ML20217D418
| ML20217D418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/25/1997 |
| From: | NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE-T-0116, NACNUCLE-T-116, NUDOCS 9710030173 | |
| Download: ML20217D418 (464) | |
Text
vw=vena uuw- RETAIN FOR TflELIFEOFTHE COMMirmr:
- Official Transcript of Fibce dings
. O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i AcWWT 0M ,
Title:
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 94th Meeting i TRO8 (ACNW)
RETURN ORIGINAL TO BJWHITE M/S T-2E26 Docket Number: (not applicable) jgo Location: Las Vegas, Nevada O
Date: Thursday, September 25,1997 3
glrl.l0kYn.nscYif< say u, an m 28? H E8 2!te T-0116 PDR
- Work Order No.
- NRC-1245 Pages 1-241
- lill!O!!!O!EllElljll!![lIIO!ll!
i- NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers , . .
A 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
'%' qq] , f rO .
t u. , , , 4, 2, wasni uie , D.C. 2ooos (202) 234-4433 y (U1 1_ L L-ACNW OFFICE COPY- RETAIN FOR THE LIFE OF THE CCiSalTTEE
I
\_/
DI8 CLAIMER PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE
- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 The contents of this transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste on SEPTEMBER 25, 1997, as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
, This transcript has not been reviewed, c,orrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.
i 4
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RIIODEISLAND AVENUF,NW (20h 234-4436 WASil!NOTON, D.C. 2000$ (202)234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,s 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 +++++
4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 5 94TH MEETING 6 +++++
7 THURSDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 9 +++++
12 The Advisory Committee met in Grand Ballroom 13 Band C of the Mirage Hotel, 3400 Las Vegas Boulevard r~N
() 14 South, at 8:30 a.m., B. John Garrick, Chairman, presiding.
15 MEMBERS _ PRESENT:
16 JOHN GARRICK, Chairman 17 GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Vice Chairman 18 PAUL W. POMEROY, Member 19 20 ACNW INVITED EXPERTS PRESENT:
21 CHARLES FAIRHURST 22 RAYMOND WYMER 23 24 ACNW CONSULTANT PRESENT:
r+
(v j 25 WILLIAM J. HINZE NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAAD AVE., N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 ,
1 1 ACNW FELLOW PRESENT: j
.s 2 JACK SORENSON
( '\
'v/ 3 l 1
4 ACNW STAFF PRESENT: I l
5 JOHN T. LARKINS, Executive Director l
6 MICHELE S. KELTON, Technical Secretary 7 RICHARD K. MAJOR 8 LYNN DEERING 9 HOWARD J. LARSON l 10 ANDREW C. CAMPBELL i
11 BARBARA JO WHITE 12 13 ALSO PRESENT:
r~N
) 14 TIM SULLIVAN 15 MITCH BRODSKY 16 JACK BAILE.
17 ERIC SMISTAD 18 CAROL L. HANLON 19 WILLIAM BOYLE 20 RUSS PATTERSON 21 JUNE FABRYKA-MARTI:7 22 VINCE IORRI 23 DENNIS WILLIAMS 24 STEVE BROCOUM
.r's 25 DAVID SWANSON
()
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 ALSO PRESENT: (cont.)
s 2 STEVE FRISHMAN
\-
t /
3 JUDY TREICHEL 4 NIC" STELLAVATO 5 BILL NASCONI 6 ERGELBRECHT VanTIESENHAUSEN 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
( 's sm ) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
('s
(,s- ) 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
. . _ . . _ ._ .. . _ _ _ _ __m- _ . - . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ __. _ ._. . _ _ . _ . _
4 1 A-G-E-N-D-A 2 Aaenda Item Page
.O 3 Opening Statement 6
! 4 Items of Current Interest 7 5 Viability Assessment, TIM SULLIVAN 9 6 Introduction to the LA Plan, MITCH BRODSKY 12 i 7 Aspects of the VA Design, JACK BAILEY 15 8 Methodology and the Assumptions for the TSPA-VA, 9 ERIC SMISTAD 45 10 MGDS cost estimate, MITCH BRODSKY 60 l 11 Update on the PISA, CAROL HANLON 64 12 Scientific Studies Update, WILLIAM BOYLE 68 13 Peer Review Activity for Chlorine-36 4
'h V 14 RUSSELL PATTERSON 84 15 Status of Analyses, Interpretation, and 16 Simulation of Chlorine-36 Distributions 17 in the ESF, JUNE FABRYKA-MARTIN 86 l 18 Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block i 19 Background and Planning Overview, VINCE IORRI 111 20 PA Sensitivity Analysis by Exercise, ERIC SMISTAD 115 21 Construction, Design and Schedule, VINCE F. IORRI 125 4 22 Science in the ECRB, DENNIS WILLIAMS 129 i
23 Retrievability, JACK BAILEY 147 24 DOE Interim Post-Closure Performance Measure 25 DR. STEPHAN BROCOUM 163 i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
/ f a E =& - -
5 1 A-G-E-N-D-A (cont.)
s 2 Acenda Item Pace
/ \
\'~') 3 AMARG?SA VALLEY POPULATION SURVEY:
4 The Biosphere Food Consumption Survey 5 DAVID SWANSON 172 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS:
7 STEVE FRISHMAN, Technical Policy Coordinator 8 Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects 205 9 JUDY TREICHEL, Executive Director 10 Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force 220 11 NICK GTELLAVATO, On Site Representative 12 Update on Nye County Technical Program 227 13 BILL VASCONI 230 (d
/'
.s l 14 ENGELBRECHT VAN TIESENHAUSEN, 15 Technical Representative, Clark County 237 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 f
5 g 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S p-~ 2 (8:34 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: The meeting will come to 4 order. This is the second day of the 94th meeting of the 5 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.
6 My name is John Garrick, Chairman of the ACNW.
7 Other members of the committee include George Hornberger 1
8 and Paul Pomeroy. Also with us today is consultant Doctor 9 William Hinze and invited experts Doctor Charles Fairhurst .
l 10 and Raymond Wymer.
l 11 Today the committee will discuss the status of 12 DOE's viability assessment, discuss the progress of the 13 enhanced site characterization program, hear a summary of p)
(, 14 the Amargosa Valley population sue vey, hear comments from ,
l 15 representatives of tribal nations, the state and local 16 officials and members of the general public. And today we 17 will also continue preparation of ACNW reports.
18 Richard Major is the designated federal 19 official for the initial portion of today's meeting. This 20 meeting is being conducted in accordance with the 21 provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Time 22 has been set aside this afternoon for public comments, as 23 noted on the meeting schedule. Should anyone else wish to 24 address the committee, please make your wishes known to 25 one of the committee staff. And it is requested that each (3x-)'
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 l 1 speaker use one of the microphones, identify himself or s 2 herself, and speak with sufficient clarity and volume so
( )
\
/
3 that he or she can be readily heard.
4 Before proceeding with the first agenda item, 5 I'd like co cover some brief items of current interest.
6 Giorgio Nugnoli, former member of the ACNW staff, has 7 returned from a two and a half year assignment with the 8 II.ernational Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. He 9 was involved with international waste and radiation safety 10 during his tour with the IAEA. He is temporarily in the 11 ACNW office where he is working on a review of waste-12 related research and technical assistance for the 13 committee.
(3
\_) 14 Barbara Wade has announced she will retire 15 from the ACRS-ACNW Operations Support aranch. Barbara 16 leaves the staff of the Advisory committee after 17 years, 17 and we all wish her well and urge us all to personally do 18 that to her.
19 Southwest Research Institu".e has been awarded 20 a recent contract from the NRC. The work entitled -- and 21 what a title -- Technical Assistance in the Preparation of 22 an Environmental Impact Statement for the Application for 23 a License to Operate an Independent Spent Fuel Storage 24 Installation to Store TMI-2 Spent Fuel at the Idaho
( ,) 25 Nuclear Engineering Laboratory site. It is a work for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 434-4433 WASHINGTOP C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344 433
8 1 others award to the Southwest Research Institute to 73 2 maintain essential capabilities at the center for nuclear
! \
(" /
3 waste regulatory analyses.
4 Progress at West Valley. In little more than 5 a year, scientists at DOE's West Valley Demonstration 6 Project have vitrified more than half of the liquid high 7 level radioactive waste at the site into 130 canisters.
8 The glass melter has operated at full capacity 75 percent 9 of the time. Project officials expect to complete 10 processing of about 600,000 gallons of waste by next 11 summer.
12 On August 5, 1997 the Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission terminated the operating license of the I )
'V 14 decommissioned Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station 15 near Platville, Colorado and released the site for 16 unrestricted use.
17 And finally, Doctor Malcolm Knapp, Deputy 18 Director of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 19 Safeguards, has been named the Acting Director of NRC's 20 Office of Research. To those of us in the waste field, 21 that's a very significant move.
22 Today, among the things we're going to do is 23 hear about viability assessment, as we've said, and the 24 purpose of this briefing is to obtain an update and to in
) 25 review DOE's progress in developing the viability NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433
9 1 assessment for the mine geologic disposal system. The s, 2 committee will be briefed by the Department of Energy on
\" ')
3 several aspects of the viability assessment activities 1
j 4 including: 1) design options, 2) total aesistance 5 performance assessment for the viability assessment, 3) 6 cost estimates and schedules for completing the VA and 7 Jicense application, and 4) possibly the project 8 integrated safety assessment.
9 I think that Mr. Tim Sullivan is going to be 10 the lead speaker, and we'll ask Tim to introduce the other 11 speakers.
12 MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning. It's certainly a 13 pleasur. 'o address the committee on any topic other than
's-) 14 volcania. 'oday it's the viability assessment. I'm
- 15 going to provide just a brief introduction here to the VA 16 products and then you're going to hear briefings on each 17 of the VA products on some aspects of each of the VA 18 products, and I'll introduce those speakers as we proceed.
19 I'm the overall coordinator and manager of the 20 development of the VA products for Steve Brocoum's 21 organization in Department of Energy. There are, of 22 course, four, as you're all aware, four principal products 23 mandated by Congress to be delivered by September of 1998, 24 the first of which is the VA design product. This will be rT
( ) 25 a preliminary design concept for critical elements of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 l 1 repository and waste package design. Those elements w;;l l i I
2 include the underground layout, the EBS design, and the V 3 waste package design. The TSPA-VA then, based on this 4 design concept and available scientific data and analyses 5 will assess site performance.
6 The MGDS cost estimate for the VA will be an 7 estimate of the cost to construct and operate in 8 accordance with the design concept. And the LA Plan is a 9 plan and cost estimate for the remaining work required to 10 complete the license application.
11 During the early part of FY 97 the M&O and DOE 12 developed a detailed schedule of key ac*ivities required 13 to complete the viability assessment and we continue to t'3 klm- 14 use that schedule to monitor and status our progress 15 toward the viability assessment. I'm not going to show 16 you the details of that today, just a few highlights of 17 some of the schedule elements that lead to the VA.
18 During FY 97 most of the scientific studies, 19 in particular the key process models that will support the 20 performance assessment, will be completed. For the VA 21 design then at the end of September of 1997, the Phase I 22 reference design will be complete. This will be the 23 design concept that will be incorporated in the TSPA-VA.
24 Design work will continue until February for r\
, ) 25 the VA design and, at that point, report preparation will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 begin in earnest and the final design for the cost r~ 2 estimate will be frozen. Then in August of '98 the final N',I 3 VA design product will be received and accepted by DOE.
4 For the TSPA-VA then the reference design will l
5 be handed off this month from design. Unfortunately, 6 there's a mistake here. In 3/98 the calculations for the 7 reference case, the base case, will be complete and from 8 that point through August of '98 the documentation will be 9 assembled and sensitivity studies will be completed for 10 the TSPA-VA.
11 In December of '97 the next step, peer review 12 interim report, will be received and another one again in 13 June of '98 which should contribute to improving the TSPA-
- k. ' 14 VA. So please make that change on your viewgraphs.
15 For the MGDS cost estimate, in September of 16 '97 DOE will receive a cost analysis including a 17 description of the assumptions that will be incorporated 18 in MGDS cost estimate. The VA design, as I mentioned 19 before, will be complete in February cf '98 and the final 20 cost estimate will be developed from that design work. An 21 independent review of this cost estimate will be conducted 22 between November of '97 and June of '98. That will be 23 described a little more tully in a subsequent 24 presentation, and then in August of '98 we'll have the
- 7
) 25 final MGDS cost estimate for the VA.
HEAL R. GROSS COUHT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 12 1 And then LA Plan, a preliminary drait is due 73 2 to DOE this month and the final LA Plan will be complete l
\'~)
i 3 again in August of '98.
4 From here then we'll have four individual i
5 presentations on aspects of the VA. The first will be, 6 although originally scheduled to be given by Paul 7 Harrington, will be given by Mitch Brodsky who works in 8 the department in my VA group, the second by Jack Bailey, 9 then Eric Smistad and Mitch again. And I'll introduce 10 them again in a moment. So with that, unless there's 11 questions, I thought we'd move ahead and ask Mitch to give 12 us a briefing on the LA Plan. Any questions?
13 MR. BRODSKY: Good morning. I have not have
's # 14 had the opportunity to addrecs you all before, but on my 15 normally 20 minute drive over here which took me almost 16 longer than four times as long to get over here as I was 17 sliding along in the water, I kept telling myself, "This 18 is going to be worth it, this is going to be worth" 19 because I've heard a lot of great things about you all.
20 Paul could not be with us today. He's real 21 sick and he asked me to fill in at the last minute and 22 what I'd like to talk about this morning just very, very 23 briefly is an introduction to the License Application 24 Plan. The LA Plan is obviously, as my illustrious leader
/~'s
( ,) 25 talked about a few minutes earlier, is one of the four NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200054 701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 viability assessment products. It describes the work to l
g3 2 be done between the VA and the LA including the associated
\) 3 costs and schedule information. -
4 The LA Management Plan describes how the LA 5 will be prepared. This comes out at the VA. This 6 describes basically who does what to write the plan itself
? and this will become important as we go through the next 8 couple of slides. The technical guidance document is 9 really the nuts and bolts for the LA Plan itself including 10 a level of guidance that we feel is going to be necessary 11 to adequately describe the content.
12 There's a Management Plan associated with the i
13 development of the LA that will prepared some time in the
/N
(-) 14 beginning of November. Now this differs from the other 15 documents that I just talked about in that this is the 16 logistics and the content including a schedule t r the 17 actual production of each individual piece. Now 18 unfortunately I have to apologize. I'm not sure what 19 happened. You do not have a page seven, do you not, in 20 your handoutn which shows the schedule because I know I do 21 not have a -- you do? I do not have a vie'vgraph. Okay.
22 That's good. That's a high level schedule of the 23 individual aspects and you'll hear a lot more in detail 24 about all of these in the upcoming speakers.
(~%
( ,) 25 The LA Plan will be delivered for DOE review HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C, 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 some ine in the middle of May and about a month and a
! , _s 2 half after that the final LA Plan will be delivered for k )
'^
3 acceptance.
4 Source of information for the LA Plan is going 5 to obviously be work descriptions, cost information, 6 schedule data, all derived from the multi-year playing 7 effort. I'm not sure how much you've heard about that c 8 ongoing effort that we've just now semi-finalized. Next 9 slide, please.
10 You may or may not have a page six. The scope 11 of the LA Plan will be reflected in the Management Plan to 12 be completed, like I talked about earlier, the beginning
]3 of Nove.noer and on page seven I think I'm just going to --
(__ - 14 if there are no questions, I'm just going to lead right 15 into Jack Bailey, I believe, talking about retrievability.
16 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: One thing I would like to 17 ask is with the tight schedule and the even overlap to 18 sonie extent between the viability assessment work and the 19 LA planning, are you looking to the viability assessment 20 effort to have a substantial influence on the license 21 application? I've heard some of you describe the 22 viability assessment activity as kind of a dry run, if you 23 wish, of the license application and yet a lot of the 24 documentation that you're suggesting here seems to be
/
(3 ) 25 coming out on such a schedule that there doecn't seem to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
, (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 be a lot of time between the viability assessment and the
,- 2 firming up of some of the guidance and planning documents
! )
\~# 3 for the license application.
4 MR. BRODSKY: That's a great question. It's 5 very, very true that the VA is absolutely a part of the 6 LA. I mean we'd be remiss if we told you differently.
7 The VA is a very significant portion of it but understand 8 that as we close on our viability assessment, the design 9 products between the viability assessment and the license 10 application, the des.gn products will be fine tuned to a 11 significant degree c uring that time f rame. The TSPA will 12 also be fine tuned to a significant degree and I think 13 that there's other portions of the program but those are O
(_,/ 14 probably the two that come to mind first for me as those 15 things that are the biggest difference between when the VA 16 gets done and the LA. Does that answer your question?
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: That helps. Thank you.
18 MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Next we'll hear from 19 Jack Bailey, the Deputy Manager for Engineering and 20 Integration with the M&O. He's discuss .3ome aspects of 21 the VA design.
22 MR. BAILEY: Is there a pointer in the house?
23 Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to address 24 you, and I'm going to talk a bit about the systematic rs 25 (m.)) approach that we're using in the development of the EBS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 design for the VA. I intend to pick up on your question,
.- 2 Doctor Garrick, talk a bit about how we move to the VA and 3 how we move to tLs LA and, in fact, I have a couple of f
4 slides dealing with the focus on the VA and the focus on 5 the license application and how we make that transition so 6 we can build on one design and keep moving.
7 I want to describe the process that I believe 8 I described to you last spring and I'm going to review a 9 number of things that I did last spring. With that, we'll 10 go to the next slide.
11 If you recall, the engineering goals are to 12 insure waste package integrity. The longer we can keep 13 the radioactive wasta, the fuel, buttoned up inside the g
k--) 14 waste package, the longer we can isolate it from the 15 environment. Once that package is breached, we want to 16 limit transport, either from the fuel point itself or from 17 the package itself. Maintain it in a general area where 18 the fuel is originally located. And finally, if we can, 19 we want to mitigate or condition the radionuclides so that 20 they either don't transport or that perhaps they bebr.r. in 21 a more friendly manner with the environment that surrounds 22 them. No different than what I told you in May. Our 23 goals are unchanged and, in fact, they fit very carefully 24 into the draft waste isolation strategy that we're working
/O,
() 25 with.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l
1
I 17 1 Our approach, as I said then, is to look at I, - s. 2 the expected case. What do we think is going to happen
! )
\
3 inside the natural environment, in the engineered 4 environment? Not layering lots of conservatism but 5 instead what do we really think is going to happen? Once 6 we get past what we think is really going to happen and 7 have a reference case or a design bare case, then we want 8 to look at defense in depth and we want to coni ier 9 uncertainties in performance of the natural barriers and 10 consider the uncertainties in performance of the 11 engineered barriers and in some manner ident ify that we 12 get a total performance, even considering these what I 13 would call a low probability, high consequence event from f'y
(_ / 14 the deterministic world. Even with evaluating those show 35 that the base case will work very robustly and that we 16 l'.Tave some means of dealing with the uncertain cases.
4 17 So what do we have to do for the VA? We have 18 to have a workable design, We have to have a design thai 19 we are confident will work, that we are confident we can 20 represent and we are confident will be successful upon 21 scrutiny and that must be the design that's evaluated by 22 TSPA. We can have no disjoint from what happens in the 23 total system performance assessment and what happens in 1
24 the engineering world. We set up administrative processes n
f i 25 to ensure that the data, the models and what we do in the O
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 TSPA is in fact what we have designed and what we believe s 2 we either have as data or that we can achieve through I 1 1
'~# 3 further testing or investigation.
l 4 We then must have enough of a design to be f
5 able to cost it with some reasonable fidelity. That 6 causes us to work on the pre-closure facilities as well as 7 the post-closure work but our clear focus is on the post-8 closure to ensure that we can have and demonstrate an 9 adequate post-closure design.
10 And finally, we have to have a licensing plan 11 which ties signfficantly to the first which is the 12 workable design. Not only do we have to have a set of 13 assumptions that we believe we can prove or that we can l'\
\_ l 14 show through tests or further evaluation that we can 15 prove, but we need to be able to lay out a licensing plan 16 such that we convince the regulator that in fact we'll be 17 successful throughout this process by the time of LA to 18 provide that reasonable assurance that we can proceed with 19 the design. That's what we're trying to do for the VA.
20 As Tim Sullivan showed you, our major chore 21 for the TSPA, Phase I, concludes in about a week and at 22 that 'ime we need to present a design and all those 23 affected parameters to the performance assessment group so 24 that they can move forward with their modeling. As this 7
25 (v) job is driven on time, we are finding that things change NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
39 1 and I'll talk a little bit about that and so we are in 2 fact providing n reference design and it in fact is pretty 7_3 i n I
'# 3 much the same reference design that we talked about last f
4 May but it will in fact have to be reviewed and 5 potentially mou ified throughout the fall as TSPA and the 6 PA group works to put their models in place and does their 7 evaluations.
8 The systematic approach is shown in a fairly 9 simple set of boxes and you'll notice a set that say a VA ,
10 focus and an LA focus and I'll go into that on the next 11 slide. But it's a pretty straightforward process. What's
, 12 the full menu that we have to work with? What is 13 overything that we think we can do? And you've seen that
(^T
(_) 14 chart and you'll see it several times more here and I 15 won't go into it in great depth.
16 And then we have to ask what does PA really 17 know about this? Do they even nave it modeled? Do we 18 have something that we can work with? And then we need to 19 pick a reference design and some options so that we have 20 what we believe is a fairly solid case, th'.ngs that we can 21 truly defend, as I said, and move forward. And then what 22 we want to do with the reference case is have a series of 23 options that demonstrates to a certain extent that ability 24 to provide defense and depth and the ability to achieve a
(-
v )
25 greater margin to the suggested performance that we're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
30 1 trying to achieve, And that is in fact a dry run for the 7x 2 license application as we learn how to make this greater
! )
3 margin and as we learn how to do the tradeoffs using the i
4 probablistic approaches for attaining a defense in depth.
5 And then finally as we work through the I
f 6 viability assessment which, for all practical purposes, 7 the design for the TSPA for the performance assessment 8 will close this fall, then we will continue to work and do 9 further evaluations of other features so that we can make 10 selections in time for the license application that will 11 include what we've learned from the viability assessment, 12 assure proper margins, assure additional capability and 13 pick up the ability to deal with the defense in depth
(_) 14 questions that are likely to arise.
15 Therefore, the focus for the viability 16 assessment is going to be on expected cases. What do we 17 think is going to heppen? Not necessarily as a point, but 18 around that point and try and work to make sure that we 19 have a base design that again the average is going to be 20 successful or in fact highly successful with options and 21 then for the license application, it'll be to continue 22 developing options so that we can show defense in depth as 23 we work through and start working with the highly unlikely 24 but potentially high consequence events.
i (n_,) 25 If you'll go to the next slide. What I just HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 said I tried to represent on this slide pictorially. We 7_ 2 have a basic set of scenarios or models of processes or
- ')
3 features or over time or parameters associated with those 4 such that we have an idea how it behaves. You'll notice I 5 drew a line down the middle that said Expected Scenario.
6 The TSPA-VA will actually work to a certain deviation --
7 probably a standard deviation -- on either side. I'm not 8 making a commitment to that but it will work not just to 9 the point but will look around that median point.
10 And from that we'll come up with a reference 11 design that we believe will satis.fy what we'.e set for 12 ourselves as a goal. We then will do options around that 13 same set of values, same set of likelf events, and see A
~) 14 what we can do to drive margins.
15 Now for the LA design focus, we will be 16 sampling the entire range of scenarios or close to it, and 17 I can't tell you if it's 99 percent of that range or it's 18 95 percent. We haven't decided that. That hasn't been 19 worked and it hasn't been worked because we don't know on 20 those low probability scenarios whether or not they're a 21 great contributor to the total risk or the total release, 22 and we have to work through those on a case basis to see 23 what happens.
24 So in that case, we'll take the entire
/~'N
( ,) 25 scenario or the-bulk of it and we'll come up with a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 reference design with our defense in depth features and 2 believe that we'll have a fairly successful -- as you can p_
I
\
'-) 3 tell by the lower curve -- dealgn.
4 on the other hand, we'll look at the low 5 probability scenarios with a probability of one to see 6 what happens in the what if case because the what if case 7 is important and we'll look at the what if cases and then 8 we'll go back and characterize the different features that 9 we have available to ensure that we have some ca,2bility ,
10 of dealing with the what if scenarios with sonie feature, 11 and we will always go back and check to make sure that a 12 what if feature or a defense in depth feature does not f
13 exacerbate the performance of the expected case to make
/~N
( -)
_ 14 sure that we can always make certain that the real case 15 can be dealt with and that the off normal cases, if you 16 will, or the low probability cases have some means of 17 defense.
18 This is how we plan on transition from VA to 19 LA. VA, let's get some base designs, let's get the base 20 models in place and let's understand it. For the VA, 21 continue the de velopment of those options and start 22 working the specifics so that we can come up with a 23 licensing case. Next slide.
24 You've seen this slide before with three g
25
() additions and I'll try and point them out, and I'm not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
e 23 1 tall enough to read growth protection, I've pointed to i
! ,--s 2 grout injection at cladding and at filler. Those are l1 \
3 three items which we have added to our list, to our menu 4 of items to consider. Other than that, it's pretty much 5 the same chart that you've seen before with the 6 capabilities and features and we're going to work through 7 those to see if they have some specific capabilities for 8 us, 9 The ventilation could be a pre-closure or 10 post-closure. We're looking at how we could possibly do 11 that. Pre-closure to cool the waste well in advance or 12 cool it down significantly before we close and post-13 closure should the drifts remain open or remain open p.
(_ 14 enough to allow air to pass, perhaps a natural circulation 15 path which we're going to do some examination of to see if 16 it's feasible to remcve heat or to remove moisture to 17 another locale. So that is our complete set of options at 18 this point in time.
19 The next set is new and that is that those 20 that are highlighted are those for which we have models or 21 we have the ability to cause the PA to represent chem. In 22 other words, if it's not highlighted, then PA at this 23 point and for the VA has no capability of modeling that at 24 this point in time. Be it have a good effect or a bad p) t 25 effect, it just is not considered inside the model. So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 13.3 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2 % 4433 l
24 1 this gives us our entire menu that we can actually work I
2 with for the VA. And we looked at each and all of these
((7s
)
3 to see what was there. Our intent is to be able to model 4 all of that by the time of the TSPA-LA.
5 Here we show a reference design and this is 6 the same reference design that I showed in July at an NRC 7 meeting, technical exchange. And you'll see in the lower 8 corner what I described on my earlier slide which is a 9 reference design and a series of options and you can see 10 that it has the use of cladding, cladding and ceramic 11 and, of course, backfill in our model at this time is 12 added any time we use a ceramic or a drip shield so a 13 backfill is used for each of the last two cotions.
,~ ~
i i kJ 14 This is, in fact, the chart that I showed you 15 last May. I'm not going to tell you that this is the chart 16 that we're going into the viability assessment with.
17 Things have changed. Lots of things have changed, The 18 scientific development continues, the materials 19 development continues, our ability to model those and 20 create the interactive models vith those continues to 21 develop. But you know what we're going to do? Ne're 22 going to put it back into the same process that I just 23 described. We're going to go back and look at what each 24 one of those models has to look like. We're going to go
(~'S
(_j 25 look for a base performance that we have high confidence NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 in and then we're going to go back and look at options.
2 And, as I said, individual things have changed
\~'}
3 here. Now there's not much on the board but, as you can l 4 see, the waste package, the waste package degradation l
l 5 modela, we believe, are changing. We receive -- and I 6 believe if you were at the NRC technical exchange in San 7 Antonc., I believe some photographs were shown of materials 8 that we've had in Livemore that we've been working with.
9 Those were photographs. We in engineering aren't going to 10 change design until we have some good basis.
11 We're waiting for the microscope-type 12 evaluation of that to find out whether or not what the eye 13 showed us is backed up by the scientific evaluation. When n
f V) 14 we get that kind of information and we also had an expert 15 elicitation with regard to how the corrosion probab:y goes 16 and they suggested that perhaps we were too conservative.
