 18 the framework we're using for developing our part 63 19 regulation with an overall performance standard that 20 currently using the Commission guidance but might eventually
)
21 be replaced by an EPA standard.
22 At the middle two levels are the areas that would 23 be covered by the rule itself, but we would not have l
24 quantitative subsystem performance objectives, essentially l
25 just requirements.
These parts of the total system would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
c___-__-______-____-_
40 1
need to be evaluated and shown that they contribute to 2
performance.
3 Then the lowest level is where most of the 4
technical-details is covered in the KTI's and the sub-issues 5
is involved.
This is in the regulatory guidance space.
It 6
would be initially in IRSR's an eventually in the Center.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
In terms of the components of 8
the subsystem, would any of them change or, you know --
9 MR. BELL:
Change in what sense?
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
According to what the actual 11 EPA standard might be?
12 MR. BELL:
Basically in the systems approach that 13 we're adopting in part 63, that's flexibility that's left 14 through the department to determine how much weight to put 15 on each part of the system, but then provide a convincing 16 argument to the Commission that the total system performance 17 standard.
18 MR. GREEVES:
I think the question is would any of 19 this change depending on how an EPA standard came out, and I
~20 think the answer is no.
You have to visit all these things.
21 MR. BELL:
Right, that's right.
22 MR. GREEVES:
When we developed the KTI's a couple 23 of years ago, it's basically an international look.
What is 24 everybody looking at?
Not everybody is looking at 25 vulcanism, so that may be one that's unique to us.
You have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
41 to visit all these things if you're looking at deep geologic 1
2 burial for material that has a long line time hazard.
So, I 3
don't think anything would change with a different EPA --
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right, the relative weight 5
MR. GREEVES:
You still have --
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
change, but not the 7
components'themselves.
8 MR. GREEVES:
Yes.
9 MR. BELL:
Slide 12.
This is the listing of the 10 10 key technical issues.
I'd just like to make two points 11 with respect to this slide.
One is that based on change in 12 the DOE program.and in our own technical work, the 13 sensitivity analyses and such that we do with our TVA code.
14 We reprioritize these from year to year.
You will see 15 things like igneous activity that because of the large 16 uncertainty when we began our work was considered high.
17 Because of the progress that's been made, it's now 18 considered a lower priority.
19 On the other hand, a couple of areas like 20 container life and source term, one of the ones that was 21 zerced out as well as radionucleide transport, have 22 increased in importance because of the information that's 23 been learned by DOE about increased infiltration at Yucca 24 Mountain.
They're placing more reliance both on the package 25 design and chemical retardation.
f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
42 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
This actually does go back to 2
my earlier question to some extent, but in a more expanded 3
way, and that is that you develop an information base.
In 4
each of these areas there are some issues that you look to 5
have resolution on, et cetera, but to a certain extent, what 6
defined resolution and how much information you may require 7
strikes me is, to some extent, modulated by the standard 8
that you have to work to because it says something about, 9
you know, the relative contributions of these various pieces 10 and how much you have to know about them in order to make a 11
-judgment about the relative contribution.
So, that's really 12 why I asked the. question, not that the areas themselves 13 would ever -- that you haven't covered the water or that 14 everyone wouldn't have to cover these issues.
15 MR. PATRICK:
Right.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
But the question is the degree 17 of resolution which -- and the degree of information for 18 resolution to me, has to be affected by what the government 19 standard is.
20 MR. PATRICK:
Yeah, I would say that's true-to the 21 extent that, depending on what the dose, you know, assuming 22 a dose standard, depending on what the dose is, you may need 23 more help from certain phenomena.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's exactly the point, and 25 you have to know how much help you can get from certain l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
43 1
phenomena.
I 2
MR. PATRICK:
You have to understand it better.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Correct.
4 MR. GREEVES:
Another example is groundwater.
If 5
there's a groundwater standard that's very prescriptive, 6
then the characterization effort on DOE's part --
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Correct.
8 MR. GREEVES:
-- correct me if I'm wrong, is 9
significantly increased.
That's part of what the issues are 10 that are still being discussed.
l 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
12 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I'm looking at the table and i
13 remember what the staff requested on secy 98-168.
I guess 14 the idea was to use the key technical issues to reduce the 15 number of issues that we're going to be looking at l
l 16 rulemaking, to simplify rulemaking and how is that process l
(
17 working.
18 MR. BELL:
The staff's current program is 19 basically, we would go as far with issue resolution at the l
20 staff level as can be done.
Always means that by the time 21 you get to the licensing board, issues can be reopened and l
l 22 that one way that some of the concerns have been raised by L
23 the Senate subcommittee could be addressed would be to try l
24' to resolve some contentious issues through. additional 25 rulemaking, and basically, this would be a policy change for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
. Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
44 1
the Commission that we were asking them to consider that
~2 one way that in this program that we're considering.
3
'Now, we're aware that the Commission is having the 4
general counsel consider the hearing process generally for
.5 the agency, and so it's --
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think as a matter of law, 7
this one is a little more locked in in terms of what kind of 8
process is adjudicatory.
9 MR. THOMPSON:
And we're looking at those and when 10 we find one that we believe it has the technical basis to go 11-forward to the rulemaking we'll, you know, if you agree, we 12 will then propose that to the Commission and go into 13 rulemaking.
Obviously it's the timing, but obviously we 14 have to have the technical basis to do that.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Absolutely.
Otherwise it will 16 be challenged in the law.
'17 MR. THOMFSON:
That's right.
18-CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
But what I'm saying is the 19 flexibility in this area may not be as great.
20 MR. BELL:
Okay, now at this point I would like to 21 turn to Wes to ask him to.give the Commission some technical 22 background on some of the work that's been done on issue 23 resolution.
1 24 MR. PATRICK:
And see how.I can do in the next l
l
.25 three minutes.
If'I start sounding like an auctioneer on 1
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenus, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
~
45 1
these, slow me down.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
We'll give you 21 minutes.
3 There's 21 minutes for seven areas.
That's three apiece.
4
[ Laughter.)
5 And then we'll eat and shut everybody else up.
6 MR. PATRICK:
Each of the ten key technical issues that you just looked at on slide 12 have been segmented into 7
8 a series of sub-issues.
These are bite-sized pieces that 9
are amenable to being addressed in sufficient technical 10 detail that we can actually resolve them at the staff level 11 working with the department of energy.
12 The number.of sub-issues in each KTI varies, but 13 in each case, they're focused on a logical path that will 14 lead to closure, first of the sub-issues and then of the 15 issues overall.
16 Slide 13 shows the seven sub-issues that to date 17 we have resolved at the staff level.
In all cases, the 18 staff has used a combination of information that's generally 19 available out in the literature.
Site specific and design 20 specific information we've obtained from the Department of 21 Energy studies.
Our own, and by our own I mean the staff 22 and NRC staff and Center staff studies in focused areas, as 23 well as directed interactions between the staff and the 24 Department of Energy to achieve resolution at the staff 25 level.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
46 1
Each of those --
2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Could you.give me the 3
total number of sub-issues?
