ML20246E295
| ML20246E295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/07/1989 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bryan R SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246E298 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907120181 | |
| Download: ML20246E295 (2) | |
Text
-
c b
d),[ '
'g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
E.
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 a
a f
%,,,g #
July 7, 1989-CHAIRMAN The Honorable Richard H. Bryan United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Bryan:
I am responding to your letter of June 2, 1989, in which you requested information on possible faults in the area of the proposed exploratory shaft facility at Yucca Mountain.
Under the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will ultimately review all available information to determine the acceptability of the Yucca Mountain site under NRC regulations.
However, we have only 4 limited role at this time in the Yucca Mountain site characterization process, in-cluding_ activities associated with the proposed exploratory shaft facility.- Although we intend to conduct some on-site-reviews of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) testing and exploratory shaft construction activities, our primary near-term responsibility prior to receipt of DOE's license application is to review DOE's Site Characterization Plan and related technical reports.
The focus of this review is to ensure that DOE's characterization program will develop the type of information necessary to evaluate the suitability of the site in the licensing process.
Accordingly, the information'we now possess on possible faults at the site is contained in reports issued by DOE or its contractors (See. Enclosure 1 for a list of such reports).
This subject was discussed in a meeting attended by the NRC staff, Department of Energy officials, DOE contractors, and representatives of the State of Nevada on May 9-10, 1989, in Rockville, Maryland (see for the meeting outline).
We will address this matter
~e-t fully in our comments on DOE's Site Characterization Plan to 1
be submitted later this month.
We will provide you a copy of our comments at that time.
In conclusion, I want to assure you that the NRC will continue to assess the evidence on possible faults in the Yucca Mountain area and any other issues that could affect the licensability of a repository at the site.
Sincerely,
& % Ba w Kenneth M. Carr A
f [0b
Enclosures:
c/
I As stated Il
{
8907120181 890707
)
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
c-
- .i Reports Related to Potential Faults in the Area of the Proposed Exploratory Shaft Bertram, S.G.,1984, NNWSI Exploratory Shaft Site and Construction Method Recommendation Report: Sandia National Laboratories, SAND 84-1003, 100 p.
- Gnirk, P., Hardin, E., and Voegele, M.,1988, Exploratory Shaft Documentation Report, U.S. Department of Energy hevada Operations Office, NV0-326, 128 p.
Dixon to Vieth, 1982 letter: G.L. Dixon (USGS/Las Vegas) to D.L. Vieth (DOE /NV-WMP0),re: "Results of Detailed Geologic Mapping at the Five Potential Exploratory Shaft Locations on Yucca Mountain," July 16, 1982.
Smith, C., and Ross, H.P.,1982, Interpretation of Resistivity and Induced Polarization Profiles with Severe Topographic Effects, Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-182, 21 p.
U.S. Department of Energy, December 1988, Site Characterization Plan, Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada.
ENCLOSURE 1
!:: ' saany
'o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
rj
- I wAsHwoToN,0. C. 20555
$g- -
Mr. Ralph Stein, Associate Director 1
Office of Systems Integration and Regulations Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U. S. Department of Energy, RW-24 Washington, D. C.
20545
Dear Mr. Stein:
The purpose of this letter is to transmit the meeting summary for the May 9-10, 1989 NRC-DDE meeting at which preliminary NRC concerns regarding DOE's Site Characterization Plan (SCP) for the. Yucca Mountain, Nevada site and the Exploratory Shaft Facility (ESF) Design Acceptability Analysis (DAA) were presented to DOE.
Representatives of the State of Nevada, Nye County, and the Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group also attended this meeting.
Should you have any questions on the enclosure, please contact King Stablein
-(FTS 492-0446) of my staff.
