ML20248F186
| ML20248F186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/22/1989 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-T-0007, NACNUCLE-T-7, NUDOCS 8904120510 | |
| Download: ML20248F186 (500) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. i f(fNhQ@M p._ . . . . . -
. ~- :=::::======= = 'r=== :w.~ ., i L~ Mrrsopnsus om E w. . .
NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
-,& ; 3..
,.: * = '%-
~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON' NUCLEAR WASTE l L_ up:m=m:xggy + I
... :%?hk%..
a In the Matter of: _
; ).2= , . r- ,. _
. .. {.
<s.
.1
.m pr a : : gBn9
. gn.g.n , g%,~ma 2' yg2y;;f ~ =M
^
@" 7th ACNN Meeting djMd
;:gwyw -2)! h 2.m w.bb. o gyp hIdifW.
~
- ._ An.
. n . . . .
Day Two . ma .,z mj gm.~.,,w.
,, g a x- au- .g v -~~.p
.,27pmasgn -
gg. ,% w~ t.% r g! . p ., fi i s a, . c . :% ,;;;j Z3. . Afgg;. gn
~
N a A h$'+ 4.: j' ~;- N
,, - ... c .
w 5: f< s yy q n M h f-
..g. Meagga,. ..XXf424w4.;
Pages: 145 through~"440 --- ..--m. L JA.i-.d*Ndi: i e
. . ... . wen wwww u.. . .~s Place: Bethesda, Maryland ' """T# J,~'%a w~ ...- M '".~ 9 *+.
"~
L - February 22, 1989 , ~ ,;
? A N, a .
Y @..,.. ..fI_i=33;3..}...
. -.a.;m.-
- , ?
4 :$.1...p.;:--- 37 +6 g ?? ,gY M '*'. g . Law.j; . 4.n;;-.
, . p. . 7c.;.,. . . . , , , , , , g ;q.
.-.g%,,.. . m.
a . _
- g% ,..p. ~ . . .~... , _
v7 , HERITAGE REPORTINGSORPORATION.
<~osmwne arars2?L 1229 L Serest N.W., Salet400 4
Wasidmeton, D.C. 20005 8904120510 890222
^
' N N ~ icnj *~
PDR ADVCM NACNUCLE - -- - +
;a-T-OOO7 PDC g;
1 1 1 PUBLIC-NOTICE BY THE- I i
.f'%L t
2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S I 1
-) 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 4 February 22,.1989-5 3 J
6 - 7 -The contents of this stenographic transcript of 8 the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory ] 9 Commission's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNN), as 1 10 reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions 11 recorded at the meeting held on the above date. 12 No member of the ACNW staff and no participant at. 13 this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or 14 inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this I
.[\.s,/ .
15 transcript. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l l ( I) i Q Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t f L___ -- _ - --_- -
. a =.
145 fx .- ' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I )
'd ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE In the Matter of: )
)
)
7th ACNW Meeting ) Day Two ) Wednesday, February 22,.1989 Room P-110, Phillips Bldg._ 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland The meeting convened, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m. BEFORE: DR. DADE W. MOELLER Chairman, ACNW Professor of Engineering
/ '\ in Environmental Health
\,,)1 Associate Dean-for Continuing Education School of Public Health Harvard University Boston, Massachusetts ACNW MEMBERS PRESENT:
DR. MARTIN J. STEINDLER Director, Chemical Technology Division Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois CONSULTANTS: MELVIN CARTER DONALD ORTH i JUDITH B. MOODY WILLIAM J. HINZE l DAVID OKRENT EUGENE E. VOILAND f\ V Beritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l l
I 146 ' i DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL: - l i OWEN S. MERRILL g1 l l 1 ACRS COGNIZANT STAFF MEMBERS: 1 R.F. FARLEY, Executive Director-H. STANLEY SCHOFER, Technical Secretary l l i i 1 { 1 l
<: serie.ge negoreto, corpor.eion (202) 628-4888 $l! i i
I'( 147 jdg, 1; PROCEEDING'S \ E \'
\_,/- 2 8:30 a.m.
3 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will now come to order. 4 This is the second day of the Seventh Meeting of the 5 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. During today's 6 meeting, the committee will hear and discuss the current 7 status'of the Site Characteritf* ton Plan and related topics 8 with representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy. 9 Following DOE's presentation, the committee will 10 go into an open executive session to discuss the major 11 findings or conclusions or thoughts that we have as a result 12 of having heard the various presentations today. 13 Today's session follows an afternoon session that
/'\ 14 we had yesterday in which we met with the NRC Staff to hear-15 the status of their review of the Site Characterization 16 Plan.
17 Today's meeting is being conducted in accordance J 18 with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 19 0.S. Merrill is the designated federal official for this , l 20 portion of the meeting. We have received no written l 21 statements or requests to make oral statements from members 22 of the public regarding today's meeting. 23 Inasmuch as the committee's consultants will be 24 new to many people who are in the audience, let me just 25 simply name them for the record. We have with us Bill Hinze l (O) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
f. f-148 1 and Eugene Voiland. We have Melvin Carter, Donald Orth and l 2 Judith Moody. Joining me as the other member of the 3 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste today is Dr. Martin 4 Steindler. And my name is Dave Moeller. 5 A transcript of portions of the meeting will be 6 kept and it is requested that each speaker go to one of the 7 microphones, identify himself or herself and speak with 8 sufficient clarity and volume so that he or she can be 9 readily heard. And I would ask the reporter to wave her 10 hand if you have problems hearing. 11 Unless there are comments or remarks from members 12 of the committee or its consultants, I think we will move 13 right in and provide DOE as much time as possible for their 14 presentation and I will call upon Ed Regnier, an engineer , 15 with the Licensing Branch, the Office of Civilian 16 Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy. 17 Ed, it is a pleasure to have you. 18 MR. REGNIER: Thank you, Dr. Moeller. 19 DR. MOELLER: While we are fixing the microphone, 20 there are copies of the handouts that DOE has brought along 21 if anyone in the office desires a set. 22 MR. REGNIER: Thank you, Dr. Moeller. I am Edward 23 Regnier with the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian 24 Radioactive Waste Mar gement in the Licensing Branch. 25 We are pleased to be here today for another i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r 149 g-- 1. opportunity to discuss the Department of Energy's high level q ,l ' 2 radioactive waste program with the Advisory Committee on 3 Nuclear Waste. Our topic for today's discussion will be the 4 Department's recently issued Site Characterization Plan, 5 which we often refer to as the SCP. 6 The SCP is a document which was required by NRC's 7 Regulation 10 CFR Part 60 and by the Nuclear Waste Policy. 8 Act. It describes what we know today about the site which 9 will be characterized for a high level radioactive waste 10 repository and provides, .among other things, primarily 11 provides a general plan for how we will obtain data at that 12 site. 13 To quickly recount some of the events leading to
/h 14 the issuance of the SCP, most notably, last January --
.]
15 January '88, we issued what we called a consultative draft 16 SCP. This was not a step that was required by the 17 regulations or by the law. DOE issued that to the state and 18 the NRC and requested their comments in an attempt to 19 improve the quality of the SCP when it was issued. 20 The NRC did provide us with consultation on that 21 consultative draft in the form of point papers which 22 fundamentally had their comments in it, they classified, as 23 you were told yesterday, they classified those points, if 24 you will, as objections, comments and questions. 25 After consideration of those objections, comments O)
\' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
150
< 1 and questions and after diccussion of them on several 2 occasions with the NRC Staff, we made some substant'.al 3 revisions to the SCP and issued it as what we call the 4 statutory SCP on December 28th.
5 The objective of today's meeting is to provide you 6 with a general overview and explanation of that SCP. Since 7 it is an extremely large document, as I am sure you have 8 noticed, we thought the best way to accomplish this would be 9 to provide you with a brief outline and overview of the 10 general contents and form of the SCP and then discuss some 11 of the major points which were raised by the NRC Staff in 12 their point papers and discuss how we have addressed those 13 in the SCP. 14 DR. MOELLER: A question on that: Is the main 15 difference between the consultation draft and the statutory 16 SCP the changes in order to address the concerns raised by 17 the NRC Staff or were there other significant changes? 18 MR. REGNIER: Those are the major changes. There i 19 were other changes, but those are certainly the bulk of 20 them. 21 MR. BROCOUM: Just to be correct, Ed, I think we 22 also incorporated USGS comments which we received and we 23 also made other changes to the SCP, also. They were not 24 just changes -- 25 DR. MOELLER: For NRC. l { Heritage Reporting Corporation i f (202) 628-4888 l l l t --- - - - - . - - - - - _ - - - _ - - _- _ _ a
151-l ,esq . 1 MR. BROCOUM: --~for NRC's sake. s_- 2 DR. MOELLER: So, response'to all criticisms. 3 MR. BROCOUM: That's the major portion of the 1. 4 changes. 5 MR. REGNIER: That was Steve Brocoum, Dr. Steve L 6 Brocoum with.the Department of Energy. 7 Some of the material which we will cover today we 8 have discussed with you before. Most notably, at the
-9 June 28th meeting, which we had with you where we discussed 10 the SCP and the objection on alternative conceptual models 11 and, also, in the recent meeting on January 24, when we 12 discussed the performance assessment portions of the SCP 13 with.you.
[ 14' So, we will cover some of that material again to
'v 15 provide background for some of the consultants who weren't 16 here at that time. If we are going into too much depth in 17 recovering that material, please let us know and we can move 18 on more promptly. We will have I think a full day today.
19 If we take a look at the agenda that we have outlined -- 20 DR. MOELLER: Excuse me just a second. Owen 21 Merrill had a question on the previous discussion. Go 22 ahead, Owen. 23 MR. REGNIER: Yes, sir. 24 MR. MERRILL: I understood -- this is Owen 25 Merrill. I understood that the Nevada State comments were s Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l' 152 1 not received in time, but I was also told that whatever they 2 were raising as objections were considered to the extent 3 possible in the SCP. Could you comment on that? 4 MR. REGNIER: That is correct. They were not 5 received in time to be considered. We are in the process of 6 looking at them. We really have not considered them in the 7 current SCP. Someone else can tell you later precisely what 8 our schedule is for addressing those. We are in the process 1 9 of looking at those now. 10 DR. MOODY: Are you going to start now with your 11 statement that every six months you are going to put out an 12 additional statement with the SCP? In other words, can we 13 expect in June of 1989 you are going to meet your first six 14 months' time frame? 15 HR. REGNIER: Steve, can you help with that? When 16 are we scheduled for our first progress report. 17 MR. BROCOUM: This is Steve Brocoum with DOE. I 18 think our first update will be around July 15th. 19 MR. REGNIER: Now, the agenda that we have here 1 20 has a few differences from the agenda that was printed. I 1 21 think it is a matter of emphasis what we thought were worthy 22 of major headings. In fact, I think most of the topics, if 1 23 not all, will be covered in our presentation today. l 1' 24 As I mentioned, we will start off with a general 25 overview of the e>: dating SCP, with an overview and then a I ( seritage Reporting corporation lllh (202) 628-4888 _ .__- - _ - _a
153 j'"4 1 discussion of the performance allocation process that'will A- 2 include discussions of the issue resolution strategy. 3 We will then move into the summary of our t 4 responses to the five NRC objections which we discussed 5 yesterday. I think that will probably take care of the 6- morning session. 7 And in the afternoon, then we have picked five
'8 which we think were among the more important comments. Most 9 certainly, they were all important, that were made that were 10 not labeled as objections. We will then follow that with a 11 discussion of our study plans and explain how they fit into 12 the process and then to-give you an idea of where we are 13 going next, we will discuss some of the near term activities .f 14 that we'll be undertaking related'to site characterization a .
15 in the near future. 16 The first presentation now will be made by 17 Dr. Steve Brocoum who is the Chief of the Siting and 18 Geosciences Branch in the Office of Facility Siting and 19 Development at the Department of Energy. Dr. Brocoum? 20 (Slides shown.) 21 MR. BROCOUM: Thank you, Ed. I am just going to 22 give a brief" overview of the Site Characterization Plan and 23 put in context all the following talks that occur today. 24 The second slide just defines what site 25 characterization is. It is the activities conducted to Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
154 1 gather information about the geologic conditions at.the site 2 and.to evaluate the site's suitability for a repository. 3 This was a process that was set forth by the 4 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that eventually leads to a 5 license application. 6 The following slide defines what the Site 7 Characterization Plan is. The Site Characterization Plan is 8 a general plan required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and 9 NRC Regulation 10 CFR Part 60. We feel that we have 10 prepared a comprehensive plan for conducting site 11 characterization at Yucca Mountain. 12 The following slide describes the objectives of 13 the SCP. The objectives are to summarize the information 14 that have been collected to date about the geologic 15 conditions of the site; to describe the conceptual designs 16 for the repository and the waste package; and to present the 17 plans for obtaining the geologic information necessary to 18 evaluate the suitability of the site, to provide input 19 needed to design the repository and the waste package, to 20 provide input to an er.vironmental impact statement and to 21 provide input to the safety analysis report for the license 22 application. 23 The following slide shows the organization of the 24 SCP. It consists of two, although it has eight chapters, it 25 really has two main parts. The first part is Chapters 1 : (" Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 i l
)
155 through 7 and the second part is Chapter 8. And Chapter 8 91 2 is about as long as Chapters 1 through 7 combined. So, the 3 whole document is about 6300 pages and 1 through'7 are about 4 half the document. 5 The first part, the first half of the document, if 6 you like, describes the site and the first five chapters, 7 geology, geoengineering, hydrology, geochemistry and climate 8 describe what is known about the site. Chapter 6 describes 9 the repository design and Chapter 7 describes the potential 10 ' waste package designs. 11 The second part, Chapter 8, describes the 12 characterization program that will be undertaken. It 13 includes the rationale, issues, tests, site preparation, 14 schedules and milestones, quality assurance and 15 decommissioning. 16 Now, the next slide shows you documentation that 17 is related to the SCP. The first bullet refers to the 18 documents that we use to assist us in preparing or 19 developing the SCP. Of course, we had the Nuclear Waste 20 Policy Act and the amendment. We have the NRC Regulation 10 21 CFR Part 60 and other regulations, like the EPA 40 CFR 191 22 and DOE's own regulations 10 CFR 960. We have the NRC 23 Reg. Guide 4.17, a standard format and content guide for 24 site characterization plans. We have the DOE annotated 25 outline which was developed from Reg. Guide 4.17 and DOE and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
156 i 1 NRC regulations. And we have the DOE issues hierarchy. 2 Supporting documents, the second bullet describes 3 supporting documents. Documents which support the SCP 4 include the SCP conceptual design report for the repository 5 which was issued in late 1987. Study plans, which go into 6 more detail than is presented in the SCP, and references on 7 the order of 2,000 which are referenced in the SCP and were 8 supplied to the NRC with the SCP. 9 The following viewgraph shows graphically the 10 structure of Chapter 8, which is the Site Characterization 11 Program. It consists of Sections 8.1 through 8.7. 8.1 is 12 the program rationale and the approach of using issues to 13 plan site characterization. 8.2 describes the issues in 14 correlation to the regulations. 8.3 describes the issue 15 resolution strategy and performance allocation which are the 16 subjects of the next talk. It describes all the planned 17 tests. And this is a question that came up yesterday, there 18 is a correlation between the planned tests, particularly 19 with the site and all the study plans. 20 Section 8.4 describes the site preparation 21 activities and the underground test facilities. Section 8.5 22 describes schedules and milestones. Section 8.6 describes 23 quality assurance as it applies to site characterization and 24 Section 8.7 describes decontamination and decommissioning, 25 if that is necessary, if a site is found to be unsuitable. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L_______--.--
157
.j3 1 The next viewgraph: This is just a graphical s_s 2 summary of our program schedule.
- 3. DR. STEINDLER: Could I interrupt you on that one?
4 You say. decontamination and decommissioning if the site is 5 found unsuitable. Are you suggesting that there is going to 6 have to be some decontamination done after your site 7 characterization that relates to the suitability of the 8 site? 9 MR. BROCOUM: No, I rm not. But it is conceivable 10 you might have to do retrieval, for example. If after -- 11 during the operations phase, the repository for some reason, , 12 you needed to retrieve. 13 DR. STEINDLER: Oh, I see.
/ 14 MR. BLANCHARD: Steve,.could I help on that?
v 15 MR. BROCOUM: Sure. 16 MR. BLANCHARD: I'm Max Blanchard with DOE. I 17 didn't want to end up with some sort of confusion on this. 18 The decommissioning is described and the decontamination is 19 described in the SCP at Chapter 8 pertains only to site 20 characterization. In other words, those kind of things that 21 you have to do to put the site back into environmentally 22 acceptable environment to comply with NEPA. And there is no 23 plans to use radioactive waste or waste canisters 24 underground for any of the tests. And, so, the only problem 25 that one might encounter would be bore hole logging tools r~ , ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l 158 ; 1 1 that have seal sources that might get stuck due to some 2 unforeseen circumstances. Thank you. 1 3 MR. BROCOUM: Thank you, Max. 4 The program schedule, this is a summary. It just 5 shows you from, starting on the left, from the Nuclear Waste 6 Policy Act of 1982, the issuance of the EAs and the 7 Presidential approval of the three sites in May of ' 86, the 8 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act in December of ' 87, the 9 issuance of a contLLtation draft of the SCP in January of 10 '88, the issuance of the SCP in December of ' 88. And for 11 the future, we are expecting to issue the Draft EIS in 1993, 12 the final EIS in 1994. DOE will make a recommendation for 13 the site to the President in late ' 94 and submit a license r 14 application to the NRC in about January of 1995. If all 15 goes well, the repository construction starts in 1998 and 16 the repository as current schedules plan to be open in the 17 year 2003. So, that's just a very simple graphical 18 schedule. 19 The next viewgraph -- l 20 DR. STEINDLER: Before you leave that schedule -- l l 21 DR. MOODY: Hold it, yes. 22 DR. STEINDLER: Could you give me some clue as to l 23 where in that schedule you believe that the Department will 24 have a hanfle on the suitability of the site? 25 MR. BROCOUM: Well, certainly at the conclusion of ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1
159
~w 1 site characterization when we need to make our
, I
'V / 2 recommendation to the President, we will certainly have that 3 handle. But if we find anything during site 4 characterization that would suggest that the site is 5 unsuitable, we are required by Nuclear Waste Policy 6 Amendments Act to inform Congress and the NRC. So, at any 7 time we find a condition that would suggest the site is 8 unsuitable, we are required to bring it to the attention of 9 others.
10 DR. STEINDLER: That seems obvious, but I am 11 trying to address the question of how your site 12 characterization strategy is structured between 12-88 and 13 1994 to see whether or not you in fact intend to run tha' [w; }- 14 schedule out all the way. Or whether you have got some kind 15 of an early program who'se purpose is to identify the 16 suitability of that site. 17 DR. MOODY: That sort of ties into my question 18 because seeing we are now talking about we're in mid-1989, 19 my question also is: How can you do the site 20 characterization in about three years, because that is what 21 you are talking about with this schedule. 22 MR. BROCOUM: No. Site characterization -- 23 officially, site characterization began with the issuance of 24 the EAs and there are, for example, ongoing monitoring 25 activities such as site networks operating at the site and 7 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
160
, 1 continues and will continue until mid or so of 1994. So, 2 you are talking about a period of seven or eight years all 3 totaled.
4 Many of the underground tests don't begin until 5 fer some time in the future. So, some of the tests start 6 early; some of the tests start later. So, I think the 7 fairest thing to say is we don't know of anything at the 8 present time that would suggest that the site is unsuitable 9 and if we find anything to suggest the site is unsuitable, 10 we will make thac known. In fact, I think we are required 11 by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to cease site 12 characterization. You could check that with someone. I ' 13 think that's what the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act 14 says. And we will be issuing in our semi-annual progress 15 reports -- I need to correct myself. That was not an 16 update, which I said earlier. We were referring to every six 17 months the status of site characterization. So, I think i i 18 that's the way we will communicate with the public and the 1 I 19 rest of the world essentially, on the status of site 20 characterization is through our semi-annual progress 21 reports. ! 22 DR. ORTH: I think a more specific approach to the 23 questions you have been getting is to ask if the Site 24 Characterization Plan very specifically addresses all of the 25 disqualifying issues that have been listed in various I ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
161 1 places, possibly disqualifying things, and says right off-Nm .2L the. bat: "These are-the disqualifying things. We are going 3 to within, with all deliberate speed," if you will, "within
- 4. one month,.two months, three months,.specifically. going to 5 look at.the disqualifying features and get'at those early.
6 on." 7 MR. BROCOUM: I think the Site-Characterization 8 Plan does address the disqualifying features or what 13 9 refsrred to in'10 CFR 96 as potentially adverse and in 96'as' 10- disqualifying. And we are going to address those as soon as-11 we can in our site characterization program. I think~that's-12 a fair statement. 13 DR.. MOODY: If you said that you have been [' 14 4 monitoring, what have you been monitoring since the EA came
.- 15 out'in '867 16 MR. BROCOUM: Thcre is a whole list of monitoring 17 activities. Everything from streams and runoff of water to 18 seismic, and I think-some ecological things. It's a whole 19 suite of activities going on tha.: are of a monitoring nature 20 that have been going on for a long period of time, probably 21 even pre '86, but certainly since.'86, 22 DR. CARTER: Lot me ask a question related to .
23 that. This may not be the appropriate time, but I think it 24 is related to it and that's the data base that already 25 exists in terms of either quality assurance technical g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 162 { 1 requirements or legal requirements now, the NRC. I wonder , 2 if anybody is going to address from the DOE's standpoint 3 that data base and how important you consider the use of it? l MR. BROCOUM: 4 Well, there is a fairly huge data l 5 base that exists for Nevada. In the future, all data will 6 be collected under a subpart (g) Quality Assurance Program 7 and we expect that it will be usable in the licensing arena. 8 Past date we hope to qualify the data that we need 9 to go into licensing, if we need to use past data. And the 10 NRC has a General Technical Position, 12.98, which suggests 11 how to qualify data and we have said we will use that 4 12 General Technical Position to qualify data. It gives four 13 different ways for qualifying data. So, there is a huge 14 data base and I don't think we should ignore our data base 15 in the past. And we are using it to help us plan our 16 program, but not all of that data was collected under 17 Level 1 or a subpart (g) program. 18 DR. CARTER: Well, that's what I was interested. I 19 And I was particularly interested in what parts of it that l 20 DOE considers extremely important. In other words to 21 salvage or to be able to use it. And I presume this la an 1 22 ongoing negotiation between DOE and NRC at the present time. l 23 MR. BROCOUM: I don't know if we could consider 24 that ongoing, but it is something of extreme concern to us. 25 And I think we will have to address with the NRC. Okay, for ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 163
~
1 example, earthquake monitoring: You need to monitor an area L 7-~S N- 2 for o period of time to get an understanding of the 3 seismicity and -- because earthquakes, you can't make them 4 occur where you want them to be. They tend to occur, you 5 know, I won't say " randomly," but periodically. So, if you Ei .just monitor for a six-month window, you may not get a crue 7 understanding of the seismic characteristics of the site. 8 So you need to monitor for a long period of time. And the 9 longer period of time, the more confidence you have in your 10 data. And that's true for a lot of earth science-type 11 ' tests, if you like, or data gathering. You need along 12 period of time. Some people would argue even five to seven 13 years is not adequate for certain phenomenon. Okay? So, a r l
- 14 long period of time. So, I don't think we need to find a
\_ .-
15 way to qualify the preexisting data, that which is 16 qualifiable, so we can have a longer time period for our 17 information. 18 DR. CARTER: I understand that. A mundane 19 question, having spent a fair number of years in Nevada,
-20 where are the stream flows that you are monitoring all these 21 years?
22 MR. BROCOUM: I think they are monitoring 23 periodic. They are monitoring it from rain storms and 24 thunder storms and that kind of thing. I'll turn to Max for 25 that. Is that correct?
~
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
168 1 DR. CARTER: These must be instantaneous strerms, 2 I believe. Short-lived and instantaneous. 3 MR. BLANCHARD: They are dry washes and some of 4 them have running water transiently as a consequence of a 5 peak precipitation event. They do not carry running water 6 more than a few hours, generally. 7 DR. CARTER: You've got to be ready to go when it 8 rains, in other words. 9 DR. MOODY: Does monitoring information come out 10 in timely reports, say, every six months? Every year? Is 11 this available? Publicly available? 12 MR. BROCOUM: I don't know if it is all publicly 13 available, we are working to make it available in a timely 14 fashion. It hasn't always been available in a timely 15 fashion in the past. And we are working toward the position 16 to be able to insert this data as quickly as we can into , l 17 reference information base and eventually leads to licensing 18 support systems. 19 DR. MOELLER: Dr. Hinze? 20 DR. HINZE: You have discussed really two ends of 21 the spectrum: the summary, summarizing of your information, 22 and the acquisition of data. What kind of analysis is going l 23 on between this on a day-to-day basis and in a nitty gritty 24 fashion? 25 MR. BROCOUM: The participants collect the data ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
165 g l fg 1 and reduce it and do-analyses. The project office m- 2 coordinates all of this through their technical support 3- contractor and pulls it all together into an integrated 4 package. Okay? That's the structure as it is today. 5 DR. HINZE: And that is reviewed by whom and on 6 what basis? On what time basis? 7 MR. BROCOUM: Excuse me? 8 DR. HINZE: That is reviewed by whom under what-9 time basis? 10 MR. BROCOUM: There are specific procedures in-11 place. For example, when the data is analyzed and reduced 12 and put in some sort of a report or a document, that needs 13 to be reviewed by the participant and it needs to be [d) 14 15 reviewed by the project office reports issued. through a specific revi'ew prc:ess and it has two, at least It goes 16 those two steps. Do you want the time? 17 DR. HINZE: Yes. 18 19 20 21 22 23 ; 24 25
% Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . J
1 166 1 MR. BROCOUM: That has varied, I guess, from a 2 period of months in the past, to probably more than a year, 3 depending on the issue, the data and the organization. 4 DR. HINZE: Are there milestones established for 5 that, or is that just a -- 6 MR. BROCOUM: There are milestones established now 7 in the SCP for all of that, yes, correct. 8 DR. MOELLER: To pursue juet a moment, and it's 9 not a question, just simply a comment. The discussion just 10 a few minutes ago about which group is watching diligently 11 on a continuous basis for any fatal flaw'that might be 12 uncovered in this site which would render it unacceptable. 13 Those of us who worked on the licensing of nuclear 14 power plants recall that frequently, in order to determine 15 the vulnerability of a nuclear power plant, let us say to 16 sabotage, you establish a black hat group and their job is 17 to probe and see where this plant may be vulnerable. 16 Have you thought of setting up a small group, and 19 it might even be on a very limited time basis, but their job 20 being to constantly monitor the site and raise the flag if 21 some flaw is discovered? 22 MR. BROCOUM: We don't formally have a black hat, 23 whatever that's called, team or group. But headquarters, in 24 its supporting contracts, tend to play, I think, that role 25 to a large degree. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
167 ai 1 I also think it would be fair to say that late in I) s 2 1987, we did look for the three sites at the time at what we 3 could do for each site to look for disqualifies when we 4 thought that we may, based on passage.of the Nuclear Waste 5 Policy Amendments Act,.we may be required to do that. 6 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 7 MR. BROCOUM: Any other questions at this point? 8 The next viewgraph just lists the five objections. 9 I won't go over them because the staff, the NRC staff went 10 over them in some detail yesterday, other than the point 11 that we will have a presentation on each of these five 12 objections today. 13 The following several viewgraphs relate to [ \ 14 responses to comments on the SCP/CD which was issued in
\. 15 January of ' 88, and the SCP which has just recently been 16 issued.
17 And the first viewgraph here relates to responses 18 to the SCP/CD. Okay, and the first bullet refers to the 19 status and how we have considered comments we received so 20 far. We received the NRC point papers, the final point 21 papers in March of ' 88, and they have in fact been addressed 22 in the SCP, and we have prepared a common response package 23 which was transmitted to the NRC with the SCP. That package 24 consists of one or two page summaries of each comment, 25 description of where in the SCP it is addressed, and a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
168 ( 1 summary of how it was addressed. 2 Previous to the May point papers, we had received 3 draft point papers from the NRC, in March, I believe that 4 was, and we had a meeting with the NRC prior to their 5 finalizing them so we could better understand, so DOE could 6 better understand the point, the comments they were making 7 in their point papers. 8 We also, in April of last year, received comments 9 from the USGS and those totaled about 500 individual 10 comments. Those have been addressed in the SCP, but the 11 comment respc.nse package is in preparation. We were not 12 able to get that out with the SCP, okay. 13 We have also received comments from the Edison 14 Electric Institute / Utility Nuclear Waste Management Group. 15 Those comments were received last August and were not 16 explicitly addressed in the SCP. 17 And, finally, in September, we received comments 18 from the state, and those were not explicitly addressed in 19 the SCP. However, we did look at the comments, both from 20 EEI and from the state, and particularly with the state 21 comments we decided they were either -- many of their 22 comments were either similar and therefore being addressed 23 in our responding to the NRC point papers, or would not 24 adve rsely impact our completion and issuance of the GCP. 25 They had numerous tentacle comments of their totc1 number of ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,. 169 I Lfx t Y 1 comments. The way we have broken them out totals around '
' \~ /- 2 900. And those will be specifically considered and reported 3 in the commerce response package which will be issued on or 4 about -- at about'the same. time as the first progress report 5 in July. So that is the status of the state comments.
6 Now, for the second bullet -- 7 DR. .OKRENT: Can I ask a question? 8 MR. BROCOUM: I was just going to say one more 9 thing here. The second bullet -- is there a question here? 10 DR. OKRENT: Does the ACNW have a copy of the USGS 11 comments? 12 MR. MERRILL: We have a set of comments with the 13- point papers which were the NRC comments. A 14- DR. OKRENT: Do you have the USGS comments. 15 MR. MERRILL: Oh, the USGS comments. No , not to 16 my knowledge. 17 MR. BROCOUM: When the USGS sent us their comments 18 last April, they sent a copy to the NRC. 19 DR. OKRENT: My experience is sending something to 20 the NRC does not automatically get it to the ACRS or the 21 ACNW. 22 Anyway, I would suggest that the ACNW get a copy 23 of those, and a copy of the comments from industry. 24 MR. BROCOUM: The last -- the second bullet on 25 this viewgraph, the point I want to make here is that we Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868
170 1 will develop, or are in the process right now of developing 2 responses to comments from the state, from EEI, and from the 3 USGS, and we will follow the same or similar process that we 4 followed in preparing responses to the NRC comments. 5 So we expect to issue those responses in mid July, 6 and therefore at that time we will have responded to all the 7 comments that we have received on the SCP/CD, okay. 8 DR. STEINDLER: What was your cutoff date for 9 receiving comments? 10 MR. BROCOUM: The cutoff date was June 30th, 11 The following viewgraphs talks about how we are 12 going to respond to the comments we receive on the SCP, or 13 the statutory SCP. We plan, or DOE plans to respond to all 14 comments received on the site characterization plan during 15 the public comment period. The public comment period 16 extends to April 15th, and DOE wishes to encourage all 17 commenters to focus on issues related to exploratory shaft 18 during this period. l 19 All comments received by Spril 15th will be j l 20 considered before starting exploratory shaft, and will be ' 21 responded to -- we will consider them internally and will be j 22 responded to publicly by early of 1990. That would be about 23 the same time frame as the second progress report. 24 DR. OKRENT: Question. 25 MR. BROCOUM: Yes. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
171
)>~4 1 DR. OKRENT: 'The NRC holds. continuing meetings N/ 2 with'you and with the ACNW, and so if they are not LJ.isfied 3 fully or partly or at.all with your responses, they have a 4 ready mechanism for making this known. It's not obvious 5 whether if USGS is not happy in a significant way with some 6 of your responses, whether there is a mechanism for learning 7 of this dissatisfaction.
8 Do you consciously solicit from USGS their 9 response to your responses? 10 MR..BROCOUM: Yes. And also on the SCP, we have 11 been informed that the Department of Interior will make 12 comments on the SCP,. and that will include USGS comments. 13 So I assume that through those comments we will find out [ 14 which of the original ones they were not satisfied with, if
'~' ~
15 you like. 16 DR. OKRENT: Well, it's not quite the same 17 question. My experience, in looking at how people who 18 prepare big documents respond to comments, is that rarely do 19 they certain meet all the comments. There is no reason why. 20 they should, but rarely do they, and sometimes they are 21 treated in a sort of less than satisfactory way to the 22 originator, rightly or wrongly, and if you don't know 23 whether your responses really set aside the main par of a 24 comment, aren't you left, oh, in a less knowledgeable 25 position in more than one way? Whether the comment will be p Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
172 1 repeated, whether it will be dug in more deeply, however you 2 want to say it. 3 MR. BROCOUM: I think you made a very good point, 4 and we would be glad to meet say with the GS when we have 5 our response, if you like, package maybe so we can talk ) 6 about here is how we respond to your comments and give us 7 some feedback. 8 I think that's what you are getting to, to have 9 some informal -- other than just through documents have some l 10 face-to-face interactions, and we are certainly willing to 11 do that. 12 In fact, on the NRC comments we were preparing for 13 a meeting last fall but it came -- events overtook it with 14 respect to design sensibility analysis, but we were -- part
. 15 of the counterresponse package that we -- for the NRC was 16 preparing for a meeting with the NRC staff to meet them face 17 to face on their comments.
18 DR. MOELLER: Go ahead. 19 MR. BROCOUM: The last bullet is, I think, what ,
, 20 the staff said yesterday. They will issue their site 21 characterization analysis in late July or August. j e
22 The last point I want to make is that all comments 23 that are received after the comment period, i.e., after i 24 April 15th, will be considered to the extent that we are 25 able to consider them before starting exploratory shaft. So (202) 628-4888
j 173 , ,eg 1- I mean obviously if we get comments in late April or early- I i (. ') 2 May, we have a much better chance in considering those than 3 if we get comments over. However, all' comments will be 4 responded to in a subsequent progress report. 5 DR. STEINDLER: Let me explore that USGS a little 6 further. 7 MR. BROCOUM: Sure. 8 DR. STEINDLER: Apparently you have got USGS 9 responses directly from the survey. 10 MR. BROCOUM: That is correct. 11 DR. STEINDLER: And the second go-around, that is, 12 in the statutory SCP, you are going to get it via the 13 Department of Interior. 14 MR. BROCOUM: That is correct. 15 DR. STEINDLER: Is there some significance I 15 should attach to this more, I guess, formalized path? 17 MR. BROCOUM: I guess the s.'.Jnificance would be 18 this is -- this is the statutory SCP, and I guess the 19 department wants to raske formal consents. And they may also 20 solicit comments from like the Bureau of Land Management, 21 other bureaus within the Departtaent of Interior. So it nay 22 not just be USGS comments. There may be comments from the 23 Park Service or BLM and so on. 24 DR. STEINDLER: Were the original comments from 25 USGS as an independent agency or was it as part of its Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
174 ( 1 obligations to DOE as a contractor? 2 MR. BROCOUM: The original package was reviewed by 3 USGS individuals in the team set up that had not related, 4 they are not the same people out of the site reporting to 5 the project office collecting information. 6 And I believe that the second review is being 7 structured along the same lines. 8 DR. STEINDLER: So it's basically an independent 9 review. 10 MR. BROCOUM: Yes. They have structured it in 11 such a way to make an independent review. 12 Okay, the last viewgraph, just a few more bullets, 13 I've mostly said these things already. But comments related 14 to exploratory shaft will be considered before beginning 15 shaft construction. And for each group of comments we get, 16 we will prepare comment response packages or reports along a 17 format similar to that used for the NRC comments and which 18 will be issued periodically. 19 The last bullet refers to semi-annual progress 20 reports. Again I want to emphasize that these are not 21 updates, becsuce I used that word earlier e and that was . 1 22 incorrect on my part. These progress reports will describe 23 changen in site characterization program, including those 24 changes made as a result of comments. But the bulk, should 25 I say the comments that don't result in a change to the site l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ! I i
175 j
.s 1 characterization program will be described in this comment
'l )~ 4 s_)- 2 response package. l 3 If we didn't do it that way, we have 500 comments 4 from the USGS, we have 900 comments from the state already, 5 we have several hundred comments from the NRC, the progress 6 reports would be very large documents. So we decided to 7 only include in the progress reports what is required which 8 are changes to our programs as a result of comments. 9 That's the end of the presentation. 10 DR. MOELLER: Any other questions? 11 Dr. Hinze. 12 DR. HINZE: I would like to go back to a question 13 that Dr. Carter raised earlier, and that is, do I understand [~ T 14 correctly that there is a substantive amount of data that 15 were collected under less than acceptable quality assurance 16 procedures? 17 MR. BROCOUM: That's correct. I would say data 18 not collected under Subpart G program. It may have been 19 very carefully collected data, but we have yet -- I think 20 there is a difference, a fine distinction there. 21 DR. HINZE: Well, my concern is that actions be. 22 implemented to make certain that the critical data that had-23 already been collected be repeated and not just easily cast 24 over because you have already had a pass at the data. 25 And what I'm asking is, what actions are you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
176 1 1 taking to ensure that the critical data are retaken and that 2 the acquisition of those data, even if they don't meet the 3 standards, are not going to influence the acquisition of 4 additional data? 5 Am I making my point clear? 6 MR. BROCOUM: Not really. 7 DR. HINZE: Once one collects data and you analyze 8 that data, you are influenced by those results, and one 9 might accept the fact that those data are not quite as 10 important because of the results that came out of them. But 11 yet these data were collected under procedures that are not 12 acceptable, if you will. 13 What assurance do we have that those data -- that 14 that perception from the existing data is not influencing 15 the SCP? 16 MR. BROCOUM: Well, I think existing data, to some 17 degree, hai influenced the -- because we are not starting at i 18 ground zero in the SCP. So I would have to say that we have 1 1 19 used existing information to plan our site characteri=ation 20 program. We didn't ignore existing information. But it's I 21 designed such that we will check if that existing l l 22 information led us, df you like, down the right path. ] i 23 DR. HINLL: So there are procedures in place then 24 te verify the quality of the e;tisting data? 25 MR. BROCOUN: I don't know if I say there are ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
j 177 1 procedures in place, but I think by the time we complete i \
._)
s 2 site characterization all the data that we used for our 3 license application will be quality Level 1 data. 4 One of the ways you can qualify data, according to 5 the GTP, is to collect additional information and show that 6 the old data is very similar to the new data. So in a sense 7 we will be collecting almost -- the information on almost 8 all data that we've used in the past. But again, I said 9 earlier there are some historical data you cannot collected 10 over. 11 DR. HINZE: Thank you. 12 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 13 MR. BROCOUM: The next speaker is Dr. Donald 14 Alexander. He is the chief of the Regulatory Compliance (' } i' '/ 15 Branch in the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 16 Management in DOE headquarters. 17 DR. ALEXANDER: Good morning. I am Dr. Donald 18 Alexander, chief of the Regulatory Compliance Branch, and in 19 the next few minutes I will be telling you about the process 20 that was used in the site characterization plan to translate l 21 reguaatory requirements of 10 CrR 60, 40 CIA 191, and 22 10 CFR 960 into our testing progrem. q l 23 (Slide display.) f ( 24 The first str9p in that process was to organize th9 1 25 regulatory requirements into common categories called l I l /N ' (' ') Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ; 1 l
178 l 1 issues. Each of these issues is phrased as a question. 2 Therefore, by addressing these issues, the department will 3 be able to address the applicable requirements and make a l 4 finding of suitability or nonsuitability. 5 An issue resolution process is then applied to 6 each issue to achieve issue resolution and to address the 7 individual requirements. 8 I will spend a few minutes on the process and then 9 give an example of the central part of the issue resolution 10 strategy referred to as performance allocation. 11 The issue resolution strategy is the methodology 12 used to achieve closure on each of the issues or questions 13 identified in the issue hierarchy by first defining the 14 elements and processes important to the performance of the 15 site and engineer barrier systems; identifying the 16 information required to resolve the issues; orienting data 17 collection analyses to the program mission; and finally, 18 establishing an approach for documenting findings and ) i 19 closing the issues by answering those questions and
)
20 fulfilling each and every one of the requirements of the ) 21 rege. 22 DR. OKRENT: Can I ash a question on that first 23 one? 24 DR. ALEXANDER: Certainly, e 25 DR. OKP2NT: In your experience, has it always (~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
179-w 1 been practical to accomplish the second, and to plan the (_s/ 2 third bullet in sufficient detail that you really can hope 3 for resolution? 4 DR. ALEXANLJR: The objective of the process is to 5 be as systematic as you possibly can. There is no magic to 6 the process. There is'no guarantee that every one of the 7 required bits of information needed to resolve the issues 8 will be specified at this time. But we believe that, based 9 on the thoroughness of the preparation of the document, the 10 response to comments, et cetera, that we are identifying the 11 lion's share now. 12 It's clear that as we go down the road towards the 13 development of a safety analysis report and the license h 14 application that we will identify more information that will [G 15 be needed, and therefore we will require additional tests. 16 Likewise, I think it's -- we expect that some of 17 the tests that are currently programmed will not be needed 18 because parts of the program will be resolved early on. 19 DR. OKRENT: Well, that's a positive looking 20 answer that one should give as someone working on a project. 1 21 But have you identified yet any issues where it 22 seems doubtful that you will be Able to, in a practien1 way, 23 obtain sufficient data and analyses to rerolve the issuo 24 with high confidence? 1~ l 25 DR. ALEXANDER: I think the answer to your l ,e' l (j Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
180
, 1 statement as qualified by high confidence is, yes. I think 2 there are a number of issues that will not be resolved at a 3 high level of confidence. Now the real question become 4 whether or not those are central to the licensing objective.
5 DR. OKRENT: Well, let me put an addendum. Where 6 you have identified high confidences what was needed. 7 DR. ALEXANDER: I think that by and large we will 8 be able to achieve that end through the process. There are 9 a number of issues on the other hand that we have identified 10 early on that are required by the regs to be addressed such 11 as dissolution and erosion, to use standard examples, that I 12 believe can be treated right now. 13 DR. OKRENT: So you would be hard put to identify 14 an issue where you think it may be difficult to get the 15 information necessary to provide not only yourselves but the 16 NRC the necessary high confidence that you have defined. 17 DR. ALEXANDER: If you look at the site 18 characterization plan carefully and you look at this process 19 that I will be describing in the next few minutes, you will 20 see that when we state high confidence, or we use the high 21 confidence to qualify a parameter, we also specify the 22 testing that would be required in order to achieve that end. 23 And so by specifying the testing, it's our opinion
- ]
f 24 that that testing would be adequate to provide the high i ) 25 confidence that would be needed to tesolve the issue in this l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i 3
181
,e~x 1 arena. So in fact our site characterization plan, with the
)
"~ ' 2 set of tests that are listed, is a statement of what we 3 believe is the necessary and sufficient body of data to 4 achieve those goals with the confidences specified in the 5 SCP.
6 DR. OKRENT: Let me assume for a moment that this 7 is the case and that you are right for the moment, but then 8 questions are raised by whoever, consultants to the State of 9 Nevada with other concepts, or perhaps even people within 10 DOE, or USGS, how do you establish the necessary overall 11 high confidence which I have to assume means that there is 12 high confidence in whatever concept you finally decide is 13 the one that fits, and low, low confidence in anything else? (v; 14 DR. ALEXANDER: I hope -- 15 DR. MOODY: David, there is something -- let me 16 insert this also -- is the fact that you know and I know and 17 everybody in this room knows when you talk about a 18 laboratory test or even an insitu test in the rock itself 19 that may have a time period of the test of one week to one 20 year to twe years, you always come back, in terms of your , t 21 confidence, of taking that very short-term test and I 22 extrapolating out 500, 1,000, 10,000 4 100,0'.10 to a mil 2 ion l 23 years. And that is a fundamental problem in terms of the 24 natural reservoir which is the rock. 25 DR. ALEXANDER: I guess what I would like to d n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1 182 l 1 emphasize right now closing out our first major step in the 4 i 2 ) process of site characterization, which is our planning 3 stage, and it's clear that there are a lot of unknowns 4 before us. And I am an experimentalist myself, or at least j
'l 5 I've done some experiments over the years, and it's clear 4 6 that there are a lot of uncertainties in any setting, in an 7 < experimental setting, a field setting. And so it's really 8 in the mind of the beholder and the peer community as to 9 whether or not you have achieved a sufficient level of 10 confidence to close out sn issue.
11 I mean you go right to the heart of science when 12 you start getting into philosophical questions you are 13 raising, and you ask if there is very much today in the 14 scientific community that you could say is absolutsly 15 defined at a high level of confidence within that peer 16 community, whether it's in the medical sciences, physics, 27 geochemistry, whatever the science might be. 18 And so the real question is do we have sufficient 19 confidence at the end of this process to take the next bold 20 step, which is to license a facility. And then beyond that, 21 with additional data that are taken beyond the submittal of 22 the license application in the period of performance, 23 confirmation, will we gather additional data which will 24 confirm the predictions that are presented in the site 25 characterization -- during the site characterization process ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
183 1 in the safety analysis report itself. 2 And so there is an extended period of time for 3 testing and opportunity to get a handle on the kinds of 4 questions that we are going to have to deal with in the time 5 oriented -- dealing with the time-oriented problem we are 6 dealing with today. 7 Okay? 8 All right, now again I am going to try to describe 9 the performance allocation process which is the central . . 10 portion of this particular issue resolution strategy. It's 11 spelled out in detail in the site characterization plan in 12 Sections 8.1 and 8.2. 8.1 describes the process. 8.2 13 provides the summary of the issues that we treat in the 14 document. 15 The first step is identify the issues. The second ' 4 16 is to go through this process I'll be describing referred to 17 as performance allocation. This ends the planning step. 18 Then we go into the data collection and analytical stage, 19 and then finally into issue resolution itself. 1 20 The performance allocation process that I will be 1 21 describing is comprised of four steps. The first is setting 22 a licensing strategy. The second ir to identify performance 23 measures, which I will be telling you about in a moment. 24 Next, we identify information needs which include parameters 25 and their goals and this indication of confidence we were kh Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l I
184 l l 1 just talking about. And then finally, we develop a test l 2 program. 3 In the licensing strategy, as we will illustrate 4 in the example, we define critical system elements. For 5 example, a state barrier such as a stratigraphic unit or an 6 engineered component such as the waste container might be 7 considered a system element. 8 Then we udentify the important processes which 9 could affect the performance of each of those elements. The 10 processes are defined in terms of the conceptual and 11 alternative conceptual models within which we think they 12 operate. The expected and disruptive scenarios that could 13 affect the system element are identified. And finally, 14 where possible, the sensitivity of those elements or their 15 relative importance to the system are qualitatively defined. 16 In the next step we define performance measures l '1 and goals for each system elements. Performance measure is
'., 8 a variable of the system that can be used to assess the 19 system relative to the issue such as the time it takes water 20 to travel a fixed distance.
21 For each measure we set one or more tentative 22 performance goals. A goal is the value for the measure 23 toward which the effort is directed. It is defined to guide 24 testing. It is not a criteria that must be met. 25 For each goal ye assign a confidence level which ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
185 yp-11 indicates:the..re'_ative'importance of the performance measure 2 in our. testing program. This is.especially.important if the-3 confidence level needed is.much greater than the. current 4 level of confidence, and that gets to part of the concern. 5 that you raised earlier.
~6 ,
In the next-step the needed information needs are
.7 organized-into categories of information to calculate 8 1 measures. .The categories. include, for example, parameters, 9 conceptual models'or codes.
10 Finally, the measures of parameters derived'from 11 the issues are organized into common sets, and the 12 parameters are defined at a sufficient level of detail for 13 field and laboratory measurements. f 14 .I think it's best to -- s 15, DR. STEINDLER: Don,.before you go on. 16 DR. ALEXANDER: Stre. 17- DR.'STEINDLER: I. don't see any feedback loops in l'
-18 that system that you have described.
19 DR. ALEXANDER: Yes. Yes, that's always a part of 20 the discussion whenever we go through it internally as well. l 21' There are numerous feedback loops in the process, 22 and there are so many that it usually just complicates the 23 presentation. But at every step of the process there are 24 considerable feedbacks. 25 DR. MOELLER: Well, there is feedback as well as L 1 1 Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
186 1 one has to be careful at what you do here at headquarters is 2 not simply to set up plans on how every particular aspect of 3 a subject will be addressed. 4 But how do we know that the person doing the work 5 out in the field has any knowledge of all of this planning? 6 DR. ALEXANDER: Well, the process that we went 7 through over the last several years was, I think, maybe one 8 of the most extensive processes of the kind that's ever been 9 implemented for this kind of a project, to my knowledge. 10 We involved all of the major participants, ! 11 including the experimental types who are going to be 12 conducting the investigations. There were on the order of 13 15,000 comments that were submitted by those participants in f 14 the evolution of the document. Each of those participants i 15 became very familiar with this particular process, which by 16 the way back in 1985 was recommended by the NRC staff as a 17 systematic approach that ought to be applied to the program. 18 But there has been extensive involvement by all of 19 the participants in the national labs that are currently 20 funded through the program, and the USGS, by the way. i 21 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 22 DR. ALEXANDER: In this example Issue 1.6 was 23 included in the set of issues, in our issues hierarchy to 24 address the Commission's performance objective on 25 groundwater travel time. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 187 l ,.-is 1 In this case the elements of the site would 1'l )
' (_,/~ 2 include each of the individual stratigraphic units through 3 which' water will travel as shown here. Since groundwater 4 travel time is measured from the edge of the disturbed zone 5 to the accessible environment, we are interested in the f 6 units between the repository location and the accessible j 7 environment.
8 Note that the Calico Hills is the most prevalent 9 unit below the repository. 10 And so we are focusing in this particular 11 licensing strategy for resolving this particular issue on 12 these units below the repository. This is a repository 13 horizon. The repository location is just to the left of the
'\ 14 / Gost Dance Fault as shown here on this schematic.
15 So the major units that we'll be focusing on in 16 the next few minutes will be the Topopah Spring welded unit, 17 which is this portion of it in particular, and the Calico 18 Hills nonwelded vitric and nonwelded zeolitic units, which 19 are these units here and here. 20 And so we set the licensing strategy once we have 21 identified the elements of the system. And the next slide 22 is a short brief description of the licensing strategy for 23 Issue 1.6. We place our highest priority on the Calico l 24 Hills unit in the unsaturated zone. We place a lower 25 priority on other units in the unsaturated zone, and we [ ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
i 188 ) i
! l place our lowest priority on the saturr.:ed zone itself.
2 The next step in this process then is to assign ) 3 performance measures and goals for each of those system 4 elements. The last three units that 1 described would be i 5 illustrative of system elements. l I 6 For eacn key element shown on the left, we assign 7 a measure. In this case groundwater travel time itself, a 8 performance goal to guide testing. In this case we assign a 9 thousand years and we also assign a 10,000 year goal for { 10 each of these three units. And we indicate the level of 11 confidence needed.
]
i 12 Because the Topopah Spring is not heavily relied i 13 on in this particular issue resolution strategy, we indicate 14 that we only need a low level of confidence for that 15 particular issue. i 16 In the Calico Hills units, though, you will note j l 17 that we indicate that we need a high level of confidence in i 18 a thousand year travel time, and we need a lower level of ! 19 confidence for the 10,000 year travel time. I 20 The Topopah Spring unit is not to be relied on as i l 21 much as the Calico Hills unit, and therefore the confidence I 22 we need is low whereas the high confidence in the Calico ! 23 Hills indicates more extensive testing will be required. ! j 24 Once the measures are set we identify categories j l 25 of information needs and parameters for each category. For l l l ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l a-_ - _ - -
- _ _ . _ _ _ ___ -_ -- - - - .. __= --__ _-__ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - - ._
189
~
1 . example,.the categories of'information needed to' calculate-
^ 2. the performance measures and resolve-Issue 1.6 in-thelSCP
- 3 include the five that are shown here.. I am going to expand q 4 on'1.6.4 because.we.need to identify parameters to be 5: measured'or estimated for each unitLfor groundwater travel 6 time.- Let me go'to the next slide.
7 As an example, : use the Richard's equation, and in
'8 order.to identify the appropriate parameters to be measured ~
.9 in order to define the measure of groundwater travel time, 10 we use standard' equation such as. the Richard's equation-11 shown here. In this case, to estimate velocity which is 12 needed in the groundwater travel time calculation, distance 13 over velocity.
14- And we identify then through'this kind of a 15 . process a list of param'eters. Now, of course, we go through 16 all kinds of relationships in order to establish the 17 parameters that must be measured during site 18 = characterization. This is an example of:the process that.we 19 go through at this step. 20 Now for each of those parameters to be measured,
.21 we list the range of values from the literature to make an 22 estimate of what is known today, and then we set a goal to 23 guide testing and the confidence needed through testing.
24 Again you can note that for the Topopah Spring 25 parameters to be measured the needed confidence for each of l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l __l_i.___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
190 i 1 these values is low. For those of the Calico Hills, two " 2 units at Calico Hills is defined by vitric and zeolitic. We j l 3 place a higher level of confidence, and therefore there will J i 4 be much greater intensity during the testing phase on.that 5 unit around these two variance of that unit. 6 Finally then, we define the necessary studies to 7 acquire the needed information, and we develop then the 8 investigations and studies that are listed in the site 9 characterization plan. 10 That summarizes my talk. I would be happy to 11 answer any questions. 12 DR. MOELLER: Additional questions? 13 DR. ORTH: I have one. Getting back to the 14 business of resolution of the issues. 15 DR. ALEXANDER: Right. 16 DR. ORTH: One of your opening slides. 17 DR. ALEXANDER: Correct. 18 DR. ORTH: Issues keep getting identified. People 19 keep raising new ones. You have listed a lot. You are 20 studying a lot. Where do you really think you are in terms 21 of the total number of issues that have to be answered? 22 It could be expressed in various ways like what's 23 the rate of growth of issues. Where are we in terms of the 24 total number of issues that you think you might project to 25 if you look at the rate of growth? You know, give me a feel (202) 628-4888
191'
- . '1 for that sort.of a thing.
2 DR. ALEXANDER: Well,. I.would like.to step back L3 for a second and say that several years ago when wei
'4 presented this concept to Ben Ruschey, who was the program 5- director at that. time,.he raised the same question you 6 raise. It's a valid question.
L
'7 His, point was that he wanted to make sure that the
'8 process' allowed sufficient flexibility that issues raised
- 9 downstream that were' viable and important issues that must 10 be addressed would be addressed and could be addressed 11' during a process.
12 And so we-feel that we're going to leave that
-13 openness within the process to address any new issues that 14 should arise as time goes on. \
15 With respect to where we are in terms of 16 identifying'the issues,.I think that we have the lion's
-,. 17 share of,the issues-currently identified, and I can tell you 18 why.
19 First of all, when the NRC staff put together Part 20 60, they identified every conceivable' earth science-l 21 consideration that they felt needed to be addressed. When ) 22 DOE put together 10 CFR 960, DOE tried to identify likewise 23- the major issues or requirements that must be addressed. 24 If you look at those two documents, it's not 25 amazing really to me as a scientist, but it may be
.l .(- Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
192 1 surprising to some that the two are very similar. In fact, 2 they are almost one for one in terms of requirements listed. 3 And then finally, you consider that we have gone 4 through three years of an evaluation that is derived from 5 those set of issues and have looked at identification of 6 additional subissues, if you will, within those major issue 7 categories. I think that we have literally defined well in 8 excess of 90 percent of the issues that will be raised; at 9 least they are umbrellaed by what's in the SCP right now. 10 When you get down to a level of detail that's at 11 the activity level that the SCP only touches on, that is, 12 the kind of detail that you will see in the study plan, it's 13 a new ball game. But with respect to the licensing issues, 14 I think we have covered the waterfront fairly well. 15 DR. ORTH: I guess one more way to ask to follow 16 on that is, say in the past six months have there been any 17 new issues raised by people, or how many? 18 DR. ALEXANDER: There have been no issues added to 19 the issue hierarchy in the last three years that I am aware 20 of. I don't know of anyone else is aware of them. 21 DR. ORTH: Not the hierarchy. 22 DR. ALEXANDER: Okay. 23 DR. ORTH: I'm interested in the, let's say the 24 number of specific things which you are going to have to 25 modify the site characterization plan to include. (^ Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 { i i
193
,-3 1 DR. ALEXANDER: Again, when you get down to that / \
(_.,/ 2 level of detail, the answer is that there is a lot of 3 fluidity when you get down to the activity level. But when 4 you stay at the basic issue level and the investigation 5 level, there hasn't been any movement in a considerable 6 amount of time. And so that's something that, you know, we 7 would have to look at on a very specific basis to give you 8 some feedback on where we are today. 9 Again, I think we are fairly stable though. 10 Any other questions? 11 DR. MOODY: Well, Don, to further that comment is 12 simply that giver. the level of definition you have in the 13 SCP and we have not seen the site study plans yet. f '\ 14 DR. ALEXANDER: Right.
~'
15 DR. MOODY: We then come back to the issue that I 16 raised previously, that given the time period that is set up 17 I could turn that around and say even if you have defined 18 everything there is also a possibility that how you can 19 possibly get done all of the data collecting and data 20 interpretation that would be needed to write that licensing 21 document. 22 DR. ALEXANDER: I think that everyone on our team 23 would agree that it's a very ambitious undertaking. Some of 24 us think that it's possible that we can meet that schedule, 25 but it is a high risk schedule and nobody will deny that. ('I)'j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i L_ __ ._ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
194 ' 1 In fact, earlier this year we moved the start of i 2 the shaft from, I believe, June to November of this year. 3 And so that's a five-month slip in schedule. And when you 4 consider that in the context of the number of years for 5 which are allocated or set aside for site characterization, 6 that's a sizeable slip. 7 DR. MOODY: Don, have you begun the Title 2 design 8 of the shaft? 9 DR. ALEXANDER: I don't know the answer to that 10 question. I will turn that over. 11 MR. BROCOUM: This is Steve Brocoum. 12 Title 2 design for the shaft has not begun yet. 13 DR. STEINDLER: Don, where do I look to find the 24 answer to the question are the tests that are proposed 15 repository relevant? Do I look in the study plan for that? 16 DR. ALEXANDER: I think so. I mean there is a way 17 to judge it by looking at the site characterization plan, 18 but there is not enough information at an activity level to ( l 19 satisfy a scientist like yourself. 20 And so I think that when you get really interested 21 in a particular subject area and want to explore it to a 22 level that you will find satisfying, you will want to look 23 at the study plans as the NRC staff does. 24 Yes. 25 DR. OKRENT: If I recall correctly, in the site ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
195 1 characterization plan, although_there is a table which gives p(,,-w( l-s _,/ 2 alternate hypotheses and so forth for a large number of 3 events, I don't recall seeing laid out or even planned out 4 that analytical and experimental approach which one would 5 pursue to establish whether the alternate hypotheses had a 6 greater or smaller sense of validity. 7 And did I miss something,'first? 8 DR. ALEXANDER: Let me say that my answer to you 9 will be that the next speaker, Jeff Kimball, is going to 10 spend about 20 to 30 minutes talking about that subject and 11 I think he can really fill you in to a level of detail that 12 I am not prepared to do. 13 But I would hope, I would hope that by going 14 through the process that we talked about here where we have [^~ : V 15 identified the paramete'rs that need to be measured you will 16 find that all of ^he-information needed to sort out which of 17 the alternative conceptual models is operative at this site 18 is about as best as can be done at this point in time. That 19 would be my short answer but -- 20 DR. OKRENT: Let me just give one example from 21 another -- 22 DR. ALEXANDER: Sure. 23 DR. OKRENT: -- milieu of the overall nuclear 24 industry. There currently is an issue in containment 25 performance given that a core melt accident has for some Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
196 1' ( 1 reason occurred, and it's called direct containment heating. 2 If work had continued, let's say, along the ideas 3 that were in existence, published not too many years ago, 4 and there wasn't some group who for one reason or another 5 wanted to see is there a mechanism that people haven't l 6 included in trying to see what phenomena could test the 7 containment, the issue might be still lying dormant. 8 In other words, without someone having the idea 9 and consciously then doing experiments or getting the idea 10 from experiments intended for some other purpose or 11 whatever, this what is currently thought to be a potentially 12 .important factor in evaluating containment performance would 13 even be on the horizon. 14 So you could have had a huge experimental program 15 to evaluate containment performance and if it weren's 16 looking for this phenomena, it just would have missed it. 17 I can't tell at all whether, within the DOE 18 organization, there is a group, or someone -- there was a 19 reference to a black hat group before -- who is trying to 20 see is there something really a road stopper that we haven't 21 thought about and try to see what experiments would provide 22 insight into this, if there are such experiments. 23 DR. ALEXANDER: Well, this is a subject that I l I 24 think many of us in this room have discussed over the years, j 25 and it applies to not only the site but to the waste package (' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ) I J a
197
,f 4
4 1 system, for example. There are mechanisms there.that I am k I familiar with-that I will be talking about this afternoon 3 which people propose may be incipient at some point years on 4 down the line that we will be unaware of because of their 5 great constraint, and we will be unable to' predict therefore 6 .the performance of that metal barrier for long periods of 7 time. 8 Likewise, the geologist working on the site know 9 .that there are features that are likely to be overlooked as 10 we do our site characterization. But I would think, based 11 on my knowledge of geology and tapped the knowledge of other 12 folks in this room who have done geology, that we know 13 pretty much how the top is laid down. We know that we are
,~
( . 14 going to encounter faults. We know what the characteristics Qs. . 15 of the top units are that we are going to see. We know 16 pretty much what their chemical characteristics are. We 17 know what the petrologic makeup is with respect to the 18 mineralogical composition. We know pretty much what the 19 water content is going to be. 20 And so I expect that the majority of those kinds 21 of things will be, or I should say that those things within 22 the site context will be minimal. I don't think we are 23 going to find anything that's unexpected to the geologists 24 that are here in this room during the course of site 25 characterization. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808 l L _ __ _--_-_ ___--_--.----_ -_ '
198 ( 1 We may find a feature that wasn't expected in the 2 location that it's in, but we are not going to find 3 something that's unexpected in the context of the modeling 4 that I think we will be doing during the safety analysis 5 report. 6 But to my knowledge, we do not now have a group 7 that wears black hats that goes around looking for failure 8 mechanisms, but we do have an organizational structure that 9 has a set of working groups that feeds this kind of concern 10 up to an integration group, and then to a program review 11 group to try to identify these kinds of unforeseen 12 characteristics of the site that need to be explored during 13 site characterization. This is part of the process that 14 Steve Brocoum and I and others in the room participate in on 15 a routine basis. So it permeates the whole organization. 16 So if there is any concern that any of our staff 17 have with respect to features unexpected or approaches that 18 need to be taken, there is a definite avenue for raising 19 that and getting it incorporated into the program. 20 21 22 23 24 25 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888
)
l i l
l 1 199 1 l j- l 1 DR. MOELLER: Let's move on then to the next ] (/ 2 'spe aker.. 3 MR. REGNIER: Our next speaker will be Jeffrey
~4 Kimball who is with the Siting'and Geosciences Branch with -!
5 -the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 6 MR. KIMBALL: As Ed said, I'm a geophysicist 1 7 seismologist in the Siting and Geosciences Branch of 8 headquarters. And I am going to spend about 15 or 20 minutes 9 going over to_ DOE's response to NRC's first objection which 10 was on alternative conceptual models. 4 11 I have broken the presentation into four pieces 12 and I'll go through. And the first one is to review the NRC 13 objection including their recommendations. -The second is to 1/ 14. provide you an overview of the changes that we have made to
}.
(_/ . i 15 the SCP in response to their objection specifically going 16- through one example of a detailed hypothesis testing table 17 that we've added to the SCP. And, finally, spending a 18 moment on the topic of program integration where the 19 alternative conceptual models fit in the scheme e,f program 20 integration. It may address some of the questions that have 21 come up in the last couple of days. 22 In terms of the objection, itself, summarizing it, 23 the NRC basically stated that the performance allocation 24 process that was in the CDSCP did not directly address the 25 investigations needed with respect to the full range of
-s !
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
200
^
1 alternative conceptual models and associated boundary 2 conditions. 3 Basically, there, they could not find in our 4 performance allocation discussion and in the tables, that we 5 had explicitly addressed the alternative models. It may not 6 have been left out, but they couldn't see that they weren't 7 left out. 8 Consequently, they felt that the interferences 9 could not be adequately revaluated and, additionally, that. - 10 the site program may favor collecting data to confirm what j 11 one would call a " preferred" model rather than data to 12 determine what the " preferred" model should be or to 13 characterize the range of models that might exist. 14 Next slide: The recommendations from the NRC were - 15 that DOE should systematically identify the full range of 16 the alternative conceptual models suggested by the available 17 preliminary evidence and that our investigation and 18 information needs should take into account the alternative-19 models. That we needed to make sure that the investigations 20 were integrated across all disciplines and, finally, that 21 test sequencing should consider both inferences and high 22 priority tests to resolve key issues. 23 In the early time frame, back in the spring of 24 last year, a specific meeting was held in Las Vegas with the 25 participation of the NRC, DOE, contractors and the State of ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
201
~
<s 1l Nevada specifically to go.over the NRC first objection on-
\ 2 alternative conceptual models, to get the issue out on the 3 table, to discuss ways of addressing the NRC's comments and, 4 specifically,;to discuss some of the technical' 5 considerations that a variety of people had on the models 6 that may have been left out or inadequately discussed:in the 7 SCP.