You know, you have nine key 4
technical issues that are truly technical.
5 MR. PATRICK:
It's on the neighborhood of 25, 28.
6 I suppose by the time we work our way through these three 7
slides, I could do a tally of them.
I think there are seven
'8 of these, eight that fall into a middle category and nine or 9
ten that we've judged to be more difficult to resolve.
10 With that as an introduction, I would comment that 11 what I want to do in the next series of slides is talk about 12 these sub-issues in three groups, those -- and shown here on 13 13 are those that we've already resolved at the staff level.
14
.A'second set are ones that we consider to be nearing 15 resolution, and by nearing, we would consider that to be 16 within the next year or two we would be able to close those 17 barring any. unforeseen new information or upsets in 18 resources available.
The third set are ones that we find to 19 be particularly difficult to address.
For each of those 20 groupings, I'll give a specific example to give you a sense 21 of the level of the technical analysis that your staff and 22 mine are putting into resolving these issues so that there 23-will be a solid technical basis as we go forward into the VA 24-and into the suitability determination and finally, into the 25 licensing action itself.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,'LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
1 47 l
1 I started to say that each of these items, and 2
this is true of all three groups, the progress is being 3
documented in'the issue resolution status reports, and in 1
4 some cases,'and on this particular slide, the third to the 5
last bullet, the'use of expert elicitation. We actually went 6
to a formal staff technical position there to be able to 7
nail that'down.
Commissioner, it's short of a rulemaking, 8
but'itLcarries more. weight than a NUREG report, which is the 9
f ann that the IRSR's take.
1 10 Slide 14 is the example we've chosen for this 11 particular category where we're examining the sub-issue 12 dealing with the probability of vulcanism.
This is the I
13 first piece of analyzing.the risk.
This is a probability 14 piece.
The second piece that I'll touch on just briefly 15 later is the consequence component of igneous activity.
Our 16 interest here was generated by the fact that Yucca Mountain i
17 is located in a geologically active area, an area where l
18 there's been recent vulcanism.
There are cinder cones that 19 mark the topography.
I think you've all been out there and 20 stood on the top and seen those.
There are a number of 21 others that are buried beneath the alluvial cover in that 22-arJa.
23 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Is this recent?
24 MR. PATRICK:
Geologically recent.
The youngest 25 one is a little older than I am.
I think it's one the order ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
48 1
of one to 200,000 years old, but it's in that range.
Yes, I
~
2 should -- for non-geoscientists, certainly geological is an 3
appropriate caveat.
4 The concern here is with the potential of direct 5
disruption of the repository by magma that may ascend from 6
depth up through the repository entraining waste in the 7
magma and then dispersing it to the surrounding area.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Does that also consider what 9
would happen once the repository is backfilled?
10 MR. PATRICK:
The presence of backfill, as it 11 turns out from our initial consequence analyses, the 12 presence or absence of backfill could be a key factor in the 13 extent of the consequences, and that's one that we're 14 looking at very decisively over the next year or so as we 15 examine consequences because that is, as it turns out, a key 16 factor.
17 You'll note here that we've done sufficient work 18 that we now believe we have bound to the probability of 19 eruption and direct disruption of the repository at ten to 20 the minus seven per year, one in ten million per year.
DOE 21 has also gone through a process of_trying to bound the 22 probability.
Their process relied heavily on the 23 elicitation of expert judgments, and they have come up with 24 a range where their mean value is somewhat lower than ten to 25 the minus seven, but if you consider their entire ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
49 1
distribution, their range of probabilities encompasses the 2
NRC's Center value as well.
3 Now, there's a caveat here and this is one of the L
4~
ongoing activities of the Center.
Even though an issue may 5
be closed at the staff level, we continue to gain 6
information as DOE continues site characterization as other 7
researchers do work in related areas, and we have had such a 8
case arise here this year where -- and I think many of you 9
are aware of it.
Dr. Warneke from CalTech and his 10 colleagues have completed some tressle strain measurements 11-that indicate that tressle strain and by implication the 12 probability of vulcanism and seismicity, direct fault 13 disruption and a variety of other factors that we're 14 interested in, could be as much as an order of magnitude, a 15 factor of ten, higher than what we considered in our 16 analyses.
17 We've made a very quick adjustment in the program 18 for us to go back and review and analyze Warneke's work.
We a
19 brought in some outside experts in strain measurements, GPS I
20 technology, to be able to bolster the work that we were 1
21' doing ourselves, and we've made some appropriate changes in 22 the priorities so that we can re-examine this particular 23 aspect of the probability piece of the puzzle.
1 24 Slide 15 gives pictorially the resalts of one of 25 many models that we have used in trying to understand and j
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
50 1
evaluate the potential'for renewed vulcanism at the site.
2-This is a model which considers data from the occurrence of 3
volcanoes over the last two million years, geologically the 4
quaternary period.
It also includes the effects of 5
structural geology in the area, including structures such as 6_
the Bear Mountain fault, which is west of this site and the 7
Amargosa Trough which is just east of the site.
8.
Those geological features become important because 9
they do affect the probability, and they also affect 10 gradients, and you'll notice by the color coding here, and 11 each of those numbers, by the way, has a ten to the minus 12 four behind it, and the number refers to the estimated or 13 calculated number of volcanoes that would occur per square 14 kilometer during the compliance period.
f15 The thing ~that I'd like to point out here is how 16 steep the gradients are, and those are an indication both of 17 the uncertainty with regard to predicting the recurrence of
-18 vulcanism, and also an indicator of how spatially, how 19 quickly spatially those estimates change as one moves 20 outward from the known -- currently known volcanic Centers.
21 The second grouping of sub-issues are those that 22 are nearing resolution at this time.
There are six of them 23 indicated here on this chart.
These are ones that tend to 24 be more difficult to address for several reasons.
Two key 25 reasons are particularly noteworthy.
First, these are areas ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i 51 1
where the knowledge base is -- that's available in the open 2
literature and in laboratory reports and the like is less 3
fully developed.
They are areas that typically are at the 4
edge of interest for the general technical community.
5 They're peculiar to high-level waste management, and 6
consequently there's not a large database and information 7
base developed at this time.
8 Second, they tend to be more complex.
Almost 9
without exception, they involve multiple processes, multiple 10 physical processes and consequently, we have to bring to 11 bear multiple technical expertise to be able to address and 12 attempt to resolve these particular sub-issues.
I want to 13 take as an example the first bullet there, deep percolation, 14 and before jumping'into the discussion on it in particular, 15 I want to give a little bit of background on one of the 16 sub-issues that is resolved because it feeds directly into 17 it, that's namely the rate of shallow infiltration.
18 By shallow infiltration, we mean the movement of j
s 19 water down below the root zone where it's no longer 20 available for either evaporation or uptake by plants and l
21 transpiration back into the environment.