Sincerely, d
4-John J. Linehan, Director Repository Licensing and Quality Assurance Project Directorate Division of High-Level Waste Management
Enclosure:
As stated' cc:
R. Loux, State of Nevada M. Baughman, Lincoln County, NV S. Bradburst, Nye County, NV D. Bechtel, Clark County, NV C. Gertz, DOE / Nevada K. Turner, GAO ENCLOSURE 2 s W T W '" - - +
e w
v.
Ql, y
p *, '
SUMMARY
OF NRC-DOE MEETING ON a
SCA/DAA PRELIMINARY CONCERNS May 9-10,.1989 Rockville, Maryland
. Agenda: See Attachment 1.
List of-Attendees: See Attachment 2.
Summary:.
The objectives of the meeting ~were (1) for.NRC to present its preliminary.
concerns with respect'to DOE's Yucca Mountain, Nevada Site Characterization.
Plan (SCP):and' DOE's Exploratory Shaft Facility Design Acceptability. Analysis (DAA); Land-(2) for DOE.to.have the opportunity to. clarify information in the
-SCP and DAA related to the-NRC concerns.
"After short opening statements by NRC, DOE, and the State of Nevada', NRC made
~
presentations of preliminary concerns with respect to the SCP and-DAA in the following-areas: Performance: Assessment (Attachment 3);. Quality Assurance-(
Attachment:
4);:Geotechnical Engineering (Attachment 5); Waste Package Program 1
(Attachment 6); Geology / Geophysics-(Attachment 7);. Hydrology and. Geochemistry
'(Attachment 8). After each NRC presentation, DOE caucused, then asked questions related to the preceding presentation and made some clarifying remarks lconcerning the material in the SCP relevant to the preceding NRC
-presentation.
.At the conclusion of the meeting, both NRC and DOE considered that the
- objectives of the meeting had been accomplished-and agreed that future interactions in-a number of technical areas discussed would be appropriate.
.The State-of-Nevada representatives were present throughout the meeting, and a The
_ representative from Nye County was.in attendance part of the second day.
State of Nevada was asked whether it had comments or questions after each NRC presentation but indicated it had none.
..?.
?
Y.
{.
N
. King tablein, Senior Project Manager Edward Regnier Repository Licensing and Quality Assurance Licensing Branch Project Directorate' Office of Systems Integration Division'of High-Level Waste Management and Regulations
- Office of Nuclear Material Safety Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
. and Safe' guards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Department of Energy S
I lj
Att: chm:nt 1
'a' C*
AGENDA NRC/ DOE MEETING ON SCP/DAA PRELIMINARY CONCERNS May 9-10,1989 Rockville, MD May 9, 1989 (Tuesday) 8:30 a.m.
Opening Remarks l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
U.S. Departnent of Energy (DOE)
State of Nevada Affected Units of Local Governments 8:45 a.m.
NRC Presentation of Preliminary Concerns in the Area of Systems Performance 10:00 a.m.
Caucus 10:30 a.m.
DOE Clarifications Relative to NRC Concerns in the Area of Systems Performance 11:00 a.m.
NRC Presentation of Preliminary Concerns in the Area of Quality Assurance 11:30 a.m.
Lunch and Caucus 1:00 p.m.
DOE Clarifications Relative to NRC Concerns in the Area of Quality Assurance 1:30 p.m.
NRC Presentation of Preliminary Concerns in the Area of Geotechnical Engineering 2:30 p.m.
NRC Presentation of Preliminary Concerns in the Area of Materials Engineering 3:30 p.m.
Caucus 4:00 p.m.
DOE Clarifications Relative to NRC Concerns in the Areas of Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Engineering 4:30 p.m.
Adjourn l
s
.~
t May'10,1989(Wednesday)
NRC Presentation of Preliminary Concerns ~
8:30 a.m.
in the Area of Geology / Geophysics 9:30 a.m.
Caucus DOE Clarifications' Relative to NRC Concerns
.10:00 a.m.
in the Area of Geology / Geophysics NRC Presentation of Preliminary Concerns 10:30 a.m.
in the Areas of Hydrology and Geochemistry
'11:30 a.m.