17 We're going to take a look at what we've learned from the 18 tubs and we're going to take a look at what the experts 19 have told us. We're going to go back and reconsider those 20 models, 21 And when we reconsider those models, we'll go 22 back and evaluate -- re-evaluate our waste selection 23 document which was produced last August. We clearly 24 expect to be able to do that before the TSPA this fall and
,G 25 be able to provide that information into the TSPA.
()
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTCN, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
26 i The galvanic protection does nst look as 73 2 though it has a big an influence as it had before because
( )
3 of the modeling technique. It's still present. We're 4 certainly not going to get rid of it. It may in fact move 5 to a defense in depth if, in fact, pitting is the what if 6 case of how it corrodes as opposed to an ove 5 general 7 Corrosion which is now suggested.
8 We still have a large package. It's still in 9 drift. The layout of the drift is sloped, as you saw 10 before. TSPA can not really accommodate or show the 11 difference between a level or a sloped because of the 12 fractured nature of the mountain. We have in the design 13 the capability to allow water to run beneath inverts, r
n ;
(_/ 14 beneath pedestals should there be enough water to actually 15 run so it won't cool, but that's not a point of fidelity 16 in the TSPA models at this point in time.
17 We are still protecting the zeolites. Our 18 thermal goals still allow us to protect the zeolites 19 although it appears that not a lot of flow goes through 20 the zeolites and their exact contribution of performance 21 is going to be questioned. Probaoly not to the VA but 22 probably for the LA we're going to go back and look at 23 that again.
24 If you look at the pedestal and the invert, rm
( ,) 25 it's still a very straightforward pedestal invert. Keep NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 the package up out of the water and concrete is being
' considered. The chemistry considerations are, in fact, t,1 3 considering the existence of the concrete as we show it in 4 the concrete liner. And on the far side the thermal 5 design. We're staying with a high load. We are staying 6 with the point load at this point. We have not developed 7 enough information to be able to make a decision to move 8 to e , oil.t or a line although we are doing that for the 9 LA. We're going to stay with the point loading at this 10 point and our blending is still to meet the 18 kW limit a 11 maximum temperature for our thermal work, for our local 12 thermal goals, and for criticality.
13 And so it is at that point our base design.
O
(_ / 14 We're going to go back and look at each one of these.
15 Only a few of them are changing that you see right here, 16 but there are other things inside the environment, the 17 environmental system, that are changing that have to be 18 considered when you look at the suggested dose history 19 ove: time. And so ve have to weigh all of those pieces 20 together and make that final decision on the design. And 21 so this is what we're providing the TSPA. This is what 22 they're modeling and we will likely have to update. But 23 this sets a fairly solid design for them to work with and 24 then we will go back and edit it if we have to throughout
(~h
( ) 25 the TSPA process, s_/
. NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 l
1 As you can see, they have until March when l
,o 2 they have to produce. Reasonably, they probably have
! ) ;
3 until December although they wouldn't commit to that at 4 this point. But we probably have the fall to go back and 5 make some changes. I do not expect -- my judgment --
that 6 the base design is going to change significantly. We've 7 been doing sensitivity runs on a daily basis. My staff 8 meets with TSPA about three times a week to look at 9 sensitivity runs and what we're doing and at this point we 10 haven't seen anything that says that the base design has 11 to change significantly from an engineering perspective 12 but we also haven't seen all of the updates.
13 So we don't believe -- what I'ra trying to do U 14 is give you some assurance that we're not going to nave to 15 throw this thing out the window and start over next week.
16 I believe that we'll be able to use this and build off of 17 this so the TSPA people have the work that they need to 18 proceed forward for the VA. It's a matter of identify the 19 specific data and the specific needs that they have and 20 Iperhaps some changes in that regard, 21 MR. HINZE: Jack, may I ask you a question.
22 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Sure.
23 MR. HINZE: Jack, I'm wondering what's the 24 basis of your confidence that you can adequately model the
(.
() 25 design options and the various processes over an extended NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000S-3701 (202) 2344433
29 1 petiod of time?
f- 2 MR. DAILEY: I'm glad you asked that question.
I i 3 If we actually go to here, what we're doing now is now 4 that we have chosen these selections. we're doing another 5 review. It's going to harg a n the next three weeks or 6 so. We're going to take the featurrs that we've selected 7 and we're going to go back and basically create and 8 document what the specific uncertainties and level of 9 confidence is for each one of these to be successful.
10 It's right on the chart. he're going to look at the 11 feasibility. Can we reasonably build one of these? Is 12 there a way that we can get an engineering or an 13 industrial process to proauce it? What are the I
q 4
V 14 assumptions that we're using? And we make some 15 assumptions and what happens if we move the assumptions 16 different directions and why do we make the assumption we 17 did and can we justify it?
18 Technical content. Is there enough 19 information? We're getting a good deal of effort here 20 that says that C-22 is a better material than 625. If you 21 were at the presentation with us, we showed photographs 22 that it looks pretty good, or maybe titanium. Those 23 materials don't necessarily have as long a history as 625, 24 Do we truly have the history we need and the data that we
(.
) 25 need to have that high confidence or are we betting on a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRieERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 pig in a poke? We have to be careful of that which is one n 2 of the reasons we're trying to wait for at least this
( )
3 first set of data to come back from Livermore and we get 4 another set out about March for about a year.
5 It's a very aggressive environment we're 6 testing in. Is our problem being caused by the aggressive 7 environment or is it a true representation of long time 8 frames? And we're going to work through those kinds of 9 questions as well for technical content and then for the 10 models. Are the models really on top of that? And we're 11 going to go through and do all of those. We're going to 12 go through and put all of those together and identify our 13 weaknesses and make sure that we understand what do we O)
I U/ 14 have to do to solidify each of those positions? And then t 15 we have to make a decision. Is that solid enough to move 16 forward with for the VA and can I show that I can get 17 that? That's the process that we're going through. I 18 don't think I answered your question. 1 19 MR. HINZE: Well, I'm curious as to what types 20 of validation studies you are carrying out in parallel 21 with this.
22 MR. BAILEY: In terms of validation studies, 23 we're also going to be doing a significant search of 24 natural analogs which has not been done probably in enough
,m
(. ) 25 depth up to this point in time. We're also going to be NEAl. R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
31 i
1 looking outside of the program very hard at data
,3
, 2 throughout the U.S. and the world to make sure that we U 3 have reasonable data and that we have an adequate amount 4 of data and then finally we're going to be going back to 5 the testing programs and make sure the testing programs i l
6 are bringing up what we want to do and we're going to j 7 actually run some programs to find out -- for example, 8 ceramics. We need to find out if ceramics works. I don't 9 really care how trip resistant it is. I'm, as an 10 engineer, not that interested in whether or not an 11 industrial process exists today. If I can show that I can 12 bond a material in the lab with the proper density to keep 13 water out, then we can develop an industry, then we'll (d I 14 make a judgment as to whether the industrial process is 15 right. So we're going to get our focus on to what do we 16 have to do for performance and try and run some short term 17 work to focus clearly and answer the questions that you 18 see inside the box so that we have that. confidence that 19 you're asking for.
20 Then we'11 do the evaluations and the 21 performance assessment, as I said. We'll look at cost 22 because we are charged here, I believe, with making sure 23 that we spend the money wisely, although we clearly have l
24 to look at performance and those are tough tradeoffs that g
Q 25 you have to make at a management level. And then we'll NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
k 32 1 pick those features. That's the process that we go 2 through. We've been through it once to come up with what 3 we have. We did that over the summer as the models were 4 being developed, and we're going to go back and do a very 5 rigorous examination of it here in the next few weeks to 6 make sure that it's solid and we can move forward with it 7 for VA and what additional work do we need to make it even 8 more solid? Next slide.
9 If you go to the development of the EBS 10 options for the VA design, we're going to do the same 11 things for the options and I've showed you three options 12 that we have. Those may be the same options. We may look 13 at some diffurent options. But when we do those options, 14 we'll do the same thing that we just said for you.
15 Probably not in as great a detail as what we do for the 16 reference design, but we're going to go through the same 17 process to make cure that they in fact can be designed.
18 We'll continue the refinement and then we're going to go 19 into developing how do we do the defense in depth? It's 20 the same chart I showed you in May. I haven't changed it 21 significantly. We've played around with adding some 12 columns and trying to come up with how to do it but we 23 haven't sottled on a final manner.
24 We're going to go through with the options and 25 start looking at how we can possibly show our defense in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 depth and start making our defense in depth case. The g~ 2 defense in depth case is not part of the viability
( )
'~' The design is in fact a reference 3 assessment per se. v 4 design with options. I expect that in that time frame 5 we'll be able to explain fairly clearly how we're going to 6 go about the defense in depth aspect of it. At least 7 various ways that we can accomplish it, perhaps not with 8 specific criteria defined as yet but how we plan on going 9 about it with the criteria to be defined.
10 And finally, I just show you the chart of 11 everything that's there. If there are some things I 12 missed, there's still room and I'm willing to listen.
13 That's why we added some more. It's a process that we're
(~%
x- 14 going to go through repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly 15 making sure that we have the documentation, making sure 16 that we can convince ourselves that it is a reasonable 17 approach that we have. I will not claim that we are going 18 to have every piece of data and every test and every piece 19 locked in stone so that there is no uncertainty. Clearly, 20 in a 10,000 year facility, which is what this basically 21 becomes, there has to be some uncertainty. We're going to 22 have to exercise some judgment. We're going to have to 23 look at what the consequences are of exercising that 24 judgment and be able to demonstrate some means of
(^T 25 ameliorating it as necessary.
()
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
1
34 1 Questions. Yes, sir.
2 MEMBER POMEROY: Excallent presentation, as 73
\ ]
3 always, Jack. Let me just ask you one that's a little bit 4 removed. You talked and concentrated on the EBS options 5 here.
6 MR. BAILEY: Yes.
7 MEMBER POMEROY: There are a lot of other 8 engineering decisions --
9 MR. BAILEY: Oh, yes.
10 MEMBER POMEROY: --
that are being made with 11 regard to this. Am I to assume that items like setback 12 distances from faults and so forth, seismic design, that 13 sort of thing, is way ahead of this in the sense that it's i
(/ 14 all in the reference design and in place or is engineering 15 actively working on those aspects, too?
16 MR. BAILEY: Those items associated with what 17 I would call mostly the pre-closure although some clearly 18 extends into the post-closure for consideration. Those 19 are being actively worked. If you recall Tim Sullivan's 20 schedule, he showed you that in March we basically close 21 on the rest of the facility design. We had to provide 22 something to PA no that they have something work with and 23 that's why we divided the design up into two pieces.
24 What's the performance-based aspect of the design? What
,7 t
) 25 are the things we really have to know so we can give them NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 the TSPA and then start that dialogue because, as you'ro 7- 2 well aware, you never give them something and are done
\
' ') 3 with it. You've got to get that dialogue going.
4 With regard to the pre-closure facilities and 5 many of the things that you've talked about that are not 6 quite so heavily related into the performance assessment, 7 We're continuing that development. We have pretty much 8 come up with a facility type design and we're going to go 9 back and refine that and we're going to look at exactly 10 what you said, the setback distances, the seismic hazards 11 analysis, and put those in place so that in fact we have a 12 reaaonable design that we can stand up for in the pre-13 closure and state.
/'D
(-) 14 For example, one of my favorites as a former 15 utility person is I think the viability design is going to 16 have to show how we get electricity to the site. I mean 17 we're going to run 10 boring machines. If you look at 18 some of our stuff, we're going to run 10 tunnel boring 19 machines night and day for 25 years to dig this facility.
20 We'd better have a way of getting electricity there. It 21 better not not show on that drawing or we aren't going to 22 be very credible. So we have to look at a whole series of 23 issues associated with the pre-closure.
24 And yes, I did focus here on the post-closure.
/
( +) 25 I can give a presentation on the pre-closure just about as x/
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
36 1 easily. It's just that it isn't quite completed yet.
rx 2 It's quite as finalized. And I'd be happy to do that for
( )
3 you.
4 MEMBER POMEROY: What are your plans for 5 setbacks from faults?
6 MR. BAILEY: And plan for setback -- and I was 7 looking to see if Jim Blink was here because he was 8 bringing a slide that I forgot. I don't see him yet. We 9 actually have a couple of rules on it and we are in 10 agreement with the staff technical position and that is is 11 that we stay 15 yards away from where we know one is or 15 12 meters away from where we know one is and we offset. In 13 fact, the slide I was looking for was one of the site p
xl 14 which shows that we actually define the entire site 15 boundary by staying back from the large faults and we have 16 a couple of splays that come in. We know about where they 17 are and we'll be looking for them when we go through and 18 do our creation of the emplacement drifts and we're 19 establishing a requirement to step back 15 meters to 20 either side of any identified fault that exist.s .
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Charles.
22 MR. FAIRHURST: My question is a little bit 23 similar to Paul's. Do I understand you then that all of 24 the engineered barriers that you're considering are within
()
25 the tunnel profile?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 l
37 1 MR. BAILEY: In actual fact, we play a little 2 bit with that. There are some that are not exactly within ic\
'~J 3 the tunnel profile. There are a couple that are outside l
4 of the tunnel profile. You'11 see that we have what we 5 call an altered near field rock. We're finding that as 6 the water mobilizes from the heat that it carries a lot of 7 minerals and it may in fact start clogging pores and may 8 in fact be kind of useful. I can't guarantee that that's 9 going to be a high confidence, but we're going to go and 10 evaluate to see if there's something that we can take 11 advantage of with the thermal plume that comes from these 12 packages. If in fact that proved out real well, then the 13 next logical step is maybe line load is a little better
( )
U' 14 idea to try and get a more uniform one in the length of 15 the emplacement type approach. So we're looking outside 16 the drift there.
17 We also are usually asked, Have you thought 18 about controlling the infiltration at the surface and you 19 plug something up and we cover the mountain with alluvium 20 and plant trees. We're going to go back and do some looks 21 at theit. Again, 10,000 years is kind of tough to take 22 what's currently an arid desert and believe that we can 23 actually put something in there that will neither erode 24 nor die over that time frame. But we're going to look rx
{) 25 into the potentials associated with that. As my staff N EAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE N W. I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l
38 I tells me, there is some work out there on a variety of
-s 2 hazardous waste dumps where you put in some materials that
'\ ~ )
l 3 apparently are fairly long lived and don't transmit very 4 well. It's a consideration.
5 We're going to go back and look. I don't hold 6 out much hope that that's what we would necessarily do but 7 we are going to do an evaluation to figure out if 8 something like that could be useful. My scope, and I'm 9 being parochial here, is I basically work in this area.
10 Any area that's affected by the thermal pulse is basically 11 what I'm allowed to go in and try and work with. I'm kind 12 of out of my bounds here on the surface but it's 13 engineering's facility so we push that. Clearly, this has
.fm k _-) 14 to be interfaced with all the scientific aboves and belows 15 and we -ork in concert with them. I saw that ops manager 16 here today. And so we in fact have to work with them.
17 But my presentation, because of the parochial nature, only 18 deals with the specific area of the drift, the geological 19 barrier system which is the responsibility of the 20 engineering society.
21 MR. FAIRHURST: And in the LA design focus as 22 you were talking about, you say you make a number of what 23 if assumptions of low probability events. Do you ever go 24 to the extreme of assuming that the geological barrier (n)
%/
25 plays no role and that you have to depend almost totally NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 123 RHODE ISLAND AVE . N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 l 1 on engineered barriers? In other words, are you looking
,y 2 at performance of materials, fabricated materials not ,
t i
\ 3 natural materials, over 10,000 year time frame and so on 4 and so forth?
5 MR. BAILEY: Yes. The performance assessment 6 that we do is a total syntem performance assessment. It 7 starts at the meteorology and it ends up where the 8 radionuclide meets the environment, the public and the 9 environment. And we have to consider what happras 10 throughout that entire system. Now, I deal with the 11 engineered because we can set up, I believe, some fairly 12 good likelihoods of performance. I may be reaching there 13 ceramics. It's going to be hard to predict a 10,000 year g
x/ 14 ceramic or a 15,000 year ceramic if it's already in the 15 oxidized conditior and actually come up with some kind of 16 a failure mode and it's going to be hard to run 17 accelerated tests but I believe we can come up with 18 something that does that.
19 In the scientific area, I'm certainly not 20 qualified to say how specifically accurate we know the 21 very scientific pieces but the waste containment and 22 isolation strategy tries to go through a series of 23 hypotheses that says these are the things that really
, 24 contribute to performance and in a licensing proceeding
( ) 25 we're going to have to be able to deal with " suppose that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 one doesn't work quite as well as you think?" And so 7s 2 although the what its might not be quite as far out on the 3 tails because the natural systems may have a better 4 performance method or a better -- that's the wrong way to 5 say that. The natural systems may behave in a less 6 precipitous manner. So I can't speak to specifically how 7 that is but I believe in a licensing proceeding we're 8 going to have to look at the puts and the takes.
s 9 CilAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Jack, in connection 10 with that, I was intrigued by your EDS design development 11 strategy, the idea of looking at different design options j
{"
12 and transforming those options into specific performances 13 is quite appealing. That could be a very big job because G
- J 14 the real issue here is probably the uncertainties in those 15 dose curves on the right and the amount of analysis that 16 may be required for you to quantify those uncertainties, 17 so to speak, could be extensive.
18 But one of the points I want to make is that 19 the uncertainty component could very well be the driver 20 here rather than the central tendency parameter. For 21 example, I could imagine the circumstance where one of 22 these lesser performers could turn out to be the winner on 23 the basis that you have much more confidence, if you wish, 24 in the results. So it isn'* just looking at the mean
( ,) 25 curves, if you wish, and seeing which one stacks on top of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
41 1 the other. It seems to me you're going to have to look e
, 2 lot more than that. If I have the top curve as the one I
\ )
3 have by far the greatest confidence in and the lowest 4 curve I have hardly any confidence and the uncertainty 5 bands are many, many orders of magnitude, I know which one 6 I'm going to choose. Whereas this presentation, that amount of information ia obscured. So that's one thing I 8 would say.
9 MR. BAILEY: I would agree with your comment, 10 Doctor Garrick. The strategy is work the expected case 11 and then we have to look at the off normals and if the off 12 normal becomes so driving that it has to become the 13 central case, then that's something that we'll have to
,F'T
(-) 14 look at. It goes back to the risk .tnd probability of 15 occurrence and it's not unlike the reactor business where 16 the loop is not going to fall eff but it becomes the 17 design basis and we're going to have to work through that 14 and make those decisions.
19 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
20 MR. BAILEY: But the strategy is to work the 21 median cases and then work the off normals.
22 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Ona other quick comment.
23 You dropped some dates in your presentation and I didn't 24 get all of them but if you look at those boxes up there,
/ \
() 25 can you just quickly give us some approximate dates as a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1RANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 function of the box?
,_s 2 MR. BAILEY: Yes, sir. The first box is i \
3 basically done. We've identified the basic set that we 4 can work with. We have already done the evaluate the PA 5 models. We have those basically. I expect -- and I said 6 two to three weeks -- I expect within a month that we'll 7 be fairly comfortable with knowing where we're going to go 8 and which models we really want to use. I think we have 9 to think through that and make our decisions in order to 10 support the TSPA.
11 Selecting a reference design. We've basically 12 selected it. We probably will modify it and I expect that 13 we'll have it modified by the end of the calendar year. I r^
k_ N) 14 believe in December. We have to quit giving things to 15 TSPA, so I think that we'll basically be done there. If 16 something extends past that, then we'll find out but our 17 intent is to be able to give something that we can 18 certainly defend. And as I said, we actually owe it to 19 them this week, which we have provided already, but we are 20 going to keep looking at that because a lot of new 21 information has come up in the last month.
22 This will be ready for the TSPVA, It'll 23 represented in the TSPA-VA and we'll select those options 24 within a month, as I said, and the work on those will G
i
) 25 probably continue past the closure of the ISPVA and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE . N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 they'll probably be shown in tne sensitivity studies
,s 2 rather than as a part of the TSPVA. That may change.
( )
'~
3 That's my guess at this point in time but I'll caveat it 4 may change. And to readdress all the options in support 5 of the LA, we really have to be able to do that and make 6 some selections, I believe, probably at the beginning of 7 calendar year '99. First quarter of calendar year '99, 8 second quarter of fiscal year '99 is my guess on the 9 schedule of that. We are required to provide to TSPA per 10 the current schedule the Phase 2 design which is the TSPA 11 inputs for the license application TSPA in July of '99.
12 So we really have to make a decision and force all these 13 other things that we've talked about to make sure that we
\/ - 14 have the correct data probably in about the second quarter 15 but the decision probably won't be made until the third or 16 fourth quarter of '99.
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.
18 MR. FAIRHURST: Is it true to say that all of 19 these designs, you're constrained to a single level 20 repository?
21 MR. BAILEY: Yes, sir. The current design, we 22 have adequate size for the thermal load that we've chosen 23 and our examination of the ground says that we have more 24 than enough space at a single level of the repository to n
s
) 25 place the entire regulatory allowed 70,000 metric tons at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
44 1 this point. So we are working only with one level at thio g 2 point in time.
~
3 MR. FAIRHURST: But if there were an advantage 4 to instead of extensive footprint to something that was 5 narrower and multi-leveled, does that option really exist 6 within the geology?
7 MR. BAILEY: Yes. The option does exist in 8 the geology to make a different level. We, in fact, on 9 many of the drawings carry what's called a lower block 10 although it's not located directly beneath this where the 11 geology allows us to place more waste and, in fact, we've 12 done some math, some examination that says if we went to a 13 low thermal load we appear to have enough areas. They
[ \
\' 14 require further characterization but it appears that we 15 could actually spread a much larger area if we had to.
16 In response to your specific question, we 17 thought about double stacking or triple stacking this to 18 make a bigger oven, if you will, or put it into a tighter 19 area. I don't believe that we've done any specific 20 evaluations of that. We typically have tried to stay with 21 the flat repository for ease of handling the large 22 packages and stayed and we've gone down far enough. It 23 is, as I'm sure you know, a slanted geology so we come 24 down and mave through, fg
( ,) 25 MR. FAIRHURST: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
- l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
45 1 CHAIRMAN GARRIClh Any other questions for es 2 Jack? Thank you very much. This is a subject we're l ' 3 really going to revisit several times for sure.
4 MR. BAILEY: Yes, sir.
5 MR. SULLIVAN: Thanks, Jack. Next is Eric 6 Smistad, one of my colleagues in DOE, who will brief you 7 on the methodology and the assumptions for the TSPA-VA.
8 MR. SMISTAD: Good morning. It's nice to have 9 the opportunity to talk to you today. It's been quite a 10 while since I've had a chance to speak to you. It was 11 back in ground water travel time days of calculations we 12 did.
13 We had spoke to you down in San Antonio, Bob
/'T kY 14 Andrews had, on TSPA-VA and he gave a pretty detailed 15 presentation on the thinking for the TSPA-VA. And not 16 long before that, Abe van Luik had given another detailed 17 presentation on TSPA-VA. So I think you've heard a lot on 18 TSPA-VA recently and what I wanted to do was try and do 19 something different today and that was to walk through a 20 summary of a recent document that the M&O has produced.
21 This document is not out for release yet but it should be 22 in the nexC couple of weeks or so. I tried not to repeat 23 the things you've heard from Doctor van Luik and Doctor 24 Andrews but I think you'll see some of the same things in a
!. ,) 25 here.
NEAL R. GROS $
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 13e3 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
(202) 234'4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 I want to walk through the objectives of tho l 73 2 TSPA-VA methodology and assumptions document. I'll talk l
( I l '
3 labout some of tha contents of that document, walk through l 11 4 key components that we are identitying in that document.
5 l'11 walk through methodology. You've heard this before 6 but l' it WS 2 k f.brough it again beccuse I think it's fairly 7 important. I'll talk about some key asi:amptions that I 8 feel that we are identifying in this document, a little 9 bit external review. We didn't specifically talk about 10 this as a stand-alone section in the documen- but I want 11 to give you .uume indications of the comments we're getting 12 from a peer review panel and from, in this case, waste 13 package expert elicitation and conclusions.
's_/ 14 1 do want to mention one thing about the 15 document before I start into the presentation here and 16 that's that the document is really a status. If you read 17 the document, it doesn't have every definitive assumption 18 we're going to have in a TSPA-VA, so I don't want any 19 false expectations out there that the document has every 20 assumption that we're going to have in the TSPA-VA itself.
21 Next page.
22 For the objectives of the document, the 23 document describes the general methodology and approach 2d for the VA. It presents the significant FEPs that we (q) 25 intend to include in the VA. Talks about our model NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433
47 1 architecture, the abstraction process that we're in tha 73 2 midst of going through now- and key uncertainties and
'!- ') 3 methods to identify and address uncertainties for the VA.
4 Next page.
5 And also, as I mentioned, this document is a 6 status and it's serving as a preliminary draft for 7 external and internal reviewers to provide us input and 8 feedback on our assumptions. Next page.
9 I'll probably go fairly quickly through the 10 contents here and these are -- the numbers are actually 11 the chapters in the document. We provide an introduction 12 of the economic project. We provide objective viability 13 assessment and walk through the objectives of the (3
- 4
\_/ 14 document. We felt that this sort of information at the 15 front of this document was important because this 16 document, we think, will see quite a bit of review by 17 external parties.
18 Chapter 2, the objectives of the document. We 19 define the TSPA and we walk through the plan and the 20 schedule for the TSPA-VA document itself. Chapter 3 is a 21 history of previous TSPAs, brief history of previous TSPAs 22 on the project. Next slide. Chapter 4 is components of 23 the TSPA-VA and there's a couple of key sections in here 24 and one is the first dashed line I've got there and that's im
( ) 25 how we see the repository system working. This was a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPJRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHCDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C- 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 1 comment that we'd received from the TSPA peer review pcnel
- 2 in that they didn't feel that we were doing a good job (m) communicating that in our TSPAs. So there's a pretty good 3
4 section of this document that walks through that and it 5 does a good job of that, I believe.
6 We walk through the key processes that we feel
( 7 affect the waste isolation at the site. We talk about 8 what we're actually analyzing in the TSPA-VA and we have a 9 section talking about the relationship of the TSPA 10 components to the NRC's KTIs and to our own waste 11 isolation containment strategy. Chapter 5 is a general 12 approach in methodology and I've got a viewgraph coming up 13 on that here. We talk about in this chapter how we intend
/ ^
'U) 14 to treat uncertainty and variability as well. Next slide.
15 This is where I start to repeat what Andrews 16 and van Luik had shown you before but I think it's 17 important that we understand that there are individual 18 components in this system and that's how we are analyzing 19 them in the TSPA-VA. In fact, in all our previous TSPAs, 20 so ncthing really new on this slice except there is a 21 ccritinuum from climate all the way to a dose recipient.
22 Next slide.
23 Again probably a repeat slide but methodology, 24 I think it's important to show the methodology that we
,q
() 25 utilize on the project for our TSPAs. If you start down NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W. l (202) 234-4433 WA3HINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l
+1 -
49 1 there in the lower left hand corner of the page, it's the c3 2 gathering of information, data, both science and
( )
3 engineering data. Moving up on the page, the process 4 level models and I've got a box down there to the right of 5 the data box which ic expert elicitation. We have several G expert elicitations that we have completed on this project l 7 and we have several more that we're working now.
l 8 Saturated zone is in the works right now. Those 9 elicitations feed the thinking on the data and they also 10 feed the thinking on the process level models and they 11 also feed up to the process model abstraction box. So the 12 feeding the system at all different levels prior to 13 actually the calculations for the TSPA-VA.
D (V 14 If you move across the middle of the page to 15 the process level box, you've got process model, the 16 abstraction from the process level models, the TSPA-Vh 17 analysis itself, documentation, the VA product and then 18 the update with a similar process and methodology for the 19 VA.
20 Up at the top, external reviewers which 21 include the NRC, you folks, TRB peer review panel and 22 public. Those scrts of reviews are feeding the process 23 all along, too, so there's lots of opportunities for 24 outside experts and reviewers to input into the system as
) 25 it moves along.
N EAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , il W.
(202) 234 4413 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
l 50 1
1 Chapter 6 is sort of the meat of the docum:nt.
,- 2 It's really the contents. It walks through the different N]'
3 process 3evel models. I won't run through every one of 4 these. You have seen these, I know, in the past. Just a 5 note that we do intend on looking at disruptive events.
6 In '95 we forewent looking at that because we were 7 concentrating on some of the other aspects of the 8 analyses. So you will see these four, igneous activity, 9 human intrusion, seismic activity, and criticality, within 10 TSPA-VA. Next slide.
11 Chapter 7 is where we talk about implementing 12 the base case. This is the case that we will apply the 13 most rigor to and will be, I would say, our best estimate f% \
\_ / 14 of how the system performs. And then the document goes 15 through a summary of that. So there's no conclusions or 16 dose plots or anything in this dom. ment. It's just sort 17 of a head set for folks that tells where we are at this 18 point with our assumptions for tile VA. Next slide.
19 I've got a couple of slides on engineering key 20 assumptions. I think you probably got enough of this from 21 Jack. There are a couple of things I'd like to mention on 22 engineering assumptions. This is the reference design 23 Jack talked about and this is where we will apply the most 24 rigor in our analyses. The following viewgraph on
( ) 25 options, we won't have as much rigor applied to that. in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON O C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
51 1 come cases, it's time and in some cases, it's lack of f 7, 2 information on looking at that in some detail, liowever, II 3 we will have those sensitive runs included in the TSPA to 4 give us an indication of what some of these enhancements 5 may do for us in a dose plot situation.
6 In this particular viewgraph, I've got 7 cladding on there and we intend to step up to a cladding 8 model in TSPA-VA. It'll be a conservative look obviously 9 but we intend to incorporate that into the base case for 10 TSPA-VA. Next slide.
11 Again, Jack I think has walked through this.
12 I don't know if it's worth walking through all the piece 13 parts of it again. If you've got questions on the TSPA-VA O
( ,) 14 look at this, I'd be happy to answer those.
15 This was my cut on key assumptions out of the 16 document, both EBS and natural system assumptions. I've 17 got asterisks next to ones that really are changes from 18 our thinking in the past. In other words, TSPA 1995. The 19 first five bullets are assumptions we made in the past 20 but they're still key assumptions. They're stil3 current 21 thinking. We intend to model drips on waste package and 22 waste form in TSPA-VA. We've done that in '95. We intend 23 to treat that as the percentage of packages that see drips 24 but we will have that in an analyses. We will assume for m
s v) 25 the most part diffusion transport through the EBS. The z NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WA*iHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 bulk of the packages will assume diffusion. The oneo that f~ 2 see drips will assume advective. So still the bulk of the (s'~J 3 transport is diffusion that's a key assumption.
4 Obviously, we're going to assume fracture flow. I think 5 it's obvious at this point that that's what's occurring on 6 the site, but it is an important assumption in the 7 analyses.
8 We will assume some degree of vertical mixing 9 in the saturated zone. I think that we may be more 10 conservative than we have been in the past based on input 11 from saturated expert elicitation. The depth of mixing 12 may be qsite a bit less than we had assumed in the past 13 but there will be some degree of that in there. It turns (m/I 14 out to be a key assumption. We don't plan on 15 incorporating thermal / chemical effects in the EDS. We're 16 not at a level of information. or data and we just don't 17 think that we can step forward with those sorts of 18 effects, although they could be somewhat significant to 19 EBS in near-field transport radionuclides.
20 Okay. Here's a few of the assumptions that 21 will be different. On waste package pitting rate we had 22 in the past assumed a pitting rate that is constant. In 23 other words, when a pit starts, it doesn't stop. We knew 24 that was probably conservative at the time. We've gotten
,/ ~
() 25 a lot of feedback from the waste package expert NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 123 RHODE ISMND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005 3701 (202) 2344433
53 1 elicitation panel as well as from the TSPA peer review 1
l
,s 2 panel that that's probably very conservative and we are
( )
' ' 3 looking at ways to model what differently. That is a key
(
4 assumption for containment of radionuclides in the 5 package.
6 Related to that is the buildup of corrosion 7 products and pits. Again, that han to do with transport 8 and flow through the package. Could increase the life 9 time of a package in our analyses. That was an input from 10 waste package expert elicitation panel and peer review 11 panel as well. And I mentioned the cladding credit that 12 we intend to step up to in TSPA-VA.
13 Just a quick slide on external reviewers. I
(-
\% ,/ 14 mentioned those areas earlier. The TSPA peer review panel 15 has produced a report and they're due to produce another 16 report here I guess within the next month or so. A couple 17 of things that I think were key coming out of the report 18 that they produced for us in June and I mentioned the 19 first dashed line there was they thought it was important 20 for us to explain how we think thii system works. Again, 21 they didn't think we did a very 3 cod job in communicating 22 that and I think that we've gotten that message and we are 23 incorporating that into our thinking now.
24 They were concerned about compounding the
(~N
( ) 25 effect of conservatism. If you just go conservative on N EAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTC". O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 every assumption you make, you'll probably fail the 7 2 system. And it's a tricky thing but we sort of coined the c
3 phrase realistically conservative and I think that's what 4 they were pushing us towards.
5 EBS defensibility. They feel that some of the 6 information in models that we have concerning the EBS 7 environment could be lacking and we need to think 8 carefully about the assumptions we make for the EBS in the 9 VA document. Waste package elicitation. This is one 10 elicitation that we performed on the project. We had a UZ 11 expert elicitation. We're in the throes of a saturated 12 zone expert clicitation. We're planning a thermal 13 hydrology near field environment expert elicitation this
'x.) 14 year along with a waste form expert elicitation.
15 Some of the comments that I think were 16 significant coming out of that particular 3rpert 17 elicitation were comments on longevity of ceramic 18 material. The bulk of the experts felt that that may not 19 he a long-lived barrier due to some of the thermal 20 expansion and contraction and spalling off of the ceramic 21 material in time. The waste package corrosion rate I 22 mentioned earlier. That was a key comment from the 23 e11 citation. And, as Jack mentioned, the selection of the 24 corrosion resistant inner-barrier on the package, the
/m
(
) 25 choice between the different alloys that are out there and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTE86 AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
r
[ 55 1 they had made the comment that perhaps C-22 could be a 2 better inner-barrier than 625.
7-()
'~
3 Conclusions. The document, as I mentioned, is 4 a suatus. It doesn't have every assumption that is going 5 to make it into the TSPA-VA in the end. The document does 6 allow for early review by both internal and external 7 groups and the TSPA-VA will evaluate both design options 8 and will evaluate options on the natural side, conceptual 9 models as well. Thanks.
10 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Questions?
11 MR. HINZE: Eric, I'm looking forward to 12 seeing this document. I am having some problems in 13 identifying just what will be the depth of the detail in p)
(_ 14 this methodology and assumptions document. Can you give 15 us some handle on that and also can you tell us how 16 accessible will be the supporting information that you 17 obviously can't put into this document?
18 MR. SMISTAD: Yes. As I mentioned, the 19 document is a status and we are working furiously to get 20 to the TSPA-VA. I think the document does a good job, in 21 my mind, of, say, for a year ago winnowing down 22 assumptions and alternativ s. I think it does a good job 23 of that. It doesn't get into detailed modeling and this 24 sort of thing. That was not really our intent with the
("xi (V 25 document. So you probably won't see a lot of detail in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBEhS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 the document but I think it's a pretty good heads up as to I
,ss
, - 2 where we're heading.
, i t
( ,/
3 MR. HINZE: Will there be, for example, 4 supporting material regarding the abstractions or will it 5 just state the abstractions?
6 MR. SMISTAD: It doesn't go through -- it 7 talks about the process of abstraction. It talks about 8 the types of abstractions all the way from dimensionality 9 reduction to response surfaces. It goes through that sort 10 of thing and which process models those sorts of 11 abstractions may apply to but it does not include 12 abstractione per se because we haven't completed those 13 abstractions as of yet, w/ 14 MR. HINZE: Will there be, through the 15 Internet, through a web site, documentation that a person 16 will be able to, in reviewing this document, will be able 17 to go to to pick up the supporting materials?
18 MR. SMISTAD: There is a massive amount of 19 references in the back of this document and they are not 20 available, I don't believe, on the Internet but we would 21 be more than happy to supply yr.u with any and all of thoce 22 if you'd like.
23 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: George.
24 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: Eric, when I look O
(_,) 25 at the TSPVA, one of the things I've noticed on reinforced NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1 in your presentation, when you get to a list of process g 2 models on your slide nine, the third one down is near-(
)
3 field geochemistry but we never hear anything more about 4 that. There's no expert elicitations on near-field 5 geochemistry. Is this because we know everything there is 6 to know about near-field geochemistry or is it because 7 it's a no never mind in the assessment?
8 MR. SMISTAD: Well, we are .i .act having an 9 expert elicitation, as I mentioned, on thermal hydrology 10 with some near-field thermal hydrology and some chemical -
]? - we desire to have some chemical effects in that 12 elicitation. So we felt that was important to do for the 13 very reason of the feeling is that we don't have a lot of
,/ 3
( i v 14 information testing on the near-field environment on the 15 repository conditions where we have maybe testing on 16 cement, we have testing on materials, this sort of thing.
17 But the actual combination of those in a test, we don't 18 have that. So at this point we felt that it was important 19 to pull in experts who could help us with that and supply 20 them with the data that we do have on different areas 21 although maybe not integrated. But we felt that's an 22 important thing to do. I don't know if that answers your 23 question.
24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any other questions? Eric, A
Q 25 before you leave and I don't expect a full answer to this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000 5 3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 but I know one thing that's of great interest to this
,,. 2 committee is being able to sort out the drivers of changes
(
)
I 3 in the methodology and the assumptions in terms of how 4 much of it is coming from the science program and how much 5 of it is coming from the elicitation program and what are 6 the effects as a function of time at the very fundamental 7 level? What you've talked about a good deal of seems to 8 me to be a lot in the context of more information such as 9 the description of the purpose of the repository and how 10 it works.
11 I think the committee is anxious to know how 12 much influence the science program and the external 13 reviews is having at the very fundamental level. Are m.) 14 there some basic changes in the methodology? I think 15 you've done a pretty good job here of highlighting the 16 assumptions and what the assumption changes have been but 17 I think eventually we'll want to dig a little deeper into 18 what is this external process providing you with in terms 19 of impact on fundamentals? We haven't heard much about 20 that and I don't think we need to discuss it a lot but I 21 might just ask the question. Is there going to be any 22 insight on that in the methodology and assumptions 23 document?
24 MR. SMISTAD: There is some insight on that in r~'s
( ) 25 this document. Where we really had planned on looking at v
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 incorporating that, we think it's very important as w311
,_s 2 and that's in the TSPA-VA document itself. We are very I ) '
i#
3 keen to have that in there, both from how the TSPA peer 4 review panel and the expert elicitation panel and others, 5 external reviewers, contributed to the assumptions we're 6 making and the analysis we're doing, so we think that's 7 very important as well but I don't tnink you'll see that 8 in full until the TSPA-VA document itself.
9 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Okay. Thank you. Paul, go 10 ahead.
11 MEMBER POMEROY. I just had a quick question 12 that came to mind while I was reviewing your slides. On 13 slide 13 you say that one of your key assumptions involves (3
\s- ) 14 the exclusion of T/C effects in the EBS. Does that simply 15 mean the exclusion of the coupled processes between those 16 two elements, the thermal and chemical, or are you 17 excluding all thermal and chemical effects in the EBS?
18 MR. SMISTAD: No, we're not. Certainly that -
19 -
20 MEMBER POMEROY: I just wanted to clarify.
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Okay. Thank you. Thank 22 you very much.
23 MR. SULLIVAN: Thanks, Eric. I believe we 24 have two more presentations to go here. The next is Mitch (3 25 (w, ) Brodsky again who will brief you on the MGDS cost NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
60 1 estimate.
2 MR. BRODSKY: Hi again. I'm going to talk a f i 3 little bit about and go very quickly through what we're l
4 going to do from a cost estimate standpoint as we proceed 5 forward on our closure of the VA process. I'll talk about 6 the purpose of the overall cost estimate, the operational 7 phases. I'll give you a time line, some elements that are 8 included as well as excluded from the MGDS-VA cost 9 estimate, discussion a little bit about accuracy and risk.
10 We talked about that a little earlier from a technical 11 perspective and we'll talk a little bit about how we're 12 going to apply that to the cost estimate. The processes 13 and review plans that we'll go through as a design I
['i k V 14 process, and I'll go through a couple of where we are 15 today. I'm sure that's probably what you're most 16 interested in at this point in time, as well as some key 17 milestones that we'll encounter on the way.
18 As you know, the cost estimates are a required 19 aspect of the VA. Should be. Provides a cost to build, 20 operate, and close the VA from a reference repository 21 standpoint. It's used as the basis for all program cost 22 estimates, TSLCC, waste fund fee accuracy, calculations as 23 well as project trade and optimization studies.
24 Visually, you can see that the MGDS-VA cost
! > 25 estimate really gets initiated starting in 2002 upon NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344 433
61 1 submission of the LA document itself and proceeds through 7
- 2 closure. Since I only have seven minutes, I won't go 3 through a lot of the details or the aspects. Those are 4 pretty much self-explanatory with the exception of 5 development and evaluation of cost. Those are clearly 6 those kinds of additional engineering program type costs, 7 project planning type costs, institutional costs, those 8 kinds of things, 9 The elements excluded from the MGDS cost 10 estimate are historical in nature. License application 11 costs which are being included as part of the multi-year 12 planning I talked about earlier and I believe Jack 13 brought it up when he was up here before as well as
,7
- 1
(- / 14 program costs outside of the state of Nevada involving 15 waste acceptance and storage costs, national 16 transportation outside of the state of Nevada and other 17 program costs, 18 Included are the MGDS development evaluation 19 costs I talked about earlier and capital and operating 20 costs associated witu &_ h surface and subsurface 21 facilities, disposal containers, performance confirmation 22 programs, as well as Nevada transportation. From a risk 23 standpoint, in putting together a cost estimate, different 24 aspects of design depending on how complete and what kind
/~N
( ,) 25 of fidelity individual aspects of the design are at the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 62 1 time when you're costing these out is going to depend on
-s 2 the kinds of risk that you attach to individual cost 3 elements and, if you can switch to the next slide, just to 4 give you an idea from a contingency and risk standpoint, 5 surface will vary depending on the bending of individual 6 design elements. Hopefully, that's not going to come down 7 from zero to 30 perce..t depending on the status of the 8 design obviously. Subsurface will also differ in the 9 extent of the our design parameters that we have available 10 at the time of VA and how complete those individual 11 aspects of design are.
12 Disposal containers will include a contingency 13 of about 20 percent. Nevada Transportation is, at this tN i i N- / 14 point in time, an average of five alternative rail routes 15 and includes a contingency by 35 percent. Performance 16 confirmation is also a considerable variable because 17 obviously we're at the initial stages of defining what our 18 performance confirmation program will really entail from a 19 design perspective and those will have varying degrees of 20 contingency and risk depending upon, let's call it, the 21 amount of applicability to site characterization studies 22 that we've entertained and completed previously.
\
23 As part of the design process, we're going to 24 go through a continual updating of the cost estimate. We s
,c (3) 25 now have cost models from a waste package from a surface, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 from a subsurface standpoint that roll into an overall I,s 2 agglomeration of our cost estimate. It's quite exciting
(
)
3 really. If you understand the estimate of cost estimate r
l 4 calculations and publications, we've got some very, very 5 detailed models that are very, very -- they're going to 6 allow us to make some very, very educated decision en 7 route along our design process from the optimizaticn 8 standpoint.
9 The multi-year planning I talked about 10 earlier. We're going to get done with that a little bit 11 earlier than what this viewgraph shows, in the 12 November / December time frame. The MGDS estimate is going 13 to be evaluated in the April and July timeframes. We're i t'% t t 1 K. / 14 going to have an external review team that's just similar 15 to what previous presentations talked about from an 16 external review standpoint that will be attached to this 17 cost estimate. These are the various parameters that will 18 be reviewed over the next 12 months.
19 From an example standpoint, this is kind of 20 where we are today based on the reference design that we 21 have at this point in time and this cost are out of the 22 Appendix A document. I'm sure you'll have some questions 23 later, but I put that in there for your edification. From 24 a timeframe standpoint, this is where, based on that cost
() 25 estimate, hcw those costs shake out over time and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 obviously these things will change as our design 73 2 progresses and as our decisions towards implementation of I, i 3 this program progresses as well.
4 The cost analysis report and the VA's I
5 assumptions, that's already here. Disposal container l
6 design freeze will be also at the close of this month.
7 Bin 3 freeze will be as of this month as well and final 8 design freeze will be in February and the VA document -
9 obviously will do the cost estimate at the end of next 10 year. are there any questions?
11 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: That's a real race. Any 12 questions?
13 MR. BRODSKY: They told me only seven minutes, Lx Y' 14 Mr. Garrick.
15 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I understand. I 16 understand. Thank you. Very good. I guess there are no 17 questions at this time.
18 MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. That concludes the VA 19 presentations for this session, and Carol is going to give 20 you an update on the PISA.
21 MS. HANLON: Good morning. Our purpose today 22 in discussing this topic with you is to update you on the 23 status and the evolution of the PISA. As you will recall, 24 last May we presented a rather detailed briefing to you on
(,) 25 the PISA and its purpose in allowing the project to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 assemble its integrated safety case. At that time, we
! 73 2 also discussed with you the 11 chapter outline we would be
)
! (' 3 using through the safety case and we discussed the 4 schedule that we would be using to allow this document to 5 come out in the August timeframe in support of the 6 viability assessment.
7 We also mentioned that the PISA was an interim 8 document and that as soon as the VA came out in September 9 of '99, the PISA would then roll over and the information 10 contained in it would become part of the license 11 application. And in May we emphasized the fact that our 12 primary focus and our primary priority was preparation of 13 the viability assessment and that we were very concerned f\
\_/ 14 that nothing that we were doing in terms of other 15 activities or undertakings would compete with the 16 viability assessment.
17 over the summer, concerns remained high that 18 the demands of producing the PISA would conflict with the 19 schedule for completing the viability assessment.
20 Although our authors and those producing the information 21 chapters were different, we had many of the same managers 22 and same reviewers, so that concern remained high.
23 Therefore, we spent considerable effort revising and 24 reworking the PISA concept and the schedule for its
() 25 completion. The PISA is no more as a separate document.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
66 1 Chapter 3 of the PISA, the site characterization, site t
s 2 description portion, and Chapter 8, the TGPA-VA, will 1
L' / 3 continue to be produced and will be available as stand-4 alone documents in August of 1989. Of course, chapter 8 5 is one of the VA products and Chapter 3, site description, 6 supports the development of the other products.
7 We will continue work on the nine chapters 8 that we currently have underway for the PISA and that 9 effort will be redirected toward the preparation of a 10 working draft LA.
11 I just want to reassure you and I think 12 reassure myself that the guidance for that PISA has been 13 fully incorporated into the technical guidance document p
'\.s' 14 for preparation of a license application in addition to 15 other requirements for the license application itself. So 16 here we have on the next slide just the schedule, ;
17 rudimentary schedule that we're working on. Again, we're 18 in 1997. We have the site description and the TSPA coming 19 out in the same timeframe as the viability assessment. We 20 have our work continuing on the remaining chapters 21 including those three chapters that are part of the LA but 22 were not part of the PISA or the safety assessment. We 23 expect that to be assembled in the summer 1999 timeframe 24 and available for your review and information as well as (p) 25 the NRC's information after it's been thoroughly reviewed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 by DOE some time in the early fall timeframe.
,-y
, 2 So that concludes my presentation on the PISA
( l 3 and I guess I'm looking for a job. May I answer any 4 questions for you?
5 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: any questions from the 6 committee? So what you're saying is that this has been 7 integrated into --
8 MS. HANLON: -- the working draft document.
9 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: -- the license application 10 and PISA no longer has a life of its own.
11 MS. HANLON: That's exactly correct, Doctor 12 Garrick.
13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Okay. All right. That may
(~h
'v 14 not be bad.
15 MS. HANLON: Overall, we think it will be 16 productive.
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Thank you very much.
18 MS. HANiON: Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I think does that not 20 conclude what was supposed to happen before the break?
21 All right. Then I think we'll declare a 15 minute break.
22 (Off the record for a 16 minute break at 10:09 23 a.m.)
24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: In spite of a few people
() 25 missing, I think in order to keep some sort of a schedule
()
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 here, we will proceed. So I guess we're going to hear s 2 first from Bill Boyle.
I \
\ /
3 MR. BOYLE: Thank you. I'm here to make a i
4 presentation about scientific studies update. I made this t
) 5 presentation two weeks ago in Rockville to the NRC and I l
6 was asked to make the same presentation here. I had 40 7 minutes in Rockville and 15 here, so it was already a high 8 level presentation for Rockville and it'll be even faster 9 and higher here. Please ask questions as I go because I 10 need to leave when I'm done, and I'll answer the 11 questions. I'll answer questions as long as I'm here, but 12 if there are other questions in the aftarnoon, I have 13 plenty of colleagues in the audience, DOE, M&O, USGS,
/ \
is l 14 National Labs. They can answer.
15 Here are the items ll talk about. It's not 16 meant tc be a comprehensive overview of the entire 17 scientific studies program. These are the agenda items 18 that the NRC wanted to hear about, so we'll hear about the 19 heater tests in the field, we'll hear a bit about the ESF 20 moisture studies. What is the water doing now under 21 ambient conditions? And the other studies, those were 22 some recent additions to the site investigations. Next.
23 This is just a map to orient you. I guess 24 some or all of you were on a field trip yesterday.
(7) ,
25 There's the ESF I understand that you were in. This is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
- = . .
69 1 Alcove 5 where the heater tests are. This is Alcove 6 and
,es., 2 the niches are across f ron, it approximately. I understand
( )
3 you also went in Alcove 7 down here and this is Yucca 4 Crest SD-6, WT-24 up there. Next.
5 Here's an update on the drift scale test.
6 It's to provide information on coupled effects, the heat 7 driven processes, chemically, hydrologically and 8 mechanically, to provide information for a performance 9 assessment and design. Right now we're establishing the 10 baseline conditions pre-heating. All the wing and 11 canister heaters are in. I understand you went in Alcove 12 7 yesterday and I assume you saw it. Most of the bore 13 holing instrumentation is installed and it's still on A
Slm 14 schedule to begin December 8. It will have a four year 15 heating schedule, a G+ year cooling schedule, with 16 nominally 200 kilowatts heating to start with. Next 17 slide.
18 If you saw the drift scale test, you had to 19 walk by the single heater test to get to it. This test 20 had a number of purposes, one was to actually provide 21 scientific information but also to provide a shakedown of 22 the people and instruments who were going to field the 22 drift scale test. The heating phase was completed at the 24 end of May. The results have provided useful constraints i--
25
() on thermal and hydrologic parameter sets. The cooling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
70 1 phase is under way. Next slide,
,~ 2 This is a plot of temperatures from two of the t
! () 3 bore holes, 16 and 18, which are orthogonal to the heater.
4 And you can see that after about nine months of heating, i
5 the power to the heater was turned off and the 6 temperatures started to fall immediately. You'll also 7 notice the dips in temperature for what is called 18-4.
8 Those are real and what they're related to is all the 9 models show that when the heater is turned on water is 10 vaporized near the heater, moves away and condenses where 11 it's cooler. And sure enough, it happened. Just as we 12 had two holes that had packers in them, four packed off 13 sections in each hole, and one of the pack sections l \
t i
(/ 14 started collecting water within a week of the heater being 15 turned on and the drops in temperature are from when water 16 was actually drained out of that packed off interval in 17 November and February. And chemical analyses of the water 18 have been done and they can tell by the concentration of 19 the dissolved solids 5nd stable isotope ratios that it is 20 condensation that has interacted with the fractures and 21 also the matrix, to some extent.
22 CHAIRMAN GARRICK- Bill, can you give us a 23 sense of the location of the sensors for these 24 measurements?
/~T
() 25 MR. BOYLE: Okay. Sixteen and 18. These are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 1
71 1 two holes that were drilled in a plane that's orthogonal I 2 g to the heater itself near the midpoint of the heater. One i I V
3 of them is up and one of them is down. They essentially 4 are like this relative to the heater going like that. And 5 it was the end section of hole 16 that caught the water, 6 but no other section, no other packed off section in 16 or 7 18 caught water.
8 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: How far away from 9 the--
10 MR. BOYLE: About a meter and a half.
11 It's my understanding you didn't stop at the 12 large block test yesterday but in your drive up to the 13 Yucca Mountain Crest you went by the large block test.
,,3 i i V 14 This test is part of our thermal testing strategy and it 15 was to provide information under boundary conditions of a 16 well defined and controlled. It was to test specific 17 conceptual models, particularly with respect to what is 18 the water going to do when the heat is turned on? Heaters 3
19 were turned on February 28th and it's still in the heating 20 phase. Next one.
21 This is just to give you an idea of the amount 22 and types of instrumentation in the block. It's a free 23 standing block excavated in Fran Ridge. The rock around 24 it was removed. It's a prism that's three meters on a ts (v) 25 side and five meters high. This has roughly 2 1/4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 kilowatts of heater power. Next.
} ,- 2 This is just a snapshot in time on August 7th
\ J 3 of the isotherms. The hottest temperature measured was 4 roughly 1300 I would say that a snapshot taken today 5 would show about 10' hotter than this. For those of you 6 who watched TV 15 or 20 years ago, there used to be a 7 commercial by Memorex. Is it real or is it Memorex? Are 8 those oscillations indicative of some real phenomena 9 happening in the block or is it noise in the 10 instrumentation? There are indications that it is real.
11 That this drop here is when they replace part of the 12 instrumentation with a known standard resister and the 13 noise goes away.
i E 14 Other indications are that these oscillations 15 are not noticed, for the most part, in any thermometers 16 below the heater plane. They're al in the thermometers 17 above the heater plane. And the principal investigators 18 from Livermore are still working on this and trying to 19 decipher this but some of the interpretations might be 20 that this is evidence of water percolating, that as it's 21 heated it tends to move away and enough of it condenses 27 above and gets to a critical point and flows back and 23 brings the temperature down and then reheats. And this is 24 just a small segment of a lot of data that PIs at (3
() 25 Livermore have. They have a full plate to try and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 decipher this. I think there were skeptics about the f ,_s 2 large block test, but today with respect to thermal
(
~' 3 hydrology, it's produced more interesting results than any I
4 other test we have. Next.
5 Now I'm switching away from the thermal to the 6 ambient and what is the water doing. There are some 7 studies in the ESF to do some testing to evaluate addition 8 and removal of moisture. Some results suggest that 9 moisture removal by vent!' '. tion may be less than volume of 10 the introduced water which means that there may be some 11 percolation drainage, and people are investigating that.
12 I will caution that this is a poorly constrained problem.
13 The sources and sinks for the water are not accurately
,r m
\
\~/ 14 known. Next slide.
15 This is a brief update on monitoring in the 16 paintbrush Tuff non-welded unit. This was part of the
> 17 risk mitigation work. as it's called, extra work added to 18 the project last year. A series of holes drilled in the 19 PTn to determine what is the water doing. There were 21 20 holes in the North Ramp and 44 in the South Ramp. The 21 North Ramp holes concentrate mainly in a systematic 22 approach, if you will, as to measure the properties. The 23 holes in the South Ramp are focusing more on features, 24 faults and contacts. There are many more holes in the
,r N
( ,), 25 South Ramp. Because of the faulting in the Souta Ramp, a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 .
1
74 1 section was repeated a number of times and there is a
! ,, 2 greater exposure of the PTn. And analyses of lab l / \
3 specimens and field tests are ongoing to provide an 4 integrated interpretation of the properties of the PTn.