This is an area 22 where we have found it necessary to do some of our own work.
23 In fact, some of our own field work as well as model 24 development and calculations to be able to convince i
25 ourselves of the depth, the extent of shallow infiltration.
i l
j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
t Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
52 1
It's an area of considerable controversy early on with the 2
Department of Energy, and it took some time and some effort 3
on both our parts and also they and their contractors' parts 4.
to be able to convince ourselves that the rate of 5
infiltration was substantially higher than what was 6
originally used in the Department of Energy's estimates.
7 Why do we care about this?
Shallow infiltration 8
is what is feeding water into the repository.
It is the 9
upper bounding condition, if you will, on what eventually 10 becomes deep percolation, which moves down into the 11_
repository horizon, eventually wets the containers, leads to 12 their corrosion, and would transport waste from the 13 repository level down to the saturated zone and from there 14 out to the accessible environment.
So, it's a critical
\\
15 area.
'It's an area which has been uniformly-been found;to 16 be important in the Department of Energy, NRC, EPRI and just 17 about anybody else's calculation that has been done in this 18 particular area.
19 I'd point out the second and third bullets are 20 areas which complicate our understanding and the work 21 related to deep percolation, the presence of faults and 22 fractures.
It's a geologically quite complex site, so 23 that's an area of emphasis that we're giving considerable 24 attention to.
25 The second one there indicated in the third bullet ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
f-53 1~
of slide 17 is also one that is of great interest to us, and 2
I'll come back and touch on that in just a moment because L
3 this concept of lateral diversion of flow at stratigraphic 4
boundaries and mineralogically altered zones is a key aspect 5
of the Department of Energy's safety case that they're 6
current working on.
7 If-we could turn to slide 18 shown here in 8
graphical display as this shallow infiltration that I spoke 9
of earlier, the color bar at the bottom shows the mean
'10 annual infiltration that we calculated to occur.
l-11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I wanted to know if the 12 Commission is not capable of seeing the colors of this.
13 MR. PATRICK:
I was going to say, I apologize for 14 that.
Is everybody all set?
l 15 You'll note on that side bar that we run from the 16 dark blue showing a low of no mean annual infiltration up to 17 a high of about 60 millimeters per year, and the key thing i
18 to note on this figure is where most of the highs in
{
19 infiltration are occurring, and they're occurring along 20 ridgetops and in deeply incised canyons where there's 21 relatively little soil cover.
We've gone out into the field 22 and done sufficient investigations that we've been able to
{
23 verify at a preliminary level the accuracy of this model 24 that we've developed, and that's crucial.
Interestingly, 25 the geological survey has done a series of bore hole l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
I.
Court Reporters 1
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
' Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
54 1
measurements out there, and they've been able, using neutron 2
probe techniques to get measurements that we've been able to 3
come back, compare with the results that we have and are 4
finding quite good agreement.
So, those kinds of 5
independent arrivals at information using modeling, using 6
field measurements, have been very helpful in resolving 7
particularly difficult issues such as this.
8 I would point out another thing here that not in 9
all cases -- in fact, in relatively few cases is this depth 10 of analysis needed, but this is really the only way that the 11 staff is able to have both confidence in the ultimate 12 results that are going to be brought forward to you as a 13 result of our reviews etri at the same time to avoid undue 14 conservatism.
You can be confident with a highly 15 conservative result, but to back off on that conservatism, 16 it takes additional knowledge, additional insight, 17 additional calculational and measurement results, and this 18 is an example where we brought those to bear to avoid undue 19 conservatism.
20 Slide 19 is really a conceptualization, a cartoon
.21 if you will, moving from shallow infiltration down into the 22 realm of deep percolation.
The influence of fractures and 23 faults, I indicated early, are central considerations here.
24 The Department of Energy is currently considering that these 25 stratigraphic boundaries that you could -- let's see, if l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
f Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
55 l
1 everybody has a color one there, the dark brownish, reddish I
2 brown color, would be one of those stratigraphic horizons l
l 3
and shown conceptually as the diversion of water that has 1
4 moved down through the shallow infiltration area and is now 5
hypothesized to be carried off east of the site and hence 6
not be moving down into the region of the repository.
7 We are using data that has been collected from a I
8 variety of open literature sources as well as recently, we 9
have obtained a copy of DOE's geological information system 10 that has tremendous wealth of information regarding the 11 structural geology of that site as well as a variety of soil 12 properties, chemical and hydrological properties, we're 13 using those in our own evaluations and our own studies this 14 year with regard to depercolation.
Again, just to emphasize 15 the importance of understanding what proportion of the water 16 eventually makes it down to the repository.
17 Slides 20 indicates those issues that we found to 18 be particularly difficult to address, as with the preceding 19 category, these sub-issues are characterizes as having a 20 knowledge base that's less complete, and also the issue 21 being more complex in the sense that it uses a variety of 22 technical disciplines.
We anticipate, not at all surprised, 23 that these are going to take more total time and more 24 resources to be able to resolve than some of the other 25 issues that we've been talking about.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
l 56 1-ALkey point, thought, not to be, you know, L
I l
2-discouraged about those words, a key point is that we will 3
have in place the most current information in the form of
.4.
. revision two of the issue resolution status reports for all l'
5 of these ten issues -- nine of the ten issues rather, then 6
tenth not having one, and we'll have commentary on each of i
-7 these sub-issues before the license application comes in.
8 So, the most current information will be available to the 9
Department of Energy and they'll be able to consider that as 10 they move forward.
11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
You used the time frame 12 for the previous set of issues of one to two years to i
13 resolve the ones that were nearing resolution.
Do you want 14l to put a time frame on resolving these, or are these going 15 to realistically only be resolved while we're dealing with 16
.the license application?
l 17 MR. PATRICK:
We will -
perhaps position is too 18 strong of a word but I can't think of a better one right 19 now.
We will have taken a position with regard to
~
20 establishing acceptance criteria in review methods in the i-21 IRSR's for each one of these before the LA comes in, and all l
22 of that will be rolled up into the Yucca Mountain review 23 plan.
So, DOE will have that approximately a year before
'24
.the LA.
That suggests that we'll have at least partial 25 resolution on all;of these within the next three years or.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue,'NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
57 1
so, but I fully anticipate that some of these we will go 2
into the LA with the sub-issues unresolved.
Some -- and 3
it's a little bit speculative, but some may become license 4
conditions, that DOE will be expected to do follow-on work 5
through the performance confirmation period which is 6
established by current regulation and we would anticipate 7
being an element of Part 63, that that would be the way to 8
address some of the particularly difficult issues where 9
either insufficient knowledge was available about the design 10 and the performance of that design, or there remain some 11 uncertainties:about complex site issues that were not 12 adequately resolved at that time.
I mean, I'm speaking in a 13
'little bit regulatory space here.