Caucus DOE' Clarifications Relative to NRC Concerns 12 noon in the Areas of Hydrology and Geochemistry 12:30 p.m.
Closing Statements NRC DOE State of Nevada Affected Units of Local Government 1:00 p.m.
Adjourn Afternoon Preparation of Meeting Summary 8
V7 q,s
-f-
-!s.
_A/AC//) o E
.7c?lp#M Mrerio hay 1-/$ qq A/~
Or W T%
v v
D/M un Biku
//Lh -not c_
,J o /- y 4 2.fty
$AKWELL. NLAVC)MrLb
>$5~ 'M1f
?M - 24'l~743 4 ST SP41 A'J Gno c4vm T)ablif0L 2 o x - ru -rx::r-
. E'dw w/ f2 sa-poG'/ff 4 to t - TS & 4 r90
&%.b ffeI kV/ee%n/Leeeny (tox) SbG-tf6z Sk Esh~~
Su qno
,or-(err-a n n Dezi. NoHuseu Grs or Newsn (70z) 886*-37W 5 coit".ht rn Wesroa/pe/oq -
.to2. - c ys - 6 &S o rm Kc mussR uwas rs-(zo2.)
zrs - 66 cp (7oa7 7ev-7c </s
.7suy k'inc 5AIc.
~JnToS M.C. n d (J.*l % rp p 5eI-415-5% o Pl+I}y 8en /$d&La.,
ORC /NhM/HLGl*
561 - 112 $<c 2-l aeab u z c st. w 9 suejn-e~(xwm/osie.
zo2.-ssc Sire 9
% akoH moe/oe
% le1 Atexader-
% c ~T~u.e s.,
sua,,a %,a %
sas - s n n-.ss u-ro s..n v. u se l%&-ci\\loq &
sm e- ) aasasr yes - ne-3/sc.
/Miu /Amk
.2kr -ri N yy ioL '1 14-1'I 33 b5b
%T,.[Y RW 8
ro2-714c 72co w
S.fSpoc/
SW4/2.v sos _suq_g g Fet% % k m sat
%Ufn AwJ/D*E/5Q (gez) G % G W w
162.14< %s o 3 o O tu,-
SMc./yni 4 t{- 422 4 9 i L
/.ynosa benev L J. AIL vp?
%.W.ei ow/oc,u,n /oso 2 n-sse.wu Pdph %
Doe /tn 20s-sec - m
-. 2 -
pser.Sirt%ra t*S*rsa/por./4 30.2. G V4 -stio 8d bb
/Jash/Ar/4e 2dL-6YG -66G f
s.1 gyc - dssg mfw.> pisp9 Gob CLartK pu. 6).6%
%r/1wie 742-79V-7910 f h br.Al Det///O 202 3rb /%3 Soi L7M&
his.efwt-he//f
^ Jahe Tistwt siscfat&t-3 o r -
4' r?- pro r Axxn! $w/as 4AL /act V92 orz y
)%,Ils,e Bena NRc}HLGP 412 ~ o f e 4 5a%0 Qlm AlRt,/H( G P
't?z-oYio; fx
[W "dClHL CJ
'f12 ~0YY C Ad-/Z W A
No//scs us&s-Ng,fDeE-HQ sb n Neur w y u,g,stw /Ibe-4A.
un.
644-G i fp>,
Clelr 00 c-cr0 r St ~t9 n i4
\\delner clJWRA 703 979-gi29 1
1
]
m 9
Al$d/Def /feebf 3 d f %,y w ls S/to/dy AW ec.s a w.v a d o,o re owe-U A 9l JWl00/fdWlheo<?.:v9
(~73)8W~$2 ff
$~&.{<. c' To.tf est-3 'r 44 SYeduk--sw Gera-)MV Wynon (70z)ees -sm i
k L >., s.a uwoTC (Jo 2.) 9ss,.x9 Hit ui:
SAuse.c
~3.gue }$
$ArcfYMP (1od 741-7c,*{?