5 It's my understanding you went in Alcove 7, so 6 you were probably able to see some of the activities, But 7 Alcoves 6 and 7 have the same purpose which was to provide 8 an opportunity to figure out what effect the Ghost Dance 9 Fault has, so a variety of tests and measurements were 10 made to figure out what effects the fault has on flow.
11 And this last bullet, considering bulkheading off Alcove 7 12 and Alcove 1, it's no longer considering. It's my 13 understanding that both Alcove 7 and Alcove 1 will be p(,) 14 bulkheaded to see if there are any measurable effects of 15 the predicted El Niho wet year. Next.
16 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: Excuse me.
17 Question. Does that mean that you actually anticipate 18 that you would see an effect in one year?
19 MR. BOYLE: Myself personally, no , but I won't 20 speak for the PIs. I haven't talked to them about this.
21 I've wondered that myself, but I've never asked them. But 22 even if you don't expect to see the effects in one year, 23 there are other reacons for bulkheading it off anyway.
24 It's my understanding you didn't stop at
(~
! ! 25 Alcove 6 and, therefore, you didn't stop at the two niches v
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W, i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
75 1 that are cloce by on the opposite wall of the ESI', but l
l 7-s 2 this is a schematic diagram of them. Oh, you did. Thank
' you.
3 So there are two niches. One had high chlorine-36, 4 the other had low chlorine-35 and you'll hear from June 5 Fabryka-Martin later about the chlorine-36. Essentially 6 what these niches are there for is to find out does 7 excavation have an effect on the way water flows and can 8 the PIs predict where t.he water will go? Next slide.
9 The next two are actually very similar. It's 10 just to give you an idea. These are maps done by the 11 Bureau of Reclamation. Niche 1 is fractured rock. Next 12 slide. Niche 2 is fractured rock. They're both highly 13 fractured. One had high chlorine-36 and the other did b) 14 not. Next.
15 These don' t show up very well but you can see 16 the Lawrence Berkeley Lab. In the holes that were drilled 17 from the ESF before excavation they did air permeability 18 tests. They did them at different levels. Next slide.
19 LBL made measurements of permeability. You can see that 20 it varies by approximately three orders of magnitude.
21 Really isn't sensitive to the rate at which they're, pumped 22 in. Next slide.
23 After they measured the air permeabilities.
24 they made predictions of all right, where will dye go if (n) 25 we inject dye in those holes? And so you can see they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 injected various amounts of dyed water of different colors
,s 2 at the different locations. More permeable areas got a
' ']
3 larger mass of water. Next slide. They made their 4 predictions and then they excavated back dry and you 5 really can't see it here but if you saw the original 6 photographs, they were able to find the dye. Now the PIs 7 are working en -- next slide. They found it at three 8 meters and five meters. Like I mentioned, the dyes were 9 of different colors so they can tell them apart. Next 10 slide.
11 Another interesting feature at Niche 1 which, 12 although you stopped there, did they go in? Did not go 13 in. The back of Niche 1 was a breccia feature. To people p
t b
'N_/ 14 who eaw it when it was freshly excavated, it looked wetter 15 and it still does look darker, even after a long period of 16 time so some of the -- it may have been weather to start 17 with but you can't judge it simply by its color but bore 18 holes with instruments have been installed in Niche 1 to 19 measure the rewetting that is occurring since it's been 20 bulkheaded off. Next slide.
21 Now I'm switching to the second niche. In the 22 same story that I told for Niche 1 of doing the air 23 permeability test, predicting where dyed water would go, 24 then injecting the dye and re-excavating back to find it
() 25 has been conducted and here are the permeabilities NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
77 1 measured in Niche 2. And for both Niche 1 and Niche 2 the es 2 large variability that was shown for Niche 1, three orders
/
3 of magnitude, same thing was found in the drift scale 4 test.
5 A brief update on WT-24 and SD-6. The purpose 6 of these in a general sense is the same as any other hole 7 for geologic site characterization. You get to find out n
8 what the geology is, where the contacts are, you can get 9 core, get rock properties. But there were specific 10 reasons for these holes, too. WT-24 was to investigate 11 the large hydraulic radiant and SD-6 is to investigate the 12 effect of the Solitario Canyon Fault.
13 The last two presentations I won't say much
/~'X N_) 14 about at all because you're going to get a whole half hour 15 on the enhanced characterization effort, but there it is 16 in a snapshot. You can put up the last one.
17 The things we're going to do in the enhanced 18 characterization are the same sorts of things we've done 19 in site characterization to date. We're going to have 20 another single heater test, we're going to look for 21 chlorine, we're going to look at what's happening to the 22 water. So it's more of the same but just in a different 23 part of the repository horizon. That is my last slide.
24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: All right. Questions from r
{7) 25 the committee?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 l 1 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: Bill, with respect 2 to WT-2A, we've heard that this, at least in part, is to
> ;, -)
3 inves'.igate the high hydraulic gradient .
4 MR. BOYLE: Right.
5 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: Exactly what tests 6 will be done to isolate exactly what the cause of the high 7 hydraulic gradient is?
8 MR. BOYLE: I might have to defer more to Russ 9 Patterson on this, but even if we just get a measurement 10 of where the water table i. that gives another point to 11 help define the contour. So in a simplistic sense, I know 12 we're at least going to get that. But with respect to any 13 sort of pump tests, I'd have to defer to Russ. Are we
\_ l 14 going to do pump tests? Right. So from the signature of 15 the pump test results, it will shed light on large 16 hydraulic gradient. Is it perched water or not?
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Other questions.
18 MR. FAIRHURST: Let me ask about the niche 19 tests. Do I understand you have some sort of underlying 20 model of the behavior that you're trying to evaluate?
21 MR. BOYLE: LBL must because I know they made 22 predictions of where the dye was going to go.
23 MR. FAIRHURST: I know they made predictions 24 before. I still ask the question. Is there a model that, n
(
) 25 for example, the existence of an underground tunnel is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 contracting or deflecting water and does excavation damage 2 play a role?
i !
'~'
3 MR. BOYLE: I don't know so much that they're
! 4 looking at an excavated damage zone as capillary effects 1
5 that the presence of the large void, if you will, of the 6 excavation itself tends to inhibit flow in. That the 7 water would tend to remain in the smaller fractures and 8 not drip in. That's part of the investigation.
9 MR. FAIRHURST: But you said the permeability 10 measure seemed to be -- as I would expect, several orders 11 of magnitude. Is that a result of the excavation or is it 12 something that has come out of the inherent 13 characteristics of the rock mass?
(j 14 MR. BOYLE: It's part of the rock mass. They 15 get that large variation from tesca and surface based bore 16 holes drilled down to the middle nonlithophysal unit. We 17 saw the same range in the drift scale test in holes that s
18 were drilled far away from the excavations and so the rock 19 mass is that variable on those scales that they teeted.
20 MR. FAIRHURST: So are you going to assert 21 that the creation of the excavation --
22 MR. BOYLE: The tests aren't done. They're 23 going to inject more water. They injected the water 24 before the excavation of the niche, the dyed water, found (x.; ) 25 out where it went. They haven't done it yet but now the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1 niche is there and they're waiting to let it re-fs 2 equilibrate, see if it rewets, but they're going to
( '/
'~
3 reinject more water later and see how does the water 4 respond now, now that the niche is present. And it's from 5 thc difference between the two tests, with the niche and 6 without the niche, that they hope to shed some light on 7 how the water behaves.
8 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Go ahead.
9 MEMBER POMEROY: This may get to be answered a 10 little bit later, Bill, but I thought I'd fire it in now.
11 MR. BOYLE: Okay.
12 MEMBER POMEROY: Given the present 13 configuration of the repository as we understand it to the
(~T s Ys/ 14 west of the Ghost Dance, is it the consensus of the '
15 scientific team that there is a representative set of data 16 available to characterize that repository, that is do we 17 have represe ntativeness and completeness as f ar as the 18 scientific team is concerned with regard to the 19 information that we need for the repository itself or 20 indeed, are there further -- what I see in this slide says 21 some limited stucice of SD-11 and SD-13 which 1 don't 22 happen to see on your map. But does rock properties imply 23 that you're going to look at all rock properties above the 24 proposed repository? Are );u going to do additional
(~
t
, ) 25 drilling above the repository?
n NEAL R. GROSS COURT REFORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1r3 RHODE ISMND AVE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 C
, 1 MR. BOYLE: Yes. SD-11 and SD-13, I don't 7-)
2 know how much Vince or Dennis will talk about them but SD
\ )
3 stands for systematic drilling, part of Chris Routman's
(
l 4 program, and they typically go all the way through the 5 repository horizon. They were typically cored so they 6 would look at the rocks above and they're on the west side 7 of the repository block. Now back to your question. Is 8 there consensus of the team? It all depends on how 9 inclusive or exclusive we define the team. The NWTRB has 10 been a bigger proponent for a long time of going east-west 11 across the block to see what's there in order to test its 12 representativeness. Not everyone's agreed with it but 13 it's ;oing ahead.
/~'s xY 14 MEMBER POMEROY: From your perspective, do you 15 think there would be with the east-west tunnel and SD-11 16 and SD-13 that there would be a sufficient body of data, 17 both representative and complete?
18- MR. BOYLE: Me personally? Yes. Sure. I can 19 live with it. I'll explain why. Given the scope of the 20 problem to predict what's going to happen for thousands of 21 years due to heating for such a big block of rock, there's 22 far more uncertainty what's going to happen there than in 23 really knowing what the initial condition is here. These 24 holes in the east-west drift will help define that initial
,a
! _j 25 condition, the initial ambient condition, but even though NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \
82 1 they will give useful information, I could have lived c, 2 without them. I think the bigger uncertainties are what's
- )
\
'"/
3 going to happen after we turn on the heat. That's my l
1 4 personal opinion.
5 CHAIRMA11 GARRICK: Bill, since you have kind 6 of an integration role, I'm going to ask you an 7 integration question. One of the continuing interests of 8 this committee and sometines concern is the timeliness of 9 the information that comes from the scientific program, 10 from the characterization program, and the actual 11 performance assessment. And we're very interested in 12 knowing how things connect up with the performance 13 assessment. For example, several of us are still trying
!\. j\ 14 to get a clear picture of how the nexus experiments, if we 15 can call them that, relate to the performance assessment 16 and how that information is going to flow into performance 17 assessment and when. Are you doing anything special to 18 move the results of the characterization program into the 19 performance assessment domain in a -- I probably shouldn't 20 say -- but in a more timely manner than perhaps has bern 21 in the past?
22 MR. BOYLE: I would answer yes in a formal 23 sense and also informally. In the formal sense, this 24 fiscal year we're in now, there were the extraction
/3 i ) 25 meetings and the expert elicitations which I think was a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 l 1 formal attempt to try and get the most up to date l
zs 2 infermation from rite characterization TPA. PA was always k' 3 at the meeting and so were the PIs.
4 Dut informally there are many efforts. There 5 was a meeting in Las Vegas on Monday specifically for 6 performance assessment and design to hear the latest 7 results from the large block test and the single heater 8 test and what it might mean to them. Two weeks ago in 9 Berkeley, Livermore and Berkeley were meeting to discuss 10 modeling results of the single heater test and large block 11 test and the result of that was supposed to -- I haven't 12 seen it myself but a memo from Lawrence Barkeley Lab to PA 13 saying well, now you might want to look at this, k- 14 specifically that some of the parameters that performance 15 assessment is using from the UZ site model may not 16 represent the entire range that they should be considering 17 based on modeling results of the two hea :er tests.
18 So in a formal sence, there's recognition to 19 try and get the information across as quickly as possible 20 and it also happens informally which is generally much 21 quicker.
22 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any other questions at this 23 time? Thank you very much.
24 MR. BOYLE: And thank you and I do have to go,
(\
() 25 but my colleagues can answer questions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , H W.
(202) 23444M WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
04 1 MS. HANLON: With your indulgence, for
,S 2 continuity we'd like to change the order of a couple of
\. l 3 the presentations. Following on Bill's excellent 4 preenntation of ongoing site studies, we'd like to have 5 June Fabryka-Martin and Russ Patterson talk about 6 chlorine-36 activities. So Russell will introduce the 7 peer review activity for chlorine-36, 8 MR. PATTERSON: Thank you. I guess we're 9 switching things around a little bit and I have a couple 19 of minutes here of June's time, you might say, because I 11 know you're anxious to hear about chlorine-36 results, to 12 talk about the chlorine-36 peer review. Recently, this 13 spring actually, the project determined it would be U 14 beneficial to perform some limited in scope focused peer 15 review on specific technical areas and the chlorine-36 16 area was the one that we chose to start off on. So we'11 17 go right into it.
18 The objective of this specific focus peer 19 review on chlorine-36 is to look at the sampling and the 20 analytical and interpretational approaches that we've been 21 using on chlorine-36 and the environmental isotopes and 22 how we're using that information on prediction of ground 23 water flux and how we're 'Ising it on our unsaturated zone 24 flow model. Next.
g-
) 25 The peer review panel members that we've had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 on board with us for this peer review is Doctor Tom Doe of 2 Golder and Associates, Inc. and he's the chairman of the g]
\ ~'
3 panel, Doctor Anthony Muller of Booz Allen Hamilton, and 4 Doctor Fred Phillips of New Mexico Tech which I've just 5 learned this morning has withdrawn from the panel so we'll 6 have to find a replacement, and Doctor Bridget Scanlon of 7 the University of Texas at Austin. Next.
8 The tentative schedule is that we have a 9 distribution of the FY ' 96 and FY ' 97 review documents by 10 mid-Septe'nber, and that happened except for some of the 11 '97 documents. The distribution of the FY '97 milestones 12 will actually be done by the loth of next month. We're 13 waiting for one of those to come in. The first panel
~'\
(O 14 meeting will be in Las Vegas here on November 15th and 15 it'11 be a four day meeting of presentations, discussions, 16 and a site field trip. The preparation of the peer review 17 report will be from, of course, the late November time 18 atter our meeting to mid-January and we hope to have the 19 report delivered to DOE by the 12th of January of '98.
20 Then we'll do a coniment and response and we're 21 following the full DOE procedure for peer reviews, even 22 though thin is a amall focused technical peer review. And 23 the review will be completed by May of '98.
24 The FY '96 milestones that we've provided to (o) 25 the peer review panel is up here, the summary of chlorine-NEAL R. GROSS COURI REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
86 1 36 studies, the modeling of the flow and radionuclide 2 migration that was done by Robinson et. al. last year '96 7m i
)
'~J 3 and a summary report by June of last year in August of 4 '96.
5 The FY '97 milestones that we've also provided 6 to the peer review panel is the structural controls and 7 mineralogical associations of chlorine-36 that was done by 8 Schon Levy in March. You may want to change the third 9 bullet. Actually, that has a new title. It's called the l
10 evaluation of flow transport models of Yucca Mountain 11 based on chlorine-36 studies, and I know I went through 12 that very quickly. And that'll be actually due the end of 13 this month. And finally, the development of the final UZ
!n)
's./ 14 site transport model by Bruce Robinson and that was 15 delivered recently. We've also provided at least I know 16 part of the chapter out of the LBL/USGS flow model that 17 dealt with chloride analysis. So all those documents have 18 been provided to the peer review panel and they are 19 reviewing them and getting ready for the meeting in 20 November. So that's really all I have.
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any questions from the 22 committee? Thank you.
23 MS, FABRYKA-MARTIN: Hi. I'm June Fabryka-24 Martin from Los Alamos National Lab. I believe it's been rx (j 25 pretty close to almost exactly a year since I last NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
87 1 addressed this committee. Because of that, what I'm going 2 to do is emphasize what's new since that last (g) 3 presentation. One thing that is new is a much closer 4 coordination through this past year with project 5 scientists from other activities and the include Schon 6 Levy, a mineralogist, Andy Wolfsberg, who's a hydrologist 7 and a process level modeler and, hence, our link to PA, 8 Don Saeetkind, who's a structural geologist, and Alan 9 Flint, who's a soils scientist and hydrologist and another 10 direct link to PA.
11 We work as a team in all senses of the word 12 from consulting on sample collection through data 13 interpretation and modeling. We don't agree on all (h <
(/ 14 details but what I'm going to try to present today is our 25 consensus view.
16 The outline of what I'm going to cover in the 17 next 15 minutes - 20 minutes is, first of all, the 18 objectives of our sampling program, why chlorine-36 is 19 selected as being of particular interest, the approach 20 we've taken to govern our sample collection, analytical 21 results to date. I'll skip statistical evaluation of data l
l 22 and just skip to the bottom line on that one. How we're 23 characterizing the sample sites for other characteristics 24 we consider to be important to help us interpret the data, A
(,) 25 present our testable conceptual model for fast paths that NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 we're working on testing right now, and then how we apply 7-~3 2 it to predict where a bomb-pulse may occur in the east-( );
1 I
~
3 west drift. I'll do a quick comparison with transport l
4 simulations there. I'll contrast what the results of last !
5 year's simulations were in conclusions and finally a few 6 bullets on what the current focus of our work is at the 7 present time. l 8 The objectives of our work in the ESF is to 1 9 develop and test alternative conceptual models for UZ flow 10 and transport based on measuring and simulating suitable 11 environmental tracers. In this case, Los Alamos focuses 12 on chlorine-36 and chloride. The USGS has analogo" or 13 parallel efforts to measure and interpret porewate.
I
/ } <
V' 14 geochemistry, C-14, tritium, and U series dating of 15 fracture minerals. The specific objectives are to select 16 the appropriate numerical model for simulating transport.
17 Basically, that comes down to equivalent continuum versus 18 a dual permeability formulation.
19 secondly, to bound hydrologic parameter values 20 because we come with a large range of parameter values 21 that have drastically different implications for 22 transport, PA transport issues, and the environmental data 23 helps us to bound those. Test alternative conceptual 24 models, evaluate flow and transport through the non-welded o
25 PTn unit as an analog for the Calico Hills unit and to N EAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 evaluate the significance of considering different i
f ,-m 2 temporal and spatial scales, and this specifically means
\'~' )
3 <es the PTn unit act to dampen out episodic infiltration?
4 For example, the hurricane event that's coming through 5 right now. If it doesn't dampen out those effects, then 6 this has implications for engineering design and PA from 7 the perspective of radionuclide transport.
8 For new members, this is as much of a 9 background as you get about chlorine-36. Basically, it 10 has a half life of 301,000 years and there's two sources 11 that are dominant in the subsurface. First of all, 12 there's anthropogenic sources coming from the atmosphere 13 from global fallout and that produces a chlorine-36 signal
,a
( )
\.s' 14 when I normalize it to a stable clod ratio of, say, 15 200,000 times, say, to the 10'" and that would be dominant 16 in young waters. That's called the bomb-pulse.
17 Then the second source is just natural 18 atmospheric source from cosmic rays interacting primarily 19 with argon and that produces a background ratio that at 20 the present day is about 500 X 10 " but it's been up to 21 about 12,000 X 10'" over the past 4 0,000 years. That's 22 dominant in pre-bomb waters. The other sources are also 23 important in some situaticas but in general probably 24 negligible. That's an assumption. Next.
A y) 25 Our approach is to develop an extensive data N EAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
90 i set of chlorine-36 and porewater chloride concentrations I ,~3 2 for the ESF and its alcoves and bore holes and niches and
( )
'~#
3 then go and provide detailed structural and petrologic l 4 characterization of each sampling site, develop and 5 evaluate alternative conceptual models by a team of 6 hydrologists, structural geologists, mineralogists and PA 7 modelers, and then test those models through simulation of 8 chlorine-36 and chloride transport using the project's 9 most current infiltration mode, geologic model and 10 hydrologic parameter sets and finally to test those models 11 by predicting how those two tracers will be distributed to 12 east-west drift.
13 This is a summary table of where we are to
\/s 14 data with respect to measuring chlorine-36 in ESF samples 15 between Statien 2 to the south portal. There's three 16 categories of samples. There's what we call systematic 17 samples where we went in initially every 200 meters from 18 Station 2 to Station 59 and then after following last 19 year's presentation to ACMW after talking to one of the 20 members, we increased the frequency of sampling to every 21 100 meters for the last part, 22 A second category and the largest category is 23 what we call feature-based samples which are samples 24 collected at faults and fractures, brecciated zones, wet (O
ss
) 25 zones, intact matrix block and contacts and finally, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 1 focusing on the PTn itself and sampling across subunit s 2 contacts. And as a result of this, we have a total of 247 l l \ l 3 analyses that are available to date.
4 This next slide is just meant to help you l
5 orient yourself and what it shows is the ESF, the blue 6 line there which is eight kilometers long. It starts from 7 the north portal which is the upper right hand end of the 8 ESF at Station 0 and then the stations are numbered every 9 100 meters until the end of the tunnel, the South Portal 10 at the lower right hand corner. It is roughly just short 11 of Station 78.
12 The dashed blue line shown on here is the 13 proposed east-west drift. It's also sometimes called the
(_ / 14 Cross Drift. And then the dashed black line is the 15 proposed repository block or outline. This is on top of 16 the map of numerical estimate of the infiltration rates at 17 Yucca Mountain by Alan Flint and you can see that ESF 18 crosses over -- well, the infiltration rate above the ESP 19 ranges from essentially zero up to a high of about 25 or 20 30. Then over the repository block it's quite a bit 21 higher. I guess the maximum up there looks like --
22 actually, it does still look like 20 or 30. But there's 23 certainly much more of it than there is over the ESF. The 24 faults are also shown on here as white lines. Those are r~N 25 faults that are mapped at the surface. Next.
(x_-)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
92 1 These are the data ao far and the plot shows
,- 2 from starting with the North Porcal on the right hand side
\ l 3 at Station 0 extending out to what's marked as 80. That's 4 a little bit beyond the South Portal. You see the 5 sampling points are plotted into two categories. A 6 systematic sample is shown in pink and the feature-based 7 samples shown in blue. The things you should pull out of 8 here are, first of all, there appear to be, in one way 9 looking at it, three populations of results. There's what 10 I call the unambiguous bomb-pulse indicator and those are 11 ratios above 1250 X '" and that'e based on statistical 12 analysis of the data to identify where the outlier 13 population starts.
\w) 14 Then there's ratios that are less than 15 background. That's ratios that are less than about, oh, 16 400 and what I'd like to say about those is my initial 17 reaction to those is that we'd found zones of stagnant 18 water where the travel time was long enough to actually 19 see radioactive decay of chlorine-36 but I think a closer 20 look at those data show that that interpretation is 21 probably not going to hold up. I think they probably 22 represent samples where there's so much rock chloride it's 23 diluted out the chlorine-36 signal and we're investigating 24 that by looking at sulphate chloride ratios because the p
h 25 sulphate chloride ratio in the rocks is quite a bit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 AriODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 different than that that's carried in with the meteoric 7s 2 water. Normally, I would use bromide chloride ratios for t) 3 that but these samples, the bromide is used as a tracer to 4 construction water and it's so pervasive that you can't 5 see the variation due to any rock chloride being present.
6 And finally the third category, third 7 population of samples. Most of the samples fall in that 8 gray zone and I call those intermediate values and that's 9 going to be a mixture of samples that some are just at 10 background and others that must be background with some 11 component of bomb-pulse present. But it's below the level 12 that we consider to be unambiguous. Another thing that I 13 want you to pick out from here is the difference between c
.- 14 the signals in the north ramp or even all the way up to 15 Station 35 or so and the south ramp. They're variable in 16 the north ramp and they're nearly constant in the south 17 ramp and, to tell you the truth, we're not all together 18 sure why this is so and I'll say a little bit more about 19 this later on.
20 And finally, the thin black lines are 21 locations of faults that are mapped at the surface and 22 projected down to the ESF level. When we first saw this, 23 we immediately suggested that there is some sort of 24 correlation, although not necessarily a very close one, o
( ,) 25 with where the faults were occurring and where the bomb-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l
941 1 pulse signals were coming through and that led us to the 2 development of our conceptual model. Next slide.
t '"j 3 Before I say something about our conceptual 4 model, let me say initially, I guess as of last year, we 5 focused on just acquiring data, acquiring chlorine-36 6 data, measuring bromide / chloride to see whether 7 construction water was present and that was pretty much 8 it. It very, very soon became clear that this was not 9 adequate to help us understand the distr'.bution of this 10 tracer and to develop and evaluate alternative conceptual 11 models. We really needed to characterize other aspects as 12 well.
13 And so in the past year we've worked hard to n
(
C-) 24 look at the lithologic unit that the samples come from, 15 the local structural setting with field sketches, look at 16 the orientation of fractures so we can see if there's a 17 correlation between fracture orientation and look at the 18 signal, observe connections to other features, the 19 mineralology, relationchip to regional structures like 20 defaults, relationship to surface infiltration and the 21 soil thickness. Next.
22 And based on this, what we call our testable l
23 conceptual model, the one that we've been focusing our 24 efforts on testing, is that there are basically three 25 conditions necessary for a fast path to exist to the ESF i NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W.
l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C_ 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l
95 1 and to transport bomb-pulse chlorine-36. The most 73 2 important of these is that we believe a continuous
( )
x'# 3 fracture pathway must extend from the surface down to the 4 ESF and there's no shortage of pathways in general in the 5 Teva canyon welded unit or the Topopah Springs unit so 6 what this criteria basically bo!1s down to is it requires 7 the presence of faults that cut through the PTn and 8 increase the fracture transport through that unit.
9 Normally otherwise, without the faults through that non-10 welded unit, flow we believe mostly occurs as matrix flow 11 and that just would dampen out the bomb-pulse.
12 Secondly, the second condition is that the 13 infiltration rate must be sufficiently high to initiate l
/~'N 1
\_ / 14 and sustain that fracture flow all the way along the 15 connected fracture pathway and the simulations suggest it that that minimum rate is on the order of one millimeter 17 per year and, hence, you can see it's not a very strict 18 crl'erion in the ESF. It's not a constraining criteria.
19 Then finally, in order to get bomb-pulse 20 through, the travel time through the alluvial cover has to 21 be less than 50 years and this generally means the soil 5
22 thickness has to be less than about three meters thick 23 because otherwise, the bomb-pulse is completely retained 24 in the soil zone. Case by case evaluation of the ESF
( ) 25 Somb-pulse sites against these criteria shows that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 3701 (202) 2344433
96 1 conceptual model accounts for nearly all the cases of i
2 bomb-pulse. However, the converse may not necessarily be (7w) '
3 true and that's something that we'll be focusing on the 4 next year. For example, there are places where the i 1
5 conceptual model would pre dict it at.d we don't see it. So 6 that's where we'll be focusing inore attention next year.
7 And finally, we're also testing this conceptual model by ;
1 8 goina out on a limb and predicting where we expect bomb- l 9 pulse chlorine-36 to be observed in the east-west drift. i 10 Next slide.
11 This slide is just meant to illustrate how we 12 test whether the case by case evaluation of the conceptual 13 model, whether it's holding up. What it shows is one and t
( 14 a half kilometer square maps. This pair of maps happen to 15 be centered on the North Ramp. The really fine blue line 16 that cuts across diagonally is the North Ramp from the 17 North Portal on the right hand side cutting up to about 18 Station 18 on the upper left hand corner. What you can't 19 see on this map and I hope you can see on your handouts is 20 we've plotted the locations of the chlorine-36 sampling 21 sites. The blue triangles on the south side of the ramp 22 show the sites where we saw the unambiguous bomb-pulse 23 signals and the white triangles above the line show the 24 other sites.
7 Q 25 And the top map shows the structural geology, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 W ASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344 433
97 1 what units are exposed at the surface, while the bottom 73 2 map covers the same area and it shows the infiltration.
('~' )
3 The calculated estimated infiltration rates that overlie 4 the ESF. So we have a pair of maps like this plus another 5 map of soil thickness for covering the whole ESP.
6 Another point I'd like to make since I won't 7 come back to this slide later is that there's a set of 8 North Ramp bore holes in the PTn roughly between Stations 9 8 and 11 that Bill Boyle had mentioned and we've been 10 measuring chloride pool water concentrations in those 11 holes as a surrogate measure or check on the infiltration.