I don't know whether John 14 or someone else --
15 MR. GREEVES:
I think the most difficult one is 16 recognized internationally, is the coupling issue, and I 17 think they've got a world class facility out there that I 18 think most of you have been out to see, but it takes L
19 literally years for that information to come forward and to 20
.use the codes that either we or DOE has to understand how 21 that gets confirmed over time, so there's going to be, I 22 think, some issues out there.
The legislation built in an 23 approach and the regulation built in an approach for 24 performance confirmation to play a role in this unique 1
25 repository effort.
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
58 1
MR. PATRICK:
Let me hit on this last area on 2
Slide 21 quickly, given that time is slipping away on us-3 here.
We view among the most complex of the issues as being 4
prediction of waste package lifetime.
We made a 5
determination early on that to predict waste package 6
lifetime, we had to go considerably beyond the normal 7
routine testing where one tests for a period of time and 8-draws curves and projects out, that a more-mechanistic 9
understanding would be required.
We set about doing that in 10 the early days of the program, and that's what's indicated 11-here.
We developed a. predictive approach for assessing.
12 localized corrosion and the corrosion resistant alloys.
13 Some of that early work, coincidentally, involved C-22, 14 although most of it, which is DOE's most recent allow, 15 although most of the work focused on other alloys such as 16 Alloy 825 and some work with 625.
17 We-have been very sensitive to changes in DOE's 18 mix of allows that they have under consideration.
We have
~
19 flexibly moved to consider those changes.
One of the things 20
'that we've done, having a smaller program, you have to be 21 particularly clever in how you approach things.
We have 22 tried to identify classes of allows and did that early on 23-beginning about eight or nine years ago, and by having 24 testing done in each of broad classes of alloys, we've been 25 able to be quite adroit at moving to new specific alloys and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
r-~
i j'~~
\\
59 1
augmenting the database that is available.
l 2-If we could take a look at Slide 22, I can show l
3 you graphically the sort of way that we approach things in a i
4' more mechanistic sense.
We've used a repassivation l
'5 potential approach here to try to understand the range of
(
6 conditions under which corrosion occurs and corrosion l
7 resistant materials.
Think of that vertical ~ axis, the one l
8 label crevice repassivation potential as a measure of the 9
oxidizing capacity of the environment.
The horizontal axis, 10 the chloride concentration, as a measure of the salinity of 11 the environment.
So, we have a couple of environmental 12 parameters here.
We can do testing in the laboratory for 13 range of materials and make a determination as to the 14 conditions under which corrosion might occur.
15 The other thing to note here is the shaded area 16 which is our current best understanding using modeling and 17 measurements and DOE data, our current best understanding of 18' the range of those conditions that could occur at Yucca 19 Mountain.
Recognizing that corrosion occurs to the right of 20 these' lines, if one starts across at around, just to pick a 21 number, somewhere in the neighborhood of zero -- it's an 22 easy one to pick up on -- you'll notice that this says that 23 alloy 825 is quite corrosion resistant, under these 24 conditions, up to a chloride level of about
.01.
After 25 that, it begins to pit and corrode.
625 Is significantly
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
=
60 1
better than that.
It will take about an order of magnitude 2
higher chloride concentration.
3 The really interesting one is the bar across the 4
top, which is the latest DOE alloy to come forward, C-22.
'S Now, that looks like we're home free, but there is some
-6 information out in the literature.with regard to both stress 7
corrosion cracking of this allow and also.with respect to 8
pitting when there are ferric ions present in the 9
groundwater or the environmental waters that it's exposed 10 to.
Those two things need to be studies, and we're focusing 11 on those this year.
They're part of_the operations plan for 12 work, but those.suggest that chloride could -- that crevice 13 attack or pitting attack or stress corrosion attack could 14 occur at substantially lower values.
So, we're going to be 15 paying considerable attention to that.
16 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Excuse me, just as a technical 17 note.
18 MR. PATRICK:
Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER-DIAZ:
It just occurred to me that 20 you might be considering whether DOE is going to put 21 anything in their repository, whenever and if it happens 22 that contains fluorine.
23 MR. PATRICK:
Okay.
We've not examined it trom a 24 human introduced product, but interestingly, one of the 25 secondary effects of vulcanism is that there's often i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
61
(-l-1 chlorine gas that evolves as vulcanism takes place.
So, L
2 we've looked at it just briefly from that perspective.
3-COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
And anything that contains UF6 4
we might not'want to have --
5 MR. PATRICK:
As an alternative waste form in 6
there, or an additional waste. form.
7 Just to wrap up that part of the discussion then, l
8.
I did want to -- and it's an item that's mentioned on a 1
l-9 previous viewgraph, there are a number of what we view to be 10 crucial uncertainties regarding waste package lifetime at 11 this point, and we're going to be evaluating those, both 12
-using their sensitivity studies, using the total system 13 performance assessment code which will enable us to 14 understand how sensitive performance is for these particular 15 parameters, as well as more detailed calculational. studies 16 and some selected laboratory studies to examine whether some 17:
of these phenomena that I've alluded to are truly going to 18 be important for a Yucca Mountain environment.
19 MR. BELL:
We're past 3:30.
If the Commission 20 wants to continue, I just have a few points I'd like to make 21 about the viability assessment and then wrap'up.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think we want you to 23 continue.
.24 MR. BELL:
The viability assessment as required by 25 the DOE's appropriation bill has four parts to it, a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 L__-____--_--_____
62 1
conceptual design, a total system performance assessment, a 2
license application plant and then a cost estimate.
3 The NRC staff has been interacting extensively 4
.with the. department on the conceptual design and total 5
system performance assessment.
The results of those 6
interactions have been reflected in the issue resolution 7
status reports we've' developed in those areas.
8 We have not at this point had the opportunity to 9
interact with the department on their license application 10 plan, even though that's an area that we're particularly 11 interested in, finding out what they perceive is the work 12 that still needs to be done to develop the license 13 application and to see whether, in fact, they are intending 14 to address all the things the staff considers might be 15:
necessary.
We would not -- an interaction like that is-16 planned for the mid-September time frame.
We would not i
17.
particularly pay attention to the cost estimate part of the j
18 review.
i 19 On site 24, basically we want to use the VA as an i
20 opportunity to see where DOE stands in making progress 21-towards the license application.
It will be'an opportunity 22 to point out potential licensing vulnerabilities.
In fact, 23 as the result of the interactions we've already had on their 24 total system performance assessment, we sent a letter this 25 July pointing out some places where we thought they either d
B ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
j Court Reporters l
I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 l
1 (202) 842-0034
63 1
had assumptions or conceptual models that weren't adequately 2
supported by data and.such that ought to be factored into 3
their license application plan, but we have not had the 4-opportunity to see whether, in fact, they've taken that into 5
consideration.
6 Since it's not a regulatory document, you know, 7
our focus on the review of the VA is really to use it to 8
help us to get prepared for licensing, and we would do our
-9 review by focusing on the key technical issues for post 10 closure performance and the acceptance criteria in our 11 IRSR's.
I 12 We would not particularly focus on pre-closure j
13 activities because we don't think they're going to be make 14 or break issues for the viability of the repository.