.3 e <Tt C W *c '<
SWf,ff_ V (7o2)-799-72oo
- * ' Y 8 (* %9'T b L 6 lei be(~
- w [,cf sh, Sar L* 3.-
w e.s m,.. w /.ne, 3
_ - <,et.. & e a
'T3 %
kJW (VeS{o< ~ bsE /M (rob afyC-4697
~}% (adL (k L zaz -va,-an.
kw 1stC(t)6 OJof-k-00$-97s-v2]
W.J
- ,QL,,,
per/fnP 7D 3 -19'f-7 f(O Jiff. h b ll Dot two
.oa. cc i c 3 L ra h\\ m d& t4t,,
Zul V9)-07.11
]
80.l.1-
~
f
& STY $
pitC-l@ls) GseL-Gie%
31.YJ7-$silr o JM %eAd'l 4JQc Boi 'Ifz-es'st.
)e, f pno 4/4<*///x4y sot 49 -acof it/flC///LG/*
S *I - M 3 - S V f., 2.
n, al/L. flwytli.
WRc //(LC,'P Qol) 492.Wie l L
$$) EVy br<gGs/ Dos /M (ser) W'.1 - yooo 8
&s\\1sm V36.1-14 Dor-g4 C1ez.)584-/sa*/
.\\ y
%q 76 Uf66-C
'c bh Ft's 776 tL7.t.
kl!' A. O-w9%
Los M-s Fr5 191 - + o s kew E.&mE tiptyt.jj joisy/tapityga g5 4n-sf64 Msw Lba sw s.u 6,7
- (7a)m-pu Bob CWe.K v3Es7E*3 -
cE/t+4 (2.a4 646-434
^
NAL
/J ICC/ D 06 M.,4 Stf S M s 5//o/fi 4%
Og..wk m y' M Mbxdu
.I3 lad M bd6WM/0 7or n4v 74s4 Scat ham wowed /am-u<
zo1 cyc Suo
~ 3 m L.
Vo u. &-e.v-CM c - YM.P
,o e 24q 1Lso dTEf M haocevv)
- Dog,
.~%o 2_ Jed e Edwad Reper oor zoz rec 1rro 1
NM hM4 uMYive100G-U 2n ~L 4 f4 /*% \\
h%m 4WW -
'louWr 'ME feu Beea-s+ c.
7oe-m vre7 kb MM sol-4fa -/6 (/
~68 61 L u ger-UM PN 7 76-/^f),/
j Mdh0el dD L
SAR/M0ub57 102 -7'1/- 76 SP'
/kwedb)J.&g4E
/c VCM FKT2r7-a 73 (L
M N ~.1, eoc.- ssz w.
=
z~ ~
~m
-m m 44erp sNcApt c /
Pod [er*7.s
.W-4t ko Feihn h L.m sNt (ss.)844-rret.
G e a v A su).s AlA C srs
+12-os%
red % ss Nec fit 4 n-esa7 1
g'/ ~ f u A/gc.
frs VM-et/y(,,
c% 04
/Jr<,o Frs en -oS95 4/RC,
$2-0530 R-f
- zw
- TJn, jV,o A/RC FTs-fwort(
W M %,
nc 4n -ocoe SCP/DAA PRELIMINARY CONCERNS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SECTION SCP REVIEW The SCP comits to a systematic, integrated approach to site characterization (i.e.,theIssuePesolutionStrategy). However, the SCP does not appear to demonstrate that such an approach has been implemented. Some specific areas of concern are Performance allocation has gaps in its execution The treatment of alternative conceptual models has some inconsistencies and gaps Plans for the use of performance assessment during site characterization are not adequate to integrate data gathering activities l
The validation program is inadequate Scenario analyses in support of performance allocation is flawed Planned relience on formal use of er. pert.iudgement could result in an l
unconvincing license application 6
DECDGER 1988 j
s) i
. :-:9
.4 si 3 e
2e sh aa es-essa
-i 44 444 4444 a
iitt 9aa 9aaa s
p 2l j
O I
kI IB I
5' t'il=-].1I1:2 E
,k,'11 I. 83.