8 As a result of that meeting, NRC and DOE basically 9 agreed that in Chapter 8 of the SCP, there should be a 10 series of systematic tables, supported by discussions, 11 integrated across.all the disciplines that focus on the' 12 performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 60. And the purpose 13 of these tables.would be to fully describe.the range of 14 alternative models that we believe could exist at the-site. 15 Next: What I would like to do now is to turn to 16 an overview of the changes that w3've made in responding.to 17 the NRC objec' tion and we will come back to the tables that 18 I've mentioned previously' . 19 The SCP text, in' going through it, was-modified in 20 a number of places to incorporate those recommendations. And 21 the point to make here is that to explicitly identify the _ 22 alternative c'onceptual models with appropriate linkage to 23 the performance allocation tables and site investigations. 24 We looked at, when we built the tables, we looked 25 at a way of meshing it and feed it into what had already Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888
202 { 1 been done in the performance allocation process that Don 2 just briefly described and the process that was used 3 basically to identify the types of tests or the types of 4 information needed. 5 The largest change was that hypothesis teeting 6 tables and text were added to a number of placos in Chapter 7 8. And I will briefly mention those in a minute. In 8 addition, we went back to Chapters 1 through 5, the data 9 chapters, to insure ourselves that the available 10 information, the current information was adequately 11 discussed in terms of linking it to what models we think 12 existed to make sure that there was an appropriate 13 discussion there. And we did make some text provisions in 14 those data chapter.s i 15 Next: Additionally, in building the tables and in 16 the many discussions we internally had, we found that there 17 were some of the testing programs that really could use 18 improvement in terms of addressing alternative conceptual 19 models. Listed here are some examples of those. The 20 regional ground water flow study was modified to explicitly 21 address alternatives models. 22 The focus of a number of geohydrology activities 23 was changed, particularly under the regional ground water 1 24 flow study. And we expanded in situ stress measurements to ] 25 allow for the collection of additional measurements in ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l
): 203 1 existing boreholes in the area of the steep water-table 7-
-t
\_, 2 gradient which exists just north of the site. This seemed to 3 be one of the things that a number of people at.the April 4 meeting pointed out that they felt was not adequately 5 discussed and not adequately described in-terms of testing.
6 Additionally, we wrote expanded -- this is just a 7 section, but it is an overview of the site program, and it , 1 8 basically establishes a philosophy of how alternative 9 conceptual models fit in to the whole site characterization 10 program. It basically sets out the tone of why these models 11 are important and how we are going to fold them into the 12 overall strategy to resolve issues. 13 Next is just a list. It didn't include the SCP (# n 14 section numbers, but just a list of the site programs which
\x- - 15 had the hypothesis testing tables added. And as shown here, 16 there is one for geohydrology, geochemistry. One in rock 17 characteristics, and in climate, human interference, one for !
18 thermal and mechanical rock properties, and one each for 19 preclosure and postclosure tectonics. 20 Just to spend a minute.r when the tables were 21 built, they were built as part of the overall management of 22 the Site Characterization Plan with the management group, 23 program review group, integration group and the working 24 groups, and there was a lot of interaction between the 25 working groups who had the job of basically filling the O ( ') Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
204 ! 1 tables out, one example which I'll show you, and the 2 integration group, mainly, for making sure that the working 3 groups interacted with each other as they need be and for 4 making sure that there was consistent attention to each of 5 the tables. 4 1 6 DR. MOELLER: Can you help me for a moment. I ) i 7 have lost the tie between the hypothesis testing tables and ! l' 8 the conceptual models. 9 MR. KIMBALL: The hypothesis testing tables are 10 specifically -- and we will go through the example for the 11 table headings, it is just a table basically that will lay 12 out the alternative conceptual models. 13 DR. MOELLER: For each of these areas? 14 MR. KIMBALL: For each of the areas, yes. 15 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 16 MR. KIMBALL: The one example I will go through 1 17 today will be in postclosure tectonics. j 1 18 Next: This is the column headings for those 19 tables. These column headings were discussed quite a bit at j l 20 the April meeting with the NRC. And they are basically that ) l 21 these are the headings identified that could be the overall l l 22 discriptor of how to convey what alternative conceptual ) 23 models might exist for a given area. 24 And they include the current representation of the ! 25 system, uncertainties in the current representation, the ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f 205. 72 1 alternativesLto the current hypothesis.and the-significance 4 k ' 2' of the current and the alternative hypothesis. And here, 3 .specifically,.when I:go through the example, I'll' point out 4 that we did pay particular' attention here trying to link it L 5 in'to.the performance allocation process. And,. finally, 6 which of the studies or activities in the site j 7 ' characterization were planned to help address or reduce the 8 uncertainties or to address the alternative models. 9 This is --- I'm not going to even look at the ' 10 viewgraph, but is simply put in your package to show you 11' what a table looks like. And what I'll-be doing is going
- 12. through the example in your handout there. There are --'I 13 don't know the exact count, but I think it.is probably
[\. 14 hundreds and hundreds of pages of these in the SCP text'. ('7 15 Next: The example I would like to go through is 16 in postolosure tectonics. And, basically, I _ will just go 17 through each of the columns. We picked this. example because 18 of the fact that our current representation:for. local 19 ' faulting geometry and mechanisms we don't have.a preferred 20 bypothesis at the moment. Based on the available 21 information, it could be any one of a number which I will 22 show you in a further slide. And, basically, matching'that. 23 the current uncertainty is high because there is limited 24 data on the subsurface geometry of the local faults at the 25 site. There is very few, little measures or none,- Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
206 ! 1 basically, of strike- , rement where strike-slip 2 movement is expected. And there is a mismatch between the 3 seismicity of the region which appears to be low to moderate 4 with the presence of a number of quaternary faults which 5 suggests that moderate to large earthquakes are possible. 6 Next: The alternative hypotheses, I won't go 7 through each of them, but for this example, there were five 8 listed. And any one of these could be acting individually 9 or could be some combination of these. But for this case, 10 there are five ranging from classically steeply dipping 11 faults down to detachments or faults that may be concealed 12 beneath detachments. And, as I stated, combinations of 13 those. 14 Next: The fourth column which is the significance 15 of the alternative hypo' thesis, here is where we try to build i 1 16 a linkage to the performance allocation process. The 17 working groups were told, basically, to go back into the 18 allocation tables for the alternatives and the preferred 19 hypothesis and identify which performance measure they would 20 think is directly linked to that set. Then, basically, to 21 pull out from the allocation tables, just to mimic what the 22 confidence needed in that was. And, finally, to make some 23 type of judgment of the sensitivity of t2ose performance 24 measures to the alternative hypothesis. And in a similar i 25 fashion then what was the need to reduce the uncertainty. [ nerwage e rt ug co m raten (202) 628-4888
L 207 1 And, finally, in a similar fashion, they were
-2 requested to go. into t;he site programs. For example, in the
- 3 tectonics programs, and-determine which of the studies that 4 are-being. proposed would will address basically the
. 5 alternatives or the preferred hypothesis. In this case, it l
'6 . ranges from geophysics to seismology to geologic 7 neotectonics trying to characterize the quaternary faults.
8 DR. HINZE: Question? 9 MR. KIMBALL: Yes.. 10 DR. HINZE: Jeff, as we look at different 11 hypotheses and as we look at different models for different 12 disciplines, it is obvious that we have to have different 13 sized models, three dimensional, horizontally, vertically.
-14 And we also have to have a variable grid, node-placement, if
'15 you will. 'How is that brought into the study plan? How are 16 those considerations of detail, and the variable detail,
-17 perhaps, with critical distance from the repository site and 18 how about the size? How are those things taken into account 19 in the SCP?
20 MR. KIMBALL: Depending on the discipline, it 21 really depends on which discipline and which problem you are 22 trying to. address. I'll give you two examples, I guess. 23 Two of the quickest that come to my mind. The first one 24 being preclosure tectonics. Basically, the question there 25 has to do with migratory ground motion. The program, the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I i l i 208 l i i suggested program of going through allocation had to be 2 basically split into what we called a more regional view and 3 a local view and trying to select, I guess, the proportion 4 or the emphasis on those depended on where we thought that i 5 particular case, the migratory ground motion sources would 6 be. In that case, we emphasized more of the local picture I l 7 since there is a number of quaternary faults. 2 l 8 In contrast, postclosure tectonics program, there j j l 9 where the emphasis is more on the linkage between the i I 10 potential events and the geohydrologic conditions at this 11 site, there was I guesc more of a broader view taken and 12 more of the regional picture needed te he emphasized in 13 additional to the local. But it almost had to be done on a 14 case-by-case basis, looking at the issue involved, looking i 15 at what needed to be done. Geohydrology is another example 16 where the boundary condition between the saturated zone and 17 the unsaturated zone or how the regional picture fits in 18 with the local column, basically, at the site requires one , 19 to make a judgment on how much regional versus site 20 specific. So, it really depended on what example, what 21 question was trying to be addressed. 22 DR. HINEE: Well, maybe this question is ahead of 23 the story. But, for example, your second item there: 24 Intermediate depth, reflection and refraction. 25 MR. KIMBALL: Yes. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
209
.,J3 1 DR. HINZE: Obviously,'the seismic data collected .i )
L\s ? '2 by both of those techniques will be useful for a number of 3 discipline models. And those.will require different detail 4 at different elevations and vertical elevations as well as 5 distance from the repository. Presumably, you are not going 6 to conduct a separate seismic reflection and reflection 7 study.for each discipline model. So, how do you integrate 8 these to solve the, to use the methodology that you have 9 prescribed there to detail the models for your different 10 disciplines? 11 MR. KIMBALL: Well, in a general sense, I will 12 discuss program integration in a second. And the way it was 13 done in the allocation process was basically to use the. [ .
-14 structure that was set up in collecting what information is 15 needed across discipline, you know, what information do the 16 geohydrology people naed in terms of. identifying structure, 17 what information do the design people need in terms of 18 ground motion versus tectonics people and trying to insure 19 that the program that would go out, basically, would cover 20 the various aspects that are needed.
21 I think it is fair to say that in looking at the 22 tests and analyses proposed in Chapter 8 of the SCP, they 23 are probably conservative. They are very comprehensive. I 24 don't think there is too many examples right now in terms of j 25 things that could be left out. Ia that case, the reflection ( t Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w_--____ _ _ _ -
210 ( 1 or refraction was specifically put in to try to link what we 2 see locally in terms of the surface geology to some of the 3 regional tectonic ideas that people have regarding the deep 4 crustal or mid-crustal role that faults have, whether, you 5 know, they're related to detachments /not related to 6 detachments, et cetera. 7 DR. HINZF: Let m< follow that up with a question 8 about the ESF-1. Obviously, that is being sit.ed and being 9 designed on a basis of a series of models, different 10 discipline models. There is a lot more information that one 11 could obtain and that's one of the reasons why that shaft la 12 called the scientific chaft as I understand it. 13 The discussion is focusing around a November 1 14 date for startup on that. I am asking what types of -- what 15 is the status, what is the caliber, what is the quality, 16 what is the detail of the data that you have at this point 17 to locate that shaft based upon those models? And what do le you hope to achieve? And I am thinking here in your area in 19 terms of geophysics. What do you hope to achieve before 20 that November 1 date and what kind of provisions are there 21 for cutoff? 22 MR. KIMBALL: Well, let me try and then I'll ask 23 Max to maybe get up and amplify it, if you need to, Max. 24 In terms of the shaft, having the design broken up 25 into stages, Title 1 versus Title 2, and then looking back ( Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l l l
i 211'
.f-t 1 at.the Title 1 in terms of what information, both geologic f 3
ds, 2 and design information was available in the reference 3 information base, I think there is a recognition that in 4 Title 2, that additional information is going to be needed 5 and we are just now starting the process of identifying what 6 additional information is needed, trying to determine the 7 best available source of that information. And then, as 8 part of that process, both the quality of it and whether 9 additional information needs to be gathered as part of the 10 Title 2 design between now.and, surely, November. 11 I think most of the geologic data, the oest 12 available geologic data is pretty good data. The question 13 now is trying to quantify, I guess would be the right word, (R'p 14 how good the records and the quality of that data is. But J 15 in terms of mapping and general properties and things like 16 that, there is a fairly extensive amount of information. 17 DR. HINZE: Well, I guess one of the things that 1 18 triggers this whole. question is the reflection and 19 refraction up there on your 2. And are there plans underway 20 to do BS and BP work over the ESF-1 site? Once that 21 facility is in you are going to be very restricted, as you 22 know, in terms of what you can do and what results you're 23 going to get. If you are going to get those results, you 24 have to get them before 1 goes in.
- 25. MR. KIMBALL: Yes. There are currently, as far as
[) Q Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
212 j J 1, 1 I am aware no plans to do site-specific geophysics prior to 2 sinking the shaft. Now, there are tests done as part of 3 constructing the shaft. And there will be geophysics 4 completed in the facility, but in terms of prior to or as 5 part of input to design, I'm not aware of any. 6 Max, maybe you can -- 7 MR. BLANCHARD: This is Max Blanchard. Perhaps 8 the concern on geophysics could be answered -- the question 9 you asked could be answered by the fact that we have a few 10 hundred feet away borehole that goes from the surface -- 11 DR. MOELLER: What is wrong with that microphone? 12 MR. BLANCHARD: Can you hear me better? 13 DR. MOELLER: No. 14 MR. BLANCHARD: There have been in the past
~
15 seismic profiles ran across the mountain, but because the 16 characteristics of the rock or the way they are in the 17 welded tuffs, they don't differentiate reflecting units very 18 well. And what has been more useful is actual boreholes 19 that have been drilled. There have been a number of 20 geologic and hydrologic boreholes that have been drilled in 21 the past and there is many more destined to be drilled in 22 the future. There's one within a few hundred feet. I think 23 300 feet of the current exploratory shaft location now which 24 gives us excellent control in terms of the rock properties 25 and the hydrologic properties. Perhaps that helps answer ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
213
,M( 1 your question.
- s u A3.,,/ 2 DR. MOODY: Max, tying in to that, is there a 3 cross-correlation between the Nevada test site and the Yucca
-4 Mountain program in the sense that every time they set off a 5 nuclear explosion, I know that they are - you know, the 6 seismic network is set up to trace that. Are you doing 7- cross-correlations seeing there are only 35 miles proposed 8 repository location from some of the underground testing?
9 MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. We have an extensive seismic 10 monitoring network that has been operating for quite some 11 time and it picks up the announced and the unannounced 12 underground nuclear explosions. 13 Interestingly enough, the explosions do not
/~'V. 14 represent much of a ground motion hazard, no where near as s-15 much as that which we would believe ~ould be inherently 16- there from the faults and the seismic hazard analysis that 17 would come up when you try to locate the surface facilities, 18 assuming that we work with the faults in the immediate 19 vicinity of the repository.
20 DR. MOODY: Max, what is the magnitude normally 21 when they set of, say, a 50-ton explosion or comething? 22 What is the normal magnitude that you detect? 23 MR. KIMBALL: I can answer that. The test ban is 24 about a magnitude of 5-and-a-half. It may be plus or minus 25 a few tenths. ye i
! Heritage Reporting Corporation
\'
(202) 628-4888 l i _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - _ _ - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - . - - - m
214 (, 1 DR. MOODY: Pardon me? What is it? I didn't hear 2 it. 3 MR. KIMBALL: The test ban limit is about a 4 magnitude 5 to 6, plus or minus a few tenths, depending on 5 the local site geology.and type of recording instruments. 6 DR. MOODY: Well, Max, do you normally measure 7 that or detect that? 8 MR. BLANCHARD: Oh, yes, well below that. Jeff, 9 as you know, is a seismologist and he has studied that area 10 quite well. I think that he would be better to answer your 11 questions about seismic risks than I. I 12 MR. KIMBALL: The seismic monitoring network, when 13 they set off a Large underground test, it is not very useful 14 actually, but there is an accelerometer net run at various 15 time and it is going to be expanded for this program that 16 specifically will be able to measure, record fairly strong 17 motion. I guess from a relatively close, within 50 to 100 18 kilometers, equivalent of a moderate sized earthquake. The i 19 reismic work is so sensitive that if something that large ] I 20 goes off, basically, the instruments, most of the older j I 21 instruments go off scale. l 22 DR. HINZE: M.x, I guess I have to go back to a 23 concern that as we all know, drill holes are a very small 24 sample. And that is certainly one of the advantages of 25 geophysical techniques. In addition to that, I think there ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i l l I - . _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . 1
i i i 215 l I
.( 1 is a concern of many of disturbing the site and as a result, ) / ') j
_,/ 2 it is -- the work that is going to be initiated this fall is ] 3 a tremendous opportunity to get some ground troop to 4 establish really the utility of some of these techniqpes and 5 perhaps by using various acquisition procedures -- I don't 6 know what those were. I'm a bit concerned when I hear that 7 some of these data were acquired under less than the ideal J 8 quality assurance procedures. And, so, it raises a certain ! 9 question in terms of how well these will perform and whether 10 the sample that you have is an adequate one from the 11 geophysical data that you have. ; 12 MR, KIMBALL: I think to address in part, 13 particularly, when you are comparing different types of fN \ ] 14 sites with different types of data requirements, there is a
'~~'
15 balance that one has to strike, I guess is the right word, 16 in terms of selecting the method that will require the most 17 data. At Zucca Mountain, particularly on the mountain, 18 there is a Bonite rock outcrop. There has been some 19 extensive mapping of the area, some detailed mapping of the 20 area. There is drill holes, as Max was saying. There has 21 been many downhole types of logs done in those drill holes. 22 And I guess the real question comes do to: Is the balance 23 versus the ability to go out and get the additional 24 information, the tools that Max points to in terms of, for 25 example, the reflection profile or a good example of it. (m
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
216 ( 1 Right now, the approach that we're taking is going to be to 2 go out and do some feasibility studies in areas that we 3 think have the bet chance of acquiring good data. Because 4 the past surveys have shown almost across the board that 5 unless you select the site carefully, and the test 6 parameters carefully, you basically get junk. 7 And, you know, we are now trying to go step by i 8 step in terms of identifying the usefulness of different j 9 methods, benefit from them and then expand those as we, you 10 know, as needed, to other areas. % 11 DR. HINZE: What is the vintage of those data? 12 MR. KIMBALL: Old. Some shot in the early j 13 Eighties. 14 DR. HINZE: Even that is old. 15 MR. KIMBALL: Yes. I 16 DR. HINZE: Very old, now. 17 DR. MOELLER: Dr. Okrent? 18 DR. OKRENT: I wonder if you can help me 19 understand the treatment of conceptual models in your 20 developing of experimental programs. And, particularly, 21 with regard to the Samansky Conceptual Model. Where is that 22 brought in? Could you tell me, by the way, what pages I 23 would look at to find that particular item and could you 24 sort of run through how you have modified a previous 25 experimental program, if at all, for that? ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l c. 217 , ,e-4 .1 MR. .KIMBALL: .Okay, I can address some'of those.
\
2' 'Some'others, I will have to either turn to Max or 3 Dr. Younker to answer, because I don't know all 3,000 pages 4 that are in Chapter 8, yet. 5 I think to specifically address the concerns that 6 Dr. Samansky~had, there are things that can be pointed to in 7 both the hydrologic program and thettectonics program to try 8 _to basically understand if-the linkage that he hypothesizes 9 is credible or not. There are specific examples in the 10 hypothesis testing tables. 11 Also, we went back in issue 1.1 which is the total 12' system issue and added a couple of scenarios to'the 13 potential disruptive scenarios that we had listed in there. g 14 And there is a table in one section that does that: 15 specifically identifies scenarios that he put in his draft 16 . paper. 17 I think'when we go -- it's a general addressie.g of 18 the question instead of specific, but when we get into the 19 last couple of viewgraphs about program integration, we have 20 put in, in terms of network building and in terms of 21 linkages between the programs, explicit ties between things
- 22. like geohydrology and tectonics. And those ties are meant
-23 that the modeler, the hydrologic modeler who is trying to 24 develop some code to assess what the -- how the site 25 behaves, takes into consideration what is found out in the p~s
'\, , Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
218 l 1 field in terms of tectonic data and other types of data. 2 Jean or Max, I don't know if you could 3 specifically have sections in the SCP, I know there were 4 things in the testing tables and in, as I said, to the total 5 system scenarios. 6 DR. YOUNKER: This is Jean Younker. I think the 7 best way to proceed on that would be just to offer to give 8 you some page number citations out of the text. I don't 9 have them handy right now, but we can get you that. 10 DR. OKRENT: All right, thank you. And do you 11 think that with these page reference numbers I would be able 12 to see how your looking to this specifically? Or it will 13 have to wait for the study plans to see that? 14 DR. YOUNKER: I am reasonably convinced in those 15 cases that Jeff just mehtioned that you would see the 16 additions of those kinds of concerns, the coupling between 17 the tectonics of the site and the hydrology, for example, in 18 the tables. In terms of an overall integrated approach, I 19 think there are several places we can tell you to look where 20 we kind of present the overall thinking about how we pull it 21 together. For specifics of the activities, sure, then it 22 would be in the study plans. 23 DR. MOELLER: Go ahead, then, to wrap it up on 24 this. 25 MR. KIMBALL: Thanks. I just wanted to spend one i~ Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 i
._-_______A
219 h gm 1 minute'-- the next slide -- going over the program
~
2 integration. Part of the NRC comment recommendation had to-
- 3. do with program integration. And I just briefly wanted to 4 mention parts in the SCP text that emphasize the attention 5 we paid, at least, to program integration. It includes 6 things like the hypothesis testing tables and the link to 7 the allocation tables and two others which I will briefly 8 mention is flow diagrams that we have put in, both the CD 9 and then we looked at for the final SCP, is to link the 10 program's investigation studies and activities. And I would 11 like to show one example of that. And, also, an extensive 12 effort was put on developing schedule networks for all the 13 site programs and the performance and design programs.
14 The schedule networks are very important because 15 they show at least our current thinking in terms of what 16 test sequencing is needed. And they also show the linkages 17 between, for example, the site programs and the performance 18 assessment modeling or design programs. It is there that we 19 paid some attention to trying to look at the comments that 20 people had made and looking at what in our own mind are the 21 important issues to assure ourselves that tests that should 22 be started relatively early are started early, both for 23 reasons of importance of the date collection and for reasons 24 such as the test takes a long time to complete or the test 25 is required to have drilling completed, first. So, those are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l 220 l t 1 the types of considerations that went into the building of 2 the schedule networks. 3 Jut to show one example, it matches the example 4 from the hypothesis testing table. In this case, the 5 overall postclosure tectonics program has an investigation l 6 which is the tectonics effects on hydrology. Specifically, 7 .in this example, I guess the one on the table was changes to 8 water table elevations. And just to point out that on the 9 data collection side, there is a number of programs, 10 cross-discipline, ranging from the site saturated zone to 11 preclosure and postclosure tectonic data collection that 12 show that there is a linkage -- sometimes complicated 13 linkage and flow of data that will need to go from the 14 various investigators to the various modelers, back and 15 forth. 16 Finally, to summarize our response to the NRC's 17 objection in terms of addressing the alternative conceptual 18 models. We have explicitly addressed the objection in 19 completing the SCP. A number of places, we have text 20 revisions, including revisions to some of the studies. We 21 have developed the hypothesis testing tables which are a 22 systematic way of defining and determining what alternative 23 models exist based on the current data. 24 We believe that the site program is flexible and 25 that key activities will occur as early as possible. We ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
221 g -4 1. also believe.that the activities are integrated across is_/ 2 multiple disciplines and make the point that the preliminary 3 data'will be used to guide the program and to assure i 4 continued hypothesis testing. And something that Don 1 5 brought out before: It's an iterative process and may 6 redefine some of the testing as time goes on. And we 7 believe that-the approach that we have got in the SCP builds 8 confidence in the data and the conclusions. 9 DR. MOELLER: Do we have additional questions? 10 Dr. Orth? 11 DR. ORTH: I am not sure exactly how to ask it, 12 but given all of these conceptual models and given all of 13 the different' tests that you are going to do to resolve 14 those, do you see or can you give me a. feel for the 15 potential for an alternative model, a specific alternative j 16 model to change any conclusion in terms of whether the site 17 is really acceptable or not? 18 MR. KIMBALL: There are surely some of the models 19 in the geohydrology programs, some of the alternatives in 20 the geohydrology program, if they are operative pervasively 21 across the site could significantly impact the performance 22 of the site. 23 For example, if the current understanding of the 24 flux distribution at the site is underestimated to the 25 extent that the operative process is not matrix dominated Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j i i
,_ _ A
222 i, 1 flow or some combination of matrix and fracture dominated 2 flow and is pervasively across the site fractured dominated 3 flow, that is an example of something that could 4 significantly impact the site performance. 5 Right now, I would say the current evidence 6 strongly suggests, though, that that alternative is not, at 7 least in pervasive across the site, is not likely. 8 DR. MOELLER: Do we have additional questions? 9 (No response.) 10 DR. MOELLER: Well, thank you, then. I believe 11 that wraps up the review of Objection No. 1. I think 12 perhaps this is a good place for us to take a break and 13 let's try to take about 10 minutes. 14 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
223 h e-( 1 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will resume. ll \ (m,/ 2 I understand we have a change in the schedule. Ed l
- 3 Regnier will be introducing that.
4 Ed. 5 MR. REGNIER: We would like to rearrange slightly 6 the order of presentation and discuss the quality assurance 7 naxt. The presentation will be made by Lake Barrett, who is 8 the Director, Office of Quality Assurance in the Office of 9 Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at DOE. 10 Lake. 11 Let me repeat that with a live mike. I said we 12 would like to rearrange the order of our presentations 13 somewhat and have our next presentation be on the topic of-
. 14 the NRC's objection on quality assurance. The presenter 15 will be Lake Barrett, who is the director of the Office of 16 Quality Assurance in the Office of Civilian Radioactive 17 ' Waste Management.
18 Lake. 19 (Slide presentation.) 20 MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Ed. 21 Good morning. I appreciate allowing the change in 22 the agenda. It will help me out with other schedule 23 commitments I had. 24 As Ed said, my name is Lake Barrett. I am the 25 director of the Office of Quality Assurance in the Civilian Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 l
224 f ( 1 Radioactive Waste Program. I have been the director since, l 2 let's see, early July of this year which is part of the 3 reorganization that we started in the office back in the 4 springtime of last year. We realigned to a more functional 5 alignment, and one of the objectives of that was to 6 strengthen the department's quality assurance activities 7 where the Office of Quality Assurance was revised to report 8 directly to the director of the office, and we augmented the 9 staff of the office. I was reassigned to be quality 10 assurance director, and we have a staff now of eight people, 11 primarily detailees that we brought in from the line. 12 As I start to go through a bit on our program on 13 quality-assurance, one of the ideas I would like to leave
. 14 with you is that changing from a good, let's say technical 15 organization that can g'et things done, to one that is a 16 licensable, have a pedigree and a documentation that will 17 sustain in licensing is another matter altogether. You can 18 do very good quality work, okay, but not necessarily have 19 the pedigree and the documentation that will sustain the ;
i ( 20 licensing. j 1 21 So as I go through it, it is a culture change that 22 we are going through. It is difficult. It is hard for 23 people to change, and change is really required to go from 24 what historically might be a good quality program, it can be 25 fine for building steel plants, it could be fine even for ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
225
,3 1 maybe weapons, okay,.but not necessarily is it fine'when you
- \
km ,/ 2 go into the rigors of a licensing process; also one that 3 would involve potential litigation afterwards. 4 So it more than just doing good quality work. 5 It's doing good quality work and be able to prove it, 6 practically prove it in a licensing type process. 7 So it's a change that we are going through, and 8 what I would like to try to do is explain to you how this 9 ties in with the SCP, which is the' main topic of this 10 meeting, and give you a little background about where_we are 11 today and where we are going and some of the issues that we 12 are encountering as we travel down this pathway. 13 This is NRC Objection 5. I think you have [ h. 14 probably all read that, and it's where the NRC told us \~ / 15 something that we knew at the time; that we had a ways to go 16 to work in the quality assurance area to basically improve 17 in the documentation what would be necessary for licensing. 18 Okay, we have responded to that in many ways. 19 Probably the main thing is the strengthening of the 20 organization and the commitments that we have made which I 21 will go into in considerable detail. We have documented 22 that in various places, but as it relates to the SCP, 23 Section 8.6 of the SCP was substantially reviewed. Probably 24 the key item in that was our commitment to NUREG-1318, which 25 the NRC staff had written to provide guidance as to I ' Q Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1
226 ( 1 definitions of what is important to waste isolation, 2 activities important to waste isolation, and the application 3 basically of quality assurance to the high level waste 4 management program. 5 We have prepared and revised quality assurance 6 plans for the entire program, and I will go into that in 7 some detail in this, and that we have submitted those to the 8 NRC for their review. And the NRC is actively reviewing 9 some of these plans and have actually given us safety 10 evaluations and accepted at least one of those plans so far. 11 DR. MOELLER: One of the items that came up 12 yesterday in our discussion, and I presume you will be 13 covering it, was the fact that you are reviewing your plans 14 from the bottom up rather than the top down. 15 MR. BARRETT: I believe we are doing top down as 16 well as bottom up. I'm not quite sure -- bottoms up and top 17 down is a very generic term. It means different things to 18 different folks. 19 Could you explain what you -- 1 20 DR. MOELLER: The schedule that we were given ) 1 21 showed that the last quality assurance programs to be 22 reviewed would be those in headquarters. ] 23 MR. BARRETT: Okay. That's in the -- in the i 24 qualification audits scheme, which is one of the last 25 slides, does show the headquarters is last on the audit ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I 1 _________-___a
i 227 I
-Am 1 -trail. It does not mean that's the last program put in 1
( ) . .
\~ / 2 place. What that really means is that headquarters, we have j i
3 a lot of work yet to do and really started sort of behind l l 4 .many of the other participants. 1 5 So we have done a lot in headquarters, and I will 6 go into where the headquarters plans are. , 7 DR. MOELLER: Okay. 8 MR. BARRETT: We really did move those up, and 9- just because that's the last one doesn't mean it's the least j 10 important and we're waiting until last to do that. It's 11 being done first, but in the implementation, which I will go 12 into that. . 13 DR. MOELLER: All right. n M 14 MR. BARRETT: The different phases of a developing ( 15 program, we have a lot of work to do in that area, and 16 that's why the headquarters is where it is, and I'll get 17 into that. 18 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 19 MR. BARRETT: Okay. First of all, the thing we 20 had to start off with culturally is what is quality 21 assurance. It means different things to different folks. 22 Some people think it's business as usual with 10,000 tons of 23 paper to go along with it. Other thinks it's just intrusion 24 by a bunch of people who don't know what they are doing 25 coming in and trying to second guess them. You get all () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f L____________________ _ l
228 ( 1 kinds of perception of what quality assurance is. 2 What I have here on this viewgraph are the two 3 classical NQA-1 definition. The top sentence is what is 4 HQA-1 which is in reactors, the classical reactor 5 definition. The second passage there is that same passage , 6 revised and adjusted to the high level waste management 1 7 program. ) 8 Now what we have basically done is built upon the 9 quality assurance programs that were in place at reactors. 10 But we have to adjust that to the high level waste business. j { 11 You cannot just automatically take a program that is 12 primarily geared to hardware and components and 1 13 automatically turn that into the scientific disciplines that 14 we have to do in the waste management program. 15 In the waste management program, we have hardware 16 and components and safety grade this and that. We have 17 those things, but in addition we have probably in the j I 18 greatest part of the program, at least in this part, the 19 site characterization part, is the scientific discipline and i 20 the scientific investigations. I l 21 So we have to adjust the classical quality 22 assurance programs and concepts to our program which is 23 basically high tech science with a lot of research and 24 development into that. So it's an adjustment to that. 25 And the second passage is the definition that is i k' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i l
229' f-~s l' in -- actually it's in the NRC documents that we have 1,
- l\_s/ .2 discussed with them-many times -- is the variation on that 3 where we'eeave into that the analyses and actions to talk 4 about data and the business that we're in in the high level 5 waste program.
6 Now'the implementation of these words is really 7 what the program is'all about. Now as I talk to a lot-of 8 people in our program, especially those who are not that 9 familiar with quality assurance, that is to say, the 10 scientific and research aspects, is why have a quality-11 assurance program. I do good quality work. I have always 12 done good quality _ work. Good laboratory practices really 13 are good quality assurance practices, and why do I need 14 quality assurance. 15 So I have to go through a lot with a lot of folks, 16 and I probably don't have to with this group here, as to why 17 we must do it. And the most important part, from.the 18 regulatory aspect, is the second one up from the bottom. If 19 we don't -- if we can't prove it and be successful in
- 20. licensing, all that good scientific work is, and it may be 21 top drawer, is not going to sustain the program and get 22 ahead. And we have got to get a license to get ahead.
23 There are lots of examples of the world of good 24 technologies that just didn't make it because other things 25 weren't done and one of the things we have to do is be able j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
230 i ( l to be successfully licensed. And I think that is my main 2 thrust of what the NRC was telling us in the objection. 3 And what I always try to do is to -- 4 DR. STEINDLER: I'm sorry. That last sentence 5 caught my attention. 6 MR. BARRETT: All right. 7 DR. STEINDLER: What do you think was the main 8 thing that NRC was telling you in that objection? I guess 9 I didn't hear it. I didn't hear what you said. i 10 MR. BARRETT: Okay. We did not have, okay, a 11 quality assurance program in place that was going to be -- 12 that would provide the licensing record, okay, that would be l 13 necessary to be sustained in the licensing process.
~
14 Okay, that we would take Zimmer Power Plant as an 15 example. Maybe the reb'ar was all there in the base mat, but 16 you couldn't prove it. And if you couldn't prove it, you 17 weren't going to be able to prove reasonable assurance to 18 get a license. And we may have good science and technology i 19 on any geology or hydrologi issue you would like to name, 20 but if you couldn't basically prove it and have the evidence 21 to sustain a licensing, it really would not be useful -- it 22 would not be useful. 23 DR. STEINDLER: Am I incorrect then in reading 24 that objection as also including the question of what you 25 are going to do to collect data that you have already I ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 G]i-I i o
231 7s. I' collected, recollect data or qualify data that has already
%, 2 been collected, but not under adequate conditions. That's
- 3. what I thought the last end of the objection' sentence meant.
4 MR. BARRETT: What you end up with -- we can go 5 back to that if you could, Gene. I think it was the first' 6 one.
- 7. As I see that, you have. data. We have data now 8 We had data that existed before the advent of the Nuclear 9 Waste Policy lAct. Okay, and that clearly was not under
'10 a -- collected under a quality assurance program for the 11 . documentation for licensing.
12 There are mechanism in place, I think it's 13 NUREG-1298, about qualification of data. We can backfit
,s t 14 data. You can take old data. You can review it, you can
}
V 15 peer review it and use it. 16 DR. STEINDLER: I'm aware of what the technical 17 posit.ons are. I am trying to determine whether or not your 18 focus on the penultimate bullet of that slide you showed us 19 which justifies the QA program, at least in part -- 20 MR. BARRETT: The very last -- 21 DR. STEINDLER: -- the most important issue -- no, 22 the one before the last one. ; 23 MR. BARRETT: Mandatory for a license? 24 DR. STEINDLER: Yes. I thought what you said was 25 that that was really the focus of the QA program. n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
232 ( 1 MR. BARRETT: I believe that's the main focus of 2 the objection that the NRC asked for, and it's alse 3 mandatory in the program. So it is a main focus in the 4 program, that we have got to have - you know, we can have a 5 good quality assurance program, let's say for a moment, and 6 all the data is good, and the program is technically 7 excellent, but if it doesn't meet the standards that the NRC 8 says it should, we are not going to be successful in 9 licensing. So it's got to do that as well. 10 DR. STEINDLER: I understand. 11 MR. BARRETT: Now, the first step -- I want to go 12 through generically what I believe the development steps are 13 of a quality assurance program. And the very first one, and 14 I'm going to show this graphically in a moment, is that you 15 have got to have a real commitment from the top all the way 16 on down that we' re really going to have a quality assurance 17 program. 18 If you are not careful, you can have the 19 perception of one, you can have all the quality assurance 20 books sitting on the shelf and they can all be very good. 21 But if you don't really mean it down in your heart and 22 practice it in your day-to-day work, no matter who you are, 23 from a scientist somewhere to an engineer to a manager, you 24 are not going to be successful. So you got to really have 25 that commitment from the top down. k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __ .-. b
I i 233 I l.;-4 i ; 1 And I believe that we have made that, and we have i
'N / 2 made that very clear with the NRC back in the summertime, in 1
)
3 the spring, that we would not start new site 1 4 characterization activities until we had a fully qualified 5 quality assurance program in place to support those new site 6 characterization activities.
- 7. DR. STEINDLER: Your headquarters program at the 8 moment is in place?
9 MR. BARRETT: We have a headquarters program that i 10 is in the development stage. 11 DR. STEINDLER: So it's not done.
]
1 12 MR. BARRETT: Pardon? 13 DR. STEINDLER: It's not done?
/m 14 MR. BARRETT: It's not done. It's not fully i
-.. l 15 implemented, no, sir. ]
16 DR. STEINDLER: I see. 17 MR. BARRETT: We will go into that in considerable 18 detail. I mean if I could snap my fingers and make it 1 19 happen immediately, I would. Okay, but we will get into i 20 what it takes to put a fully qualified program in there that 21 meets NRC standards. 22 Okay, now graphically I would like to go through 23 sort of the stages of evolution as I see it, a quality 24 assurance program, and then talk about where we are 25 throughout our program in these various stages. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , l l
234 ( 1 This is basically a triangle that progresses this 2 way, okay, and the first thing you are going to start out 3 with is a commitment. Now the commitment extends all the 4 way down through the development of the program, because you 5 are constantly going to be challenged by, well, I think this 6 is almost good enough to go forward at this point. 7 There is a lot of schedule pressures in this 8 program, and all programs are schedule driven. This one 9 too. Okay, but you have whole points and you have to show I 10 that commitment almost every day in decisions that you make. { i 11 This line that goes all the way across here is j 12 documentation. You basically have to document pretty much ) l 13 all you do. Now documentation is a distasteful thing. I 14 hate to have to sit and write up a decision or whatever you ! 15 want to do. If you are a scientist, you probably hate to 16 have to write that up too, and whatever you are doing in 17 that area. 18 But it's really mandatory because we are 19 transient. We really are. And so are you. So is 20 everybody. I mean everybody works in the program, you know, 21 maybe five years, maybe 10 years, maybe even 20, but this is 22 a long-term program. And I will speak for myself, you know, 23 a year and a 1.alf ago, well, gee, why did we do that a year 24 and a half ago. Let's look back through the records, and 25 you find it so you can substantiate what you are doing. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 235 . ,4 1 Also, good documentation will lessen the-burden of i ) C/ -2 surveillance, and we will get into that in a moment, as far 3- as, well, how. intrusive is quality assurance to the line 4' people. In terms of talking, there are quality assurance 5 people and then there are line people. Line people are the 6 people who get the job done. Quality assurance people, 7 their job is to put the quality assurance program into 8 place, you know, educate the line people to what it's about, 9 help them develop it, and then do verification activities; 10 audits and surveillance that is truly being done. 11 The documentation is key and it runs through the 12 whole program. 13 After a commitment, you need to have QA plans, and
/
()q . 14 15 I will get into more detail on that in a moment, and we have a hierarchy'of plans to go through the entire program. 16 Once you have that, you have to start doing 17 training. And training is another thing that runs 18 constantly down through the program. You are constantly 19 training to understand what it is you are doing. You can 20 write a passage of words and you will think those words are 21 crystal clear and everybody understand it, and then you have 22 another rational person read it, and come up with a 23 different interpretation. It happens every time 24 practically. 25 DR. CARTER: Lake, could I ask you a question, a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
236 ( 1 little bit different version of training, but obviously 2 quality assurance is big business these days, and you've got 3 people and yourself that are in it full time. 4 What sort of people do you intend to hire? What 5 sort of training do they themselves have in quality 6 assurance and so forth? What kind of academic training,' for 7 example, or requirements are you looking for? 8 MR. BARRETT: Okay. What I have found works best, 9 you know, and there is always - you always like to be 10 better -- is that it takes a mix of line people and quality 11 assurance to make an effective quality assurance 12 organization. I have seen quality assurance organizations 13 that didn't work well that were primarily made uo of quality
. 14 assurance experts, okay, and I'm not a quality assurance 15 expert. I'm really a l'ine person, not a quality assurance 16 person.
17 And I find that the quality assurance people talk 18 in sort of tongues in a way. They have their own jargon. 19 It's very much a restricted group in a way like many 20 professional hydrologists or engineers become sort of in 21 their set, is that you have a problem communicating. 22 Classic pure quality assurance person has a heck of a time 23 communicating to a line person. Engineers have a little bit 24 better, I think, because they have dealt with it more. In 25 the scientific community, it's very, very hard. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u_.__-._
ltl , 237-
'1 (I;have.seen so many meetings:where a. quality
' :2 assurance person sits here and the.line expert' sits there, 3 and one talks what I. call Greek and the other talks Latin.
4 Zero communication.
- 5. And so I have found that it takes a mixture. And 6 what we~have done in our staff is we have detailed line 7 people in. I've-got.a mixture of nuclear engineers, 8 hydrologists, seismologist, and I have taken line people, 1 9 okay, and mixed them in with QA people and said, you have 10 got to teach each other. You know, the QA people have to 11 understand the business that they are doing quality; 12 assurance on. If it's hydrology, they have got to 13 understand the basics of hydrology.
/ 14 If you take a. quality assurance person who has
(, , 15 -done concrete and engineering aspects, and say now go do 16 quality assurance for a scientific investigation, it's a
- 17. formula for trouble. So we've tried to mix then up. And 18 I've found it works best is you don't -- you dont have, the 19 people don't exist that I'm aware of that are quality
- 20 assurance experts in a lot of the areas. that we are dealing L
21 with in waste management, because quality assurance is 1
-22 fairly new to high level waste management.
23 So we sort of mix things in and sort of self-24 educate. So it's a mixture of the two is necessary. And 25 any place I lean toward, I lean toward a line type history. Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 238
. 1 It's easier, I found, to teach a line person QA than to 2 teach a QA person hydrology or geology or engineering.
3 Training, as I say, goes all ,he time. Once you 4 have your QA plan, okay, and in QA basically is -- and good 5 management kind of go hand in hand. You hardly can tell the 6 difference. What you end up with once you have your QA 7 plan, you need to understand, well, what is the line task. 8 It's an SCP, it's a scientific investigation, it's an 9 experiment to determine groundwater travel time, or whatever 10 you have to do. You have to clearly understand that 11 methodology, how will you determine if this activity is 12 important to waste isolation or not, the implementation of 13 NUREG-1318. That's been a real challenge for us as to how 14 you imp N 4nt these things, and what is important to waste 15 isolation. What is -- important to safety is fairly easy 16 for your program, but activities important to waste 17 isolation is a definite chal.lenge to us in defining that. 18 But you have to clearly understand the task at 19 hand. Again, training comes in, you have to understand 20 that. You have to write procedures, you know, for control ) 21 and discipline in documentation. The minute you write, you 22 have got to have procedures, you know, what's my reaction 23 and many others, oh, gosh, we're goin; to be proceduralized 24 to death, and a two-day job becomes 3 ?,-day job because 25 I've got to go through all of this paper work, okay. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- 3 239 l 1
. ,-~!c 2 But really it's necessary_and we are trying very I )
' \_,/ 2 carefully not to become just a bureaucracy of more and more ,
3 paper. Procedures can be written and controlling documents 4 l 4 -can be written in a complementary sense to science. The j I 5 classic thing in science is, well,.I don't know until I get 9 6 underground. And when I get underground.and I see the ; 7 formation and then I will write what I'm going to do. I 8 can't predict what I'm going to see down there. You know, 9 and that's true, you can't. But you can write your 10 instructions and you can write your control to accommodate 11 that situation,- 12 It's a little different than the classic 13 engineering sense where you are going to put something in
/ 14 and measure stresses and strains, or you are going to do an i 'k"
'~
15 x-ray of a radiograph or radiography. You know, it's quite 16 different, but nonetheless you can write procedures, and you 17 can put in controls that complement the good science. 18 In our program these are basically called quality 19 asuurance procedures. So that is QAPP, you know, qualit/ 20 assurance administrative procedures, and implementing line 21 procedures, the way these get implemented. 22 Again you must train to these. 23 Now the size of these boxes are indicative of the 24 amount of work that it takes to do these various steps, and 25 the biggest box of all, and I would have made it bigger if I 0)' ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
240 ' 1 could have and still have been able to read it, is the 2 implementation of the program. 3 Once you have your plans and you understand your 4 plans, you understand your work, and you understand what it 5 is you are doing, and you have your procedures and all 6 written, okay, you've got to live by it. That's the case 7 where many utilities have fallen down in the nuclear power 8 side. 9 Okay, you may have this, but if stays on the 10 shelf, if the pages aren't all dog-eared and yellow on the 11 side, you've probably got problems, okay. Because the 12 implementation of the program is tho hardest part, and this 13 is where this commitment line really comes into play. I am 14 really going to do it. And this is a large chunk of work 15 and it takes times, because a lot of it is you have got to 16 change cultures. 17 And someone asked about -- you know, in the 18 Forrestal Building, you know, one of the harder places I 19 found to bring a quality assurance program into place is 20 basically in the Forrestal Building type atmosphere. And we 21 were running around, we tried to shield from the Hill and 22 those activities, you handle the budget, and we try to give 23 programmatic direction on down to the people who work in the 24 program, and that's hard to do. It's hard to separate out, 25 well, is testimony on the Hill, is that -- does that meet ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
241 )
~s 1 quality assurance records, yes and no. It's got to be I l 1
(_) 2 quality. You nad better do it right, but is it classical, l 3 you know, activity important to waste isolation. No, but 4 they all tie together, and you can't very well draw lines 5 down and say, well, in the morning I'm doing this important, 6 you know, quality assurance thing. In the afternoon, well, 7 I'm not. It's very hard to do this. It's a cultural thing. 8 It's like putting quality assurance into NRC staff work. 9 Not easy task either. ) 10 So it's difficult to go out in the laboratory and 11 do it and tell scientists in the laboratory -- easiest for 12 engineering doing design, but it's even harder when you get 13 into some of the headquarters operations we have to do. (' ( /
} 14 So it's this step and this step really which '~'
15 somewhat sends the message of exactly what do you do and how 16 does it relate to -- important to waste isolation. Takes 17 time to do, and that it's the implementation part down here 18 that is taking us a little longer to do in Forrestal than I 19 would like to do, but that's a fact of life. 20 I wished I could have had it yesterday. I wish I 21 could tell you it's next week, okay, but it's really taken 22 month and months. In my opinion, it is extremely rapid pace 23 to bring something like this up on line, because we're 24 talking cultural changes really. 25 So anyway, once you have a program implemented,
<x i
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .s
242 i 1 you then have to -- the quality assurance people really have 2 the easy job. It's just verification activities. You go 3 and look. You know, are you doing what you said you would 4 do. The line people write the procedures, because they are 5 the ones that know what they are doing best of all. Quality 6 assurance people only write small fraction of procedures, 7 the quality assurance requirements. But how you do your 8 business, I'm going to do it this way or that way, that's 9 the line people who should do that. 10 And it's important for the line people to 11 understand, the implementation of the quality assurance is 12 by the line, and I won't give you all the general preaching, 13 but I mean that's a fact. Quality assurance is not done by 14 the quality assurance people. Quality assurance is done by 15 the line people doing the work. 16 So the verification activity actually is fairly 17 easy to do and that's done by the quality assurance people 18 and by the line people. There are some things we have made 19 some advances in this, and the NRC agreed with that. In the 20 headquarters' quality assurance requirements plan and 21 description, the responsibility for verification is laid on 22 the line, okay, the line people. And the QA people can 23 check the line people that are doing it, because who best 24 can judge I did it right than the hydrologist experts 25 looking at hydrology; not some QA people who may have a ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ b
1 V r
?
4c 243' l l1 little bit-of hydrology knowledge, for' example. b 2 So,anyway, verifications is the-last step, and the. s_/ p 3 wholeithing has'to be documented, because the.whole thing is ) 4 going to be11 aid in the-' licensing process. ' And one of the bullets on I had'why have the program, is once we go through' 6 theflicensing processing, and let's assume that we have
~7' demonstrated successfully that the repository meets'all the 8 requirements. Then let's'say the NRC grants the 9 ' construction authorization. -I would submit that this would-10 probably go into.the. court system, and I can almost'tell you-11 ~ right up front one of the reasons it's going to be written 12 'in the documents on1why they.should not go forward.is'that 13 the quality assurance program that this was done under was 1- '14 faulty for the following reasons, okay. And it's going to 15 go to a judge, okay, who probably doesn't have'a technical t 16. background. He is going to have'to rule.on this. .Okay, and 17 you have got to have a very. clear case for our lawyers to I
18 .take in to say that there was a program and let me'tell you 19 how that works. Okay, you know,'and that's going to be 20 necessary to have documents,-because.that may be 20 years 21~ from now. Well, not 20 years from now; it will be 10 years 22 from now, okay, where we will be going through that. 23 So the records have just got to exist. Okay, so 24 it's more than just doing good science and maybe having a 25 good QA program, you know, an essential part of that is the k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f' I { ! 244 I { 1 records. 2 Now when you add this all up, planning, 3 achievement, verification and documentation. to me that l 4 equals an effective operating quality assurance program, and 5 it's a big, big job. And you know, we are going through 6 -birthing paina, let me say, giving birth to this program. 7 We have come a long, long way in the last couple of years,. 8 but we still have a ways to go, and we're getting there. 9 DR. CARTER: What sort of allocation or resources 10 go into your quality assurance program? 11 MR. BARRETT: Well, when you're talking -- it's 12 hard to say, and I don't really know, because the bulk of 13 the quality assurance work is done by the line people, not 14 by the quality assurance group. I can give you numbers for 15 quality assurance people. We have got eight in headquarters 16 out of about 120 something, I guess, people, okay, in 17 quality assurance. 18 Organizational 1y, we are quite high in reporting, 19 you know, to the director directly. We have a budget for l 20 contractor support of about $3 million. It's small, but 21 that's just putting the program in place. 22 I don't know if you are going to say, well, if we 23 didn't have a quality assurance program in RW, and we spend 24 roughly a million dollars a day, how much of that is devoted 25 to quality assurance versus not. And I don't know the ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
245
,-~ 1 answer to that, but I would probably say 10 - 20 percent
~ (j 2 maybe related to that'today. 3 DR. MOELLER: In listening to you, I am reminded 4 of the fact that if you' review the SCP, there are a number 5 of activities outlined and described within it that~are 6 pretty well along. And.yet if you look at your study plans, 7 they are not that far along.. And if you look at your QA 8 program that is going to assure the adequacy and the 9 soundness of the data that are being developed in these 10 various activities related to the SCP, the QA program is not.
- 11. .yet firmly in place.
12 How do.you rationalize moving ahead then with , 13 these activities when-the QA program is not yet firm? (yp ./ 14 MR. BARRETT: Okay. Not yet firm, and firm is a 1 15 relative term, okay. I believe it is well develops 2nd ! 16 well along, and firm is a value judgment. I believe that 17 what we have said is that we will not start new site i 18 characterization activities, and that's basically the multi- ; 19 purpose bore hole in the fall, in the exploratory shaft 20 right there after, until we have a qualified QA program in 21 place to support those activities. 22 And I believe that a qualified QA program clearly 23 will be one sufficient to substantiate that the data that is 24 collected and the work that is done under those programs 25 will support, you know, the licensing processing. And O / Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
246 1 that's really what our commitment has been. 2 So although today we are still -- we are 3 developing, we have developed a lot and I'm going to go into 4 some of the details on how far along we are. Next month we 5' are going to start the Title 2 design, the final tiesign of 6 the exploratory shaft facility, and we will have in place, 7 okay, it's an internal goal that we have made, not, you 8 know, one that's legislative and mandated, that we will have ! 9 a quality assurance program in place to support that design. 10 We are sort of building up in steps, okay, and this fall 11 staring the site characterization activities, it will be 12 qualified for those activities. 13 What I mean by that for those activities,
. 14 transportation, for example, is part of our program. That 15 will come afterwards, okay. We have some quality 16 assurance -- I'm not ignoring that, but I won't have that 17 necessarily that qualified in the fall. I will have that 18 maybe next year, okay.
19 Some of the waste package work, that will come, 20 you know, after the fall. You know, that should be probably 21 in the wintertime. 22 DR. MOELLER: So you have a major effort underway i 23 to see that all of it's coordinated as well as you can do. 24 MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. 25 DR. MOELLER: Okay. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
247 A. .1 MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. .And,.you know, our goal i Y
\m / 2 -is to have, you know, in a very short. time, you'know, in a-3 year time frame,-basically. pretty well across the board.
4- .And clearly in place and qualify for new site 5 characterization activities and the schedules that we are 6 going to talk about in a moment are geared to exactly that, 7 and it's a very large effort for us to develop it and for us. 8' to do our own verification activities. It's a large. effort 9 for the NRC to come end witness what we are doing, because. 10- the NRC has said that they would -- they want to take a 11 position on its adequacy before we start site 12 characterization. And I am sure this committee would be 13 interested in how that develops too. [}. V 14- This little bit on the organizational structure- 1 15 and the various parts that you have to adjust your quality 16 assurance program to, we're basically geared here talking 17 about the Yucca Mountain project, and that these are the 18 main participants to the Yucca Mountain project. Your d 19 architect engineers, your scientific support, your 20 scientific support in the specific, USGS for example, and 21 Los Alamos, and then Sandia performance assessment, et 22 cetera. Also SAIC, which does the support, you know, to the 23 project. 3 24 These are where we have plans for the main 2S participants here. SAIC works under the project office j ('~' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I. c l w _ _ _ _ _
248 1 plan, the Yucca Mountain project office, and then OCRWN 2 headquarters. I am going to go through these plans and they 3 way they are developed, the development is. As I mentioned, 4 MRS and the transportation, that's later, okay. 5 Now where are_these plans and what are these 6 plans? Let's talk about headquarters first. We have a QA 7 requirements document and a quality assurance program 8 description. These two documents have been submitted to the 9 NRC back in the fall. We had meetings where we discussed 10 many of issues. We resolved all those issues in meetings 11 and reached a consensus on those. And we resubmitted all 12 the signed plans, you know, approved by the director of the 13 office to the NRC, and the NRC is presently in their final, (; 14 I hope it's the final review phases of those two documents. 15 And we have issued thos'e and we are using thase in 16 headquarters. 17 We are developing administrative -- QA 18 administrative procedures in headquarters. I think I have 19 had the director sign 11 of those procedures, and I think I 20 have got about six or eight more of those to go, and that's 21 basically the foundation for the QA requirements in the 22 headquarters operation. 23 The line organization in QA are developing and 24 implementing procedures as we go along. For example, study 25 plans and things like that are actively be'.ng worked on; how ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l-lj I 249 l l j_s 1 we handle the new study plans. ' I Y
\_,/ 2 So this is well along, although there is still a 3 lot of work to be done.
l 4 Yucca Mountain project, the key document here is 5 the project Qa plan known as 88-9. It is the key document. 6 That was submitted to NRC actually before the headquarters 7 ones back, I think, in the June-time frame. We had major 8 meetings with them in the month of July, and we have run 9 some revisions after agreements were made, and we have had 10 acceptance letters.from the NRC with the safety evaluation 11 accompanying their evaluation of that. So that is the base 12 document for the Nevada project. 13 They have, I don't know the numbers of the (h - g J 14 procedures, but they have quality assurance procedures and l 15 line implementation procedures of probably close to 100 16 procedures currently in place and approved in the project. 17 DR. STEINDLER: What's the difference between the i 18 first and second one of L m- e in the Yucca Mountain project 19 office? i 20 MR. BARRETT: Okay, I should probably have i 21 explained. I'm sorry. 22 88-1 is the project plan and this is for all of 23 the Nevada nuclear waste isolation program. If you go -- 24 there is difference is how they are arranged 25 organizationally. This is used by the internal work in the (202) 628-4888 i i
250
.( 1 project, okay, and this is for all the project contractors, 2- you know, as well. Where Rico, for example, is a site 3 contractor, and how that get -- it gets fairly complicated 4 organizationally on how it's put together. But this is 5 basically for the project people to work by, and this is 6 basically for the participants to work by.
7 In participating organizations, as the USGS, the 8 architect engineers, et cetera, Sandia, they have their 9 program plans. We have a schedule to give those. Basically 10 they are all --- they are all at various revisions, and they 11 have approved revisions. Those for the final ones, for the 12 qualification audits are all due into the NRC within the 13 next couple of weeks, and we submitted two last week. There
.. 14 is another one for my signature when I get back, and there 15 are several more in the pipeline in the mail between Nevada 16 and my shop.
17 So within the next couple of weeks all seven of 18 these will be in here to NRC for their information and for 19 their review if they so wish to review them. 20 The participants have -- I don't know the number, 21 but there is probably hundreds of procedures they have in 22 place. The main emphasis right now has been to get all the 23 design control for the start of the "itle 2 design. The l i 24 architect engineers, FNSH&N are probably, I would say, 90 25 percent programs are in place and implemented and ready to l: ( Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 620-4888 ' l 1 1 L_____ ____.
i 251 , F';-~( 1- go. Say, for example, waste package at Livermore, that's ] s_s ;L farther on down the line. i 3, so there is.various stages of where we are,- but a j l 1 4- tremendous' amount of activity has'taken place and progress -
- 5. has been made.
6 DR. STEINDLER: Is there a requirement that'the 7 NRC approve each one of those program-plans? 8 MR. BARRETT: No, not to my knowledge. Approve is 9 not the word we use. Accept has been the word that we have 10 been using. We are-giving -- we.are a goldfish bowl 11 operation. Everybody gets copies of everything, state, tha 12 NRC, counties. Anybody can -- we appreciate comments from 13 anybody on any of these documents. 14 The NRC has told us that they want to take action 15 on the headquarters documents and the Yucca Mountain plan, 16 and they said they may comment -- accept would be the word 17 if they find it acceptable -- on these plans.- I don't know
'18 if.they are going to do all of them or just the first few or 19 whatever. That's their choice. I hope they do, because I 20 would appreciate having something on.the record that they 21 found a problem or they didn't find a problem with it.
22 DR. STEINDLER: Well, when you are told -- I'm a 23 little confused. When you are told that the QA program is 24 either not in place or inadequate by the NRC, what does that 25 mean? Does that mean that they have not, that is, the NRC Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
252 (, 1 has not approved the plan, or they have not seen the plan? 2 MR. BARRETT: I believe when they say that, you 3 know, as in the objection. 4 DR. STEINDLER: As in the objection. 5 MR. BARRETT: As in the objection was that they 6 did not have evidence, okay, that a program was in place. 7 You could even go a little farther is they had very good 8 suspicions, let me say, that it was not in place based on 9 things that they had seen, you know, at the site and 10 information that they had by asking questions. 11 So I mean I don't -- if all these plans were, 12 let's say, accepted by NRC, that doesn't mean you have a 13 fully qualified program in place either, because maybe you
. 14 have got some wonderful plans but nobody is implementing 15 them.
16 DR. STEINDLER: So what does not being in place 17 mean as far as you are concerned? 18 MR. BARRETT: Well, since I'm a little closer to 19 it than NRC, you know, I know what not being in place means 20 to me, is that we are basically -- the program is -- well, 21 you know, we have a lot of good components. They are not 22 all being implemented across the board to what I would say 23 is a program that would fully support all the licensing 24 activities. We have got some backfits to do in some areas l 25 from an old data program. Not necessarily redoing all the l l { Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ) i l l l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - i
m._ _ _ . . _ _ _. _ l: 253-j-4{. 1 scientific work again; it's basically going back and-(_/ 2 ' checking'that we.can establish the documentation that's 3 necessary. 4 DR. STEINDLER: The. existence of a program plan'is 5 necessary but not sufficient to satisfy the NRC. 6 MR. BARRETT: Or us. 7 DR.-STEINDLER: Or you. 8 MR. BARRETT: Or me, that's correct. 9 10 11 12 13 1.5 ~1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23-24 25 l [\ Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 i
254
,; 1 DR. MOELLER: Gene? ,
2 MR. VOILAND: If I could comment on that, the 3 development of the quality assurance plan for the facility I 4 used to manage, and the quality assurance plan which is 5 reviewed by the Commission and found to mee'. their 6 requirements is essentially the first tier or umbrella 7 document. And fundamentally it reflects -- later on you'll 8 see on Page 10 of this presentation the 18 requirements that 9 you must address in coming up with your QA plan. 10 Now that is just the overall thing and it says 11 these are the issues we are going to address, these are the 12 items we are going to do. And it will have very broad 13 definition of what you do. Then underneath that are guides, 14 classification systems, document review programs, QUAPS and 15 QUEERS and other strang'e sounding acronyms, which implement 16 that plan. 17 But this assures the Commission that you have 18 addressed all of the items that they say you ought to have. 19 DR. STEINDLER: the reason for my question is 20 trying to see whether I can understand what it is that the 21 NRC was telling Blake when they sent Objection 5. 22 MR. VOILAND: You better have that umbrella 23 document. That's what I think. 24 MR. BARRETT: It's necessary but not sufficient. 25 DR. MOELLER: You certainly are bringing us up to ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
255
. ,-( 1 date.on your activities. Looking back, I'm not sure I have
,, :2' a question, but looking back.I recall that this Committee-3 was briefed when the NRC staff sent a team to Los Alamos for 4 an early audit of a QA' program. And then the ultimate goal, 5 I gather, is for NRC not to. audit you but to observe you 6 auditing yourself.
l 7 MR. BARRETT: That is correct. ' 8 DR. MOELLER: Now, in reading the reports, I see 9 what is obviously progress. In other words, you are 10 attaining higher levels of perfection, so to speak. ~Are the 11 problems that are developing unsuspected at the moment or 12 are they typical of what you would anticipate in your own 13 audits? p 14 MR. BARRETT: I would say it is typical of what I V 15 would expect in a program where you are incorporating a new li6 culture into it. And most of those boil down to, the things c17 you find are understanding. You know, oh, I didn't know 18 that's what that meant kind of thing. And it's part of the ! q' L 19 education and learning process that you have to go through. 20 DR. MOELLER: Now, you hopefully will attain ; 21 perfection, if that's at all possible. I guess a question I 22 have is what is the turnover in your QA staff and to what 23 degree is that -- of course, you listed training, training, l 24 training on that pyramid. But what is -- to what degree 1 25 does that give you problems? What is the turnover and how
}Q<['\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
L
256 .( 1 do you handle it? f 2 MR. BARRETT: It's difficult. Turnover is not 3 high, because we didn't have many to turn over. So that's 4 kind of what it boils down to. But personnel was a major ! 5 problem. 6 You don't just go and find quality assurance 7 nuclear waste people. They don't graduate them from 8 universities, and it just doesn't exist. And you have a 9 very small pool of people you need to find. 10 And I usually find that I can find a quality 11 assurance expert who doesn't know much about waste 12 management and I can find a lot of waste management experts 13 that don't know much about QA. And what I'm looking for I 14 can't seem to find. 15 For example, let's take the staff right now. We 16 had when I was given, when Ed Kay told me the next morning I 17 was QA Director, there was one permanent quality assurance 18 person in headquarters. And we had two people living out of 19 suitcases. One out of Chicago, Bud Kehue and Pier Sajet, 20 doing the best they could, out of suitcases, here helping 21 us. And then we had contractors. But contractors had all 22 kinds of QA expertise and a little bit of waste management 23 expertise, but you had to tell a contractor what to do. You 24 had to give him some directions, some guidance. And we had 25 a heck of a time with that. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
p. 257 l' A 1 What-I immed'iately did,.five seconds after Ed:said' m, 2 .I.was QA Director, I saidLif you want me to do the job, I. 3' got to have some resources. He said what do you want? I' 4 said.I want-free picks. And I got free picks of seven 5 people.- And I basically picked line people who were good' 6 and who understood what they were doing, and also I felt had 7 the capability to learn'from the QA' people. 8 So I mixed together my one QA expert, Carl Summer, 9 with contractor QA'aupport from Westin and from CER, who is-10 my support contractor, to make a team to do that. , i 11 .I have'six positions that have been posted to try l 12 to find' people in the civil service salary structure. And' 13 it's tough. . I had very few takers. So I'll make a point f'~' . 14 here. If anyone knows of any, I'd love'to talk to them. 15- But I mean,.when you're talking GS-12, 13 and 14, 16 fighting like heck to get some GS-15. positions, it's tough 17 to do in the Federal structure to find these people. 18 So turnover - personnel is a major problem. I 19 really haven't had anybody to turn over. I'm running my 20 people on details. 21 When you talk to people about well, how would you 22 like to go to QA, when lt detailed the people, I went and 23 talked to every one of them. I mean, immediately some of 24 them ran, you know. And their reaction was sort of like 25 mine when Ed first told me I was going to do this. I said ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ 0
258 4 ( 1 what did I do to you? 2 It just doesn't seem to have the allure and the 3 attraction that some of the line things do. It's another 4 meter checker. Somebody to come over and give me a ticket, 5 you know. Parking meter attendant. It's not that at all. i 6 But that's the perception. 7 So we have a perceptional problem to attract the 8 talent that we really need in the program. And it's hard to 9 do. So personnel is a major problem I have. And we have it 10 down through the contractors as well. And I think they 11 would probably tell you somewhat the same story. 12 DR. MOODY: Jean, would you put up Rimber 8 again, 13 the coordinated-integrated QA plans at all levels? All 14 right. When you were discussing this before, if you are not {: 15 going to, or NRC will not review time constraints, whatever, 16 the individual QA program plans from all DOE subcontractors, j 17 Does that then mean that they, the Yucca Mountain 18 Project Office, is going to be responsible for the QA 19 procedures, et cetera, that are going to be done by their 20 subcontractors? Who is responsible for that, then? 21 MR. BARRETT: Well, they are. I am. I mean, 22 responsibility -- Carl Gertz as the Yucca Mountain Project 23 Manager, is responsible for all the activities under his 24 project. I am responsible for quality assurance for the 25 program, including Carl's QA. So the responsibility is l I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
- (
l u___---__ l
t j u l E .259 j4 1~. clear, all on down the line.