15 Our review would consist of two parts.
Any major 16 issues we would put in a paper that we would send up to the I
17-Commission that the Commission could then be prepared if 18 asked to respond to Congress with its concerns or issues 19 regarding the viability assessment.
Things at the more 20 detailed technical level would essentially be just factored 21 into the ongoing technical work and issue resolution.
22 Did I mention that the staff plans, and I think 23 there's actually a chairman's tracking item, that the paper l
l 24 with any major issues would be to the Commission within 25 three months after the liability assessment.is published.
l-l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
64 i
l 1
So, to sum up, the program during fiscal '98 has, 2
in fact, recovered from the budget reductions of '96 and j
3
'97.
We're now working in all areas.
We're making progress i.
4 in issue resolution in all of the key technical issues for 5
post-closure performance, and we'll have guidance available 6
for the department in all nine areas by the time that the 7
viability assessment.
8 We made progress on the development of our risk 9
and performance based regulation for the repository part 63, 10 and the Commission is scheduled to receive that at the end J
11 of the fiscal year.
Through the issue resolution process we 12 put in place, we've been making ~ progress, and we are 13 developing and implementing our. performance assessment 14 capabilities and program to accomplish the Commission's 15
' goal.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Thank you.
Commissioner Diaz?
17 Well, let me thank you on behalf of the 18 Commission, Dr. Patrick, and all the members of the NRC 19 staff for a very informative briefing.
The information 20 you've provided to us, you know, helps to mature the 21 Commission's perspective on all of these issues on the NRC's 22 high-level waste program and the challenges that it still 23 faces.
So, we commend you and the Center, the staff and the 24 Center for working through the issues and developing a 25 credible program under sometimes trying circumstances.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
65 1
The Commission needs you to keep us informed of
'2 the progress, to surface the issues in a timely way, and we 3
look forward to future briefings which may end up picking up 4
in pace as we get into a ceason where we know there are some 5
specific products that we have to consider.
6-Again, thank you for coming from Texas, and stay 7
away from the hurricane.
So, unless there are further 8
comments, we are adjourned.
9 (Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m.,
the briefing was l
l 10 concluded.]
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(
22 23 24
.25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
O CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF ACTIVITIES WITH CNWRA AND HLW PROGRAM PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING:
Rockville, Maryland DATE OF MEETING:
Wednesday, August 26, 1998 was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company Transcriber: Karen Nye i
I 11l 4 O Reporter:
Jon Hundlev
/
V i
E_____-.____-.------_._
M K A O ROL G T O U R O P
D YR N
O A T
S IS T
k c
8 l
7 ON y
er 99 l
i 4
P E
b t
Ba 1
+
EM d
P a
E
+
RH e
J 6
t 2
EIS n
eC R
l t
e ay s
R
%SP TL s
h e u
e cl r
is g
G AM P
Me u
4 WO W
A L
C EC VA E
L S
T H
H GG I
I HL C
H RG I
NH I
\\
n
,s t
o h
t i
g a
i r
lh g
g e
t H
n k
i o
G i
d o
N s
l e
n t
a u
I i
F g
O e
t E
t n
d a
e n
I r
R m
a tS B
e s
s g
t n
s a
n F
a n
e o
l 2
i O
o a
m su G
M h
l E
s c
N w
s n
i l
t p
o e
ne m
C I
i L
v se m
o d
r T
e v c
n vi e
c a
U Otc E
A l
y O
e r
mj m
m a
ab a
a m
rO r
r g
g g
m od o
o r n r
r u
Pa P
P S
e
sy s a eW
,y tsn c
i ai lo Wl WP a
i f r e Ll oer Ha t u n
la at r o sMu oi o
F f t r
a par k
se o rN ot i
l Dc s wn i
uh e e d
r S
nNT mr L
af t u
a
,oc rC A
e sf F
3 e
h gef O
asA yi t rW r
G oUy o
l t
tSne atnw l
as
,ir uea tlnie gtLs vv ei d
Rsy ei mC A nB e od t y t s h
abon e
tCe r
rdNo hl,i Te ot sa u i
sq a
ec i
uDr boe l
rudt e a pR s o a n t s nrhe sis EPTG EDA
s t
c y
i t
ni i
l Ub l
o b
du i
t d
c t
a eP S
r i
i da f
n V
t E
nd c
a c e i
eh t
e r
I an e
r a
p) o h
off t G
at S3 p
fA d l
t e
s n
E cS 6
m e a,a r
t y e
i T
o t t i
it d ct ir f
A ae Sa sy e
n a s t
i rf e
R Pa h (P or B
u vb t ei T
a gn Mo E
rNr S
t o
T n
u o ss O
i S
pf foo oi on rt eo D
p a
i ha up Oei4 M
na Tu s e t t o
l td t
ma dg iR da n A
ei s
d k
t c
nS I
r e R
pR aR aW a
g a
t l
e n d
cL b
n G
oW nd nH d
s ot nhe i
l i
eL a e O
hm v
t s h
a e
n t
i R
eH Sa ef F
c c
e e
at n i
r De eB To mWe P
i y
L r
v l
nb he ye l t os o t c e c r n r
f ia W
n a e o
n oG et t n Kn Emf t n n a a
I L
ae e
il H
immrmemes e
et a p
v dc c r
r ds a
a l
c e eo oo ie p
vr o i
v ir p pr sfr o s e
oeL l
l t
f t
e ee r s r
PI o
Pi i
e e
e e
e e
rd oe f t
-e m
e nl t
e op w
S w
i t
m i
er s s e
d Na yro i
e e
SeC v
S s
yeY V
e T
a dn l
e R
a ;b B
aOa l
t e e
odo A
H c
Tot V
e rds G
c Ani oCw o
l n
aF t
t IL a
s se e )A i h
e t
n r
s H
m o oteh d Pv c
n aT e a
t ri G
ot paf r(R o
o f a edo g
r i
H eu R pd p n )A pwtc I
rl t
e Pg sun UeV pi a
r Av e
e u ;E t
m (t M
d R t s n
e t
e a 'I e a
n eR n
s A
my S Kt s
u t
Th c
I r
e e qA c
iism R
ot n
y r o f
i i
nL l
fi 8 b nss b
G ns o
gA s Ur u
o irt io t
i e
df P
O kp ufou Se sd en d
O c s n t
l R
se od dnA P
R see e a E
n o e
iR i
t t
et et u a
c c
e emtyr a md u
di Rl D lprioie e n d
f ei p
l eumR mf bY pu n
t c l
fa e S
r a o
o r p so oeiy mF C
R DS sCl CPVb I
I
gg A
L 7
2 la g
OY o
F F
E n -
o L
i -
- i. -
a.
e e.
lsAgNCN AC S. -
n U
ru o
R h-1 c
O t
n D
s s
Y o
C ot sin F
P E
A0 AMt s e wm r
m m o
o v
A C
laS C
e L
R nI H
t F
'f E
P a
r R
D ts u
n e
C tean Y
AMSn O
t w OY tsn o
r
?