". 2 The data are just coming in this week and we have measured 13 concentrations between the 35 milligrams per liter and l 14 it's incredibly low. It's among the lowest concentrations 15 that have been seen yet. And what this tells us is that 16 it is confirmation that the infiltration rates estimates 17 that have been developed by Flint, at least in this area, 18 are confirmed because it's exactly the sort of levels of 19 concentrations you would calculate based on his estimated 20 infiltration rates right above that site. Next.
21 This overhead shows our predictions. Well, if 22 we apply the conceptual model that I just described, at 23 least the first two conditions, where we would predict 24 bomb-pulse chlorine-36 to be observed. What it is is it's
,r m
() 25 the conditions. This particular map shows the conditions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
98 1 where the infiltration rate exceeds five millimetern per n 2 year and it occurs above a mapped fault at the surface.
! \
3 Each of those cells where both of those conditions are met 4 are shown as black dots on this map. Just to make the 5 point clear because I didn't think the black dots would 6 show up very well, I highlighted in red the black dots 7 that were near the east-west drift and so based on this, 8 we're predicting preliminarily anyway that we'll see bomb-9 pulse chlorine-36 at only two locations in the east-west 10 drift if our conceptual model is correct, one at the 11 Sundance Fault, and the other one around the Solitario 12 Canyon Fault.
13 We know this needs improvements and our next C'\
V 14 iteration of these predictionc will take into account soil 15 thickness, for example, because some of these predicted 16 sites, the soi2 is thicker than three met eru. And 17 secondly, PTn thickness, too, because that's not factored 18 in and yet that would also have an influence on whether or 19 not bomb-pulses are able to break through.
20 We've simulated chlorine-36 transport using 21 the finite element heat and mass transport code and the 22 changes in the model input since I talked to you last year 23 are that now the results this year uses the project's mest 24 cu: rent structural geologic model and so this time this (O) 25 year it includes uni". thicknesses, the dipping in a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
99 1 limited number of faults. It uses Lawrence Berkeley Leb'c l
f7s s 2 most recent sets of hydroingic parameters from its
( )
3 milestone just a few months ago and it uses an improved 4 input function for the chlorine-36 to chloride ratio.
5 However, it uses the same infiltration estimates that were 6 used last year. Next.
7 The contrast results. One difference is that 8 the mean travel times to the ESF are less in this year's, 9 the current, simulation due to a thinner PTn in the 10 revised geologic model. And the travel times are on the 11 order of two to six thousand years compared to five to 20
, 12 thousand years last year. Also, a small component. There 13 is a small component of ground water travel times as it
/'~'TI V
\_/ 14 extends above and below this range.
15 Secondly, the simulations predict pervasive 16 arrival of bomb-pulse in the ESP, even in the absence of 17 faults at locations where the PTn is finished, say less 18 than about 30 meters in the south part. And this appears 19 to be inconsistent with the observed data and it might 20 either indicate unrealistic hydrologic parameters or it 21 also emphasizes needs for us to examine those particular 22 data carefully and obtain independent evidence for the 23 apparent lack of bomb-pulse.
24 Then thirdly, we also observe that whether or n
( ) 25 not one does simulate or predict penetration of bomb-pulse 11EAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 to the ESF, it's very sensitive to what parameter valuo
- 2 one's used for the fracture matrix interaction for the (m)
3 PTn. That means that governs the extent to which Iracture 4 flow entering the PTn imbibes into the matrix.
5 Our conclusicna from the modeling so far are 6 that one does need a dual permeability formulation to 7 capture the complex nature ot flow distributJon between 8 fracture and matrix and this is critical to have accurate 9 transport simulations. Secondly, that the s,ite by site 10 characterization of those bomb-pulse locations does 1
11 support the proposed conceptual model for fast paths.
12 Thirdly, that the model almulations using the project's 13 current geologic model, current infiltration model and
(~h V 14 current and reasonable variations of the hydrologie 15 parameter set also support the conceptual model for fast 16 paths and that the transport simulations using those same 37 conditions, input conditions, as I just mentioned, yield 18 chlorine-36 to chloride signals at the ESP that are 19 consistent with the values measured away from the sitec 20 containing unambiguous bomb-palse.
21 Our present work is focusing on measuring 22 chloride porewater concentrations for ESP locations as a 23 surrogate indicator of infiltration rates and flow paths 24 and in the next slide, the last slide that I'll show you (3)
(
25 after thie, it will illustrate how this information will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRlbERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
I 101 1 be used to test the flow and transport models, how we 7 2 envision using it.
(3.)
3 Secondly, we're evaluating the data and the 4 model to try to figure out why is there such a distinct 5 difference between what we see the distribution of the 6 signal in the North Ramp versus the South Ramp because 7 we're baffled by that. There is apparent discrepancy 8 between the data, the conceptual model and the numerical 9 model and until those three come in synch, we must not 10 have a full understanding of the system or can't claim 11 thet we do.
1 12 Thirdly, we plan to be testing e.lternative j l
13 conceptual models. I just presented one. There are l C 14 alteenatives to what I've talked about, but we need te do 15 a fair job of looking at them as we are doing a look at 16 the one that we currently favor and particularly look at 17 the influence of PTn thickness on transport rates. Maybe 18 within PTn we don't need fractures cutting through it go 19 get the bomb-pulse signal through. We have to complete 20 our sampling in the South Ramp and Ghost Dance Fault 21 alcoves and also the niches. We think it's important to 22 measure other bomb-pulse nuclides in the ESF samples in 23 order to provide an independent corroboration of those 24 high signals and finally, we need to improve our n) 25 prediction for the distribution of chlorine-36 and extend NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
102 l 1 it to predicting chloride porewater concentrations for tho -
l 2 east-west drift. Last slide, f3)
3 This illustrates how we envision seeing the 4 chloride porewater concentrations used to test flow and 5 transport. Alternative odels for flow and transport. On 6 the left hand side you see calculated chloride 7 concentrations coming in at the surface and that's just a a simple calculation soon to be directly correlated to the 9 infiltration rate so that as the infiltration rate 10 increases, one gets more and more dilute chloride 11 concentrations. It gets very small. Then the chloride 12 concentrations shoot up, so it's just a simple transform 13 of Alan Flint's map.
( l
\_/ 14 We are in the process of measuring, as I said, 15 the chloride concentrations in the North Ramp holes and 16 that seems to conf 4.rm the accuracy or validity of this 17 approach along the North Ramp. On the right hand side we 18 have what happens when you put that input signal in wi)the 19 the current flow field simulated basically at the base of 20 the Topopah Springs weld and the top of the Calico Hills 21 and the thing you'll notice, of course there's a smearing 22 of the signal but you start getting the concentrations at 23 depth being dominated by the high infiltration zones with
< 24 the low chloride concentrations jus. as one would expect r'b 25 and it's moving down towards the east.
(\s)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 l 1 This sort of approach is going to be how we'll 2 provide the bas!u for our predictions for the porewater I 3 chloride for the east west drift and it's also going to 4 help us interpret the formation and stability of perched 5 water and flow in the Calico Hills. It would imply that 6 the Calico Hills water is going to be dominated by what's 7 chapping and recharging and infiltrating from the high 8 infiltration zone to the west.
9 W: th that, I conclude my talk and open for 10 questions.
11 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you. George.
j 12 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: June, can you tell 13 me, enlighten me a little bit on how the interpretation of
'O id '
14 your new data has perhaps changed or illuminated the flux 15 of water through the repository horizon and the apatial 16 distribution of that flux.
17 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: I'd say last year around 18 this time there were still quite a few people pushing or 19 feeling strongly that Alan Flint's infiltration map was 20 over-estimating the infiltration rate in a big way. There 21 are still a lot of people that believe that travel times 22 were un the order of hundreds of thousands of years and I 23 think in the past year these data have gone a long way.
24 So if they wanted the strongest lines of evidence for
/ \
iv) 25 showing that that's not true, that Alan Flint's map is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234.4433 l
104 1 pretty clone to reality, that'd be one way.
g- 2 VICE CilAIRMAN HORNBERGER: Yes. Now that's
'('~') 3 infiltration. How about flux through the repository .
t 4 horizon?
5 MS. FABRY:CA-MARTIN : I would say there that 6 the most important role of the data so far have been 7 looking at the distribution of the flux between fractures 8 and matrix showing that there is some component of the 9 flux that is according to the fractures. It hasn't been 10 able to help us bound what the proportion of that flux is 11 but hopefully the chloride data, porcwater data, will do a 12 better job on that. All it tells us is distribution of 13 travel times. It doesn't tell us actual flux. That has O'x_) 14 to be backed out of the simulations.
15 MR. FAIRHURST: By the way, I think it's 16 fascinating work. It's quite possible, isn't it, that in 17 other areas where that's not met, you still have the fast 18 path, maybe just showing chlorine-36 and so picking up 19 what George has said, you're identifying fast paths which 20 are chlorine-36 identified but there may be a number of 21 others so flux of the once that you're seeing could be 22 replicated in many cases --
23 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: That's absolutely true.
24 The bomb-pulse chlorine-36 only identifies a discreet (g) 25 population of the so-called fast paths. And again, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433 l
l
105 1 chloride porewater may help resolve that.
l
,- 2 CHAIRfW1 GARRICK: Bill.
l( )
'"# 3 MR. HINZE: If I may. June, are you doing any 4 studies of the perched water?
5 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: We have analyses of 6 chlorine-36 from all the perched water samples. USGS 7 investigators who collect samples for their own work 8 always save us a bottle and send it our way, 9 MR. HINZE Do they support the ESF studies?
10 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: I'd say yes. Yes. he 11 haven't seen anything that indicates bomb-pulse in any of 12 those samples. They hover anywheres from just a meteoric 13 background in some of the perch waters to a value that's ID
\_ / 14 variably above background. They're similar to what we see 15 in the Calico Hills in the cuttings from bore holes, a 16 similar Order of magnitude, and they're consistent with 17 the C-14 dates. The data are consistent with that so by 18 themselves we can't say a whole lot but we can say whether 19 or not the data are consistent with interpretation based 20 on other lines of evidence. It hangs together.
21 MR. HINZE: Is the USGS working on the ESF to 22 support this?
23 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: Our end is not doing work 24 in the ESF. It's Gary Patterson and Alan Flint. Right.
p
() 25 Yes. We are coordinated. Gary's gotten the samples from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 1 th duce the same signal.
/^'N i )
U/ 14 Oftentimes one of a pair will have bomb-pulse, the other 15 one won't.
16 Then the other case is we have gone back, 17 resampled from I think about four sites that had bomb-18 pulse. Those samples have been procersed. I don't have 19 the data back yet and hopefully within the next few weeks 20 we hope to have those. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 21 the same thing, especially since I think they went and 22 washed the walls down again since the first time I was 23 there. A problem with the construction is it's great to 24 have a tracer to pick up on it but what it makes it
, (q/ 25 impossible te do is to see whether or not the variability NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
108 i
I is due to rock chloride just from the process of using c 1
I 73 2 jackhammer to collect the samples, for example, or just f )
\#
( 3 from rock water interactions along the flow path, for that
}
4 matter.
5 MR. HINZE: (Inaudible) 6 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: The other bomb-pulse 7 nuclides that are being looked at or have been considered 8 are technecium-99 and iodine-129 that Los Alamos take the 9 lead on and then tritium and "-14 that the GS would take 10 the lead on. I can't speak for the status of the tritium 11 and C-14 analysis but the technecium-99 and iodine-129, 12 went forth in two suites. One suite of samples was last 13 year just to show that the nethod we leasible, that the
! )
k/ 14 analyses could be made. I was happy with those results 15 but I wasn' t very smart actually in pickir.g my samples 16 because I only picked sites that had bomb-pulse and they 17 all came up positive.
18 So then the second suite I finally got smarter 19 because I didn't think I would succeed, to tell you the 20 truth, and we picked three sites that have bomb-pulse and 21 three sties that we didn't think did. Unfortunately, 22 Larry Hayes stole my maspectroscopis, who is the expert on 23 technecium analyses, and so those samples fell through the 24 cracks I think as a result of having them -- it took us so
( ,) 25 long to get someone trained to do it that by the time we NEAL R. GRO%
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.ANC, AVE , N W.
(F2) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
109 1 were ready to do the samples, it didn't work. So we need
,fq 2 to repeat that. Iodine-129, I just don't believe the 1 0 3 results that came back .nd I don't want to talk about them 4 until I do.
5 MR. HINZE: Well, I guess the (Inaudible) 6 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: I agree.
7 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: (Inaudible) 8 MS, FABRYYA-MARTIN: I think it has top 9 priority for us for n'sxt fiscal year. Within I'd say the 10 first quarter.
11 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Make sure you get very 12 close to the microphone and speak loudly.
13 MR. WYMER: Okay. I'd like to ask what may be m
14 sort of a subtle or trivial question but --
15 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: I need one of those.
16 MR. WYMER: Okay. Is the pore size and the l 'i nature of the pore walls such that it could have an 18 influence either by negatively or positively attracting 19 the chloride to significantly change the rate of transport 20 that you perceive for the bulk water?
21 MS, FABRYKA-MARTIN: I thought you said this 22 was a trivial question. Well, you know, one thing we've 23 been doing, we've started very recently extracting pore 24 water from the PTn cores by spinning it, centrifuge, and C,m 25 we'vc been pulling off samples at different time intervals NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
.i 110 1 in order to test whether or not you get a different
, _ signature when you get the large pores -
y as opposed to O 3 later on. The results are mixed so far and so there might 4 be something to what you -- I mean basically what you're 5 saying is is there a variation -- well, you're saying C chloride transport actually being enhanced by anion 7 exclusion?
8 MR. WYMER: Right.
9 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: Yes. I don't think 10 that's going to happen in the rocks. In the soils, it 11 would be a cou.'ideration but not in the rocks.
12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I guess we're going to have 13 to use a different microphone. Not being an earth
.n
(_ 14 scientist or, for that matter, a chemist, I'm the one that 15 gets to ask the dumb questions. One of the things that 16 I'd like you to comment on is as I look at your 17 conclusions, clearly there's some really valuable 18 information relative to how to improve the modeling but I 19 guess the question I have, do you have any good news to 20 report from the standpoint of containment capability of 21 the repository?
22 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: I'm not sure I'm 23 qualitied to say anything on that.
24 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Well, it seems that when
() 25 you talk about going from long travel times to short NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
111
[ 1 travel times, when you talk about the variou. things that MO 2 3
you are finding, I'm having a hard time finding anything that's pos'tsve in terms of good news.
4 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: Well, I tnink the one 5 good news is when we start looking at the PTn as an analog e
6 to what might be happening in the Calico Hills, I think 7 with the chloride pore we're getting evidence that yes 8 indeed, it does dampen the fracture flow out in some i
9 locations and, therefore -- You noticed in the earlier 10 presentations that they assume fracture transport straight 11 from the repository horizon to the water table with no E
12 hold up, say, by lateral transport in the Calico Hills and 13 I think the environmental data are showing that that's not 14 necessarily true. Probably not true.
15 Cu?.IRMAN GARRICK: Okay. Any other questions?
16 All right. Thank you very much.
17 MS. HANLON: At this point, we'd like to 18 transitior back into the discussion of the enhanced 19 characterization of the repository block and our first 20 speaker who will give a background and also talk about the 21 planning overview is Vince Iorri who's the Assistant 22 Manager for Administration. Vince.
23 MR. IORRI: Good morning. I'm Vince Iorri 24 obviously. She told you already. Basically, you're
() 25 probably wondering why construction fits into NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 j l
112 1 administration and asset management. Every ence in a 73 2 while when you go through a reorganiztition, you get a
\' ']
~
3 surprise. So right now our group, even though we're 4 heading up the administration, is responsible for 5 construction. Basically, the outline is as follows. I'll 6 talk about the planning cycle. Eric Smistad will talk 7 about the sensitivities of the PA and then get back up for 8 the overall outline for construction design and the 9 schedule and followed up by Dennis Williams who'll talk 10 about the scientific aspects of the program.
11 As you took the tour yesterday, you probably 12 heard the term ECRB. What is it? Basically, it's the 13 terminology enhanced characterization of the repository q
$_) 14 block and during the reviews of the NWTRB they commonly 15 called this the east-west drift. Their transcripts go 16 back as far as 1989 when they introduced that concept and 17 when we were starting to discuss it with them. In our 18 long-range plan in about 1990, we included the east-west 19 dritt in that planning process. Recently we decided to 20 accelerate that to try to get more information for a LA 21 license application.
22 We developed a committee. We called it an 23 integrated planning committee to help us facilitate and 24 outline that particular process, not only for construction (h
(,) 25 but the science and all the administrative processes to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE,, N W.
(202) 234-443a WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
113 1 gather this information. Next.
-m 2 Our overall objective was to enhance the
( )
3 engineering construction, health and safety repository 4 performance aspects of that. We were looking at it from 5 an integrated approach and we formulated a team of not 6 only DOE members but contractors and the scientists as 7 well as the cost people. And I'm going to emphasize the 8 cost people. With the performance of the ESF and coming 9 through the Five Mile tunnel, we figured the most valuable 10 aspect was gathering it from the people that worked on 11 hand. So what we did, we developed this approach and 12 predominantly we wanted to address drifting the alcoves as 13 well as the bore holes itself, Next, f)
\ x.- l 14 So our process started about March of '97.
15 Some of our objectives again was to look at the necessary 16 science and the technical analysis and tie that to 17 licensing application aspects. The most difficult part of 18 that planning process was defining our methodology for it.
19 Looking at the criteria that would best suit the 20 information that we've already collected and how to roll 21 it and get the most valuable aspects from that. Following 22 along with that, I would say you have to look at the 23 costing schedule and then finally we're looking to 24 baseline that and incorporate it into a funding plan going
/
25 to Congress.
()
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 114 1 So that integrating team, the role was to do 2 it in a very short period of time, to issue one consistent f,I
\ /
3 set of guidance and also to validate the criteria that we i
4 set up for each set of tests, the location of those tests !
5 as well as the methodology for them, whether it was drill 6 hole drifts or the excavation itself. Our goal is to look 7 at the optimum configuration. In doing that, our 8 scientific community looked at data needs as well as that 9 information to collect to supplement the information that 10 we currently have in the system at this point from a 11 siting criteria, design, safety analysis, as well. The 12 relationship also, we wanted to fold it in, insure that it 13 would truly supplement what we're doing, especially in the (3
\m) 14 models that we have been developing, And Eric will talk 15 upon that shortly.
16 Potential efficiencies. Actually, excavating 17 five miles of tunnel, we gained those efficiencies as 18 compared to when we first started to when we finished and 19 what we wanted to do is capture those enhancements into 20 this particular process as well.
21 This is the consistency of that planning 22 committee but there's a few that are not mentioned on 23 here. We had the Board of Consultants also coming to 24 review and we had outside consultants help us scrub not
()
n 25 only the cost of the schedule but the technical aspects NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 1 and some of the efficiencies of excavation as well as
,-~s 2 looking at various technologies, I guess, for the drifting
, )
3 and the bore holes.
4 This stair step is the five step process that 5 we went through. Obviously, we set up the objectives, the 6 assumptions, the criteria which clearly was to validate 7 them. We probably spent most of our time between these 8 two steps. Identifying the criteria and then validating 9 it. After that, we were looking at various alternatives 10 and we had several of them. And then finally the 11 conclusions where we came up with our optimum 12 configuration.
13 At this time, I'd like to transfer it over to t
(m.i E) m 14 Eric Smistad and he'll talk about the PO sensitivities and 15 then we'll follow up with construction, scheduling of 16 design and then with the science. Any questions at this 17 point?
18 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: Does anyone have 19 any questions? We'll continue.
20 MR. IORRI: Thank you.
21 MR. SMISTAD: Hello again. What I want to do 22 in these very few view graphs is to walk through a little 23 bit of details of what we did in our working group in PA 24 in contributing to the ECRB planning exercise. I'll just (q
R/
- 25 give you a little background, to show a slide on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
116 1 ccnfigurations that resulted out of the study. I'll talk
,g 2 about the priority, the criteria and the ranking of our
()
3 criteria that we developed in our working group, and just 4 a couple of short conclusions.
5 As Vince mentioned this was an integrated 6 study with design site in PA, so there wasn't one group 7 driving the results of this study. There was both M&O and 8 DOE participation in the PA group. There were five or six 9 experienced PA analysts from the M&O and DOE. Myself and 10 Abe Vanloic were members of the team.
11 We didn't do any special analysis for this 12 study, so really we used expert judgement within the 13 group, and that was based on previous TSPAs that we did, I,,)
\/ 14 so we had something to look to, to produce our criteria 15 list and ranking.
16 These were the configurations that came out of 17 the study. This is a listing. This is ten criteria. We 18 had, I think, 21 we had developed, but this is the top ten 19 list so to speak. So we got criteria, we got the benefit 20 that we saw by going after this criteria in a testing 21 sense, and then the configurations coming out of the study 22 that would satisfy those particular criteria, that's how 23 this particular view graph is organized.
24 The number one criteria that we had with
(,)
/ \
25 seepage into drifts, we felt thic is very important, do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
117 1 you have drips into the drift. And I mentioned earlier we
! 2 will be modeling that drips into the orift for TSPA-VA, 7s
( )
3 but we felt it was an important thing to actually go test 4 as well. And the benefit is to find out what sort of a i
5 water contact mode you have on the packages and then what 6 sort of transport situation you'd have, advective or 7 diffusive, based on your findings. And we felt that 8 configuration number one, east-west drift, could give you 9 that.
10 However, I'd like to say that we're not 11 waiting for an east-west drift to start this sort of 12 testing. Bill Boyle mentioned the alcove, alcove 7, he 13 mentioned that we would be b".lkheaded that alcove and
/~N t 3 x/ 14 instrumenting that to look at this very issue, this very 15 criteria. Do you have drifts? We haven't seen them yet, 16 and we'd like to do a test to see if they are occurring at 17 the site.
18 The second criteria is distribution 19 concentration of tracers and major odd chemistry.
20 Particularly in a PTN we felt that information on this 21 criteria could help you bound extent fast pathways and 22 maybe lateral diversion in that unit. We felt that of the 23 configurations the southern boreholes could supply that 24 sort of information to us.
(a) s 25 Three is saturated zone criteria. I talked a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118 1 little bit about that before, how that is an important 7- 2 piece of TSPA depending upon what kind of assumptions you f )
~
3 make for the saturated zone in terms of dilution, mixing 4 and just general flux in the saturated zone. We felt that 5 the southern boreholes and southern tracer com lex, number 6 five on the list, could help us towards gaining 7 information in that area.
8 Item number for, the distribution 9 concentration environmental tracers, this is sort of a 10 counterpart to number two, but it's below the horizon now.
11 We're talking about the Calico Hills in this instance.
12 Similar benefits, and we felt that boreholes again in the 13 southern part of the block could go towards learning about A
_ 14 this particular criteria.
15 Number five is cathodic protection. At the 16 time we did this analysis we had thought that we could 17 gain something from cathodic protection. We have since 18 learned more or less from the expert elicitation and waste 19 package and from the peer view panel that although this is 20 a phenomenon that probably will occur in the package 21 design we have, it may to be so long-lived. So if we had 22 to do this again today, this may fall further down on the 23 list.
24 The benefit would be to delay the release of t
(_h,) 25 radionuclides out of the package, and this would be some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
119 1 sort of laboratory test looking at this particular
!s l( i 2 criteria.
'~' 3 Six is spatial distribution of flux. This is 4 important and really tied to the first criteria we had in 5 terms of drips into the drift. And then really the 6 spatial, number six, talking about the spatial 7 distribution of that. A difficult thing to measure and go 8 find out. The benefit I think is obvious, how many 9 packages are going to see this advective flow, these 10 dripping on a repository spatial scale. And we felt that 11 you could gain some information from southern boreholes 12 towards this criteria.
13 MR. HINZE: Eric, can I, is this on?
5 :
MR. SMISTAD:
's / 14 I can hear you.
15 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: Well, Bill, I think 16 you have to get up really close to your mouth.
17 MR. HINZE: Just so I --
18 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: You have to speak 19 directly into it. Move it around so --
20 MR. HINZE: -- so I can be directly associated 21 with what you're talking about, what do you mean by 22 southern boreholes -- could you help us a bit with that?
23 MR. SMISTAD: Yes. What I mean by southern 24 borehole or southern boreholes is in the southern part of
("\
(_,) 25 the block. In other words it's a geographic --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
120 1 MR. HINZE: Okay, of the repository block fx 2 itself?
- \
'~
3 MR. SMISTAD: Right.
4 MR. HINZE: And this -- How many holes are we 5 talking about, is this just kind of a general concept?
6 MR. SMISTAD: It's, they had talked about a 7 couple of holes in the study, you know, one to how ever 8 many you felt you could pull off from a constraint 9 standpoint, timing or dollars, that sort of thing. The 10 study really didn't go to the extent of picking, you know, 11 five boreholes or ten boreholes or that sort of thing.
12 But this was a geographic thing, southern boreholes in the 13 block as opposed to southern boreholes in Amargosa Valley
?
/
x/ 14 or something like that. Yes, I apologize for not 15 explaining that a little better on the configuration page.
16 Number seven was transport through a 17 perforated package. We felt this was important. The 18 assumption of getting some sort of credit with diffusive 19 transport through a package as opposed to just assuming 20 onca you have a hole in the package that the contents can 21 sort of be dumped through. So it would -- it's associated 22 with the life time of the package, and we felt this was 23 again another laboratory test that could be performed.
24 Number eight, drip shield performance. At the p
x_) 25 time again we felt that drip shield could be more than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND .NSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
121 1 just an option in our analyses. In other words it could
,f s 2 be a part of the reference case. We're not looking that
'~'
3 way now. However we will analyze this particular feature 4 in the TSPA, but we felt some sort of a performance look 5 at this barrier and the benefits would be to delay 6 corrosion and keep drips off of the package. And that we 7 would see as a laboratory sort of test on materials.
8 Perhaps you could even put it into the field and look at 9 it underground.
10 Number nine, knowledge of near field 11 geochemical or near field environment. This again would 12 be looking at bounding uncertainty on the degradation or 13 dissolution of your package or your waste form itself.
(D
's / 14 Again this would be in our minds a laboratory sort of 15 test.
16 Number ten on our list was cladding. I talked 17 about this a little bit earlier, that we would like to 18 step up to some cladding credit in our analyses, so we 19 felt that, you know, this is obviously something that can 20 delay. It's a barrier that's already there and it's 21 something that can delay the release of radionuclides.
22 And again this would be some sort of laboratory test under 23 repository conditions preferably.
24 Just a couple of short conclusions. We felt
() 25 that the east-west drift and the southern boreholes, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1 know, it could satisfy most of these criteria that we had 73 2 on this list. And it could saticfy some of the criteria
( !
3 thct I didn't show here in my top ten list, the 11 through 4 21 that we developed. The balance of the items of the 5 criteria on the list that are not being, that could not be C satisfied in the east-west drift or southeia boreholes, we 7 are looking at it through modeling and there is some 8 testing available already on some of those criteria.
9 That's all I have.
10 VICE CHAIPMAN HORNBERGER: Questions?
11 Charles?
12 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes. On your number one 13 criteria, the seepage into the drifts, do you have a g
Isl 14 model, a predictive model for that that you're going to 15 test, or are you going to go along the entire drift and 16 put, you know, plastic catches?
17 MR. SMISTAD: I'm not sure I heard your 18 question, but we have what you could call predictive 19 models or conceptual models of dripping into the drift 20 both in terms of a time period, in terms of, more loosely 21 in terms of quantity. And we're also working on, as I 22 mentioned, the spatial distribution of that from a 23 conceptual standpoint. Does ten percent of your 24 repository see drips, does one percent of your repository
,n (w j 25 see drips? It will probably be a distribution in the end, NEAL R. GRO5S COURT TEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123 1 but those sort of questions.
r3 2 And I think you were asking perhaps about
( ) l 3! testing, was that the second part of your question?
4 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes. It just says east-west 5 cross drift, and it's the number one criteria in that.