\s,/ 2- If a' contractor makes a boo-boo, I got a problem. -
3 Carl has a problem if he~makes a boo-boo. So: responsibility 4 is' clear. 5 If the NRC does or does not accept something,
'6; ' takes action or doesn't take action, it doesn't relieve me-7 or Carl Gertz nor the contractor, of any of_the quality 8 assurance responsibilities they have. I constantly tell my 9 people, I don't care if NRC is going to review these or not 10 review these things, they have to be good quality documents 11 to start with.
12 Same things with audits and surveillance. I 13 don't care if the NRC or the state is there, and you
~N s 14 shouldn't care, either, if the NRC or the state'is there.
15 DR. MOODY: So you feel responsible, for example, 16 for the USGS Los Alamos? 17 MR. BARRETT: Sure. 18 DR. MOODY: Okay. 19 MR. BARRETT: They work for us. Sometimes I wish 20 he might have a little move authority to go with the 21 responsibility. But nonetheless, that's a fact of life. 22 DR. MOODY: I was intimating that, as you probably 23 well know. 24 MR. BARRETT: It's difficult for us all. Anyway, 25 <>ne of the basic elements of the QA plans, I won't go into Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I l
260
- i. 1 this unless you'd like to. We built upon the ANSI /ASME in 2 QA-1 and modified that, and that's really what you'11 see in 3 the QA plans as the modification of that, adjust that to the 4 high level waste program.
5 The key NRC, subpart G to Part 60, that's the 6 regulation. That references Appendix B to 10 CFR 50. And
]
7 again, we have modified in our QA plans and discussed these 8 with NRC, how we had implemented those principles, let me 9 say, into our plans. 10 The NRC standard review plans, the rev. zero and 11 now also the new rev. I which reflects the activities that 12 we did in the negotiations back on how you tune up the basic 13 Appendix B to Part 50 for high-level waste management. And 14 { we also have our Department of Energy orde u , 5700.6B, our l 15 ES&H orders, that we al'so implement. By implementing the 16 NRC requirements in our own plans we automatically are 17 picking this up, because really our program ends up being 18 about the same. They're comparable. Let me put it that 19 way. But if we by doing this, we are basically meeting the 20 DOE orders. Because even if we were not being regulated, 21 we were not to be licensed, for example, we still have to 22 meet our own quality assurance directives for the Department 23 of Energy, which again refer back to, and QA 1. They are 24 very industry-basic standards. 25 DR. MOELLER: Now, if the DOE 5700.6B was being ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
o 261
. ; ~q . 'l observed when these data which Dr. Carter and others have-
'l )
[ \s,/ 2 referred to were collected, does that give you some of a 3 foundation on which to quality those data? 4 MR. BARRETT: Yes, it does.- I.think what you find-5 is the classical Department of Energy implementation and 6 documentation that goes along with the 5700.6B is not up to-7 the closeness to perfection let me say that one would see in 8 a regulated activity, as far as the documentation would not 9 be as complete, <et cetera. But I think the basic sound 10 science is there. 11 I've had'so many people tell me all you new QA 12 . kids on the block, that's all very nice,.but it doesn't 13 change the way I do business. And I said I'm pleased to [ i 14 hear that, because I was hoping it shouldn't. If you were 55 doing good laboratory practice and good scientific work, 16 there should be no change in that program. But I think some 17 of the documentation is where you are going to see the 18 difference. 19 Anyway, in QA-1, I won't go into that unless 20 there's any particular thing you'd like to talk about. 21 Training, I think I had pretty well covered this. 22 It goes on all the time. And I cannot overstress the 23 importance of communications and understanding. People tend 24 to want to go way too fast and not effectively communicate. 25 The biggest problem I have is you've got to, you may not Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
262 ( 1- think you have time, but you've got to slow down, you've got 2 to communicate, you have to put yourself in the other 3 person's shoes. 4 You constantly have this problem between the QA 5 people, classic QA, who may not understand what it's like to 6 be a scientist in a lab, what he has to go. You have to 7 slow down and think like him for a moment. And it's 8 cultural, and it takes time and understanding. 9 Procedures and instruction, I think I mentioned 10 that earlier. It's not necessary procedures, but it's the 11 disciplined approach to planning what it is you're going to 12 do and setting the standards, not necessarily that you know 13 the rock is going to have a certain PSI of this or that,
.. 14 because you don't know until you're underground, but things 15 that you can control, and you can document what it is you 16 are going to be doing.
17 Well written procedures complement good science 18 and good engineering. I constantly have to say that to 19 people. And I think most of those people do understand 20 that. You have to be a little careful that you'll get 21 somebody who may just know a lot of QA or some people who l l 22 are ultradisciplined, let me say, versus somebody who in a j 23 research scientific endeavor who may be less disciplined. 24 I don't want to say academics are less disciplined 25 than engineers. But sometimes you'll find that, is that you i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i l
m, 1263 1 don't want to have QA people who just say well, you've~got f-4g .. k ,) ; 21 to have it written this way with this letterhead and this 3 thing and it has to be signed at this point as opposed to 4' over_there. You have to be constantly aware of that and try 5 to bridge those kinds of problems. And any time I find the 6 line people end up writing procedures themselves that are 7 way too restrictive, and I find many times the QA people say 8 don't do that too yourself. Give yourself the flexibility 9 to do the right thing. You don't have to overprescribe 10 this. 11 I'll start finding 100-page procedures. A 100-12 page procedure scares me to death. You shouldn't have a 13 100-page procedure.
/'~'t 14 What we constantly find out through the program is 15 somebody will say gee, I thought that's what I had to do.
16 And it'gets back to the communications and understanding of 17 what a QA program is. 18 Program implementation. I think I've talked to 19 that before. Again, it's a line function. The 20 implementation is a line function. QA people don't do it. 21 QA problems, you don't call the QA people, you call a line 22 person in. It does require strict adherence to program 23 plans and procedures. Verbatim compliance. You got to do 24 it. Don't write yourself procedures, then you say well, 25 I've got a loophole that I can work in this procedure. I Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
264 t 1 found that little trick. Saying well, I got this procedure, 2 it looks good and the QA people won't find the loophole but 3 I got a loophole to get it done with. 4 You've got to adhere to your procedures. And 5 don't play games with it. 6 Verification. Again, I mention that's at the very 7 end. You want to check do you have what you said you had. 8 It's performed by the line organization and it's verified by 9 QA. And this is an important part. The line people do 10 verification. 11 We in the QA draft line people all the time to 12 assist us in the surveillance. We'll be having a 13 surveillance probably next week on the start of Title 2. The 14 first thing I did is I went to our engineering guys and 15 said okay, I want to draft some people who were not involved 16 in the Title 2 ESF design, but are good engineers. And I 17 drafted several engineering-type people to go on our 18 surveillance. The.t's how we work it and that's how it 19 should be worked, in my opinion. 20 Documentation. I mentioned that you have to have 21 documentation to go along with this. People change and the l 22 record has to stand on itself in the licensing process and i 23 also in the courts and the Congress and the public. I mean, j
)
24 they demand it. And we've had cases where we demand all the I 25 records of this and the drafts of that and it has to be 1 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l E
1; 265 1
;7-s l 'there. If it's not there, we're going to fail.
L (s -[) 2 DR. STEINDLER: In your previous slide, the-3 heading was Qvality Verification. 4 MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. 5 DR. STEINDLER: Do you mean quality of the output 6 or.do you mean adherence to the quality plan?
- 7. MR. BARRETT: It's both. These would be the
'8 audits and the surveillance that we would do.
9 DR. STEINDLER: I'm trying hard to distinguish 10 between those two. 11 MR. BARRETT: Yes. And it's a matter of both. We 12 try to do what we call effectiveness audits and
.13 effectiveness surveillance. It's not solely going in. Let
[ hi 14 me check the process that you used, did you follow this ( 15 procedure rigidly, adherently, et cetera. It's not only 16 checking the process. But it is also checking the output as 17 well. Does this make sense? You may have adhered to the 18 process that you put in place, but I see some problems in 19 the product. 20 So it's not just solely looking at the process. 21 And it's not just solely looking at the product, either. 22 It's a combination of both. And the jargon we use is 23 basically one of an effectiveness audit. 24 DR. STEINDLER: Do you believe that the QA 25 organizations that you've seen throughout DOE are able to O
' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 h l i 266 l ( l check the quality of the product? 2 MR. BARRETT: The QA organization itself, no, is I 3 not competent to do that.- That's why we have to draft line 4 people in to do it. I never have -- it wouldn't be 5 appropriate for me to have the staff capable to do that. 6 But I do draft a hydrology -- if we're going to do an audit 7 in the hydrology area, I will draft hydrologists to serve on 8 that audit who could help us make some of that judgment. 9 DR. STEINDLER: The quality of the published 10 literature is, at least in the normal scientific domain, 11 maintained by the independent blind, I used the term 12 advisedly, blind referee system. 13 DOE apparently does not do that. Is that correct?
, 14 MR. BARRETT: Well, peer review is an essential 15 cornerstone in our sciehtific quality. I mean, if you are 16 dealing with the suitability of thic what I'll call a high-17 tech model to these conditions, that's very much a 18 scientific judgment call, and you will not find QA 19 organizational staffs that can say yes, you're right on with 20 that judgment or you're not on with that judgment.
21 What we will find is the line people will have 22 peer review as the main method we use for that -- was that 23 followed, what were the qualifications of the people in the 24 peer review process. And then also you can make some 25 judgment. But in a case like that, if it's a high tech Heritage Reporting Corporation (' (202) 628-4888 l
l l ! 1 267 l
, 1 thing, you won't find QA people looking at the output 1 I
1
' 2 \, ,
j product very much. If it's more like engineering or f 3 something like that, where you have a lot of engineers that 4 are versed in QA, then you can start making some of those 5 types of judgments. But we would try to look at the output 6 as well. 7 The same one again, when you add all those up, you 8 come back to the same thing again. 9 Now, I mentioned that before we start new site 10 characterization, we want to have a fully qualified program 11 in place to support those activities. What we're doing with 12 that is we have to get the plans accepted by DOE and also 13 the plans, the key plans, the headquarters and the project
/]
i / 14 plan, accepted by NRC, and any others that NRC wishes to 15 accept. 16 The verification by the line and QA that were 17 really implementing it. Again, what we're going to do with 18 the program as opposed to the plans in this case is we need 19 to have -- we' re going to do audits on ourselves. These are 20 the qualifications audits and I'll come to that in a moment, 21 that will be started in April and running through Septenber. 22 Those qualification audits NRC will observe. And 23 we first need to make the conclusion did we successfully 24 implement this. And we knew to make that conclusion. And 25 there's a schedule we worked out with NRC, that we will p) (N- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
268
; 1 conclude, I will conclude that yes I believe we're there.
2 And the NRC within a short time period will tell us what 3 they think, if they think we met it or not. And we sum this 4 up for each of the participants, including headquarters and 5 the project, when you sum that up at the end of, I guess 6 it's end of August, that they were all acceptable to us, to 7 me and to them, we then have the program to go forward and 8 we will start new site characterization activities. 9 Now, I won't go into this unless you would really 10 like to. Down here to the far right is what we call the 11 qualification audit. This is the audit that the first one 12 will be F&S in April and then we'll go on to the last one 13 being DOE headquarters in August. That will take place, 14 will be the final evidence that the program is in place. 15 And these are all the things that have to be done. 16 And we have schedules. And if you add up all of 17 these surveillance, there's probably over 100. There's 18 probably about 100 DOE surveillance. I'm not cour ing M s 19 surveillance by the participants themselves, which are 20 probably several multiples of that number of surveillance. 21 I'll just give you the bottom line schedule. j 22 These are the qualification audit schedules. I said F&S, 23 which is architect-engineer for Title 2, starts in April. 24 And basically we have scheduled at two a month, which is 25 sort of the maximum rate that NRC staff can handle and it's ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l l
l o
, I 269 - .
.j 1: .close to what'we can handle, too.
3
'2 We're having'to bring in, for this effort here,:
~
1 3 we're trying to bring in about 30 to 40 outside QA people to
-4 support us in this endeavor. So we'll have probably well i 5 over 100 people involved in these surveillance that we will i
6- be doing. It's hard for the QA people to do'this much this J 7 quick. It's hard for.the NRC to do this much this quick. 8 It's probably.hard for all-the participants to have.all 9 these questions being asked at this time. But if the j 10- documentation is there like it should be, it can go fairly 11 quickly. Because-when you ask the questions, there should 12 be very straightforwe,-d answers. And let me show you where 13 that all is. It's'in the file cabinet right there. And' 14 there should be minimal disruption on the line if it has 15 .really-been done. But there.is some disruption. But we 16 feel that it's a price you've got to pay to put this in 17 place. 18 DR. STEINDLER: Is that F&S the outfit that'e 19 going ~to do your Title 2? 20 MR. BARRETT: They are the architect-engineer that 21 do the, I believe they do the surface facilities, and H&N 22 does the underground, or it's vice versa. We have two 23 architect-engineers and they're key during the exploratory 24 shaft, and that's why we have them early. 25 DR. STEINDLER: But I gather from your comment Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
270 1 8, 1 that the activity is going to start in March, yet apparently 2 the approval process doesn't finish up until June. Is that 3 right? 4 MR. BARRETT: That's correct. We're responsible 5 for the work. We hope to start, though I'm sending out a 1 6 surveillance team Monday, Sunday night, to see how well they 7 are. The project says they're going to be ready. I'll find 8 out when we go out and we start doing our surveillance next 9 week to start in here. 10 We have it here, there's more, this is just Title 11 2 start. There is more that the architect-engineers do than 12 just Title 2. We're saying that Title 2 we want to have it f 13 in place for. But I don't necessarily have to go through, ) 14 the NRC have looked and they've passed their judgment. It's 15 my responsibility and we'll start when we're ready. I don't . 1 16 want to wait. 17 DR. STEINDLER: Isn't that the very point that I 18 thought the staff was making, that they were saying look, 19 you guys are starting activities or you're going through 20 activities before you've got the programs certified or 21 whatever one does? 22 MR. BARRETT: Yes, that's true and that's what 23 we're doing. We're saying we will have the Title 2 QA 24 controls in place when we start that, in say early March, if i 25 that's when it is. Okay. There is more to it to do this, ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[', az 271 ji-4( 1 'it's more than just-Title 2. It's in the other design
\s h 2 activities that;they may be'doing later on. So this is a.
3- littleLbroader' scope. The NRC never told us, and I'd object 4 if: they did, that before we started Title. 2 we had tol take 5 the' time' for them to come in independent and look and for j! 6 them to independently say yes, you've got it all there.
]
7 We.know they will look, I will say, probably in
.8 this timo frame, they'11 look either here or they.will look 9 maybe in the months of March when they come out and ask us 10 questions and do an on-site review on the design 11 acceptability analysis. report we give them, they'll'go into 12 'many of these things. And that's fine.
1
'13 DR. STEINDLER: So your gamble is when they do
/~x 14 come out they're not going to find anything significantly
-(
% /..
)
15 wrong with the program that's in place? 16 MR. BARRETT: That's correct. There is some risk 17- in that. That's correct. 18- DR. MOELLER: And you are showing us also that the 19 formal reviews will have been preceded by a multitude of 20 semi-formal previews? 21 MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. Before we go into this 22 I've stressed on our people I don't want to go into the 23 finaliaudit and have NRC come out and say boy, that was 24 terrible, you know, you guys aren't there. So we have an 25 awful lot of our own internal surveillance. And we find O Heritage Reporting *:orporation (202) 628-4888 i
272 I 1 things and improve them, but that's what QA is all about. 2 We know we're not perfect. Never will be. You find 3 problems and you.fix problems.. And that leads up to our 4 final management review, where we're going to review whoever 5 is up to have the final audit, are you really there. And if 6 we're not there, I'm going to change it. 7 DR. MOELLER: Now, in the list that you showed in 8 the scheduling for auditing, certain organizations that were 9 on what I call the pyramid are not there, like SAIC. 10 MR. BARRETT: The SAIC works under, they are like 11 Westin to us. They are their support contractor and they 12 work under the Yucca Mountain project. And MACTAC is 13 another one. They work under the Etcca Mountain project.
. 14 DR. STEINDLER: So Westin comes under the !
15 headquarters? 16 MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. And CER, my contractor, 17 comes under headquarters as well. 18 MR. VOILAND: How many of these agencies that you 19 listed have approved quality assurance programs at the 20 present time? 21 MR. BARRETT: They all have, of the participants, 22 like USGC, REECO, they all have approved programs in place. 23 Now, when we changed 889 Rev. 2 in the negotiations last 24 Summer, and the negotiations we had on a few items in the 25 December time frame, there were some minor changes and 1 1 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L-____---_---_
.;1 , 273 , 0-~( 1- ' revisions'to some of these. L/ Y hs_) ~ -2 So they all have had them in' place,-and they are
~3 under final revision and the'last. revision is fairly small.
4 And I believe at least four of these have been approved. I 5 know F&S and REECO have been, H&N has been. I-think Sandia' 6 is being approved this week by the project. And I believe 7 Lawrence.Livermore might be also.. 8 MR. VOILAND: This is essentially, in some of 9 these instances, then, a modification of existing plans to 10 meet the' requirements of what you're doing. 11 MR. BARRETT: Yes. 12 MR. VOILAND: So that is'not a big effort. But it 13 seems to me that NRC finds itself in an-interesting position. [ ~ 14 'here because normally NRC licenses contractors and so on. hs '15 Here you are taking the function of being a contractor and 16 at the same time you are being licensed. So it is a-17 different kind of a role it seems to me. 18 You are coming up with a QA program to cover your 19 own activities. And that is not frequently done within NRC. 20 MR. BARRETT: I suppose you could look at it that 21 way. It's like a utility. You're responsible for all the 22 contractors building this nuclear power plant under their QA 23 program. 24- I would say in the case of waste management, the 25 NRC probably gets down into more of the detail of these, p
-('f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l-1 274 (' 1 And the work is unique and is somewhat of a kind. So it's 2 unique in that way. Yes. 3 MR. VOILAND: The people that inspect you are not 4 coming out of your office at all, they are coming out of 5 whoever your equivalent of who would be your licensing 6 officer or whatever. i 7 MR. BARRETT: What we do is the way we're set up 8 is the quality assurance organization does audits on 1 l 9 basically itself. Like I audit the project. The project j 1 10 people audit their contractors. And the NRC will witness, 11 observe is the right word, and the State of Nevada also ) 12 observes and the counties have often observed, too, those 13 audits. So that is how it really works. But we don't 14 really have pure NRC audits per se, because we're not an ( 15 applicant. 16 DR. MOELLER: Do we have other questions for Lake 17 Barrett on QA? 18 MR. BROCOUM: Excuse me. Stan Eckols from DOE 19 would like to make a comment. 20 MR. ECKOLS: The comment just made that the normal 21 procedure for the NRC is to license contractors and this is l l 22 a bit odd, where we seem to be regulating ourself, is not 23 appropriate I think to this program. To have something 24 comparable on the utility side you would have to have the 25 NRC coming in at least five years earlier in the licensing I ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I i 1
275 w 1 process of reactors than it does now. f
/ 2 We have considerable involvement with the NRC a 3 decade ahead of what is comparable with the reactor program.
4 This is nct a licensing phase. This is a consultation 5 phase. 6 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. Any other questions or 7 comments on this side? 8 DR. STEINDLER: Let me just make one comment. 9 I am prepared to believe that your 20 to 30 10 percent figure, as a fraction of total budget allocatable to 11 a QA activity, is modest at best from what little I know, 12 and I would guess that that figure goes up as the prograr 13 size goes down, or the activity goes down, which means that 14 the department is spending somewhere between 70 and 100 15 million bucks a year, in activities that, even if you want 16 to be generous, don't really improve the quality cf the 17 product. 18 It may be easier to track, but they don't improve 19 the quality of the product if what I hear from you is 20 correct. 21 I find that discouraging from the technical 22 standpoint, and wonder whether or not -- just wonder out 23 loud I guess -- whether or not there shouldn't be some other 24 way to do business and become more effective at it. 25 There's no response I think you can give us,
,y l \
('~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
l l L 276 (~ 1 because I know where you sit. I mean, your marching orders j 2 are written in stone somewhere called 10 CFR 60, or 50, and 3 so on. 4 But it just seems, I think, if you put it in 5 proper perspective, that's a fairly significant fraction of 6 your total budget. 7 MR. BARRETT: I believe when I say 20 percent is 8 related to quality, I believe if you would make the quality 9 assurance activities disappear, a good portion of that same 10 work would still be done planning under what is known as 11 good laboratory practices, under other - you need to do a 12 good job and be successful in the program and planning. I 13 don't believe it is just because of QA it's that number.
. 14 But you cannot separate good quality assurance 15 from really good management activities.
16 DR. MOODY: One of the comments that I have, and 17 perhaps you have already thought of this and can answer it 18 is, when you talk about procedures for doing a particular 19 kind of test, laboratory in the field, whatever, in the 20 evolution of scientific innovation, even in the U.S. of A. , 21 those procedures may be satisfying for 1989, 1990. 22 However, there is an evolution of measurement, 23 both in the laboratory Lnd in the field. 24 Do you have an implementation policy for changing 25 the QA procedure, because you've got a new hot way to look [ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , l l 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ l
277-i j- .( 1 -at a'particular geologic phenomenon'that you would like to j
!\ .2 look at?
'3 How do you change the' procedure? Because I don't 4 think you can sit here and say that everything that is 1 4
5 acceptable in 1989 is going to be acceptable in 1995 i 6 necessarily. l 7 MR. BARRETT:. You are absolutely right. I mean 8 you.have to be flexible. And the documentation and the
- 9 discipline has to complement the science, and it's going to 10 change. We know that. We're on the state of the art of 11 technology in many of these areas.
12 So you don't want to over prescribe your 13- procedures. And also you need to change procedures.
/N ,. 14 A lot of the discussions we had with NRC on
\ ' '
/
15 scientific notebooks and scientific procedure control were 16 exactly to that. Have the flexibility to do the right thing 17 and find out the thing you did not plan for and be able ta 18 accommodate that, and not overly restrict yourself, but-19 maintain control in that you are maintaining records and you 20' are going about it in a scientific, logical manner, and you 21 are just not wily-nilly down there, punching holes here and 22 there, and following up, maybe, some other experiment. 23 So the procedures are changeable. They do change. 24 And the important part we look at is they are changeable 25 and implementable. And if someone says they have such a Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i 278 [- ( l complex thing they can't change procedures or can't make the 2 scientific judgment in a timely manner on whatever it is ! 3 'you're doing, that's wrong. 4 So they will change and no procedure will ever 5 probably go from ' 88 to ' 98 clearly without being changed. 6 They have to be able to. 7 Now, it's easy, to say and not so easy to really 8 implement. But that's the way it has to be. And that's 9 the biggest challenge we have. 10 DR. MOELLER: Any other questions or comments? 11 (No response) 12 DR. MOELLER: Thank you once again. 13 MR. BARRETT: Thank you all. 14 DR. MOELLER: The clock says it is Noon. And yet 15 I think maybe we better'go ahead and at least pick up one 16 more item. 17 Will we skip back to Maxwell Blanchard? 18 MR. REGNIER: Yes. 19 DR. MOELLER: All right. 20 MR. REGNIER: In fact, the next three 21 presentations, which have to do with the objections related 22 to the exploratory shaft facility will be made by Max 23 Blanchard, who is the Director of Regulatory and Site 24 Evaluation Division of DOE, the Yucca Mountain Project 25 Office. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i i,
_f .l^
,j; ._ s ; >- w _,_
1
;y ;.- -1: I think the naxt presentation'here-will move to k:1: 2- the~present'ation'on' Objection 2.-- -
3 1 L 4 , 3 ie 5
'I
- i. :6 :
i
-7
.i '
'8'
- \
?; 9-10-11 12' 13- ,0 14
- 15'
'16 17 18 19-20 21 22'
~ 23 24 25 i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
280 s i 1 MR. BLANCHARD: Before I start, the last four j i 2 years I spent at the project office preparing the SCP with f 3 some 300 to 400 principal investigators, mostly scientists 4 but to be sure many are engineers. During the last year, 5 and Dave Dobson will speak with you later who is now branch j 6 chief in my division, he helped managed the preparation at 7 the Project Office level. The Project Office input to the 8 SCP was prepared during that time. We spent some l 9 $33 million of the project preparing this document and the 1 i 10 support documentation that goes with it. ] l 11 SAI was the integrating contractor for us bringing ] 12 together the national labs, the test site contractors, and j l 13 the USGS input. The two people at SAI responsible for {
.. 14 managing that effort which was a large one indeed was ;
15 Dr. Younker, who here today will be giving a talk, and j l 16 Dr. Vogal in the back who will be helping me answer 4 17 questions about the exploratory shaft which you might ask. ] l 18 To start with, we will address the objection that j l 19 the NRC raised about entering the Calico Hills. My talk on j 20 this subject I expect will be brief, maybe fifteen minutes. 21 I will start with the summary of the objection, and then go l 4 22 right to explaining the approach that we have used to 23 address the objection to, and the approach basically was 24 that we rewrote 8.4 to explicitly address the objection. , 25 I will talk a little bit about the decision on l l Heritage Reporting Corporation 4 (202) 628-4888 l
i 281" a 1- . whether or,not to. penetrate the Calico Hills, the fact that' fs ij '.2 'i t has been the third.from an ES-2 standpoint, pending the 3 completion of a. risk benefit analysis of1 penetrating-4 Calico Hills by the exploratory shaft'. And we arefin the 5: process of preparing that now. 6 DR. MOELLER: I gather that you.will cover this, 7- and-it was.a rather straightforward objection, you were-8 going to penetrate,: and the NRC figured that you should not? 9 MR. BLANCHARD: As all things, there are degrees. 10 DR. MOELLER: There is fuzziness?
- 11. MR. BLANCHARD: Fuzziness. In that in.8.3, the 12 investigations that were scientific investigations that were
~
13 written up were written with the express statements that.
~
. 14 subject:to the Department deciding to decide' penetrating the-l15
~
Calico Hills and making these measurements, that there was 16 an indication.that the decision had not been made, but there 17 was nothing explained about how the decision would be made 18 or.the process.
- 19. However, in 8.4, the engineering section of the H20 exploratory shaft was prepared showing as a real fact the 21 penetration into the Calico Hills and drifting. And so it.
22 is an indication that we had not yet got our act'together 23 for the draft, and the point was well taken that the NRC 24' made about bringing this point out and discussing how we ! .25 were going to do it.
,s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 El____= _1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
282 ( 1 And so the objection or summarizing the objection 2 that the NRC staff made was 'iat they fe.it that the 3 scientific need had no* oeon o'stablished either to extend or 4 to drift horit acally into Calico Hills from either 5 exploratory shaft, and that they did not see themselves an 6 analysis which indicated what the potential adverse impacts 7 were likely to be on waste isolation as a consequence of 8 doing this. 9 And in this process, their recommendation was 10 first to consider characterizing that rock unit, which is 11 the rock unit beneath the repository horizon and above the 12 water table, consider characterizing it without penetrating 13 the barrier. They wanted to see a detailed discussion to 14 show why the benefits outweighed the potential adverse 15 impacts of penetrating that rock unit rather than obtaining 16 the information by alternate means, perhaps surface bore 17 holes or some other techniqye. 18 And then they felt that if alternate means could 19 be developed, then we really should then justify the type of ! 20 destructive testing that we thought was needed in f: 21 Calico Hills to be sure that the consequences on connecting 22 pathways for radionuclides would properly be considered. 23 The approach that we have taken, as you know, in 24 the SCP both in the consultative draft and the current one ( 25 is to designate the primary barrier for groundwater flow and
]
1 1 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 I i 1
o 283 wq 1 for radionuclides transport as the Calico Hills rock unit.
)
( ,/ 2. Therefore, the focus is quite justified from the NRC's-3 standpoint. 4 The SCP establishes in a very logical process that 5 Don Alexander went into this morning down to the parameter 6 level the kind of information or the kind of data that we 7 think that we need from the Calico Hills in terms of rock 8 properties in order to evaluate the performance. 9 And also in 8.3, there are a myriad of experiments 10 which we believe. explains the kinds of testing program that
- 11. we think that we need in order to obtain adequate data from 12 this rock unit.
13 The decision to proceed with deepening exploratory
. 14 shaft one into the Calico Hills was deferred shortly after
'^
- 15. the point paper meeting in April with the NRC when they were i 16 talking with us about their draft comments. o 17 Pending an analysis that includes these four 18 components, the need for the data, and how badly we need it, 19 alternate means of collecting that information, and then the 20 benefits that we gain to understanding waste isolation 21 capabilities of the site from obtaining that data, but at 22 the same time the risks to the long-term performance or the 23 waste isolation of actually obtaining that information. So 24 it is not an easy decision, and it needs to be well thought 25 out, well documented and well critiqued.
/~'g Heritage Reporting Corporation
. (' ') (202) 628-4888
i 284 i 1 With respect to the evaluation that we are 2 thinking about for risks and benefits associated with 3 penetrating that barrier, one of our rijor focuses we 4 believe is the need to reduce uncertainty in the hydrologic 5 and geochemical parameters. We need to focus on the 6 hydrologic parameters and processes, because fundamental 7 understanding is needed between matrix and factual flow. 8 We need to understand the range of values that are 9 going to be used in the groundwater travel time calculations 10 eventually to meet the 40 CFR 60111 on 1000 year groundwater I 11 travel time, this qualification. And then we need to 12 identify the flow paths and the groundwater travel times 13 themselves, all of this from an uncertainty standpoint. We 14 must understand quite well before we go into licensing. { l 15 Also because ' radionuclides can be retarded by some ] 16 of the rocks, especially the zeolites and the clays that are 17 beneath the repository horizon in the Calico Hills, we need I 18 to understand those. We need to understand how well 19 sorption, diffusion, and precipitation is likely to be along 20 that flow path. So uncertainty is a major focus in this l
)
21 risk benefit analysis. 1
)
22 To be sure, another thing equally important is the ] 23 need to obtain representative data about that rock unit. We 24 believe that we will be considering the following 25 alternative methods as we look at different ways to obtain ! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 1 285 j r ;-s 1 sufficient information about.this rock unit', looking at
.s _,) 2 obtaining it from outcrops where in the Calico Hills it can 3 be found in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain. Surface 4 base drilling, both within the: repository perimeter drift t
5 and outside that drift through the Calico Hills. 6 Drilling from within the main ESF test level 7 through the Topophah Spring into the Calico Hills. And then j 8 finally excavation from an exploratory shaft, or drilling or ! 9 drifting further'in the Calico Hills beneath ES-1. The need 10 .to obtain this sufficient data to characterize the Calico 11 Hills versus the impacts is what our goal is obviously. , 1' 12 To summarize our response to objection two, we are 13 designing and maintaining the design of the exploratory 14 shaft one and two, so that we will have the capability to
~
15 expand ES-1 into the Calico Hills should we decide that we l 16 really need to. l
-l 17 We will be preparing and releasing a' risk benefit '
18 analysis that has the components that I discussed with you 1 19 about representativeness and uncertainty. And then prior to 20 taking any action on this, we will be back to discuss it 21 with the NRC. 22 And for objection two, that is what I have. I 23 said that I could run through it in about fifteen minutes, 24 and I did it in ten. I would be glad to answer any 25 questions that you might want to bring up before we break l t g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1 286 I L 1 for lunch. , 2 DR. CARTER: What depth is the Calico Hills in ; 3 that area, and I assume that this shaft would have been 4 extended 400 feet according to the original plan, is that 5 correct? 6 MR. BLANCHARD: The Calico Hills, as you know, was 7 built eastward, and the water table is approximately 1000 8 feet underneath the lower portion of the repository at one 9 end, and maybe another 600 feet higher at the other end. j 1 10 The Calico Hills is on the order of the number that you ) I 11 used, 1300. l l 12 DR. ORTH: To what extent does the alternative 13 models discussion that we heard earlier influence all of the 14 things that you are going to have to look at on the ' 15 alternatives looking at Calico Hills? i 16 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, I think that they are j 17 encompassed within that. The viewgraph that I showed l I 18 discussing uncertainty will have to include alternative l 19 working hypotheses for groundwater travel times. And that i 20 means that we need to have scenarios or discussions that the 21 approach that we are taking for both fracture flow and i 22 matrix flow encompasses those models that we think could be ! 23 operating at the site from the available information. 24 Everything starts in terms of groundwater travel, 25 flow path, and travel time depending upon our models for ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
287 1 matrix versus fracture flow. And the alternate models that 92 3 Jeff referred to and discussed, although he went into the tectonics model because that was his background, in the. 4 hydrology section described in 8.31.are those tables that J 5 discuss alternative hydrologic models that are under 6 consideration and the rationale for those, as well as the 7 parameters that are going to be gained during site 8 characterization. And we will factor those into this 9 uncertainty study. 10 DR. MOELLER: Dr. Hinze. 11 DR. HINZE: The confidence that you have in the 12 risk benefit analysis is a function of the data base that 13 you have. 14 What is the quality of the data base that you have 15 and what are your plans for adding to it to make that a high 16 confidence risk benefit analysis? 17 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, as you know, the data over 18 the last ten or fifteen years has been collected and 19 published through various means. Many are journals 20 published and science reports, and some are USGS and 21 national labs reports. The quality assurance program that 22 was described like Barrett just before me was not in place. 23 And so there are varying degrees of records that exist from 24 the past. 25 Many of those reports, in fact all of the reports Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
288 ( 1 from the national labs and the USGS that are cited in the 2 SCP, have gone through internal peer review before those 3 reports were released. Of course, all of the reports that 4 were published in scientific journals have had independent 5 referees before they were published. 6 I think that there is a degree of independent and 7 technical review that leads us to believe that the 8 information that is there is believable. Whether the 9 records can be retrieved adequately for a person to go back 10 into the system and have a question about could this have i 11 been this or that, I question whether we can pull out very l 12 much information except for those laboratory tests that have 13 been done on samples that have been taken out in the last 14 couple of years. { 15 DR. HINZE: What about the quantity of data; in 16 other words, what information do you have now on the 17 horizontal bases variations within the Calico Hills, what 18 are you planning to do to enhance your knowledge? 19 MR. BLANCHARD: Okay. I have a viewgraph that 20 after yesterday's discussion about data that I prepared last 21 night. I think that it will help discuss this. The system 22 that is in place now which we will be improving upon has 23 requirements in the previous existing QA program that has 24 been in place for several years. 25 The field and lab data are collected at what we ( Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 l l ____._._.__m._..- - -
289 l 1 yy 1. . call record management centers at each one of these -
/ i' :
N._ / 2 facilities and operated by the QA department's staff. These 3 are'the records that keep the field data and the laboratory 4 data. 5 Now where the data is numerical or where we need , 6 statistical treatment like a mean, an average, or a standard 7 deviation, or permeability, velocity, thicknesses and rock 8 property values, that information goes into something th9t 9 we call a site and engineering properties data base. This 10 is a computer system that is~also a system where we cumulate 11 everything that we know about a particular property for a 12 particular rock unit. 13 So every measurement that we have made that has
/m
( - 14 been culled from an" report. published, whether it was within
\s 15 the project or outside of the project, is found in 16 Sep.- DB with some information about the statistics and the 17 record keeping process that has been in place during the 18 time that it was acquired. This can be queried at any time.
i' 19 It can queried by printout, or it can be queried by 20 computer. It is operational'now. 21 Now for non-statistical data like topography and 22 faults, that'information does not lend itself to statistical 23 treatment by the programs that the Sep. DB has been set up 24 for. So that information goes straight into the reference 25 information base. i
! j
\, Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i
_____-_-___a
290 i i 1 We are compiling a revised version, Version 4, of 2 what we call a reference information base which we think i 3 should represent the best available data culled down to that 4 which we can substantiate as the best available data, so 5 that we can use in the design of the exploratory shaft to 6 begin with for the start of Title 2 design, and be sure that 7 it is brought up to an appropriate level of quality so that 8 it is there and verified by the time that we get to the 9 completion of Title 2 design. 10 It is also critical that we have this information 11 base document available for us, so that we can make our 12 performance assessment calculations that support the kinds 13 of impacts that I am talking about, what kind of imrset site 14 characterization is likely to have on the site. And wo want , 15 to be able to use one c'ommon set of numbers and let other 16 people in the NRC, if they want to check our numbers, to 17 draw from that same common base. 18 This reference information base has been around 19 for awhile. It has gone through three versions. We are in 20 the process of producing Version 4 now, so that we can start 21 Title 2 design. And we have a very rigorous process of 22 bringing this up to put much, much more information in it 23 than what is in it now. 24 I do not knew if I am answering your question well 25 enough or not. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888
291 j,,4 1 'DR. HINZE: Is that a DOE data base, or is that a
)
( /7 ~2 contractor developed?. 3 MR. BLANCHARD: Currently,.both of these are 4 operated.for the Project Office at Sandia National 5 ' Lab. 6 DR. HINZE: Are you'then in the process of 7 querying that information base to see or to evaluate 8 whether you have sufficient data to perform this benefit
'9 risk study?,
.10 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, we would like:to perform 11 -this risk benefit analysis at a point in time when-we are 12 confident'that we have enough information in the REF so that 13' we can'be assured that we are using the best available data, 14 and that is has gone through the series of independent 15- reviews that are set up here and here procedurally in our 16 existing QA plans to get the data in and to pass it through 17 multi-disciplined independent review groups to decide 18 whether or not the data is appropriate.
19 We do not have a schedule right now developed 20 unfortunately for having the risk benefit analysis finished, 21 but it is key to completing Title 2 design. And so it will 22 be in a form here and here for us to use in that risk 23 benefit analysis. 24 DR. MOELLER: Are there any other questions? 25 DR. MOODY: Max, just given what you know ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l L__-__--_ = _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _
292 , 1 geologically soeaking for the outline of the repository as 2 you now visualize, what is the depth difference between the l 3 bottom of the Calico Hilla and the water table? I know that 4 there should be a maximum and minimum depending on the slope 5 that you are talking about. 6 MR. BLANCHARD: The depth difference between the 7 bottom of the Calico Hills and the water table? 8 DR. MOODY: And the water table, yes. 9 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, on the east side, the water 10 table encompasses much of the Calico Hills. 11 DR. MOODY: All right. That is what I thought. 12 MR. BLANCHARD: On the west side, the Calico 13 Hills, I think that rock unit ends and another rock unit s 14 underneath it exists. So the whole thickness on the west 15 side, the whole thickness of the Calico Hills is there for 16 the water and the radionuclides to migrate through. On the 17 east side on the other hand, you do not have the full rock 18 unit there. But what you do have is the rock unit that has 19 been pervasively invaded with zeolites where on the west 20 side it is vitric, it is glassy still. So there are 21 different radionuclides sorption properties on the east side 22 than on the west side. 23 DR. MOELLER: Are there any other questions? 24 (No response.) 25 DR. MOELLER: We will have another chance, of Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888
- y. . ; .
l i, 293:
.l. J1. course,'to interact with'our' speaker immediately after 't -s ) 2 lunch. We will take.now a one hour' lunch recess.
3 (Whereupon, at'12:20 p.m., the committee
'4 recessed,-to. reconvene at 1:20 p.m., this same day.)
5' 6~
.7 8
9 10 11' 12 13.
' /' 14
-<( j 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
.22 23 l 1
24 .! 25 l l g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i I i
o r 294 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (1:20 p.m.) 3 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will resume. And we 4 will pick up then with objection three by 5 Maxwell Blanchard. 6 A. BLANCHARD: I would like to take the next 7 fifteen minutes or so in talking about objection three from 8 the NRC staff that addresses interference. And my talk is 9 divided into two parts. One, where we summarize the NRC 10 objection, and then the other one where we describe our 11 approach. It is a similar division as the previous 12 objection, objection number two. 13 Of course, in this way, 8.4 of the SCP was
. 14 completely rewritten and expanded to 400 or 500 pages. This
'^
15 expansion was a consequence of both objection three and 16 four. The summary of the staff's objection was that the 17 consultation draft did not adequately and consistently 18 provide design information to a level of detail that allowed 19 them to evaluate interference between the investigations and 20 interference between construction and operations and the 21 investigations. 22 And their recommendation was to provide more 23 detail about construction and about the tests. And then to 24 discuss the strategy to minimize potential inference between 25 the investigation. { Heritage Reporting Corporation. (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ _ - - - - - - l
295 ] p- . 1 The approach'we took followed those , r
)
( ,/ 2 recommendations. We expanded'in our revision to 8.4 a 3 description of the ESF Title 1 design. We expanded the test
- 4. descriptions. And in that expansion,,we included the .!
I 5 constraints that the tests would have on the design layout. 6 We expanded the description of the operations which would 7 give a person the opportunity to understand the basis for 8 our inference evaluations which followed. And then we added 9 a series of evaluations and calculations, focusing on the 10 interference from the test standpoint and interference from 11 a construction to test, and from an operations to test. And 12 this latter section is where the shaft to shaft interference 13 was discussed. [N. .. 14 DR. MOELLER: Again in this case, had the subject 5'~'2 15 'been considered but simply not been written up or what? 16 MR. BLANCHARD: I think that the write-up was 17 exceptionally poor, in 8.4 talking about interference. And 18 there were a number of calculations and reports existing in 19 the project. But during the time that we were responding to 20 the NRC objection, we wrote a healthy number of additional 21 reports that we published in order to get the statutory SCP 22 finished. And so this was not well developed or well 23 thought out in the consultation draft. And from that 24 standpoint, the comments from the technical staff of the NRC 25 helped us refocus the problem immeasurably. f% Heritage Reporting Corporation ('- ) (202) 628-4888
l ! 296 l ! 1 4 Now in the evaluation of the Title 1 design, the 2 design information, the test descriptions, and the 3 supporting analysis had been described in 8.3 and 8.4. And 4 they provide the basis for the evaluations of interference. 5 In Section 8.4, we have gone back and looked at in a summary 6 fashion the underground ESF tests and summarized them there, 7 so that a person is not forced to go back several thousand 8 pages and go back through another large section like 8.3 is. 9 So in 8.4, it is relatively self-contained, and 10 you can get a good understanding of what is going on in 11 terms of both interference and impact on waste isolation by 12 reading 8.42 and 8.43, just in that one section. And it is 13 only a little over a hundred pages long single-spaced and 14 double-sided. 15 First, in 8.4-2, for each test activity, we 16 evaluated that with regard to constraints on the design that 17 the test should give and the zones of influence that the 18 test might have on the characteristics of the site, could it 19 change the site temporarily or permanently. 20 And then we examined physical standoff 21 requirements that were established for the test based upon 22 these zones of influence, so that we could be sure that we 23 would not be making a measurement that would be perturbed by 24 a test next door. 25 And then the layout of the test was evaluated to ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ' l l J
297 7-s 1 ensure thatLthe test to test inference would not be i V (_,j/ 2' significant. If we-saw zones of influence from one test 3 getting fairly large, then'we adjusted the layout to move 4 the tests further apart. 5 Fourth, the configuration, the construction, and 6 the operations were then evaluated to ensure that the 7 effects on the test program would not be significant. There 8 are a number of calculations and evaluations described in 9 summary fashion referenced in 8.42 and 8.43 that describe 10 this in greater detail. 11 And fina]1y, there is still flexibility in the I 12 layout which will allow us to relocate tests should we 13 change our mind based on some perhaps incomplete assumptions () ( / 14 or faulty assumptions, and based on some information that
'~'
15 proves to be different than the way that we assumed it to be 16 when we prepared the calculations that are in 8.42 now. 17 DR. STEINDLER: If you could you go back to that 18 point. 19 What is item four designed to avoid or cover? If 20 you could clarify the words for me. I am not sure that I 21 understand what you are saying. 22 MR.- BLANCHARD: Yes. The layout, how we are going 23 to construct the shaft, and then how we are going to operate 24- the various things, and the ventilation system, and the 25 vibration caused by cther equipment and materials, and 10 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
298 i-I i 1 whether or not that would have an impact on collectively on 2 the tests that are being conducted, a negative adverse ; l 3 impact That is what we are trying to do with the big. 4 picture. 5 DR. STEINDLER: Okay, thank you. l 6 MR. BLANCHARD: Each test activity was evaluated d 7 with respect to constraints that would be placed on the 8 design. By a constraint, what we are referring to is that i 9 the requirements imposed on the ESF design by the testing { 10 activity that must be satisfied, so that we can sure that we 11 can field the viable tests in situ underground in ESF. The 12 constraints in this analysis described in 8.4 were 13 categorized into three general types, constraints on 14 sequencing, on the location, or constraints on construction 15 and operations. 16 DR. STEINDLER: Did anyone else besides NRC give 17 you a similar objection to the ESF, for example USGS? 18 MR. BLANCHARD: The comments from the USGS focused I 19 a little on this. I think that the state comments went into 20 more detail than the NRC comments. So we have not fully 21 addressed those. 22 This is a list of those tests which we felt would 23 have a major constraint. That may be too strong a word, but 24 an important constraint on the ESF design. The test list 25 here is about half or less from the total sweep of tests ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
l 299- I
.,_ 1 that are being planned for the ESF, and they are subdivided i
( ,)\. 2 into sequencing, physical location and construction 3 operations. 4 What I would-like to do is talk for a moment about 5- an example, say the multi purpose bore hole where we had an 6 X in all three of these columns. First, the constraint from 7 a sequencing standpoint for the multi-purpose bore hole was 8 that it had to be constructed after the pad was constructed 9 but before ESF construction began. So that was a major 10 event, because that puts it on the critical path for ! 11 starting the construction activity. 12 From a construction operations standpoint,.the 13 MPBHs are only going to be something 40 to 50 or maybe
/N 14 60 feet away from ESF. And because we want to be able to' \ ' ~ ' , '
15 monitor and run tests, longer term tests, there are 16 constraints on construction operations. So we cannot 17 interfere with the operation of ESF-1 or ESF-2. But at the 18 same time, we cannot allow that operation to have a negative 19 impact on placing our instruments in the bore holes, or 20 pulling logging tools if we want to, or the long-term 21 monitoring. 22 And then from a physical location standpoint, the 23 bore holes in order to monitor changes in the rock 24 properties, the size of the modified permeability zone as a 25 result of construction, and how far out the water did t"
.( Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1
1
300 1 migrate in construction from the shaft, the holes had to be 2 close enough, so that you could make those measurements. But 3 when the holes are drilled, they have to end up in a pillar 4 two drift diameters. So that they comply with that part to 5 the extent possible, the bore holes should be in pillars. 6 And so it has got to be close enough but far 7 enough away. And as a consequence, we end up with about 50 8 feet away from the exploratory shaft but down dip for each 9 one of the holes. We have two six inch diameter 10 multi purpose bore holes planned. The major purpose of the 11 bore hole is to measure changes in the hydrologic and rock 12 properties away from the rock boundary where the exploratory 13 shaft hole is. But also it provides a baseline for future 14 { hydrologic measurements. 15 It provides a plethora of information about rock 16 properties. And it allows us to determine whether or not we 17 have perched water before we construct the exploratory 18 shaft, because we would like to get that water 19 uncontaminated so we could make chemical and geochronology ' 20 measurements on it. 21 So therein is a problem that we looked at, and all 22 of the rest come out with similar kinds of operational 23 construction and sequencing problems. And these were the 24 major ones that we brought out, and you will find those in 25 8.42. i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
301
;.>- q 1 DR. MOELLER: Now do you plan then to go'through 2' this same type of examination for all of the subsequent m 3 operations for the repository?
4 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, let's see. I am not quite 5 sure how to answer that question, because I am not sure of 6 your focus. The SCP is focused on characterizing the site, 7 and not assessing how well the repository design would be. 8 And as you know, the SCP does not address repository design 9 or waste package design. 10 Some future document that the Department would 11 have to prepare in the future about the engineering design 12 of the repository well beyond what is in a conceptual phase 13 in Chapter 6 and 7 will be coming, and I do not know what 14 that would be. ( 'y. 15 DR. MOELLER: *It is hard to tell. Okay. Thank 16 you. 17 MR. BLANCHARD: Each test activity was also 18- _ evaluated with respect to something called zones of 19 influence. Now a zone of influence is a zone that surrounds 20 each test, in which the environment may be altered as a 21 result of the test itself. We want to be sure that we are
- 22. not measuring a change that is a consequence of the test 23 next door.
24 The principal mechanisms that were considered in 25 these analyses were these fcur. Of course, the major focus ( Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888
302 { ( 1 was on hydrologic, but equally important were mechanical and 2 thermal changes as well as chemical. And some coupling 3 between mechanisms was also considered where we could. And 4 we have analyses which show what the coupling mechanisms 5 were and what the results were. 6 With respect to those mechanisms that can 7 influence the environment for the test, again there is a 8 subset of those ESF tests. It is approximately half of 9 them. And wherever an X occurs on one of these four 10 columns, it suggests that there is a fairly large change in 11 terms of either mechanical, thermal, or hydrologic, or in 12 that case chemical to the environment very close in with 13 respect to the tests. 14 And what I would like to do is again take one of 15 these and talk with you about it. And I will take the X 16 here on the multi-purpose bore hole. In fact, I think that 17 it would be better since in the previous one that we talked 18 multi-purpose bore hole, let us use a radial bore hole test. 19 Here is a possibility here where there could be 20 significant hydrologic changes. What are we trying to 21 accomplish with radial bore holes? Well, at eight different 22 depths, as we construct the exploratory shaft, we expect to 23 drill some two to eight radial bore holes out. And what we 24 want to do again like in the MPBH is that we want to measure 25 the change in the rock properties and the change in the ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i e____-___
;: ;; -?
303 gN- 1. hydrologic properties that could be caused by the
'2 construction'of.the' exploratory. shaft. How those mechanical 3 properties in the field change and how far out the water.
44 moved.
.S -
6 7 8
'9 10 11 12-13
*- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l
22' 23 24 25 k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880
304 4
]
( l Our estimate is that these boreholes would have to l i 2 be drilled 30 feet out radially, and then if that's not y 3 enough, they would be drilled a little bit farther out. ) 4 Now in order to run tests and to measure how the 5 mechanical and thermal changes -- mechanical and hydrologic 6 changes have, we expect to be injecting water in nitrogen so 7 that we can get cross borehole permeability values. We will 8 have packers in these so that we will actually verify the 9 changes in the properties in the hole as we start from the 10 sidewall going out. 11 Well, if we weren't careful, we could be 12 influencing the hydrologic measurements we would be getting. 13 So we want to go out far enough so that we are certain that
.: 14 we are beyond the zone where the change to the properties 15 caused by construction has been exceeded.
16 DR. MOELLER: Now, your chart says that the -- if 17 I am following -- that the multipurpose boreholes will have 18 mechanical effects, but that radial boreholes will not. 19 MR. BLANCHARD: Yes, the multipurpose bore holes 20 are going to be drilled dry like all of the holes we 21 currently plan inside the perimeter drip on Yucca Mountain 22 that would be drilled from the surface. We expect drill all 23 those dry. 24 And so because they are being drilled dry, we 25 don't expect any hydrologic impact to occur wherever those i Heritage Corporation ( Reporting (202) 628-4888
1 i 305 l '
,,-st . '1 holes'are drilled.- So therefore we think.the changes would g .Y
\ (,_e 2 be simply mechanical caused by the drilling. ,
)
3 DR. MOELLER:. Now why doesn't a radial borehole y L 4 have mechanical effects? ! 5 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, you are right, it would. It i 6 will have mechanical effects. 7 Mike, did you want to -- I saw you raise a hand. 8- MR. VOGAL: I just wanted to remind you -- this is 9 Mike vogal. I just wanted to remind you that the title of 10 this viewgraph is probably important, if you could just pull 11 it down a little bit. We weren't trying to discuss all of 12 the mechanisms, just the principal mechanisms. 13 DR. MOELLER: Now, do the last two items, because (y 14 they are small Xs, does that mean less effect?
.Q) 15 MR. BLANCHARD: No , no.
16 (Laughter.) 17 MR. BLANCHARD: As long as we are on this 18 viewgraph, there is a heated room experiment, and those of 19 you that are familiar with heated room tests know that there 20 is a large influence, both mechanically and thermally out 21 because it changes the stress field as the rock heats up. 22 And according to calculations described in 8.4 for the 23 heated room experience, we expect for this three-year test i 24- that the stress field could be modified out as far as 100 25 feet,'and the thermal field could be modified out as far as n (^
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r I [ 306
-( 1 90 feet.
2 And so that these calculations are essential in 3 order for us to determine where to place the heated room 4 experiment to make sure that it won't impact some other 5 experiment. 6 Continuing on with the evaluation of zones of 7 influence, focusing now rather than test-to-test, we are 8 looking at construction activities, the zones of influence 9 resulting from construction activities. We found that 10 stress alterations from shafts sinking and from drifting 11 have a mechanical influence of the vibration of rock damage 12 in chemical byproducts from control blasting, and the 13 influence will be on both mechanical and chemical aspects of 14 the site. The use of fluids has a potential impact on 15 hydrology and the geochemistry. And finally, the 16 ventilation system will have a hydrologic impact. It will 17 dry the rock out considerably. 18 To talk about some examples of these zones of 19 influence from construction activities, I have taken two 20 examples: one hydrologic and one mechanical, and I talk a 21 little bit through the mechanical one, especially the stress 22 alteration around shafts and drifts. This summarizes many 23 different types of analysis that are written up in C.4.2. I 24 have just picked the four highlights of them. 25 Stress-altered regions down to the 10 percent (~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
307-
- 1' l stress change'around the shafts are expected to extend out f-~(
\/ 2 about one and a half shaft diameters from the center line of 3 the shaft itself. The stress-altered region around the 4 access drifts in the alcove extends laterally to about one 5 drift diameter. The extend of the predicted altered stress 6 region around the drift in the welded tuff was substantiated 7 by tests that had been conducted for the last year in G 8 tunnel over at Rayner Mesa on another part of the test site, 9 and then finally ES-1 and ES-2, the two exploratory shafts, 10 will be separated by approximately 20 shaft diameters, and 11 we consider it unlikely that there will be interference 12 between the tests from a mechanical standpoint or a 13 hydrologic standpoint.
rh 14 DR. STEINDLER: Do you plant to drill at ES-1 and [jr t 15 2 dry or what?- 16 MR. BLANCHARD: ES-1 and 2 are not being drilled. 17 They are being constructed by hand with controlled blasting, 18 and we felt that that would have a minimum impact on the 19 rock. 20 DR. STEINDLER: Oh, okay. 21 MR. BLANCHARD: And there is very -- we are having 22 controis on the water. We are going to use what we consider 23 minimum amount. I am not quite sure how they define a 24 minimum amount, but we were concerned with what could happen 25 to the rock if it was drilled with a large head of fluid
/'N y (j/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
i I - _ - - - _ _ _ ___ _____-_ _-_ _-__ l
i 308 i 1 using some of the drilling techniques that are used to drill 2 a similar size shaft holes out at the test site for the 3 weapons program. 4 And quite some time ago, back I believe about 5 1982, the decision was made not to drill the shafts, but to 6 construct them with drill and blast techniques. 7 Continuing on into the second example, from a 8 hydrologic modification standpoint or zone of influence 9 standpoint, we are looking at construction water in the 10 shafts and drifts. The results again of many analysis 11 summarize into three bullets, go something like this. 12 The matrix flow analysis assumes about 10 percent 13 of the construction water is expected to enter the l'ormation
- 14 and to be retained in the modified permeability zone. In 15 the previous viewgraph I explained mechanically we think the 16 modified permeability zone is about one and a half shaft 17 diameters from the center of the shaft.
18 According to the analysis we have reported in 19 8.4.2 now, after about 10 years the analysis predicts that 20 water would be migrated about 10 meters, something like 30 21 or 40 feet. 22 The fracture flow analysis that supports this 23 evaluation has these components: A small aperture 24 fractures, these are like 25 microns and under. Underwater 25 pressure could move 10 to 15 meters from the source. Water ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 1 309 f f'~N L 1 entering large fractures, larger than 250 microns, could-
- i V
?N / 2 migrate 50 to 60 meters away.
.3 Because of the volume of water contains in the 4 fracture is expected to be small at these depths and 5 pressures, the water is expected to quickly be imbibed into 6 the matrix and then the initial saturation will be achieved
~
7 as the water slowly adjusts itself in the matrix after being
- 8. ' imbibed.
9 Finally, that a 300-foot separation distance 10 between the shafts is sufficient to preclude hydrologic 11 interaction, and that the shaft orientations have been-12 selected to reduce the likelihood of connections between 13 fractures based on the prevailing geologic structure and
'(A'r w 14 fracture patterns in the mountain.
,( .
15 DR. MOELLER: Now, when you say orientation,.you 16 mean -- 17- MR. BLANCHARD: The drifts. 18 DR. MOELLER: -- where they are placed? 19 MR. BLANCHARD: In the test areas. 20 DR. MOELLER: Okay. 21 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, for instance, we haven't, we 22 haven't lined up the two shafts to start with on a fracture
- 23. pattern that's coincident so that we would have a cross l
24 connection between them. We have avoided that kind of 25 thing. k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l 310 { 1 With respect to test -- 2 DR. MOODY: Max. 1 1 3 MR. BLANCHARD: Sure, Judith.
- 4 DR. MOODY: Are these calculations that you gave 5 in a previous slide, did you do those and put them into the 6 SCP?
7 MR. BLANCHARD: The calculations are in references 8 cited in the SCP, and then in 8.4 we have summarized the 9 basis of the calculation and then summarized the results. 10 So if a person wants to critique those evaluations, they can 11 go to the reference and get the details. But if they only 12 want to read a summary or a review of it, they can start 13 right there.
. 14 Now, interference evaluations on test-to-test.
15 The zones of influence were superimposed on the design and 16 layout of the test areas. The overlay was examined for 17 potential interferences. And then if potential 16 interferences were identified, as we made these evaluations, 19 then the timing of the test was modified or the layout was 20 changed to ensure that the interference would not be 21 significant, and that was that first list where we talked 1 22 about sequencing and construction operation and things like ) I 23 that. 24 The evaluations for construction-to-test centered 25 on establishing controls placed on construction and i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l I
.311 Ll . ,-Qf 1 operation: activities: How we were' going.to-ensure that the~
p y
- k_,/-
1 ..
- 2. construct doesn't negatively. impact:the test.in addition to-
.3 ~ spacing and sequencing type things. While we are placing 4 controls;on blasting, controls'on tho'use of construction 5 : fluid, control on dust, vibration and traffic, and then we 6 are using phased construction and phased testing. We have a 7 separation for the test areas, and we'have/ flexibility in 8 additional separation.
9 And then probably more important, or at least 10 equally important.to all of'these is the monitoring. We 11 will be monitoring changes caused by. construction operations 12 as well'as the testing. 13 The monitoring that we have is planned to confirm
' 14 our assumptions that are written up in 8.4.2 and the 15 ' calculations, the actual data values that were used in the 16 calculations for interference.
17 The data collected will be used to test the 18 assumptions, the data and the analysis, and then the 19 conclusions written-up it. 8.4 on the basis for our
- ;20 interference evaluations.
21 During characterization, the impacts of testing on 22 the site will be reevaluated. We will be reviewing 23 potential for interference, the test-to-test, and the
' 24 construction-to-test, that could adversely affect the i 25 acquisition of the data. And then we will consider design i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
312 1 changes that could reduce potential interference and impacts 2 on the site whenever it becomes clear that that's a 3 possibility. 4 Types of activities, I don't want to go through 5 this in a long arduous manner, but we've summarized a suite 6 in the next few viewgraphs of the 197 study plans that have 7 been described previously, and then we have identified a 8 description of a monitoring activity that will be going on 9 so that we can test our results of our evaluation, how well 10 it was. Continue to be aware of what the assumptions were 11 when the calculations were made, and what the values were 12 that went into those calculations. 13 Things like artificial recharge, a particular 14 study where we are adding water to the top of the mountain 15 so we can look at infiltration matrix, hydrologic properties 16 and the boreholes will be filling from the surface, we'll be 17 monitoring infiltration rate, and we'll be using tracers 18 with the water. And in different areas we will be using 19 different chemical traces so we can determine if the water 20 migration overlaps we can determine where it came from. 21 On radial borehole tests that I was describing 22 just earlier, we will be monitoring the excavation effects 23 on the properties. 24 Down here I mention the MPBH, multipurpose 25 borehole. Here we will be monitoring for perched water, but l (, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l _______m_ _ _ _ _ _ __ __.
gu L L 313
.; st 1 we will also be monitoring for drilling fluid contamination 'l Y t \_,/ 2 in both the unsaturated zone and the saturated zone.
3 Under thermal / mechanical things, heat capacity, 4 thermal conductivity and expansion, we will be confirming 5 the values that were.used for calculating the thermal 6- expansion and the therma 1' influence. 7 So we have two -- we have approached it from a 8 two-fold standpoint. We have made some assumptions. We 9 have written up the evaluations and used site data that's 10 available now to predict what we think would be the 11 interference from test-to-test. Then we have adjusted the 12 layout, moved things or changed sequences. 13 Now as we conduct the program, we begin getting [*pc 14 information back in from the testing program, and at that
\.~/ 15 stage we begin looking'at what the assumptions were; also 16 looking at what the data values were that went in the 17 calculations in an attempt to find out whether our 18 calculations and our evaluations are right.
19 And that's the process we plan on using as we 20 conduct site characterization in a process we will be doing 21 that. 22 To summarize the conclusions about interference, ) 23 first, the assessments of current design indicate that 24 layouts precludes significant interference between the 25 tests. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
314 '( 1 The design incorporates features like control 2 blasting, water control and other things and operational 3 controls to limit the extent practicable the interference 4 with the test program. 5 We have industrial safety considerations 6 encompassed within 8.4.2. also; things like emergency egress 7 are there for exploratory shaft 2. They can be accommodated 8 without any important impact on the test program. 9 And finally, we have extensive monitoring during 10 site characterization which will allow us to reevaluate our 11 interference calculations to ensure that they won't be 12 significant, have an insignificant impact en our ability to 13 characterize the site, or the ability of the site to contain 24 waste. { 15 That concludes the presentation about 16 interference. I will be ready to go on to the next one, 17 Objection 4. But if you have some questions, I will be glad 18 to answer them before I go on to Objection 4, 19 DR. MOELLER: Any questions on Objection No. 37 20 (No response.) 21 DR. MOELLER: There are none additional, so go on 22 to 4. Thank you. 23 Oh, wait. 24 MR. BLANCHARD: Somebody raised their hand back 25 there. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l i 315 .i
-i jg-s{. L1 Mike, did you want to add something thatJI missed? j 2 MR '. VOGAL: This'is Mike Vogal-again.
I 3 I wanted to ask Dr. Moeller to go back to the , l 4 question- that he. asked earlier about- doing- influence 5 . calculations similar to this.for the repository. I wanted 6 to make sure I understood what.the intent of that question 7 was, because I think if you meant something different from 8 what Max interpreted it to be,.there is a different answer 9 for that question. 10 would you mind elaborating on that? 11 DR. MOELLER: Mine was sort of a. simple question. 12 I just wondered if when'you actually-got into, you know, 13 finished characterization, and if the site were approved, 14 and if you were' constructing,a repository thero,. if you [j*p
\
15 .would go through all of this same sequence,:or whoever.is 16 constructing it would have to go-through all this same~ 17' sequence that you are doing here. 18 MR. VOGAL: To try to ascertain what the impact of 19- the testing program could be.on the site itself. 20 I thought that's what you mean. And I think the. 21 answer then-is a little bit different from the answer Max 22 gave you.
, . 23 Do you want -- do you want me to go ahead, Max?
24 Okay, basically, in fact it's the next 25 presentation Max is about to give focuses very much on what i Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
316 ( 1 the impacts of the testing program are on the eventual 2 ability of the repository to be in compliance with the i 3 performance objectives. And as you will see, to do that we 4 took the same kind of information about how the testing 5 program influences the environment surrounding it, and tried 6 to make assessments about if that could change the site 7 conditions sufficiently to impact the site's ability to meet 8 the performance objectives. And that's really the subject 9 of this next talk. I wanted to make sure we didn't leave 10 those disjointed. Thank you. 11 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 12 MR. BLANCHARD: Okay, the outline of this talk 13 will over two topics: the summary of Objection 4 from the 14 NRC staff, and then the approach we have taken to address 15 Objection 4. , 16 As in Objection 3, basically 8.4 of the { 17 consultation draft was completely rewritten. 18 Just to remind you about the nature of the 1 i 19 objection, although the objection talked about things like 1 20 surface water infiltration, lateral and vertical erosion, 21 sheet flow, things of that sort, our interpretation of the j 22 intent of Objection 4 was really these two here. There is i 23 a possibility of adverse impacts on waste isolation, and 4 l 24 there is a possibility that the test program can affect the 25 ability to adequate characterize the site. So that's how I ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
317 I
,r~'s 1 have centered our response to you today, addressing that.
l 3 -^~ /- 2- Their recommendation was prior to finalizing the . i' 3- locations consider these kinds of things, including flooding 4 and erosion. But again the bottom line is adverse impacts 5 on waste isolation and impacts on our ability to 6 characterize. 7 Now, I think Objection 3 has addressed our ability-8 to characterize it as we are looking at interference very 9 carefully. 10 Our approach to address Objection 4 was two-fold,. 11 and it continued to keep us conscious of 60.15 in that we 12 conducted the detailed evaluations to ensure that'the J 13 activities that we are conducting will limit adverse affects [\j. f. 14 on long-term performance of the repository to the extent 15 practical; and that these evaluations go one step farther. 16 And that.is, that while we conduct these activities we don't 17 limit our ability to characterize the site and to process. 18 We expanded 8.4 to include evaluations of impacts 19 from both the surface and the underground test program. 20 Although the comments were focused on the underground 21 program, it was clear the intent was there for a need to 22 look at the surface-based program as well. 23 And then the evaluation of the potential impacts 24 from both the surface and the underground test program on 25 meeting postclosure was then made. D Heritage Reporting Corporation c (202) 628-4888
318 ( 1 And during the process of this evaluation we 2 looked at the other things in this objection like flooding 3 and erosion, and I have two or three viewgraphs that 1 would 4 like to talk with you about: the risk to flooding of the 5 exploratory shaft location. 6 In 8.4, there was a major rewrite, and in 8.4.3, 7 we summarize data and analyses that are in a myriad of l
)
8 references that were introduced to 8.4 as we rewrote it. ! 9 The focus of 8.4.3.2 is to assess the potential impacts to 10 current site conditions from conducting site 11 characterization. And the potential impacts focused on 12 changes to the site that the test program can cause in 13 hydrology, geochemistry and the thermal / mechanical 14 properties. { 15 This then as a basis of information and analysis i 16 to start from, we then can move into 8.4.3 where we assess ; 17 the potential impacts of site characterization on the 18 postclosure requirements. And we did that by looking at the 19 impacts on the total system, on the waste package 20 containment, on the EBS releases and on groundwater travel 21 time. 22 So this information in 8.4.3 is the data and the 23 analyses that were used and then drawn from as we develop 24 our analysis here in 8.4.3. 25 The approach in the data and evaluation part, the ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
319 l' 8.4.3.2, was to consider the potentialTimpacts to current
.)< )
9-
\- '2 site conditions caused by these kinds of activities:
3 surface-related, trenching, things of that sort; drilling,
.4 borehole drilling for both geologic holes for getting core, 5 and then hydrologic holes for testing; shaft construction 6 itself as an entity as well as underground drift 7 construction and then underground testing.