S r
AgCe t
P F
d C
e Rm pa a
Nm s
d ta le o
n n
C e
n R2 m
u go.
GgSv r
o u
S R
a M
la P
s J Re m
s a
tR e
P n
p C
n E
F a
taS C
m kt f
o 6
A i
o n
n oa rf F
r r
I 9
i wD DE s
9 s
m R
r C
Y r
F
?
m d
o a
d G
n le aS G, u Gg 1
R.
A t
Sv gA e
Rle V
e P4 r
n O
ft D
is a
1F o
E u
a r
u R
D 8
A P
9 Y
E, P
Ag F
o RO.
Sv E
Re o
IR D
A W
)
c y
A n
L tn ro P
ie e
f gP, fc e
m le n
fu n
n, i
c e
H lor pd un iR A
i s
e u
a Ra nM L
S d
S i
s ed t
is A
ic(
ft n
eY f
i,e v
a fcn a
os n
i u T
L I
n e
r S eM e
plty D
is t E
o u
r co K
i V
i w
imm ie ts Dt n
C C
i s e w
n t
p v
w ob e
oA Sa N
tec s
v vp ie pP c
lo ie lea mm v
g v
u f iu e
e ea e
oo e
a pE So SY R
R DC R
CC R
W
('
,I
,l
e e rt e
aa d
pr o
eo C
w r p e
r Pr o e
di t
n v e
dc u
a e nn p
R l
F u
ai y
m cA O
R n s; o
nL S M C
od C
e it o th R
TA N
uh A
sg i
t P
su lo e NR s
T no ro eM d
o r
EG h
f k
Rw n
C T MO a
r ee e m o
y r
i ER w
se g
ua u v LP e
s o
sr 7
iR sg l
E m
o Ao LW a
td d
r n n o
oP r
e L
F a
h t
A m
ke t
P H y
a e
rh r
ui o
c M
ot re IC E t
ot A
Wfo a
Di N H r
P f s l
P u
oC S
a s f
T g
R t e T
t e IR e
scM t
Sn R
e P
RnY n
e e
t v p
Sa e o
R ph m
ais t
e et e
ge r
l I
l v
eco p
eh t o e
sct m
nC n
D UAi I
I
F T A
AR d
OX e
Q r
d W
a r
N E u
En o
s Oa N
B O T o
C Dn t
N c
o d
n l
I ei TO t
t t n
e s
a a a
m A
z C
o ui C
e R
P l
r ae R
g GM r
vt a
o Ec N
n s
EE f
a f t a
s or on M
TT e
t a NS u
sh sa s
eC ml W
t u
L Y
n s
ie a s I
v DS o
t t e n H
i 8
Ss To h
ai i
l t
a t
NL u
c n re yC t
l i
r AA o
n e oit ah w
i s
sti h
eiv nt t
N T e
ni h
i c
r i
O O R
e poc pw l
t g
e T
eMA c n s
i t i
T u
y R
s e I
r s
e e dn T A e
i A
s Kc eno dm v
t r
n iait i
eg O
ZN n
na S
c t u mu nA e
o om n ar I
I N K s
sr Or s mf v
d I
t i
u u o g
A R c
cr e o f
n f
r a o
o oe sr o ot r
G O F
FP UPC FS P
R O W e
e e
e o
l
y t
inu m
L m
A o
C C
s l
t I
a n
N c
a i
H n
t l
h u
C c
s s
t EE e
n n
T o
a TS e
C t
l I
e h
u WT l
s T
a s
n n
L R i
e o
t e
r n
r 9
H E s
e i
C p
t t
i r
x n
x P
t l
e E
e E
a F X p
m h
n OE f
r x
f t
e e
E a
i t
v W
t E
x l
S o
f n
E f
L a
A vn o
f I
t F
S R
o i
i t
O C
W f
a n
f t
R N
a n
o R
t i
e t
N C
S a
P m
e e
e z
r r
r g
i l
o o
o u
t i
C C
C A
U e
e e
e e
I'
tro f
f S
E S
n E
a i
t R
n T
uo S
M D
s a
3 s
c e
c d
r R
u r
t a
S Y
O w
D o
F A
3 t
0 n
s 0
1 D
0 s
i 1
s e
R r
n t
A D
o S
D i
W R
a 3
t v
A f
f o
o o
n e
0 e
n c
0 c
I n
n l
1 a
a a
c c
c D
i i
i f
n f
i i
n h
n g
c g
R e
i iS T
S e
r
KR O
_\\
W s_
E M
{
j!j r.
A i
w
_\\
g s_ nJ d
RN' v
1[
)
e FI k
A is n
=
R _
e
=
YT er _
y co _
.mg e*
RN r n e _
I o
OU i
as (N
t p
s mo
,gr
] y y{ g o rD 4_
pJhEgt[g."k[
x p ol
. gWf h eQg hh n
t TO f a _
g e
r
-c*f 9(
R e u A M d
P i
.!!i*
.,;, j k L
iv i, y~ '
h1
_ e 'd louogm n
d nao k
UA I
art w I
1 n
k
(
ta pb l imiFgm r
GC t esop a
t f
_/-
pTi.f pm" e
vE ' 'D s
t f
EC
- .k d
m_
>ll'*
,l.