6 And I was just wondering what you're going to do in the 7 east-west cross drift.
8 MR. SMISTAD: Oh, okay, so you're asking me 9 about what studies would we plan in the east-west drift if 10 we were excavated?
11 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, to tect the particular --
12 MR. SMISTAD: Right. That would probably be--
13 yes, that would be more of -- Dennis Williams will (3 1
\~ / 14 probably address some of those tests that could be planned 15 in an east-west drift.
16 MR. FAIRHURST: All right, fine.
17 MR. SMISTAD: Yes.
18 MR. WYMER: Given the likelihood of a very low 19 water flux on the avelage through the repository and the 20 likelihood that a backfill material would be selected that 21 had a very high Kd or radio of absorb to free ions for 22 selected species, I mean you could tailor that, I wonder 23 if you had considered that at all in your selection of 24 criteria, whether you considered it and decided it was not t
commensurate with the effects of these other things that (h) 25 HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
124 1 you have considered?
fx 2 MR. SMISTAD: Yes, you're absolutely right V)
(
3 about that assumption. We didn't feel at this point that 4 testing of backfill was -- it was on our list by the way, 5 I'll have to wention, it just didn't make our top ten list 6 here, it was something we considered. But we didn't feel 7 that that perhaps that wouAd buy us that much in terms of 8 long term performance associated with the test.
9 MR. WYMER: The reason I ask is I have seen 10 some results, not for the Yucca Mountain repository, but 11 in other cases where relatively limited amount of material 12 with a very high Kd with very little flux gives you 13 extremely long retention times which are probably, you t i k /' 14 might say, in the same category as cathodic protection 15 might be with respect to slowing things down.
16 MR. SMISTAD: It certainly could be the case, 17 We haven't stepped up to that in our modeling yet. We've 18 got a lot of uncertainty with that particular aspect of a 19 design. Although I think the benefits conceptually are 20 easy to understand, it's the assumptions that you make 21 towards those benefits that really drives the outcome.
22 So, yes, you've got a good point.
23 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: Eric, could you 24 just quickly perhaps tell me why the east-west drift, what
() 25 in particular will it add with regard to your number one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTE9S AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
125 1 criterion that you don't get out of alcove 7 or the niche f~s 2 tests?
l )
~'
- 3 MR. SMISTAD
- It gives you another look at a 4 different geographic portion of the repository. The 5 western side we believe has a higher infiltration than the 6 center block or the northern block itself. So it can do 7 that for you. And there is a bevy of other things you can 8 do in an east-west drift as well. The question is timing 9 and cost at that point. I mean what trade-offs are making 10 in those regards.
11 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: Any other 12 questions?
13 Thank you,
/~b
! i
'k;> 14 MR. SMISTAD: Thank you.
15 MR. IORRI: I want to ta'tk a little bit about 16 the design and construction schedules itself and some of 17 the alternate pathways that we have chosen.
18 The optimum configuration included drifting 19 down to Solitario Canyon Fault. As we were talking a 20 moment ago, there are several boreholes, what we call SD-21 13 and SD-11. In addition there is some laboratory type 22 tests that we're going to be performing, as Eric 23 indicated, to enhance the information and confirm what we 24 have already gathered as well as some southern tracer
,r'x
!,x-) 25 tests.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
126 1 MEMBER POMEROY: Before you leave that, just
- 0
,x 2 se I'm clear, are you referring to southern borehole as l
i /
3 the previous speaker referred to southern borcholes?
4 MR. IORRI: Yes.
5 MEMBER POMEROY: And it's my imperfect 6 understanding that SD-11 and SD-13 are both outside of the 7 repository block.
8 MR. IORRI: That's correct.
9 MEMBER POMEROY: So does that mean that there 10 is or is not drilling planned within the repository block?
11 MR. IORRI: Dennis will be able to address 12 that and the testing itself. But to show you where it's 13 at, it appears that it's outside. There is SD-11, there p
i!
- 14 is SD-13 and the block falls in this particular category.
15 MEMBER POMEROY: Okay.
16 MR. IORRI: Here is another view. It's on the 17 view graph itself, SD-11, 13. You took the tour yesterdhy 18 down the main drift on out to the southern porthole. This 19 particular path that we have chosen is the launch chamber 20 intersecticn where that main drift goes down towards the 21 south, down to the Solitario Canyon down here. These are, 22 this particular dotted line is the exhaust main and some 23 of the shafts we had anticipated in the final repository 24 layout.
(3
() 25 I'd like to point your attention over here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
127 1 You'll see some dotted line. These were other 7- 2 alternatives that were considered. With this one up here
~
3 being the final optimum that was the consensus of the 4 entire thino.
5 This one is a little different, only in the 6 aspects that it shows the alcove, the three alcoves: ESF; 7 Crest; and Solitario Canyon alcove.
8 To give you some characteristics of the tunnel 9 as far as excavation, it's about 9,200 feet, approximately 10 16-1/2 feet diameter, the tunnel borir. machine. The 11 grade is going to be three to four percent. Conveyor belt 12 for hauling out the muck, There will be a rail system 13 supported by rock bolts, wire mesh, steel sets as required
- A a
's / 14 at this particular point in time.
15 The alcoves lengths are approximately that as 16 it listed for the first two. And we have several niches 17 as well. It's about 33 feet length.
18 On the niches, etcetera we will use drill and 19 blast, and possibly the Alpine Miner as well. And we're 20 about 20 meters above the block itself.
21 MR. FAIRHURST: Will that tunnel boring 22 machine, of course there's a different one, it's a new 23 tunnel boring machine?
24 MR. IORRI: That's correct, it's a different (g
() 25 one.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 l
l
128 1 This is the schedule itself, and probably the
,3 2 two most important dates is the first date where we
( )
3 started the launch chamber itself, and then the final 4 date. It's about 17 months, but I brought a supplement 5 schedule. I want to show you one thing here. The firct 6 couple, three bars itself, is those items on that 7 particular sheet in that view graph that you havc. But 8 what I wanted to stress is all the other work is the 9 integration that occurred during that integrated planning 10 committee.
11 And a couple of the areas that have been 12 important, and a lot of emphasis in my area, is the 13 ventilation, the dust, as well as the noise gencrated by t s w/ 14 the heavy equipment in the tunnel. We've been working 15 real hard with the health and safety group and trying to 16 negate some of those aspects.
17 That's the previous schedule I indicated.
18 Then our target is about January of ' 99 to be totally 19 done. Dennis will cover the scientific aspects.
20 Is there any questions at this time for me?
21 Thank you.
22 MR, HINZE: One question, Bill.
23 MR. IORRI: Sure.
24 MR. HINZE: Very quickly, I notice that the
( ,) 25 southern boundary of the repository has moved to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
129 1 position of the south ramp. Is there a reason for that?
,3 2 I see two different locations of the proposed repository, f i 3 Your diagram moved to the edge of the south ramp.
l l 4 MR. IORRI: I'm not sure what you're rererring l
5 to. Could you put that, I guess, the port chart up 6 please? Are you referring to this particular one?
7 MR. HINZE: Yes.
8 MR. IORRI: Right in here?
9 MR. HINZE: Yes. The repository --
10 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Bill?
11 MR. HINZE: I'm sorry.
12 MR. IORRI: I think it ends right here, is 13 that correct?
t L 14 MR. HINZE: Is that where it ends?
15 MR. IORTI: Yes.
16 MR. HINZE: Okay, all right, fine. And the 17 red there ie just the perimeter drift then?
18 MR. IORRT: That's correct. ,
19 MR. HINZE: Okay, thank you, i
20 MR. IORRI: Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.
22 MR. IORRI: Thank you.
23 MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning. I'm Dennis 24 Williams, Deputy Assistant Manager for Licensing, and I'm Os ij 25 going to talk a little bit this morning about some of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344 433
130
+
1 science that's in the ECRB. This will be at a relatively
,f 3 2 high level, but if we need to delve into any details,
! )
~#
3 we've got ample folks in the audience to talk about some 4 of those details.
5 Maybe I can bat a little clean-up here today, 6 it's the baseball season. The ECRB scientific activities 7 that I'm going to talk about are largely in the east-west 8 drift. This is also referred to at times as the crossing, 9 the northeast-southwest crossing, or drift would probably 10 be more appropriate, but it's basically the 16 foot 11 diameter excavation that we're going to go across the 12 repository block.
13 We e'so have two boreholes in the ECRB. I'll
'q
\-) 14 show a diagram here in a minute, but basically one to the 15 north end, one to the south end. When we were going 16 through the planning exercise some of the criteria, the 17 way it was developed, it was a matter of we needed 18 specific types of information which could be derived from 19 boreholes. The exact geographic location of these 20 boreholes of course was variable.
21 We could do it in a variety of places 22 throughout the block, throughout the geography of the 23 area, and due to the spacing of some previous, or where we 24 had previous holes located, we chose the locations for
,r\
(a) 25 these two boreholes to try to get a little bit better NEAL R. GROS 5 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
131 1 coverage, get a little bit more representation in the
,-s 2 block and the block area.
(
) 3 Another set of boreholes that was mentioned l
l 4 earlier was the southern tracer complex. This was I
5 originally intended to be far south of the repository area 6 in the down gradient part of the area down towards 7 Amargesa Valley. In evaluating the results out of our C-8 well covolex which is testing the saturated zone, we 9 elected to continue with some of the C-well testing in the 10 saturated zone and defer the southern tracer complex 11 testing possibly out until the '99 or 2000 time frame. As 12 u consequence it wasn't considered, it didn't become part 13 of the ECRB configuration.
f3 t o
\_/ 14 The laboratory test which was mentioned by 15 Eric, there was a lot of laboratory tests that were high 16 priority coming out of the PA portion of the planning 17 exercise. And most of these laboratory tests we have in 18 what we consider to be our base program, which is all the 19 scientific studies that are not as, or not a part of the 20 ECRB.
21 I will close with a couple of, or with one 22 slide on projected costs over the '97, '98, '99 time frame 23 for the science in the ECRB just to give you some kind of 24 a feel for the scope of the effort. Oftentimes I know I
,O
) 25 can better see that if I know what the nature of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
132 1 resources are actually being put into that particular 2 operation.
!n)
'~'
3 Kind of the layout, again Vince noted a couple 4 of the items, the perimeter drift basically rolls around 5 the outside. You can see on this particular drawing we do 6 have some areas noted as expansion areas. We have SD-13 7 to the north end, and SD-11 down at the south end.
8 Those of you that are familiar with some of 9 the other layouts of boreholes, we probably should have 10 put it in for the benefit of this presentation, but I 11 think from that you would have seen that we've got 12 boreholes scattered throughout the area of the repository 13 block and surrounded areas, but these were a couple of s
K/ 14 spots largely on the west side that we felt we could put 15 these holes in, satisfy the criteria of PA, satisfy the 16 criteria of science, and still get a little bit better 17 geographic coverage for part of that representativeness 18 issue that we're always dealing with.
19 The preferred alignment of the crossing of 20 course comes off of the north ramp in the area up there 21 called " launch chamber," and then goes off to the 22 southwest over into the vicinity of SD-6. I'll talk a 23 little bit more about some of the reasons why we wanted 24 that kind of a layout here in a minute.
!7q) 25 I wanted to describe that layout with a block NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRt.NSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
133 1 diagram from our three dimensional integrated site model, f3 2 and the hard copy in color looked pretty good for doing i'"') 3 that, but as it turned out the visual representation 4 wasn't that good, however I was saved by June Fablyka-5 Martin. If we can go to the next one, you'll remember 6 that from her presentation. And I'll point out a few 7 things on that that were considerations for the -- and 8 really scientific and PA considerations for the layout of 9 this particular drift in this configuration.
10 You'll see us coming off of the ESF north 11 ramp. WE basically cross over the north-south main in 12 this vicinity, which does have an alcove associated with 13 it on the crocsing.
,/ 3 k/ 14 Okay, it's back at you. Now, I'll get back 15 close to this one.
16 Okay, across the north-south main. And there 17 will be an alcover at that location. Also we ccme across 18 these areas of variable infiltration. Here at the ridge 19 where we have the highest potential of infiltration we 20 will have another alcove. And over here where we cross 21 the Solitario Canyon Fault we have an alcove complex set 22 in there.
23 Well, same of the things that you can see on 24 this particular diagram is that with the infiltration, the
( ,) 25 high infiltration on the ridges and the lower infiltration NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR9ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
154 1 in the valleys or the washes, what we tried to do is
,3 2 develop a layout such that we could go across some of
)
3 these representative areas, If we just did a pure 4 perpendicular approach off of the north-south main and 5 went to the s'est, great likelihood we will either have 6 been under a ridge or at least under a bit of a valley and 7 then under a ridge, something of that nature. Here we 8 crossed a variety of ridges, a variety of valleys in that 9 variable infiltration configuration to give us a little ,
10 bit more representation on what the infiltration is going 11 be like at the repository horizon, 12 Additionally, over here at the solitario 13 Canyon Fault the further south you go on the Solitario g
-- 14 Canyon Fault the greater the dieplacement becomes, This 15 provided us with one of the areas where we had the 16 greatest displacement, 17 That was good from a scientific standpoint and 18 it was also good from the standpoint of, if we ever wanted 19 to turn under and go back into the Calico Hills below the 20 repository with an extension of this drift, the offset on 21 the Solitario Canyon Fault would allow us to basically 22 drop out a section of the vitrophayre which is an erionite 23 horizon which gives us a lot of problem if we try to 24 excavate through it.
/~
(N) v 25 Next one? The main areas that we wanted to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
135 1 cover with the east-west drift and the science of course, 2 it's basically, you know, it has to be a good technical (g 3) 3 scientific program. And so some of our criteria, they 4 basically relled up into the areas of mapping, mineralogy, 5 rock properties, hydrologic tests, and predictive 6 analysis.
7 We're really pushing the predictive analysis 8 part. I think June gave you a bit of insight to that of 9 predicting what we are going to have out there, going out 10 and do the testing, do the modeling, wrap that up into 11 what it's actually showing us, compare it back to the 12 predictions and see how close we are really coming to 13 that. If we're coming in pretty close, that gives us
/%
's. l' 14 confidence that we're doing the right thing and we're 15 headed in the right direction. If it turns out otherwise, 16 we've got to go back and do some thinking.
17 Some of the uses of characterization data, of 18 cource we have the engineering part of it, we have our 19 confirmation testing as we move to LA, we have process 20 model refinements. Our prediction and our confirmation of 21 course is an iterative process, and thec' efforts are 22 largely oriented to license application.
23 I think you can see from the schedule that our 24 alcoves are coming in in the early '99 time frame,
( ,) 25 obviously after VA, but definitely going to be a real help NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
136 1 in the licensing arena.
( ,-~ 2 Some details on some of the things that we i t )
~#
3 will do. Here we have th mapping activities. We will 4 have the full-periphery geologic mapping, detailed line 5 surveys, geotechnical data collection, the geologic 6 features of significance obviously will be identified in 7 this cross, the ground conditions. This tells t., a little 8 bit about the fracturing and it also helps the designers 9 out. And of course we're going to have our geotechnical 10 predictions before we ever go across that.
11 What we are doirg is basically the same thing 12 that we did in ESF, so there is nothing really new here, 13 it's just a matter that we're applying it to another U 14 excavation.
15 In the mineralogical studies area, of course 16 we have the hazardous minerals, the silica polymorph of 17 chrystobolite and tribimite which are very important to 18 safety and health. Also the distribution of erionite, 19 largely confined to some of our more vitric horizons. The 20 size and mineralogy of these particles is important, how 21 the dust is produced and why, aad what that does to our 22 health and safety. Of course we'll have the analysis of 23 calcite and associated mineral.
24 You've probably heard presentations from Zell
/"N -
(_,) 25 Peterman on the age dating of some of these minerals for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137 1 of course that age dating potential.
t 73 2 Rock properties, fault characterization.
1
'~'
3 Again Solitario Canyon Fault in the area of maximum 4 , displacement, we will be going in and looking at the 5 characterization of thau, the deformation and what that 6 does to the hydrology of the site.
7 Of course we'll perform all of our mechanical s
8 tests, the compressions, the thermals, the x-ray 9 diffraction tests to see if the samples that we have, see 10 if the rock out here in the western part of the block is 11 the same as the rock that we're doing detailed testing on.
12 I think you may recall from Bill's discussion 13 of the large block test, the single heater test, and the i
\_) 14 drift scale test, we have identified the rock types in 15 those areas. I mean are these rock types similar out 16 there? Is this whole area representative such that the 17 tests that we are performing in those large scale tests, 18 is that a valid representation?
19 of course we have rock mass stiffness. Again 20 for the designers, they like for us to go out there and do 21 our borehole jacking, Goodman Jack tests and cement 22 hammers, those type of things, to give us rock mass 23 stiffness and modulus values.
24 Hydrologic tests, again basically not a whole 7-(
v
) 25 lot different from what we're doing in the ESF. We're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER!
1323 RHODE ISLAf/D AVE , N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 10005-3701 (202) 2v4439 l t
. - i
138 1 doing our moisture monitoring, our water potential and g 2 saturation measurements. We're going to do a little bit
- 4
]
3 more on construction water use in the east-west drive than 4 we did in the ESF in large part because of some of the t
5 things that our colleagues from Nye County have shown to 6 us on the potential effect of the construction water.
7 The standard suite of hydrochemistry analyses, 8 that elusive identification of preferential or fast 9 flowpaths. Obviously June will be involved in this with 10 the chlorine-36 and the chlorine.
11 Assess the effects of variability of surface 12 infiltration. Again these alcoves under key points along i 13 the way. We also have a couple of niches planned in
'/ \
)
s 14 there. Part of the objective here will be to do the 15 initial investigations, then bulkhead them off and allow 16 the water conditions to come back to normal. Very similar 17 to what Bill talked about in the niches that we see in the 18 ESF.
19 A bit more on predictive analyses. Again a 20 very large part of our program now, we want to be able to 21 predict not only the lithologies that we will encounter, 22 the nature of the fracturing, some things on the 23 unsaturated zone hydrology such as the gas pressures, the 24 rock moisture, temperature variations, those types of A
y) 25 things. This is putting quite a burden on our PIs. I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND ThANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE . N W (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20G3701 (202) 234 4433 l
139 1 mean this isn't the world that they're r ally that 73 2 comfortable in, but we have to do this in order to i 1 3 demonstrate some degree of reliability that we understand 4 what we are doing.
5 Now, to get in the chlorine-36, the chlorine 6 concentrations and the isotopic compositions, 7 infiltration, percolation and seepage, you know, I 8 mentioned that a little bit earlier, tnat is the first 9 attribute of the waste containment isolation strategy, how 10 much water gets in, what gets down to the opening, what 41 seeps out, what does it do to us from a performance 12 standpoint. A great deal of the effort is pointed in that 13 direction.
7
(
\ -) 14 The fracture mineral age dating, again we'll 35 have predictive ana]yses of these things, and the 16 hydrologic characteristics of the surface based testing.
17 At this point I will jump into those two boreholes on the 18 surface based testing.
19 The northern borehole which is SD-13, the 20 southern borehole which is SD-11, basically the aimilar 21 types of activities in those boreholes, very similar to 22 what we've done with t.he surface based boreholes out here 23 on the mountain over the last five years, looking at the 24 stratigraphy, the moisture measurements, monitoring the 7
( ) 25 steep water table gradient with regard to the northern NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N W-(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
140 1 one. This is a bit of a compliment to WT-24 which is 2 underway right now. And of course tha full suite of g]
\
3 mechanical tests for design.
4 A bit of a picture on how that all uets 5 together. Again SD-13 setting on the north end, and SD-11 6 setting down on the south end.
7 Relative costs of the program associated with 8 ECRB, approximately $580,000.00 in '97. This was largely 9 for predictive analyses similar to what June did on 10 chlorine-36. And even split between '98 and '99, 11 approximately $8.2 to $8.5 million in each of those years.
12 Questions?
13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes.
D (d
14 Paul?
15 MEMBER POMEROY: Dennis, help me a little bit.
16 You showed us a map here, you've given us a map showing 17 the locations of SD-ta, 11 and 13.
18 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
19 MEMBER POMEROY: I'm aware of a numbe. of 20 boreholes, shallow boreholes along tie eastern boundary of 21 the repository as it exists now. Can you give me a rough 22 idea of how many drill holes, shallow, that there are 23 within the repository boundary right now, or that you plan 24 to do?
r3/ 23 MR. WILLIAMS: The shallow boreholes, because NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN!CRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C, 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 m __
141 1 shallow boreholes you know there's a lot of seismic holoc,
,c m 2 there's a lot of just depth to bedrock, there's dozens, if
() 3 not hundreds of those. But the big holes that we have put 4 in the area to really describe the repository block 5 basically run along the north ramp and along the east-west 6 main, and then there's very few along the south ramp. The 7 deepest ones, SD-12 which is in this vicinity, I think SD-8 9 here, SD-7 here, all go to the water table. They are 9 some of the deep holes out there that we have used to 10 characterize the block.
11 MEMBER POMEROY: And that's the extent of the 12 deep holes then as you would define them?
13 MR. WILLIAMS: There's deep holes from earlier i
1_) 14 investigations. We've got water table holes which are 15 deep holes scattered throughout the area, and --
16 MEMBER POMEROY: Within the repository block?
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Within the repository block we 18 really don't have very many deep holes because we have to 19 some extent avoided putting holes as potential pathways 20 through the repository block.
21 MEMBER POMEROY: I understand that, right.
22 MR. WILLIAMS: And so we basically stayed on 23 the perimeters of that and that's why we have holes 24 aligned along the north-south main. Now we're setting up
.r (m,) 25 with SD-11 down here. We have SD-6, the pad prepared, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
l l 142 1 we'll soon be putting our drill rig up on that. That wao 2 a borehole that was added to our program in '97. S-6 is 3 up in this vicinity. I think we've got an H-3 hole up 4 here, and of course SD-13 coniing in here. We've got, 5 let's see, it was UZ-14 which sets in this vicinity, of 6 course the WT-24 setting up there, G-6. Again, we're 7 basically sitting in the perimeter of the block.
O MEMBER POMEROY: Thank you.
9 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, along the proposed drift, 10 do you have any estimate right now of the frequency of 11 fast pathways that you might encounter?
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Frequency of fast pathways --
13 MR. FAIRHURST. How many do you expect to see
(~)
(_-) 14 along the -- you're going to do some predictive analysis, 15 tight?
16 MR. WILLIAMS: -- right. And that part of it 17 will be largely out of June's work, and I haven't seen 18 that particular prediction yet.
19 MR. FAIRHURST: Did you have an idea of the 20 order of magnitude, is it one every hundred meters, one 21 every kilometer?
22 MR. WILLIAMS: I really wouldn't venture a 23 guess, 24 MR. FAIRHURST: All right.
(
( 25 VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: I think June showed
\m-)
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 734 4433
143 1 us two.
n 2 MR. FAIRiiURST : Right.
3 VICE CllAIRMAN liORNBERGER: Didn't she?
4 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: (inaudible) 5 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: June, can you speak into 6 the mic?
7 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: As one of the committee 8 members quickly picked up on, our prediction is only for 9 the proportion of fast paths that would conduct bomb-pulse 10 chlorine-36. You can have fast paths that don't contain 11 bomb-pulse.
12 VICE CHAIRMAN llORNBERGER: So how are you 13 going to predict them?
p Cl 14 MS. FABRYKA-MARTIN: I won't. That's not the 15 answer you wanted though, is it. I mean someone has to, 16 and that would presumably come out of the UZ flow 17 modelers. I mean that's going to come out of the modeling 18 simulations using the project's hydrologic property base 19 and geology. But we need a definition of fast paths too e 20 then.
21 MR. WILLIAMS: We use our unsaturated zone 22 flow model that basically resides in Lawrence Berkeley 23 Laboratory to basically synthesize a lot of these 24 predictions tl:.: we will be using.
r~~
{Nj 25 And again as you can see from the dollar NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TPANSCRIE'ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 i
144 1 distributions we spent very little money in the '97 time p 2 frame basically to get some of these predictions started,
\")
3 and that will be coming in in the early '98 time frame.
4 We want those predictions to be available and in hand 5 before we start the excavation. That's the only way we 6 can feel any rC I.W lity that we don't -- or that it is 7 truly a before w i glediction.
8 VICE CHAIRM W HORNBERGER: Dennis, I have a 9 quick question. You mentioned the northern borehole, the i
10 SD-13. And one of your bullets says one of the objectives l 11 is to monitor the steep water table gradient. And I'm j 12 curious about the word " monitor,a do you anticipate a 13 change in the gradient over time?
'd 14 MR. WILLIAMS: Probably the use of the term 15 " monitor" was an inappropriate term. What this particular 16 borehole will give us is ancther point on the regional 17 water table up there. And then as we move north of course 18 the gradient becomes more dramatic, if in fact it does 19 existing, and the combination of that particular borehole, 20 UZ-14 which we drilled years ago or a couple of years ago, 21 and WT-24 and G-2, those four will give us a better 22 picture of what we're doing with regard to the hydraulic 23 gradient.
24 MR. WYMER: I'm interested in the mineralogic D
(Q 25 studies a little bit, among other things. And the reason NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
145 1 is that the chemical nature of the rock as well as all
,, - - 2 these physical properties we've been hearing about has a l 3 lot to do potentially with the rate of transport of l 4 various species through the rock.
5 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
6 MR. WYMER: And in particular I wondered what 7 is erionite and wi y are you interested in it, chemically 8 that is?
9 MR. WILLIAMS: Erionite is a zeolite, it's a 10 fibrous zeolite. It is a known carcinogen. And our 11 interest in that is largely from the safety and health 12 standpoint. In fact the boreholes where we have 13 encountered erionite, again it's in very small t
(~h
(_) 14 concentrations, but we do see it associated with the 15 vitric layers out there, largely as we approach the Calico 16 Hills, 17 It is such a potential problem that on the 18 drill riga, whenever we approach this area we have the 19 people actually suit up in tivex suits. We put on 20 respirators. We go very carefully through the unit making 21 sure that none of the zeolite escapes to the atmosphere.
22 So from a performance standpoint for long term health and 23 safety, if you will, it's probably not that much of an 24 issue. But from a standpoint of health and safety during
[ \
( ) 25 the excavation process of going through it or drilling HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 2000S 3701 (202) 234 4433
146 1
1 through it, it is an issue.
s 2 MR. WYMER: Okay.
\
\l 3 MR. WILLIAMS: As I tried to allude to early 4 in the discussion there is a variety of things that are 5 driving what we do with regard to this east-west 6 excavation, design, safety and health, science, the whole 7 gambit.
8 MR. WYMER: So it's a zerolitic 9 aluminosilicate?
10 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
11 MR. WYMER: I was, you know, as a chemist I 12 was wondering if maybe you're interested in its cage 13 trapping properties for transport of ions.
O\s / 14 MR. WILLIAMS: It is of such a -- you know, iC 15 may have transport property attributes, but it is of such 16 a small concentration --
17 MR. WYMER: Okay.
18 MR. WILLIAMS: -- I don't think we're going to 19 get down to that level of detail in our PA.
20 MR. WYMER: Okay.
21 MR. WILLIAMS: It's a health hazard.
22 MR. WYMER: Thank you.
23 MR. WILLIAMS: And the formula's about this 24 long, fM 25 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any more questions for (x -)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
147 1 Dennis? If not, thank you.
2 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
7-w)
\
^#
3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I might explain how we're 4 going to try to get back on schedule. At about 12:30 I'd 5 like to take a few minutes break so that we can arrange to 6 get some sustenance in front of the committee, but I think 7 we'll just continue after that break on with the agenda.
8 We must finish the presentations and this part of the 9 meeting by 2:15 when we expect to open up the meeting for 10 public comment.
11 So, Carol, I'll leave it to you to manage your 12 activities such that you cooperate witt 1 in that regard.
13 What's the next presentation by the way?
(~s/ 14 MS. HANLON: It's Jack Bailey, Dr. Garrick.
15 We have no more modifications to the schedule. The next 16 speaker is Jack Bailey followed by Dr. Brocoum.
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Okay.