8 And each of these evaluations considers 9 perturbations caused by the site activities to the inherent 10 properties of the site: the hydrologic, the geochemical and 11 thermal / mechanical properties. 12 DR. MOODY: Max. 13 MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. t 14 DR. MOODY: Has somebody sat down and taken into 15 consideration all of th'e drill holes that have already been 16 done either through the Nevada test site itself, or I know 17 compared to what we were doing in the SALP program, you 18 already have a very large magnitude of drill holes that 19- penetrate repository horizon and even deeper. And one of 20 the things that I think you would agree, or most everybody 21 would here agree is that each hole that's drilled, certainly 22 not only in the surface but the subsurface and actually 23 penetrates below the repository horizon itself, has a l 24 potential problem in the sense that we talk about the total 1 25 stability of the site, potential for earthquakes, volcanism. (()) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I l 320 l l' 1 But even another potential that has to be taken into i 2 consideration in terms of total isolation is the total 3 number of drill holes that are postulating to be done. 4 Has anybody looked at it just in the terms of do 5 you really need another 35 drill holes that penetrate to 6 Calico Hill, for example? 7 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, it's a good question you 8 esked, Judith, and we have taken many aspects into 9 consideration and we hope that this risk benefit analysis 10 will be more or less the bottom words before we start site 11 characterization. 12 But there are a lot of holes, you are right, out I 13 at Yucca Mountain. Fortunately, the repository horizon is
-- 14 in the unsaturated zone, and because of that following the 15 regulations, all of the layout of the repository as it's 16 currently conceived would ensure that -- we are going to try 17 to ensure anyway that all of the existing boreholes plus 18 those that are drilled in the future are inside a pillar and 19 that that hole was at least two drift diameters away from an 20 emplacement area. That's the first thing we are going to 21 try to do.
22 The next one is the ceiling program itself will be 23 in place and will have to function. But one of the 24 questions about how does it function in the unsaturated zone 25 is not easily answered, because one doesn't want to go out ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t 1
321 1 and'immediately' seal real well necessarily an unsaturated f ,--J)
' (,/ 2 zone hole.
3 Looking at the sump at the bottom of the 4- exploratory shaft, we seal that off so that it was-5 impermeable, then we would lose the opportunity to let water 6 that naturally migrates through that area after it's 7 backfilled, we would lose the ability of that to drain. So 8 we would take that sump and guarantes a build up of water. 9 We don't want that to happen. 10 And so one has to carefully design the. sealing 11 program for the unsaturated zone to make sure that if we get 12 water migrating, or when we get water migrating through that 13 area, that the fines don't clog up the porous nature of how f O y, 14 'we want that seal to function. ( f- 15 But the proof, I think, of bringing the picture 16 together should be in this risk benefit analysis where we 17 address Objection 2, penetrating the Calico Hills, where we 18 compare the existing boreholes, the planned future boreholes 19 with doing insitu tests in the Calico Hills. 10 DR. MOODY: Well, Max, is that in the process of 21 being done right now, or it will be shortly, or? 22 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, it's in the process of 23 planning right now. 24 DR. MOODY: I'm just trying to emphasize that it's 25 nontrivial. l f ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
322 1 MR. VOGAL: Max, could I just add two more facts? { 2 This is Mike Vog:.1. 3 First of all, Judith, very few of those holes that 4 you are talking about have actually been drilled within the 5 repository site isoundaries, the proposed repository site 6 boundaries. There is a lot of information at the test site 7 that is relevant to the assessments about Yucca Mountain, 8 but Dave and I were just trying to guess the number. I 9 think it's two or three that are actually within the 10 repository block. 11 DR. MOODY: Okay, that's what I wanted to know. 12 MR. VOGAL: Okay. Let me just continue a little 13 bit, because I can answer your other question directly, I 14 believe. 15 DR. MOODY: All right. 16 MR. VOGAL: There is an evaluation in Section 8.4 17 about the affects of the drilling program on the ability of 18 the site to comply with the postclosure performance 19 objectives. That part of the characterization program was 20 also evaluated in 8.4.
)
21 DR. MOODY: Thank you. 22 DR.' MOELLER: Yes, Dr. Hinze. 23 DR. HINZE: May I please. This may be stepping 24 back to our last topic, but obviously the exploration shafts 25 are being put down in the critical area. Those are the 1 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation { (202) 628-4888 i t i l
l l 4 323 1 v.
,r 1' areas that-you:wish to' study the most.; And as we have just 1 i l
?x, ,2- heard,.you want to study those as'much as possible without j 3- . disturbing-the site.
4 Thus my question is, do you have in mind 5 conducting any surface studies in the vicinity of the 6 exploration' shaft and its drifting, or do.you have in mind 7 hole-to-hole studies that may-be affected by the facility 8 itself, by the shaft and by the drifts? And if so, are,you 9 going to complete.those before you start the work of'the
'10 exploratory shaft?
11 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, we have reports of studies 12 performed by USGS geophysista at Yucca Mountain and in the. 13 'immediate vicinity of the exploratory shaft. There have 1 14- been some, as I mentioned earlier, some seismic profiling 15 attempts that were made across the mountain which proved not 16 to be interpretable. 17 The most useful information we have about the 18 structure where ES-1 and ES-2 are now currently located 19 comes from G-4 which was a borehole that we drilled and 20 cored all the way down, which is a few hundred feet away 21 from that facility. 22 Putting.the two holes, the HPBH holes that I 23 discussed earlier, something like 40 to 60 feet away from 24 ES-1 and ES-2 prior to constructing the shaft, we feel will 25 get us the most accurate base line information about the
; ['
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
324 I ( l rock properties and the hydrologic properties that we need 2 so that we can safely move ahead and assess how the impact { 3 on the site has developed as we have constructed the shaft. 4 I don't know if I'm getting close to answer your 5 question. 6 DR. HINZE: Yes, you are getting there. Let me 7 hypothesize something. 8 The vein deposits are of concern to us all. Let 9 us say that associated with those vein depositt that you had 10 a modification of the magnetic properties of the two. By 11 putting in this facility, you would be putting in sufficient 12 cultural features that would invalidate any subsequent near 13 surface magnetic studies which might investigate this 14 possible problem. 15 I'm concerned that enough forethought has gone q 16 into the surface geophysical and the hole-to-hole studies in 17 this area before operations get underway. 18 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, it's certainly a reasonable 19 concern. We have tried to use the geophysics to the extent 20 possible to give us discrete information. And because of 1 21 the nature of the rocks, I think up until now they have 22 given us ambiguous information, and that's been part of the 23 reason why the petrologists and the geologists that want to { l 24 map fractures and the hydrologists that want to run I 25 properties tests feel that they really need to get { Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
325 f-~j _ 1 underground and run insitu tests, and they want to do that f ( l
\m ? 2 not only as they are going down, using things like these 3 radial boreholes, but then they want to have their own test 4 room dedicated to their tests so they can conduct more or 5 less uninfluenced tests insitu.
'6 And so it's certainly possible that we have not 7 done everything we could possible do from a geophysics 8 standpoint. On the other hand, the perception is that from 9 the principal investigators in the program right now, that 10 they need to get underground to run the insitu tests, 11 because that gives them much more discrete information and 12 less ambiguous interpretations than what they have gotten in 13 the past from the geophysics program.
[m 'E 14 DR. HINZE: But you also are very interested in L 15 putting that explorator'y shaft in the right place. 16 MR. BLANCHARD: You are quite right. 17 DR. HINZE: And until you have some information, 18 the hard information, you are telling us that you only have 19 a couple of drill holes in the area, you are getting far out 20 on the limb before conductir.g some investigations. 21 What's the date of the geophysical studies that 22 you are discussing, and how much have they been ground truth 23 with these drill holes that are available, and integrated 24 with each other? 25 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, to my recollection, the C ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 623-4888
326 z 1 geophysical program that was ran by the Geological Survey 2 was in the early 1980s, and the reports came out in the mid 3 1980s. And the information contained in them are described 4 in Part A of the SCP in the geology chapter and the 5 hydrology chapters, geoengineering chapters, that is. 6 How well that's been integrated into the overall 7 picture, I think it's not all that clear. We have tried to 8 put that in, but we have also recognized that from a 9 planning otandpoint we have not integrated all aspects of , 10 the geophysics that we could because we have written into 11 the SCP in the geophysics area, where we've described 12 studies in geophysics, a creation of a - you might call a 13 geophysics White Paper on integrating it with the other
. 14 aspects of the program.
15 I think we recognize inherently that we have not 16 taken advantage of the remote sensing techniques that are -- 17 all of those that are possible, and so we are in the process 18 of preparing this geophysics paper, and that's one of our 19 early products. It's due out in draft form, I think, in the 20 next month or two. 21 DR. HINZE: Thank you. j 22 MR. BLANCEARD: Now, I think we've talked through 23 this. We are on our next viewgraph. j 24 What I would like to do is to talk through what we ) 1 l 25 have -- from the analysis in 8.4.3, what we have concluded ! { l l 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 ! ) f i . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _
I: 1 !- l 327 j--J 1 about the affects on the hydrologic conditions of the site s, 2 as a consequence of conducting site characterization. 3 And the reason I am focusing on hydrologic right 4 now is that a whole lot, I mean the site integrity depends 5 upon understanding the. hydrologic conditions. And if we 6 have adverse impacts on.it, we had better fully understand 7 those. 8 The evaluations include the size of the modified 9 permeability zone, calculating what effects would be if we i 10 have water introduced from the surface or water used during 11 construction. We have looked at water movement, both liquid' 12 and gas phase. This includes vapor flow and open boreholes, 13 airflow through backfill because the shaft would be [ r' 14 backfilled later. Effects on air drying, experiments on 15 drying of tuff rock, and then ventilation effects on the 16 saturation -- desaturating the rock in the exploratory 17 shaft. 18 The effects on the hydrologic conditions, our 19 conclusions were that the changes are expected to be 20 transient and limited to about 10 meters from the 21 excavation, some 30 to 40 feet away. 22 But further action seemed to be called for in that 23 control of water use by maintaining very low pressure so 24 there is no head to force the water to migrate out, and keep 25 the volume small, and then using chemically tagged water.
!,O) Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l.
328 ( 1 And in some cases where you see the possibility of waves of 2 water coming in from different directions, tag it with 3 different chemistry. 4 And then one other thing is to drill dry whenever 5 possible. 6 Looking at the effects on the geochemical 7 conditions -- 8 DR. MOELLER: Excuse me. Can you give me an 9 example of a chemical you would use to tag water? 10 MR. BLANCHARD: Gene reminds me one of them is 11 lithium bromide. But there is a large selection. None of 1 12 them a radioisotopes. They are all chemical standards. 13 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 14 MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. 15 DR. OKRENT: A moment ago we heard the comment 16 that it would be important that when you drill your holes 17 they are in the right place. And I'm trying to understand, 18 with my limited knowledge, two things that are related. ! 19 One, is it really very crucial that you be in "the 20 right place", or are there a lot of places that are the 21 right places, or region that's the right place, or so forth? 22 And the second related question de, if it's really 23 very crucial that you are in exactly the right place, just 24 what does that mean and what does that mean with regard to 25 the whole concept of the suitability of the site, and your ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ! I l l _ - _ _ - _ - - - - - - 1
329 1 understanding it well enough that you have to hit exactly. (,,asy 1. ( ,/ ,2 the.right place? 3 I'm sort of bothered. I'm not making myself very 4 ; clear probably. 5 MR. BLANCIIARD : No, you are quite clear. I really 6 understand the point you are trying to make. 7 DR. OKRENT: All right, go ahead.
'8 MR. BLANCHARD: We have struggled with just that, 9 and the presentation being given by Dr. Younker later on i
10 about the representative of the drilling program I think 11 speaks to that. Let me summarize what our current view is 12 based on the analysis that we have done. 13 And that is, we need to have a good statistical
/\ , 14 understanding of flow paths and flow directions from the
'~
15 water and a radionuclides standpoint to be successful in 16 licensing. To do that, we need to know things about means 17 and standard deviations. Sometimes that's not easily 18 obtained. 19 Therefore, we have developed a surface-based 20 program of drilling for both geologic and hydrologic tests 21 which has two components to it. One component is looking at 22 anomalies. We call that the feature program. 23 We go out to areas where we think there is an 24 anomaly and purposely drill or test that particular anomaly 25 to understand what influence it might have on the Oi Beritage Reporting Corporation
')'
(202) 628-4888 l _____ _ a
330
;. 1 pancake-layered geology of Yucca Mountain and the hydrology.
2 That in itself if not enough to start making predictions 3 with means and standard deviations about groundwater 4 traveling and about radionuclides retardation, because you 5 are looking at and gaining information about anomalies. 6 So we have another program called a systematic 7 drilling program which is oriented towards a classical 8 statistical approach to determine what are the 9 representative values that we need to go forward with from 10 each one of the rock units in terms of hydrologic 11 prope -tie s , chemical properties and mechanical properties. 12 So we are combining these two drilling programs. 13 They have different purposes. They feed into the long-term 14 performance calculations differently, and they are ran 15 separately. One is kind of a grided approach, and then look 16 and see what we have, and then develop a grid with longer 17 spacing, which is a systematic program. And then we have 18 the anomaly program or our feature sampling program. 19 And I would suggest that maybe you ask more 20 questions specifically to Dr. Younker when she prepares a 21 presentation. 22 DR. OKRENT: Well, let me just pursue the general 23 question a little bit. 24 It seems to me it's possible, or it may even be 25 probable that after you do your drilling program all is not ( Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888
331 s- ~1 clear; that you will.have inconsistencies; that there will k_,s 2 be heterogeneities you didn't expect, or whatever. 3 Do you go into this venture with a need to meet 4 some statistically very good definition of properties, or 5 you're just not going to be able to provide the regulatory 6 staff reasonable assurance, or whatever it is they are 7 looking for? And if so, why?' And is that really so? 8 I'm just trying to again have some feel for the 9 overall sensitivity of your success to the success of these 10 measurements, each and all of them, as it were. 11 MR. BLANCHARD: I believe you asked the same 12 general kinds of questions to Don Alexander this morning 13 when he talked about performance allocation process. [~'\ - 14 DR. OKRENT: My mind is one track. And I'm trying 15 to -- 16 MR. BLANCHARD: And what -- 17 DR. OKRENT: Let me go on. 18 MR. BLANCHARD: Sure. 19 DR. OKRENT: You may or may not know, I was on a 20 committee that reviewed the EPA draft standard, and I 21 certainly openly raised questions with them about whether or 22 not they were preparing a standard that could be met. And 23 we posed the same question to the NRC staff, where they 24 confident that this was a standard that could be met, and l 25 now that you are starting to dig I'm again trying to ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 332 1 understand just what it is you think you have to do in order (' ; 2 to meet this EPA almost standard. l 4 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 4 21 22 23 24 25 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1 333
?
h 1 MR. BLANCHARD: To the extent we understand the 4
\' i N /- 2 EPA standard of the regulations,.we have tried when we laid 3 out our performance allocation process to identify those 4 particular attributes of the site that we think we'll likely i
5 rely on with high level of confidence. And there we zeroed l 4 l 6 in on the test program to identify suites of parameters that j 7 we think we need as well as how well we think we need to 8 know the information. ; 9 Don, in a very general sense, addressed confidence 10 levels this morning, but when one gets into the performance 11 allocation' process as it's described later on in 8-3, 12 affecting the experiments, you begin to realize that we have 13 identified lots and lots of parameters, the value that we'd (
/~^g 3.. 14 like to get on the parameter, or some general feeling for j %~-l k 15 the precision of the measurement or the accuracy of the I i
16 measurement. And in those areas where we think we are 17 going to rely on them with a great need, like the 18 groundwater travel time in the Calico Hills, we are not 19 making just a given measurement of that particular 20 hydrologic property. We have redundant programs. We have j { 21 taken many different ways to measure the same parameter.
]
22 We're trying to use all of those different types of 23 measurements to come up with some values that we think we 1 l 24 will have high confidence in.
]
l L 25 Whether it turns out in the end that we end up q l 1 I
> 1
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
_ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
334
- g. 1 with much confusion about what the real value is or whether 2 we make pre-sigma calculation on the mean and find that it's 3 getting smaller and smaller as we add more data, I think the 4 proof is in the pudding. We'll have to characterize and run 5 the tests and start interpreting the data before we can 6 answer that question.
7 DR. OKRENT: Let me ask just one more related 8 question, if I may. 9 As you can tell from my questions, currently 10 working on the assumption that when all the measurements 11 have been made, there will still be at least two alternative 12 theories if not more, for let's say the hydro geology of the 13 site. And there will probably be ten opinions if you ask 14 ten experts on the climate or on vulcanism or so forth. And 15 given that there are going to be these differences in 16 subjective judgment where in fact in many cases that's all 17 you can do, there is no other basis except being subjective, 18 are they going to be the thing that overwhelms the decision 19 process, whatever decision is made? And will some of the 20 things that you are trying to ascertain with very high 21 confidence, I read in the bible, are they really, are they 22 going to remain that important if there are facing the 23 ultimate decision makers, experts with really fundamental 24 differences of opinion on some of the main scenario 25 initiators and so forth? Heritage Reporting Corporation { (202) 628-4888
335-f .1- MR.-BLANCHARD: Well, in an attempt to answer your et 2 very difficult question, those of us who have been thinking 3 about performance allocation for quite some time feel'that
.4 there is no way to get away from having a peer review 5 process, the independent. review process as integral to the-6 success of the program.
7 And I think you are right in'your~ view that in the 8 end when you get a13 the data in front of you there is~still 9 going to be a measure of uncertainty that the data won't 10 allow you to feel comfortable with.
'11 And as a consequence, you will have to' rely on 12 peer review, independent review process, and there's no way.
13 to get around that, that we know-of. 14' 'Shall we go on? (v ym 15 DR. MOELLER: I think so. Looking at the agenda, 16 though, I believe we better speed up if we can on this and 17 then we'll figure out what to do after you finish. 18 MR. BLANCHARD: Looking at the effects on 19 geochemical conditions of the site, from site 20 characterization, we had a decision tree analysis which 21 examined fluids and materials for the deleterious effects 22 -which would affect radionuclides retardation. 23 Again, the penetration distances look like they 24 are generally less than ten meters, and that there is only 25 limited movement of fluids in biodegradable material. The s~ - {g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
336 i 1 chemical changes from things like the concrete liner, 2 although we know they are going to occur, we expect they 3 will be of limited extent and not terribly impacting. 4 The conclusion would be that changes do occur, 5 some transient and some permanent, but again they are 6 expected to be limited within ten meters of the shaft. 7 Further action, like in hydrology, would be 8 controlled fluid and material use, and remove the material 9 from the underground after you've used it. 10 Looking.at the mechanical conditions, the effects 11 near the shaft due to stress redistribution and blast 12 damage, we find that the excavation induced changes in rock 13 mass permeability in both rock properties and hydrology are 14 limited to less than a factor of 2 at distances greater than {: 15 eight meters. 16 The effects near the drifts, well, we expect 17 permanent changes to the hydrologic properties are limited 18 to less than five meters. And our conclusion is that 19 changes are expected to be permanent but limited to several 20 meters in extent in the vicinity of the drift or the shaft. 21 Further action would be to carefully use smooth wall 22 blasting techniques and make sure the effects are limited. 23 DR. STEINDLER: Excuse me. If it turns out that 24 you are in error by a factor of 5, are you building that 25 into whatever safety margins of, say, shaft separation that (. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1 337 ! l' .you are planning on? y
-, y\ 8 x_-[ 2 In other words,.supposing your 8 meters turn out .l 1 t
-' 3 to be, well.40 may be a little too high, but three times
! l 4 that. 5 MR. BLANCHARD: We have a safety factor in there 6 'and these evaluations and calculations that have given us .I 7 the distances that I'm talking with you today are not as the 8 result of a single calculation. Generally they've been done 9 by different contractors and in 8.4 they've been culled 10 together and discussed and then.a conservative position has 11' been taken. 12 DR. STEINDLER: So you have some measure of the; 13 uncertainties that are built into those calculations?
. h, 14 MR. BLANCHARD: I would have to say that there is a b4( 15 measure.
~
Whether or not that is satisfying to you as a 16 reviewer will have to await your review comments and the NRC 17 technical staff's review comments. 18 We look forward to receiving comments from the , 19 state and the NRC staff because if they have different views 20 about how well our calculations or our assumptions are on 21 these evaluations, we need to know that and we need to make 22 changes as rapidly as possible. And if our safety factors, 23 or if there's not enough conservatism in them, then that's 24 why we have the flexibility in the layout. We expect to be 25 using that flexibility as a way to guide the C\ Q Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
338 g 1 characterization program when we get comments back from 2 people who are doing analysis. 3 The effects on waste isolation. The analysis 4 examined how characterization could affect waste isolation. 5 It addresses things which Larry Rickertson will be talking 1 6 with you later on this afternoon in those two areas in terms 7 of performance assessment, that looks at those effects under 8 current conditions and what we call potentially likely 9 conditions which are the changes in the site condition as a 10 consequence of the way we'd expect the climate and the 11 tectonics to act. That's our nominal scenario class, and 12 Larry will be able to talk more to that tonight. 13 And then under disruptive conditions, those are 14 the kind of things that we believe have very low i
~
15 probabilities of occurrence but nevertheless will be 16 considered. And they are called our disturbed scenario 17 class. i l 18 All of these are based upon the evaluations of the j 19 changes induced by characterization in 8432, which I just i 20 discussed in the preceding viewgraphs. i 21 Now, what I would like to do is to take a couple 22 minutes to talk with you about one of these evaluations. 23 The one, namely flooding at the exploratory shaft. There 24 has been a lot of discussion about flooding at the 1 25 exploratory shaft. And I thought because a lot of people l Beritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888
339 j-q . 1 are familiar with the data and the changes and the design
's_/ ' 2 and things like that, it might be useful to use a couple of' 3 viewgraphs to discuss that.
4 As you know, the current location for the shaft 5 was, selected in 1983, and the basis of a' screening 6 technique. It' identified five alternative-locations and 7 selected the Coyote Wash location on the basis of a figure 8 of merit technique in reports published back in 1984, and 9 the work was done in 1983. 10 The shaft sites were moved in response to comments i 11 from the NRC and concerns that specifically focused on 12 flooding. 13 The new sites remain in that area-or in the [ q)E. 14 location within. Coyote Wash that was selected in 1983, but 15 they've just been adjusted in elevation and location. 16 The collars at the new sites will be anchored in 17 bedrock and significantly above the probable maximum flood. 18 And.also evaluations of impact on performance were needed. 19 This is kind of a summary of the criticisms at the NRC staff 20 level at those earlier locations. 21 DR. ORTH: One question. Define " probable." 22 MR.'BLANCHARD: The question is what is the 23 probable maximum flood. And what I would like to do is to 24 answer that after I've talked through the next two or three 25 viewgraphs if that is all right with you. [ [\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 \; L
340 [ 1 Okay. Here is a Coyote Wash drainage pattern. 2 And it splits up here. And shown in grey with these hidden 3 lines on the inside are the flooding levels and the flooding 4 levels with the debris included, a loading factor to include 5 debris moves it up a little bit higher. So this is a PMF 6 with the debris. 7 I'd like to answer your question in a moment. But 8 let me talk through these first. 9 The old ES-1 locations in Coyote Wash were over 10 here and here. As you can see, they were above the PMF. 11 The new locations, ES-1 is over here. ES-2 la over here. 12 They are upslope from the mapped PMF. 13 DR. HINZE: What is the sale on that? 14 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, the distances here -- that 15 is the scale. It's 250 feet. 16 DR. HINZE: What are the contours? 17 MR. BLANCHARD: That's 4125, that's 4100. I think 18 those are five-foot contours. 19 Now, if you look at this in cross section, for ES-20 1, and this is the PMF water level with debris right here, 21 you project that over and then look at the elevation where 22 the ground is broken for the ES-1 at 4130, there is a 16-23 foot difference here. And for ES-2 since ES-2 is downslope, 24 so to speak, from a drainage standpoint, it's 36 feet. l 25 Well, now, what does that mean? [ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O4
341 .
,--( 1 Getting a look at that and comparing it with our j i
l's_ '# 2 PMF calculations I have this air photo which shows . Yucca 3 Mountain here and the perimeter drift is something like 4 this. The area to the East, this 40-mile Wash, a dry wash,. 5 but a very large wash which we have calculations on from 6 PNFs. 7 We have another one called Yucca Wash running 8 through here that drains into 40-Mile Wash. 9 We have another one called Drill Hole Canyon, 10 Drill Hole Wash, I'm sorry, a whole series of drill holes up 11 here, that drains through this breached area into 40-Mile. 12 And then we have Coyote Wash, where there's G-4, and right 13 over here are the two exploratory shaft locations. [' 37 14 And what I would like to do is to compare the
,q 15 drainage runoff areas and the calculated probable maximum 16 floods for these.
17 Now, the estimated peak flood discharges for 40-18 Mile Wash, it drains 300 square miles and is about half a 19 million cubic feet per second. 20 For Drill Hole Wash and Yucca Wash, these two 21 drain about 15 square miles and they are between 80 and 90 22 cubic feet per second for peak flood discharge.
-23 Coyote drains two-tenths of a square mile. We're 24 running at about 3,000 cubic feet per second.
25 The event that you would have to have in Coyote f ('"' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
342 ( 1 Wash to cause a flood to reach the collar on ES-1 would be 2 45 times the PMF discharge or about 150,000 cubic feet per 3 second. Now, we've translated that into a calculation and 4 come up with the conclusion that this event is equivalent to 5 about a precipitation storm delivering 200 inches of rain in 6 one hour. 7 Now, with respect to the probable maximum flood, 8 we've had three different studies addressing probable 9 maximum flood. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, who builds dams. 10 We followed that procedure. Holmes and Narver, and the 11 USGS. All of them have been consistent, not totally 12 consistent, but generally very consistent with respect to 13 maximum precipitation events and the amount of flooding and 14 the enount of debris that would be located. 15 One of those reports even included the 16 reconstruction of paleohydrology events. And as a 17 consequence, the probable maximum flood that we've adopted 18 comes from the Bureau of Reclamation. Yet they claim in 19 their procedures that it is an event that is not expected to 20 be exceeded in approximately 100 years. 21 The procedure that is developed is for areas that 22 are not in the desert, that don't have dry washes but have 23 running streams. And they are concerned with floods. 24 In their analysis they have gone back and looked 25 over their historical record for the last 600 major l l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
343 7 sj 1 flooding events in the country and then compared it with k__- 2 their own internal standard for making that calculation. 3 They've reached a conclusion and published this, 4 that those 600 major precipitation events have never 5 exceeded so far their probable maximum flood calculation. 6 And those events ranged between 6 and 91 percent of their 7 estimated probable maximum flood. 8 They lay no claims to being able to predict this 9 over a 10,000 year period. It's for built structures as 10 retained dams, but it's for areas where you have streams 11 with water in them. 12 How one equates that to this environment is 13 uncertain because these are really dry washes and in order f'**% [ 'T 14 to get significant flooding events of the type we're talking N.) 15 about here, like 200 in'ches of rain in one hour, I think you 16 have to go to a significant climate change. And we 17 certainly wouldn't expect that over the next 100 or 1,000 18 years. 19 Perhaps we can go through a palluvial cycle in the 20 next 10,000 years, but even there the estimates we have from 21 the paleohydrologists suggests the climate would change to a 22 point where we would expect a doubling of the annual 23 precipitation. A doubling of the annual precipitation from 24 five inches a year to ten inches a year is still not all l 25 that much and probably would never approach a 200-inch event
]
I 7-~s 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 { l l I I
4 344 i 1 in one hour. 2 DR. MOELLER: How much more time will you require? 3- MR. BLANCHARD: I can stop right here. 4 DR. MOELLER: I think we maybe should do that. 5 Because I note now we are running about two hours behind. 6 And I believe, why don't we just go to questions and to wrap 7 up any more on this particular topic. Yes? Any questions? 8 (No response) 9 DR. MOELLER: Well, thank you, then. And let's 10 wrap that up. And let me just, Ed, before we bring on the 11 next speaker, let me just have a caucus here of the 12 Committee and its consultants. In looking ahead, do all of 13 them, Owen, have this agenda?
- 14 All right. We have an agenda that DOE is 15 following. And at the moment, as I say, they are up to two 16 hours ago. And this is no fault of theirs. We have been 17 asking a lot of questions.
18 But I would like for you 6.o look through the 19 remaining items on the agenda for the rest of the day and 20 let's decide where we might eave some time. And let me just 21 simply begin by citing one item I believe we must hear, and 22 one that perhaps we can drop. 23 I personally believe we must hear the 240 24 scheduled item on the construction of the CCDF and the l 25 treatment of human interference. That was rather important 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808
-345 g (; 1 .to.us.
1 \_, 2 Then.an item that we might drop is at'340,:the QA 3; for study plan, because we've heard QA and.we will be taking li - up study plans many times in the1 future. 5 In-fact, we might drop the complete presentation 6- on' study plans. Let me just see if there is a loud
- 7. objection on the part of any offthe committee members of 8- consultants..
9 (No response) 10 -DR.-MOELLER: All right. Let's drop study plans. 11 We'l1~ delete the'two items on study plans. Now, are there 12 any of the first group of five items that we can shorten or 11 3 delete? 14 (No response) p{- 15 DR. MOELLER: I think we have to hear them all. 16 Okay. Well, let's then be brief. But Ed, are you with us?
.17 We are going to suggest deletion of the two items on study 18 plans. Otherwise, go completely through it as expeditiously
- 19. as you can.
20 MR. REGNIER: Yes, I believe we understand that. 21 Indeed I'll ask our speakers to eliminate unnecessary 22 viewgraphs if possible,.or the ones that are mere 23 embellishment, so we can move more quickly.
- 24. Our next speaker will be Dr. Jean Younker, who 25 provides support to the Yucca Mountain Project Office. She
.( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
346 ( 1 is with Science Applications International Corporation. And 2 she will talk about representativeness in integration of 3 site characterization data. 4 (Slides being shown) 5 DR. YOUNKER: One of the topics that the NRC staff 6 commented in the point papers to us about was the question 7 of the representativeness of the data base that will be 8 established through site characterization at Yucca Mountain. 9 And so this is one of the topics that we thought it was 10 useful to put on the agenda for you. And from the questions 11 that I've heard today, I think it's very appropriate, too. 12 In their point papers, the staff certainly did 13 bring up a number of questions regarding the whole area of 14 representativeness and integration. The question of the 15 representativeness of the data to be collected overall for 16 site conditions and processes was raised, and a question 17 about the integration of the information from various data 18 programs, and I think Dr. Hinze brought that up about the 19 geophysics question earlier, integration of subsurface 20 information with repository design, the whole question of 21 the interface between the site data and the design process, 22 the need for additional exploratory drifting across the 23 proposed facility. 24 Of course there is always a question of how large 25 of an area do you have to open up in order to characterize ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 347: [ 1. adequately the variability'in the rock. unit that youlare T 2 intending to'use as a repository horizon. s_ 3 .The integration and. comprehensiveness of the 4 drilling program, which we'll get to in just a minute.. Max 5 alluded to our approach on that in the previous talk. And 6 the adequacy of the aerial coverage of the exploration 7 program to provide flexibility in repository development. i 8 And of course this gets at the whole question of 9 what percentage of that total volume of rock that we've 10 included within that perimeter that we're calling the 11 perimeter drift will really be usable, useful and usable 12 post rock for the repository. 13 The approach that the DOE has taken to these. [~'\ .,. f 14 concerns that were raised is that we hope that the site.
' Uk~ 15 characterization program was designed in the variety of ways 16 that you've. heard about today to provide the information 17 that will be needed to establish both the spatial trends and 18 variability in the site conditions, the characteristics, the 19 parameters that have been defined as being important for 20 performance calculations and for design of the repository, 21 and to characterize the phenomenological processes.
22 Clearly, we are interested in how that rock will-23 behave over a 10,000 year period, when heat is added to it, 24 when it goes through some changes that are not exactly 25 natural for the rock units.
' Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
348 ( 1 Our planned program then includes investigation of 2 previously recognized features and structures to ensure they 3 are adequately represented in our total site data base. I 4 think you heard Max mention we have a name for this that 5 I'll bring up later. 6 We also have a systematic program we hope using 7 surface-based methods that will help us to establish the 8 overall trends and the overall heterogeneity or variability 9 of site conditions. 10 We also of course have the very important in situ 11 testing program through the exploratory shaft facility and 12 other investigations to improve our understanding of both 13 the phenomenological processes and site conditions. 14 Clearly, the DOE recognizes the importance of the { 15 representative data base that we hope to attain. This was ' 16 not a surprise to hear about the need for this in the point 17 paper comments offered by the staff. But they certainly 18 pointed out some good directions that we needed to take. 19 We think we'll gain confidence that the data base 20 that we'll obtain through site charae;erization will be 21 appropriate and adequate. And I put that in quotes, because 22 obviously the word "representativeness," like a lot of other 23 words, means different things to different people. And we 24 have sort of, I think our operational definition that we 25 have used in the SCP is probably appropriate, edequate, and l I (. seritage Reporting corporation (202) 628-4888 hf l i l
,? 349-7_g 1 you could add some other words to that, I'm sure, from your 2 own favorite vocabulary. 3 We hope that we are collecting the data to 4 evaluate the values for the basic parameters at a variety of 5 locations throughout the site. There are a lot of different 6 techniques that we are using for that. 7 We certainly are looking at the statistical 8 variability in those values. We are developing the 9 . capability to describe and predict trends in.the site 10 parameters using the best available models. And you have 11 heard already that w e are hoping to obt.in values for the 12 parameters that are covering the wide range of alternative 13 conceptual models that are reasonable or credible for the [~'T 14 Yucca Mountain site on the basis of available information to
'%)% 15 date.
16 And then we will also establish the range of 17 parameters values that are necessary for input to 18 performance assessment models that help us to predict 19 performance over the 10,000 year required performance 20 period. 21 Looking at the overall site program for a moment, 22 the parameters that are necessary to evaluate the overall 23 performance will be directly measured or derived from 24 measurements made using both surface-based methods, 25 including drilling, and underground testing. And this is l' t Heritage Reporting Corporation
\-'-
(202) 628-4888 l l
l L 350 { l just to give you the rcal broadbrush overview. 2 The program will also maintain the capability to 3 get additional data later through sample archival. And of 4 course we have a sample management facility that will be 5 located out near the Yucca Mountain site that is already in
- i. 6 existence. And probably some of you may have toured the 1
7 facility or probably will in the near future. And we also 8 have plans to maintain access to boreholes such that we 9 could go back in and sample or obtain additional information 10 at a later time. 11 The major elements of the site data collection 12 program -- and this gets into some of the jargon that we've 13 developed that Max mentioned. In the surface-based program, 14 we have what we call our systematic drilling program that { 15 gives us widespread borehole coverage of the site and 16 surrounding areas in a systematic, gridded approach. 17 This one of course is different or differs from 18 that one, which is made up of strategically placed boreholes 19 where we know there is some feature or there is some 20 gradient, some abnormal gradient. For example, a rapid 21 change in the potentiometric surface, something like that 22 that you really want to get a better handle on, get some 23 additional information on. So we would place these 24 boreholes specifically at those locations. 25 We also of course have other surface-based t 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 ' l l
4 1 351 79 1 approaches such'as-geologic mapping and~ sampling and.the k_, 2 ' geophysical surveys that have been brought.up today.- 3 DR. MOODY: Jean? 4- DR. YOUNKER: Yes. 5 DR. MOODY: Excuse me. 6 DR. YOUNKER: Sure, Judy.
.7 DR. MOODY: Are those two maps.in the SCP L- 8 somewhere?
9 DR. YOUNKER: Yes, they are. I can give you a 10 section number if you' d like. 8314. 11 DR. MOODY: Yes. Thanks. 12 'DR. YOUNKER: Sure. 83141, as a matter of fact. 13 You can add a "1" to that.
/'~h , 14 Other surface based testing, I just. mentioned. 1 V\
15 The underground testing includes the ESF test that you've 16 just heard described, to characterize site processes and
- 17 conditions. And of course when you have.this kind of a 18 facility you1will map and sample from all locations as you-
- 19 are opening up the shafts and the drifts so that you will 20 have a good detailed map at one location, and a detailed set 21 of samples.
22 DR. STEINDLER: Excuse me. 23 DR. YOUNKER: Sure. 24 DR. STEINDLER: On the previous one here, when 25 you talk about systematic drilling program, that is I I, Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
352 1 thought precisely what NRC objected to, or at least -- I'm { 2 sorry -- made a comment on. And I haven't got the 3 voce.bulary straight. 4 Have you provided some changes between the CD 5 version and the statutory version on the site 6 characterization plan to satisfy their comment? 7 DR. YOUNKER: Yes. My impression, if memory 8 serves me correctly, I think that their main comment was 9 that we weren't very integrated, or we had not shown to them 10 that our entire drilling program was integrated, in that it 11 appeared, if you read the SCP, we had some geologicals over 12 here and some hydrological over here, and we had some that 13 were for mineral resource evaluations. But we hadn't shown 14 how they were really all tied together and would produce an 15 integrated data base. 16 Do you have something in front of you? 17 DR. STEINDLER: Well, I'm looking at Comment 28. 18 But I don't want to necessarily take the time. If that's 19 your view of what the comments were, I'm certainly prepared 20 to believe it and let it go at that. 21 DR. YOUNKER: Okay. 22 DR. STEINDLER: But another reading of that might 23 argue t hat they were unhappy with the whole structure of 24 the systematic drilling program. 25 DR. YOUNKER: Yes. The systematic drilling program Heritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888 l
g 353 1 f >-{f) 1 .that they,were; talking about was kind of a' plan for a plan, JN_/' L 2 -because you're-looking at.the-comments we' received on'the 3 consultation draft.
~4 DR. STEINDLER: Right.
5 DR. YOUNKER: And what we've done is developed
'6 that a lot further in the statutory SCP. So I think that is, 7 probably what.you are picking up on.
8 Okay. The next three viewgraphs basically give 9 you just a little bit more information on the different 10 contributions that we have to the total program.
'll First, from the systematic drilling program, which 12 you are just bringing up, we have a statistically-based 13 coverage of the site and surrounding areas that we think on I hr k' 14 the basis of the information that we ha?re right now on 15 variability of the important parameters that we would nse 16 in our performance assessment predictions, this coverage .
)
-17 shou,,1d give us, the spacing of bore holes should give us an I
'18 adequate data base to make performance assessment
~
19 predictions that are reliable or credible. 20 Of course, once again, like we've been talking 21 about today, this is based on the assumptions and the pre-22 existing information that we have on variability of site 23 properties. 24 The boreholes are generally located away from 25 known features in this program, so that we're not trying to y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 354 ( 1 get at specific anomalies or known features, to characterize 2 them further, but we are trying to focus on the overall ' 3 spatial trends because those are the kinds of -- this is the 4 kind of data base that you really need for the larger kind 5 of macroscopic type 10,000 year predictions. 6 We did site several boreholes exclusively to allow 7 the use of geostatistical methods. And by this what we mean 8 is a creging type of approach or some statistical approach 9 that allows you to place the borehole on the basis of the 10 point where you will -- I guess the best way to say it would 11 be lower the vardsuce the most - you will gain the most 12 information, the most new information potentially, by the 13 placement of that bor,ehole. So that there has been some 14 thought applied to that, quite a bit, actually, since the 15 consultation draft that we received the staff's comments on. 16 Okay. And then a subsequent phase is described as 17 an option if it turns out to be necessary to accommodate new 18 information that we gained. Always built into the DOE's 19 program is the idea that if we learn something new that 20 shows us we need to change an assumption or change something 21 about our understanding, we clearly would have to go back i i 22 and look to see that we still have an adequate program. 23 Okay. Now, look at the feature sampling program, 24 the second approach that we talked about. In this case we l 25 have some known feature out there. And I mentioned one that ! l { Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1
355J f; l' ' 'would'be the rapid change in the water table. surface, the dM 2; . potentiometric surface, also other structures.that'we might~ 3 like to> investigate. 4" So in this case we have' anomalous subsurface. 5 conditions that could' affect site performance. 'We don't l. b 6 have'enough information to rule that;out or to know how to-7 handle that in modeling. 8 So'in.this case we will ensure that an. adequate 9- ' data' base is established, is obtained to evaluate any-10 alternative conceptual models.that are reasonable to I
- 11. determine what potential. impacts those. features might have 12 on site performance.
13 Since clearly we don't have unlimited time and
?[ hn.
x ,f_ 14' -unlimited money, we're not going to go out and characterize 15 for all possibilities.'But within a range of reason we have
~
- 16. to be prepared to evaluate alternative models about how the 17 ' site will perform, and hopefully to develop an adequate 18 data base to characterize any new anomalies that we would 19 pick up during the systematic program.
20 Okay. -Other surface-based testing. Clearly we 21 have some broad, geologic mapping, geophysical surveys are 22 planned, and they are laid out in the SCP. We will identify 23- and characterize major geological features and also identify 24 targets for the feature sampling program in an iterative 25 fashion as I just described, and we will obtain some very Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
356
'( 1 systematic data on structural and stratigraphic 2 characteristics in that there are some studies for example 3 to look at the characteristics of the Solitario Canyon fault 4 which is on the West side of the Yucca Mountain site. Look 5 at the hydrologic characteristics particularly.
6 Okay. From the underground viewpoint now, let's 7 look at what we think we gained from the in situ facility. 8 Investigate and improve our understanding of 9 phenomenological models or processes under controlled 10 experimental conditions at a single location. 11 Clearly, this is a big underground laboratory, 12 where we have better control, much bchter control than what 13 you have where you do not have a full facility like this, or 14 just in a borehole, but it is not as good as a laboratory, ! 15 so you are kind of intermediate. 16 But at least you get up to a scale where you are i 17 talking about room sizes that are comparable to what you l 18 would have in the repository. ) l 19 Geologic drifting to intercept and characterize 20 major structures. We have some large drifts that go out ) l 21 from the exploratory shaft facility that help us to look at i 22 some of the nearby structures like, I'm sure you've heard or l 23 you've seen pictures of tne Ghost Dance Fault being one of 24 the faults that may be persistent at depth. There's always 25 questions as to what it will look like when you get down j ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1
r
-357 , ~g . 1 there, so we need to run over to that with something big
(_- 2 enough that you can actually characterize it, take pictures 3 of it, look at it. 4 Geologic mapping and sampling in the exploratory 5 shafts and drifts of course gives us a lot of detailed 6 information. But, as the staff pointed out to us, that is 7' only at one location. So you clearly are always asking the 8 question, how representative is that location relative to 9 the overall repository area? 10 Okay. How do you put it all together? Well, the 11 site characterization program we think is designed to ensure 12 representatives of the data that is obtained from these 13 three approaches that we have just been talking about, or
'\ 14 from these three different, distinctly different approaches.
15 Integrated data base will be provided for input to 16 evaluation of conceptual models and evaluations of site 17 performance. And of course to some extent this is the DOE's q 18 approach to the whole organization or integration of the 19 site characterization plan. 20 Basically we think that by taking the in situ 21 testing, the results from that, and combining that with the 22 results from the other underground investigations, and from 23 all the service-based testing, we should be able to obtain a 24 representative data base. And the adequacy of the 25 representativeness of that site data base will have to be D Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t - - - - - - - - . - . - - - - _ - - - - -
358 i ff 1 continuously re-evaluated through some of the approaches 2 you've heard described today. So we're not claiming that we 3 have all the answers yet. 4 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. Are there questions for 5 Dr. Younker? 6 DR. MOODY: Jean, do you carry around in your head 7 about how many new drill holes you are proposing at this 8 point in time for subsurface? 9 DR. YOUNKER: I think it's 35. I believe it's 35. 10 Is that right? 35. Okay. Good number. 11 DR. MOODY: Is that within or without the 12 repository itself? Surrounding or inside? 13 DR. YOUNKER: Yes. Surrounding. Max, do you know
. 14 what the number is --
15 DR. MOODY: What is the number in side? 16 DR. YOUNKER: Max probably knows. 17 MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. Judith, I'm looking at 8.4.2 18 and you'll find that information in Section 8.4.2, Page 37 19 and Page 43. There's not only a map, but there is also a 20 listing. And inside the controlled area there is a 21 different number than those that are outside, and it 22 compares existing versus planned. 23 DR. MOODY: Okay. That's what I want to know. l 24 Okay. 25 MR. BLANCHARD: I can read you numbers or we can Heritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888 l 1 1
t 359
.rN - 1: 'look at-itLlater, s.- 2 DR. MOODY: Read.the' numbers. The ex'isting versus 3 planned. .
- 4. MR. BLANCHARD: What's planned inside the 5 -perimeter' drift for deep boring is five, from the systematic
.6' drilling program. And then there's two from the MPBH and 7 two from deep borings for hydrology. There are no others 8 planned inside the perimeter drift.
9 DR. MOODY: So you're saying to me that you're 10 only going to have nine that are deep ones in the repository 11 area? 12 MR. BLANCHARD: That's what we have right new. 13- DR. MOODY: OkLj. [ r- 14 DR. "OELLER: Dr. Hinze? D k. 15 DR. HINZE: Very briefly, Jean, are there-any of 16 the drill holes that are designed particularly to get at the 17 volcanic problem, or is there any integration technique or 18 any of your studies that are focuced directly on that? 19 DR. YOUNKER: There are some holes that were 20 planned specifically. You may be aware, but out in Crater
'21 Flat, to the West of the site, there are some anomalies that 22 have not been drilled. And there are pla*.m in the SCP to 23 put in some what are called volcanic boreholes. But they 24 are to specifically determine if thetse are little plutons at l
25 depth and what their volume is so that the Los Alamos l l l > ' ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u--_____-_______-_____ _ _ l
360 l 1 program, that has looked at volcanic hazards, would be able 2 to add that to their data base such that you could look at 3 rather the trend of decreasing volume and through time, you 4 know, as consistent, if those new data points are on that 5 same trend. And that is a fairly important part of the 6 whole program. 7 I don't know. Dave Dobson or somebody back there 8 from the Project Office, what other volcanic investigations 9 do we have besides those that are directly drilling those 10 anomalies? Better come up to the mike. 11 DR. MOELLER: Give us your name. 12 MR. DOBSON: Yes. My name is Dave Dobson. I work 13 in the Yucca Mountain Project Office. 14 There are -- I believe Bruce has, Bruce Crow, who { 15 is our volcanologist, who is the PI on that project, has two 16 separate studies that are in the SCP, one of which is 17 primarily for the evaluation of impacts as a result of 18 volcanology, which is done on the site characterization of 19 volcanic features in the region. 20 And he has, I don't recall exactly, four or five 21 activities which are for the most part regionally based 22 which are designed to collect information about the volcanic 23 characteristics. 24 DR. MOELLER: Other questions or comments? Yes. 25 Gene Voiland. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I < i 361 7s 1 MR. VOILAND: Do,you know who will be conducting s- 2 the data gathering aspect of the program?T 3 DR. YOUNKER: The current plans are for the j l 4 contractors that use -- I think on Mike Barrett's site for l l 5 example, the U.S. Geological Survey has the major part of I 6 the geologic and hydrologic characterization. Los Alamos 7 National Laboratory has the geochemistry. And Sandia 8 National Laboratory in the Albuquerque office has the rock 9 mechanics and that general area. And Lawrence Livermore 10 National Labs has the very near field waste package 11 environment studies that are in situ. 12 So it is spread across the three national labs 13 plus the U.S. Geological Survey.
.m i \. 14 MR. VOILAND: You are not considering commercial
/
x-% 15 people like Daimes & Moore or any of those? 16 DR. YOUNKER: Well, I think clearly there may be 17 some changes in that as DOE headquarters goes through the 18 adaptation of the new contractor that they have just brought 19 on board. 20 But I have described to you kind of the current 21 plans that are laid out in the site characterization plan. 22 Mark, do you want to comment on that n: ore? 23 MR. FRYE: Mark Frye, DOE. With the new 24 management and operating contractor, we don't envision at 25 this time any change in who would be actually put in the n i l () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l i l-362 l
! 1 data at the site. It would be as Jean described it.
2 DR. MOODY: But coming back to another important 4 I 3 point that I'm sure is ringing in everybody's heads, you are 4 going to have a location, though, where all the data l 5 generated by LASL and Sandia and Los Alamos and USGS gets in , l 6 a central location so that it's available for everybody? ) 7 Or is that not true? j 8 DR. YOUNKER: That's true, Judith. Yes, I think 9 Max tried with his little schematic this morning to show you I 10 that the plans are to have it all in a central locality. ) 1 11 And I think the what they call licensing support system, the ! i 12 negotiations that are going on to establish that will make 13 it very clear that it has to be in a central location and 14 accessible to everyone. { 15 DR. MOODY: How is that transfer going to take 16 place? . I 17 DR. YOUNKER: I am certainly not an authority on ) l 18 this aret, and I don't know if we have anybody here who can i 19 -- Ed, can you talk to that at all? 20 MR. REGNIER: No, I don't know the details of the l 1 21 transfer. l 22 DR. YOUNKER: Down term plans? 23 MR. REGNIER: No. 24 DR. YOUNKER: Stan is here? Stan Eckols? Do you , 25 know, can you talk about that for a moment? k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
363
, ~~[ 1 MR. ECKOLS: Well, this is pretty far afield from i\_,/ I 2 how's the SCP. But to answer that briefly, the LSFs will 3 have a central computer at Las Vegas and will have work 4 stations all over the place. But this is in the ' 90s.
5 You will have to rely _on reports that will be in
- 6. reading rooms and docket rooms,-this type of thing, in the 7 interim.
8 But the long term plan is to have every piece of 9 paper practically that is generated available from a PC that 10 is located to the central computer. You would have access 11 to these, the state would have access, interested public 12 would have access to go in and look. 13 DR. MOODY: So when you say in the '90s, if this j'~'p 14 plan is computerized, the whole data base, are you talking U 15 about ' 92, '93, '94? 16 MR. ECKOLS: I think that time frame is what they 17 are shooting for, not only to put new information on but 18 also backlog. 19 I don't know the specific dates because the people 20 involved in procuring the hardware and.all of that are just 21 working that out. 22 Like I say, that goes fairly far afield from how's 23 the SCP and what are we planning to do? 24 DR. YOUNKER: Prior to that time, Judith, my 25 understanding from what Max has laid out from the Project r Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
364 4 1 Office viewpoint at least, I think would be that we would 2 have the site and engineering properties data base, the 3 SCPDB that we was talking about, as well as the reference 4 information base, and those would be updated and issued as 5 baseline documents, so they would be available for people to 6 look at on a routine basis. 7 So you could look at the data bases being used for 8 analysis or for design at periods from now until the LSF is 9 in effect. 10 MR. ECKOLS: And also, all the raw data itself is ' 11 preserved and catalogued where people can come in at audits 12 to verify, run their own analyses. And these will be logged 13 where people will know where they are. !
. 14 So even in the computer system, for instance, you 15 are not going to have all the tapes and this sort of thing, 16 but there will be a header that tells you where the actual 17 tape is located, what is on the tape, who did it, what the 18 time frame was, and a little abstract about it, so that 19 there will be access even to raw data through the computer )
20 system, although it won't be immediately on it. 21 DR. MOELLER: Gene? One more item. 22 MR. VOILAND: Yes. I notice that you are relying 23 fairly heavily on the national J laboratories for your 24 technological support. Will you make use of the geologic 25 capabilities in the petroleum industry or isn't that Heritage R porting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888
i 365 1 .. . Dr4 1- particularly appropriate to.this' type.of study?:
. ;2 DR. YOUNKER: Well, one point that Mike Vogal.had 3 .just mentioned to me in answering'that other question.was 4 that some of the national labs and the USGS do have some of
- 5 the other contractors that you might be familiar with under 6 subs to them as subcontractors.
7 As far as some of the -- like Daimes & Moore --- 8 you're thinking of some of those kinds of organizations. So 9- some of those people are involved, kind of indirectly in the
~
10 program. 11 But I don't know that there is any large contract ! 12 :with any one of the organizations that you are speaking of 13 right now. 14 DR. MOODY: They're not interested. { 15 MR. VOILAND: They may not be interested, but they 16 have, I' suspect, a number of the' petroleum companies have' 17 more geologic capability than you will find in any other 18 place. 19 And if you really want to get some good advice, I-20 would at least try to get them. 21 DR. MOELLER: All right. Well, thank you. Thank 22 you, Dr. Younker. And we will move on then to the ! 23 groundwater travel time? 24 MR. REGNIER: Yes. That will be next. The 25 presenter will be Dr. Dave Dobson who is the Chief of the Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888
366 ( 1 Regulatory Interaction Branch at DOE's Yucca Mountain 2 Project Office. 3 4 5 6 7 i I 8 9 10 11 12 13 c" 15 9 16 17 18 19 20 21 l 22 23 24 l 25 l { Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
367 f.qi 1: DR. MOELLER:. When it says he's with Yucca k 2 Mountain project office, does that mean he is in Nevada, or 3 he's here?- 4 MR. REGNIER: Yes, he's located in Nevada. 5 DR. MOELLER: And, Dr. Younker, are you in. Nevada? 6' DR. YOUNKER: Yes, that's correct. 7 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 8 DR. YOUNKER: I'm with the Science Applications, 9 but part-time to.the economics. , 1 10- DR. MOELLER: Thank you. ..
'11 (Slide display.)
12 DR. DOBSON: My name is Dave. Dobson. And just to 13 clarify, we are from Max Blanchard, and I am in Nevada. I l O 1 14 'am geologist by training, so keep that in mind when you ask f
\ '
15 questions. 16 (Laughter.) 17 What we are going to talk about actually might be 18 sort of an example of the process that Jean just laid out 19 for how we are going about collecting representative data. 20 .The NRC staff had expressed some concern over the 21 consultation draft SCP's treatment of groundwater travel 22 time. l 23 They had several comments, and we have attempted
-24 to sort of distill the concerns into a c9nple of categories I 25 here, and primarily their comments were related to the f
(j Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
368 ( 1 procedure that we were using for defining the pathways along 2 which we would calculate groundwater travel time. 3 A second aspect of their concern was related to 4 the calet.ation of approach that we proposed for determining 5 the groundwater travel time. And this second aspect 6 includes such things as the validity of the models that 7 we're using, and the applicability of the probabilistic J B approach that we had taken. j 9 I wanted to start off sort of by basically quickly 10 summarizing what we did. The first thing we did was that we 11 did tax text to the SCP and in fact modified the program . 22 somewhat to clarify that we will be dealing with travel 13 times for discrete features. That was a concern that had 14 been expressed, and in fact we agreed with that concern and 15 have modified the SCP. 16 A second thing that we did was basically to 17 clarify the approach that we're going to use to calculate 18 those travel times in terms of the models we will use. And 19 although the wording on this second bullet is a little 20 interesting, I would rephrase it sort of to say something 21 like that we are going to perform this stochastic analysis i 22 of groundwater travel time which is limited to the fastest 23 paths that we identify. In other words, we don't intend 24 really to do a pure deterministic analysis, but we will do a 25 probabilistic analysis but we will focus on those areas that { Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
369
. j-(1, 1 we identify as potential fastest paths.
Y [i\_-[ 2, Again, to start sort of with the regulation --1 3 DR. OKRENT: Excuse me. What will be 4 probabilistic in that calculation? Is it that you don't 5 know the path and you will have to surmise that it could be 6 one.way or another over part of the path? 7 DR. DOBSON: As you are aware,-there are a number. 8 of uncertainties that you could address, and I might touch 9 on some of these as t<e go through. ,
- l 10 DR. OKRENT: All right, I'll-wait.
11 DR. DOBSON: So you might want to ask me to come 12 back, but there are a variety of sorts of uncertainties 13 related both to the values of the parameters and to the l'~hf 14 ' values, or not the values, but the applicability of the 15 models that we apply and the choice of the paths that we 16 select. So there are obviously, as with many things in the 17 program, numerous uncertainties that need to be addressed. 18 Anyhow, to go back to the regulation, again' i 19 10 CFR 60.113 says that the repository shall be located so 20 the pre-waste-emplacement groundwater travel time along the 21 fastest path of likely radionuclides travel from the 22 disturbed zone to the accessible environment shall be at 23 least 1,000 years or such other travel time as approved or 24 specified by the Commission. 25 And what I want to now is summarize briefly that [~'N i Beritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l l I t .
I i l 370 L 1 the approach that we have adopted, and focusing again on the ( 2 aspects that are related to the NRC concern that they 3 expressed in the point papers. 4 Our strategy for determining the fastest path of 5 likely radionuclides migration includes two major parts. And 6 although I am going to talk about the two main bullets here 7 separately, they are really intimately and inextricably 8 linked, and so that although as I said I'll discuss them 9 sort of sequentially, the process of doing each of these 10 activities is sort of interative and related. 11 The first part of the process is obviously the 12 identification of the location of fastest paths, where are 13 those areas. And that consists of at least two parts. The 14 first is an analysis of the travel times along discrete 15 features that we can map. For example, we will want to do, 16 we will want to look at faults, for example, the Ghost Dance 17 Fault that we know is within the repository block, and see j 18 if the hydrologic characteristics of that area make it a 19 possible fastest path. l 20 A second way to go about identifying potential 21 fastest paths is by doing sort of a preliminary stage of 22 modeling of the ground water travel time using the spatial 23 and vertical variability that we recognize in parameter 24 values form the program that we're going to implement to 25 collect hydrologic property information all over the site. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
371 y'"sf 1 And that second part especially is linked with the 'l
\/
)-
- 2 second bullet which is what I've called identifying the i
3 process as occurring along the fastest path since both of 4 them basically involved modeling in order to determine where 5 your fastest path will be and identifying those areas where 6 the parameter values are such that a possible fastest path 7 might exist. 8 Underneath that second bullet, of course, is the 9 subcomment that we do need to identify and consider all the 10 processes that need to be considered at both macroscopic and 11 microscopic scales in order to assess ground water travel 12 time. 13 DR. MOELLER: Is it a geologic condition that the
.(O}-
uJ 14 word " spatial" cannot apply to vertical variability? 15 DR. DOBSON: No, it's obviously overlapping. 16 DR. MOELLER: Oh, okay. 17 DR. DOBSON: Spatial variability will include 18 vertical variability. 19 What I am going to do now is go through those two 20 main bullets that I just introduced in terms of the approach 21 that we will -- the steps that we will go through in order 22 to identify and calculate ground water travel times, i 23 The first part has to do with the location of the 24 fastest path. And the first step in doing that, obviously, 25 is to begin to compile and understand the distribution of
,f
(, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
372 ( 1 the hydrogeologic properties and conditions that exist at 2 the site so that such parameters as permeability and 3 conductivity, water content and such things as matrix 4 potential need to be understood, and the distribution of the 5 properties need to be understood. , 1 6 We will specifically identify and characterize 7 features that we recognize like faults and fracture zones 8 that need to be considered, and we will, again to repeat 9 what I said earlier, we will compile a data base that will 10 enable us to help understand the variation of 11 characteristics that we can correlate with performance 12 parameters. 13 So, for example, the saturation values at the sit { 14 might give us information about where potential fastest 15 paths might be. So that simply compiling that data base i 16 will give us an additional level of information that enables 17 us to make some preliminary conclusions about where fastest 18 paths are likely to exist. 19 The second step is to conduct a preliminary 20 modeling of the system to identify, again, a possible 21 location for fastest paths. We will do basically modeling 22 of total head distribution for various combinations of the 23 property values again, including the faults and fracture 24 fault, permeabilities, and obviously the objective of this 25 activity is to understand the possible range both of the 1 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l 4 o
373
.,~.s ; - 1 pathways and the flux distributions under.likely pre-waste I ).
\s_,/ 2 emplacement conditions since that's what we are trying to 3 address here.
4 DR. MOODY: Hold on a minute. 5 Do you think that that tne two-dimensional rather 6 than the three-dimensional will.give you a reasonable 7 assessment? 8 DR. DOBSON: Well, actually you may have noticed 9 that I didn't use the words "two-dimensional" or."three-10 dimensional". I don't think that we -- we're certainly to 11 committed to restricted to two-dimensional modeling. We 12 have done modeling in the past that was two-dimensional in 13 order to get a preliminary feeling for that, and I think [\ p 14 that's the reason that we put it on the viewgraph. But we t 15 will do whatever modelihg and whatever extent of modeling we 16 think we need to do in order to get 'aus idea and the 17 appropriate feeling for the amount of information we need 18 basically. , 19 Okay, this is obviously a cross-section of the ! 20 site. It's sort of a northwest / southeast cross-sei: tion from 21 Solitario Canyon to drill hole.J-13, and we just put it on 22 there to show a couple of things. And again, we are going 23 to focus on characteristics of the site; things like faults 24 and fracture zones as potential areas for travel times. 25 There are also somewhat -- there are even simpler, more O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i _ _ - _ - - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ i
374
- 1 obvious areas that you might go to focus on in travel time.
2 At the east end of the repository, as you are 3 mostly aware, the fitness of the unsaturated zone is less 4 than it is at the west end of the repository, so we need to 5 identify that and address the travel times just as a ! 6 function of the thickness of the units. 7 The third step, again, would be then to take the 8 initial modeling results as a basis for calculations and to 9 establish ranges and probabilities for the parameter values 10 that we have. And then we need to establish the probability 11 distributions. In other words, the accumulative 12 distribution functions for the input to the modeling of the 13 ensemble of all flow paths in order to determine whether one 14 path that we happen to be looking at along a fault is 15 actually faster than travel times over the rest of the 16 repository. 17 So we need basically to compile the whole data 18 base and see if our initial estimates are correct in that we 19 are focusing on those areas of potential fastest paths. I 20 And finally, in terms of the location of the l 21 fastest paths, we will calculate travel times using Mote 22 Carlo or direct stochastic modeling to determine probable 1 23 locations of the fastest path, considering again both the 24 entire site and specific features. 25 We will then develop some contour maps for the ! 1 ( seritage Reporting corporation h (202) 628-4888 1 i
- - - - - - - - . - - - _ ~ . . - -
r 375
~sg 1 travel times across the site that will be similar to ones
[ }
\. _/
s 2 presented in the EA and the SCP, but with an additional -- 3 with considerable additional data, and so hopefully, 4 considerably more realistic, and again develop cross-5- sections of the groundwater travel time, and finally then to
- 6. review the fastest paths.
7 And this last bullet is rather important. 8 Considering the properties of the locations with the fastest 9 paths. So we need to identify not only the areas, but we 10 need to study the distributions for the fastest travel 11 times. And what I mean by the parenthetic comment there is 12 that rather than focus on the means, in essence, for the 13 groundwater tra. vel time, we need to focus on the far travel
,O'p 14 time portion of the curve, and try and establish the .Qs 15 probabilities and the relationships that apply to those fast 16 travel times.
17 Again, this is a plan map of mean travel tim 9s at 18 the site. And again, this is a -- as we said, basically a 19 first cut at it, and it shows several things that are 20 important. One is that, and this is one the things that 21 probably led the NRC to make a comment, there is no, at 22 least obvious consideration of the Ghost Dance Fault in the 23 repository, and we will be addressing the travel times along 24 the Ghost Dance Fault. 25 And it also shows that we do know already, bssed g Heritage Reporting Corporation
'- ~
(202) 628-4888
376 { 1 on the relatively simple models we have done to date, that 2 because of the thinner, the lesser thickness of the 3 unsaturated zone at the northeast end of the repository, 4 it's likely that travel times will be, in general, shorter 5 in the northeast end. So we will need to focus on that 6 area. 7 Okay, the second part of our attempt to 8 characterize ground water travel time deals with the 9 processes of flow and the validity of our models in terms of 10 mechanisms of flow and the comparison of fracture and matrix 11 flow. And as I said, this does overlap rather substantially 12 with the modeling aspects of the previous stuff that I have 13 talked about. But the first step really in defining
< 14 processes that are important need to be included in 15 evaluation of groundwater travel time is conducting some 16 process-oriented tests to define the nature and the scale 17 and the mechanisms that control flow.
18 We have quite a number of them already identified 19 in the SCP, both based on the surface, such as our natural, 20 artificial infiltration tests that will be done; and some in 21 the laboratory, including both transport teste at Los 22 Alamos, some of the waste package hydrology tests at 23 Livermore and some at the USGS; and also process-oriented 24 tests that will be done on the main test laboratory shaft 25 facilities such as the ESF infiltration test and the bulk ( ' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j l I J
377 j
,3 1 permeability test.