'. l e
^
r RU e
e d
et e
Y ns r
iy C
g S
n in 2_ # ^
g RR E
n E
NO 2_
-rl*llill;l[
F o
sm_y f
e ot D
me s
le e
e nt t
c t
e nd m
ss v nt r
or a e s __ ludi t
oc dioin r e r
e 9s t
ol E
eta pd ot t n sa a t
ny a a n
il
@i a m pei u m ymd s
os t
o umabe S
Sr n y
pb r
m u __ gu Df ot c srlurt t
e o e
t s i
oa s
ea l
nl aft b
S eG nt ny O
u rS u
TP S
el Cf inl o
_ R t
aos e
c i
o cc o_
a P
ln_c t
O o3oU*"OEZ
. S R
P
99Y m
m m
F u
u u
i i
h h
d w
d w
i y
h h
h d
S t
g g
g e
g g
e o
e o
i i
i i
i o
H H
H M
H H
M L
M L
ir E
ir I
P T
IR 89 O
Y m
m m
m F
u u
u u
i i
i i
I y
h h
h d
d d
d w
w w
R t
g g
g e
e e
e o
o o
ir i
i i
o H
H H
M M
M M
L L
L P
irP EU 79Y m
m m
S F
u iu u
i S
h h
w d
2 i
y h
h h
d w
d g
g g
e o
e g
g e
1 t
o i
i i
I ro H
H H
M L
M H
H L
M i
i i
L irP AC IN m
a l
w a
m H
e e
o T
re c
l t
t e
w h
F C
na d
n r
c o
T n
E m
e e
o r
l o
m p
u F
i t
t e
r s
o n
nts a
a u
o r
n n
S o
gc m
T s
u o
a fr t
r r
s y
r ie s
e sf o
a t
iT i
v t
i P
S e
c v
ef f
Y l
DE e
n e
f a
/
e i
c m
e d
E d
L f
D i
t l
E f
c ya y
e e
l i
in t
u t
d r
E A
r l
l c
c h
s R
a e
oi ait l
K r
c y
r e
u n
a c
l s
t n ui i
i e
S 3
u F
n u
sa t
T 6
t o
a m
o oh cm i
a r
i t
r e
pc us l
v a
t s
a d
n e
i r
n e e r
t e
e o
a n
e a
o h
t g
T P
U N
R C
T i
- N T
n O A g
I T D s
i U E e
L V D
s r
OL c
e SO n
i ES y
m m
i a
a s
t L
t RE i
n i
E v
r e
t n
g S
o E R V i
c o
o C
UYE A
r n
c i
t P
o t
e SLL a
i t
s s
s ST F u
t r
i g
t i
n a
N F o
a l
l I
3 i
i t
b W1 f
i DE A e
n i
ts c
a RRT n
I i
f b
o g
w e
e l
T E
o ARS g
I f
o n
t r
n WU E o
l a
r P
o l
a e
l O C H y
h h
m p
r t
a i
S C
x o
a TST r
t e
f E
d i
l S E e
h d
x i
i b
f t
T f
S U a
o a
o o
O ES b
e m
E h
e t
y RS o
t O
s e
r r
a i
l I
GB P
R C
D U
M D
OU e
e e
e e
e e
RS P
sno i
N t
O Y p
r L
u t o f
r e st ITT L Eh o
ec UN E c
t r
t y y ga LE V ig gF i /"
ua n n l
OR E ai b 0 Se i
SRL c
ru a1 b
sb EU F oD l
f t
RCF V
o o ny e
r ea EEA o c Py f
mm r
UU T n
eo e s SS S ya ht r
t i
im s
ud t
SSE ir so s a 4
l r
D B H bo dp az I
I 1
af T
br ne ea R U o e uR MH ST rP o
A A
Py Be nc WA h
i i D
e od kt am r
OF E h
r t o rh t s og Si TO V sr ti i e
oe Wu aS SE L s
l SLO
- i. p P Ao sdr t
c r
ie e e
EPS pR c Rh u nt o
T r aa RME Tgn W
e GA R a
Nn Ccr ni o
t inG l
OX ail Ci n
t p t
/p e a0 r c R E nem C
cl 1 t
c u
P ef o Rr eof f
CAC NE RVo
D EV 0
NL 0
'. ^
t 0
OO l
4 a 7 N
s 5 T S I
e
)
4N, lun B
U E ki a '
e St n n
L R e u ec 0 l
o s
t W LM l
OY o 0 ti l
i 0 e
l
?
W SL 6
L 5
c' ET p
k o n E
r a
RN V T[
g k
d h
c t
l E
a o E
E L
V 0
d
['~
R L 0
0 U R Y
54 S
F 5
U I
S F
2 C A I
DE T A
0 k,
N 0
g*';:
0 E'
RU S
\\
lH 4
U) 4
-}I Nl
=
AS E
, 5 ya WS H
\\
- =((
i y
l I
r a
OB T
.W y
2 7'
m 0
r 4'
ot 0
TU T o
nn 0
l t
);
s Ae 4
i S S A m5 3
2 o
I a
p t
s n e
yt SF
'e a
og r
at l
i R
al n eF gl EO a "A d
mFe n
r r
e m
ct mA e
r e
e R
e n oa A"
0 0
s t
E t
o a ag i r G
T u
ri PC l
0 p
l L
o QCA 42 r
f OP P
c 5
t RM P A
- n. "'0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
X 0
0 0
0 0
9 9
9 9
9 0
9 84 7
6 5
4 E
0 0
i 0
0 D
1 1
4 4
4 4
4 5
seg N
a k
O c
N a
IT O P
UI n
e o
LT t
i s
OU g
a e
SL L
W R
EO E
d n
y RS V n
i t
E a
v i
E E
u t
R L o
n t
i U
r u
c SGF A
h o
A SNF y
e a
M s
c A
I t
6 I
u n
o a
DR T d
o r
o i
1 c
RAS i
A E m
Z p
e c
p u
n E
u d
A Y
g WN H H
e I
t s
f f
OST n
d a
o o
i r
s T E T o
n u
y e
s l
UA it a
t l
S S a
a a
d ec e
S n
o S S o
r l
n A
M e
EI c
u n
r t
RB e
a o
c u
i q
r n
i GU P
e o
a n
e i
r O S t
n o
s p
p i
t n
R e
m u
e c
c e
o e
e l
P D
T D
S T
C i
(
l
d c
n e
u i
r o
a N
B d
r O
n o
r GL e
u f
I T
NE p
p o
e UI t
LR V p
e B
a E
U eD c
m OA L e
h t
i i
SE h
fo p
s EN F t
a E
R EA e
t F
s e
rg gs a
is nt EUT d
R t e if i
USS v
a n di r
o e
rt o nD SS E r
h SZ u
SIBH P
t oy t
r ad Bo I
t 7
D UT n
c e
1 o
e wr si t
R ST i
f e
s i
t f
ot AA A a
A e o l lFA t p r
WF N n
s a e t
l t
f y R R OOO f o i
ol l
ni u
l I
t TE T a
a na ne I
c SLU wl F
oi oh o
i t
ig t
SP L oc d
sr o ao l
r n
EM O ae an l
l el ot v a n
RA S hP o
r ci si i
r De E
Sp et n
e e GX f e r a Pg R
OE o e ul l iarM a
o pp t
R eD cc e
r t d ee t
P a r a
r e an ee o
Rf FP La DS e
e e
e
.o
), yl.f
,. ~.. QN
.,'s.
y.
.,jf f_ w.
i~
'. {
~
s p.4~. }...__f
.e 0
,n 0
.g l
0 t.., $'. ':"..' f_.I, o
.p..
2
..*s.
a 8
..'e,-
3 s
0 g
' }
. ~
z, +
4
. m g$ # '
q g...
- wy'J f 0
., s f
)
h..,
n
.C yw..fjf4 -
,f-.
M
'd R
t.
Y 0
/
1 0
M R.o 0
gl )_j
(
1 8
N I
04
,f.. s s ',
O 1
g.
1 n
I
.a.
1
.C g'
. g. f,,'.?.. ^_ M i
T j_.
)
o A
1 M
^
R 1
(
f' T
1 G
q..N
?.
L 1.O N
I n.'/f>..
F 1
I H0 1
T0
~
1 I
R0 1
~C f-L 8
O 7
., r N
A n
r O.
. U N0
,r y, M
' c '. e,
- 4 N
' y-N
,~
A O
fl y
N i ',.o u,&
g 7.
A
.y 1.