18 I think after Jack's presentation we'll take a 19 15 minute break and then just resume the agenda and carry 20 on with the DOE portion until 2:15, 21 MR. BAILEY: Good morning, or good afternoon.
22 I'll move through this quickly. I'm going to talk about 23 retrievability.
24 Go to the next slide please. We'll run
./m
( ) 25 quickly through the regulatory requirements, some of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
148 1 recent work that's been done, where we are in the design 7
-~ 2 status, and we'll talk about retrievables for how you do 3 retrieval. And then abnormal conditions, and this is a 4 badly worded piece here, we'll talk about retrieval under 5 some abnormal conditions for limited numbers of packages.
6 The regulatory requirement is in the citation 7 given. We must preserve the option for waste retrieval, 8 and any or all waste must be retrieved up to a 50 year 9 period after waste emplacement beings. This drives the 10 design very much. Being able to maintain that capability 11 for retrieval.
12 Jump to the next slide please. This is not in 13 your book, but it kind of gives you a perspective and it's rw k- 14 how you do the repository. We did a site 15 characterization. We receive on a truck, we package, we 16 take it down into the facility, we emplace it, we have a 17 period that we've named Caretaker and, if you recall Mitch 18 Brodsky's slides from earlier, it takes about 23 years to 19 get the full compliment of waste into the facility, but 20 the regulation requires us to keep it open for 50 years, 21 so we have about another 27 years where we watch the 22 waste, do performance confirmation, and keep track of 23 what's going on.
24 We've labeled that period Caretaker, and we've O
'( j 25 shown a little piece here, which you won't see again, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR:BERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C- 20005 3701 (202) 1214433
l 149 l
1 which suggests that we go down and monitor packages and i
2 such in place. And then we have a closure phase. The post (7l
'~
3 closure, should we chose to close it at the 50 year point 4 or somewhere down the range.
5 We believe that the regulations suggest that 6 if we have to do retrieval it is during the waste 7 emplacement in the Caretaker period. Once we've made the 8 decision to close, then retrieval would be precluded on 9 the same time frame basis. And that's the way that we 10 interpret the second piece of the law or the regulation.
11 And that is, is that we need to be able to get it out 12 about the same time we put it in. So once we make the 13 decision that the facility is approached, should we make im I i
\/ ~ 14 that decision if the facility is acceptable, then we would 15 preclude retrieval at that time.
16 The work that we've done is we made a 17 retrievability strategy report where we went back to what 18 our packages are proposed to be, the large heavy package, 19 and we selected a series of scenarios under retrieval and 20 what I would call waste package movement. And tnat is 21 that we have to be able to move packages around, and that 22 could happen under several different scenarios. We might 23 run one off a rail, we may have a rock fall on it, we may 24 have a transporter that fails and we have to recover a p
( ,j 25 transporter, a series of scenarios like that so that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
150 1 can think through the types of failures that we're going 2 to have in order to be able to retrieve at any given time.
p-)-
\
'- 3 Our basic equipment for this consists of, 4 under normal conditions, the waste package transporter and 5 retrieval gantry, and I'll go into that a little bit more.
6 Basically we put it in and we would take it out in the 7 same manner. And we designed the facility, as I said, it 8 controls our design. We designed the facility such that 9 the facility is still in condition, it can be maintained 10 in a condition such that we can basically go get any waste 11 package any time we have to up until the tie of closure of 12 the facilities. And those are our design bases.
13 The abnormal conditions were those conditions (m / 14 under which it's odd. Would include things like a multi-15 purpose vehicle to go in there without a road, big rubber 16 tires, so in there without a rail, pick something up, drag 17 it around like a big tow truck, use a series of shields, 18 and there is a piece here that does that. And we have to 19 be able to pick it up and move it in some manner.
20 In addition to that because of the large 21 packag_ and the high thermal and the high radiation 22 fields, we have to be able to do a great deal with this 23 remote. And so there is a short discussion in here on the 24 use of remote controls or manual remote whereby we can
/~N (j 25 direct the activities of large pieces of equipment from a N EAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 l
151 1 remote location to ensure that we can pick the packagno 7.- 2 up.
( )
3 If you will show slide ten, I'll walk through 4 these next slides while I point at slide ten. And what we 5 have here, if I can find a place where I can talk, what we 6 tried to shew here is first a series of emplacement 7 drifts. You'l] notice that in the center of thir drift, 8 obviously not to scale, but in the center of this drift we 9 show the ventilation system below with a series of risers 10 running from the ventilation system up to the emplacement 11 drifts. This is replicated on the other side so that 12 there is a ventilation drift down the center and you can 13 emplace or retrieve from either end. So you have the
(.
?
x_) 14 capability of coming from either end if you want to remove 15 a package. And that also deals with waste package 16 movement should we want to pick up a package.
17 Now, what we tried to show here is the basic 18 features. This is the locomotive that actually delivers 19 the package down to a drift to be emplaced. And here is a 20 package sitting in a drift and it is emplaced. You'll see 21 the ct'cbbly piece which shows better here, which are the 22 supports upon which the package is placed.
23 Here you will see a package that is being 24 pushed into a drift. It actually goes onto a rail car out 7
() 25 of the shielded transporter on to a rail car, and we use a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
152 1 gantry crane. This gantry crane comes over the waste
- 7. m 2 package and lifts and places lugs, if you will, into the
! \
3 skirt of the waste package to lift the waste package by 4 the skirt. By lifting that package we can take it down 5 wherever we need to in the drift via remote control. We 6 can use telemetry and we can use television cameras to 7 place it where it is that we want to place it, and then we 8 place it on top of the available waste package supports.
9 Now, this says " Waste emplacement system walk-10 through of retzieval." What you do to get it out is you 11 send the gantry in and you have to cool the drift. The 12 drift hac to be 50 degrees C or below, and qualified 13 equipment to operate up to a 50 degrees C atmosphere. So V 14 you have to run a force draft ventilation of the drift in 15 order to cool the drift down so that you can send the 16 equipment in. That means that we have to size the 17 ventilation systems to allow us to do that kind of a 18 forced drift.
19 Technology. Sort of technology.
.20 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: You don't need to entertain 21 us.
22 MR. iEY: Believe me I don't want to here, 23 not in that manner.
24 We have to cool the driftn, and we can cool it (h
() 25 from either dir etion. And we have to have enough NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
153 1 ventilation capacity to be able to cool in either 7s 2 direction. And once we've cooled we would start taking
( )
3 out the end of the drift where the flow is, and we'd 4 basically take each package out one at a time, send the 5 gantry crane in, pick up the package, place it in the 6 shielded transporter, use the rail to take it all .he way 7 back to the surface and then unload it on the surface and 8 place it out into a holding area. And we would do this 9 basically one package at a time with the same set of 10 equipment that we used to emplace it.
11 In order to do that we ha i to have a design 12 capability of maintaining the drifts intact. Hence, we've 13 sent up a hundred year design life for these with the
,73 k_) J '. potential for repair if necessary. Hopefully we'll make 15 it robust enough. And we don't see a whole lot of 16 movement in the earth, so that maybe we won't have too 17 much maintenance, but that's some of the things that we're 18 trying to investigate here in the near future. We will 19 take the packages, send the gantry crane in and be able to 20 take them out.
21 You'll see here, just for information sake, 22 the air luck between where we niight be digging and where 23 we might be retooving. And this separates an area where 24 we're moving packages from an area that we're not moving
/
(_m) 25 packages. You see the little control panel here so that HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
154 1 we can send this? Our intent is to have a driver in tha
,x 2 locomotive, although it also can be controlled remotely if
( )
3 necessary. The gantry would be controlled probably from 4 the surface, was our initial though, using both telemetry 5 and the television cameras to get us there.
6 I think I covered all the slides, all the 7 bullets on the slide.
8 MEMBER POMEROY: Jack?
9 MR. BAILEY: Yes.
10 MEMBER POMEROY: If you did have a problem 11 doing that, how long would it take you to, for instance, 12 move all the packages in one of the drifts out of the 13 area, is that a number you have quickly?
(_s/ 14 MR. BAILEY: I have to think. That's 100 15 drifts total and we put it in at 25 years, so we do four 16 drifts a year, so it would take three months to empty a 17 drift.
18 MEMBER POMEROY: Three months.
19 MR. BAILEY: After it had been cooled.
20 MEMBER POMEROY: After it's cooled.
21 MR. BAILEY: And it would probably take three 22 months to cool it. But once you get it cooled, it would 23 take about three months. And if you worked from both 24 directions, you could do it in a shorter period, if you g3 25 had to.
ix_-)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
155 l
l 1 But our goal is to use the same equipment, not
, ,7x ; 2 necessarily the equipment we put it in with, but the same i Lype of equipment to be able to go back and get it and 4 then be able to remove it so that it's just the reverse 5 process of how we put it in there.
6 As I said, there is about 100 drifts and 7 there's about 100 canisters per drift I believe, or a 8 little more, and we can load it in 25 years, so that's 9 your thumb rule as to how long it takes.
10 The next slide, which is 11. I skipped the 11 word slides and tried to talk through those on this to 12 save some time.
13 There was a question about pre-closure. Well
,y .
(-) 14 we are doins a little bit of work in the pre-closure area.
15 This is a gantry, this is the gantry crane. You can see 16 the lifting heads here where it fits inside the skirts.
17 You can see that it rides on rails. Our intent is to use 18 a third rail electrical power pick up, single failure 19 proof in that we have a couple of motors associated with 20 f. t . We have some extra acrisolo to spread the load 21 around, and we have the ability to lift. And I think 22 there is two motors for lifting and being able to carry.
23 So we're looking at the capability of doing that and 24 making sure we've got enough steel to pick one of thece up A
(v ) 25 and move it up and down the drift on a reliable basis, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
156 1 Next slide. This is an end view. You will 2 notice that it shows one package moving over another.
[x}
'~#
3 That is a design consideration we are trying to maintain, 4 but it is not a requirement. We will have to make a 5 decision, if we cannot lift one over another, as to G whether or not we want to spend the extra money for the 7 size of the drift. But at this point in time the 8 preliminary mathematics says that we can get enough steel 9 and we can do the lifting. We can actually go get a 10 package if we desire.
11 That is not necessary for retrieval.
12 Retrieval is, the mountain is not going to perform 13 properly and we need to take it out. But if we wanted to
'O
, J
\- / 11 cample a package, if we felt we had a manufacturing error 15 or if we felt that there was an issue associated with some 16 piece of fuel, we could, as it's presently designed, go in 17 and find what we need and take it out without disturbing 18 or unloading a whole drift.
19 But we are building into the facility some 20 empty drifts such that, if we do have to move things 21 around that we can't lift over, we can actually just 22 shuffle drifts. Which is also how we would do 23 maint enance, is empty a drift, continue to cool the drift 24 until we could actually work on it, and do the
(- 25 maintenance.
i ,/
NEAL R. GROS $
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 m ( s.; A , - -
157 1 Go ahead. Just a very quick picture that 73 2 suggests that you have some means of controlling all of 3 these, and they are all remote / manual. It's not our 4 intent to put it on a computer and let the computer go and 5 deliver everything, although it's probably capable. It 6 would be the old joystick and a remote / manual, and we 7 could take the thing where we want to, and we have lots of 8 sensors. And we can do it through telemetry, laser 9 distancing. We're looking at all those kinds of 10 mechanisms to make sure that it works, satisfy safety 11 criteria. And in fact we're looking at a great deal of 12 NRC regulatory guidance associated with cranes and remotes 13 to see what's there that we can make applicable to work g)
(
\_/ 14 inside this kind of a facility.
15 This is an interesting one from my point of 16 view :3 try and work, for example, in a pre-closure world 17 with having two means of being able to control it. What 18 if the lock falls at this end? How do you make sure you 19 have something coming from the other end? And so we're 20 looking at all those kinds of issues on a pre-closure 21 basis as you questioned earlier, Dr. Pomeroy.
22 And there's various ways, antenna systems, 23 different monitoring and control stations, and we can see 24 all of these different pieces. You see some pictures down
(~m
() 25 here for digging it out or for a load hauling dump to go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
158 1 get it. And we have some drawings of those which I tiidn' t 1
em 2 put in the presentation, but we have some thoughts on how
/ T 3 to go retrieve in the event of some of those other 4 probleinatic areas, which are the abnormal retrieval, which 5 is next.
6 And again I'll move quickly. Go ahead. And 3 7 you can see we're looking at how do we put up a high 8 efficiency particulate air filter bulkhead, if we have a 9 rockfall, pick up everything up to the rockfall, determine 10 whether or not we have some kind of radiological control 11 issue. If we do, remember that the ventilation is all 12 moving away from the inhabited are to the central 13 ventilation drift, so everything moves away. /
(D
\_) 14 So the people that have to work, clean air is 15 going past them at a fairly high velocity so that you can 16 keep them in clean air, radiological air, and kcap the 17 radiological contaminants moving in the other direction.
18 So we get up a bulkhead so that we can separate that when 19 we get close.
20 We looked at a performance confirmation gantry
. 21 and qualified, as I said, that you'll get it. And then 22 you can see a whole series of fairly specialized equipment 23 that looks like tow trucks with shovels. Which basically 24 we believe that we can dig it out on the off chance that (N) x-25 something gets buried, f.
s NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE IRAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
159 l 1 gain, the next slide is the same thing, a l
73 2 series of fairly specialized equipment, covered cars, i
)
3 tunnel forms so that if we have to rebuild the tunnel in 4 order to get back to a place where something is covered, 5 there is fill material, temporary shields should we need 6 them, which is an interesting problem because you do have 7 a great deal of streaming up and down the tunnel and we 8 have to be able to move in with shields and stay behind 9 the shields.
10 Even though loose radiological will be heading 11 that way away from us, we still have the problem with the 12 shine from the actual fuel itself working down the tunnel.
13 And so a lot of this has to be done remotely until we
/7 4 i
\-) 14 actually can get close enough, put up the shields and then 15 try and get close enough to get some visuals, if we can, 16 But a great deal of it will have to be done remotely.
17 And we are thinking just a little bit through 18 the operational aspects. What will we really have ;o do 19 if one of these falls? We have to do a survey, we nave to 20 get access controls, we have to confine the contamination 21 where we're actually working. Even though the air may be 22 sweeping that way, we may need some supplemental help.
23 And collecting non-radiological data, why the heck did 24 this happen so we can do a root cause to make sure it
( ,) 25 doesn't happen to us over and over. So we're thinking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
160 1 through those kind of scenarios and trying to come up with 73 2 some equipment.
! I 3 Retrieval is an important part in our mind to 4 what is the requirements in the regulation in Part 60, and 5 so we're spending a fairly extensive amount of engineering 6 effort to try and make sure that we understand what do we 7 have to do in order to move the packages from the mountain 8 back out, and although we're not suggesting that we would 9 do it for every package, still have the capability to move 10 a package under an abnormal condition.
11 Not bad.
12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Questions?
13 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes. So this implies that if
\~ l 14 you were to use backfill at any time, it would be done 15 after the retrieval period?
16 MR. BAILEY: Yes. I' m so'.ry I didn' t mention 17 that. You're correct. If we were to use backfill, our 18 plans would be not to install the backfill until a'ter the 19 need for retrieval had been identified, and wa'te l l
20 considering that. As I said it is a design driver, we 21 have to consider retrievability. And so tne analysis and 22 the calculations we do, we try and look at it to see what 23 happens with the timing of that placement being reported, 24 If it turns that placing it very early is very helpful,
/~~T
( ,) 25 then we'll have to make some different decisions, but we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR BERS 1323 FtHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
161 1 would not place backfill, if it were used, until after the
- 2 retrievability period or retrievability requirement had
'J 3 been lifted.
4 MR. WYMER: Do you have a rough estimate of 5 the background radiation in various places when you loaded 6 up with fuel?
7 MR. BAILEY: I've slept since I lacked at that 8 last, so let me think for a minute. I believe I don't 9 have any staff here, I don't think I have the right 10 person. My recollection is about 35 R per hour on the 11 outside of a package. Within a meter of the package it's 12 pretty significant. We use a shielded transporter. The 13 package is 65 times and the transporter that we carry it r'^T
\s-) 14 down with including shielding weights 250 tons, so it's a 15 pretty amount of shielding in order to accomplish t.nat.
16 Yes?
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Jack, you said at the 18 outset that the repository design was very much dependent 19 upon the retrievable requiremente.
20 MR. BAILEY: Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Just how stable are the (
22 retrieval and retrievable requirements?
23 MR. BAILEY: The retrievable requirements are 24 as stated there. I think they're loosely translated from (x_/ ) 25 Part 60. I think they're a little bit more precise. But NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RttoDE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3731 (202) 2344 433
162 1 they basically say you have to have the capability to 2 retrieve at any time up to 50 years after emplacement.
[_s\
\'-) 3 Straightforwardly you have to do that.
4 I believe the definition of that is going to 5 allow us to have some operating cenditions which says that 6 we will have localized areas of having to, say dig them 7 out, but not every one. And so I think the criteria is 8 very straightforward as to what we have to do. And our 9 selection of how we do it is an inverse, and that forces a 10 lot of design requirements in order to make sure that we
- 1. have that capability for a long period.
12 I think the harder part is that should the 13 time framn be extended from 50 to a greater period, then I
A
)
(_ / 14 the maintenance and the robustness of this ground support 15 system starts becoming an even bigger issue with us.
16 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Okay. Any other questions?
17 Thank you.
18 MR. BAILEY: Yes, sir.
19 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: As I read the agenda we 20 have one more presentation from this segment of the 21 program, is that correct? And I guess what I'd like to do 22 is take a 15 minute break to let the committee get their 23 sandwich and then have that presentation made, if you'll 24 bear with us while we're consuming our quick lunch. So rm 25 let me take a recess for about 15 minutes.
(V)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
163 1 (Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the meeting was
,_ 2 adjourned to reconvene this same day at 1:03 p.m.)
(s)
\~ 3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: We're going to come to 4 order.
5 Steve, introduce yourself and your subject.
6 DR. BROCOUM: Okay. I've been asked to talk 7 about the DOE interim post-closure performance measure.
8 You'll note that the title of my talk is a little bit 9 different than the title in the agenda, but the post-10 closure performance measure is the politically correct 11 term.
12 What I'm going to talk about includes some 13 background, what our post-closure performance measure is.
('
(/_
14 We have a goal also, what that is. What our rationale is 15 for the time frame, the dose limit, and where the 16 compliance is measured.
17 Some background, and I think most of us know 18 this no I'll do this very quickly. In 1987 the District 19 Court remanded EPA's standard, and we have had no post-20 closure standard for ten years when you think about it, 21 okay. And in '92 Congress directed the EPA to promulgate 22 a site-specific standard. To this date that standard has 23 not yet been promulgated. And until that standard is 24 promulgated we are using this interim performance measure
) 25 to guide the program, you know, as we move on without NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBFRS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON O C. 20035 3701 (202) 234 4433 l
1
i 164 l 4 1 design.
i
-~s 2 The performance measure that we have is at the
'~
3 expected annual dose to an average individual in the 4 critical group living 20 kilometers from the repository 5 shall not exceeds 25 millirem from all pathways and all 6 radionuclides during the first 10,000 years after closure.
7 The goal we have, that we will conduct 8 analyses beyond 10,000 years to gain insight into longer-9 term system performance. For this period, the expected 10 annual dose to an average individual in a critical group 11 living, again 20 kilometers from the repository, should be 12 below the 10,000 v9ar performance measure.
13 Now, some of the rationale. We have had the (D
k/m 14 ponition in the programs for many years that 10,000 years 15 is a sufficiently long period for the protection of public 16 health and safety. And there is lots of regulatory 17 precedence, both national and internationally, for that 18 10,000 year period of time.
29 We're always felt that a time frame greater 20 than 10,000 years addu regulatory complexity without 21 necessarily providing added public health and safety. A 22 lot of the calculations for the far future depend on 23 expert judgments concerning how the systems in the 24 biosphere evolves. And those results to some degree ts i
s ) 25 stylize or even may be speculative when you get out there, NEAL R. GROSS I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
1 (202) 23444 4 3 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l
165 1 and they don't really mean all that much from a predictive sense.
p) 4 2
3 lloweve r , doing calculations beyond 10,000 4 years can provide insight regarding longer-term system 5 behavior. And we could use those calculations to perhaps 6 enhance the engineer barriera to enhance performance of 7 the rapository.
8 The post 10,000 year goal was established to 9 compliment the 10,000 year performance measure. And the 10 major changes we've had since the last time, I think we've 11 talked about this with this committee, was when we talked 12 about it last time and we were talking about the National 13 ,
Academy of Sciences, the peak doses were occurring in time
/^\
) 14 frames of several hundred thousands of years. In fact I 15 think I recall back in '91, '92 time frame, or maybe it 16 was '93, four to six hundred thousand years. And now the 17 peak dose is based all this information, particularly to 18 percolation flux, are occurring on the order of several
, 19 tens of thousands of years, somewhere between 20 and 20 30,000 years. So the engineers like to think of that the 21 intent of the goal is to provide additional safety margin 22 by flattening the peak dose curve. ;
23 And on the next view graph I have an example 24 of that dose history. And this upper graph here, this O
V 25 upper curve, is our reference, as it is defined today, our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
166l i reference case. That was the case shown in Eric Smistad's
,3 - 2 view graph minus the cladding. There was an error in that U 3 view graph.
4 And so you can see that the peak dose is 5 occurring just after 20,000 years. Anc'. in f act there are 6 no releases in this particular calculation before 10,000 7 years. So the intent here is we don't want to be in a 8 situation where we have, you know, the repository might 9 perform excellently for 10,000 years and then it kind of 10 rapidly fails beyond that. And so that's the intent of 11 the goal. So they say flatten the curve, it's turn the 12 curve over so it doesn't rise so steeply.
13 With regard to dose limit, a doee limit on the O
V 14 order of 100 millirem is protective of what we feel is 15 protective of public health and safety. It is consistent 16 with many of those issues. I want to particularly point 17 out Chairman Jackson's testimony because in her testimony 18 on April 29th she addressed a time frame, she addressed 19 the dose limit, and she addressed conservatism. So she 20 basically said 10,000 years to protect public health and 21 safety. She basically said 100 millirem is protective of 22 public health safety. And for conservatism and for 23 defense-in-depth it ought to be on the order of 30 24 millirems.
/D
() 25 As we know since then the regulation on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000S-3701 (202) 234-4433
167 L
1 termination of license decommission rule has come out for 2 unrestricted use of 25 millirem. And that's kind of how 3 we came up with our number, our 25 millirem number. So 4 the next view graph shows that, okay. And some of the 5 reasons are listed under there that I have already 6 discussed.
7 The next view graph. Where should the 8 compliance location be? Well, obviously it ought to be 9 down gradient from Yucca Mountain down the direction that 10 the radionuclides or the plume of the radionuclides as 11 they are released from the repository will be. And-down
( 12 gradient to the south is where the population will be at 13 most risk.
14 We believe that the characteristics of this 15 critical group should be established based on present day 16 knowledge ano using some cautious and reasonable 17 assumptions. That was the recommet.dation also in the 18 National Academy of Science's report. We feel that 19 predicting future population, especially when the future 20 is very speculative, it's insupportable, and again our 21 recommendation is consistent with the National Academy.
22 Based on present day characteristics, the 23 critical group would be located in the farming community 24 just south of Yucca Mountain, Amargosa Farms. That's
() 25 'vhere the people living today, that's uhere the water NEAL R. GROS $
=
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1r3 RHODE ISUAD AW., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
168 1 well, water is shallow enough that it's easily removed for
! g- 2 farming and personal use, and that's wher, -
e economical
, 3 to do farming. Going much north of that, it becomes non-4 economical in terms of the cost of rising the water, and t
5 talk more in subsistence farmer sense.
6 The next view graph shows, just shows where 7 all these are located. The Nevada Test Site, the 8 repository 5, 20 and 30 kilometers, those are the numbers 9 that have been bantered around for compliance locations.
10 20 kilometers at the southern edge of the Test Site, and 11 30 kilometers is roughly where Amargosa Farms is. Surface 12 water of course occurs at Ash Meadows. And it all ends up 13 in Franklin Lake Playa in Death Valley.
g)
s l 14 Okay, we chose 20 kilometers because it is 15 conservative and because although there is no critical 16 group, if I can go back a second, go back to that view l 17 graph, there is no critical group in this area. There are 18 some wells and there are a few people living there, but 19 it's not consistent with a critical group definition, 20 okay, but there are a few people there.
21 So in summary we feel that our interim 22 performance measure provides a reasonable target to help 23 guide our technical program as we proceed with our designs 24 and our calculatit..s absent a standard. And we also feel
/x
( ,) 25 nlaat our interim performance measure is protective of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN3CRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
169
.1 public health and safety. Thank you.
7x 2 Any questions?
l
'~'
)
3 CRAIRMAN GARRICK: Steve, just in case the EPA 4 standard turns out to be much more conservative than 5 expected or than what you have done, have you done 6 unreported analyses under a much more severe set of 7 requirements?
8 DR. BROCOUM: We have done analyses of five 9 kilometers, and at 20, and at 30. We have done analyses 10 with those options. I think the curve I showed you, for 11 example, showed you what it looks like at 20 kilometers.
12 I could show you an example of what it looks like at five 13 kilometers, if we could pull it out quickly enough here.
/~T x.s 14 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I'm also thinking in terms 15 of a more conservative critical group such as the well-16 known subsistence farmer or the maximally exposed 17 individual?
18 DR. BROCOUM: We thought a lot about it. We 19 have done some subsistence farmer calculations I believe 20 where they get 100 percent of their food and their water 21 from, you know, the place where they live, our 22 understanding is EPA has been moving more to a rural 23 residential resident gets about half their food and water, 24 food where they live. So we've done both of those cases, 7 's
(,,) 25 so I'm not sure -- we've done those kind of calculations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
170 1 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes?
I e 2 MEMBER POMEROY: Steve, this is for 20
( )
3 kilometers. Did you say -- I'm sorry, did you say you 4 might have one at five kilometers?
5 DR. BROCOUM: I do have one, yes. I have it 6 in the book here. He doesn't have it. I was looking to 7 him to pull it out. But I think there is one. This is a 8 calculation using our current referenced design at five 9 kilometers with a six millimeter percolation flux and lot 10 of other assumptions built in. In this case you can see 11 that the reference design has a peak of about 200 or so 12 millirems. You would have to invoke other design features 13 which are represented by these other curves here to reduce V 14 the releases and the doses.
15 So that's, you know, we've done a lot of 16 sensitivity studies in house, okay, so this is another 17 example.
18 MEMBER POMEROY: Okay, thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any other comments, 20 questions from the committee?
21 MEMBER POMEROY: One other quick one. Interim s
22 means interim until there is either a standard or a 23 regulation, is that correct, or does it mean until there 24 is a --
(j 25 DR. BROCOUM: Well, it's just what we're using NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 133 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WAFHtNGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4413
171 1 in house to help guide us.
2 MEMBER POMEROY: All right.
f(fs
'~) 3 DR. BROCOUM: We need to be working.
4 Certainly, and particularly engineers who are very strong 5 need to be working on some kind of internal measures.
6 I'll use my politically correct word here. And of course 7 when EPA publishes or promulgates their rule, their draft a rule, we'll have a much better idea which way they're 9 heading. And until that happens though we are working for 10 now on this one. Which we again think is a reasonable 11 standard, so we're arguing what we worked was reasonable 12 in the protection of public health and safety. We'll have 13 to see wnat EPA comes out with, f" y k_- 14 MEMBER POMEROY: I guess what I was thinking 15 of is, if there weren't an EPA atandard, but if there were 16 a revised Part 60 --
17 DR. BROCOUM: Revised Part 60 will point, it's 18 my understanding, will point to an EPA standard. So 19 unless there is -- well, okay, I think we're consistent in 20 our interim measure with the -- the closest we come to, 21 which is the termination of license rule which was just 22 issued I think last summer, which has 25 millirem for 23 unrestricted access.
24 MEMBER POMEROY: Thanks, Steve.
(O) 25 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any other comments, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
172 1 questions?
y3 2 Thank y7u very much.