I x_/ 2 And obviously the goal of this effort is to 3 understand the processes of flow in the unsaturated zone j 4 under a whole variety of conditions, so that we need to i 5 understand it not just in a perfectly dry rock with zero i 6 percent saturation, but in rocks with zero to 90 percent 7 saturation and under varying thermal and mechanical 8 conditions. 9 Again, then secondly, after we have collected some 10 amount of information about the nature of the processes 11 operating at Yucca Mounting, we will need to evaluate those 12 and determine which ones need to be incorporated within the 13 models that we're using to calculate groundwater travel
'T 14 time.
\.
~'
je 15 We will use the existing information we have and 16 what we collect over the next several years as input for 17 more detailed Monte Carol or stochastic modeling of flow 18 times. And again, we will focus on the geometric regions of 19 fastest path. 20 And we also need to fold into the models, of 21 course, the affects of other processes such as the transfer 22 or the transition from matrix of fracture flow and the 23 effects of things like diffusion and dispersion on the 24 groundwater travel time. So basically again it's an attempt I 25 to incorporate as much as we know about the processes '('~' ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
i 378 i
'( 1 operating into the groundwater travel time models.
2 Step 3, again, and basically we need to then take ! 3 e- 9rything we know, combining all of our information on l 4 process and locations, and put it together and start doing 5 some modeling of j...mdwater travel time and produce 6 calculations that we will then use for evaluation of whether 7 we comply with 61.13. 8 DR. ORTH: Do you have built into there anywhere 9 validation of the models? 10 DR. DOBSON: Yes. I haven't talked about that in 11 this talk, but model validation is clearly a part of the 12 program. It's described to a certain extent in Section 13 8.3.5.20 of'the SCP, and will be an important part of 14 virtually every one of our major computational efforts. 15 You wsn't find an awful lot of information about 16 it in the current draft of the SCP in terms of the strategy 17 for coming to closure on some of these. As you are aware, 18 the site characteristic plan was developed primarily to give 19 us a test program. But there is information in the SCP, and 20 we have been considering it, and hopefully we will 21 continuing to work with the NRC and the state and the rest 22 of the technical community to begin to develop the assurance 23 that we think we will need to get a license. 24 Sure. I guess finally, basically we will use the 25 groundwater travel time results along the fastest paths that ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ - - . - - 1
379 l js- 1 we develop through this long process, and then attempt to
\_ I 2 convince ourselves that'we have reasonable assurance that 3- groundwater travel time exceeds a thousand years, and then 4 develop a DOE position on compliance with 61.13. i 5 So to' summarize the approach that we will take, we 6 have to do some site-scale modeling to produce travel time ;
7 contour maps that will be used as a preliminary effort to 8 give us an idea of where we need to go and look more 9 specifically. 10 We need to then follow that up by identifying 11 regions of fastest path of radionuclides travel both in terms 12 of what we discover from the modeling and the distribution 13 of parameters at the site, and from specific geologic. [ \p 14 features that we recognize now and will undoubtedly continue vt 15 to recognize in the fut'ure. 16 We need to develop a modeling approach that can 17 incorporate all of the appropriate processes, whichever ones 18 we determine are the most important and need to be 19 considered. 20 And finally, a document of our results and develop 21 a position on compliance. 22 I'm not sure if I ever quite got to your question 23 about uncertainty, but I would be happy to address it some 24 more now and -- 25 DR. ORTH: Let it go. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
380 g 1 DR. DOBSON: -- so I guess that will summarize the 2 presentation. 3 DR. MOELLER: Additional questions or comments. 4 DR. STEINDLER: I've got a question about the 5 validation business. 6 What is it that you are going to rely on to 7 convince a skeptic that you have a reasonably accurate model 8 of groundwater travel time? A validation experiment or a 9 set of tests, or are you going to this piecemeal from the 10 constructs of the model? 11 DR. DOBSON: Well, I think it depends. You kind 12 of have to take each situation specifically. But the 13 validation of models is obviously a sort of a comprehensive
; 14 effort that's intended to hopefully to come at it from 15 several directions.
16 If you can -- if you have a model that can predict 17 results of an es:periment, then that obviously is one part of 18 the validation of the model. If you have a model that's 19 accepted and used in the technical community and can be peer 20 reviewed, that may be another aspect that you might want to 21 use. 22 DR. STEINDLER: Yes, I know the options that are 23 available. I guess I'm asking what is it that you are 24 planning on doing. 25 DR. DOBSON: Are you asking what is the specific l (, Beritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 L _ _ _ _ __ ___
I 381 t
N[ 1 strategy for groundwater travel time at this time?
) l
- 2 DR. STEINDLER: Right.
]
3 DR. DOBSON: I think I guess, unless somebody can 4 help me out, I would say it's probably premature to try and 5 tell you. 6 DR. STEINDLER: So it's not part of the plan, is 7 that what you are saying? It's not in the SCP? 8 DR. DOBSON: A detailed plan for validation of the 9 groundwater travel time models is not in the SCP right now. 10 DR. MOODY: Is it going to be covered the site 11 study definitions? 12 DR. DOBSON: To an extent. 13 DR. MOODY: Site study. 14 DR. DOBSON: If you look in the, for example, in lQ A[* 15 the unsaturated zone hydrology program that's in the site 16 characterization plan, of course, the majority of the data 17 that will be used in the groundwater travel time 18 calculations is collected in Section 8.3.1.2, which is the 19 hydrology program. 20 The hydrology program is organized into regional-21 saturated zone, site-saturated zone and unsaturated zone 22 programs. And in the unsaturated zone program, as well as 23 in each of the other ones, there is essentially a synthesis 24 study or in some cases more than one study, and those 25 studies will take the data that's collected and the
/~'N
(,/, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i i l l l 382 l i 1 preliminary models that are done under all of the other l 2 studies and attempt to integrate, synthesize and use that l 3 information.
]
1 4 And when you see the study plans for those sorts 5 of studies, those modeling studies, you will likely see 6 information on how we intend to demonstrate that these 7 models work. 8 You won't necessarily see in the study plan for 9 collecting matrix hydrologic properties of the site a 10 strategy for validating the models that will come out down 11 the road. 12 DR. MOELLER: Other questions for Dr. Dobson. 13 (No response.) 14 DR. MOELLER: I hear none. ( 15 Well, thank you, sir. 16 DR. DOBSON: Thank you. 17 DR. MOELLER: And I believe at this point it's 18 probably a good time for us to take a short break. Let's 19 take 10 minutes. 20 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 21 22 23 24 25 i Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888
383 js 1 DR. MOELLER: The meeting will resume. And we ' ks _- 2 will move on to the next topic on our agenda. For members 3 of the public who are here and others who are interested, we 4 are planning to continue on.and go through the agenda with 5 the exception of the two items that I had mentioned earlier,
-6 and then following the formal sessions the Committee will go 7 into Executive Session, again open to members of the public 8 who desire to remain, and we will simply, I'll poll the 9 consultants to gain from them any insights or questions or 10- comments they have relative to what has been discussed 11 today.
'12 . MR. REGNIER: Our next presentation will be on 13 performance confirmation. Dr. Brocoum will also deliver
,/ 'f 14 this presentation. -He is the Chief of DOE's Siting and QA 15 Geosciences Branch for the Waste Program.
16 (Slides'being shown) 17 DR. BROCOUM: One of the major concerns that the 18 NRC staff had was in performance confirmation. It was the 19 substance of one of their comments. 20 The next slide gives an outline of the 21 presentation, which will be a summary of the NRC comments, a 22 summary of DOE performance confirmation program as described 23 in the SCP in Section 8.3.5.16, and an indication of how the 24 preliminary identification of activities that may be 25 continued as part of a performance confirmation program at
/*
i 5 _. q- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 384 ( 1 the site, after the completion of site characterization, how i 2 we chose some activities, or preliminarily chose. 3 The next slide is a review of the NRC comment. 4 The summary is that the performance confirmation program has 5 not been sufficiently well defined and appropriate details 6 are not included in the SCPCD. 7 The discussion concerning performance 8 confirmation, which is Issue 1.7, has not presented a 9 strategy or a plan to meet the requirements as set forth in 10 Subpart F of 10 CFR 60. And the NRC recommended that the 11 performance confirmation discussion, the SCPCD should be 12 augmented to include one, the recognition of key parameters 13 for validating the conceptual and mathematical models 14 proposed for use in the performance assessment program; two, ( 15 identification of those parameters for which it is necessary i 16 to initiate performance confirmation testing as early as ! 17 practicable during site characterization; and three, a 18 program for performance confirmation testing. I 19 The next viewgraph gives an overall correlation ) i 20 between DOE's site characterization through operation 21 program, the performance confirmation program and the I 22 regulatory requirements as expreeied in 10 CFR 60. ' 23 The performance e, af 3 rrraon program is broken 24 down into a baseline and confirmation phase and the 1 25 confirmation phase has three subparts, the interim, during
]
k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a
- i 385
. ,f-Ej 1 .the license application review, during construction of.the
- E O(_,/ -2 facility and operation. So they are kind of are in j 3 parallel.
4 During site characterization we are required to, 5 according to 10 CFR 60, establish the baseline during site 6 characterization and the requirements of that are explained 7 in 10 CFR 60 Part 140. 8 The next viewgraph gives the objectives of the DOE 9 performance confirmation program. They are to develop
'10 information on subsurface site conditions and natural 11 systems important to performance and' design; to monitor i
12 changes in baseline conditions resulting from site 13 characterization, construction and operation. 14 For example, we have the MPBHes, and they will 15 monitor any. changes during construction of the shafts. And
.16 that's kind of important, because the biggest changes will 17 probably occur closest to the ac.ual construction or after 18 the construction of facilities. For example, rock movements 19 and so on.
20 And to begin collecting baseline information-to be 21 used later during the confirmation phase of the performance 22 confirmation program. 23 We think all of this is consistent with the 24 regulation. l 25 Continuing, the next viewgraph. ['
'g]i Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
. __ _ ._ _ __ - _ _ - _ _ - _ __ _ _ _ __ - _L
386 ( l' In addition to collecting baseline information, 1 2 we need to confirm this information. We need to confirm to 3 the extent practicable the actual subsurface conditions and 4 changes in those conditions resulting from construction and 5 operation are within the limits assumed in license 6 application. This would be during construction and 7 operation. 8 Finally se would want to confirm to the extent 9 practicable that netural and engineered systems are 10 performing as intended and anticipated within the limits 11 again described in the license application. These are 12 regulatory requirements. 13 And the last bullet refers to the fact that you 14 want to conduct the program in sich a manner that it does { 15 not adversely impact the ability of the natural and 16 engineered barriers to meet performance objectives. 17 Next viewgraph. 18 Section 8.3.5.16 was modified to explicitly 19 address the NRC comment, and as I said earlier, the site 20 characterization corresponds to the baseline phase I showed 21 in that diagram earlier. And DOE's objective is to develop 22 the baseline information. 23 Now, the baseline information we envision as being 24 a subset of the site characterization activities. The data 25 needs during site characterization were identified in the k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Ol j l l;
387 , 1 performance allocation tables in the SCP. 2 So we feel that a subset of those activities will 3 meet the NRC requirement for confirmation that could be 4 reasonably conducted, certainly early during the site 5 characterization program. 6 In Section 8.3.5.16, we have identified activities 7 which, preliminary lists of activities which we may continue 6 beyond site characterization to meet the requirements for 9 confirmation monitoring and determining changes in the , 10 baseline conditions. 11 Two categories of these activities have been 12 identified. The first are long-term monitoring of natural 13 processes, events or site conditions. And the second are 14 long duration in situ tests to characterize natural 15 processes and to test conceptual models. 16 We think that doing this will meet the 17 requirements of 10 CFR 60.141 for confirmation of 18 geotechnical and design parameters during construction and 19 operation. 20 We just have a few examples listed. There are two 21 tables. One in the SCP, one has monitoring activities and 22 the second which has testing activities in that section I 23 mentioned, 8.3.5.16. 24 Some examples would be seismic networks, 25 monitoring of natural infiltration, or monitoring of site Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
n_. l 388 ( l 1 potentiometric levels, the water table levels. l 2 Now, for example, in seismic networks, we 3 discussed a little earlier today, you need a long data base. 4 And site characterization is only seven or eight years or 5 six years, depending on how you define it. Performance 1 l 6 confirmation will extend over a period of decades. And so 7 for all conditions that you need a long data base to 8 determine, performance confirmation will substantially add 9 to our ability to determine those conditions. 10 In situ activities which would extend beyond site 11 characterization include a percolation test, a bulk 12 permeability test, and a heated room experiment. 13 Tests like these are also important and during the j 14 operation phase we will have the whole extent of the ( , 15 repository as opposed to the more limited extent of the 16 exploratory shaft facilities. Some of the major, like i
)
17 advantages of performance confirmation are the much extended i 1 18 time period that you would have and the larger subsurface 19 aerial extent to monitor performance confirmation. j l 20 DR. CARTER: Let me ask you a question. How ; 21 long is a heated room experiment to last? What is the , 22 longevity? 23 DR. BROCOUM: I think that is several years. In 24 fact, I have the exact number. Three years. Yes. There 25 are some tests that go on for several years. And some k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4388
cm - , ; I i 389 L Lp-- ( l- surface-based, . unsaturated zone tests may require several ]
\, / 2' . years to egoilibrate. And those would also'be the type of
.3 Lt ests you might want to do over a very long period of time.
)
J 4 Do you have-any other questions? 1 5 DR. OKRENT: 'Yes. Would you mind telling me what 6' 'the words " performance confirmation" mean to you, withos. J 7 using-the words performance and confirmation? 8 DR. BROCOUM: Without using either performance or 9 confirmation? 10 DR. OKRENT: I'm curious. 11 DR. PROCOUM. It is to establish that the
- 12. parameters that you use to do your performance assessments 13: are within the bounds that you assumed they.were when you f-~g ' .
T 14 did the performance assessments for your license (Q( 15 application. 16 LIn other words, a performance assessment s ves 17- you a prediction of the performance of the repository. I. 18 will use the words,. performance confirmation may allow you 19 to start to measure how- good this prediction was because 20 it extends for several decades. 21 DR. OKRENT: But you said the parameters, and so 22 that was not the models. In other words, in your 23 performance confirmation, it is only parameters that go into 24 models that.you are trying to confirm? 25 DR. BROCOUM: I think as the regulation is written l CI Heritage a8eporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L- - __ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - - - -
390 i ( 1 it refers mostly to the parameters, even lists some 2 parameters that you at a minimum are to monitor. ; i 3 So I think the way the regulation is written, it 4 is slanted if you like towards parameters. But of course we 5 have to validate the models themselves. And as I think you 6 can collect more information during these decades, I think 7 you will find it necessary to check that these models are 8 correct. 9 DR. OKRENT: I think you need to verify the model 10 to some extent, don't you? And you can validate them. 11 DR. BROCOUM: And verify. 12 DR. OKRENT: Okay. 13 DR. BROCOUM: More than validate. 14 DR. OKRENT: Because in what you presented, I {' 15 certainly didn't get the sensation that you were talking 16 about a program which would cover everything, provide 17 confirmation of all that is important in doing a performance 18 assessment. And that's the reason I asked you the 19 question. 20 DR. BROCOUM: I assume you will get the things, 21 that you will certainly try to confirm the parameters that 22 your performance assessments are most sensitive to and those 23 that you have, how should I put it, the least certainty 24 about, would have very high priority in your performance 25 confirmation program. (, Heritage Reporting Corporation ] (202) 628-4888 ] 1 l
\
t . 391 7 w,( ~1 I guess one thing I should have mentioned that we i
's / 2 envision that either with the license application _or before 3 that, we will prepare a document, I don't want to give it a 4 name, but a sort of like a performance confirmation plan 5 that would explain the performance confirmation program 6 during the confirmation phase.
7 DR. OKRENT: Let me pursue something you just 8 said, that you would be trying to provide confirmation for 9 the things that were most important to the assessment, or 10 some such phrase. 11 I was wondering, do you.now have at least a 12 preliminary listing of the phenomena and parameters, let me 13 assume that covers everything, that are among those most - (O f~ 14 important and also not adequately known at this time?
\}
15 DR. BROCOUM: I think you can extract those from 16 the performance allocation tables, at least for document 17 paramete.s. 18 DR. OKRENT: I shouldn't have to. It seems to 19 me , just taking your words, if I were going to do a 20 performance confirmation, that I would want that listing to 21 start trying to decide what was it I needed to place 22 omphasis on in my program. 23 DR. BROCOUM: You could make a very general list. 24 I mean, you were worried about things such as water flux or 25 water velocity, you would worry about such things as changes b Q Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886
l 392 ( l' in stress and strain, displacement, permeability, porosity, 2 changes in these fundamental parameters that would affect 3 the groundwater flux for example through the mountains. 4 That's one thing I can just think of. 5 DR. OKRENT: I must say I had hoped, and I guess 6 there is still hope because there is an hour or some to go, 7 that somewhere during the day one or another speaker wGuld 8 identify what are the remaining problems which are the most 9 important, the most difficult, the most crucial, however 10 you want to put it. Sometimes not all adjectives will 11 apply. Sometimes all three will. 12 And I don't tSink I've heard it and I don't 13 believe I can readily extract it by lo66tng at the 14 allocations because I've looked at quite a few of those, and {" 15 they are too broadbrushed I think to enable one to do that. 16 I would find it helpful, and I think you might 17 oven find it helpful, to have such a list prepared and 18 available for the peer review discussion. 19 DR. BROCOUM: Are you suggesting we have a list of 20 concerns or issues as opposed to say a list of parameters? 21 DR. OKRENT: I think in the same way that the NRC 22 had a list of con.: erns it would really be well to know what 23 the people who were trying to do the job, where their 24 concerns are with regard to doing a satisfactory job that { 25 can be licensed. I k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886 Ojlj 1 i s
l 1 393 m . j sj 1 DR.-BROCOUM: I think we can tell you what- some s_- J2 of'the' concerns are in these say Earth sciences, at least 3- from my perspective. For example, we're very concerned ' 4 about the mechanism of groundwater flow in Yucca Mountain, j 5 And I think Jeff mentioned that earlier today, the degree of 6 fracture flow versus the degree of matrix flow is very 7 important, because that makes a great difference in the 8 groundwater travel time, and therefore in the isolation 9 capability of a site. 10 I'm not'sure if that's what you're looking for. 11 DR. OKRENT: That's a good example, in fact. 12 But what I did not hear in the presentation is 13 someone identifying this topic and then going through the [ 'f - 11 4 kinds of measurements and analyses that can be dore, that
'vt.
15 will be done, and then in fact an evaluation of what is your 16 chance in fact of coming up with this high confidence that
- 1. 7 is sought in the allocation tables for that issue, if I 18 recall correctly, because you don't automatically always get 19 the results you wish from experiments.
20 DR. BROCOUM: But to understand an issue, if you 21 like, it may take understanding a lot of parameters or a 22 lot of - you know, you can't correlate a single parameter 23 of particular issues. L 24 DR. OKRENT: I agree. 25 DR. BROCOUM: Understandirq a groundwater flow Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62P-4888 1
394 ( 1 will require understanding a lot of aspects of the geology 2 of Yucca Mountain. Just like understanding the seismology 3 or the surface faulting would require mTderstanding a lot of 4 different aspects. i j 5 So there is not a clearcut and direct correlation 6 between the parameters in the tables and necessarily 7 understanding these issues of concern. 8 DR. OKRENT: I think that just makes it more 9 important to try to ask yourself and try to explain to 10 others how your program is going to provide the information 11 needed or can it? It's not always possible to get all the 12 information that you would like. 13 DR. BROCOUM: Sure. 14 DR. OKRENT: Well, I'll not pursue it any more. { 15 DR. BROCOUM: Do you want to say something, Max? 16 MR. BLANCHARD: Steve, I might help with that 17 question by adding that in 8.1, Section 8.1 of the plan, we 18 described what we call a top-level strategy which starts 19 with the identification of what we think are the critical l 20 barriers that are inherently in the site that we expect the j 21 site will have to rely on for waste isolation. I 22 And through that process, we work our way into the 23 importance of the tests and the alternate models that need 24 to be considered and as one goes through that top level 25 strategy, you quickly identify the tests that are described j l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ] (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ - - _ --- )
395 7 sf 1 in 8.3 and.the calculations that are in 8.3.5 that have to
\._ 2 be put together down'at a detailed performance level.
L 3- And if you go through the alternate models tables 4 and the parameters and the confidence levels that we've 5 identified for those barriers, we have the essence of what 6 you are asking for in 8.1 at a top level of what we, I don't 7 think we have readily available in the SCP, is one that goes 8 all the way down to at the parameter level what is-it we-
- 9. expect to get and how that uncertainty can feed its way back 10 in.
11 DR. OKRENT: What you said were the barriers, and 12 I believe these are the barriers in effect to release of 13 radioisotopes, rather than the barriers to success? f 14 MR. BLANCHARD: No. I was referring to -- well, [j. x 15 it depends how one defines success. I was not referring to 16 the engineered barriers as much ac I was referring to the 17 characteristics of the site, the natural barriers that we 18 would have to rely on, the geochemical retardation and how 19 the Calico Hills and the other rock units beneath the 20 Topopah Spring would function. 21 DR. OKRENT: This is what I was saying and I'm 22 trying to ascertain what you think are the barriers to 23 success. Let me let it go for now. 24 DR. BROCOUM: I'll just make one more -- you said 25 about barriers to success. l l Q Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 396 1 ( 1 When we were completing the SCP, one of the things i l 2 that we looked at was the unsaturated zone hydrology program 3 which consists of drilling a whole bunch of dry holes and )i 4 it.strumenting and monitoring them over a period of time. ) 5 And that, when~we looked at that, that was an area that is 6 more or less on the cutting edge of if you like technology, 7 because monitoring an unsaturated zone is not a normally 8 done thing, and there were great debates among the various i 9 researchers and scientists as to the amour.c of time it would 10 take for those holes to equilibrate. 11 So understanding the unsaturated zone hydrology 12 through the borehole drilling program is very important to 13 us. But it is also an area that is fraught with a lot of 14 difficulties and possible development of new technology to { 15 ! do. 16 DR. MOELLER: Any other questions on this topic? 17 ('o N response) 18 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. And we will move on to 19 the n ext one. 20 DR. BROCOUM: Don Alexander will be speaking about 21 substantially complete containment. 22 23 24 q l 25
- k. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
397- q i f%{ 1 (Slides displayed.)
-( ' J- l - v' - 2 DR. ALEXANDER: I note that the time is four !
I 3 o' clock, and I'll try.to.be brief. 4 When the definition of substantially complete 1
'5' containment was presented in the consultation draft of the i
6 SCP, it did not clearly relate to the NRC staff intent and j 7 could be interpreted to contradict the content of 61.13.A. i 8 As a result of clarifying discussions with the staff, 9 principally in March of last year, the definition was 10 significantly revised. 11 In the next few minutes I will discuss our current 12 interpretation and give a very brief overview of our waste 13 package testing program. ( < 14 Several weeks ago, I would like to note that a set GL . 15 of talks were delivered on this same subject by Drs. Euson 16 Park, Bill O'Connell and Michael Labtat, so I will try to be 17 brief.
)
18 The NRC's concern on substantially complete 19 containment largely consisted of the four items shown here. 20 It was presumed to be inconsistent with 10 CFR 60 in the 21 rulemaking record, inappropriate to guide the waste package 22 testing program, and not conservative to meet the 23 proponent's objective for substantially complete 24 containment, and further, lacked a rationale and basis. 25 Substantially complete containment in l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ( 1
)
1 398 I ( 1 10 CFR 60.113.A is defined such that containment of high 2 level waste within the waste packages will be substantially ; I 3 complete for a period to be determined by the Commission, { i 4 taking into account factors specified in 60.113.B provided j 5 that such period shall be not less than 300 years nor more 6 than 1,000 years after permanent closure of the geologic 7 repository. 8 As a result of the NRC staff concerns, DOE's 9 technical interpretation was revised and incorporated into 10 the statutory SCP. The revision is that the sent of waste 11 packages will fully contain the tota 3 radionuclides inventory 12 for a period of 300 to 1,000 years following permanent 13 closure, allowing for recognized technological and 14 predictive limitations, and I will be talking more about {- 15 those limitations in a moment. 16 DOE's interpretation of substantially complete 17 containment is revised to reflect an objective of complete 18 containment for 1,000 years. A careful review of the 19 statemert of considerations for 10 CFR 60 and NUREG-0804 20 indicate that the revised interpretation is consistent with 21 the intent of 10 CFR 60 as now revised. 22 Therefore, the current interpretation, we believe, 23 is conservative, and should be appropriate to guide the 24 testing and design programs. 25 DR. HOODY: Don, does that mean you are going to ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
399 r%{ 1 say that the waste package has to have a minimum 1,000 year 2 lifetime? 3 DR. ALEXANDER: Our design objective -- that's 4 correct. Our design objective is written now such that the 5 container itself has a 1,000 year life as its objective. 6 But again, I emphasize that there are 7 technological limitations and uncertainties that must be 8 considered in that context, and they are shown here. 9 There will remain uncertainty in predicting 10 variations and conditions across repository and over time, a 11 consideration that we've touched on several times today. 12 Uncertainty in precise prediction of waste package 13 environments, and I will be talking a little bit about those
.[ hf 14 environments in a minute. An incomplete understanding of. \,,/-
15 the behavior of waste package and materials. And I believe 16 that will continue on through time. And finally, there are 17 limitations associated with. manufacturing, fabrication, 18 closure and inspection, handling, and placement, et cetera. 19 The DOE is doing everything I think it can to try 20 to reduce those uncertainties and deal with these 21 technological limitations and try to reduce them to 22 acceptable levels, and it's approach is to collect 23 sufficient inforniation on the site and waste package 24 environment through site characterization program, collect 25 sufficient information to enable material selection and
\, J Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
400 ( -1 waste package design, design conservative as I just i 2 mentioned to Judith a minute ago, manufacture waste packages 3 in accordance with detailed design specifications, utilize a 4 QA program, including QC procedures to ensure waste packages 5 meet specs. And I talk about this in particular with 6 respect to the fabrication, handling, et cetera. 7 Handle and place waste packaging using detailed 8 operating procedures. Monitor the waste package's 9 performance during performance confirmation. 10 The above interpretation then leads to our 11 container test program which has four important components. 12 First, we need to establish the expected and 13 bounding waste package environment; determine the waste 14 package material properties; evaluate container degradation f 15 and evaluate the waste package performance as show on the 16 next slide, which we can skip. 17 DR. MOELLER: I presume, though, that you had a 18 container test program -- 19 DR. ALEXANDER: We do. 20 DR. MOELLER: -- earlier. 21 DR. ALEXANDER: We had. 22 DR. MOELLER: And you have upgraded it or -- 23 DR. ALEXANDER: No, we haven't. 24 DR. MOELLER: Oh, okay. So it's not that much 25 different. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f 401 L i 1 DR. ALEXANDER: No , it's not.
\ ) 'xs/ 2 DR. MOELLER: Okay.
3 DR. ALEXANDER: I'm just going to highlight those 4 four items I just touched on in the last slide so we can 5 skip this slide. 6 Now the following are our expected waste package 7 environment assumptions that are currently in the SCP. We 8 assume that the environment is dry. And by this we mean 9 that there is low moisture content in the host rock. About I 10 65 percent of the pores are filled with water. And that the 11 pore water is nearly static. We assume that the environment 12 can be partially engineered to minimize water contact. We 13 expect that repository ventilation will reduce moisture 7 ( 14 content in the emplacement environment. Max Blanchard
}f f 'Ns/ )
15 touched on that earlier. ' 16 We believe that waste package thermal loading will 17 further reduce moisture content. And in the SCP, we state 18 that most borehole temperatures for the first 300 years are 19 expected to be greater than the boiling point, which means l 20 that water will not be in contact with tho 3 particular 21 containers during that period, and that would significantly 22 limit mass transfer. 23 And then finally, that the air gap between the 24 waste package and host rock may provide an additional 25 barrier.
/^g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
402 ) ( 1 In the current end member or bounding case 2 environment, we assume in the SCP that limited water will 3 come in contact with a limited number of waste packages. 4 Between the period emplacement to 300 years, we assume that 5 less than 5 percent of the waste packages will be contacted 6 by less than 5 liters per year per package. 7 And if you look at the SCP, you will see that that 8 value is -- this value is very conservative in both cases. 9 It's expected to be much less than that. Therefore, one of 10 the most crucial determinations to be made during site 11 characterization will be the flux, the determination of the 12 flux through the site. 13 Between 300 to 1,000 years, we assume that less 14 than 10 percent of the waste packages will be contacted by 15 again much less than 5 ' liters per year per package. But for 16 purposes of guiding our testing program, we show these 17 values. 18 We assume that the groundwater composition to 19 contact waste packages is similar to J-13 water. That has 20 to be evaluated. It could be considerably different, and 21 it's likely to be in the pore spaces as some of you would 22 know. We assume this can be approximated by equilibrated 23 host rock with J-13 fluid, by doing more direct extractions, 24 et cetera. And we expect that by use of conservative 25 variation in J-13 water composition we will be able to ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 e j
403 .r~if 1- evaluate adequately the environment within which the waste l I
\s / 2- package will be affected.
3 DR. MOODY: Don. 4 DR. ALEXANDER:. Yes. 5 DR. MOODY: How did you come up with 5 liters? Is 6 that --- 7 DR. ALEXANDER: There's a calculation in -- 8 DR. MOODY: Present moisture content of the rock? 9 DR. ALEXANDER: That's based on a flux through the 10 rock that if you were to follow the calculations that are in 11 the SCP would indicate something on the order of about .23 12 Alters per package based on a vertical cross section through 13 the package. So it's looking at a flux, flux rate of, I
,m
( 'f . 14 believe it's something like .5 millimeters per year down x) 15 through-the site, and across this vertical cross sections, 16 giving you a value of about .23 liters. But-for 17 conservative purposes we adopt the 5 liter per year per 18 package value. 19 The point I want to make here is that I have noted 20 on the last slide that during the first 300 years for many 21 of the containers we expect that the temperature will be 22 above the boiling point. There are other factors that I 23 listed there, and we consider that the site, because of its 24 low moisture content and other factors, will have very low 25 moisture content. You can't transfer much mass without im Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ b
404 ( 1 fluids being present. You can transfer gas as we talked 2 about that in the last session with you. 3 But I want to also point out that using this 4 bounding case drives an extensive materials testing program 5 that is listed in the SCP. So it's because of this bounding 6 case that we're conducting all of these testing programs 7 that are listed in the SCP, not because of the expected 8 case. 9 The waste package geometry and materials 10 properties in the design will be evaluated to assess the 11 effects of waste package geometry, radiation attenuation, 12 heat transfer, mechanical stress and thermal / mechanical 13 effects on waste package performance under expected and 14 bounding conditions. 15 Since the containers are principal containment 16 barrier and especially important in the bounding case, we 17 will evaluate container degradation modes such as 18 metallurgical effects, oxidation, general corrosion, inter-19 grcnular attack, hydrogen embrittlement, localized attack 20 and stress corrosion cracking, and the SCP specifies others 21 during site characterization under both expected and 22 bounding conditions. 23 Waste package performance assessment, we'll 24 evaluate scenarios for expected conditions. They will i 25 require the development of analytical models, particularly ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l s & L 405 l jss 4 1 an ability to predict the failure rate 'for a single package, t \
\_,/ 1 2 and.for the ensemble of waste packages. And again we.
'3 addressed those two latter topics'in the last session..
4 Dr. Steindler. 5 DR. STEINDLER: Yes, why not the bounding 6 conditions rather than the expected conditions?
'7 DR. ALEXANDER: See the bounding condition is.
8 enveloped.in the expected set. 9- DR. STEINDLER: Okay. 10 DR. ALEXANDER: Next slide, please. 11 2n summary then, DOE will rely on the container as 12 the. primary containment barrier. The waste package strategy 13 is set to focus testing to provide information to design a [' 'T. 14 waste package which will meet the objective of total 15 containment. 16 Finally, we have planned an extensive program to 17 minimize the technological and predictive limitations that I 18 talked about. 19 Thank you. 20 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 21 Additional questions for Dr. Alexander? 22 Judith. 23 DR. MOODY: Don, have you made a decision on the 24 composition of the waste package container? 25 DR. ALEXANDER: In the SCP you will see that there
.O
'j
( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
406 f 1 are three categories. 2 DR. MOODY: I know you have several materials 3 mentioned, but I -- 4 DR. ALEXANDER: Right. 5 DR. MOODY: Have you made a decision on which one 6 it's going to be? 7 DR. ALEXANDER: There has been no decision. I 8 think that one of the important aspects of this particular 9 program is that we maintain flexibility during the early 10 testing stages in order to make selection later on down the 11 line. 12 In this particular box there is an error that I 1 13 want to point out. This should be nickel-based alloys 14 rather than ceramics. So there are three categories of {- 15 metals that we're considering. They are copper-based, 16 austomic, and nickel-based which is the 825 alloy. And in 17 addition, there are a set of alternatives that we are 18 looking at. They include ceramic / metal combinations, bi-19 metallic single metal systems and. coater and filling 20 systems, or filler systems. And so there are, I think, a 21 wide range of options that we are looking at the moment. 22 Any other additional questions? 23 DR. MOELLER: Yes, other questions? 24 (No response.) 25 DR. MOELLER: Well, thank you very much.
- k. Heritage Iteporting Corporation G, (202) 628-4888
407 1
-i 1 DR. ALEXANDER: You're welcome, j 1 'x / 2 DR. MOELLER: We will move on then to the next 3 topic.
4 Ed. 5 MR. REGNIER: The next presentation will be on the 6 treatment of human interference construction at CCDF. It 7 will be by Dr. Larry Rickertsen. Dr. Rickertsen is with 8 Weston ar.a it provides technical support to DOE 9 headquarters. 10 (Slides displayed.) 11 DR. RICKERTSEN The agenda of this talk is 12 advertised as a talk on the development and construction of 13 the CCDF of a complementary accumu.iative distribution
/m p 14 function specified in the EPA standard as a performance
[ , w,A 15 measure that you will use to compare with the standard as 16 it's practicable to do so, and then the treatment of human 17 interference. 18 What I would like to do is summarize the first 29 part of that if I can, and then as called upon I can go into 20 it in more detail. 21 We talked about, on the 24th of January, a number 22 of aspects of the development of the CCDF, and concluded 23 that, well, it showed the difficulties and problems 24 associated with doing that, and then gave the general 25 approach that DOE int 3nds to use -- at this time intends to
,cx
- i
(f ' Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
408 I 1 use to develop that. i 2- This shows that what we would like to do, or what 3 we plan to do is to decompose the CCDF into several CCDFs; 4 one for each of the credible scenario classes, broad classes 5 of scenarios; to do evaluations of a representative member 6 of that class end to multiply it by its probability of i 7 occurrence and add them up. 8 There is a lot being said in that. One of those 9 scenario classes is the expected, or what we call nominal , 10 scenario class which includes those things that we expect at 11 the site now, plus a few other things. Foi example, Don 12 Alexander talked about the bounding case which is an extreme 13 case that we are trying to do to take into account so we can { 14 do bounding types of analyses that go beyond what we 15 normally expect. So th'ere are some number'of scenarios that 16 fall into that category. 17 Each of those scenario classes, there may be one 18 associated with climate change as it changes the flux, And 19 there may be a number associated with that that have been 20 developed, and we talked last -- that last previous talk 21 about some 98 or so scenr.rio classes that had been developed 22 and had been considereu in developing a site 23 characterization plan. 24 Many of those have been developed purely for the 25 point of looking at the probability of occurrence, or for ( Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
s- ~ l 409
. ;,m,( '
~
1- ~ determining whether.we can dismiss them or not. In the , 2 development of those classes, many of them we don't think
.3
'are going to be credible in the end, but we.want to make 4 sure that we don't dismiss them without some evidence in 5 hand or more definitive evidence than we have at this time.
6 7 8 9 10 11 15 13
/ 14 UE s 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{' l 410 ) i ( 1 MR. RICKERTSEN: Now, in the consultative draft of I l 2 the SCP we made a statement talking about human intrusion as ( 3 the scenario. And we said 1here that we wanted to reserve 4 the option of not folding that into the overall probability 5 of distribution. i 6 And there was some. there wasn't very much reason 7 given for that. And the staff picked up on that quickly and 8 in their point papers made a comment on that and summarized 9 that comment in terms of three recommendations, which is it 10 was their understanding that all of the scenarios needed to 11 be included in the CCDF and that we needed to have, in 12 particular human intrusion needed to be incorporated in and 13 if we couldn't do it then we needed to find some other basis 14 for doing it. { 15 A problem has come up, and it has to do with the 16 performance allocation approach that we've already alluded 17 to, that we have a -- we want to focus our program, and so 18 we focus on certain issues and we develop a preliminary 19 strategy for doing that. 20 At the same time, we don't want to preclude ' 21 options, various strategies that might be ahead of us. So 22 we have that difficulty in developing a strategy in advance 23 to make sure that it gets enough information but it doesn't 24 go too far astray. 25 And that's the balance that has been played. And k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4883
411 fgf 1 _as you read the strategies _that are in 8.3.5 with regard to
\m- 2 Chapter 8.3.5. of the SCP, you will see in each of the 3 performance issues that same kind of balance being played.
4 I was talking with someo,ne earlier in the room and 5 they talked about'29-pages of strategy.- And maybe that is 6 too much. But that is kind of where we were led in trying 7 to play that balance off one with another. 8 What we are really interested in, the first 9 statement we would like to make is that we don't have a 10 final strategy at this time. We have a preliminary strategy 11 which is this balancing act that we hope will.get us enough 12 data so that we can develop the final strategy. 13 And so developing a final strategy for licensing n} (V{' 14 at this time is preliminary. 15 So the way we fixed the SCP is we just took out 16 that statement that was so inflammatory. We don't know 17 what we'll do yet. We certainly are going to do what is 18 required of us. . And we'll debate I guess and negotiate and 19 worry about specifically how to interpret the regulation as 20 to whether it should be incorporated or not. 21 What I would like to do now is go into those 22 aspects that we understand now specifically with regard to 23 human intrusion, human interference, and also to talk about 24 our testing program that has come out of those strategies. 25 Human interference is not mentioned. Well, it is i l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)-628-4888
412 ( 1 mentioned obliquely in Part 60, in this particular way, in 2 the description of what is going to -- the assessment that 3 we're required to do, is we're required 6.o do an analysis 4 of the effectiveness of the engineered and natural barriers 5 against the release of radionuclides and that should take 6 into account anticipated and unanticipated processes and 7 events. 6 There is a technical criterion that says that 9 taking into account that evaluation we should meet the EPA 10 standard. 11 It is understood and stated in the definitions 12 that human intrusion, credible human intrusion is included 13 in that category of unanticipated processes and events. 14 So it is alluded to in this way. But in addition, {" 15 there have been discussions over the years and in the 16 statement of considerations, there is some discussion that 17 the NRC made clear. They said that it is likely that the 18 site -- well not likely, but the site -- will be picked to 19 do a number of things that will minimize the likelihood of 20 human intrusion. 21 We'll make sure that we talk about the number of 22 measurec, but specifically we'll try to make sure that we 23 pick a site that doesn't have unique resource potential or l 24 has resources that would draw people to the site. l 25 In addition, we will rely on some passive measures j Gl i k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 413
~xf 1 to reduce that probability of human intrusion.
4
)
s_, / 2 At the same time, e' en though you rely on those 3 things, we are still going to, we can't preclude the fact 4 that human intrusion may occur. And we need to make sure t 5 hat our assessments take that into account so that if we put 6 up markers and in the next 10,000 years they become 7 illegible to people, or people don't understand what the 8 markers are for and they still go in, we'll have an 9 assessment that takes that, does something to take that into 10 account. 11 Next slide, please. 1 12 The NRC specified in the rule that in the 13 evaluations of human intrusion, the following assumptions
,m 1 14 must be made.
e
; 7 %,n 15 They range over a number of things. First of all, 16 the monuments will serve their intended purpose, that we 17 will have monuments and that they will last. They feel 18 after some evaluation that we certainly can construct
_9 something taking into account the elements and things that 20 could happen at the site, that we could engineer some kinds 21 of monuments at the site. 22 Another assumption that we were required to make 23 is that by doing an evaluation of resources now we can l 24 understand the value to humans in the next 10,000 years. j 25 And a number of other things. 4 l
/'~'s
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1 f i I b__
414 ( 1 This set of assumptions gives you a number of 2 things to think about. 3 One is that it is very unlikely that there would 4 be human intrusion, human interference, with the site, 5 taking all these factors into account. Nevertheless, we 6 intend to do some analysis, as I'll point out in the next 7 few slides. 6 So this is our strategy, essentially a summary of 9 a strategy that's in the SCP. We plan to rely on measures 10 to discourage human intrusion. And I'll talk about those 11 measures.
~
12 We plan to evaluate. Nevertheless we are going 13 to evaluate repository performance taking into account human g 14 intrusion. And we plan on an extensive site 15 characterization progrn~m to get the information to do both 16 of those steps. 17 As I mentioned earlier, we will do an 18 investigation of the resource potential of the site looking 19 at a larj number of things. I'll talk about the specific 20 program later. And we will also have a program to design, a 21 program to develop a set of markers. In the site 22 characterization program what you will see is some studies 23 to see what kind of things could affect the markers. That 24 is, the information you need so that you can design those 25 things. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i i j
415 1 Now, this slide is the one that went from the i G( 2 previous presentation. And we can skip right over it. It 3 is a summary of generally how we will do those performance 4 assessments for each of those scenarioc. I 5 And ehat I want to do is I have rephrased that 6 slightly for specifically what we'll do for human intrusion, , 7 for the performance assessments for the calculations of 8 those scenarios for human intrusion. 9 Right as of now, and we don't ses any obstacles to 10 doing this, we intend to develop probability distribution 11 functions for all of the credible scenarios, including the 12 credible human intrusion scenarios, that we determine at 13 some point those are the ones that we need to consider. 14 And those distributions will be used in evaluation 15 against the EPA standards. 16 The real question that came up in the point papers 17 was whether we should combine all those inno a single 18 overall probability distribution function. And that is the 19 question that really came up. 20 At this point we don't see a need to resolve that 21 question particularly because we hope that our program is 22 sufficiently comprehensive that we can do that if we have 23 to, if we are required to do it. And that is the question 24 that we asked the NBC staff in a review of the point papers, 25 if our site program was in fact sufficient to provide that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 416 1 (' 1 information. l 2 And the answer was that they could not identify 3 anything that we * .; missing at that particular time. 4 The problem with combining all these scenarios, 5 and I'll just summarize the point that we made before, is 6 that our experience has been that it is very difficult to 7 come up with the absolute probabilities that you need to 8 fold into that CCDF when you come to human intrusion. 9 When I invented this slide someone said well, what 10 about the other things? Well, obviously, we have 11 difficulties in going through all kinds of difficulties in 12 evaluating probabilities of occurrence of all kinds of 13 scenarios. That's a general problem. { 14 But there's a problem with human beings. At least 15 my intuition tells me that they are somewhat less 16 predictable than the geology. And hatever you do, when you 17 do the evaluations, and our experience has been that you 18 are always led to come up with very high probabilities. And 19 that is not a danger in and of itself. It is just when you 20 try to weight those scenarios by their probability that the 21 second thing comes into account. 22 You find that you wind up de-emphasizing other 23 things that are also very important. And given the 24 direction in the statements of consideration about not 25 making human intrusion the focus of our licensing, we feel ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
417 p-~s i. 1- that'we might have D. problem if we're forced to do that.
%- '2? So we 'certainly will discuss that. I understand
- 3. that there are a number of considerations that people are 4 thinking about and ways that we might deal with that in the 5 future. But none of that has been resolved yet.
- 6 The clear statement that I want to make, if I 7 haven't made it yet I'll make it again. We don't have a 8 final position on what we'll do and how we'll fold _that into 9 the CCDF at this time.
10 And I am ready for the last slide? Oh, I'm not 11 ready. 12 DR. ORTH: One question? 13 Mh. RICKERTSON: Yes? ( ; 14 DR. ORTH: The statement says it won't be
%J 15 developed until more is known about the site.
16 MR. RICKERTSON: Yes. 17 DR. ORTH: Well, what needs to be known about the 18 site that will enter into your position? l 19 MR. RICKERTSON: Well, for example, suppose we 20 find that there are some resources at the site that might i 21 have some potential for being explored for later on. Then 22 that might say, that might have a strong influence on what 23 we say abcut the probability of human intrua**n. We might { 24 be influenced to say that there is some substantial 25 probability. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l 418 l' l ( l DR. ORTH: Just the resource question, then. j 2 MR. RICKERTSON: No, that's not the only thing ( 3 that you would look at. I'll get into some specifics of the 4 testing program. Before we talk about can markers last, we i j 5 will revisit that question, even though there is an 6 assumption that the markers will last. 7 Basically, the resources, however, are the major 8 influence of the program. I'll talk a little bit more about 9 the testing program in a minute. And you'll see the answer 10 to that question. 11 DR. OKRENT: Could I ask a point of information? 12 Does the EPA standard give any guidance on what assumed rate 13 of intrusion should be used in trying to evaluate its 14 effects? { 15 MR. RICKERTSON: Yes. There is, in an appendix to 16 the EPA standard, there is, based on a set of considerations 17 that say that the assumptions that you make with regard to 18 evaluating human intrusion shouldn't be taken too far, it 19 gives a sample set of assumptions. 20 We don't know quite whether those assumptions will 21 be implemented when the NRC finally develops this conforming 22 amendment. 23 Even in Appendix B the EPA says the implementing 24 agency may or may not choose to use these. But they talk 25 for example about the number of drill holes per square i k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 _____-______]
T 419 . )-4 s( , 1- kilometer over 10,000 years,'what the kinds _of consequences, AJs_ Y 2 and'further consequences, how much water could come out of 3 each borehole. 4 Wo used those assumptions in a previous study in. 5 our reduction from nine. sites to'three sites before the 6 Amendments.Act came along'and we received comments on that 7 that that was not a-thorough enough job by the NRC on that 8 particular C staff with~ regard to that. 9 So we are a little concerned about specifically 10' what will be implemented. Anyway, I don't know if that 11- answers the question adequately or not. 12 But in that' appendix there is.some guidance as to-13 what might be done.
/ \f; 14 DR. HINZE: Along that same line, may I ask, who
.ht. 15 is going to make the decision regarding the unique features 16 .that may lead us tv natural resources in that area and who 17 is going to make the decision as to what types of studies 18 are needed? 19 And where I am leading of course is that there is 20 unique' expertise in this area that isn't necessarily 21 included in governmental agencies or laboratories. And I am 22 wondering if there is any thought in mind about listing some 23 of the appropriate professional organizations that are 24 involved in this kind of thing on a day to day basis, and 25 looking into the future as to how exploration is going to be ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 420 i ( 1 conducted, and involving those people in setting some 2 ' guidelines for this. 3 MR. RICKERTSON: I'm sure the Department of Energy 4 would welcome recommendations in this line. And in fact I 5 would like to meet with you afterward and see what kind of 6 people you are recommending. 7 We certainly want to consider'the body of 8 experience, all the experience we can get in this regard. 9 In the previous exercises that we've done, there 10 has been a rather strong multi-disciplinary slant to the 11 analysis of human intrusion as well as other scenarios. And 12 generally not limited to a small body of people in doing 13 those evaluations. 14 But I would be glad to hear those recommendations, {: , 15 however they come to us. 16 DR. HINZE: I think we could put_ you in contact 17 w!,th some of the right people to start asking these 18 questions of. 19 DR. MOELLER: Could you tell us, Bill, what kinds 20 of people you had in mind, just for the record? 21 DR. HINZE: Well, I am thinking of pe,ople, for 22 example, that might come out of the Society of Exploration 23 Geophysicists. 24 DR. MOODY: Or the Society of Economic Geologists. 25 DR. HINZE: These are people that on a day to day ( Beritage Reporting Corporation {202) 628-4888 I ( l 4 1
421 7
-s 1 basis, because of their professional activities, are really 7
( )
\_ / 2 looking at what kind of exploration techniques should we be 3 looking at 20 years from now, what kinds of anomalies 4 should we be interested in.
5 And I am very concerned, I think we should be 6 concerned, that the kinds of measurements, as Don as pointed 7 out, the kinds of measurements that are taken are really 8 focused upon what the expertise of these individuals might 9 be. 10 And I think that there would also be much more 11 credibility on the decision as a perception in the community 12 if those kinds of people were involved. And that could be 13 done simply on a governmental affairs type of approach. [c'sy ( , 14 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. x_ ,- 15 MR. DOBSON: Yes, this is Dave Dobson. I just 16 wanted to add one clarifying remark. In the current program 17 that is described in the SCP, we do have the resource 18 evaluations are the responsibility of the consortium that 19 involves t he U.S. Geological Survey which of course has 20 extensive mineral resource and petroleum resource experience 21 in doing appraisals, and Los Alamos National Lab, which has 22 international experience, doing appraisals as well. 23 DR. HINZE: Well, I beg to differ with you about 24 the U.S. Geological Survey. I think I am fairly cognizant j l 25 of the geophysical expertise in that organization. And rm l i s l 1 ( ,/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - )
i. 422 I 1 their philosophy, their approach to things is quite 2 different than a petroleum exploration geophysicist or
- 3. geologist, for that matter.
4 Certainly Los Alamos in terms of geothermal power 5 is the leader in the game. 6 MR. RICKERTSON: I was going to say that when you 7 made the remark, and then there were a couple of examples 8 tossed up, a couple of people's mouths started watering back 9 here. I don't know if there is an economic geologist back 10 here or what. 11 DR. OKRENT: You earlier said I believe that you . i 12 applied the suggested EPA recipe to the seven sites and 13 narrowing down to three. { 14 Did that recipe afford a problem for any of the 15 seven sites? 16 MR. RICKERTSON: Ho. No. It didn't. I 17 DR. OKRENT: The answer is no. i 18 MR. RICKERTSON: We found that human intrusion was 19 not a major consideration. That set of assumptions was 20 consistent with the general guidance that had been given. ) l 21 DR. OKRENT: Thank you. 22 DR. MOELLER: Other couments or questions? 23 DR. CARTER: Yes, I have one question. And that 24 is, you mentioned a repository would not have any unique 25 resource value I believe. k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
423 -
)
,- ( 1. Does.that: preclude the disposal.of used fuel 1 i J-(,j ' 2 -elements?
3 MR. RICKERTSON: That is an interesting topic. 4 DR. CARTER:- I think it would be a head-on-5 collision ycu fellows better address. 6 . MR . RICKERTSON: I think we probably will. Again, l 7 in preparation of the. slides I talked' with Bob Gamble here, 8 and we talked about that very thing. 9 It is a consideration, the likelihood of using the 10 site as'a repository site. It is obviously a very high 11 probability occurrence. But there may be other -- that.will ! 12 have to be taken into account. 13 So that is a very good thought and other people
/"'N ; 14 have also made that observation.
15 DR. HINZE: Alone that line, won't the heat flow 16 that is derived 'from the radioactive material give an 17 immediate precursor in terms of temperature, the heat flow 18 in the area? 19 MR. RICKERTSON: Clearly there will be a signal on 20 that. And in the next 10,000 years there is going to be a 21 lot of strong remnant of that for a substantial period of 22 that time. And so that is a signature of that. 23 The waste itself will be a signature. If people 24 explore down for exploratory reasons and come up with 25 something, that is also another signal. And one of the O g Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( l 424 i ( 1 assumptions given by the NRC addresses that basis. 2 So it is one of the things that we have taken into 3 account. I am sure in an orderly way we will cover all of 4 those considerations. 5 7 should mention that the list of things, which 6 leads me to the next slide in fact. 7 DR. CARTER: Well, let me get back to the other 8 thing. 9 I would think at the moment this business of 10 whether you put used fuel elements there, which I guess is 11 the intent - you know, I don't think you have to vait i 12 hundreds of years or thousands. There are a lot of people t 13 think that i s stupid right now. 14 MR. RICKERTSON: That's right. {c 15 DR. CARTER: I don't think it is a trivial thing 16 at all. 17 MR. RICKERTSON: Oh, it's not a trivial thing. 18 DR. CARTER: It is extremely important. 19 MR. RICKERTSON: With regard to evaluating the 20 repository, my understanding is that we will be evaluating 21 inadvertent human intrusion. Those serious attempts to go l 22 back and get the waste would not be one of the things that ! 23 would be required of us to evaluate as far as repository 24 performance goes. But again, that is the same kind of 25 consideration. ! l k Heritage Reporting Corporation ] (202) 628-4888 l l 1 I _______ _ __ _ l
f ,
'425 g 11 In the evaluations that have been;done in the s_- 2 .SCP, we went_through a long list.of such kinds of
~
3' . considerations.of the kinds of activities'that might take 4 place. There are generic lists that have come up in a 5 . number of places. The IhEA has a fairly long, list of
.6 generic activities that would need to be considered.at any 7 ' site, human activities, a number of other lists of that-8 type.
9 We reviewed a number of them. They are discussed-10 in the SCP. And these are the five that were, after due 11 consideration, were. considered to be the main ones that we 12 needed to evaluate, those that we needed to evaluate in the 13- SCP. 14 There are -- when I'say mining and mine
- 15. dewatering, mine dewatering is the one that we are 16 specifically looking at because of the influence of that on 17 the hydrogeologic system.
18 But exploratory drilling for resources, 19 groundwater withdrawal at some distance away changing the 20 flow patterns somewhat, mine dewatering, man-made surface 21 water impoundments, and creating a gigantic lake sometime in 22 the next 10,000 years, how that could influence the system, 23 and then extensive irrigation, somewhere nearby the site. 24 So those are five cases that are explicitly, there 25 are study programs to look at those five areas. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
= _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ .
1 426 l 1 MR. RICKERSTEN: In the MESEP there are three ' 2 investigations described under the human interference 3 program. They are labeled in the way they're specified . 4 there and the section numbert are given. 5 Degradation of markers, there is a set of studies 6 associated with what we need to know to find out how markers 7 will perform. Thcre's an investigation associated with the 8 value of resources and then an investigation of the effects 9 of human interference and I will cover each of these 10 briefly. 11 The studies for degradation of markers have to do 12 with those things that could affect markers such as erosion 13 at the site. Things that could affect the rates of erosion 14 such as tectonic activity and so on. So these are things 15 that there are specific studies spelled out in the SCP and 16 you can take a look at it. 17 With regard to the value of resources, those are 18 the resources that we are investigating and one of the 19 resources is groundwater and the value of that. 20 There are the five topics I mentioned before. The 21 first two of those topics we're looking at two things or.e 22 is the probability of occurrence, that is drilling rates and j 23 doing the evaluations that we need to do to get the 24 probability of occurrence. And also, the consequences of 25 those, what might happen dri?. ling away from the site to ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808
\
i i 427 , j
- i i cause a change in hydrologic system; what might happen to \_ /) 2 the hydrologic system as far as groundwater withdraw. )
3 With the last three there are studiec to determine ! 4 the probability of occurrence. If through those studies, 5 and there are specific studies spelled out to do that, if 1 6 through those studies we determine that there is some ) 1 7 likelihood of occurrence then we mill -- and we need to we I l 8 will develop investigations as needed to go into the effects 1 k 9 of those possible things. 1 10 My summary slide, I hope I've made the point 11 clear, because I think it has been somewhat the source of l 12 this particular issue, that is that we don't have the final 13 approach to human interference yet. We hope to develop that [T (/ 4 14 as we go along. 15 The strategy we have in the SCP is meant to 16 provide sufficient information so that we can develop that i 17 final strategy. And we believe and the comments that we 18 have to date suggest that the information is adequate -- the ; 19 information we're going to get will be adequate to formulate 20 whatever strategy it is we wind up using in the end. 21 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 22 Dr. Hinze, again. 23 DR. HINZE: One brief comment. I understand why 24 the complete program is not developed. But one of the i 25 things that concerns me is that once you start the 73 i ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (/ (202) 628-4888 I L__________ _ _ l
l 428 (, 1 exploratory shaft, once you start drifting, once you 2 starting putting in a lot of man made features you're 3 immediately limiting the number of exploratory programs that 4 can be carried out that will be a give inadequate signature. 5 And I would suggest to you that some thought given 6 to this aspect just as early as possible if indeed you want 7 to characterize the area from a resource potential -- 8 MR. RICKERSTEN: I personally believe r although 9 it's just a matter of intuition from having been a part of 4 10 the program, I believe at least in a general sense the 11 relative waiting of human interference as relative to other 12 programs that we need to do. I believe it has the right ! 13 focus that we don't want to make human interference the only l 14 program that we study. And we don't want to make that so {h 15 that it precludes other important things. 16 And I believe that that kind of consideration has 17 been mada. I think I need to defer to someone else to see 18 whether there were explicit evaluations of that site or not, 19 that side of the program or not. 20 But the observation is nevertheless a very good 21 one. In fact, you've made it in a number of aspects, number 22 of regards to other aspects of the program, but we don't 23 want to preclude additional work being done or work of that 24 type be done. 25 DR. CARTER: Dade, I would like to come back to k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
429 1 -this resource'value business. A lot of.what you're looking-7-s (_s 2 at I'm sure is quite important. But a lot of it is fairly 3 ecoteric looking at a few thousands years in the future as 4' far as what people may do. But I think this issue of what 5 kind of waste you're going to put in this thing, like I say, 6 that's not something you need to worry about. I think 7 that's a real icaue right now. 8 I would never have thought that human interference 9 would limit greatly perhaps what you're going to be allowed 10 or able to put in the repository. I think that's a very 11 good likelihood, 12 And I just wonder if the DOE is thinking of some 13 way or other now of making the fuel unusable so when they
./\/L 14 put it in no one would want it.
/ -15 MR. REGNIER: I think, if I may -- Edward Regnier.
16 The answer to that is, maybe a simple or maybe a statutory 17 one and that is that, indeed as Dr. Rickersten pointed out 18 our investigations are for inadvertent human intrusion. 119 Certainly the wisdom and desirability of disposing 20 of spent fuel is maybe open to question but it's not for us 21 because we have been directed by the Nuclear Maste Policy 22 Act to dispose of spent fuel in the repository. That's a 23 statutory direction to us. 24 DR. CARTER: That's right. But you've also got to 25 worry about, I guess all kinds of intrusion, inadvertent as l , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ _ _______ _ ._ _ - - _ _ . _ _-- 1
J l l 430 l L ( '
'I well as advertent.
2 MR. REGNIER: No, I do not believe we are required 3 to consider intentional recovery of the spent fuel. I mean, 4 if someone makes that decision to intentionally recover the 5 spent fuel that would not be considered intrusion. 6 DR. CARTER: We could always argue they blundered 7 on it and they decided to get it out. 8 MR. REGNIER: But that is beyond our statutory 9 charter. We have been directed to dispose of it. 10 DR. MOELLER: Judith. 11 DR. MOODY: Larry, has someone sat down and done 12 serious range of calculations because I do know that one set 13 group from the State of Nevada has said that there is no way { 14 in terms of water resources that given all of the 15 projections on the amount of water that is going to be 16 needed, not only -- not so much during site characterization 17 but certainly during construction and building the 18 repository and the repository opearation itself. 19 Has anybody done a serious look at that in terms 20 of possible projection of water usage not only in the 21 repository but also for related people use in the region? 22 MR. RICKERSTEN: Yes. There have been a number of 23 studies of just how you would -- what kind of withdraws you 24 would need to do to have the effect on the performance of 25 the system under a number of different assumptions about k Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
h ,y b . 431 [ /WK\-i 1 where the water table is; where it might.be in the next
\.__. :2 10,000 years; what the flux is and those kinds of things.
3 So there have been. evaluations of.that. Thera 4 will. continue to be evaluations, they're based on l- : 5 preliminary information.
! .6 There are a number of associated questions that E
7 come out of what yo;2 have just said as well that are also -- 8 that have been explored. Some of them are discussed 9 . explicitly in 8.4 of the SEB and others are ongoing. 10 DR. MOODY: So do you think at this time there 11 really is no definite answer one way or the other or is it i 12 something that you're gcing to continue to evaluate and
- 13. eventually come up with an answer?
\
/ fl 14 MR. RICKERSTEN: Based on the models that we have 15 been using so far there is little indication that the 16 dewatering or irrigation or dewatering for purposes of 17 building a repository can influence the performance of the 18 repository substantially.
19 We look -- by doing that we look at those 20 fundamental parameters that we think are important to
.21 repository performance such as the level of the water table 22 underneath the repository; the amount of flux either locally 23 or generally through the repository; and other aspects. And 24 we don't have any information -- well, we don't have 25 anything that tells us that there is going to be a problem p
4~~, Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
432 i 1 at this site based on those particular models. 2 As we develop those models those calculations will 3 be revisited and we will find out whether we need -- whether E 4 we have a problem or not. 5 But all the analyses that have been done so far in 6 evaluating the site, both for the EAs and for the SCPs have 7 not shown any effects of that type. 8 DR. MOELLER: Additional questions? 9 (No response.) 10 DR. MOELLER: Well, thank you, Dr. Rickersten. 11 We'll move on -- but before we do though since we 12 are omitting the study plan presentations we understand that 13 the five study plans that were considered prime or 14 considered a part of the SCP review, those have been [, 15 provided to the NRC; is'that correct? 16 MR. REGNIER: Yes, those have. We consider those 17 not necessarily part of the SCP but appropriate to provide 18 those contemporaneous 1y with it and those have been 19 provided. 20 DR. MOELLER: Now we've also seen in the material 21 provided to us a schedule, so many additional study plans 22 per month for the next three of four months. Is there 23 somewhere a complete listing of the study plans, 107 or 24 whatever there are, with projected dates of when they are 25 going to be completed? ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
433
~1- 1 MR. REGNIER: Yes, x,,I 2 MR. BROCOUM: The schedule tre have provided today 3 consists of 17 high priority study plans we hope to get out 4 by the end of June I believe we said. Five were part of 5 those 17.
6 DR. MOELLER: So 17 the titles and the dates are 7 known. 8 MR. BROCOUM: Titles, dates are known. In the 9 December 15th meeting with the NRC we provided a list of 10 about 12 or 13 more that we hope to get oct or are in the 11 works and hope to get out by the end of this year, roughly. 12 But there's no dates fo; those. We didn't attach dates to 13 those, we said those are coming next. [' 'f 14 DR. MOELLER: What sort of priority do these have i ,+ 15 in the realm of activity that DOE has underway? 16 MR. BROCOUM: The priority study plans is very 17 high. But when the study plan comes out it depends on when 18 the work of that particular study is going to begin. There 19 is no point putting a study plan out today for some work 20 that's thought three years down the road. It we.? never 21 intended that all study plans be issued. 22 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 23 Well, then we'll move ahead and I presume we are 24 now ready for the overview. 25 MR. REGNIER: Yes. The overview of the near term
/%
k'~ ') Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
434 ( 1 milestones. Dr. Brocoum will give that presentation. 2 (Slide being shown.) 3 MR. BROCOUM: This is a very short presentation. 4 We thought the committee might be interested in knowing what 5 site characterization activities we would like to begin this 6 year and to show very generally what they are. And so 7 there's just one viewgraph, the next viewgraph which lists 8 the surface based, the site prep, and the ESF activities 9 that we hope to begin this year. 10 In terms of the surface based testing we hope to 11 begin prototype boreholes in order to develop -- in order to 12 test and develop appropriate procedures under subpart G for 13 drilling the NEBH. So that beginning the MPBH depends on 14 drilling the prototype boreholes. { 15 And that will be drilled -- put the next viewgraph 16 on. Prototype borehole is down here. It was not a legend 17 but this original figure was drafted before they added the 18 prototype and when they added it later it came right on the - l 19 edge of the scale. 20 So it's outside the controlled area because it is 21 not a -- since it's a prototype hole to develop procedures 22 it is not a subpart G quality assurance activity. 23 This prototype borehole will test drilling l I 24 procedures for dry drilling. None of these procedures in 25 themselves are not new but the combination that they're l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
r 435 i (~s ! 1 going to use of actually drilling and obtaining core, that
\ 2 combination of using them together is new. And that is l
3 what's being prototyped. 4 The second surfaced based, and they're hoping to I 5 start the borehole drilling some time this spring. The l I 6 second surfaced based, the testing activity, is the Midway
]
7 valley trenching -- back off again to the viewgraph. The-8 Midway Valley is the location of the surface facilities. 9 And with regard to the surface facilities, a very important 10 geoscience concern is the possibility of surface 11 displacement because facilities can only take a certain 12 amount of displacement should it occur. 13 And since the advanced conceptual design for these [7f V' 14 facilities are starting this fall it was decided that we had 15 to start this Midway Valley trenching as soon as possible 16 and that is scheduled to start late this summer. And the 17 study plan for that will be coming out probably and sent to 18 the NRC probably some time in March. That study plan has 19 been written and is in a review process right now. 20 This is just an example of possible trenches. 21 DR. MOELLER: Now say again the purpose of the 22 trenches for faults? 23 MR. BROCOUM: It's the study for the possibility 24 of faulting in the vicinity of surface facilities. The 25 important issue there is surface displacement because 7 I ) y/ . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
436 ( l facilities are only designed, I think, up to 10 centimeters t 2 I believe of surface displacement. I'm looking over at Jack 1 3 Kimball here. 4 But that is an important issue for the surface 5 facilities. 6 DR. MOODY: What's the depth of the surface 7 facility and the boreholes that you are going to drill? 8 MR. BROCOUM: Boreholes? 9 DR. MOODY: Yes. 10 MR. BROCOUM: The prototype borehole will be 11 roughly 1100 feet which is also the depth of the MPBH. In 12 actual fact there are two prototype boreholes. One is of a 13 same diameter as the MPBH is seven inches. And the second 14 is 12 inches in diameter which is the same diameter of the {1 15 holes they will use in the unsaturated zone drilling program 16 which I mentioned a little earlier in response to Mr. 17 Okrent's question, and the schedule will begin early next 18 year. It's not on this viewgraph. 19 DR. MOODY: And the surfaces ones then just go 20 what -- 21 MR. BROCOUM: The trenches? 22 DR. MOODY: Yes, the trenches. 23 MR. BROCOUM: The depth of the trenches have not ) 24 been determined but the intent is to sample material at 25 least 100,000 years old. And so the depth will be defined k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9 ,
< .i
-437 O
c [l) 'lE .'n'part.by.the! i age'of:the material of the aample. 8 A 2 DR.-MOELLER: Our reporter cannot hear.you. Come f 3: give yourLname and repeat it please, j 4= MR'. KIMBALL: Jeff Kimball. The embeddment of the
.5 building.will be.down tens of-feet, something like 30 or 40 6r feetLprobably.:
)
7- MR.'BROCOUM: With regards to the second bullet, 8 site preparation, there'are access roads..'There's of course 9 the pad; construction of the ESF pad which is scheduled to 10 begin late spring. And after the pad is constructed the 11 multipurpose boreholes to be drilled prior.to the start of 12 the ESF construction which is now'acheduled, permanently 13 scheduled'for November of this year.