A E
i.. f T
' ;t M
0 I
.U 1
.L o
_1
_J s_,,5., h ;"
0
?,
i 06 4
',..S ?
70 h
O Q~
. G
'[
g@o ogoQoO gi 0h
1 n
p ia t
nuo I.
M e
l a
b c
a cu ts Y
e g
r a
C W
t
/
a a
a c
n c
o uY i
t a
lo e c*
r e
o P
i r a
p t
i e
S E
e l
o D
n,
W I
s s
g t
n c
i N
e p
l f
O f
u E
o ITN UO a
C l
g LI m
a n
l O T r
c g
i U
e n
t i
l S
h mie u
L T
T e
p m
a l
ER OL F
A o
h u
it P
S U C
o e
s o
n t
f EE C e
C f
e l
i URI u
a L
d s
i l
e e
S F
D c
a i
e l
S EF g
c c
c s
i g
x u
n U
i RI D u
o n
a 0
I a
k n
e r
2 DE F
o l
l h
c o
u o
R HE r
q f
i r
d c
a d
e s
AWR e
y e
P a
s l
WS O a
H M
e R
n t
e d
M W
t f
o OE l
l a
a s
o o
C a
M TUS o
n f
mmW e
d I
S S r
r s
f n
o n
o e
e f
a S S o
s h
h o
e a
i n
I EB t
u T
T i
n e
y o
l u
f R U b
o o
t f
f f
o R
i i
l t
i GS D
it c
i i
f b
a r
s s
a o
a r
O x
t t
t c
c m
s e
b t
i R
i r
s d
t e
e it t
o b
P e
a f
f f
f s
a r
R M
E E
E R
P A
L
2 2
g N
n C
O s
y i
s o
I TE T e
al fe l l URL s
cA iL LEU s
i f
t OHC A
io r
r e
I r
Cn n
SWF o
o E
F f
ni a
i R EI h
os t
UD c
dr o
o n
E SE a
er C
U S o
so SI R rp aC n
S BO p
B i
d s
UM A
he e
2 I
1 DS S
e c z i
i t
R AI v
al n
o a i
i A
t n r c a
F N c
io po W OO di pL e
tr s
O I
E T e o Ar c
r o
n T LU Pr nf r
U SPL a o a e C
gr g
SMO d
u n
A S ed nt E
i ia s
E pe R
pr X
z G E R oi oe se l l l
O ea ep r
vc vm d
R eo e e d
P DL DT A
m s
t se oe r
r 1
e e nv e
n o
l a0n f
nw sb f
o uu h wi s
s la i
a t
t oa nl eet ooia i e t
r l
r t
s it ni b n ns n er t
t blyc dro e e
e oV t
r ot m t
i nn d o o p
s oo 2cp d
55 2 d h.
ne0 i
c ot 0 a4 S
22 e g
68d Ceid sp i
izh F L yyr yl ie oi t
cu i
r OIA loolo o a ylp r
io t
l crep o nb l
l h
lAl va Caa o
l AaC E R C ET
@ o= 5 $ mE.!v y. j N A A
A M 1
M
+E RT 0
gun e
O N 1
n i
i A
sL i
N FA e
i s
di 0
oh i
R T r
n rT
+
o of jEl 2
n 3
Co i
- 0. la 2
EIS x
i t
v o
5h n
o s
se 2g 1
i M
i 6i PS ol s
rp yR i,
rm e
o n
loe n
y E
h Ca l
s sL AT 1 o i
D t
i i
i n
2 e
o t
E R 2w di T
in
- 0. t s
Ea i
g l
- e oh r
a CF rrT S
y of 1 n i
TN o
i r
l Co e
s l
t c
AO e
A 5h i
o 2g n
ta 8i 2o i
PI e
yR
- c r
S G
loe jEe h
I lAT n
- 0. d i
C O i
u 1
r T
o I
i TR l
i h
3 C i
NR AO i
E g
n 0
_j5 o g gjg n
1 C
i i
!gSc{ gH 4 i
$c$a jg i
i 4-E 0
1 0
0 05 I
W8,E i So
. esgomp.j2O c
t 1!I 1
l 1
l1 l
l l
fo e
t r
p E
s nd o
e t
on f
c O
n e
e e
da B
h n
ea t o D
m st g
eC e
a a n
t E T E
B D an l
i r
n r g H N t co ei i
l a
ps T E c
eiv mo Oe i
a nf i
n t
a D
mn h ei i
FM t
t d
ie e
Ra e
r sie OS Cg scB ki at c
nh a
rk eS rl SS o c slel s
e op th ct TE a
b Wp f
ui NS pP Aba A
r w t
elab r
t ES ct cio o e se e e 3
ar f s nc 2
M A ns n vP e n on oa aA t e Ca EY CW m
e ac d
rdb mL or i
LT nd oni t o r
it e sc EI gn f ac sh r
L a
et s Et sA t c isey Ppe o
I L B Dr eD so Cn tf A A mc-o n
o i
n f
PI yit rs t o Co oy e
r C V a o sCs dt eo I
i np y
e N
me Sns nle t t ai i
s gy ap mo iR laisa nm ip l
I l
R ee t
t rh o en a o se l
P Pt TDA PC ER e
l lll a
esn e
s t e H
s e
,h c e
s gi c
i n
t nil n
C e
i aMe a
l i
c b
A l
l t
Wi L a
Pdb p
r ea e
O t
e e
svt c
E p
t n
e o c
RI e
l PV p
u Ts e l
c A
l V
se c e
PE m
AR o
g E Ra s
n U
n Ot C
oU is Dn d
DA a
n n
r N V d
e hfio t
a 42 r
c it e wat s
AS a
iL he w
IT st l
r SC o
o p
eAm K
T u
ER sP n
f s
V N s
a sSo oRs l
c iTn wS i
I e
t r
n T R g
e odi eR r
on t
jnn n C O i
I o
a aa o en v
r o E F Pi P
M
, nit R
i yntsia a
t J
ya y
c si f
B f c f
r i gl i
i i
niulssp ci ue t
i tl t
O np n
t ep e
e eep or dA d
dDRA FC I
I I
lllllll flll1 lf
n i
A d
V e
y t
t l
f i
o u
l i
s b
k e n e
a m
s Ro p
i i
i t
a T
Rn eu C
vl o
ao t
e f
h oi Hs n~
t t
t a e
e t
nl S
a e u ER m
N d
mg Oe s
e Du s
e pR s
e O
v o
h s
sm l
d t
I o
e e wd Ar s
l i I S
s v s r
a U
e e a s a eg 5
R D B nw co 2
L y
o nr C
n-e io aP l
a o c tT l
c me N
sn as rh it O
a r
sa r s ot em ee f t t r ru C
P r
e go ng e o r
I of o
P B
r r dr h
Pe nP mg l
u l
P at e
i t
kn t o W
n sr ad ca yh s
ce ac ST i
im bf i
i T
f d
i dn a e l
K n
ro t
gf eg ei o s l
l i
n A
.