.m n:
3 asistiviIs et I_.
}I cris 1111 s
s y
.ti l
1,i =i=1 1
It i
i in!a!
.l l
1:15 I2 1. I gi 2
i 5-I
.rgls L, 5:l>} :st;lj!
e
}Isill
$ I>
LIII;T T.15 3
- 1s 1-il
",is.!1i g
1 mII
!12I j1 g u
$~:g.. ((
e, @
E E, ill:i I
i I
.E a
y'IF sic i.t Co S
s
L s i
!!]
's l'{ g I
gI5
.! Y 811 Ii 183 I
E I **
II-g$
.sh
[8E
~$3 p
di g185 lit is E
g
=
2 t
e in&!.z Ijgvi
- I e I-
. & ]:
T."
a
{f.E g-rij[11 i:ifi kl11 :sisif[e.ig.[.y,eg E !:?.21*8 1
u g.
jliffs-}
- if 58 54 12
-etljj j")E CE s)
- j. rec sjrs.:fsj-5 g
p
.2 I
g,3
'!Il~j':15g!
,1 Iis. ig #li.,
3 I.lis El i
i I'
f e 83ygg e:
- j
- I.fi31i!i g.
s j*sI E.*~
I tg li
@!!I!
@l!jf8}
- I
'iI w
l!I.
I
~*
e, t z :! 'i &
5 I'
}ly,,
1 is il it.
Is b
s F.s.:a 1
[Ie ~..I h!!* ljs 1;3 g:l
}Estd"i s
- f
,[:.z !.! il j.E..l.if _.El j!
.o e
ii 8l}
Y i
[
~.
[
b.
1 ill
{
ul:
t!! i
-1i-1, 2
A
=s I
i a
u 8.3.1.2-52
O W9 I
1 N
T O
E A
C 9 C
Z
.Y J A N
I R
M A
E R
T A
U C
T S
A A
D S
R A
A G
H Y
N S
T C.
NR I
E T
CN I
O L
E S
C A
T Y
I R
X A
U I
N S
E I
M O
I LE R
F R
P S
O O
AAD N
F
/
P R
N C
S E
M O
C A
T e
I N
R A
O G
C C
O IF R
T I
P P
L S
C A
IL S
A U
Q Q
Q o
o o
l
Ie N
?
~.'
O o
N S
A N
L R
P E
A C
NE N
OR O
IA C
T AG F
ZN SN F
sII RECN A'RR OC Y
TEEE RA N
I SOTE M
ILE DCN R
P A
C AI AD
/P R
AN HE D
C E
N T
EI e
C T
E I
LE'S
~
S
J G
T N
N I
E T
N I
S A
C E
L I
T P
F D
F E
N N
T U
T O O S
S A
I I
E N
R T
T T
I T
A A S
Z C
N E
N I
I O
R O
R L
I A
M E
P T
E T
P A
M D
C A Z
A A
I R
N R
E R
G E
A S
E O
E H
N T
R B
C E
C P
C A
T E
I R
G O
T L
A N
N I
H I
S R
C T
S O
S A
D F
E E
H E
T T
S N
I N
O O S
N G
P I
O I
O T H
I S
R A T
T E
P M
I A
D R
W M
E O
R I
H F
N I
T N
G F
E I
I NO L
T S
T A
Y E
E C
I H
R D T T
T A
A E
S Y
U C
F D
S R Q N
S E
E O E A
E T
C T
D M
A E
I A
R E
R N
S N
O T
O I
F v
H S
D P
R N
T N
L E
S E O F
O E R
I P
I O
M I T
E Y
F N
E A
Y D
O G H
U T
L I
T L
I T
L N
S A
L O
I O E F
V I
N W I
D O E B
T A
S M
A F
S C
T A A R
S L
R P
H R
G E I
N E
G E
A C
P O
T D
T R
C C
R N
N E
O A
S P
I A
D F
I I
I V
I I
I I
ll l
lllt
M A
R G
O R
P m
E a
r G
g A
s o
K e
r C
u p
S A
l NR P
a n
EC v
on NOC E
~
io Y
l t
R T
a at i
A s
N S
c t
I mic M
A s
i IL r
E W
e rd R
e i
P s
t e
f A
m n
e A
r N
D i
d s
p
/P I
c u
et o
C S
N nn z
s c m e
i e
R t
r dt e
r E
s o
r ce i
f au nt C
ys N
rns dt a
s mgtns i
O o
oi ns t
C c
s g a roe a
a nt n
l n B iSI oLT F
uI t
f O
g s
re e
e S
R1 2 T1 2 P1 2
M E
T I
SN N R
~
IST NRE YC C
NO C
HE YR P L AN E
I M
O I
S LE E
R P
GF AAD
/
/O PC S
E E G V e
O 9
- (sy m
GEOLOGY / GEOPHYSICS SECTION l
OVERVIEW OF SELECTED SCP CONCERNS i;
Central Themes of Point Papers
~
- 1) Integration Among Investigations
- 2) Nonconservative Numerical Criteria ESF Concerns Integration of available technical data into decisions regarding shaft