;[\fh 14 Those are a big ticket site characterization V 15 activities that will occur this year. And.the other second 16 viewgraph'again showr where the ES facilities are on Yucca, 17 Mountain and there's.a blowup to show you more clearly their-18 spacing relative to propose the test facility, which is of 19 course a conceptual drawing.
20 So it was just meant to be a short presentation.to 21 show you what big things we are' intending to start. 22 I believe, if there's no questions, Ed Regnier 23 wants to make some closing statement. 24 DR. MOELLER: Fine, thank you. 25 MR. REGNIER: This does conclude our presentation f% Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1
~
l a---_____-______ _ _ _ _ _ l
438 { 1 for the day. We tried to give you some understanding of 2 what is in the site characterization plan. We have made 3 several changes in the plan from the consultative draft that 4 was issned to incorporate comments from the NRC staff. 5 We have discussed with you a few of the more 6 interesting ones of those. We hope and we believe in fact 7 that we have adequately responded in the SCP to all of the 8 concerns expressed by the NRC staff in their point papers. 9 We certainly expect to get comments on the SCP. 10 We don't expect to get objections on it. We certainly hope , 11 we have been able to adequately respond to all those. 12 We do appreciate the opportunity to talk with you 13 today. As always we found your comments quite helpful to 14 our program. { We hope our presentation will be useful to you 15 in preparing you to participate in NRC's review of cur SCP. 16 We certainly look forward to having'further interactions 17 with you. 18 Thank you very much. 19 DR. MOELLER: Well, thank you, Ed. And on behalf 20 of the committee let me express our appreciation to you and 21 the members of the DOE staff and your contractors and others 22 who came here today to make the various presentations and 23 spend the day with us. 24 And as you very accurately said, our main purpose 25 is not so much here today to provide you with detailed ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
439
. sJ 1 criticism or any criticisms whatsoever other than in our 2 oral exchanges.
3 Our main purpose is to gain better familiarity 4 . with what you're doing and particularly to learn changes and 5 responses which you have made in the SCP in response to'the 6 earlier NRC criticisms of the consultation draft. 7 We will or we have benefited from today's 8 presentations and it will certainly enable this committee 1 9 and our team of consultants to do a much better job as we 10 look over the shoulder of the NRC staff in reviewing the 11 formal statutory SCP and as we continue to interact with you 12 in the future. 13 So let me also express our appreciation to you. [ Y- 14 MR. REGNIER: You're certainly welcome. k 15 DR. MOELLER: With that I believe that we will, 16 unless, are there any other final questions or comments? 17 (ths response.) 18 DR. MOELLER: Well, with that then I believe we 19 will bring to a close the formal portion of today's meeting. 20 Let me once again place upon the rcoord the fact that we l 21 will go into Executive Session simply to poll the 22 consultants and discuss if there are any particular issues l 23 or what the next step is for this committee and so for th. l 24 Let me thank also our reporter for her day with us ! 25 and I know when we asked the DOE staff to help us move ahead
^
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 440 I l 1 more rapidly with the schedule we had some rather rapidly 2 talking people and we appreciate the reporter's patience in 1 3 keeping up with everyone, ! i 4 With that then I'll declare that our formal i 5 session is closed. Repeating though that the Executive 6 Session will be open to any members of the public who desire 1 7 to stay and observe. ! 8 (Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m. the meeting was adjourned I 9 to reconvene tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m., Thursclay, l 10 February 23, 1989, at the same place.) 1 11 l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) 19 l 20 21 22 23 24 25 ( seritage Reporting corporation k (202) 628-4888 I , 1 I
L
.1 CERTIFICATE
.'('(j
/'~~f:
3 This is to certify that the. attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter 5 of: 6 F me: 7th ACNW Meeting 7 8 Docket Number: 9 Place: Bethesda, Maryland 10 Date: February 22, 1989 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear
,_s 13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, l b. 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the
(,,/ , (, 15 direction of'the court reporting company, and that the 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17 proceedings. e' 18 /s/
- 0-*- TOE _
19 (Signature typed) : Joan Rose 20 official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 23 24 l l l 25
- A i Heritage Reporting Corporation L '
(202) 628-4888 l l
.\ )[
N INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY ACNW CHAIRMAN 7TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE FEBRUARY 21-23, 1989 THE MEETING WILL N0W COME TO ORDER. THIS IS THE SECOND DAY OF THE 7TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE. DURING TODAY'S-MEETING.THE COMMITTEE WILL HEAR AND DISCUSS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN AND RELATED TOPICS WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. FOLLOWING DOE'S PRESENTATIONS, THE COMMITTEE WILL GO INTO AN OPEN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO PREPARE COMMITTEE REPORTS. THIS MEETING IS BEING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT. O. S. MERRILL IS THE DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL FOR THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING. ,t WE HAVE RECEIVED NO WRITTEN STATEMENTS OR REQUESTS TO MAKE ORAL STATE-MENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC REGARDING TODAY's SESSIONS. A TRANSCRIPT OF PORTIONS.0F THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT, AND IT IS REQUEST-ED THAT EACH SPEAKER USE ONE OF THE MICROPHONES, IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF, AND SPEAK WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY AND VOLUME 50 THAT HE OR SHE CAN BE READILY HEARD. l \ L CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS - AND PROCEED TO FIRST ITEM 0F THIS DAY's AGENDA, I l i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
T N E E M E T G S A N A A T N W M E E M R T S E A A G E W A L E N A C V I YM G U N TY CG R E E ST O T N O AR OE 9 N E A N ON I R I DN 8 W O T E A E RF 9 1 F OEV I E C I N HNO , TI NT TE U G C AT NIL N 2 2
-g EC MO A A
T T T D E R AI E RV MI Y NI BCT R e TI RD AA EM O D R GF R NO A 0 9 A U PR E SM R A I SEE P 5 4 5 R D.AN E R O T W NCD EI F 1 5 B E I S. LI UV P C N D E CF S. I LOU
. )
2 0 2 F I C Y I ( F R : O O : EN LO E C S I T : TI T R C I E I F V R TA B F D E SIZ M O A E T RN EA SN U J N TG R' E E EN E B S NR EO TO NH H U E S ED E P S T R RN ELE S P PA RE PT 1 g
\
w l
N A L R D D D P E R R R M A A A D N R E U N L H H H O I O A L C C C N C A N N N I X B T G O E A A A A E R L M L L L Z R B A I K B B B I N E S D J M M M RO EI TS CS AE D RS C AG / P H CI N C S E N N A T R O DIS OM S 0r NN EO98 S S N O I T C E G W9 AN1 E C J B S L E S L ) 3 O O D L I N C 2 R O H P C O A2 N R M O I T
)
4 C OY O N L A I C E N TR T N I T O U L A J O T I NA U E A C S T P C B O T C O R M O E E F O ( E I U L S C E J TB C L N N N C B AE O A O O O N O ( TF D E P C) 1 I E N P C F C S E E T A )2 R N E O N VN RN E O N S A R F I T S O F W M F TO I TO EI R A E AT I I O E R O NT E C R T NC T C W I V O Y RE EC N O P U E R F R EJ P JE I L D E R A TB FB F F E I V V E LO S S O O R O P M A( S E( O E E R O D T N I E V O M U S
i R N E E R M S M N U D T U N E N R K O O A O O N S C E C S B X K B U O E O O O R L C I R O Y D B A R B D J D S D L S D D C
/
P C S N N O O I S T S N S A E E M DS M O T T N
%c NN C N
E E EO C M M T e GON R N N I A A E ARE R O N T N R T T J O A E O C F F M I T D S A M E CE I A T N O T M E CC N A T L R L E E L S S S E I P HR P E E S V F S I T S E A N M T E Y N I N N R O O FF D A V O E T C C ORE U L I T V R Y T P C P I E L N T S Y A S T A E C L ON F D E T N A I I T E R T A O U N W A I T CN T T I F E M N UA S W S S O S D N R A RM N E R M Y E O T TU A I V R R R U F S SH L R O P F E A P O R R B NF E A T-M E E U O O Y V R G P S C D O Q R M U A
%- U T E f; ,
S S N
+
I L T N E E T N M E S A G A A EL N A T N W TP I HM CE E M R A SN NT AS RA E G A E L EO I M BW SE N C HT U EV YM G E A U TA O C CI N EC TY AG R T O T N F Z I O I CO E R 9 ES R N E F W A N ON OR B SIDN O E RF AE 8 9 O E G 1 WT O OEV TI NT EC T E I A E T EC J N A D NI AT A LN NO 2 2
- GME Y I
A T T M TI O NI VA H P NCT M R A RD AA EM RR E T OA I I FR 7 4 2 U PR E SM E EA T S S
,EE P 9 6
R B FCD R O D.AN 8 VH . EI F 5 E P C R I . ) OC F I S. L D HF S. 2 0 COU I UV Y 2 ( IC F R : O O : EN LO E C S I T : TI T R C I E I F V R TAZ B F D E SI M O A E T RN EA SN U J N TG RE E EN E B S NR E S O TO NH H U E ED EP S E T R RN EL S P PA RE PT O-IJ.. W
e/ Y - R YN ND O ON T CO I I LI T
? T AIS OA N AE MT O P PC O RSE I
EI L I OER T P T F SP A HA AA NT R WE Z I I RT RS R EAO F AN E HS TN T Y EE LC T AOI L CIL C GITI B U E N H m., . A OIDA T NT R I E T H n A D OU E TO H T CS N S T C C" S I U C 'E HD E DGT I TA T NOS I REL I OL E O S CO H FT S ET T A S EG EH I I E T ST T T "E A I S 8 2 A V I HU S9 E1 H TTL CTA CF W AUV EOE OO RT HBO PC TAT AA _5 e e _ (,n.
E I T E 0 S T 6 S G
? AT N
) R I P WA T C
C RP U S AR DE ( EF NI T L C C OS N U 0 CE EA L N N 1 RA T T P O E HIO FI D I S N TT N N D Y A A C, AO BU L L. A SI T DG PC I EE LA TA Z RR AT I TA AI I UC I HR QR NN EN I O WE.T RD EI VT C NN I A AA SZ A L NI R R P T E E C HT A L A A EC H RY RA C EC PR NL I MA EO OH GP CC e e O
E C T I A G D O T E L C O H O A T E T E P DT R G M S ES I I O E EE L I P T H TH A S C CE F T Y STE T I EH S LN S LT NE G E NG N AO E L T OA GG N H GA E NI T TS K M AA I I I H SA N CS EK I A FEC N YC T NN OO DC T ODAO PR TI EL F L A B YO I FP AP I I TT O TT TN EV AP
- n. O AID UE R
I LDSE SA TT EE S MN I PS OY BEA N HS E RO EA FR ADWA TN V O F C CW SA TE EEO O E I NC N NS T C S NH U T I T E I I O H AS T T L I C EG CT LE PC E T UDU T UE E HO H J T L ED HN EE T PNP NAN PH NT B E O T A HN EI Z E I I O G E Y TN TEl YETE R TO I R E BR NIT ADfOIDND O UI F A H I RO E L VTV EI VT M T CT S A AOIS O MO R MT S S I EM VR O R E R O UU E DO RR PO EP P P TA P P SO P F OOEOTOE OB OE O N TTRTSTR TA TR TI - - - - e o e
) I 8 : l gN ( ,
i! ! i gO I T N O gCA " I T N 0 AM 1 D gOLLA *
+
Z I A 1 N A R A S RR E A S W EG T L A P E L E P = O NS R UO i i, s= CR OE SP D E ST C r A P TUT I S EH E L 7 r R A S EI T CI S E = A RIS TSSM G .',di f H A eeeee E K C 6 / C H A P T - E T Y R ON F S A TG I I y-O -
-W SS OE 5 -
0, N O
# PD E
R . E i
.'l),,#
4 - T y l i I f A Y T , M R A _ I L C T S
= 3~
Z I M E
= YGOr*-- G I
H N C A '.D A U N fl O E mOLR - RN G I
=
G T A = PY D E R ER p - E C O )7 NT - l Y H
- N J Y G
O OIS( C OS 6 I G
-._ E N
_ Y OY LH Y OP S
, G HASG E FP E OEG F
O l cO = O P RCOY R LTG GIN OIL N RU C N RAK N )5 E L OITO flG wO OR C O-1 - M AT MIB UL O O RCIS AI S T OA I I T( E ETEETRE P F P PE G GSTSSDR NE w RI T I I R = eeeeeee CIGT SS S CS SE
=
o. EE A DDW EH DT f-
Q( P C S E H N T O G N I S T I P N A O O T L )T I N E V AA P L T E E WU R M D NG O N (E P U TR S E
I C T S
C R T N R O A.E E i f I S E m D YH NY M G S A CT I LH U I S LO I D TC C E E O OD UR O D T T PN OA D L S D EA DR A A E T 0 7 EE G U E C L S S 6 1. T H I N T E U A T 4A I P SN R- S WRETS T R ENE T R ADOE O CAR LE P N APUNS I NU P N PF C E ERG .AI S P O E M LF U CY D R S U CCGEE S PUP C U 0 EOO N1 RDD P CTC SSS O C D S _ e e _ m..,
;j' l 1l)\
6 y , I* clX'LG n . N I
;= =^,O N N
i
- O NR DY
= ffS YI G ATAO DT STNNE
- = E 6
8 E T C E S A, M AO I YC R LL YS OE S TN L A I AR T S A L PG S AEAE UU N EN ERKCSS QS ONC A,T AA S I A TASI P
'm_
S E 5 8 UMTS LRE O S RT N OT OS A EC E L S F FA M U E R D SW _ D RE E E ,R N E l EP NDLF NI SO O UDNLTEE AUAR i I c T S . 4 S S APSSP A L y N 8 I E O R
^ N _
I T e R O I T A N A P O C, Y M E , E" Z HS I A R E
" ES R R P CN U
^iTE G g - R AIO S CIT O RT GS
) LsRVAI R
P - E I LA HU NI I N D' CAT I E NN A A HC C S E - SG nA C A N A I T s - EE UR LN PO Y OT G I I R V S S O E U I T " I T TAT E S S A C A e HIZA CRR AET R Y T N O OTS RC N U I L A I T A w 3 8 PA PRI O T U Q Z I RS S . D E AA T SHU L C E E E N TN I T N EC O UE S e CO I T A ST E U WS , AT L
= SISR RS TE CT P I AE R HIL CM AD NN e
T ED OU S 2 I TN TO AR I SA 8 RG S AR
- e PES E U
8 EDE RNT PUL I I - S S I
^
R ED C T NA I E I SAF . _. 1 T e ML E 8 P AA RN GO QMr =RA OIT PR
,G c-
ll !
- m. s Y
R O T I
- b3 S
0 APRE 0 2 _ N N _ E YO P RI T O TO C RT Us-I 93IglI Y lII ASR9 TOT 1 S PS A" EN E L RO C W. E N O I I V T EA U T E R SC N D S E DD N C R E C E NI N I L H E E E S4 2' O M R 9gIggI e V A 4 C lIs N DMP 1 OO m S O CT E E L I T RT AAN E y M A I S I F A Z I T F 3 R R EE AIS 9 RE 9 V G TS D 1 O CA R AH T F RP Po A P A C /n V S 12 R) DDC _ H N/ C OP E L A PNTT S 7 8 ATS I A( C T AL I WEEANC/ 2 y TP L N I TA 6 1 C S A NV 8 AM U S S E EO/ DR I 8 2 g g 3l y N O S PP/ E 5 C RA P A Pe2 Ws y m N1 e;- lll,lll ll l
S N D O I E T S A L T I L
)
5 C C H I E O O N J S )1 C T F O B S A # I L A I T O D ON A S H C NI C N S E C AT G R Y J B R E R S C N )2 C O O N L E E BJ I T# N T C D D A O A )4 R R N C R N C OO TO O# 0c / P C MC L R A (N EI T NC E E E C N LN PO XI ( S E R U S PJ E ET U S T FB R F C D E PN EO OO E F) O E J E V SC R3 SB C CT I I NI D TR E# TO O F C T N C R O N A (N N AC P F CO P1 I O PR D O EC MS TIT M (N N Y V I E SC I A I Y L E T E L S R T R AHT J AN S A AA I TI DB TI O I N ND NW NO NT A M RN E E AC EA L P T U TI T F R TC M LO ON S OO A U AB PU E( N PL Q S e e e e e O.
r E T S 8 N
)N 8 E S /
P NO 1 MT O S P 1
/ EO C E G S A N I 4 TE N N H SR O
ND I TS E U T AN D M ES S O Q ER N D MA E T E E 8 S O CE S,M E V T/ 8 S R F OS S T I E E O TMT NOE E C S21 A/ R RN T D S POP SD E E M ;E CL E R W8 R N D T NWS NC/ S N MPH S T AO A T EOE OP O O SCT N f k L E D O MLR L C H M OD PC P S
,NT E M
CV N O FC SS E E SI NDW M I UI E N C D N C LP / R OE CR8C 8O YE A RN D I S TR OLC TS 8 I
~
F O T WS I
/
8 N C E N 28)S L S / S C
, OST A E RE J /GS I
TT UNP 9 6
/
ES R N B DH2 SG TN O O DT1 (AON( U /EC E TMS E D NS N N E I T SDTOY UMNV OUEH E A RNDP E PI TO D E I I PD T M RD EAEC V CTC E C SN M M P 8 T S R S S)S E AR NG S E EE U R O P DV I I A1 8ITMHESNI P/ I C MES R F GF OO S E NC T N/ 1 ST L A DI ER WRT O MT LC OE I 5N GC ST U DE N DN TWA E C R O N RI P A NIGSC AM / NN H EU T V F S O TTO eel E ON T C R DEITL RLE(TELO EYM Ml/O P ET D EGM N V AS EDNP C CO D I E R SE L EKN GAOUI E I O UM LE,A T A CCA D SO LT . PA E TIL AM N EAR S.NDR XT I TO I FRPTUAEGES VAM ETI SC - - - - DSS n e e
0 E D NS C OO I DL I RP P EB S ES VU E PE C I E P 5U 1SSR S CE LSH I T-T N E E I I EH R T P N RT E 0 H I T SG A ON G M9 M9 S TN SI D O U RO 1 E N NI T U C YL R S C E R O MU O D SR I U ST S M D D FTI A N FH E Q E U T ON C A EOAT Y RG N TT HGNB L U E EP X DS SA 0c M H T N FI O E E YI O DGR R T OAR O U D T I EI US N M OA T I R T D E SIS O LZ E UADD SY C LI P OREN I L ARE T COVO OA N NL EP TN I O OT E EP CS DA T TC ME E X EE E N E DA RR T NRD MR CO S OAO O AE SE I N PHI R CR H S T NL TB ET PA SC E CEOEL XZ O E EP EI R L T TMIW I P RT SE S L I SN T B EE NDM I T E L U OD CC I E E P MT ACI O RA R WHM E M LLR NR E TM ONO H OELE TCRAP EA HH DOC TC O-e e
S
,T D MN P E N AE C TG P O TO E B RM S FN AI N L A S I GM E H EMT ROO SIN VRN CRC H YG EOE SP F T RE DFM E D NO N OB EAM LI OT O TE B GO LT L AR LNC I AU S RO LI I
SC WZS E T OF WUR SR R I LE SS N TE N ) P X B ETE RTA E D E ED GN H OCS PAA e MNU E E AET ER E H R KM R I m MNO T T E CMO RA D OC OI D A P OF SH A ( TS SC E EM C NN E CD D O OI S FE RT S O E TCT N OSU GIS E G T AE C OP O R EN E LB U PU T P THAH S E R SO A H R LSLT ER T L AOC N SI RG D UT G O TWN THT/ OC P NY O NCRP NS N NEI S ET C E A ALS C AGD E MIL TF ME I NU L R MICA MR I MA EH C O CFS AH OOIM E CFST H SCI N e e e
N T N O E M E I T T E G S A A A N T W C HM C A N E R O NE A S T M A L R E L R B A G E E W A N C L A E D CE NI V A YM G U E N A AT Y I CG RE E S T O T N C X E L PAR MIOE 9 NA E N ON N L ODN CARFE 8 9 F W OEV O A A Y RN O 1 MS I E H TI NT TE OAT 2 2 EC MO A AT T T RS D L TIL N AI E LVM Y TI NI OE A UCT I R RD AA EM SM FC N O G F R E OA 9 8 8 A U PR E D.AN E O RO D R FCD
,EE P 4 6
8 R B I R C ER R
. EI F I
HF S. 5
)
2 E F S. IL UV P PP D COU 0 2 I C Y ( F R : O O : EN LO E C S I T : TI T R C I E I F V R TA B F D E SZ M O A E T I R' N SN U J N EA TG RE E EN E B S NR EO TO NH H U E S ED E P S E T R RN EL S P PA RE PT 0, ' {l 4 I
? D R S E E G Y S) S OI N TR G U N TR E I
D E NA V E N T Y GIO AB L H I O F A O T TD S T G R L S RE E O O EU OR R T N T D Q PE S I T S O( ME O T E N HS I N S E N T E SI EG D Y M O E U E L U MS SN R A C I T SE I N ES ED U A O U H I Y CN Q D L T EH B OA E D R
- O S TY R E R N A O PT I
m S YFH N N F E GOC R DIS N O I O H C R E T H A A E T A I T A ACR H C E S T M O U R T EI AE T F R E R N O L S SN H E E O F L P P S NO U ME N O A I OE S EC I CN O NS E I T RS LN E AI AS U UI EA H TS H LSE EM T AS G T OOH HR G S DIM N I S S LT TO NE G HI I ECN GF S I YU NM A S T RE I NR E M FS I T R L I A EV D I NP E I T S N BC U EE i T N E I E G A TD I H I SHI F FES E I O S CT EHY DH RR SN % W I E ANE DTS I T OP EA fn. e e e e HO TTI D
" o , " ,
, r 1 "
Y G _~ E T A R j DJ T S N O OT e I U L O N O S I T E A R N C) D O OPC N E I LS A T L N N U A AI N O S C I L O I S EIA T I T F )P CTE U C I I TC ND L N S E O EN A N L I MID LS S D D OE E I E R E R ES S OIB CS FR Y E UUC R CS AL U SS TA O, SD I I ( EE P (D AN DA S S I e e e e
v 5 S TE 6 YND D E 9 D TEC GA R E E ESN S E E TSS
.U
.D AEA N SNI D R LBE N RAF T O E N T " .O S AM I
I T ESC RE A ML GAB NV M AAF S i 4 R ROO T .O O AG S SST P* ET S F N I YE FI VO N TSSER E Y F TTT IAA NTC I PTE O LYE T C E FM I T N ENI D D VTA I E I EN ENR O Y o D I Tl - DEA DP R I E T A P R T m-S N o N O I i S N E T C i t A T E D n C S S.N EA F R G p O 4 U" .O SS A LS* L Y E ANE F MGIN OOC L 4 I T E- AE T A NCECID EN:D D AT N VIF N E I MAI R T* C O ONT C F R EE TS N ET PE S A M R _ O F R E I Li l
,j , I ' i P . ,
i , ,
' 6 I ,
t _ G I l , I ' i Da D t _ C_ _
,l
( l t ,\j!;Ili
O S S T O N I E R M A E N L E E E V I C T S M Y S T A E E G N S N V T S E E E R I T Y T M S E T P S A E S E L U E R 3 L E C A R H T O D S T SP I O M E R N D F n G E T T S P T A S LL D N O Y NS I Y S N AE UD A T I S A D V N L T R TO P E I T E A E M T I S C O CL C C I P E N I T M NA P E OU I L R I X S C Y C P T F E Y F E I EE E I N T NC N T I F N I F N I F N E E EO E E D D I DC D D I O-e e e e e
D E T C E S S ) R L S T I E D A T S O ST S I W I G A EG T R OIM (E O D TTC F N DEN F A EHA E S TT H S USS I C E EAD I H R BH D W U4 N CE L A UX D SP C SI R AN
, AE TE A AU F
AG E O G ET H S L WN C OT I MS E R T S V I E TS N E R O E U MO A EE D F C S ET R L R T I F L A T T A UE N E N E E SDN V S O A M YIVO ST T G AIUIO E O C E LO M E F LEAR E M GR F EE C C E O CC R N O ET N R TI T O NN O A ERA A O R N EA O BM W L F ED C F M M I DT R R E T R A TE ES UI NA I A F O O E N I F RSK F LFT C P R AYA VST R AEO VDN I D O CI E E N P - P - - - I - e e e 7 w n,
E L P O M T A S N X D O E E I R E T A O N M F N5 RS E E 02 OP O R F D U T E NU I S L S T A S I FA C L E OEM N D M I O R S EE S E S M L O I T I R R A F RA E U T N OL O T E P I GU G M E C S E EC E A R N D TL T A O O AA A P C C CC C - - - e e O-l
e, L M E S A O V T E R T L N G N A E O I S DM TN E R R E AA R P 6 T SDU E RLS TP M EEA SE A TI EFE ET RS MR M TS AT P SE AOY P RFR O E ZN AlO PlAA T L N O I E AM ET R V GM NE F D B I O E RO D OC EF DOL A e e l ,
O . TD - E NE - C ER NMIU - AE MC E Q 6 AR R L 1 OPS E F R MA ? U E EE3 PEM1 1 S E STIT 0 . S H A L6 Q,, I T T WV R E F E L EEA ERR C P MP T R Y 0 1 M ER E A TO I SFA T B X E EEW H V - TT D I LC LE U N I JO WBR OG O-l l l
l
- n ELEMENTS OF SITE O
5000 FEET ABOVE s - SEA LEVEL N;'s N '1'/ 4500
' s MI%,'/ s s \ .
- --s /\ ,/s"e,s,TCw,v, f
\
e s _ 1400 utT[R$ s t j s P n [_ _ ' '/d . 'I's i /[.,$,s - ,
, ,, SEA EVEL
, , , , _ ......................................-.,,,,.ss
~ , , ~s , ,,, s, ,
.................................................... ...............---:..=.. --
- m. .... .............
15 . ...........................
.. m...
m.. ............... ................. ....................... . .. . . .
, , , , _ ,~ .
~~~~
,~~~~ ~, ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,e ~ ,~,,~,
....... ....,. ~
. ...... ..,,~
~.........................................
m.=.. . -~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
. , ~~,
~ ...., ~ ..........
... n.......
.~~~~
... ~
m ,:: e c .:. m. .. . ......... rBFn
.l
.... ,.... cm..,.:.m
- m, . ." " !!::::.!!m..m...!
*,I...., w.., !.!.!
""+-eoo
. !.. . . . . . yh 2500 - !.re!!. .w 8F* - 4 : lmi! !! .!: : !!!!filT!!Trv,J.M_ '""
. ?!!!!! !!! !! ! .
I
%. % ~ w -%, m, -% ., ~% N%,',,, % ~
4.s -%, e.
, ' - . ~ , , , , , -% ~ g g -s, ~
-, , -*.- % a 2000 c.:. .
~
~,
,t:> . % -% ~
-%.'%cM- % %
0 10785 FEET HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS {'/s/j TCw 0 10,00 METERS D 0 1000 FEET PAINTBRUSH t-:-: 3 PTn NONWELDED HORIZONT AL SC ALE TOPOPAH SPRING C....... t TSw WELDED ====== PROPOSED REPOSITORY LOCATION p/,H"V A CALICO HILLS U WATER TABLE NONWELDED VITRIC CALICO HILLS l: mml CHnz NONWELDED ZEOLITIC GHOST DANCE FAULT PROW PASS l l PPw WELDED TRUE OtP = 77 APPARENT DIP = 57 PROW PASS l::::::::l PPn NONWELDED ZEOLITIC BULLFROG l l BFw WELDED 9 BULLFROG 1 l::::::::l BFn NONWELDED ZEOLITIC [M EZ SATURATED ZONE
3 _ 5 OEE KC AN F S T E" Y ME DO D TEC F , SI F S E ES S N I T R N E ,D E NE N OIOEC N SNI D ET S - N RAF DECT A N I
,ME CE S O T*,N E
O SATI D E - IT A ESC ML S RTADI I NNF _ M A AF AA SI C - S I I R O R OO AG S f l B P ,TO TNE EC SO T S,D O T NS _ F N P" Y EO N EI A T AITMETDE R EE MR I Y FI V TTA T I I PZT OIRS AE P Y E U _ F A L E ME G L T EAE I T N TC E E TTT E I N N NI NET - MF E D I E D D TN V E CNS D RRN AE E OAR I E T R I S O ARI I HU TT Y SS _ CC AS T S CS E m-CGN EE O-OI L S L N LC E O S R Y
, P G ,S E E N AC I T
A R O I T EL T S C N D C-3 GU NF S,N EA N P I SY NF R U" ,O F _ AET ET CN I 4 S LS S MS _ I E A A N E" E L D OOC Y M GI T N R F Tl _ I _ E _f T E" AE S N CECI D O
. I E NVI F D AT D N I
F _ I N malT" O _ R R OE NT C E F R TS E P ET PE S o r! l L
^j g e
6 m 1 T I
-e N E s E U N -
U S N O c. S L I Z S L S D I I T E H I T R N O U A O C E R R F I E U L N T Y AO H A yGT E CZ ND OE T O NE S N O g A Y T ON Y R TAR Y O T T I RU TZ I R S OT I R ED O OT I G RA I R PS N I RA P N I TU P .U R T S S EE RT S E N HH EA E GT WS W C HI N I ON LU O L I L m e e e g
3 5 6 E. E KC AN F S T E" Y ME
,D O D TEC F SI S E ES S N I T R F E .D E NE NN N SNI D ET OIOE C S N RAFN E
DECT I
,ME C AN SS O I
T ,O E S" C SATI D E EL A T A ML S I R ADI AA TN F I M A R OO AF I B P SI ,TO N CO S 1 R O AG S 1 TNETEC SO OG T NS F N P" YV EO N EI A S,D T AITMETDE RD EE I FI I MR Y TA I TA T PZTS AE PNA E L T E EA U F I T N TC OI L R EME E E I N N E D NI D TTT NS MF E D I E N T l V CNS E D RRN AE E OER I E T S O Y R I " ARI HU T U SS E CC AS T S CS CEA EE m-LC E OM S
,R O
P LE Y G S , LC E N ANA T g / AO / R T I g EM T S C N D
/
CR GU N F S,N EA ' NO F ICY NIF 4 R U " ,O F AR ET CN S LS" S A ANE MEP I L TI E D ' Y F E M GI OOC
" T N _
R- E S f I TE NC ECI AD E O4 1
- EN VID F N D AT N I
FPE I MA! O R T" C RT - ONT EE ~ ES F R TS . P ET PE % S x
/ \
/ I\
~ I i
f _ E C W S DN E E O R DD EI L Y H H E E F WR G W G W T NN O O. a
.E V
I HL O I HL O E C M A R E A C P N A )R 00 00 00 00 00 00 M (Y E6 RL 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, C 1 OA FO 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 N E RG E A U P MS e RS OI E C FR NE RO AR MU T T T T T T EF RS W W W P OA F E G G G F RM E O P E L P CS M I GN L TE S S OE B L L A LN A L I L) I X OOL RP A I H A H
)
HC OIT I E DMV P G N OC CI CL YOA OI R L O I I HC PR LT OP AI AE TS C(V C (Z t ll !
4 _ t l l l l l J _ 3 5 6EE _ _ KC _ AN F S TEC T E" Y F ME
,D O D SI F S E ESN S
I TR N E N , DE D NE ET N OIOE S N SNI RAF DECT ANC N _ I E ,M E S O SATI DC E T O S RTN ADI I T E S" C I E A M ML A AF AA B P SI F N C f f f R R OO ,TO TNE EC I l 1 O AG SO T ASD S S O T NS F N P" Y EO N EI T TME,E R EE FI V AI TD I PZTAE I MR Y TTA I T OI S ME PSD E L T U F I T N ATC LRE N E TTT E I E EA N E D NI D NEE MF - E I E TN V E CNS D I D RRN AE E O I N E T SO R I " ARI HU Y TN SS E
- CC AO I TS CS _ rl CTA EE LC f '! l k
E O OM S
,RP L R Y G S ,
L O E N AFN T AO RT I EI T S C N D C-5 GU NF S,N EA NP I SY NF R , F O AET I 4 U"S ET S LS" . CN A E ANE MS L E I D Y F M GI OOCTN R TI E S , f I TE" A E NCECID O i E NVID F F D AT N N I l mal O R R T" C ONT E F EE R TS P ET PE S &a _ l l l l i i!
( ? R L E E EI D P VL E AC H RU T TN E S RO - T EI A T TD L P E L E AA U C C V WRY _ S L6 N A DL D A1 O R NE C T UK E CE E OL I E E OU N D RF N N TS G I DIS I S L C GO O Z N EE E U TH D a, O D V D S N NT E EL D L O EA B N, I T EO N E I MP R A NS A D D E T CS U NE O A T M OR N M R AE S O Y LT R I TD I I L L PS D AN T A MA O MA A N E K E F F F RS M O O N OE R I T I L EG TN Y - FR O A F R I O SO A NUS F N L U ALL D I S WAE N FA I E C .H EV OE L T E U T A A RMR A O SM I S C P PTT I B EE I RC - - - - - ON 2 3 4 5 GA 1
, EM 6 6 6 6 6 TR 1 1 1 1 1 AO w
CF e e e e e
e ( IDENTIFYING PARAMETERS NEEDED TO CALCULATE GWTT l Richard's Equation:
~
V _Kfdv-{ =2(Bh +c at a a=w+z V=- K (N/) / 9h ) he. \ 89) ' t Gwrr= 1 V KEY PARAMETERS:
)
K = CONDUCTIVITY y = PRESSURE HEAD hg = POROSITY g = PERCOLATION FLUX d = DISTANCE f = LENGTH ALONG GRADIENT , E = ELEVATION x l
I i r < E C 9 8 DN M M 2 2 E E S DD HHHHI U HHHHI U 2
/
0 R EI E F WWWW OOOO GGGGE D GGGGE D 1 A. P S E NN O LLLL I I I I HHHHM I I I I HHHHM A P W T C N C E A M )
%)
)
%)
A E V r y
)
% r 0% r 0%
R T L 0 0 y 0 0 I
/ 0 /y 1 / 1 AA m 0 (8 (
A TO NG m 55( 1 m m ( (8 m m m m m m P E 580 m 5925.5 5 5925.5 T 000 00022 00022 E6 <<>1 0 C 1 N E D A U E TE r y0
/5 2 r5 y
/ o 4. m 5
/5 r
y0 m m o 0m MS AG MN mt5t o6 mt5 0 0 m0o6 m mto0 4 0 RS I T A R 5. 0 15 o 0t 1 5.0 t5 o 5.0 t 5 o 4 1 o OI S E 0 0 0. t 001 002 t FR <000 <000 <00 0 RO EF E CR P NE AT F ME K K K O RM qqnd
/ ,
qqnd
/ ,
qqn
/ ,
d OA FR E RA E P L P P M OIT A EN S L S L X GU O C H L I H L) I HC E RI A O)C OIT I DG PG y YO OIN CI R CL O r I I HL PR LT L OP AI AE TS C(V C( Z
3 5 - 6EE KC AN F S T E" Y ME O D TEC - F ,D E ES S N I SI S F N E
,D D E T R N OE NE N
S N SNI RAFN ETOI DECT ANC S O E T ,O I SATIME DCE E I T E S" C A ML - SR I AA TNADIF C I I M R AAF R OO f B P SITON
.y TNE EC 3
AG S O S T O F P" N SO EI T A SD RM NS EE N I Y EO FI V T TME,E AI TD PA I MR U Y TTT I PZT OI S AE R N AA E F L T I T T0 L R E ME N E TTT E NG E EA I N E D Nl D MF E I E TN V CNS E OO I R E R T S O D I l
" D RRN AE E ARI T P Y SS, HU CC ATS T S CS E -
CE EE m- F l l l l O OTP L LC E O S R L O
,P Y
G S , L E N AEV T AO RTI EE TC S CD GU NF N S,N D N-6 I S Y EA R F A P NF I 4 U" O ET SS MET CN I L E D Y MG L S A A N E" E O OC RS TI E f F I TE" T N I AE O S 1 NCE CID ENV F I F D AT D I mal O I NN R R T" C ONT E F EE TS P R ET PE S O
j;f . l l ; 9 I L I
) T L1 N E
E T AN HM CE S U TIO NG AA RN A PT BA T N W EC S M EE E M R CE CT NS A EA E G E NJ I C W A N A L C OB SE OV _ CO I YM U ETY G GC G R E T O T N EC L DAR NOE 9 ES L N VR I ADN 8 NA N O A 9 E B GAE F W T N I 1 OEV O M N RF E TN O 9 I , A(S I
^ T 2 AIE TI I I AT NT K SI ,L N 2 EC MO A T i NL K TI SIV M E Y R
Nr RE C CT I TI RD EM Y I F R 3 6 A AA PR E SM ED T E R S Y OA HEE P 0 1 6 U R B DN A E R O LO F F PCD OIF 8 5
) E P C AM F I
S. L E EF S. 2 0 UV I I Y J GOU 2 ( C R F : O O : EN LO E C S I T : TI T R E C I I F V R TA B F D E SIZ M O A E T RN EA SN U J N TG R' E E EN E B S NR E S O TO NH H U E ED E P S E T R RN EL S P PA RE PT I J.. I O 4
S E L L E B D A T O G M N I L T S A 1
# E U N S T T E S P E O G I I
N S E N T E N C A H O C I L E H O- T I N T T J C O A U B O O O P P Y R C C G C S H E E R F F T V N O O N I I T F S O W E M A E L A N W I V P R R E I R M G E V E A O T E V X R L R O E P A e o e e O' l
\ ( 2 9 4 2 2-H 2
/
0 TT 1 A. OIW Y P S M 1 N R " C A SD A DT W N E E O DEN D EA N C A O D EI EVU E RR OR H B VEW SN TO I T S AB T O AFE FE N C E SN D N Y RI C NR E N A PM E OIOE TAT AC RE J RTLI PA AC CR M"E MHTD E B B NIG FO S N AT EL EE DU " O OTOS I S S CH RM OO GR TEE N T C A VG A EY OIF TH
- n. CNN D RB R ATLS R OI AN E F D P N O AE N LERA E E T CDD LH LS RT ATLL E T A S ONTAMO I
F ESUE N U E O CSFD I L AH" NEEO YV
,A H T,ATTD AR HM LE R E W MDT L RD T
NY YD L E R E O A OAS TUN E LE L GH AN TR AF E I FY T TO UT NTR I ER V Y RLT C E PI E EI T QA EU OC L P E R PCE P CD SQ T E I L E R A E R S NN NE OD DLD" I E M HI TDRCC EOO CA DOO ACMTH M e e e U f, S l1l!! '
F E K O~ A L E E T L C 1 GB Y A DS NS N LL S N AD UE S EE RU RE OD O O L S T HO R E S F S I L E SM C RI T U FG SL A EY C Y G DA EU D E TE NK E FU ET T I RE T S NP I J E A E V NS R D LO B E LE NC ON G I OD D DN EC E SS o
) I I
TO T NE E U YOE AC N OR CINN T LMD L I ME I E C. O ROC ALV RV B D T CAE OIT D LS N( I T UY FA UT A TR L PA NN U OS S I F ME N DR O HE T N ECI E S O O T NM S N AL T H S GT Y SA I I Y OL S NI R W T A SCER D E NT ON N O I CO E D LV P I U I S NI R E P I I UT E T AO T A E U V N OA LB GC GIN QH E E C L EG HN SREILA I I M TA T SI P SI H R E TA S EO EC T M OLV VT VS SD O DAA NN NID EN I I I TA C o E R e e e e
[ 8 8 9 1 LS S I L E R 1 R E I R F P D LN N A EYLO C0 O O SBA I MM ADS S1 U F T O E E C RV D ES TO CO O E FI U R R FS T LO C E J GA CP A T NP AIV B NN UDH TC OD I I
)
TR P, SET ] E LE T E CI U N UT S L C(ASJ S S EREB 'c. RON T EA ELGNO C N( RN HBELE I F SO TATPC F TNIC N NG I O OC )S A , ON I 8TS I I D M W TI T AE R AN R EMO L O E A F I DE TEI V N E M PT AS SCSI R 0 E6 E R ME H YU N HP T MO CF SCS EHA CER O/D N ODTTP I I CC e 3 ER 'q RN
S N - 1 OL I T U AM N RS I N A TO N D SO N PF ERIO EI T E CET M N PA D E G C MOE G I D N OCHT D E C E TS E A AJ E VO RI V X T HB EAEI T T N E CO T NGET A T D 5 PC R RAI EKS N A O O CR OT PL ND I S E T 1 SN RALN L S OYEA B R F O CFT S A E T O T NTIA I I NRL E T G P A OEPB N H WE TDOA T I T S C ES I D R E N E Y L PN I V N I T8 D FT AI I I PO SR E RO T I DC HA I SE S P I OL TC ET I V E P E VS MPI XW O H T A O H R O RE TE X S L L PC T X EOLA YO HT E T TTE E PD D C e e CN O N o. SAMA
e.r
)
M-D L WNO GF A R 1 A N A N U S OITA L G G L SE I N OT A W I AXEAR OE SO TP E O T S O TNEH RR P E EY EI T DC D I T D ST I EN E E S TNI N G C T P I S I F V N O I T A E) I SO I I E V E C D O SA C E R MS E AJ MLE Y C E R S ES HB R VE Y D G N U I O HO SI D O ESP TL CO E A T U OL TMO RA E E RU PT FH I OP I DN SER PCE
)
D WM R N m~CRI U N UR TE WVD OT LA I Y H S N L T NA HD TA E EI WE EO SNN T STL F FN O E O OR I D O C E A RR EGE I MT R G V E EDOE I RE F O O( T SS I T T AAO L F R DFL EB T S W SR U S A D A FET-B A OC V I CU DS E EOL WE I FC NEB U RM MNI LR (S ES CIS I ODU ST(D A 1 S O R E T E V N .D R DN I I 1 ED G A A ECSW RO PY L YL F DTLLREEPE 3. O P SL ATOE SL OE 8TR E FI TS NI VS OCLE OICSGU I L UNTCO ES HT ND OE GPCA SRR E I O RE I EXOH N OOH I TI TL D REFCI FBT XP EX O - - - CV EE TEM SRI o'; s e e i,
O S E I S T C S R I E N E P O L O T BR R C AO TF P K E T C E GD O R U NE R S T P I L O A L SO S C C Oe E EL C E I N T S T I T C A O V S N H P SE I I R E C D SD Y Y E T R E E M N EE G O R C F R D A HR L T S A R E N E R TE O I M A T A U OW P R D Y E H H C E T N I N L A M S O L Y H C K A A R C H O E O E C M I M E E O L U H R G G R C H T P e e e e e e e O-
N E O VY E I T I T R R A AO EA T N S I NI T E M S R S C HS E T E S E EO U T E S E H T TP L E D E RL Y S R P O AR R OB E P DN O FAT E H R H Y ANO T S T T T T D F N N TC E GG N O E R E N E P A N N -. NI N R R R M A I D ST O U R U RI L I T C UL P A E A E C CA S E I T T H E ET E H S N T H HN I T E T TE I S N F T V NI S E I O T O PE O) I T ME R P S E S E(C C AY UH E I T E V CSN T L T R N I NIS A RN OIA T OO A EM I T A A CP N E T R N C HR I ST ER Y R E R FTO I R C E N PR I OF DE H U N T L G YE UC TN
- m. I e C U A SHP SU e e e e e
j'j l
! : I 1 4
/ 6 f % 6
_ _ - - - s y _ r t l _ u f tt Me l t ni - n t e r o n _ ds ae n e a re Ja R M _ r s oeee s ct st ua e n aac ni eey c nt a r ah no stit yrt g h a f r r ao e s - as ces gn l ce aara n t.rnN acc O F A enn _ ea dt ot r ain ne i e _ ti con ver t i r e, i c t a cr s drmet nuetl r er s aewt np r e* 5 e ts. to v-t s r sgt noi
- l s R
- t lef ee r aceau egt e r n ec
_. o t 5 at o f r v er es ua suQF taa nir st cat unrde i ef SG af Cgo e g w e - D .a G t A 3 E S O c e uy dt ER P en ri ct a H t r dc e TS en M eu h g i OC s + N p PI i r l a Y N s u t e f s ltl u s
. h cras ucy t ; ei atl t HO ss
._ o y f tl
._. r y
t r e snu i eeh l eaas T _ b ivtenc - t aicf e cri EC _ t e i amy t e ap otf ta w t eic m s sr rh na:
- mnea V E I
t a n e pf o S r t p
- cgf t heif s ggsae TT
. r i e H lt AE t a
nn-: e NR e e ei c eewr r . :e a RU nMe aga Saf n e*t t s rr rcs n ES e g s f tNIn app e s i T L O L _ 1p-5 e r - us A C _ s t r ace ef t mre it ces s t e ll ub aa em DE f t O _ epa c r yf nt tf i y f r cet NR nt a i e aep n ne lal e00 sal r_ gc t a 0 0, t we AP at c v f . n r sa 2o20 ene _. t >1 f
= e r t el NE E d F E s
OHT I _ en ri s g s lt e r e r eal l t p ee s t:t a e rsof mt g n ih at es t eee s t n e es u a T _ wi e apt pl a ee aa a c peot at ra ease lf rDc d AR _ t s heiu f shn soic se ne ttl nauls _- t e eh t rda n a y f t n l t t a L l s: t egt eanys lf nnhF cl e u TO nt uf - u$ - :hi i et El s r e er inl r e aorn aee : isl mut t al y tpgeeme as t y saen i pa s f ee f tt t ar NF t tt t aal ee el gr c lh t mea c l rl s ll runp l rseol neo A l otl e aaay aet aep aoenl aaht udsp t c pW S crsfBu cnriavRt p EL T a D e L o L o L o SE l ED d n a e a t ae1 a f c R P O yl t a nm a as dc ef o l r af t spo tei l t aesnt f EM t ey t t t sr : r - ee r a it t suene er L uet sk on c RL U n
- sel aipe hg eneamt uer ev
- 3 o sce TA gf i
R N NC - as EO _ n er s nee ne RL n o sot t e s t ll t p s t s aey t t e ed pl RE a nt h eeyp
,, t en t t rh p n r e r s ece pewe a
UH e s e r ue Cr p yl h ere a vy
-t CT p e
r e r N sot m p t _ n e r t y r s s a t s n ;t - Mme e n& da _ C a t cf Ml tugae ene _. e a r l !
f S R M O S I S N S S A H E C E C I C C A O E FO N R P M R N;IL U P O ( & Y SSS BT T N O R D UL E C I T E E SU K I T AR EE L T A T) M T C E NFT O LS NN O P E R E L AAF e E SE G E S TCO AO 8 M R EC G S DL ST A U RN P N I S DFN E O I T Y X S L E T EOE RC H N T YMT E T F U A T I I MRE N O NO F O P A T I TR E L E UM L EL RE L Y R : MSE E C RD UO A C H C H OAV G EEO T CM O O N N U I HGMM S : L O 1 N 2 N P M M U U L L O O C C f.c, l
E G N P I N I A L T L S LH R E D UT S L E K E SA E H EE C D K L I RC RDO I O A TA SE ST TH N M T W E AED LT U G O L U H O T A A F N T A T F DH L O LO C E E S E F R O E T TA A M A S A T R AE RG L LN P TDU
) E N N E H A S A EE OI P RB NTF A O- EN M RT I T
O L P T L E EDT E EI R N P G U R REA RR A U( C O Y H N A F A ALL S AP ATKI S NA X S E I P P T N S T T E T LCL TEC E V L LIP O E UNU I I T D U UI L A Y M A AOA AC N L H F M FC F FN C R E P E C A L E AT L T R ALE L AM I T T E T E CS CUP COL S L A T S D OY LS OAP LFU ORA LFVT O 3 P N M U L O C O-
S E S I S C E S D C I H T E TI N N A D A E T M N O P CM E0 R E R L M U T I OS O Y H F2 F T A O F CE T E A>S W R E SE L S P I C V I ST E E N O P I I SRT TS EE L TD T A RF UF S S T N I E E L HMU
) N E TO AF P E R SO S D OE
~. A L F E EN U E ET A F D P G TC M T O YT LE F E RNO MOT I T L 8 T E HU A UC A F EF CO L U N OFAAY F X S ( O NYT A F L E TL L Y AT E E AI L F E OV C T OA CN O C MI B R S E N E E I VL C L N A RA YT 0CE L D R U I T I
- F C C OB 0EF L I FS H I HN I
F O 0,F B A NAI G SGG T R R 0 I F H NI HS I E P1 ET OE E S I N P - - CM- S - G O I S e s e P : 4 N M U L m~ O (; C
N N O I A Y I T T T N C N A I A N U E A R I O R T F H A S R E E R N T I M A E C I C D O W E C T I S N N T C N U A N E T I S U Y O F O C E N O M E R T Y L T U D I T E V H T A E I C E D C E C O R N I M O E L E R O E L M F A ES R O S I M C P T) D E T F E O N EN T E S I G GO oA R M EN U S E H E CS NZ A S T N O L RNO I T I I T T NT TT T E O P EL LL L R E U( C I V E RU UU U X S I T D RA AA A R U G E C E U F FF F C L A O A T A CY ER YG RN T N G N L R O I RA AI E N O D C S E D N ND RN M I R I S T E M N RE EE H O N E R AT C T S I D T R A I N M U E EA AT T I O T S T N GU AQ UE QN E D O M D P : I 3 5 N M U L o. O C
S I S N G A E E N I H , C P WS N MS TN E N E D E E BIO U O T Q I SU EA E S T EL GAI G A OC K ST G N E N R DN S I I I E LV W G S T N L GIN O E NO B N , HS T I A I SS SD E r., ET T WME SE
, N MA G OAT I
KF I UR N HRI V RA CG SGI T OT I M T A OET S E SO C WA D N T MR A T D R A P,D EY TI S R SN NR G AM I S GEA EA LM O HA E H AU I S UI R TR T DS SI E DR P TG WI D O E - P X P OPU HD E O Y LCT CN - T PR H FSS SA - P e e e - CN SO
1 1 1 l ex 2
, w , , - g i /
t es we y gr . e, e O 08 --@ (v/ 9 -
- 2 O
Es z. 0 Es
- 8 o
x 5 ~e om ~&*
;; E .s ee Eg. =
W u _, d =e
<~.e 3 aw 1
o w c. e=e s c s. ;~
< r.
su t : - ea- c~ ex ce a 4 s
.s
<w
- , . - 5.
-a, e: ws -ga, . w.
- .e
<w. ee e
2
<w -
a g.e o
.g gru
. . ;.< ,=,
Be g o=
.~ z co. 8 gq
- O u EN 5"! ss
.EWs 88; gn u Gn ;sc Ea ,_ o se 55 <W 8g, 4
I w= 88
. w. 0e we >
e2 wa -* 2 W we oo d we e a
. e- C ,
4 U*- Ud s ob
- 1 H
2 2 w- O 3 g> 2
=g ,$ea, 2
- e g 6*4 m r e4 ed W *z m
- 4 00 to G - -24 z - EW og C a M I z o E e t '
t t t t 4 e I A A or =w 9 wo m t o
- c; w o MEW wdx e*-
2 *d eu-eoe H s yos <g wew z e 6g$ $boe W _"uS ,o
.K o'w -g
- 4 2 ~5 sn En u l j cn in 4
g e 4 2 2 2
> o* o o
@ 2 O
2 m 2 2 m, gn 0 O O
/
fm \'
> EO
> -o um pe um$
p, ug { J
<
- P~
46 tb <f No < 2g WW x
- v. z .gu E.f u .E-gs t <a 2.:
*g es e .: b5 g 2
( m. 2 WE .o-m > OZ > ow
.z-s O x
- WI =
U .z
-o u
, w w w r x .
4 4m 9 E o e o ga om cg e =g wwu g A O* a e
@z.
s 44 . ,o - wu< u e EO " or< , da - eg,g l /. zin < : gg , -e
; toy . ; ;ee, ,
w ge-o a w m, w E.o e , w -- c m e ( 4 O g to g 3 m so , e . 3 m oc*t m m yzmo m 3 a m ewda
- O u .u .
x".. EQQ O $ NEo t-
$ EU $ cou $ zh o $
wz w
-- s .r ug g Et wD Q,En W
D
m S L E D E O 1 N S M O N L I T D N O A C A D U E P M N P T J A A S: 1 P BC E LS R E OS BE G A E SN O T CIN I C A RN N RA SL OP P I R D SO O NTN PICDG E N I C D SSI N I E U AID UI E T E S O Y G ST E C OC E V I SM LS RS AO TT OE N E D J T A EA E ER DS I D
+. RC L SC S E S EB I
N AA U H E DC B F N HO R DU I X RDE ET M E AY U O T C T E C AL T BO P L Y L E L F C RLY C FR TH O H S I A I T S LE GW D D ON G N C G I LN S M I LTAE I WINTU AN L I US YO R I S PI XT N O A R SEDI T ERAR YN BN HI O A T S E LE I S G T I O E SP I V O MSA TI EN E C CS M R AM E S R CITM R I AU D H O RE T L P AVILU OL M D XB YTES I RC U A E O C EA E T ECRN PN DIN TT I KAPE PO S S I
- - S - - - AC E e e e O
D o; n e,
IL T N E E M E T G 9 A N A E A T N W E CM NE E R C) AT RS M A G E E N5 UA SW N A L C AN S E AV YM G A U RO YI T UA T Y CG R E T O T N UI T A OE R ES N S C UI QD 9 8 NA E W N O S E F RF AN E 9 1 F OEV O A T O I E J E N O TI NT T E YB T C AT 2 2 FI UN EC A T E I E R M RD A TI O T NI EM T TO I L R A FV OI M RF R
,CT 8 Y
R A A C 5 AA B OO A 6 U PR SM TEE P 8 R U R E E 6 D.AN EO R . K CCD EI 1 5 B E P C RF F S.
. )
A I F Q (N 2 S. L I I 0 UV I Y L DOU 2 ( C R F : O O : EN E S T LO TI R C I : I T I F F V D C R E TA SIZ E B M O A E T RN SN U J N EA TG RE E EN E B S NR EO TO NH H U E S ED EP S E T R RN EL S P RE PA PT k J.
S M A AS R T QI F G FDF AO T ONA LYAD R P R AT L G 5 EE S U . N BONFAI.NG TN O MDOTIR URD O EI S SI I T NOE NTXN I EE C AFSOR A DC EC E S S B I ^.. J E E YAE SL N B C R .EQHI NUS H O E D R T'S T
,C RL E
REO C EC TE R EB DA R FO CT AA N NS N ER RDHUU RP T DE PDN T OI CNO TWEB TT SAC D SWLY CO C SE EP EN NMI EAI V L MLY HLREOOA TPPRCCM n,
O N ) D Y O D E PE B I T S MS I D C I YV E V DE E E NR W J R E B S S AG I V O AT N MIN E R WE WE C PM R B E R CE B N CM S OR O O ( A T O EC ES S O- T H TCR F
. OT DN N
A E ON R A P L P S S I N 6. S O F 'C A Q I O 8 E ST P NR NR D S OD AA E T D LP S I E CA PD VC I R EO AN ER E ST QA RN O D O-I ;
r, - D R E , S O D TN N R OA O Y D NEOI ATP T T A TA I CT U T D UR EAEC D AAH M TE C T R SE T NQ E E OH E I T E O NN DH TR T C AC R F AA L A F E O PF C PEO N MNE E EP I F E D HY YTT A TD I I SI L NSVT NL I R YFL SNI GOOIRI I S HR GD A B I U DOW A TP S OTAIEN C S NCTN FE TN SPL
- AE E OS S
I
" DT Y TRR NRR DEE I
AN ( A E N UO RPA OMS AUE Y NQEM P DL A DO C E P OSY E ETEB T L PACI R C I CD CIS . A SN OEI L OS I L EER V R RO A SDO E SL A P P OV I I A SV U HO MS T EN CA N E D D T Q RTI LPSY UQIOH,T T A NA N L YL D AOT SI ,R. O OAINCN SDT Y G YEO RI EOL I N RR I T PTC E AITNT CHI B SAU C H GAE EA I R STA SCF TTMDM VE I P E UIS N SEIF AR ,I MCRT E VS ET N TT OETA CNSS H WINYOAE SCDR l I
~
O C 9 4 I 8
" L L 2
2 - G T B A 2
/
0 S N I U G 1 A. P U. V P N E 5 E A R L D O L O W
? T T O N T N I
N V A S S C A M G N E O T N I T S I N A I I M T M N M A R E E M G _ R E E G A N AY A R M O A G N N A TL RR G O N OD C Y D N O I G OE R RE R E N M PP P VT I O F R E T MO X NC T E D P D C I R E EE T A N E OP L EO L O J OE U A A P HR T oQ e E C N O R P D TN TO S U D M O C T P T A E H B G E R R E D _ A E I N J BE N T LL R A R O C U S L O E E S O I I EI CW L N-MIL T C I V D S AW A NY U D A O O F O R GG R U ET DE N R O H G N OIN D F F I NA R O C E S O RH G E Y O S F T I T PT NL Y RS - H N C E Y OP CD N AE E N T R LO RG SG M SE S A O TI N EN W U AE E _ AV DHT DE I S P L F E AS L P I DN I Y E W T I SN Y VL NE VL M K EA I OA AC OA O HH HA RE RH - TM ML I C A TT PH PC _ e e e e e e e o _
S E EYI T M BNI AV OA L LGT I TR I TG WNCT A I NO M AN ER AI RI T O MP GN T I A T A I O I Z MQ R OI , MA P TR ARE QIO ^T OG E RA CN LPR MP I BDA AE H WO L THC A P R E EISED CV CLITA OE C ABSVE D A TWN NSE N AENI
M A R G O R P . A Q \ ,N M A LO A \ kSK) OIT RA R G S N T T O G T S Y A N N) OE'S R P O I T N O N N G T A I I E SN GOG G CMP N RUIL G F O C)S T A P M A N LN OID OC & .N I FT T oO T L I I N I I N N D N N FO O RD E A SD' S I I I M P A O A I P A I T EU M M A R HT R RE &P R A V A U c L O Q T TS ER T U EA T T Y( C E C D NQ N T O E U D D EU( A V M E (( M E N U CP OIC R S E L P U Q D /( PI D M I F [ O S / T N E M / E _ L E o j
{ f ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
-(.,
m
! EPA NRC l OCRWM I UTILITIES i
! NEVADA I A
YUCCA T (- ,, MOUNTAIN PROJECT e, o ( [e OFFICE Sa YA O , i
/ \
)
E g O
# j E I E
- S S s 5 8 :
- 9 e
0 8 8 9 3 y :S E 5 i i d ! = 91
0 9 4 3 2 2 T 2
/
0 N 1 A. P E S E A A M O W N Q E G C A D A S S S E N E R E R E R T A U U U AS M D D D RL E E C E C E C GE T O O O EVE S A R P R P R P T L N E N N N W O C O O I L E I T I I T I T L F DD V A F A S A N A I T T T N T C SN O SN SN c ATA EE T EE O S EE A T RM C RM I T N RM D O N UE UE A UE DL E DL A LDL ES I D E M OCM NEP J EP Z PEP TN A UI O CM I N M CM OI AA R CTOI OIPRN R OI RN A ARN N PL N DR POI P ) 9)PO I G R PO G ET I I A S CET N 8 1ET
- R D I TSIVA I 8 8VA O O RI Z VA R L NETI Z A (8I ZTI P ANTI I
V EDAN T N(AN A N RA G O I C MMTGRA N LATG N ARA QTG O E AS R U P PI LSR I T S LI R C F R RI O A A ANO UGI NO I O QOME M Q QME AINO P UI E ERD N I I DD MEN RPAL I A SO D N I C I V AL I C C WP AL I T I D AA I F AAAA C NMAA R F QQQQ NYQQ N QQ U A I O-O eeee Y eeee P eee
U N R O F S A E T N I R Y T I S A M E T I L RE S L A I R L E A OI FR P R C V U O G EQ S T A O E C L S MI Q R N HE A S P R O I E A GR P L C R HO I GE L N U FI T OR A A" N S OO S R P E O S T R ES A L P ES R UI I S Y A E CA O S ST S R D S L I S T O NW n F AIC I I L PC A L R M A I R E n S A YA M U SG I UV D T F Q DO SE T I L R O ", " L SL - N N A C )O A H A U A 0 GE Y E T QL E Y 5 TG Y TIG G M S ",U C R T R I L H R E
/
E 6 O R" AS AIN AF E C 8N T PT PS UO N L 9 R BE Q N E E I T 1
,O A RN FA UT L SS N:O F C C 1 F U C PL (A AT I
O A AS 0 0W LA I R OT G R 6 PZ T S NNE E 1
,. E T VE E" I N
A P E R BW RI C WR M XO A T E TE E B Y M E R PCA N I M R SR I DP A V E C T AI A NR R OR A T S /U I E EA F I U RR R SQ L PE CDS CA A U NE C PL 0 AS RH P D AR U AC 1 RA NC E N I e N e e e D m
)llI ii i ' o 9 8 0 1 2 2 - 2
/
0 1 A. P
- S E
A O W T S N C N T A E T R M N A S E P S P L , G I U 9 M SS _ N P U A L I Q 'R I U TI E E _
" W , T O AR _
A LA S A E T E I OR RD L A M TG ST R L I F S SN EI NGM A E O TD R O E MR N N AT O A E T L S S TPITG DIP AN S - T RN C S A O E NHRI D R oC A I R GOTE M R T C O ASEM O OCN R N EU R D E NS TR G D PR C E P MD S ONP N ADN OO F R G UELA I C EL R N E Q EI C SCCOH DNA U EN O N C S GA C N DEOORC NOI C O N A AT OT NS CR TA I 8 A DR TR AP E 1 RDT P,OPSO NU NOS MP E RS
" N UNN LMOE O T T NN E AU O SAE NCFEI CF I
,N ,FO NES TS AAI CMIOTOCT ETN LV I AD'O N CNLI ONLTROFS GO I LPT OIVS A F
Z I YI RCE OR NTTUUMR E RAOTOONTO RC CRLCR I M CYETS TDET O RLI I AL N I CRUT ST S TE I T - GAI E O TCND N T NPT NN PN C RAD RUCR S OON E R S S OQSPI DCAI N AO E OA NS OROUU PCID TCHIN COCQA _ 1 234567 8 9 101 2345 678 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o
o, q n D e N D m s A N S A - e a E S S N A H O I P T LM A LA CG N G AR I NI N TG UD I UO MN N OR A q ~~ I HP MT m A GA OS R UQ CRE T OE RD RH O F N HT T U F L GO AM I A N S T I OLE NR EG G V SO NE SR OL EP e e
~
Q i
O T S N N E
,O M O ET I L
I T ECK P C HNR MG TAO ON U OMWD CR I R TR LE SE T S HOLM E E CFA R RN N I AR FO O PE OF UG I R ,N R DN D oN A c PL POI P ARTS O E E E C O D R N S DT EN NIAI TTL Y P A E N E NO ETR I R E C LC, MAO I U TN P GU HT TE D I I I C N C TC RC E SINOD EA RF WS C I DN US LD O EA DST I LO R HLNSA EO P TPAAS WG e e O
M A R G ES O N NI R L D I O I N P T AA O A SY I T T YI T E N TLD E C E I I N LB V E M AISE U RS EE E I L Q NH HR ~. OC DU P FPA OS AD M E I NE R S I TC C O Y O M T DT I I I RR A A NL. T AA . TP S D R . N N' U S G EO Q E N O MIT E R A R E I S LC R UN P 8 F N E H QA EL MUFW I RP e e m e
N O N I . T O A I Z T I N A A C G I F R I O R E E N. V I L Y Y A T B Q I L D Y E B A M D U R E Q O F I F I R R E E P V e e
e _ E H E N T I YC TU I LD D N T B T L A L HI TW F AO A H N UR GS OT QP OL O EL NE RA SG I I T TA PE A AN NN D H T RI F E E NC N T C LL AIL
~ , E SD NN I
LA LH MB EU M OA UC DP U MS F L SD ES S C DE S A SN O C E G E EA R T D OT O C C L GN R F YP U O NE R A E SH S O S E OM' C
/ N ST T N L R I
EH L E CT EO AF TE I CO~ BV UN" I NB VD e e e PE; e 1 l
M A R \ G \ O R \ P A Q \ ,N M A LO A k kSK) OIT R A R G S N S T T O G T Y A N N) OE S R P O T I N O N N G T P F A I T E S GOG G C M 'L N RUI G O C)S A I M N N LN N I T P T A L I N D OID N I OC & N FO I N N O FT I RD I N E A SD' S I O I I A O A EU I M P A I T M A R HT R E&P P R A VA M U _I
- L O Q T TS ER T R U EA T T N
Y( T C ( E C ME D NQ E U O D EU( A D V M E D [! N U CP OIC RS E L P U Q
/( PI D M I
F ! O S ! T N E M / E L E l
m; N O I D T N A A ON Z S I N M TO S A W RIT E G R OAZ I C RY C RI O OR O PR R E O Y E E P O AT B CT D QC E A C N DA C L A Y N SF N PR B A fOA I T E C N AI EK NS I r A T P E NH I M C AE C A L E N C RI T I F T YT C GS I P E BAO I A OW L C N TA RT M RE A C OST A PN U A I TNN R D S Q N AOE G E NIGE CMM I A I O FITIT L FEE R I L RIV P R DLP PC I A AR A U TC AT Q EO VTI M QN QSA y e e o e e l
N M O N O T I A I T/ D1 R A T U1 S G TA A1 S E O NC I C1 E R R EF R1 R U P MIR W N1 N U D H S E L E V E W E
/
D E I P I O1 C I O I E C O L B M&
/
V E V E Pl M1 O R R T R P A T R Y1 A S N P E S E T T N T N CIC I A E V N E E G L V I T A M M FO I L P I T A R P I E E L E AM A S C E Sl i l G G R T E I O l A A AL R l T S R T R D Ml N i t N UUDG S I I N U A - l EiA Tl i l - A O D l N I P I M M QEH l I R I M E Sl l D E l1 N T E l P M C . N D A l C1 EP 1 O C, MSC O S l ll 1 A E A E R E1 N l1 l 1 P D AC NC C1 A l1 O 1 G C P 1 l I gN C 1 I N E N1 L l1 E 1 l RR AR I A1 Ll V 1 1 Ll E1 L I 1 l I T GEN U R l T I G 1 C L N L1 V1 O 1 1 1 A OEG SS1 E1ll R1mS 1 E G I I 1 1 P F N N V Ul E1 1 R 1 Al F1 1 I l A R1 Sl R 1 1 l l A T P 1 Y1 l R U1ll1 T1 Y 1 1 N T S 1 E A T I 1 l Ll I M Q A ll L l 1 E U1 A1 L Q1 U 1 1 P Y T T
- l1 Q 1
M l I 1 l I L M Pl 1 I B G Pl Q 1 l A l1 P P I S M 1 Q1 A1 M I N O P S E R O
LI OD EA GU A T N R I GA ET 8S A N9 8 T C k ONA I O P TJ E S A3 1 CYRA I G U A FN I AE URP I LM L I L U J N U h Q {]h QY J
^
h h _, " A MRA M ATS R P R D A GL R A O G"O M RDE BE PS - F - I AEV N A _ QR J o - S C L L N - 9 S L G E N N s 8 9 & & N S E L A
' 1 F H S U R L L
O 0 2 9 8 Y 2 2
/2 TSE I S 0
1 A. P 5 L R E E A O AI V I W N C UU T A C QQ E J L E B UR O FM S E H S A T ER F O. CG S N O n CO O G UR I T N I S P A D N K AEC C I A T R N O GN U S W NA I M R E D VR M D R EU O N A C U H H S I . S e e e C A A O .
d.. g L i
) N 2 O I
S E N I V I T S O I D N O A T I T T N W FC A U E M R A OEJ L A V E E E G A E L NB E TIC YM N A C U OO I D R A I SF DOY F G O N T( H NT G R T f iS E T AS C AC R YE E 9 N N 8 N E A R LL N RJN 9 O OE W O O A 1 F OEV E TI L T APO RF EH I , TI TE B L NT 2 2 NT UI E N EC AT N B GA E NMT T T EO Y MA ( TI O NI L R,U T R RD AA EM PC I L E RO R OM P A 9 3 9 A U PR E SM FL W T AE 7-4 R B D.AN E R O SA X A C E CD 9 7 E P C
)
RC 2 F S. IL UV I I Y EC M I DYU U S. 0 7 ( C R F : O O : EN LO E C S I T : TI T R C E I l e V R TA B F D E SZ M O A E T RN EA I
$N U
J N TG 'R E E EN E B S NR E S O TO NH H T U E R ED RN EP S ELE - S P PA RE PT . \ ~
- g i J..
1lIl ! l ll
S L N O I T A L I R N H T O E I T O N C C E 2 E I L PDE
# J A S L R N B C L PA S O E I O S S T A
HE I T E S E R OR P C T C R R E L E I E E J D D D N AB CLL
$N D E B A P I
O A O O FI OW r L T T S O N T R ST T E EF U ' C H T E HD SA YH O R C T I R TE ER LS AY N A2 W HR NR F O# E R WE F AO TT O RN 4 NE FA I Y P OD ER PI O 8 R N N1 NO A AT O OS EL S E BPX S C I I M E T I H KE
'M 'E J O E
C EI T S Y I U OB S DW RB S DO - - - g e e lllllll llll
n 2 T R O SO
# O ,C AN NE N OV I
DL NA TA I O I EC T E AH L S X T E TH OL SL C O TO I E H I E T TO J D EI N S C AI B H S 1 WL A O I L B E S NC OE S AM TO SH TT y C N SR E F CG e R O NY A PI N N I T EL EL MT I AD C BA ERE F E T TN S TT O O R EA O J B N Z E NR V ET Y O SI R A D PS AF N R F H O H LOO A O D T E ATLEM I EI F T M Y NRS N UD R ESN M E DLL T EE A HOI ORE U M TTH PAB S M e e U S
G Y 2 SN F TI N
# T Y CI H AA I
T S UY WPT O N OR MBS U E J T HO WI ON H S O I TT I OE NA N E T A H ER R E I T WS HS A E T,UF DO C S PO SR HM A L L R E O T V ETE DL S T E D RT EC Y N E A HN EA I J H E PN A E O OI;WME B OH L TR CT D A AE L E SLH O I LN YITRT B N ,L VL EI TAA C AE DESA SD
)
E CE ETL L Y D HP L P Qc ' CTN U N I EW H T L T BE B E DOI B EPH E N EOG M BCN E I TLT E I RC O N A EOO OACT N( O G N ERT N STIH CI T NCES I I ZIRER I LA NF NA T N H AM AO NW F A I RRT OlG CR C O O D EAA I S EEO S GCM N N T BW C WHF S TTN NI F O Y E AEE U I A TO R E S FE R RHH C UGY ES S L M A TT S ONR MTE E B A M HGD CNN D SITA I T AS EE C D A TVNI T M O RT A I DIFRS AI E L R T C C EAN EETE N C U E M E DRO L NEC I R UQUT AENE E T R E NA S TEIZ I U R NNR TBEN E E P E LT S OW I S C OEO D HF H A EOAH S NDE CPH ATOT F R ! DCRT s N e e o
m Y R A TI M N S I R U S E S PD L T I E E AN LS I HF R2 H OO O D# TW CN LO T T D N S I SO AT I I X AL AO D F CA T U E S OIT ER T U L OA N A TC TE AT R B A V E E M
,HE NA O P A T O R
S r CJB GWS A F U O S DN I A E NA DD T E I R OO D UR AD HE A V RS S OT TE N T P' C I RE S A E E H P R SGD HR E T A N L I SA C S L TOL I C. I LSN NAT I E H RU BEA I AA ATM LD O OENO TRR S EO P XN D CIRI EP F EI A i lRD POR PT CRE CB AAA SPP SO CBR - -
, e
O S L DL I E E HF A CO O T A OCN D RL O I I G N PAT , I N H O CE L A T D N I A C TE P A D A T B RHT M A O A E O G N T A Y O) D HO TT C: I N D B E O- REN E I U E GG A C 1 N T H N PI T H - NI B T A PNOc WSIED R A O F G N M R A( NGN P O I N O E ON P E S I A F R M N T E O NIN O A B P D OE D I EC A T
, E M
O F E T S EP RS A E O I S CE RE I D T S A O ES D N T T ED FY E R I F S D ETDA HEL D E E E T L E N E K S I HI N N A B R TWS A I - - - - e O-
C S I G KK RE O E D S H SC T I L U T A RO A O R L C D P W D RW D N N O NE E L I Y S S A F AH H E N S Z T HT N S O I R U G S I S TS AE E N TGN D I Y T E C L UI C M T T E O L F I N NS O L L M A ETA A I R AE C AR P CVA R NA ER Y TE D E R A T E BT R RT N MT P N EE I TD N O EOT A qHET CM L- N I S E A O T A NI NA R V A S I T T UR I ES E RH A P E A T T I T D C F POS C LP E W NP A OI R E R O THPS EE U A D C M A R L F DW E O E SL A T E P N NI RS S EI A R U U F R O I OW E RM P T S F E S CEO D U T DH A OE C A LUN F I F LS I I R O A ETL T H G F AI
.VTA CE I
D L D C O US U T NI EO L SF VOI C S N O L A EW I E E O X EI F N E I T - ACE E OC I NG R D RG T TN N I DO P R V OWL E STB ED HN Y H AA ED MR! AR RP O S NSEA TA - - AABT e
G H N S N A I T T S P F I F O G LO I R A N LP D E I N T I T HO T R E A D S E O CI N O O T UL S B G T A S I E L L N D V R AE I L T R N I T O CV E L I A VEEI F FL R D A A OT D S S T N S S HS D T SL KS E E T E P T N NLA SE) D S C C EF A S EIHW I C 4R I SEU E DSE F O L SN R A O L I F ANO P TN F C I F I T I H ULS I O E O GA LC R S NM O SAT NL( PI C O LI LN N C D L N I I L E OW I T I A O H RI H CRT AV CE A I E A TS B LL T TDI W O L T HM BT E UD TS U OEM L OI H M E S SO N LL I OEL ZA O I A TO V LA LB R NH OIRT V I I F OO T EN T AE HEG I E DC TC DTE E EL I ND CO AI C NGVAIL ECT H EA NC RUI F LN LI EL LRI RC C AA EAO NRP T TC AURPXT EE L CS EAE HH AIN * * *D S E
- A HHH o-TT e
- TCTO e
D E E O M S L N SI C R L N AL O I O I F W P AC T R E C S 2 EO P R E # RT N E R NI N B E H E N G1 - I O T OIO SS T , EE S N DT DD E O F C I TN S T FE Y n,, O EJ AT L C A HX A YB SE N G RO YO A N D A O I RT T KE M T OY I F AT TT E TLU M AIL N OS U RI E TN S OB LAS B-RO PPL L K S OC I XAI I RE ECH R PB e e e ~
I N O I S I E V I T D S N O A I T T N W A U E R L M E A E A V G A E L C E E E TIC A N C N D R I SF F YM U E A DOY G R E E T S O T N R )3 H C NT G AC R YE E 9 NA E W N ON EN F N RJN O OE 8 9 O 1 R O F A. T RF OEV L APO T E I , TI E I B L NT 2 NT EC A T ET B UI N GA 2 MO A T T TC L E T E R,UTNM Y R TI RD AA NI EM NE I L E ROR A 3 9 A U PR SM J OM P 9 7 R E D.AN E R CO FB W X T AE C E CD 4 9 7 B I S. IL UV P S E( O A M RC I DYU U S. 2 0
) E F
I C Y 7 ( F R : O O : EN E S T LO TI C I : T R C I I F V R TA E B F D E SZ M O A E T RN I SN U J N EA TG RE E EN E H B S NR E S O TO NH T U E R ED RN E P S E E S P PA RE PT L &I ' u i
x. 3 N O I T C E 3 J Y
# B E L T TE N O I SE O S TL FP S
E I T E AM N C R RO E DC 4 I L J D NS b OA m T B A I TW U O A T N S O LA O ' T UL C H S P NN R C OO N A CIT F O FA O R OZ I R Y P 8 EN 4. R P T E A NCT A OAI T S T RR I _ M M E CAW EHE U O SCR
, S D - ,. e e
C T . 3 N FS E E
# T SD N I S SIE L A
O N I T O OTP N C COE T E DR O NP P S J AN N B EO F O O O T AN N I T QS n C UO O I QTI T D N A R E EA A A P R DMU A RL S
, O N EOA N N F DFV O O I
O UN E I T T N LI CS Y O CN W A G UN R I T NG O I I L I T RO C TI A TSL S S T M E J OEA E NA B N LOCDTE V OIG M O S ANN N I CTS E U F O U SE N NE S O T E EV Y DP EO R E E EN R PE F W WI A CC D R T TD M SNSE E EN DOI HTN B BA O-M U S CCTI e
e E C N N E 3 I R
# P E F
N C R S E O I N T T I N N I C O L A E I T I J AN T N B MO E RI H O) D O T SE U F SA O P N F , N E p CT N I I NN T Z ROC G E l M N( I ST I NS F ES I MN I O DS O LN OI Y N O AO TT A R I U T C Y G A T PD GI A EN E T M D CA T S N Nl AE M E RV U M OlA TN S CT SI M E E S N E O DD S E C UE U E R LR C W CO S T E C NM I DB R
. I p
N e e
l l!lll i 1 ll
=
Q 4 9 8 2 2 2
/
0 1 A. P 5 T N S I W N N C A S O S I T E N A G U R 3 I S E S A L D E D T D # D D U L NV OE E C S E AN E I E C I TE N T-O OIO D L N PC I E U T I RN R T-TT L E S O CE I C T N HC T SR F Qn C E J I N 4 F S E S NT EE DFR R E T O I Tt ) A - AB OU t 8 F O S E N RA NT EH I O I O TY R O N P O N P I A ON I I R O O-S P'S I T C O I RL CF T R A F DT O PC E T P SS RO EF S N N T-AF AR S I R EE DN PS O NA OH SN P C C TO OIS I T T S I T S - E S S FA A E CS S E ES SB U UE T-O O D T N T EE L O RD D T D DI DD A T TU S E EA EI V V T- S L N D DR D O E S NC O N N ST N R D E OIN I A A A P E T C( S P PN P D _ I V X XO XO D *
- E E EC ET A _
R O - e
~ 4 8 E N DE RM NC E A G AN D TN T WR I E SG S D 3. E R O H AA NO E N 8E T S HC OR A,SF I I TF I P D SN R D R L B EN I T AG A R R4 NO E A UI G I I T G T EI T E OITN E SE SS PS L I TCI R EC NE OE T PEF EN EB DT H R E OT R SO I NN I T TE E LU TO CNSN I WC AO F S I N WF DN NS S E DO DE S N E T D T
, E D BEIT EU TI NF A L OC U U I
TL TE TI A AF EO LO CF c E SRU UN LI MS AW U F H ECL AF EE V RE TSA VO RN EE TT T T ,EV E I UO SN C SA N F N DE S E S Q Z AE NH A O S R AN EN WR OT C O I TEO WO RO SE CEI RI F N A SF Y Z F P T F NUN FU SR OSG O MY R LIS TD I VN OD E E T N T I T NI O DE AE S F AS TA I I T : NS FI NA 2 CS AA Oi RO EB A N AB 4 AT TB S S T S UT T U I GE 8 TN I UE G FE D O I L N NH N SA L T AS O-T NT N GI T ER YO A I T O T T CE AT O AD V SR E D I T HS S T I L T- C LULU E EOI C CN YR ES FA O D PV E AO HO HE SV EPO S EC PF TT EEW HUR N . TSP
,. I 1 2 3 4 e e
O S E E R P NU Y GS T I L D S N A EE R E DO E TS FT N AT S D E E E UN G LI EIF E AA H TI S E R VR NA T H E ST OS T O S A N DE EB T N O S T I WC OS D S Om Y O T T PU MM I E Z I N O I I V D S T TD AE R O T A I N HD G R T R E TLE E E P CA MYI TF T A O AG EI RVE C N D TE UTB I I E O N SR Q R A E CN I T E AA E A N TH T RGC W G C O O I HI :NT S N T TI T S T L C CW NS E T N I C L A U A I I AE A N C R E R TE TE L R E U I T S T S SH B S Q Y N NTIA N E H O OY V O S P C CBA C O-e e
- N n O is t o cn XX XXXX XXX XXX DS uio r t EE t s a ne r SI T Co op OIV PI l an MT I C co i i st ya XX XXXXXXXXXXXX SA h c Plo TT NS g n qR A E I i c T n ~ e XXXX XX X u TY q e SB S NN OG CI t t s e S s 1 e n d t L E m o wm t s n s l elt s AD Si r i e t f u o Te n P F r t p mt e mfa I t u ogu i n xe en r m tef o s e CS k n r ue sm i r e t s s ysl ain e p e seih o NE eeit ni a t ai r ees xe t rt r e e er I R nbmne cr t eh mpt s x ssl e st st i y i r po r e gorinfimr e k s set l aob P e r eti de l emgrt ac c roisn_tneedcoeei as t t brpe s l t i t val nt a r ix pslot
- sod o eimt nr eipgr t
s ostn erb cn l r a rt r rt edadoolaeo e o u e t o e eseme l c o pi e lsnop T f ut it r t er ckf uiri
, amqanaeat e rl gdl t
h eeeaehela veuinyuf
- SDSHCHTHPOPBDEHM
O 8
'J 8
2 2 H D 2
/
0 T 1 E A P I T R 5 T W E SD E N I W EE D N C TR DC A I S HE D EN CL T E N TE AA R O C AU E E E D O U L GB I S L F NY S N L AN I DA O A VI NM C S E F UT ON E A SO RE R W E S AS oc WE YN RM UN SO ER W S M M S I N TO NI V S A H VZ I I ONT N C I Z ES A E TO A EE H M CT :H T ETE C E N AD CHH M E TR N EICFT L E SA UHO A L C W T EG LWT P I A I G E TE F NN L C C L O L B U N I A HR I I FYS I R N A A L O C G N C OTER P H M R R I M I L A I EV R C E D E P E NT AI U E H Y H U OCS O M T H C O o ZAA e F e
- - - - C e
lllll
G l a c X N I i m e C h C N c E i g U o XXX l o x L r F T dy NN I E l H a SM m r e XXXXX X
, MN T h
SO I l m NR I i a c n AV a - HN h e c XX XXXXXXXX Xxx CE M E E MH s 1 e t n t n L T m o wm e l t s A o r Si r Tp i m r mfa u P 4L i t n xe t n e p t ef s o I ogu e x C k n aine r s t ni m h e t ss et ysl se o N eeit ni a t r s h i cr e estgs t t e rt e r I nbmne eh mptsnest yt e i r po r er R e gorinfimr e k uex t eet r et r t e t i sill ebot saob brpe P r et de ac c i l smgsr n u t ah s l e val nt r ix a -psl o aoist eodscomo neeedco eip rt t ost erbmr aaai nr gr cn n r t ed s domf aerbo t eou i T r t o e ese i el e l
,. t s
l t o plasnop
, e f ut it amqanaeat carl st ek df gdlc cki uiri t T h eeeaet ela ot r euainyu f SDSHCHSHPRInPBRDEHM
1 l l a o t 9 8 M N 0 G 1 E N S L M 5 I T M C N I r
- CA UI C W
N C N O l R DM A E I T D OE U C D RH L U N PC F R A Y , T BL N S G L A
)
L I N N AC A F O I K CN I C O C N I I I MH A M M S E E S) D on EE U NNT ON I O R FD GE T F A H HC C D (M E H C L A
)
ZO C NT S NG C L I A M AN I A F ( T U ET
,I G C L L O O I
O UA R GS G SV F AA L L O O N E E R S M B R L O O O N A D I ES O DD E Y R T CL I T KL H D NA Y A EE A R)L CL OO ( S H U U L R EA RR D ( N L FE TC ,T I U A L NN O NW AN I L I V I F S OO F T A E E SA TC I F L OIT SH SI EC AM R O I T E EV RE B O N o-NT OC ZA I TM S( e I VF e R S U e E V e
m S E A G V DIN - N M O O C NS I I UT D T E R L AR ON L H F E RE T TS DT AM U S D R NE NE H SE N E T AM SA O U R S EI UE I RI T OM RA TI D F T GS EA Y EI V I AI R F RE L
)D DI DM E CT D ET SD R
EY T A NC N GF NA S E E RB E M EA U AH CN TD LE I X UN O HS CO ATA O L R C5 AY R F O A E L SI P I S1 SY HT E S EN T NT N O EL RE TA RA I C I T T DM TT T SA NI X SS e, F U A B OR R E
%IM 0X UO OR RP DU E
T S E ST T 1 O AP CS A ES L A (R NP NA D A I W NN S S OPE OO E RF E OO G AN I I S E I GT PF S S EOL EYL E U ZC ES RT Y RTRE R L H T E B L FM TF SIR A N DS T ED N DA ER TD FE L L OO D A RN E EE C RE ET OD L I W SR L AD F TT LXT TA TE EF CNA O AEF LL AS NWL E S L I S SS A SD TN E E P N T ST H SN XI N ETN & AS T L EFS EE FU M HF U RAE THH RT TX EI HR T S A CA EH S SST SE TDG E X MS E R e e e E . 1 m I'
G DE R M L L N S ET M AO T RF 5 MT I F EA 1 0 SNR T R I T NE;M O T 6 O E L EN0 0 T BU T - U D R O1 1 0 OE TR O E 5 T SS D E ZY L V E DD TS EE N TY E O T A EL TU NT A AT T M R CO EF WLA I I D E A R T I I G PW C H I S NBM L U i M XX I FS E V T O AI X O D EI R F F I EO C L ST UF CIT A H CTMR RP E R U O I E A RM SO N C S U EP R PA U S C UE SN I O E A T S E
)
TH CT SI T FT N SDF E R U I NEO R P U A R D A T LN I T R OF N R R F N A A HE E CIDO E FO) NI TUDE T FOI OMAT E D N P A NE I D SI N O R oI r FCT N N I W N A
%E R 0H G 1
TM I U R E T M, 0 5 DI B EB p NM I A Y I E E W( TI O OUO O S N EI R A W 2 ( S T L NK S ET BC S TRC( I T MD E S E R O CIC K EA UE T E R UE CE R C E QE A U E S U SN SI A W R U T C TEW N T NN R A ETTS S I T C A R ABW WOE A TI N T S A F S O Z O F TF C S S SRC I Y L R F E ODA I DI G I SSD G F C N E A E R EE TI N NO S YAE N R MC O Y L AWR A U E A L UE N OL OM I C L ND P T RC G LPO TO W OXT AR I
- A ANI SS ER N VEA SO N O PU I R ESR RD C A WA Y L AO E HI U AY PH E R I G F ONL LOA F
E LS LE T N TRT EA E SD E LF O O FI N R AH MT E E TS SAL P L S XAT A I U T SM R E U A WA T U F L RMR T O I T C RO CET 0C M A R L U TRY A OR W EHI N 0E _ A D S A O0 MF1 R F FF BTI 3 R AP X Y E E H R e e e o_ 2
N N G FO O I S S E OT I E C GD T D N NE A E E I M N G U H R E I TA L T ,H F A N O R D E C T V E I SN E 2 DS T N F I AA E 4 EA I TWC N S E L I C8 OR PA A ETF D UIN NN MT I T I OG EO RI I RS N E EYI RAS ET EE T EL T mF RE C P UD SET T O P R WEO S E T S HN E S EA O CR A TP R EI C F NOW D ED NC I WD E E RE E T S ED C F N I EI C F FN SN NS M A RDE I EI EE X EO T RE T- U L E E N MF FH S I SR O NT A L AE A T- W T WT I F I N T F O O Y N TI S T A E SE E SU L T ER T EO R O TU NY E V P ES OA O F HN ZL I TE
,, e e e i
0 4 1 9 8 2 D 2 2 . N M
/
0 1 S A E A. P S N T N T N I O S W O I T R Y N C A I S T C A S N A U R E N A E O U T G R I T - L S C N A A A V 4 2 N O I F F I T S T S L I T C A E E N E8 R T T E N T TN O S D D D N F V SO EI D I U N A O T Y B - E L A N T T N D k) OE C C A L F N O N O O I T E M E S U P E TS C I T A G I
- S G T A U NP L N C R R N C _
OC OG I T U B T A S RN R S R E I S V TS N I TI A T R G ND L S T O A N CN OU B N S S C D A UI C LC R O UT D N H R F N O C DS E A C - T OI F F FE S N G S NS S O OT A H O N N ON L L L VE P I T I R - I O O O OI A O O T! AT R T R RT I F O R T C U L R A N T N T S NN E A P I N AE O O OE S E O _ VP C C CS U S M O-EO e lll !
l i g e
,S m SE N D E T
m NS i a. L e OA I I O TU ES s m M2 TB G SO HE -c " R4 I P E MH N I T EC TT TH ET a F8 UT S OA CN S S M E T U D O NN AR T TH T ES O CI O E F O F O S) ET R C T T H T S T (E S DA T A OC T HE T C E T-L U M P TE S A CO OI E TC DS T NE SN P N E T-S CD TN EP O M R E N AA TIOR I NC DSF E E FO H T E NS EUR HD RTA I C m AN LI S LE TE NA
,T EAT TRA SN EE P S U NN CT OU NED GR NE I
E B OIT I T L PE AF GN L C U AA O /T H R O HR NO LDO ZV I E FN T CE T RE LO AITEC I I I RT W AA NB N N
~
L ER GI OA I D S,S T TCF E I [ TUL CE NUF SR h T EN AB ERA EO I NA CSO E YI RL T TY DF L AT A L OSL R L OV I L HW P NE A l ME LA U ON L CAA C E GT WOS EC R E EI DT I SE N NIS NT I AA,V VDV TT E RE END OO AAF UH RAA CP
'~
DDO e DT e g llll!
E R D T I S EIN S E TMA N OIN NT I AA D N F N I OR WT NEE O O TS E T O I I AR T P D E OAN T CR O AE I T RE A V O H S P TC L A AR CDUTDZ V AI T T I R I FR CP R I UAE CS C C NT XN EO E PF LST XNS E ON EN S E I R D RS RGI R N A R O SI FO FI D ON T AR OT TC ONN TI U T OTT LO A TCI D ET I NT EET I N FE I NLITS I NEF N A OAA O F OIRAN O FO R Z MRW ME MDNU MEC OIR e e e e T E I NT X OC I R E T MA R Y A; S ME S T ORO O N Z TA RD I T ;T S; E R ES DY D AH I V GE TT YH ET G H I T RP E C H;A T C AO S ;H NS S C LE RB R I PE A H RE OFF EP U PR S F CP E L H E E TMA T AT E O R CO I H RND A S MS I WR Y; L LG E OOA E T I E AOR BTO I D TA C R I GO I L L E SC V T C O O LAL A AT VE HI I OC FR B I CMM I T I T I LR TDET OE I DCA REE C RYI AHS AXL REP EHH PCC EV GO A e e e e
lill\
"e e
L E FAS G T I S F N O S E U L O NL SEP TMM C E NA TE N R A DE I OMA TR O NO I FA NN LP S S N TO CI T E S AG FOS F A O OEMES I T VN FRN S F R MDRR I P AT E E PE S I R TA EIVOR E E Y,H A L T AL S EN SU LT GO C C DU E TE A EO NT AIL T C N G G LI C S MLC S CI DI I RN EN E RA N TBI TR I A SB A NN OI FO FI D FC O I P SADF MT A A H T N I NM I NRS EI OSNC ET OOE V R ND N VCA A ON OFOE OF A CFR I ROTM I MO R Z)D e e e e m OI N T RU I ET N TNO E I e
- R; D O CC ( LN AA NS BG R DNE S NY UI T MA R Y T
MX P OE ST I R EI I
;N SE TD S E
R OL I R E RB TA I V E H D-N E OP CMINA T T GA AH H I T TN Y I TO N E TAE GIFCHL,A S SS
,T C Y; ALTI T C D RS I
DI A NPE R R D )1 ;REM M Oi TYT A R E ! OL U VLwT HR S NAS AEREH O I F CI U E O AIVQ CA C T O T E D PT ACI R EI C I i R M T, I T E CUA LNA BAR OT{H CN R T
,D GO R
I L T T D; AHF TEeEKE NP V I i T AN N R CD I FU AQAAOA iLCT I NP _ T EOIO A EN HEECLE I MS U : C HCS VMA SSHSBH e o e e A _ e
O ) S Y N SG L E G T E E LT T EN RI T LH N E S OIMS GS I WE T I EW RI E EE DC T ET TLT YT NR OU RN E T B N OH OTT CN S AE I AE I NO T A N GR CC C)W T S ET Z E EE D N GC I L E R O I S RF N E R AOC RA E T I LR N E P TS SR S E N FR BT E
.N R MM CE NE T GE gOE EI (D AC RN ON I S T eCF SE AE (S R NT HR I
SI EN OIM D T I SN E CEF UR FN E RIO N T I TI L GR LO A 4 CF NL SA EC TI F NI UTI T AE ARL EEB
, RH ET D W I
I NE I RN UI T OA EN FPA S D N DFT CT I RG S OC E G ON RI S EDT I OT NN A FN U T NC CA ROI C I OET CE F U D A R AA ,R YD TO OTI TAN I F YO OL OL PO P E F M I N LIUG R AM A P SC T TE RR N SO O AS OT E MVE M EH NR EP CN T LC E EEB MT MS NOXM I CE A AC R A I M A V R T I S T S O U SU N RER TE R NWN S EO ST GEHG I SB G U EOL SY S S TTO D NO TLL SA A L E T E DWTP A OR N CP I AR XLI EAW 9 e e e O.
+
l L N O I S E M T D S N O A I T T N W A U L E R A M A V E E E G E E A L D TI C N C F I
~
A R SF YM U A DOY G R E E T O T N N )4 H C NT G AC R N E A S N ON O N I N YE E RJN 9 8 9 A O OE F W OEV O I E TO AI L B T RF APO 1 m TI NT T AE T CT . L NT UI GA N 2 2 EC B T E Y
~.
MO TI A T NI T OC L E R NM,UT R RD AA EM L JE L E ROR OM P A 9 3 9 A U PR E SM E FB W T AE 7-4 R B R O 9 D.AN C E CD X 7 E S. 5 I IL V P C S E( O A M RC I DYU U S.
)
2 0 7 F l I C Y ( F R : O O : EN LO E C S I T : TI T R C E I I F V R TA B F D E SZ M O A E T f N f I SN U J N EA TG R' E E EN E B S NR EO TO NH H U E S ED EP S T R RN ELE S P PA RE PT l I.. m .
. ~
f h p
O 1 9 8 4 2 2
# N 2
/
0 1 A N E T P 5 C O O I T I L W N C T R A C EE W E TR 4 J I B SYL
# T F E N O T S A RL E
O I S DP E T E NM N C R OO I E D TC I O- L T J B D A AS TA L O U W U O SN O S
' T NA OL C H CP R C EN N A HO TI T F O FA O R OZ I Y P 4. E R
R P 8 T A A NC S OA M I T R M 'E CA EH U O SC S D - 3 ( e e 1
n_ E E
;e
~
Y L L D NOC L A F MS RF T I T I S E
~;
A O E H ATIT TO ~ I T T N TER Y Y FLE T I GT E E T ABV L NL I Z I O HITD I B OI L B R P SP N A E I S T E GEA S E L P C 4 HIN SC LA O P B C A A
# TT U R A R RASE S GN A FN EC ET I E TI O I
H OO DO I L BA R I M T A C Y I S Y L E NL YT NM AD H UO L E RC OO MN T T c AEJ M B N CR Y FHCN LGI A , W O S N
, DS NE AT I
A U Q O ENH O L F O TS E MO I I TI I NA D U T ATWT U L A T T A AW A G'S C U S R E E C C N O C E Q S AT E E EL H O L I FO T J RI F S I Y R B D R A S AN D NS T N O E GT I O T T NI R T S I SC A L I F OC I SE T C O Y P B A O NA LT S P AA E P O L LM J AIE G Y EMTW OI R B U R P I TS N I R D EO E N S E NR T C A PR SPC AIO S H EE E M CE P FS I T TV F SVMRO 1 R OD F M DDAUR S O PA A U CARSE E F m
, S e e e llllll '
i D E 3 8 3 V I 2 2 2 T f 9 0 CO A. P E F T / E T 6 4 O H FE EUF T I S F S E NDI L E I Z _ E SP EU I _ G R N MS N E 4 I D OS D E O T _ C CE EC C D I O T A
# N O BO D U A L
R L A FN AR F OR T PI N O H OO I TE D N )EI C Y- S I C FD R N YT) O RCEN D AI A N GH O O T U HS NIO AP RI T Dc Y AEI N S . OSN OS T SN T T T OA I M BOJNC I I O C L G O I A RR M O P A I B M O( T N C R EDO TL(E R E P A U A , LASG M N S' S I ZS D I R I O C N L N I FRL N TE EAI NO E SE T R E AO I SS R T C R AS ET ESA I N M NT I E L RGN V TDON E D FP FA I M C ANFA WALH VEA EC L OM I O Y T L C OO ELACCNAI I EI LI A T L C AITEN NROIDNBN TI T E AC R RP FTEUT SEAE I S OM I RRTTCBTPT UEOUEUOAO C RA SVPFTSPCP R PR o N e lll l _
r S EE T E RR UA E C R U SSF S NEF L N DO EIT E EA OIV EHC E OT ET Y S TITRSTIT T A TI LI S S CE FC S EL E R 4 N AV OA O N DER NR B O N A I I I D TO ACNTP TOEE D# AI T AI AN UTI AN UT H OO LAM MET LA T AZTE I T T AZILR I V R OOE X I I HC EE T F V RM E EIL CE DT R E DT A BJ ECS E H) T )1 ECTR O O LA A P LAOA R A ROM OT(()d A RN I I P P T EH AS R TAO A DC ET DE R1Y5 EH
. DC D S TET O0 TE E CTC G T 6 CTI T U S U NI S R I I F U D TIV SI D T NANL P DO O C N AT OHONE 0 OHCD CTCOR(1 CTAA
_ e e m
)
G . DN C M EI ST S T NE O AE R , R F BE EN E E M CO 5 TS CN NS SM I AO OO 4 FS CR E A R LE 8 H R UI ES TE A , T G SI V CG N O O F VIT I NI N R I O T P OTC C HD I S S E CO H T T T T A J EO C)D C CS E CNB TL F AEU E A AOO P T PI E C( OI N S MD T I FS N M AC C N I T P RNO P I LU I LI ZN PC C AO AR A E O I EM PT P( S I I TR T SA A F NG N TR FC ER E CO T AF OO O TE OD O RR N S L E PN P HP AE OE P FU F I OE OD O ER CE T AO NN NTU R T CD O ~A OIS S E V E SU TE DI T F O I I S T I D C L AC A S L A N N UA L F UE C N L L T OE AI AR ADS CR P VU VNO XO ES EAP - E T - - e -a
n S E S Y L)L AA N N AI C O E F L N N 3 CE O AA S NC S CH N O 4 C O I AN T I NE I T A 8 MA C A HM T I Z T N RM P C/L D N I R N O OR M E O E E I F O RF I L TA C T M M T ER A D N R E C A SINS C PE T EAS I T S E EP N E A I S R ST E R O EI AT H T A AN S U TT T N H EOI S T OV I AY E CE L E C P PI T DRT R C RE yS C OH LC CA TO HHN OC TA GS NI I M R UN CO E N T A I SM MA EKD TC G F CCO T FR R E S Y A SR OIT O OP AAI T OO A H TA OO S P PP O SZ S F RR Z P C LE I S OA TR TR A T T PPI PP R P O CE CE TS TD AA E U E AT AP OA N NN T SG PC MA PE TW A OA FC E OA T R FY I R MR NNN T T SN OG L A A U OOO I YR I N C EE L A AH RA YO I TC H LS AO SSSS O UIVM R RL N I TTTT D TS EMC AO EM TL CCC AAA C O EE CS NME EUI T MR TO NC ET PPPP R JS MD OR TS MM GSS Y PF T N BS U OO I I I I OA - - S( H - PP - - 1 2 3 3 3 3
, 4 4 4 8 8 8
aU T N E S L 2 RE I S A RT N C 3 UI V I CIT O N 4 I TO A 8 OC AT H TA B C N DN R SE E O EO SI UI M T T/L I I U T RV T AA EI A C CI Z PC TMR E S E R N SAE S T O S E NHR C T P A C TED OT I A I C P R CITS UI I TAND S MA I S RV N ZA LH r~ N AC E TT OI I I I T SC CR EAL D I T E I V N ANTC NIT O E ES T I T N C NT GIOCI A M E S C TI U OM A SI OFTSAU R H PO FR DETCRDT I E ACLHA C H O S F E I TI TU O E C A V R DDE VE T G NN LTTNN ECSUU V EISC) I A OO S O I TI T RANOO O YGN I R AI - EG ORR B B OO P RD C NT RRCGGADLI T EN AI EOI P DO F LL FEE H SR D A RI ADD C A UDN I SC NE R URHNN SDSUU(CHCE AYO OT O CSF I Q e
~
_ S G N N I D O E N I U N T I M I O O I T T D L R R A N X U E V U R U E O C Y L F A R S T A S C A F T I N T K C S E R E U C I R VY S L)E O C T AC I I UN TT I E R N C G SO G NF WUICVS I E CN F E A OD TAT CEE UL R I U O M ADE TI S LN U RRF O L F LOI E F L ORN N FODCON N
%ORD O T
N RTOIL FIF P N NN EO ECNNEI HX RCO UIL C OTU I L O I A N I T T XANF F LR BTL U TI N E OITACI T A T UC ED F T RAF EO Y V I TEF L CAILSNN UHNTT I L H I G ANRUU AR UNA I T SI AAI I S A N N F T WS M U RD FY AO YE S Y SWR R E F TD D H RPR G O LOF G E O C N ON N EYE T N DS O ON I I L T F T OC I AU RHRA S TAYE XXR A S A NN SA H E AHITPS R E T I T E RRC R XTI CRR I O C G RCLRE C I C E E NO L WB A T I D ER F T R ATT BW E I S TUF A AC EW T R AFMM(L H AAAO A P OT A HXHSW F N F O W - - M- - CE - - - E C e e e
Q S E N S F O A S I H E T N P I O S KIN D I T A CN N E EC G OO N CU D RI O O AR N S FA T C Z FT A E L F R C Y RS D UU T UN I OL HL T T SO I I L U FA G)D I B MC Q EI F OS OE A O SF I L R K GGN LU N O B C AINNO O. OIN T E R E F H T I r ROC M R DG O NB LLYS RT D( E P EN I B E P HIRDC E CR T OU G D NF Y C UU N H E DD E NOIROF RAS E I I N F OD M WHF TN I D RE E OT O NO O O T N S V EI T S M I RR U O M LWSM F OTI A L T F EE R R OFEET LCRI C O E TT AA E P R FPN E T AI FXE F Z I WW A VAEEV F S - - W - - - - - E - e e 0,
D S S E E N T I R O M U I S SR I L T I D E E D N RT A A P N O T NS WW D O E C EN I L G SO C NT I GG NA I AA I G) D RV NT OE TA I AG LU N EC T N BX NS I OTN I E I m ROC O AU TM MD D( DO YN Y ER SA H T F , CS ES ER SE N PE UAT O XT RU _ EE : N EL S EM TO T R0 O AV WL I C N A1 T
.C E O ST L A L F EU A O GO I
F S R RM E U NB E T S L AA H ND C HO T ON N CT R CA O U C F m.,
ll!l 4 i 1 4 Q O 1 1 S T 9 8 S R E D 2 7 L E L E 2 f 0 S A T 1 E B T A_ P N I R M A C 5 C E D E O L O T 0 A P W N C I A 1 R X A T I M N G E D D A E E H D R N N A T O A O S S S I B R E C D E D N L I U L N I L A L S Y A E F T L S C I DC L A D I T E EE R U R M NF C oE n H I ME AL F E N E L F F N O C X G O C E A C S T M O SI E N O E I M C E R G S Y E N M FT LH A E SN N AC T V S O EE O NS I G XT AU D M S EO N D N A E T EI R R E O E HD E T C T C I T E TT A I MA L LI F NEL R I I LR AM O E I F I T E YE C L. I E SD N LT MF I CR E NA EO EO P OM HE DF CB o-e e !l
S D N I L E O O R S I T AF G I )O T N D NS I V N ER O NE O A ET M E C M M R L R E0 Y A P1 B C . EN I E S I ) D MH MU E OT I U L m EN T I SWY T A HNO TOL I e I R CC N TI E E D C ( T O SE I A A E NT F M G AIMF T E R DS N TL A I H N A U O EE S : R MB Y N DE I S OOR O U T L F T STO I ( T FA C N S EA DT C LL E O I E TR A OIA F S G RR F U N CO EL R E TE NT E L A PP H OA C HXX T N CEE R CM O U n C F
; ' )
)l l l ! 1, o Y T 3 1 L R I 9 4 D I E 2 2 N BT E
/
2 0 S A AA R 1 A. P EE A C 5 N N MR L O O RG S W O I I T ES E I C N A T U PE T I B SC R D I SN E R AA P N T S MT O O I S R _ D KI D P C E C C _ L R OT I A S R A G _ O S 2 _ C E N I F L _. I R SO OS oN A H T S O ER GO NT RR DE YT HE T AC C E HA OM E U CF T5 M D ( DN SN EA S EA _ N l
- CH T GH _
O A t UT F NT _ AS I H DS R S S) NSS D HS T R E I ER R CE . NLE T T L C AG EA OOE A E NO E NM TT I M N ET F S A AD B S ND _ F TD VEi T AE _ E CT ATN C MT _ ES CIMA E RI M FA X I H F E I _ FL ELT F PL EB E 0 o o lll l l _
t r. D E S T N I M O I I L T D I N D A S E N T N U O E Q C N A I N L H M C A R E C) ED E T I P G NUN ET N AT NI BN I T HOC OE T S C( T X A DE L E E N S TI L M L C E S A N P ER W _ O XE T H E S N T T EM R O O C : A LA I T O N E SR C M O EE A S F - I _ F S GV R F U NE O E L AS E E H C HO T S CT U N R O U C F r - es
i i l!lll O ) 5 1 F 9 8 S 2 2 E S) 2
/
0 G E" E 1 _ Y I S T A. P N L TE I I 5 C N I D E K LS I S O L W O U BS SO E N C AA I A L L L S C Y) B C G )T T N L" O NF I LS RO AS C ( N AS PR I HE _ E O TA I CG - F N I N C L WA FN F T E O L E N OID 3 A TO E O )3 I Z I OI PR HS C SU NL FT4 R A T D OC OA8 I E DN WE TI N I T NE L N oc SB CN A( _ S OO AC NR UN I SST I A RIO SS LO AT NL OU T AI YI C HA OA I TS V T LEE S C O L TI N I I I DD EA Z AT I DM N" NIR NSPC WS I NO OE OE A AS O E ON CH DT FW( H T ES NA C" TE E( VE T EC SA O NH I TC AR M W BA I E E( T PN AT R UE EH P XC R S RR RC O E FE U N S R AYBNS CIO I C SF DU S S EA RI T R C EDIO S ED EC SET Y L D L DN DO YC L D I AU NO NF A UN NO UC UO N D O AC AINC o e e Ill,l!
T I R E E L M- NBA S N I F ' O F F O DB EO I A T N F E R T A RR O O U S C OP l S DG C O HF i I S EI R L CO r A R F EG N H S N L AE C B DN O A EV O N I SS I T E W BEL T L O NU E D S L E AT 3 8 OD N T O UV F 9 CE O Y OO GA 1 ET RC P O B NH I N I E LE S E C WA SY % DS D E WE R N EL OY NG TT I T SS I N H I SN OR C E NN OO DI D T I WC A LO L E E I E VO W EI FT I TT OO D NI F A SU AA E Q CC MF L N T N R NI ON OO ET I 3AG I D O I T H L L RU A8 SS O L AC EH EO M9 E 1 R D O P E VS WB A C T RN L LN AFL I X O TAE S A I E LG AWU ES S D OKM N N TN EE
~TI REQ I I T T CC U SR SCTO M I
NN E TN EE TO H T E EFRI L RE RR LY AO E C FC AN WLADX EEHEA V UC 5CT HO NSSBME CS - - SC - - , e e
cN F O _ T. F r
, - ~
2 - ~ Y @SE/ 1 6 T @ S 4"1'..
-~
I E! f ~, . f . N iI I j4 iI l I 0' I ' 0 ~ S C I 0 #w . . 0 T N 3 - 3_ VS 1 4 g- 1 4 MC S EE
.#~~
L - L E ~ I D N I HT E
,2 T
F E A TIS
- 0 S C N -
5 Y L I 2- w 2 R O T A V SS F = DE _ N E NE 0 E '. N R N E E UpA 9 . C OD 2 A a ~ _? - T C A U O I TN F R I CA U S l l l l
~_V L E
QM a1 D 4 L - _ E - V
//
0n6 S S E N U O , L
^
L
- R E
nA T R L OW G E V E V L RE A l 1 I I , E E '
.W
~
I CN L L F E T NE T 3ET SN .. I R R R . M CE L E E B T E P I S T I H V A A D u S O H P T E = - W WH E P L S A R I F F T n E R R G T B A E C M P MI PW x-O@ WD ' : . O F H P @ MI N @ g O P ~ g T 0n
1ll l illl .
% E T'2 gi j! :
'8
@ -e gff'
.i%, f 4 +.
I S H SE ,, WR'.
}'
T .f"' I EO '.\ 2~.. W @ NF ' i l / .[" , + W.X DA / #R i ,; ! E E TR . ?' AA M[//'/
/' E
/;
/',S I
r 'T- 1 [f H IFP $ FWc%:~- k C r T R OA 9 iS SE /g W BE: I I S WR -
.:)D T SH i OF ' s~f/ l / - l '- N S S i E S fT F. /.ir MC A Y '
b k ;$ S '0,,MC I D N I L R # ;' I0 E E A EO
<9 dh S C d5,- $$
- 2 ,ij!c Y L VT f ?/ /, -
N- R O EA I'5 / A N V E LR
%Nh. M }^,-
~ ./
g RO EL A'iW R E E T C N 9 C hf vM(\pI A O
\
TP - Czc,(E1 I
. ' U I AXE r' T S ;F i, -
/#'- QM eys I
f \S E . l l W- E rN DR l l/ / ' HH g,L O i ' p/, I l h~)): r f(- ,O c2F s ' M ! : GT :y 1 s _: \x. l I I HN L j llII , A
'P I
DF = ' . E T I
.wrA
;l llj ETi$
=T f-EM T N EN9
^
\)
)S /[:~W 4.M' i
T - S T0, A P l l
% ' \ Il jo" -
N S OL,
~w %
MA - \ \
\
ij i t? s ys 1 E PF
<N 6',*#N=K' I \
$ I t T \ $lI /
'e t- .
E S E
\
\ j1 / Q I
\ /9 '
~
l ll!
K A ED PE ET A R EM I HT WS E S EE HR S E AW O- WS E G N G I R WA OH C H S SI OD TD OO HO PL R F I A O-
N
)
D N I EN GO S RC AE E HS C G SR I DP E r 0
)
0 0 m 0 M 0 m 0 m 0 M 0 R DT 0 0, 0 0, 0 0, 0 5 0 0 D AA OE O 0 4 4 6 0, 2 3, 3 0, 6 0, 0 O O HE L E 4 8 9 5 5 F 5 1 0, L F CR
~
FC I 1
~ M KB SA AU U
M E P( C I I R DN X A A L I M.L DA LFO AMC OT NP1 O ON A)S I GR MS E LU E E R L EOH R TC FO AI E M 2 6 4 6 2 2 2 ESA HRE KM GE AR 1 3 6 1 5 6 1 0 0 0 TER RDO O NT AA E NA A U I FU E HG P C G N T RG R Q O O D( S T T U RAR C E E O OH Y 6SC FCH DU GR R A. GR RA D8I N9 D S E Y T ALL H ALL H A1KD E C O C O S DA A T T SC SC EREM RAP P E ULL DE S I I D 2-I M E L U B L D 1 S S QU T I I O E E E E SB U T M Y D E H A E T TH TH MMPT S H S T T L L C O Y OC OC OO RRO4O M E A R S I C YA YA FFC O U R U O OE OE W F B D Y C CR CR Maa
l 1 E L - B A M D I E S T N O O T E O T D N A L N E R E T S A E E I T L T I T A F W _ A S C M E M S F E S R O A U O P E P R E L X E F R Y E B A A T E O T A D E T V I L R T E T N _ E I B A D R A R E A C M T S E A P E C E D E I T C O T E C A A U T R E D S L P P L E P X E Y L M M C S P E T L E D - E O C A E R E E I E R L PI V R E T A F P R P E T S E O T T A _ C C X A A S -. OE X ES L W E T E I S NJ G U S E M T SB O L F OA R A O e L EO L NE S R T U OE O R EL TS F R T E RE E. S DC DN T CA Y A A E FN YE A T AR EE FR W S R SA HX T WN SR FA A . EM OE OE NO E T S e, L FR T OF DN N 1 A OO TD T X TS I EE I A A R E F SE SE AY ZM I R R E CR ET GI E D R A LE AC D T N P E NI M GE TW CA F .E N E NT EH 'O L S . E ST AL AI NT LP E . E E HF HM EA G RE CO CL I PP * * . PM - - - 0. e l , I1 l1
GL NA 9 _ N TI N I 4 W E M N R EM E M M O P E OSE S F F N O C O E ME I - M T S R OH E C A AA X U P S RT D U Z E I L A F EOI R T RL F N TF N E E R O I SS G TR E T I T ETA CM A C D NM A E )1 W N UER R T3 D U F LM O CE AS3 N U O ER Y C HY4 N T RI UN CS8 EL N O D O R G S N P OEU QE g m O R TRQ TAI O E S D E I TE DEE ESR S T T I C U S AT TAF OES C A RA CEE S RT( O E TW E EL H O F R PE TIO F N C NR S N EO XR E TR L O N I PF MCA R T EEN RS AST I E C R O OY O NSFC TFE F A TC N O F L LW N EYAS R S OE NA C A AH O I ALTV E P I T T T I S A I T Y R N N A U S T RT OIM A E E P L T C O OP C P T T L A TE U M I O OA I N PES R - R P PT O MH AIS P C TCD g
- - I
- o e m n
T T CSN T E - ADE - N N E S A E T PAM MON OM E S I LIA M - I L A OD T E TN E W TE N T - AI DC O SY ZAT I R N O EU TD C S R N M G C NTR E O E N EI E T T I T PKC X EI FR CC S S E E OAA CFR A E Y) T O R YB T RG )2.3 S 33 F S NO RLE D A A R3 E E ,S E R H K 3.4. E 4 RYR ATE E I N D CC8 R 8 O N I ST V N E E AN T POT R N O D E A D EN DI I AIT S E TA I UDAGN SE I TE CBCE U I S C A T V I QLE UE RSS D O BN T C ER OH OA( ER(S F S EE CM A TWT FW E N AN NA TM L R F OWAO AN E RO I E T ,H R N UI R A TYTF T O I C I N SV N ZI TS NS G O F N I R LNE E T N C O E O I E AES TC E Y S E S T UTA C QX OA R T G U L AR E E L D A CA C RENE P P N M AK PC N ATAR M A I R O HA OR I P MA I P C CWTO e e I l llL
Ij! !
~
E a n M e NI T E m e O L E s e I E HI M o n TE N TT u c AV O NL a ZA Z OE V I R E D SA R E TV I E B ER I TT TRT R U I V ER CEC T I T T ATE) S CA RAJ 4 I D AWT N AW H - B3 O34 E H N O NC DA C D E8 N T I O N T UIF c, N CN D O A Z ROI N E T U NIO I E R G E GI S I OATC S U T C TTS SR ME C A CNE RG RS ( O P A EB RM O OEO FHF F S M I N AE T HC D
*N CAL E LTR R O I
ANE I P E C T A ET P T MC TO I N Z I N S EE P N S O R O F EX E T C E T I S OTE T C Y R C U S S T O A L TA O P P A A R C CWN E - M I A N FEE M R H O FRR l P C C EPA
, e e Q l ll l i,
L D A E E T T I T N EC N C N E O HN E E P T N I T TA M E X O P E H A R OM C A E H D W E P T R L T O S N O NO I P I W O R A O I N D F M L T E T F L C O E R N L I L W I U T E E P T A T O R C AP I T N S I L N I T S U R RO E S N A H T N T OT T O O G N I W O C S N PE P C I V E G O RT M F A B N C O OU O S E H L I R G CB I R N A E L I U N NR I F W D I H R R I S U T T T A S D G D S E N S E I WE N A ET LF E SI N G R O T NG N OIR H UT S N U C OA E D RE I F T N I TY S E I TI D RR E T T S CA E OE AD A AA F ER T BE T WN L B EM F O N RD I A C FM F A FG T DY R O OIR ON O O NA I T EO GT L NE OP LO LT GH E OT O I A AIS T I RE I RS N O TE RA S T I A T I S AD TR TT EF PI F AP F CIS NE N DSE ER RE S O OP O SD DR E LI N CO CA o 1 2 3 4 5 6
^
T F I R D M R O E R T F E D M I E R V E O P M D E S E E D E R D I S E R E E N L E U B N I B L S T) D L R T A AEU I WS E V N E V O EN M E M M FT N I RE R D E O OT E
% NC PS H U N R G( AY W S I VS O I S RN D P R E M~ E E EO TI S I N
D A AT U RD I L WL E EE T I B TD F TT AIO A NN L L WV H AE I EA S I CV W CE F FY S AB S N B I L F L E G SF A R L E I E UI H SE S SW T 7 8 9 0 1
h 'j f '] D f,h O
<,i
[' , .- - m./
&'c-ji
. . , % ,;n q. - .: -,
n< ; Ji 6?'e;i d a;4 -
^2
-) k, b,.. <? -
~
i' o.-
) ~~"
fN QO , W ** .) y Cu Q;.. . , 6 is ci v es uie. 1 s 9
, e C
w U2-5
<as
,$ n y L 2 c~, -
l t, - t
$ D I,'O ,$
J f+' & N: o 9 _--x --";; l g {$ e c t i
- g. ..
s> .n.,
,j- l ;4 =
, 0~
^',- j k-4 t _j $b[8 !
^
D w2 c34. p 4.L 2 )
< - 2. ."
D eo p j 1 ,,E g - .4 pts 0 u.- 7 w, -qtrL -- l s , Cn :s
/' . &L f f ,a .s; a b
_ i
~ \
f f,
,,,,3 t
c .. [b e -)
.y
,. [. ,
, ,8 9, g; ,
- -. # ~"y ., .[ r L.
-e.. .
n n, tu g3 - e c.; <
- j. . C./3 * '
y
^' l.
N , {
,- a ,
C,, ,,, ( ,, , bdhebik '_- -/ 8
, mar * " , *, w ,,
K' yG, L 'g'- t, i . > j) . I 2
.} p J {1
#. w h
... .l}
0 (*s 'h. L s, 1 7 ... ,,.,,. 1 ( _. 1 , q, G. ,.
,e e.rq # F-e: ,
ti c c e-: eo (f, z***u e, S =s tu a[ a , s f' C: L. 0}7} A, ,._ @ Q *LS*g h 3 /3 j p.:. , ! ( %:- [ , Cy ; {i : q) l p ,; r3 <- p- p b~_ . l
. . l
\ ,
e O tF i i
.- .. . . . . . . .. .. .. .........m.....mU
C I N F D O I F O E N A T A ST R EC T S A T OICE J A S A PVO RR R T N W SE D OE P CS L TIN E M R A ETNI A RA NOT E G A E L NSO E I OPN TUO PU YM N A C U V OA I FT A N SM TAY G R E O N T Z R E E N R T E CG CR E T S T N N ANI K NM I E U Y E 9 N E A W O O TOR N SG NA HEE N F 8 9 F OEV T E I NIT ET U O ON l Y A T O 1 TI E Y AM R T 2 NT EC AT EAC S . CDF I LN ON E 2 E RA M A T T L Y TI O NI PA RM R RD EM R GR N P L OTTR 0 A O AA PR E SM E P EA A E A A CA EC AP CINRE 5 6 7-4 U R D.AN S. IL R C P O ET NH J R N E H TD I CN CE O S. 9 7
)
2 B E F UV I I Y RI C D STCU 0 7 ( C R F : O O : EN E S T LO TI T C I : R C I R V R TA E B F D E SZ M O A E . T I R' N SN U J N EA TG RE E EN E B S NR EO TO NH H U E S ED EP S E T R RN EL S P PA RE PT I fo E !
S RS EE BN ME M A UI V R G NT S S OT A O G RN AT O T A T R N I PE DN D SE A D H T C A L L NM O EEN E T SS S I W G I R I SSO I EI C E E U N N I D F TL AE RV L C O T ART LO I R O I F O OE LD RPA T I OR A A R S P CP V D S SE R ED M Y E X E RRGE BN M O R O R N E F mP U N ETT O A TS A N TO R F N F N I E O T A R V I S N OI EO GP A OI P AIT O I C A O L E H AE RR BD DI D T A F P E E VN TAN N FN OO MS R U X E R P O I SA SC RM OA S L A M O C ON S E E T FR NG B U N NY C LI AI PR NI I SI G OILT D EB ES FO F ES I N RX CE V E OR P O D TI I DC A AE F L RC I TZ N N A AIR .NO Y D F N O E NN T E O O R A D O Y CID O I I I NT TI TO RE TM E C EC AT AT OS AA AV H S E A RC E RIS FO RR UO TF R R G L GO DP GG QR P A EL E T P EO EO EP _ O EH TO NC N E R ER NP T N R DO AT RC I I I P e e e e e e 1
O 2 9 8 2 2 7, D S o t A P E N 5 P T E O O I F W A I O S T T N C T S E S AL A LS D N S E Y S E DT GAC ES E O S E RL UE OIS I TI RE N I T C TT H SG SN G I D O AA T F EO EO V L N R EU NE I S FQ MY NO E H O P I V L DE DIT D N RI DI S C A ED E L N E ET SB L E T C ZA I SB I U M CA I A I S I G NE GR AA BI R OO RN NT MT F O OAE EA G E O N AS L H RE O O CY S CV R E PS E Y N EE A AL CS RH B DFN oc OE TR GO OT R P D E T I L I B A E M O N S E D U Y TAT LEA SRD UU F L RA UR SE YV NOO UGT RND I I E P E L EI D N ND OS E I R H C T BO H S E OE A I P N VNI ED TN ACO R T E I V EES GN N AN D F I R OE AA OTE O M DS T OA ZN N A S A P TH FST RS E V D NRI S PT AEDD I RO S C R OEN N SA I . E T I G O E G NN T I D NR _ ED TA N S I O OT UD E CR N UA I C A M E R R I TC T CTS T ES RO R R R T E T P AUN THN I ASO S VE EOS ST AO H N F L A C A D E GR E I TT S E MLT I I T UPE RS E N SS R EBI D CI I T R A N EDP TA TMC I O EE A V ST N SI O D TD I I P S H C A L N NE I AR YSO SEC N TP I OR SV P EO e e E e e e HR H o-TP T jll1lll l ;
l ll
~
w S A SL n T " C DE R m A EE TT I ND O O e s D I SA SE R O EO T F w n U A BI T RM D S w n E HQ S F T E E E c a V GE F O E S E TL D ES US CB I T E UD H U I EL LL AE AO OA ST E T L DA L NE VD RD A EI D TD H T N U L U V RA S R O RO N E A AO F PV
/A EM EM T
E D E VH O E TL E NT SH E T NA E G Y B ST EA M E E T HU T I RE MU A RM - I RY AIR TO I L CB AT T B P ER S RP A PS E E I PB T H B AE S ED O O R AT A I DT H PC FS E US R EN q RE EP SP LN A OG HO OS EA FZ A AO V TN TC VI YI GE ON I B "A ET L T US RE AE A NC EG A C I L OV AN A B T OC I B S FT RA I I T CO D LL ALO T S SR AE R SA EN EM NC EI T AT I TE E T P T UR HR AE HW A A AE LE TO TR TN D T CM AT GF S SM R S TO AI B Y GR A GA V A L NR E NR I Ol HT NE I GR I A G E HP P TA ZDE T T NA PP NT SO EI N CE I ZP O I NAU I LT M C EA RI EM YC L TE I BT I LA LI EI AL AU N E TG L R AS VS TA E D CE OA NA E N BV S P T H CP AB DI OE El N FRA B I T NA L e o e L e e OHI CCW llllll l l l i , l
_O - L S - L _ I T WN E N - E I A - C M T N E R B A U O G M MS N O A RA I T R OE L L Y FM I T G R EM R I L O D I PO G B R ER N A P S P TF I A E E AD D C L UE U O T L AI V L EH H I C HG O- S VR EE N I TU NO E R L O D O L S I R B TR D AH A YO O G T N R T O R RD H N I T E AE T I T AE S V SR E S MTA S S E U M E L L L E O S D T L A C E CA E D I A V C EE S N WT I H A H NM A U A C S M D G T B- O A R N R YLG E R R L A I E T N G A N TCS I C GN E I A E A R OO L E U E P T MR F R D RI P T N AI E I M I R DD U N ED A A AEA PBM S U HD S M
- - TA - -
O-e e
n Y L L A C I G E) t T"
" AM M RA D M GA T R N EA NR SG A HO I
T R DG GR S I NO E SG UR UP S FO OP OG S E RG RN ORP RN UI L HI T PL C O S S L S G R TN E M N P G DI R RA NO EI N N A D US GP I L G E T T I TE N EI C I D NM S mELM CEL AR I U TT EU I TA D E L U S A SS I C F T L Z N F M NAE E T D C I R E L I OT E WF D NS AY N E T RO G N ES O" N( E S GV E I G C OC GY KS N A ANR I J - T AS E I R R" BPU I S FL T AA T E T EH OO EP S S E A H MA VG NH C AL T C D D E OU OE AMA C D O CO I R F T S S A ER T A O RICI S N U S NI B- LH G B UGY T O OT D SOH O I E HS I T E R LP R S TM EI C A EA S EC EOO G R TD F RE OR VA L H EE TGG E F SOY N R BA N P I O- - D ECS U N S e e e U e
D E
) R C
EN CS DO I T D MT OE E R O T I ST I A NR RY T Y NA AO FHE L OM M EF Y.P M E CR EM T E I SS S AAA V I E O TA EAN WRR S S B FN SR H BO AGA UD L LI YG DOP C O LW I TAT I S O FTC E PE X H WE OAI TOIT E TE N F R ATS G E E DD DM OP E G ESRP C OE SN I E T AL N T I LA M NG A D RI T L RS I SC LD I ON I EVN YU L TN D EI T RO DM TL I VOE L CE R S ORM A UR EI FM UL CPS R T OO BIR DS S ERTL T WA ST EC I RD EA E N SA E S SC T SE S AR S E(TA GS I LO OE AA H O N BA A EEP HG P T YG E RR S E F T O L C AUT N N Y C LINN S AO RO O E E RA ADA E E B U S CNM L F S U LU S QS TUR O I A E E SO O H NC RW SC I T RF EWO EO BE ARR ROF VL U S N TUE SSP ONO BKT EL SA F AI o e e e I
F S U O LE AT D E E MS I N Z R ,O T OA I R SNC T SE E UH EAE DLT EEIS T T A C R U TH F F ND C A E A I TI A AON R FOR CWD U TM O A L B L S H F P RD OA T C T TO E U EU C O P S (AC RP TP A O T NA SCT E I A EM E S OG R O A A CI D I S H T N L A TN US T A A B T D COI D UI L A AS T AE B P EE N E T E E N T T I FR O AVT AC DE RM I N AT I UTO I ET TA W ). D QAP TE NS O CN EN DRI R AD O NETO AE E E US K ,CE TH QE C F YEC HC N T A AE LT C N EI L I HP A A H A D A A T EN M SAFM TI M PO L RRR I E AMR ON B GUO R URO ~L EA AOSF TPBR ULEF SATR VY SOUE NVEE EN ETSP EEDP DA w, e e e
S C I T H E P RG A S OR R JA G RG HY GE AT I T EN HI UV MF FO A OR ON R T ST RU T S O E HS NO TL OT I D FT EA T A I N OD TC I I AC I A SS ZFM L NE E HY I RTA I A R oIO c TB S A H P T O ENR TEG CDO U T F E C U - O G AI R U BE C E D G N RD P AN R T I HA,NG S R T F A A R A C SI L N NR EG VN DE P O OU OIP NR AU M AS A TC CS CP NA TS AIT LA O EE DS AM E I TFR CR I A CU I RC T E AG I CI I GA T AT DO F MA C T OE I AL LF E N TR OO RE E OR SA EO YH BG D GF SC o I e e e l
~ G H N G I DD E Y N U N L R O AL E OO T Z R S O I TN R R R AO H E TN E RI T D NO T C O L A T G N OIT A PM DN EI U RC CA R XR E A EO NTS V EO H E F I O DL C HN AE R NE D T I TT P UL MS N NE D B D ENG A I I L O N DS S I T GIA NS P N T AU AE CTA E C I LE PD %ATO D R E T ARS OA R E T MD AL G G LO PN N SE l F R I T I DYY OE S E CI AIT D O T N A TL T OI ND VGN I GE S GSB I ON U N OO I LC N R I NTA I FI I T OO TU PI R T L F T PR A U S NE A I RC AD V B T T DU MDR I S MN EOE CT R C AT NE R I I T TNM GS G S E N U EIR TH E OR LO OTM LFA O S P P I OJ OAR C FX EA EHA N OE I GM GSP e e e m
o S 0 1 9 8 2 M 2 2 f 0 A N 1 A. P R N S O I 5 P E R G O E T A W N C O I UE I A T R OT I LT TA R V I AS I P D G T V E C E F N NT E A R O O GN N OS I T I S I O FN EH I T TO C DG U C UT I E S E PA L I O L L NU MR L I L O SA AH oC O A RT GS O ES C A T A EV DE I VD ON R G T P N E N D G RA A NVM I L D E N PS E L D OT O I L S I T SE TAR I I F R A S AD O ATF ZND D B- E T BO I EE D E AM N R E C D TL O E SN EI S A N AAE _ DUC T RA A F U ._ I CPT B-R O D PT N T AEB U R A E E E A R RO C S G T R A EA A R R ACM G H R C U A T F E E RN R E R H D GO O ESD U T N EC FR T T NF S O U T FE N N OP I SEO - - - oI I e e
~ L S
E N O RLE S EI T EAV S BA E H I E LZ S T MTC LI R A OO AO R T I WE B MF N E R P T AC A O SSD TA A T RTEN FL D R A SUP RA EH A D T S E S N TC E LE UR R O I SE T S E AIT FT I S E H EI OIS RTDD N SG YF I E DV O SN RO H T NO C EI NR A S AR EU H S PE M S T NLI T VD m I I TD r
~
ME WOILS AE UN DTWG EA I
, N T T NA SE NG NA GIT E U V I BTI I
SL I T STU EA A M ESL OVEA RV PE T CNTVE EE N ,I D RR E GDER DY S NNSO N L TUAF I AS U - E SOBE
~
R ER E S YO C T A N U P GC A E URA B UI R TEFA I S DRT QT EN N USD NUA DO I AC
, e e ~
i
' ! \l1
(~. f I V. l E T S A H C T N W N A E M R R E A B G E SE A L NC N OIF A C R I TF YM U E CO E Y G RE T ON T T A TC G R CI R ES EE FE N E A W N ON AE N O TJ F N NO OE 9 8 9 Y RSF I 1 O S F OE TI V I E WIM B R PNO , h) T AIE ONI OT ( NT EC DT O D TI TN AA T AE 2 2 r MO TI A T Ni l N EL D L U NE RM T Y R RD AA EM U V I V UPR G O OA E 0 4 A U PR SM A RM AP 9 E D.AN E O OA D F ,AD E 7-4 9 R B I R C RR R
. E CV I
CA D . 7
) E S. IL UV I C
P Y GT D HUE S. CYNU 2 0 7 ( F F R : O O : EN E S T LO TI T : C I : R C I I F V R TA E B F D E SZ M O A E T I R' N SN U J N EA TG RE E EN E H B S NR S O E TO NH T U E R ED EP S EL E S P RN PA RE PT I l 1 n Wy Il I l l l
E S HG E Y A TN M I W OSI H R TSELT T A O R F E D SE P HT E T SVA G N CA AA I AW L R N O D E OT R N I F P
, R T R E PU D AO mS CT HE R L R N AA O AG R F NG E O W- E R
ON E M CR I I P D N P N U D TNI AI T E LML O A U C URE C E O O CEV R LTA CO G R AER P CDT R N D e e ~
O F SD NO EE MN ON I TM I EO ON LA CT I TR EX NA ALU S PE VE I AE L H CC R EC T SN T B RA LA L T P AC T OO T AI L TC HW T S HOS TTE T NS OOHT I I YE F R I RU YH FC A I RAF S T AT AS LA AO O CS CEF LR T CP F E O P D I O E I R T T T AE T DD DE DICI OD ER ETI DSL M MA DC DS DAS AID AHI T T CTT XR XO EO TF ETW TSG O-e e
D " E S T H N ADT R CN AE A O N I OU P H E S Y EI S R LO STT YE ER E M 0 0 BM RC BGTOE L 0, AYM ON LTSR L NAF B1 O I TMC T A O A E F LS S SE L C H MEES AAH UF S EHVE E. E T YCTAC I GO RAG RC TA TAT MYB OL N I E T TP SML E E EL D O D H BE E I % RN OEALT I I L VF CE - PEE C OL AI I F M ) ET RSI MN UTAEHTE R C P I E 2 C ATO N SRE S C EI R (
)
A LI G WE DOT H R I O E V AZN PU L RAR D E TO ( 3 SQ 1 O P RYE M OD E 1
. ETTL BNH E V
R 0 6 GH A REIE ROC K URU O R E T TLTIVS RP H F C T O AF S NRP
" SWODEOA I
0 1
o N " H T A 4 9 T D 8 O S A N D 2 7
/2 I
H P , A E 0 T )T
. 1 F T T g L G R A.