-location Tcchnical Areas Addressed 1)' Tectonics a) Faulting Alternative conceptual models Post-closure program not integrated with weste package performance issues Slip rates Characterization, design, and performance parameters b) Volcanism Alternative' conceptual models Natural analogs Tentative performance goals and parameter values Integration c) Seismicity 10,000 year cumulative slip earthquake
- 2) Natural Resources Alternative c'onceptual models Integration J
.3) Methods of Exploration
~
a) Geophysics Integration b) Surface-based and in situ testing Integration i
Representativeness of data l
l
Attachm2nt 8.-
Y
SCP/DAA PRELIMINARY CONCERNS l>[s HYDROLOGIC TRANSPORT SECTION 4
SCP REVIEW 4
Selected SCP Concerns Disturbed zone boundary is not delineated by considering the effects of I
waste heat on all physical or chemical properties that contribute significantly to repository performance.
O The strategy for resolving the regulatory requirement for pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time does not include consideration of
" anticipated processes and events".
8 The proposed method for constructing cumulative distribution curves for groundwater travel time by weighting " alternative conceptual models" is theoretically inappropriate.
All assumptions about features, events and processes, related to the e
hydrclogic system for the initial modeling strategy to predict groundwater travel time, are not completely identified.
0' The technical basis for initial assessments of the significance of individual features, events and processes of the hydrogeologic system to performance measures or design or performance parameters is not discussed.
The SCP does not contain a plan to adequately characterize the hydrologic 8
properties of the Calico Hills unit-(designated primary barrier to groundwater flow and radionuclides transport).
Activities presented for the study of the saturated zone flow system are O
not adequate to characterize saturated zone hydrologic boundaries, flow directions and magnitudes and flow paths.
The geochemistry program does not study the potential process of O
concentrating radionuclides on fracture surfaces and subsequent episodic transport.
Investigations of radionuclides retardation focus on the determination of a Kd for use in matrix and fracture retardation equations. This transport modeling approach has not been substantiated for all expected states of Yucca Mountain flow system (full range of unsaturated and saturated).
Existing sorption characterization data for alkali and alkaline earth elements are insufficient for performance assessment analyses, and consequently sorption data collection plans are incomplete.
__.-u--____.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ - _.. _ -. -. _