P A A S e A N E 5 T L I O P E ( I T O D T W T S I W UW H T S E A P L A S N C A C(G L T A S E T A F R U T S G G N O S AE PS S L A N N CE T E A E E L I CM A S I F S D R I F T E US BA OT I EU " N E T E EE R U TC S S TL T L F T R MUL SC O O C I TA C UC HE V AN FI N P S I LV E R C O MI P TO CA " " O A D VE A C AR L I T Y G A R E T S H S oO m R R T GE NV I A A C O F I T N N O L A T M RA ER E S S E TO S R E C P NR E T S AA I S PE T I MT L E D I E M WN P C O SM E D AA RE H O T I T DI NY R C N O A ED T S L T P R D W-E TI L F Y E V UI OIL F P C S D E C O A A RB O" F P I ON D U N W R GA S OO PU RN O T FR I NH NC O F OA OT OS OO OO I T W T O G V TA I AP I O RR FI D A C E S S)N I I L A CTS T R AC PG YA SLC I R Y TEI I CA G A L AL UD T E R F F E I SF I T E NA O E R I T T. F M I EO TY A EL N R AFMV NS T H N T O E E H EA EO _ D R D ) ) 2 D "F DB TIK 1 T o I ( ( I I OL e e Ill l < -
e D
- S N E R/E A T E Y L S I
S PITIF T F OL O I U L
.O RB R A N PAP FN OH
" CE gD
,I I
TT H I MN O .E AIW T G OET RI e (RS I R A L PA S EE AD P O ,R E I DMiV E l T GA I E g. U RS UN L T T G .T NLET S O (e A TOE A I DRT RE S E CV NRW E , FE A AOG T DT T EBR T S CR S YISN H TD T REO E L R I A F E H T S U E EBF F N E T D NS
" OT Z OA N AR f NF O I R H S W- U CE F OO C E TTD R TE T O TS R I
C AN OA FH M UN E T) A TO HU A N BOAL R R ET R O I RTWI I A A)G H E S SS A CP A I TI ,T BI TE T SN D YN CN F A I TE DO O ASC TI C D OIV T NZN AEO ARN DEA DCI O TM 3DCT P YRI T O FUA ECR L ENUC T TU I D A FO I VR NADR I I N E CL AA OAR FSNT D FE RV RHE EEOA I PCP DTCM I 1 P E T S e l
6 C S D 9 I G N N 4 2 O A 2 O I T
/2 0
L SE A 1 O AT I YT AS P T 5 R RI N T A WA W D V U-W N Y RS H W-T C A
" H OS A E H L FO P RP T A S R C Y A N C I
N RL P O OS TE I I EK S T E Mi I T N UT I OF S E I BI L EO E I M RB G E T I D- TA S E FG SDE ) O I DM ON AU W DR EA GR - FN T A E EP N RS - I
" T FOC N
Y HTLTS AEN - R L US RD ENI O _ O( A N A TFR AA LUIT B S D N I O/T T E I SN N M R N O I L F UO SO CO OI O TC I T E PU T T - A R G CY DB N P G N RI AT NI E C T I L FI L AT RM - O CIN E ,B DXA T SIS E - U L C L DE OUE RDA L =- ND MLM F R E D U X P OO DFE- NLM CM 2OP UFE 2 P _ E - T S l!!l l !
S 435
,=
w 5i s W a O L F R E _.. w T . A , W - D NE U T s
- h-OIS R
/
GN I " .. FA ON T - w CU I TO ., AM M E A HC CC ~ 3. SU Y L AT N A y,.. ,l/ O I x h$ g <.. p S y .. ) D N jy. . E E , :g T A R M gs. E I G G D- - A
^ X E
O YS W z__ 5o2 6o3 3u, RS OE TN T S, ~.. ISK I ,. . OC PI H E R( T 8 g 5 o : ,_ w W - - C N 0 o
=
0 5 l . IJ _ Ba aYPui s a
O RS
,O H L-S SF T E N E LA D CTAP I
O I O I R RITF M T T ENO T O A A P E L M ROB OT LENE T T
" U ,
M U H C L XPP UKEE M N P F RHS O T A L N OTNI R I A C RWD R P R O O TNFEV F N E F O T F SN EAO E S S S E E ENBS,GL N E I I TRI I I O S I T A LUTLS I T B TL CI ES I I U S SDE) B A A BOC DE BHT AUN I Q- FI
" TN S
A S T B R A MC OF R P Y, R RO EMT A RA TP S I D O W FC O L DI T VP EOT P E YL O( U S NI A CLU TT P N TF I LF N E O BO I R S E U US Z AE O D AOD GN F T E BL I G OB T N N A O D WB RM A I L R ,A C N OR PE C E HL EFL TSU H S D S A R LI S N O O LTUAD I I I L F E L M BNT R M B E AEC E AO TTATO TG S SORAR EPFLF S EI N U 3 P o. E T S
~. S G E E H L T OIN E T N B M E A TR I EI S R P G E S E S T NI D E HE X W L S I H T TC F E O EN RC O Y, L DO S OA SI T F OC S F O EL
" F M"H O R E T
T TA I H O CT C I SN E RD EO T E T I A A EO PM A L S P S HZ OIT B AT E RL P M HS M T D PU E CE RE T S OS T I T OB GM S N TA L FR N , FS E TU I g E E S E V TT R . T R T" CF R A WS E D S (e SDE) U R I O EO T T GD I SH AU F R I SA R FM NT FN I S DN EF O OO OA
" TN E RO C F SR CP
% FC O M OTI I S N F " T I
/AF D CI P OS S S O( T A HE TH I
N C TT L OE M T A N E V ALP OYS R C E S P A PAS F O A LL U T I R RED O S W S H T T AKN T SO ET A E CL AI N O O R FN LT T S I W C T EE ET C C OMF E AS A T NI "F N O L NI S P P N O) L U OM E O O L LO E WITES C MR EIR L E E BR I EA U VMV I L ETT V VCL A SEN E EEN EOA C UDE D DSE RLV 4 P E T S
P A M b N _ R ' _ UE A l
, i OT t l 1 ' I 18hUl I l l l I l g TI 5o _ R N S E
n E Y T R Y u E ON I OR s, M O CA %$O NIS D T A o L I K E T j' Y _ G O N 5 MN U _ I S P. U 0 I 5 EF O TO _ o,RC L-E M VA AC e l f
'*o/
e DR B o 0 lahE ' l i ' i , T U _ LY _ o, AR T _ *, o OO T F N 0 _ A A 0 0 0 E 0 5 0 0 M 6 7 6 7 3 N o
m L A E F ,I NT O DTEC OA
" NSRF I
Z H N A E UI T D O TTR DE T I T ES RA C A ER A A UF A RD T E AT P U T A GFN RN L N N TA UU T A OCL T AO S V E L AA SC E E NATR I NN T N FWINU E T Y UE S I DOEA G EE B A D E OF UL DNO L H TLL F D T GLY,O NI
" SNCI R T U TI NLD I
W F L C E S LI B Y E L P AH I WT TOR C EE OA O N M LH F T D T S MG I N EI T E T NNRA F S O B L N ON m I OE TV ECOI DPC E EK SO EI T G S A R S B KA I L P SI E ER OMI RUE SD EN R ST SIS CBT ,S CO SR SNS OC N EE EAENA R G I CT CHDOW P S OA OC RE TAN ST I DI Y N E RW PMSRO N R A S PD TF ETI TA S EN CO TL T I A S VE T NU U .F R RRI E D L ESNT HI L EES FO I C ER NA OCAS TFIF DD E NNH DG N O CSPEI UUT R : - - P 1 P E T S y n
l I ll R O .
- W, " 2 E m O R H E NI C L F VT EU T I T FS Y EITC A
P S L E EAL D HL OCA R AA ULR TEF c T D TOC CR , I A F S S O STR R E M EST FOG N SRE SISI T N SOM E ASA T S I CO O H EO A D L E C R F E O R RG H E C
" D PC AGT U TE U NA SSR F L T U EOP SYU C EHT ODE O TL T C
)
NAS S , N B SNA NNT U I A MEOSE EOR I E N T S CIS F ON I O B OD ETF M A I OR F REO O I GC ( T TL AIA WF O PP FSTY T S E S MTO ODCI I R E RE LN EL S OD FI FO S S TN ,FI F B N I E F E NROG E CO EI EA I C I OGR F S Y, R S O G N MN D F U TA E FFIL V E R T R ET I I LE EI I E S P SO DC BDB R S E X F I I RI X E T A U E N ET OIR CRMR I U MT ST RE C F E E S NPD SE EA EP O DMPA D UI 3R R 2 P P E T S
_ F - O SD
" NE OD F
- H I GL U O T EC N A RN O P " I I H G S T A T T N OM U S A LI S L - P AN A E T T A V T S TH E S E T WC R OS A S GE M FT F A F D N E
" F OET E
" GA S M F G NI R U E R OD )
E N I LP EI BU NNUT O EO Q L DR OE OP I j ON A T R I O T MP S T GC ( T D- A NT W H E 3 T OW I G RI TG R F O W A LHT N O D"S
/
UI T NH CW L S N AT AE E - A CC E 2P S M TT E N A S CS CI S S UE UL E E DT D P S NS OM C S OA F RO O A C" PC R 3 P P E T g S E 1 d
T T P W OT LA G EH N VT E E O DC N ON H TA T O " R I W I SU T I HS E S TS C AA N O P E A P I TL L SB P E EA M T S N h O D A F OS O C F " A N G E O O N R N N OR LO O I O AF T I I S T SS I O) A T S L P (2 T U A N S BR Y E )A E EY O D (3 RR 00 A1 1 M T A 0, TN P 60 U I 1 O C WM> LR GIL T EF O EE T VC D SRW E 0 UPG D1 e e 0.. ll
N E O-C - TU I N U OR U D N AF F O TET O O I RI OD ) N R O HA P D A PXS RIR E I T CW A O T R O CAR TTI I S O D Y O N D E L NME P( )2 EI T E I R UE .P P) SS KD W G. O P I LE O (A P OMI UF EO FF I O L(PER L 13 E ART BS OT I L A ERSE V 1 E G L LP HN E0 LA T E L L SU D 6 OFE I WMR AD I WEC ST D R F D OVA G U PI T E CA H OR N A C FN R N O S B 0 EL C RF S1 OOT I LT TL AP , T LH I EN SI O E N UT YT DO AW R TI O SW I RAL OC M E F"
" L P PI AS E RE A U F E ARP RE TC M C EM OV A P NN LI AT SR G O N RI S ML EA CL NT I LPD ML I
- UA SE V OE EP , UP SC E A I GID DAN CM T R I EL OF O i OO ST RC MOS DC e e e e
IL T N E E M E T G S A N A A T N W HM CE E M R NT AS E A RA G E M BW A L SE N U EV A C O YM G U EN C CIT Y NCG RE ES T O T N CO O R EAR I COE 9 N E A N ON NI T B SIDN OAE 8 9 F OEV W O T E I AA J
. E G RF N O 1
2 TI NT AG MM N D AT N UN 2 EC MO A T T RR A H AI GIV M E Y p TI RD NI EM OI P NCT 7 R A AA SM F F E TF I I OA R 4 2 U PR E E RN T S S
,EE P 9-6 R B
D.AN O EO FCD 8 5 I R C H
. EI I F . ) E F
S. L HF S. 2 UV I I P Y PC D COU 0 2 ( C R F : O O : EN LO E C S I T : TI T R C I R E I F V E TA SZ B F O D E T f N I M U A J N f EA SN R' E E TG EN E B S NR EO TO NH H U E S ED E P S E T R RN EL S P PA RE PT I J..
P C S E NH OT T I TF A AO HE M6 TCN R1 S I F 5 EA T M I N3 I R O8 VO I E CN TF CR N EO AE CIT I NC F P L OF T A E U T MS N O R OR T O N E OIN I TA M FD AP RE C S M EB I O PI FA S R I C C TD C E' S NE R OE EU N DD D NN I YTO I F FS O OA RNI T Y YM AOA R RA NCM I A AR MER BI M MG I L F M MO EYN U UR R AO S SP PMC e e e - Y. 4A
T D E E0 NT
,M 6 AN E N LE T AI NE T AM N OOR I
ER P US IT G TS O EA T I AN P TA C P E E S NN I I BS MAR S CS OR TU ST TL E NA YD OA I R PC LF H OE R E TA NT I F T CC EN AL NM S E N A0 N HA SB SA A D OR1 TM E ER HET COFO I N GR NOF CI E MIF MA EY CGF O I I T AR NC SR S MN DE I AIR NET P T P RP S I L E I S OO GO OR A TR M RPAA U C A VH T HA CYL CC I S R H R RP R TB OIN WA OS U I CE PP DE F E 0r RC NN NA OD TN I F R ES EHN P TI DH ND OU I TC L DS EU D R E E F N O RE OS FA SG RN EI FA AA G ET A MIN S D T M D,P E E E N TR OM REC I N NO RO RS E T O MT A N R FN S I R EF I F T E P R AIO W O NIF D OE C ES C E E T ND OE MO A PR PT EA E F CDEH N R S CTN R AS SM OR I P P EL VR O S HIF EL CL T C ONTT N E E Y E D T EE N EN NNE O C N M K O F M FO RP AWID O SM I T A G OLA O NE MY E I A M U N C OC N SAE R A I R T LD OI T SHR D I T AA O O NU U I N OE TAMCM I F E ,U FB NMAIFR Y R RI CL C S1 7.Q E E M RD GERI OHG T OF A EC N I DER EL PU C TO N EAR E E R PIFI M RMPI DPC M EFT E U E O EO M HUO H S H C HH ) ) TSN TI ST TS 1 ( 2 ( U E O-S e e R e
I
~
- N E S
&SO E
R U 9 4 7 3 O OS <IE geEggEggi s
.m .
d e 1 t CA t m L
._3 f
. a C P C
EH N . u n . _ 4 m. N S. P CP O a m . _ 0. 1a O t S I T a
-n . 6e m I
T 1 5 3 ND A . .
. - Rm A S AN R . a m _ Fe Cmam R
E E MA P . a _ 0s P O O 1 1 2 _ 1 m E R , . 4 n1 44 _ u s OS T OS 1 1 a . . n TA
,giE m EW a000 F TM RN a m666 6NE PET S
E E A N O N . .R.RR n F FF - N C I C R I T O . a C C00C .- O LC A PME G m0.1 I T 0 I T A 1 1 M C 4
.e . . C F R O R U R .
1 0 n a . . U R OI R I F N T S 6 R m a n . T S UP O N F a m . S N NN EQ Y C O . C s s . . O OO I I C 0 e C TT SE R . 1 n a yg CA UZ AR O I RR
. a 3Ea 6TOS H CT .
m s A
- N TH OU PRS I
s a C CA n I W NNO E ,P MI R . a m a m L PI E PV
. AE SH ME VVAR TR F E
T N I
.a e
s ER SN NO EI C T N O QEGBO O qEgI$ I L EOA S T'eT NAT L E uECM I NR .E . N CILB OP . . O I I PU L P A S E . 0 4 . T A TN I N . 1 0
. Z I
AO ER I L 6 E R TE LI S . ST I ET A F C
. C R A B 0 A
R N O A TI RM . 1 H A D OR I 7y ggI C EN TE CF o SM I
,I '
I M _ O S E C 1 S / C E EE E E /N R MG NG N RA _ I N I L EM RA I EA RR S SH SH RO E AC AC AF N
- B R BR aR O S PO MO M PE E T "O V OT LI N
RIT F N t R L I Y S I T NO FA E F^A C MM O OM NE OS FR L O MA M E D C C OO T I M S"R E R J B 1 2 3
. SI ES R S G O SO O A" O AP J n.
HEOR PP P HE PR A M O
+
ltll l l' l
Q 4 9 _ 4 SD 2 2 - NN G 2
/
0 1 OA N G A. P T E I 5 N N I E I C T L D I O C C DN UN R W N N NA SA U C A OM E N D A CR R O N - MM EO SI O TF NC T RA I I T SR O R E E P O U I A M FG C TR I D ST R RO A FT O N N O ER RT O F N PP UN CO C I EN N SA E E BT NN N OO O I UR SO LO I I L Q- DI T FA T A M N M P E T SA I E S A OI AZ BN OM R O NS GI R FO - SR I F N OM TE I NE I T OT I A E F I AT SC N Z VN I E N MY S EA GR OIR I TO I L RS OL NA TE CT CC E E S FA AH HC N EC - J A NR CE L A L I U R B B PT RT OI I OA - O P OAN L OS T TA CH O E NG I MR NC L I I E VDS N O OE GET V ENE RP EI E DAD MFO BS D o e _ ll l
~ MI N
Y 9 5 E L 4 . C OD 2 E 2 - A F RE FM S 2
/
0 1 A. RGU R P 5 UN S D E N E sis NDE VD O C C BLT A ANS DE W N C N UUS L AN E AR ES A SST ADC T EE A LE ARIM I REI L UD O NV _ MM USL TNE NIG T I RA T NE AEH S C E EN E R C NTT O G AIOH T T C TIN N O E J F EI N N A SD I DDB RO HDI TN H A M H T AE T NO A AE ER E
,OI T R E GB HLC LI NR I
PP) L CW O TAN D BEE F BM C R RA ENU E N O ASR COA R AR S CO ED E UM OOI N T I TH I E P I TF NA TR m DI TO N T CT N CRS N A ANI O L AET A NO F FA( C M RI T A R PM I M HE ER OM R PSERA E S PEI L O T TR ATP SR F N NGE ENP D NA E H NF E E F I I TA O N N A ES T T I OH - VN E XHDO XM N M YT I N ECNI T R E EI TH ATT - TO I L E D AA E EST RILEE CC H NNC HYI I I E R TSW O B E S T AOL I R M O ODDN R A T ST P A I P J A TEEO PEO B NC B B MIOU A , RTI T HT T TS O M RT RE TS M MEA RE P A C R I I R I C U TM I F FDSN I F F NCIL I I
'D ETCE NNNE NGTP I
N OOOC N ONNP N FS OFY I O CCCL O CEAA C - C - CAS
, e e e ll l ll
Q SiER 6 9 E FT 8 2 L NI S 2 2 BO
/
0 1 AC G N A. P 5 E T RI N O - S D NO R C CG S P N OF U I D W N C NNI E RN O A T )0 A 4 D A - AR DO L S EN C1 ET - MUN DI T O T VOE E T O0C L L 6 U RDO - AA S EI TIT I S ARF D _ O I YM D DID S N F MT L F T R N O ECO C D:NM N 0C RAA O I I Z CF N P OOO T A (1 E E RI I L S I R CR E MTB ._ PGR P O S F XC E E E RN Y - E OE EE R PITG B SOEL U EFMB T R S SN SI REA ORP C OC TN O I H NTL I TERN C AI PIU O Q- F NR D A 6 A 1M N O TO U GNS EI V R TINQ E SA E O OA R I NOER AC AED R R I
- 5. O T I I RT S STH 3. F A ENF RC D I
8 Z U AS N L N E AC I R TI OT NUO DMEO I NE I RE I N VME VA TE TOT I I OP ES E R GT T RT VF O NA TZI E ECA D I TA I I _ TN AZ TIZ I I CO CH I T N HI CI SM AR CFS E AP CI R ARE D SHE EN S TN R A E EE CE R T ET E EI ETT C JO B DE EM HI N J OLT N BI O C NC LA NITN VO R A EI RA I O C I C EL ER AI TTTA I FM I E S ES N A SAACAH DO TA OA OH AHDAMC OC I SB DBMC BC- - MS ' e e e - EC - OR 1 0 DN lll ll
N E 0 4 1 S R B 0 F N E T EYE 6 R O L A O F E - TAC FG S T R 1 M MN U 4 RA - I S CN N A 0R I R E T A
. 1 0 A FTM 1 O O V
E N 6P OAHR T EI T F S
, E Z RN NTOF EN D E I R hG MO E S E CIS OS R I N M R E
S E T CS 0E E N 1 T E OD S D C AL F D O ,R E ATPO NN I I O DO I T S R AD AAO N NI CIVFT I P .H O I UNI T O L CM SAA T FIT OA NOI D I I C A R OL TAU N AE E L TCT M I TT NA N S U MlCP
%ED N PN NARR I AF OM O CR E RF I
C T E I T I V I T A N F GT NP TE I SC Ef RHD U CN I EA I O ONI S T O EN TO QT YIT SO FO C A G UC EO RA AZD AC DC E E RIL I N F O N I R O T T I SS SE R TGT R F EI FO E N NI E I T F S S T OINT OO MER U i I E: NIT N D P NSA I RN OI OA N PNT I TI N ET B DN OO MDI NT UOS SIT N L E CT I SM S ENI GT I MO R ASE SA O R AN EA RC U S RO EEE I TU E EM I P TR G AN TTED S E TRG AC H I VUN I CIT GIS GC N NO I VF I I TQA ON O R OR I T NR C CEH WO LOLP COU ACD ARC TC - - e e e
E T I SS E FE L P OT I E I L M P A NV M X OIT A X E TC I R E O AA R F CN) I O F E FOE I I U D E
, D U
0 TTN T NAN O I D U L E L C N c EZC ( L C V I T N E S DIR I N I L- E T S E N E M Y E I S T I T E OIC I V T R R C I T TR I I T YE A KAT T SITP N A I V RR E C ELX OTM TB E I I R T A I C NAM MA I H A WILO TFT I G N OEO L G ENN I T T MO I E C N I NI E L T S E ARR R R CA O I T LE OP D E P O M U RP U CKT T I N STE I T T RLA EUE I EAI S O SNS PBH M - - - N I - - - O e e
~
I T E N E T M E E T E G S L A N A P A M T N W M E E R T M E A O R H A S G A E L C E C NE W N D AV YM A C U Y N I RT Y G E ON LT A BC G EAR R T E S T LN X E COE 9 N AE I NDN 8 ENA N O L AA E 9 F W I A I LRF 1 OEV O I E TM H
. P NO TI NT EC TE A T NN AI D M AT OuN Cl E 2
2 T T L Y
, MO TI A
NI EM TA A N YI V RCT OF R M 9 R A e RD AA S T O TO A 8 8 U PR E SM E BN D A LEE P 4-6 R B R O UO D.AN . UCDI 8 5 E GF ) P C R EF S. 2 F I S. L UV I I Y SC D ROU 0 2 ( C R F : O O : EN LO E C S I T : TI T R C E I I F V R TA B F D E SIZ M O A E T RN EA SN U J N TG RE E EN E B S NR S O E TO NH H U E E P S T R ED RN ELE S P PA RE PT I We ,
Y D L R D E L O N V A C A I T I E G T R C N N E Y G I T J L A N S B L TN I K E O AT SG A T E I BI S M E C TN U E E G N T NE S A A N
" D L E AM E U
R C K M R M TN SI MH 0 A P OIN RT 6 FA BA E T E RT UT T D R T S EN PO SN E N A P A EC ON OOCE H A T" T RT FN CE W E H HE TT T E N T F N 0 N T T E L S RE OE 1 I E E P MM I S NM ES D A EL H' I O B CP ON I TN U G O T C D E Y I NM TA: AT E HIO TS O L N A OO TN R I WS TM EA V L I TA E CC EOA TM I TR AIT L A C RC NM AG VN N R P S EO R O I RA O REE T E T S C PR S S I N E TV O P NB T S E A I T LEIT NT H RN PG OU CS R N P C O PI K E C D TR I EMJ A S OO C N N A N D E NF A OOB L o I I DCO e e e e
- T N ER ED BE E BE LT LF M E LN S AA LI N G l MR H S I ' SWRE O S RY T AA E T CDAR EAOEO TK G A DFIR Y T NC KE EE 0 S 0I OA CP CBHP0,PO AO TT H1 E E P T N CN R E T E T DU UA T SIOO TT SH C I G E S AR C AEO WEC L A PA HRL PW E TOO H TRAO T DME
)
G _s MN A ( NOI NER D OE c O O ) I H F I GVN H C T i i T ENO TI S T R F i I YN ) WEK R L 1 LA P A O L E ) WPT)EE b YR AM a L M N (3 0 U I E I HOO 1 FCI S1 3O 0S T R 3 1 O YS0NL NI 1 TLI 6 AC AU . NLM TQ 0 6 E AMINHT I TN MTOD SE SE R N AN CE SN B R I I F AT EFEA U TSHC LM I C NBT ETR S 0 OUYPOE 1 CSBSNP e l l
E 0 T ET 0 E N TS 3 V E EA F I T MN LWLO P F A C NO I I I M T D T~ D AT O E TA O OO NR R NT C YS ETTIRE OP EEN F D OE L HPA CR P L ET AM GN E R AHTINR RINA I T E T N ATFTAO P EWLA E L T A O C PI N T H N Y S TO R NLG GL I Q. ML BN C OW,L I AO e OA E CC UAYT OL RO SELN SM LE L UN I YN D OFN UV L L H N TLI O FOCSH AC A LE I TT E T T LES I DR CT N E S RE NWIL AEREYD S N A EMS Z TO DN E C U 0YOI TNI O SD NI G N 0 I T B U AA O 0,SOOT U TKI GA S EN CD1 PCI OOAAOEE M o-DCPRTRRL I
_ % F N O G O A D EN EE E - I T TV R S VI T A EI EI T I TS DVN YT L T AE PC EE I L E E S RT VT LR A M J OB N TN R E E P OA I SID CO I TR CHH NU NE YT FTI T L C OG AT L OSW C O TN AE L T E T ST SI I TF NA TN I E BT NE E E dl UN AR MIC T OA T SE T EDS I TR I SO T TN S I g RM BT N AI T4 N AP T OIN UDE S0O EO FA SEM 8C R RM ST FSN I F 0 OSGI 0 P PA N OVI EA R PR I T WEN 6 E AG SO NR N O ERO T TEO AC TO V NBR B ENUIAP R I I I P E TN AE C TA ,D ELN E OE T T EME T
~RD ERT RUG RNE LN RF OOI S DL UA PC F E HE I
P PA PL F M RT ENM E SR0 R SD R NE1 EDD O T OO A OT N F HNN C N CC I I CTI O TAA _ e e e
E G T F N S O I R A R N U S I W O T)N N S F I N D O V C AIO O A FT I ON N H UC TS I TA O E NE AE A Y I T B AP TI T I F S I RR C OL MS MN AO I D HI T N V T GIA I I LA GS I E R NR TDN L T I NO P I E A R I T P ES DT WNA,E E NA D C C CE R S N T AM EEC I GN I D I CE T TRA ES SD AUL OU RS E R M RN C SP I L POR P N EA O LEOM O D O D E S N N NC NR N G S C H A I I I U A YA YV EK A N, C TS TN T SO A E C NN E NE NI E L A OATG I I T AO M AE TG P P I TCI TITIT RI RA ME AI ED R EK OS T T RDB CN E CC CA I MA NOV NA F A NW I UCO UP I L(H e e e e
~-
N O I L D T A H E EA I R T O L T SI Z I T I A E W T N AR T S E WE A E O T C ES D DC M N RN I G T NA E A UO N C AR L D DI I EA B R ET A S US T H A C U DE S C I N E N O C OIC S ET I E G C RI F E NT OI A PC G RN OIS T S E N CEP A I K OA N H O G ND O E I S S Q S C TT I TU I TG E N GT A HR GIO NE P AO AA D E I E C E MR MK AT KA UM T AC RH OT RC OA CC LS CE S AS ON Y I FP AF U F T NN NE L PI NG WE R I I E V EE C I
,A ER PF T E TS T I T P MK CU PO NM NA T A
S S AC AD LE A EN E A RA C O I I C D W V WN GP PC R MO EI G E I R I E OE FI F F N ER O F V S RS RT U A PS D P D UN N UE A SE SN O TD NG T EM TO C CD AW Q AN CGA AE I _ CT I N E E ET EAR LKG EC G FL UI A Z R LA DR L E I I U LCO L L S NT L S NE OAR OE E AE I TN AP CPP CS D MD UE HO e e e e e e n
W E I V G R N E I D L V A N I R N O U E O O T I T M B T A A A E DN M D G R NE E A A G AM G R K O DN A G C EO K E A pR P TR CI C D R P A E T EV P E T S PN E N S X E T I A A E EE S T W T EG A N E CE R HA W O H N E TK S C T A HC E E N I SA P NI T I E T E T M MR I A L BE RE A AR T T E P U UO LF N AS T TO L A AR O SA ER V VE C EW DP E EP o-e e e e
m
=.. ;-
= f. c. 7;
~ ~L = g
_I n c. s e
, 3, ; e' o.p
.f u"
.=
I tt.o Nr.
.' ., .. .f L F8
. o ?'
t .
. . g
,...o.... , c e!
. c. .
i
. g g,
t.
.r.. l o
?'
,I ,
" v
.c< .; .o R ,
.. . ... =a
,, a
. . 0
.. II
.. n.a"
' I 4
. =,= ,
,g Y r c
(. ( ==
=
L
, g H =yp
=;
.R, g.
.f.
C r
< .t ;
- a. R .;
c 4., u ,9o .mC o ..
.T..
.cR M
R =M.c, a"
- n. '=
. o. .A osc.
N C 8,
.C. o,E
- f. r.
A ~= _ Co .o. FP. .9 l R E . 3 > c.
.t . , 4 I
. =, .o A
H t
...w..
c . c. n
., . u. p . ,
...a. o
.c .c
,a'm * .
.u ..o .t.o
*" o* -n .n..
n,.
.c.
.r mn>' . ,cn
. m.
.W .' a. o. co.
c .. . L . o c,. = c ru o. o. o c ." .. ,n .
- e. .
o E g t ... D , J 3 m.
. .t '
. o. .*
c O _. w* e* o. c
.s m
u t .t. t
" o
'n . ..M.
. " "=c C.. N q _. n.
. m.o
.n .. u..
. tc M r*
n* ... n .. f. o W
" .* c. .. E
,M
.u . .C - ' o.
c. I
.aR p r t g L o . -
t.
.cC o -
E ' c. 3 G - n .. A , ; ) > c.
; 3 . . 3
_.. ,f wc .r l.-l . ... c c. F
. t K ....
_. , ,. on... i .=
. e n
. .c. . .
n.u . v n .
.M
,R
.c.
.a .
.o=.
I g..
..o . .o,.n ,
C _,.,o
,o
.,c o..
w. cP F E
.e o
c,m. e m .c
- m. . .
H. c F. A r t < t r t P ..
... T..
E e c. T ..
".. L S
A I O'a. =.
, n.
W ....
. T= .
,=
,a l II *
. ,= !
- c. ,>
o t !. . g n o . o . o o. i T... ,o .,I. t n I 3.
.n.. .
D
O T E K N C E C O T U R E N D T Z O E R S E l C O M E R H G I N R E H E A I U T T R H T K K M S I O U D C T C O O M F L N A A R T E L E PN T D C I W G E E S E UT G A O R DN N K T M H E EE RM I D C &SN E E P H C LN A AO T I T N LO I O E N A I WIR L T S c WRI Y R I T T S G N NV ON L A A W DV D N E Y L E I T T E M R E EN S T N R A ST C AN L E HT H T TE I T O C E N I TA I TM E TN E N C N E S NT N E E ET GN E E E E R I R EN VC A AO W P U MO YL K T M T E RP CC E X N S I T A NC OM AE P R B E O O W OR T E I S E E U P A R I M E RE OH TS SI T G VT I W R PT V O O E AO R N L P NA RI N WM I A E - - EW - - O e e
I l!J m . E T S R G N I T A E T N W F O T A W 3 N S E T S O L E R 1 I T A E I M B J I S R N M O O E T P T O U N R M A R D A L O C M I E V T E I M R V N I I S E T I S E M S A N E I E L I W T S H N K1 3 X m A T I W E E O I T C J O N
- E N
C T L B L B I S RI A C O TN S G A YI A L YI A L P SO E N T RA DV R A DV M OI HA T V I I N S A S A O R D O E R E R C HI T R D N C GE A GE R I WV A E U R K TA SA TA RK E E S O E CW Y CW T D EI V A T SAF AF A TT C B AS RP O 0P 0 E O AA WE YE TG W RV G 0 S K 0 1 T S K G D BR NM A DG 0 A P OA P N I E I DR EA 3 WR
/
TWRY
/
U L S I NG TK O T 5%/L Y 0%/L UN I C 00 O QO UO MA I 0 9 5 3 9 5 R EC OR LP - - G - - BP n. e e e . lllllll l l
llI a 0 1 9 8 2 2 2
/
0 1 A P 5 B U YS S W N RE TI C A ET N MR E O I O E O P T A S S U E GR N R EP E R T S o E I GL I F L AA A S A KI Y N N C R C R A T O I N E E I T R AT T A P M A T H _ A I O D A C EM T E G A R E H E M SD e e e e AN WA o- _
N G O N I T I K T N C A S T K E A D C C M E R A E N A T L C R F F O T T N G E I S A T K O C I E O R R I S L B A D A R R A M T O e C L T R R I G O U E A R E N C N N D O R A N U O L R E E Z C I L I A G S A L T A R G O I L S T A D E R E R A E N T E I N T D C R O X E Y O T C M O G~N I H L S e e e e e e e
E L T G N S N E E N I T O S S M I T R A S E S I D O W F F G E N E O O AS K C T A E S D R L C A E E B A E T R M QP E C C E U L E S N T N P I E X A S A E S F R AM R L E D F O O F WRO O F O S S F S M N N R O I C O E I OSE I E R I T TG TG P A Y CA I CA I N L DK DK E A EC EC C N RA RA S A PP PP o-e e e e
- ~ L _ NA S _ GT N Y I O O SS E T I R T U A A M C DF O T I OO FT E I M R V I P L ONI T E E S TO C A TTE I Z V l I R EAJ MT Y S MB NI C I E R N YR O I ME D A G OT I A M T NR E FE T NE OR T P
% M OIE AI R E M MD U CRR T DTO AN S NA SI RA OB E V E GL YT G OR G OA L A P AT RI C E N K KN PG R E COC E EO L M ATA M VL LN I
I A PGPN ENEA
- I I
SO WT TI TT NN EN S T SN EH AS TC OO E AO XE DC WTWC ET e e e
0 I T N E E M E T G S A A E N A T N W C NE M E M R N OTS I E A E E T CA M G A R N EW A L E SEE N A C E S N VT OTCR I T YM G O U N FF T I T AO R T ES E T N OR R E U LOP I P 9 8 N E A N O T E K OD U 9 C SA S F W OEV O NT I R ER R NAL 1 E EN I , TI NT T ATE
. S EI AC 2
2 0 I D I EC UILN M OA TT MN Y SVH SICC Y R c TI RD AA NI EM T A A R R I R,F T EO N E 0 0 6 A U PR E D.AN SM E O EM A. L GEO ACT 6-6 4 R B I S. L R C RU R NIF S AF E 6
)
2 E F UV I I P Y TH D MOW 0 2 ( C R F : O O : EN L0 E C S I T : T1 I 1 R I F F V D C R E TA SZ E B M O A E T R' N EA I SN U J N TG R' E E EN E B S NR EO TO NH H U E S ED E P S E T R RN EL S P PA RE PT 1 O hy
F D i C m C s LF LD AC 1 RC E VO I OR , FA ONE e NC OS I
}
l S TM ( P r S) (
)
S, , AO L E- 3, y P r ( P r R 1 U F l J S l S) N l
)
S C > m
)
m m L M m M m M A ( ( ( r r r P P P C s s s.
N I T D N E F E E S D CIN I U O U N I I RE FT T L C D FI OH NP N E UEFT EC I R SDDH S E E D T UEG M D B I C L PU T S E C SO AC D L N LN I I R U O L EH EN O C OOV C TE T RI H E NDE TE S B O T OEP L NC S E T S ES I BM ON E S U LUDA BR LX S M TUE T R A I S SINOR NE L N O- EF C O I O PA HOS NSFN MR O I S U TMI SF ,O ME T R A R T F O U SDT N HBACA I ON N S T CU ND L E CI C I N C T U RE C I FN S AC I O E HL FA T ME EB THTA AM N UH RA OINC T A HT E NNT G S U C I FG H WIT F,GIN OAI H F F OIN D C I ND S P SA DI N N R GC TO EM CDU N SC I CL S A O R CUO E E LB LE FV C F EC LH FE F AT ED NN H I I TIN O O-e e e
n D LE H AR T I RI U U Q W T S AE D NR RD S DI S AE NS D TA T AE N P N DD AI TC E EL I SI T M RC AN E E E U PA R N NO EN I I GID OU U TD Q N E A MN R RA E F F OD R OO FE m S E NT 0 e 6 S E S OA A CIP . T N E L E OICS T R V E TTN A I TR M AV NE P CT E R ES TH E F FI N STD F ) EA YON C D FG SBA 0 (
)
i OA Y R OS TE 1 i (
)
SS I R O T S T CS 1 SE YI I SE E - X c LR OPC AR PSO ( NA 2 EER 1 1 2 AB 1 RRP 0 0 6 6 c
,Il J
o 3 E - E J W 2 G R Y B 2 t f A E R TF 0 1 R V O OO A. P 5 U D T M O A I NN U H N C N S DO W N S I O LI S C O I F P U AS TI A I D O E O RI T O Y R HE S A T T C SDA R E I I B EN N L I G SIS E 0 B O ONS DO O I 6 D A B L O ROA I SS I E ACC T NU E B O R G N T Y-R P E CBU B A OR D L E E H S ,E P CTN U N SS oF C T R FI O H U D F OWA EC O I SI ON S E R N UVA C SA E O R EN TM L B L L I T T RO 0 N AT NE S S E U A I I 1 N W RU E NIO H O S TO V ER M SN E ED I TCA E AO R N EL E AI N T ES I UN PU L L E A RU SO I LR UF C T GR AS CO SD NT EU AE ESNE S I N MR N B P U O T HI ET O T I S CI N TN VN SO YOSA Y R A I ST I AN L FUR E M SN CN H RR VU AE CA G EH TA HTINW I EH PT OC e e e e a_ L 1lll
T E B N S K E N E N D I A A A R T M C A M S S Z D E S S E A N R C H A D EE S S E R S K S NS S C O U T I AR P O I R DA AN R S D S EE E U E N S VY R R P R A E RD OE D F O Y T S E E FF E I S SR E D V A SR N S I R D N P N T O NE T E T O I C A T E U H E ON I N I T A O L B B L TI E R I D L L A PN V E A A I R MA R E N E R E B WE V UM S G F L SE L O D LN DS SU L E R GE I R R SH I W U NN WIO OO A F T I DA I ST CF E S U NT NC R E DO E T N F D A E O LA TB L TR I R E OE TA NI M TS S E UI AS I U ES RB TD VE S U N UE E L T E I E Q O LS DL SM LC AS NI NE EC E M VA UW I R RA R e e e e e 9
E N E T E C AA G N UM A AG LU R MIN AH V U RK ER S O OA FT ,CE O O S C R T L F EE S E SN RC I D P RR DE D EI A DN DT DE O T Y AE EN AR R DF E TE O E S O NR N O F E T STT I AE NP TR R U OSN YE S I OD PA N I GT A EP TN EN TI E RE A AA M N M M S AN EH U RE RA NO TT AI H OR TM S OIS UWT F U E NS C U YU L I EH L R AMN U A O E T VR E T E NE D RN EOF O C I S M R OI O EE - TN TN OCA N VF N A AS R I I A M N A CO E TST LU LO N T PH PTE BAN OPI e e o
N N OEU I O I S S UIQ E U G RN RE A TU T T R N NE I NI I S U O V NA NG OI AH AN CS M T MIT UN SU I R U H ON HE D T F FM O S OU e ONI YO E YC T T D TO N I I LD S A L I EE I E BT U BD R M I A SL AN UU B A BA SH OGV OG RN E RN A I PRC PI E EUR E K M CSU C R UNO U A DES DM EYE EY RBR RB
- e e
E EE C N Y HL C A TB AE CO ES N M NS I RH PT D JE E A T A OSE T TI BI T S N AF ON M S H T C I T EHC EI A R D NC T T E CT O R S T EA XDP NR F N VE EH E OS AE R A E EOE MC V D T H HH RN ED E NO Tll T OU PN A D AT SS OED T ,KEE FY RN N YT A EE SD SL I C E P A N RS S SI L T E X EO O F O A E SY E C C E T HE H S T P SR CU F S T EIR I EO ON FGE H CA SE ENS T NP p- O P O CT OS RO I R PI O E D EY SA E I A I WT A RO M E T L SA EL S PP N OC ER HP E RM TE NR HF TS R E O PS MI FR TO I F D I H AC O FI V TI CE T OO CI F G F E OS SD T HM ECLA I F I SA D S O E TO T N I TE T A CU NL RGR NO GO CL PNF S E I EE MAM EC FRT U I G TO I ET S L FE N ST C HAN MO LE AH EVE END TUO ST Y T I E T N M E I EY E LIS R A S FT A A. O T N LCITE TT VU E I C UUR I I A E L S T NE L I BBIDN MA EA P ,C MEN A S E F F A V MVUN O C RU OVO A DA CTPQ I I ECE CTC o I e e e e l
e L - L R N A E A Y T Y RF O I V A OR T I T M FE S N C S S E S T N I A E I S E C NI N O O N A T AS R N ON I T I M MTN I O E A R T E TA I U M UM U A H S V R L N F EE YD L E BU I A E O T N I T F RH V C E I LA N TE E S C I U R SL E L N B S AE E E BS D DI B I H L R OS E T YD T A R U RE P N TE N E C PC EO O I L R I I N C VR L C D I O E N I B E B F T P I AT V A AG S M O LN E , M BN OD I U E S O C Y T I UA CT ER D E
- e. U RU BD O L
I B PO B H PL T SP PC L R L A B GM T F A L N R I O ON I WD A O R I SE N O I L , N C P UH LT ES S NA I T T E NT LI VO EI T C T OO I N DR OS A U E L L T F I AO W E I AS TA R OB RS N M O NO I UP BE P F SI BS OT O T TER ED AS O PC RE I TU SC A I A RE BC F P OFF I SO DS N TH TC O E C E OB E N E EE ST I O L S E B N E PA LC I R T D ST NL T T DR LN T NI BS EN YA AO MN EU I DE SI AR I T Y CC RS AW N EEC EA ME S A OB I ORN HG V EM FO F DCE TA TO I - - AK e e e e m l
O N I A N T AN MU UO HM T A L N A C A R C C I U W A G N E T FY I G R D I R A NR N W N on GO I L L H T I E T A E C O I T S F I I R W W A A D R E F S G Y LES Y E D R T I R LC R T E UN R O A N SE AN I I T W I EM E TE A D
- M DD AN V
I NR R , N G S EE O U N MU N TF L P O I N N OP E T ORE X E R G I M A MIM X E P T e e e e e N o-I
N F A M O M A N UE R O HC G I S FN T E OER O AS DR FC S E R OR T F P AE EU RK UO CR E GR LS E E EA AE F F T C DM VR EI N N - - - E R 1 2 3 n E 9 9 9 F 1 1 1 R 3 3 3 E 8 8 8 T N N N N I O I O I O I T T T N A A A A G I G I G I M T T T S S S U E E E H V V V N I N I N I
- e e e
1 l) o , D N _ S U _ R O E _ 1 E R ST G US I N 9K O 1 R D OE I A N EH T A NT I S
- 3. M 8 T GT I O N F N E
FC P E OE F OO M D o TN I AO E V O E SF EA DD D N - A GIT M UL T T U N TA I I TI L S NO O SD UE GC I S EA AH AT O _ VR FT MA R - H E - NG I LT AA D T N F E I AY O D TN T _ NO EI SI V S EI E T T TT T OO AC A PM RA R o- e e e - Fll -
N O S B YUC LOI RYR D
- 2. S LI G OGA ,RC N 9E ACESEO EU CETLNRS RO 1
.CR I
RAAED E MPRR U T R 3. 8 U O F TE DYC UG FL O NO SN N
,I AG HRU DA NS O SSM SI,N S O NC OE C TL L EDE AO
, T R I EI F S ATIAI TUR LS E F E n AF O PMT OERID LL CA U LOC R GO SE ED E SONM AT U VN I TE C SD UMI R DE O S U EA NMS E E H EM E S E L N TV BI ,C EI R , OC R T TP R VA R CSS ALLRU E O CO EL R NV U JE E C R AAEO G I T TTHS OV T C T EETER RE A OAMMORO PDW e e
E C N E 3 R R E
.E T 9.F A 1 R L W 3.E
.T A E 8N W C A A NI G R F ONA N D H
R N 00 I T I L L T U S O I A M T I I R W G E A GU I H D R N I D AS G T Y E R T I R SF R T E MN R A T NE EO O T W A AM I E V S A - W MD V N T R D E ,N I N D S I C O U EU N E L O E GO E F P R N RP T X I AM X F E G M LI E E e e e e e O-
\lll1 l!!) i ~
e D N E O PN - I S OO I U L T . R E V A EM T Y N DR L T NO I N F NE V A E EI N EI I T M CA U BD I H SE FN N AD FR F HE UE O O P E ST Y I S T N C N DA E L R U E SN EO RE A R M HM E L DB M T T A TA I AED N E NR SND mMU I N R. T D EE I YO G G NOU OSL CAC A HN E R S RR EE S M TI F TP I OE AG NT P U RN OAT H TD TI S ST T HO I HN CE YE A TN AE R T MEE OB A E RIV R RT N H OSA PE I MT FN S NEHIE PY I L S I AT EU EEG LO RC TRE AN N PO SPT I A I S E F E M R FA HO H OT AH TT TCS e e e n Ill ll1Il: ,
i T S N E E N M E T S A G A L N A P A T W HM N E R Y CE NT M E A D AS RA G A E L U M BW SE N A C T U EV YM U S O CI TY - G C NCG R E E T O T N F O EAR I COE 9 S N R SIDN N E A N O O B OAE 8 9 F W E G RF 1 O . OEV I T E W J D AT NO 2 ATE TI N NT EC E A N AIUN E 2 - MO A TT NI I V H GIV NCT M Y R TI P A RD AA EM R E TF I I OA R 7 4 2 U PR E SM E T S S , EE P 9-6 R B DN
.A E R O V .
FCD EI F 8 5 E P C
)
R I S.LI HF S. 2 F UV I I Y O - D COU 0 2 ( C R F : O O : EN LO E C S I T : TI T R C I E I F V R TA B F D E SZ M O A E T N RN EA I SN U J E TG RE EN _ E B S NR EO TO NH H O E S ED E P S E T R RN EL S RE P PA PT I l
~.
D O N T A S E Y ED T ,M ,I E I S NO G E ST D OR I S I R I T F TMVE AAI TE SS O AD RR C N F AN E CE TGAE BA LM OD SO D H E L AA LE LE GR N T H P NR AN NP A E I D TYD OG - T F SI
, TO I
ENN SO EV S U AR C NIO O E YID O c I RP ATIT TH R T P S LN M MZAA LC L RU T P C LO AI R I A A SO ,T SR RT ORR R FOE E RS E O EA R FT VIEN D V Z OH O T EN H F OR I ENC P I A I O T SE SSTCI T T HES R EEAUT SBGDA NC GIFHA NM SIRT I EA UI U SOR S R O TC CC EA R ETNE S ES ECOF RH H VE TI DI DDIN BI N I PC S
.. e e e p I
E N T I O E S I T T I R A S O L S I H F R OS S C S OI ASN I H E L FN B W U LO A D A S EL T SD E I TT HP NE H NC T YE ) D I L C EA U AL S TP SDI N GO O PI M D I UNO P TC( T AR ST D E T LD CS I SO N AN RO LN A A S R A B C GT I R EO E EA ES H F E R TZ VE H NI R OC T T A I S E N S SE SE ER EI T T T E DT NC AF I EA U L R I VV I S R E OT EA AT RC RH V PA PC EIN e e e O-
- P C G N
S . NT I O OE H E C T DM A E E S SC N N AR BN O A PE lG S L AIN E l P CO TD I T SD I EU V Y D6 P DL I T D N8C/ E C C U A5 S RN A T STE O I F O m( S NAHT P, SG AD MC E N F L EN ES RI PH l I DN UC O YCl I VI S DN EE P DAA OD - ECU I UE T R EN SOQ S H TR ED S P BO I YR E L P S T N S SRN A E S F T F NCO NDD N ONO AN A NN A SM T E ASI T SD R O TEL LE A EN S NIAI U I NME PD M TA DO I R T EE V S OTT Q I A TE EL YY R I VT HAS E NR DD O i T S TRNR L OGN UU TT F CE ATMDCQ EUOA E CAO SSI N - - - - - - e R e e m
1l A D P 4 C D i 9 8 2 S E NF 2 2
/
H AH 0 1 A. O TP T P 5 N L NCN P T I E W N C S ES D B A N ENE O A WI S T K L TD EE U R - O P BB E I B W Y KR L L AS D) o NCL CR L SI I N O I Ue un EW HA T 0c Tuu ADTY C EIG Soc E SA DEHO R TTS E E F< VD T A T I I HV O OU S R T EI N P RT E NE I PSR O F H I E T H SF U B DYB S NO D E A L S A ND N LMCD PAON AE LM O PR I T Y RRA YO A D GPD DF UR L UOE LE TE TRHI SP E SPTF - O R e 7\,ll l -
' l 1i
)
1
.~
e P E T S C RIS O W S EY S FG Y E R R A N A PI N GS O CR SU MD N OS RE T ND PA C S PC LE S I E E D S E AN N HP T O NS I S US N A A SL DE ER N AD L EE I V I FG I E P DE S TO I MU E ES U T D I NR Y SE T I V EP SS NS I D) D 6 B I T DN I D N I UE U 0L C SI O 1 L A ET E A L k I
- m. TN TI DW E
E T T A I Z T OP SN OC I F R A NY I
-p VI R R D T O I
TE I F( NE A P CTD EU EV ACE B T O E LS DA S R AN L D I H 0 O ATRA I P I Y L S 2 3 WE S I TNN E S HB SI H NAO S E I CO NV E DES I S E LT I R A R PA P UTI L R N RYZ UDR I M O. TI SSN O PD NNA O CUE TT C R AT O SI I SS I SSC S A T A HA E FE SGM E T GR A I H D CR U NN R NO L EI A T A AO AP E OH H S LH FN HE DWC - PCI CR
. R e e e ll
a S H S T N W A N , E F L W OK I V O N P Y E MR O E OS D I 6 H U V I R: TT T E S S W R CAN S R NF CO O D R F I E N AO N I T FM C T CA LT S N 3 E RL PR EL EN L HL I YA DH E N P TA I S DT DI T D Y U S TC NW AS O F TD AS o_ N D A UT S E EN HN TA SL SN NR AE LC W E I V UN PN E ES SA E DP YO R L CF SL L I PB NY AD D U C A C NO A O EI S TU ST T R SO I N U TH S RS L J L A H C ST O AM E S N OP ER D FL T S AT O OA D NF I I L E WT E L PR R U E N I EOE N I VT E A OR H I EA OL EO T E RP D DPW DP o e e i
R S E h S H G N T A A O T L 3 S P 1 S S Y G U U D N O U9 I T I T8/ D R A S9/ I V8 9 A T E2 O9 V S S R1 N N AN PD
- I HO I E A PC O T M R
L NR Y A P ON D E B S N Y T E TC I CH TR AT D LN U T I U RO MN PE T TT ME YM S ST OH T DP NN C UO TL OE S O SE CS A T RV FE HS N EE SR EA HD EE OL TF 5W DP OO e e e
I T N E E M E T G S A N A H M A T N W E C NE E M R C AT A RS E G E NS BA N W A N L C AN OV I E YM A U RA N TI CC TG Y G RE E T O T N UL O A RAR E OE N E A S N ON SP S TD N I 9 8 F W O SY B O NAE I Y RF 9 1 OEV TI I TE E AD D RN O OAT 2 NT EC AT YU C TL N AI E I 2 MO TI A T T NI TT I D L V M UCT I Y R RD AA EM L S I V A G FR E R OA 0 4 9 A U PR E SM E AR D ,EE P 7-4 R DN O B UO FCD 9 7
.A I R C R
. EI F . ) E QF I
S. L P HF S. 2 0 F UV I I Y D COU 7 ( C R F : O O : EN E S T LO TI C I : T R C I R E I F V TA B F D E SZ M O A E T I R' N SN U J N EA TG RE E EN E B S NR E S O TO NH H U E ED E P S E T R RN EL S P PA RE PT I
-, T N I N N S E E 6 S E M H / 8S C P T 5N OO L M DA E A L RE AT WINPY P V RN AED GE EC D I Y O OR VR U ENT TR RR D G O P U RES UT N SF A C DHD QEH NTN TN I S DT AHA E RN E H T DIT P OE NM CM TH T EWC L S OP CE AR T HI TW LD OE E SO DUE I I WY RH H LL EQM L TC T OE L L E E TI NR NA N m OE I RV O R R EA CRI L TE R TE T S SS SS A T ND T N AW H S EM I CA AT E ON O T A L N ER WN E D CAL CE R V O NG TM F T P EU O C TO NEO RS R SOR E EL S P ANP T RE N A EN WE P WTD O GV E P A SUE C A L SO NT D SBT P N E N A DAN E EE A. TH O L E CC C L P NW ON C P SN TG RE Y DI GEI PT A- Y DI NI T USV EISC U AE TEE HXR TGE SDR TEN SAM -
, e e e
U_ 0 1 n OP PA O R P V OPI V O R V OP V O R f OP V O R f V A V O R P 2 E PA E PA PA E OP P I R R R PA 9 VA R R R OEg s /81 E R. - 9, P P O O P " 8 V V V 8 8 E E E V V R R R 8 S E R E R a / 1 N W 1 A ( 2 V L E 4VE l 8 8 P I( E H.
,s I
/
9 Y lH N t A R R R D O C C O R t E P R R H O 8 U C O N T N N H s 8
/
T H E N 7 S F Q M E
,a E H GA 8 8
S MR N A f R I
/
5 A E M O H . H N PC T P I 8 D S R s 8 O P / I N V / V 3 R V E E E R P O E R R I N D E V 8 W T AU V E R i 8
/
E I V C Pt SS E R 1 E R U )VI R A R t tat R 7 8 T SO R R O H a
/
S O H R O O
- 1 1
N H R H R O l O OI 7 R P 8
)
C O P 3g V P s
/
9 E
, F R S E R P P 7
E U i /8 D R 7 R E C O H P O R O R 7 F P O P i /8 L 5 S A S O V R W E I E W E R P
- R P
P 7 NWEV Vt C P 1 V Y P/ 5 8
/ OER ER I I A E 3 TV AE EC S O D N R E
R RRIF A R E R A N P T FT W E AN ORA 7 P A e 8 R E F IPT I
/
We Pt E 1 CE U NV L I V T LC OIOER A E R N E AI I T JDS 6 TROAvC t V QM I 8 NIPPHRN AREER O H E G
/
1 R A N 1 R P A R RR V C P i 8 PTROO EA M O3g 6 P T PHRN A C N E H 9
/
PI S N D M O E I N E R 6 T A A G i 7/ 8 N A A 6 L W E 8 9 1 6 P X E
- 6. I 8
/
VI T 5 E Y A R M 6 8
/
. 3 T N N O E S I
T S S M N DAL _7 E V O NI T O E TO AC E R T L OA S A - n, M I TG RR T RS _ R AI UE N UE E VT T P E T R T T AS E AE I C UT U A S C V SNF B RA WT E X EI N N OS M TE UZE A SF
^. E R E T, Y R U A D A D L M P U E R C T D ES N S E CIL N O F S F L L
O E O OA I S NH F RV R OT L A L U PO 4 E P TH NT V OS F TR EI R E N T CP N D E MW P R E E EPS I ET PU NN B I JAL S F I EN AD E E O O N L RE DC E O M R D R A A U GT AS NO V A PN T L Q CS I A ,R H S L P N AN P Y RN N P S T Y B NO OD O O AW,O I E N L TE C D D /C E I SI F E U E OE I RE NIV G T W DB VI EC M E TV UET ORR S E I V 6 T 8 S R PE R I NE M ,A R E /U 5 W, S U Q OD NP O F R D E M HD EO I VT E R CN A OB CI S N TN E R G L TA CTU T A OA T, N L A U A S I N N T L N D NL Y ANRT E E T MIA E R T A EP T RT M O H T PE M OE P C I R T RY N E REEM E R W FD NF O L A C G RD R PL I U E OO ED VE N I T UU R P Q B T C L TE EL N CT UN AM E S U SV UE DL FO E M S C L I R M M L OR U T EPO S ES .S SN D SN C O HYT NI N N A A SO E DD T DD I AR A L L T, C C S E N Q,UETD TO P PN OIS DI RA 0 NG Y YE R P S T SN D DT N O N 1 1RE OE U UN E A. CI EA PO N T CT A T S TO SC HL TP RM AFI TC I - - - - e e
a E D AS
)
T Y D 3 9 OW RN SU 4 2 DE AAEOE ST 2 2 HQHFM
/
I
,V E S 0 1
A. S E S D TSE CA P 5 P N R N EFTR S A A ATONIU O R (S O LD LP E PN W N PN PENMQ A C A YA E E L
)
D N )2 YC OE R H P A DCTR I T P UOL UAAI 9 - F S F TITE T UU S ( S AV SC LQ8 8 OE E F RAEI N5 S OA L N R S NVRS EN E EW OE I TH I S GE PA T 5ANHN AT Y N RY I EO ATN TF L TP LR E HTDOY NO A ENE T G ETB E T oN A M LA M CP R TN AI TED S VE HDEITN MN UE CM N RY O TR U AR OP - A ND( F NOQLE RC EEV DO L /U E T YT EC RRO EL P O SI DE - D LI V CADSG I VE V _ ND NN( Y 8OT 8 OE AAY OD D /R 5T A C CRM PV LT I R L U 1 DP AA PO - T /N1 E E R ET I OR) _ TTI S 2 O L- G HC S 1CE S S R O FTA D NS E V EOY HOE EP R 1 EC L T TL RNP PE O-YE L R ON A G DA XE 1 TV GTA N EE Q EBLLE I A DN I RRA E AL UGS CT V ROE UA EEA OSL DAA NNLQQ DUP o e e e l lli ! -
r SDN NNI LW OAS AE I NIV T S,N RE AEA L ER
) C I
FU R P T NR A L D FS I I O P AE GF S UC E5 NS QO O E I ( R E R S T S R E PHL GUN I S T TA R DE W NRV EE Y E EOO DC M U L D) VRFR I N O AE U U C ERS RUS P P YP O R g NN T ANO I TCE A L TA D L e N D CD NQ A N( C E N ON E EC A M A RA U S PW RLI RBN L UAH C UWE P CCC O DI OEV I I E Y VV I E SL I P T D L L EER SP F U I RRQ SAO I T WPEH - YR L S SFH E L E A S OT O ADV I YY T LC ND NNO AUR AA NUMN EG T FWP P AQU D I AEA EEC U RIVD - HDOL D EN TADC ARA
, e e
1
- A S T I A Q
A E D T
) .
AH R N A P T O F E P SS E M U S EN S C ( HA L O H O D D T,P S T D E I I SF O N F S TS T A I T N Y L E U T N D E E L) D S 5 E I D AE L F I EE A I N O s NN ANO U I T RH Y T RR V I U Q E V R E E E E D E
- B NC ( AO NF Y
L T V A A I L S U H M E L A T D I T M N P I LU N S N E T EL A Y RC T S O I N O D PN B U T A C U FO S C N OC I I T E Y RT F I L S S SO EI A E I WIVT C I ST U Q N AD SC R E BE LA I O 1 E C I E T R W F HC T L- E E D TE NE V I V P O E E O NX CL R N OE - - - O o I
T N E E M E T G S A N A A T W M HM N E R R CE NT M E A E AS RA G A E L T M BW SE N C R U EV A O CIT Y YM G O N U A C NCG EAR RE E ST T E O I COE 9 N E A F W N ON NS E R B SIDN O AE E 8 9 G RF 1 O WN OEV I E J N O , TI NT TE EO N D AT N AIUN 2 2 n EC MO A A Ti T I V S T A H GIV M E Y R c TI Nr P NCT A RD AA EM R E E TF I I OA R 7 4 2 U PR E SM E L T S S
,EE P 9-6 R B
D.AN EO R VI . FCD EI 8 5 E P C R F . ) OM I I S. L HF S. 2 0 F UV I I Y D COU 2 ( C R F : O O : EN E S T : LO TI R C I I T I F F V D C R E TA SIZ E B M O A E T RN SN U J N EA TG R' E E EN E B S NR EO TO NH H U E S ED EP S E T R 9 RN EL S P PA RE PT I
S EE TN I SO T MS G RE N EL I T TI M S N E R T N O AN D O S I T EO G I E N T E C 0NI T S A I H C A R L O H U R c FAZ B GE N A P E R T OI E NR O S I E N R C LT LY R B O WE A F I RE P D E S C R ET R DL EA L E A O O P F A L VC I U LV T I R R S L O RA S OY HA S SD U SAI P E C ER T R EW T R EPT T R T F VA A R OID A CF L CS U A A H OH T BM T AEM T S C S - - S - - - S - e s e O
l LOCATIONS OF PLANNED PROTOTYPE DRILLHOLES, MULTI- I' PURPOSE BOREHOLES AND MIDWAY VALLEY TRENCHES l ESF SURFACE FACILITY > i { h ) E
' ' J i
ES 2 h h : i ES-1
' REPOSITORY SURFACE FACILITIES TRENCHES
, S PERIMETER DRIFT i 80 NDARY f c'\llll f
hj ti '
\
s I 's
's ES-1 ES-2 l )
/ MP-1 .. L MP-2 LEGEND #
MP 1,2 = MULTIPURPOSE BOREHOLES ES-1,2 = EXPLORATORY SHAFTS G-4 MAIN TEST FACILITY p 2 { l 2 0 2 BUSTED BUTTE M KILOMETERS
, UZ PROTOTYPE HOLES
- _ _ _ ___- -..}}