. \
)
3 DR. BROCOUM: Okay.
4 MS. HANLON: Our last speaker is Dave Swanson.
5 And Dave is with the Regional Studies Division of the M&O 6 organization, and he has a presentation I think you'll be 7 interested in. The Amargosa Valley population survey.
8 It's very timely following as a transition to Steve's 9 discussion of the interim performance measure.
10 Dave, thanks.
11 He will also be able to shed a lot of light on 12 our subsistence farmer.
13 MR. SWANSON: On behalf of myself and my
/3
! 4
's / 14 colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to come here 15 before you today and provide an overview of the recently 16 completed food consumption survey that we completed to 17 support biosphere modeling related assessment efforts.
18 As stated on the view graph, I'm David 19 Swanson, a social scientist with the Regional Studies 20 Division of the M&O. I'm an applied demographer and I've 21 done a lot of primary data collection in many western 22 states including Nevada.
23 Each of you should have a complete set of the 24 materials comprising my presentation in hard copy form.
(-
() 25 In order to stay within the time allotted I am planning to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 u
173 1 show only a subset of these materials on the overhead 2 projector. If you would like to pursue a point that I 7-s
\'~' )
3 don't cover in the presentation, I hope that during the 4 time allotted for questions we can go over them.
5 I'll move rather quickly to the first three of 6 the six areas into which my presentation is organized, to 7 get to the more important, are the methodological issues 8 underlying the survey where I'd like to spend some time 3
9 before moving on to the core of the presentation results 10 '*om the survey. Following this part of my presentation I 11 will briefly describe how the survey results have been 12 used in support of biosphere modeling and other assessment 13 activities, and then conclude with some of the issues that
,/~~
t :
\~/ 14 have emerged as a result of the survey.
15 Because no quantitative information existed on 16 the level of consumption of locally produced food in the 17 study area, we conducted a low cost pilot study last 18 winter to determine if there was an appreciable level of 19 consumption of locally produced food in the Amargosa 20 Valley, the community most proximate to the site, and the 21 one in which our experience indicated that local food was 22 most likely to be produced and consumed.
23 The pilot study, a random sample of 55 24 households, revealed that indeed locally produced food was
( ) 25 consumed in an appreciable number of households, 76 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
174 l 1 percent. Moreover, using statistical inference we were 95 i
i
,- 2 percent certain that locally produced food was consumed in
~'
3 at least 63 percent of all households in the Amargosa 4 Valley. These results clearly indicated the need for a 5 complete and more detailed survey.
6 Also, please note that while we did not know 7 in advance of the pilot if a full survey would be needed, 8 we went ahead and used the pilot study as a vehicle for 9 not only determining if a full survey was needed and 10 feasible, but also in helping us design the sample data 11 collection plan and questionnaire for a full survey that 12 would be capable of yielding information that was 13 reliable, valid and as precise as possible given our time
( )
N/ 14 requirements and available resources.
15 The primary goals of the survey were 16 threefold. First it needed to provide information on the 17 annual consumption of water, locally produced food by 18 adult residents in the study area that would be suitable 19 as input to the GENIIS-S model, the package being used for 20 biosphere modeling.
21 Second, it was needed to collect demographic 22 information on adults residing in the study area, which is 23 within the 50 mile radiological monitoring grid, and 24 includes the following four communities and their
(,) 25 environments: Amargosa Valley; Beatty; Indian Springs; NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
175 1 and Pahrump.
,s 2 Third, while maintaining respondent l ! )
l '~' 3 confidentiality, data on food consumption, demographics 4 and geogruphic location needed to be linked so that a 5 range of subsets of the adult population in the study area 6 would be available to serve as an empirically defined 7 critical group, a concept crucial to the biosphere 8 modeling task, but one for which we have not yet received 4
9 a final decision on a definition from regulatory bodies ,
10 and other relevant parties.
11 In short we need a dataset that not only met 12 the standard requirements of validity, reliability and 13 suitable precision with time and resource requirements,
( )
N/ 14 but also one that would be highly flexible in terms of 15 accommodating a wide range of potential critical groups 16 that could be formed from subsets of the adult population 17 currently residing in the study area.
1G Let me turn now to the survey. There was a 19 random stratified sample completed in early June. 1,079 20 interviews were collected by the cannon Center for Survey 21 Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. These 22 interviews were conducted using the center's computer 23 assisted telephone interviewing system known as a CATI 24 system, C-A-T-I. This is one in which an electronic copy
,/
) 25 of the questionnaire appears on a computer monitor. The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433 l
176 1 interviewer reads directly from it and asking questions to r3 2 a respondent over the telephone by means of a telephone
( )
3 headset. The responses given the interviewer are then 4 entered directly via keyboard into the appropriate 5 location on the questionnaire as it appears on the 6 monitor.
7 In a CATI system many errors are completely 8 eliminated because there is no transfer of information 9 from one median, paper for example, to another, a computer 10 file. The transfer is seamless in the CATI system. Also 11 instantaneous checks for valid entry are conducted, as is 12 the correct sequencing of questions. When completed the 13 questionnaire and its data become a case in the data file
( )
's / 14 constructed for the survey and are ready for the next step 15 of the editing and quality control process, 16 I was looking to see if the center's director, 17 Dr. Grace Wu, is here. She was planning on coming, but I 18 don't see her here, but we gained much from our 19 collaboration with the center in all stages of this 20 project in implementing the survey.
21 In any survey the major goal is to control 22 total error, which results from two sources. The first 23 source is sample error, which is simply the deviation of a 24 sample estimate from its corresponding population value.
< rN
) 25 This is simply due to the random effects in selecting the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
177 1 sample. While they are not controllable, they certainly 73 2 are measurable.
( )
~~
3 The second source is non sampling error.
4 Unfortunately non-sampling error like sample error is l
l 5 difficult, if not impossible to measure. This is doubly l
6 unfortunate because eminent survey researchers are 7 generally in agreement that non-sampling error constitutes 8 the largest source of error in any given survey. It 9 arises from a wide range of causes, most of which can be 10 placed into two categories, response errors and non-11 response errors.
12 In terms of the first category, response 13 errors, most of them are cognitive in nature, a respondent f%
- m. ) 14 forgetting what locally produced food he or she has eaten 15 and how much of it, or respondent misreading or 16 understanding a question and simply giving incorrect 17 information in return. Other causes stem from poorly 18 designed measuring instruments, questionnaires, poor 19 office procedures, and poorly trained or inexperienced 20 interviewers. To minimize response errors a wide range of 21 standard procedures was used before, during and after the 22 data were collected.
23 The questionnaire was subject to a series of 24 critical reviews and tests before it was employed,
/~ 'N
( ) 25 including actual field tests. In addition to general NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
178 1 office procedures, the center's staff was trained in
,c3 2 procedures specific to this survey, and a well-supervised
(#)
3 interviewing environment was maintained throughout.
4 Finally, a team of experienced interviewers, 5 thoroughly trained in the specific questionnaire, was 6 employed throughout the entire survey.
7 While response errors are important and all 8 attempts are made to minimize them, it is the non-response 9 errors, the other category into which non-sampling errors 10 can be placed, that typically lead to the largest single 11 component of non-sampling error in any given survey. This 12 is known as non-response bias. Because of the potential 13 high impact of non-response bias on total survey error, I O
k/ 14 would like to briefly go over what it le and what we did 15 to minimize it.
16 Here I'd like to direct your attention to the 17 equation at the top of the page representing non-response 18 bias. Briefly it shows that non-response bias, the g r
19 difference between tha value of interest in the total 20 population and the value found for the set of respondents 21 in the population is the product of:
22 First, the proportion of non-respondents in 23 the population. And second, the difference between the 24 value of interest for the respondents and the non-r~
(N,/ 25 respondents.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 J
179 1 This product shown on the right most term of
,y , 2 the equation is extremely useful for illustrating the i
3 potential impact of non-response in a survey.
4 Suppose that we have a population of 100, and 5 that in an attempt to curvey all of them in regard to 6 their income, to declined to respond. That is the 7 proportion of non-respondents is .5. Suppose further that 8 the average income of these non-respondents is 9 $100,000.00, while for those who do respond the average is 10 $50,000.00. In this hypothetical example our average for 11 the entire population is $75,000.00, and the non-response 12 bias is minus $25,000.00. This is the difference between 13 the average income of the respondents, $50,000.00, and the
( N,
'_)
14 average income of the total population.
15 You can quickly calculate this using the 16 formula up there in the right most term and you will see 17 that it results in the same issue, minus $25,000.00. This 18 substantial level of non-response by a set in turn would 19 lead to a substantial level of total error in the 20 estimation of income for this hypothetical population.
21 Clearly errors of this magnitude are to be avoided at all 22 costs.
23 There are two points from this illustration 24 that relate to reducing the level of total survey error by rm
( ) 25 reducing non-response bias. First, it is important to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
180 1 minimize the proportion of contacts in a survey that l
73 2 result in a refusal, and at the same time make a large
( )
'~~
3 number of attempts to reach people. Second, it is 4 worthwhile to attempt to assess what, if any, difference 5 exists between non-respondents and respondents.
6 In regard to the first point, as I stated 7 earlier, we used highly trained and experienced 8 interviews. We also used them to minimize refusals. And 9 we had a high number of attempts, the minimum of seven, 10 which was made to reach people whose telephone numbers 11 were in our sample frame.
12 In regard to the second point, we used the 13 best interviewers that the center had to convert a sample N/ )
8 14 of those who originally initially refused te be 15 interviewed or were hard to interview, hard to reach where 16 we had more than nine attempts that did not result in a 17 contract. This resulted in 33 completed interviews. We 18 called this set of people "The difficult to interview 19 sample," one representative of the non-respondents in the h 20 entire population.
21 Statistical test? Were Conducted to See if 22 response patterns for key questions differed between the 23 difficult to interview group and the other respondents.
24 If differences were found, it would indicate that special
/~~N
) 25 waiting and statistical adjustments would be needed to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-370: (202) 234-4433
181 1 minimize non-response bias, g3 2 In conducting these tests we found that in
' '~] 3 virtually every one there was no difference. We concluded 4 that non-respondents on average are not different from 5 respondents and therefore that special statistical 6 adjustments would not be needed because non-response bias 7 was likely to be appreciable.
8 As an example of theses tests I direct your 9 attention to Table 1. It concerns question three in the 10 survey "Have you eaten locally produced food in the last 11 year?" As you can see, while there are differences 12 between the difficult to interview sample and the other 13 respondents, 65.6 percent of the difficult to interview (3
f i i/
m 14 report that they ate locally produced food versus 60.4 15 percent of the others. The difference is not 16 statistically significant. The chi-squared statistic is 17 .35 with a probability of .55, that exceeds our alpha 18 level of .05. It's not statistically significant.
19 In other words, simply because of sample 20 variability we'd expect differences as large as this 21 between respondents and non-respondents in 55 percent of 22 the samples of this size drawn from a population in which 23 there is no difference between the frequency of 24 respondents and non-respondents eating locally produced 7-Q 25 food.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
182 1 While weighting was not indicated for dealing
,y 2 with non-response bias, it was required for two other
/ t
\'~~J 3 factors. First, it was needed tacause each community's t 4 share of the total sample was not proportional of its 5 share of total households. As you can see in Table 2, 6 Amargosa Valley has 195 of the 1,079 sampled households.
7 This is 18.1 percent of the sam,le. However, Amargosa 8 Valley has 452 of the total 6,725 households estimated in 9 the study. This is 6.7 percent. Amargosa Valley was 10 purposely oversampled because of its position to Yucca 11 Mountain and small population.
12 Thus, when we wanted to examine the entire 13 study area, the oversampling effect of Amargosa Valley
)
\/~ 14 needs to be taken into account, as do the differences in 15 sampling frequency and population frequency for the other 16 three communities. This is done by weighting.
17 The second factor that requires weighting is 18 gender. As you can see in Table 3, the frequency of 19 females in the sample for a given community is not equal 20 to its frequency in the population Again, using the 21 Amargosa Valley as an illustration, we see that 61.5 22 percent of the sample in this community is comprised of 23 females while they constitute only 49 percent of the 24 population.
( 25 Thus, when we want to examine either a sample NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l l
183 1 from a specific community or the entire study area, the 73 2 over representation of females needs to be taken into
- \
3 account. This again is done by weighting.
4 Table 4 shows the weights, gender, area and l 5 total weights that were 6eveloped for the survey, as well s 6 as the formula used in developing them. The data used in 7 developing the weights were taken from the tables we just 8 examined.
9 As an example of the use of these weights, 10 take the total weight for a male from the Amargosa Valley, 11 and examining results of the entire survey his weight is 12 .487. TPat is every ten males in the Amargosa Valley 13 comprise 4.87 of the respondents of the total survey for p
bl 14 the entire study area.
15 Note in examining the results for a specific 16 community, only the gender weights are required. Again 17 using the Amargosa Valley as an example, the weight for a 18 female is .8. Thus every ten females comprise eight 19 females in the context of the total survey for the 20 Amargosa Valley.
21 Also note that if there is response 22 homogeneity by area, that is no difference in food 23 consumption, habits, for example, and if males and females 24 had the same average daily intake of food, then weighting 73
() 25 would not be needed. However, as you will shortly see, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE IGLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
184 1 responses are not homogenous by gender and area, neither
, ~x 2 do males and females have the same average daily intake of 5 '#)
3 food.
4 Before we turn to the actual survey results, 5 one major methodological issue remains, how the 6 consumption of locally produced food type was estimated 7 for a given respondent so that the resulting data would be 8 suit able for the genus input requirements. Essentially i 9 we needed to estimate the annual amount consumed for 11 10 types of locally produced food.
11 The equation at the top of this view graph 12 shows that we did this by multiplying the number of days 13 per year that a given type of locally produced food is
. \
\~ / 14 consumed times the contingent average daily intake of that 15 food, and then multiplying this product by a fraction of 16 the food type consumed that is locally produced, 17 The input for this equation comes from two 18 sources. The first source is the questionnaire, which in 19 turn provides the input for two of the three terms in the 20 equation, the term " number of days per year," and the term 21 " fraction of food that is locally produced." Information 22 from a nutrition survey conducted by the U.S. Department 23 of Agriculture is the second source. It provides the 24 input for the third term in the equation " contingent (n,) 25 average daily intake."
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
185 1 In terms of the input for the two terms that l
f7s l! )
2 come from the first source, the questionnaire, please look Is'#'-
l 3 at the view graph which provides an example of how each 4 food type question was structured. The example shown here 5 is for eggs. As you can see there are four parts to the 6 question. The first part filters out those reporting that 7 they consumed no locally produced eggs.
8 The second and third parts get at the number 9 of days per year that someone consumed locally produced 10 eggs, given that they answered yes to the first part.
11 The fourth part gets at the fraction of the 12 total amount of eggs consumed that was locally produced.
13 Given again that the person answered yes to the first r\
14 part.
15 The second source of the data, the source that 16 provides the input for the third term in the food term in 17 the food consumption equation " contingent average daily 18 intake" was, I stated earlier, taken from a nutrition 19 survey done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Table 20 5 shows these values by food type and gender. They were 21 taken from a survey done in the late 1980s and are 22 specific to adults residing in the west.
23 Recall the point I made earlier in the 24 discussion about the need for weighting by gender because,
() 25 among other reasons, males and females do not have the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
{
186 I same average daily intake of food. Table 5 shows that on
,-s, 2 average the daily intake for males across all the food i '-
)
3 types shown is about 30 percent higher than that for 4 females.
5 This view graph provides two example 6 calculations of the food consumption. The first example 7 is for a female respondent who reported that she ate 8 locally produced fruit three to four days per week over a 9 period of four to six months, and that some of the fruit 10 she ate was locally produced. The estimated amount of 11 locally produced fruit she ate over the year is 11.2 12 kilograms.
13 The second example shows a male respondent who i
(N 2 k/ m 14 reported that he ate locally produced eggs four to six 15 days per week over the entire year and that all of the 16 eggs he ate were produced locally. His annual consumption 17 is 26.2 kilograms.
18 Because there are differences in both the 19 proportion of respondents eating locally produced food for 20 a given type of food as well as in the amount eaten by 21 those who do consume locally produced food of a given 22 type, there are three important conceptual sets of adults 23 for which food consumption can be aggregated and averaged.
24 This view graph describes the three sets.
,a
( ) 25 First, we have what I have operationally NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l l - -
187 1 defined as the subsistence set. This is comprised of i
I 7~s 2 those for whom all of what they eat of a given food is
- i )
! \ /
3 locally produced, i
4 Second, we have what I have operationally 5 defined as the partial subsistence set. This is comprised 6 of the subsistence set plus every adult who eats at least 7 some locally produced food of the type in question.
8 Third, we have to the total population set.
9 This is comprised of the first two sets plus all other 10 adults, which are those who reported consuming no locally 11 produced food of the type in question.
12 What you may ask difference in the consumption 13 of locally produced food do we see in using these three
,a h k
(_ / 14 conceptual sets? In answering this question we turn now 15 to Table 6. Here are the differences as revealed by the 16 survey, 17 First, note how rapidly the average 18 consumption level increases across all food types as we 19 move from the left side of Table 6, which shows the level 20 of consumption for the total population set, to the center 21 which shows the level of consumption for the total 22 population set, to the center which shows the level for 23 the partial subsistence set, and finally to the right-most 24 side which shows the level for the subsistence set.
S
( ) 25 As we move from the total population level to NEAL R. GROSS CO'dT dEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS ,
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
188 1 the partial subsistence level average consumption, 7- 2 excluding tape water, increases by about 500 percent.
i a
~
3 This is mainly due to the fact the denominator starts to 4 increase in this equation.
5 And moving from the partial subsistence set to I 6 the subsistence level, again average consumption increases 7 by about 217 percent. I'm sorry, it's because the 8 denominator decreases as we move from left to right.
9 As a specific case consider, for example, 10 locally produced eggs. For the total population which 11 includes those who do not eat locally produced eggs, the 12 average annual level of consumption of locally produced 13 eggs is 2.32 kilograms, i !
\/ 14 For the partial subsistence set which excludes 15 those who do not eat locally produced eggs, the average 16 annual level of consumption is 7.28 kilos, an increase of 17 214 percent.
18 For the subsistence set which includes only 19 those for whom all th eggs they consume are locally 20 produced, the average annual level of consumption is 15.78 21 kilos, an increase of 117 percent over the partial 22 subsistence set.
23 Note also how the samp3 sizes decline in 24 moving from the left to the right side of Table 6, and how 7"N
( ,) 25 uncertainty is indicated by th. standard deviation NEA' R. GROSS COURT RE'NTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 130 :.HODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 VvASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
189 1 increases. This is primarily due to the declining sample
,f 3 2 size and has implications for the limits to what can be 3 meaningfully analyzed. For example, if one wanted to l 4 cxamine the subsistence levels for only those in the f
l 5 Amargosa Valley for most food types, there will be an 6 insufficient number of cases available for analysis.
7 I'm going now skip over figures 1 through 5 8 that are in your sets and graphically display the 9 information contained in Table 6, and in the interest of 10 time I won't go over them. Instead I would ask that you 11 turn several pages ahead to Figure 6 which summarizes the
) 12 food consumption information found in Table 6 and in the 13 preceding graphs. Pigure 6, there you go.
Slm 14 Here you can see the dramatic differences in 15 average consumption levels that are associated with each 16 set, total population, partial subsistence and subsistence 17 as well as the relative levels across food _ types within 18 each of the three sets.
19 In Table 7, subsistence consumption le/els 20 from the survey are aggregated across broader categories 21 of food types in order to make them conceptually similar 22 to information from other sources for purposes of 23 comparison. This comparison serves two objectives.
24 First, it serves as a validity check for data obtained
/
(7) 25 from the survey, and second it shows the consumption NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 190 1 levels that would be obtained if sources other than the
,-~ 2 survey were used to provide input to the GENII-S model.
\)
3 Specifically of interest in this regard are 4 the values associated with the NRC Guide category. For 5 this comparison a graphic representation will suffice, so 6 I would like to direct your attention to Figure 7 whien 7 graphically displays the data found in Table 7.
8 In regard to the first objective, the validity 9 check, note that the subsistence level of consumption for 10 fruits, grains and vegetables taken from the survey is 11 bracketed by the USDA levels, while that for meat and 12 poultry is lower, and that for fish, milk and water are 13 higher. While there are differences between the (3
-- 14 subsistence consumption patterns found in the survey not 15 reported by USDA, it's important to note that they're all 16 in the same ballpark. The differences that do exist are 17 probably due to time, location and site specific 18 capabilities. For example, pineapple is not included in 19 the subsistence fruit consumption for the Amargosa Valley 20 because it's not locally produced, but it is included as 21 part of the fruit consumption in the USDA surveys.
22 In regard to the second issue, please note on 23 the one hand the subsistence level, consumption level, of 24 fruits, grains and vegetables found on the survey is about (3
1 ) 25 12 percent higher than that found in the NRC Guide, as is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
191 1 fish, while milk is about nine percent higher, and water 2 consumption is over twice as high. Meat and poultry (n) 3 consumption on the other hand are lower than that found in 4 the NRC Guide by about 74 percent. ,
5 The difference in water consumption is
( 6 particularly notable. Figure O shows that the average i
7 subsistence amount, which exclude those not drinking any 8 tap water, that is water from the local ground source, is 9 770 liters per year. As I just stated, this is over twice 10 as much as found in the NRC Guide which is at 370 liters 11 per year. Roughly speaking the suryny shows that adults 12 in the study area consume about two liters of tap water 13 per day on average, while the NRC Guide would result in
('N V 14 the level of water consumption of only about one liter per 15 day on average.
16 Again in the interest of time I'm going to 17 skip over several of the figures and tabler. Figure 9 for 18 example shows that with the exception of grain a higher 19 percent of adults in the Amargosa Valley consumed locally 20 produced food across all food types than those elsewhere 21 in the study area.
22 Tables 8 and 9 show socio-economic data 23 resulting from the survey from the entire study area in 24 the Amargosa Valley respectively. If you compare them,
(~3
( ) 25 you will note differences between the Amargosa Valley and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
4 192 1 the rest of the study area in terms of a number of
! 7s 2 characteristics including the incidents of swamp coolers
- T i
() 3 and food gardens for example.
l 4 What is shown on the view graph before you is f
5 Exhibit 1. This shows the distribution of population in 6 the study area and its deneity by grid cell. The colors 7 indicate density. Those that are very light colored and 8 without numbers have no population. As the colors move to 9 dark red, the density gets higher. As you can see the )
10 high density population area is found in Pahrump.
11 I show this view graph to indicate where a 12 critical group may be located given that one is defined 13 using the current actual population. As you can see the ,
'rx
)
) k/ 14 majority of the cells are empty, and with only a few 15 exceptions, those that are inhabited are sparsely settled.
16 For a similar reason I would like to show you 17 this view graph, Exhibit 2, in which the number of survey 18 respondents is shown by grid cell for the Amargosa Valley 19 and the Amargosa Valley only. Essentially it shows that 20 we have survey resps7 dents in each of the grid cells in 21 which population resides. However, given statistical 22 uncertainty and the restrictions of very small sample 23 sizes, we would not be able to produce very precise 24 information for any given inhabited grid cell. To achieve O
() 25 any level of statistical precision, reliability and NEAL R. GROSS COURT AEPORTERS AND TRANSCRtBERS (
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W. 1 I
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
193 1 validity, information would likely have to be aggregated 2 across the grid cells, f (7) 3 i
[ '~' 3 This view graph is already dated. In addition 4 to having provided subsistence food consumption 5 information in the form of input parameters to the ;
6 biosphere modeling group for purposes of sensitivity runs ,
7 of the GENII-S model, we have recently provided 8 consumption levels using the total population sro for the 9 entire study area as well as those levels spe liic to the 10 total population for the Amargosa Valley, 11 We're also analyzing information from the 12 survey for use in other EIS requirements, particularly 13 that of environmental justice.
\-) 14 I would like to conclude by leaving you with 15 some of the issues that we have been discussing with our 16 colleagues in regard to the survey results. We know that 17 there are very different average consumption levels that 18 can be calculated along with their specific distributions,'
i 19 and that they are representative of a rather wide range of 20 input sets to the GENII-S model that could constitute a 21 given critical group for biosphere purposes given that 22 it's empirically defined and taken from the study area.
23 However, each of the three sets I've outlined 24 for you today, the subsistence, the partial subsistence, (m.
(
%./
) 25 or total population set, is itself subject to substantial NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
194 1 within group variation. Which can be further complicated a 2 by looking at any of these sets across one of the four
]
3 communities. Moreover, they are even more combinations of f
4 food consumption, demographics and geography that could l
f 5 potentially serve as input to the GENII-S model.
I 6 These issues lead immediately to what may be 7 the major questions being currently asked and pursued by 8 the biosphere modeling team. What is the sensitivity of 9 the GENII-S model to these differences? And what 10 differences will they have, if any, for purposes of 11 biosphere modeling?
12 Again, on behalf of my colleagues and myself I 13 thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and
(%
I h
\' 14 present this overview of the biosphere food consumption 15 dataset.
16 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes, sir?
17 MEMBER POMEROY: I probably missed it, but of 18 the total number of households in the Amargosa Valley, 19 what percentage of those households would be classified in 20 the subsistence level category?
21 MR. SWANSON: If you look at just, there are s
22 virtually no households anywhere in the study that would 23 be classified in the subsistence category, if you look at 24 the definition of subsiatence that everything they're p
25
() eating is locally produced. There isn't a single MEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANEiCRIBERS {
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
195 1 household out of the 1,079 that meets tha'; definition, p 2 There are a number of households, and I would
\") 3 say it's clearly the majority, it's around 77 percent of 4 the households in the Amargosa Valley in which locally 5 produced food of some type is consumed.
6 MEMBER POMEROY: Thank you.
7 MR. SWANSON: And that's higher than elsewhere 8 in the study area. It drops oft dramatically when you go 9 to Beatty, Pahrump and Indian Springs.
10 MEMBER POMEROY: Thank you.
CilAIRMAN GARRICK: Any other questions?
- 1. VICE CHAIRMAN HORNBERGER: David, the study l
13 was designed to oversample in the Amargosa Valley and yet
, i g
3 l V 14 of course the statistical analysis, that gets weighted 15 out. So could you clue me in on how you would use the 16 extra jnformation you gained by oversampling? ,
17 MR. SNANSON: Well, part of the information la that we want is, if you want to cross tabulate 19 information, for example, food types by water consumption.
20 One of the problems when you have a small dataset is, if 21 you atart te du multi-weight cross tabulations, cell 22 counts become very sparse and in general are ucro. So one 23 of the reasons we wanted to oversample simply was to have 24 enough data that would suppose an analysis. But given
( ) 25 that it 'las a small population to begin with, we were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 244 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
196 1 trying to achieve a very high level of sample frequency
,e3 2 for the Amargosa Valley for thut reason.
') 3 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Bill, go ahead.
4 MR. HINZE: A very brief nuestion. Is there 5 enything in your survey hich would givs us iny feel for 6 the gradient on tne results?
l 7 MR. SWANSON: I'm sorry, for the?
8 MR. HINZE: The time v0riation. In other 9 words, if you would have conducted this ten years ago how 10 would this have been different, how long a period of time 11 would you have to wait in the future to get meaningful 12 indications of any trendo in these results?
13 MR. SWANSON: In answer to your question,
/
. t G' 14 there are two issues that come up. First is, because of 16 the small population which we're dealing, for example, in 16 the Amargosa Valley, it's difficult F.o discern trends over 17 time because there are rapid s'. t ort term changes that can 18 take place very quickly. For example, at some point in 19 time someone decided to grow pistachios out there, and 20 prior to that time there were no pistachios out there or 21 being consumed, and you can say that for most of the types 22 of products that you cee out there. So it's hard to 23 distinguish what's going on in terms of long term secular 24 trends versus short term changes.
l3 V 25 I hadn't though about that issue entirely, so
. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C 200053701 (202) 234-4433
197 1 I'm not able to give you a full answer except for the feet n 2 I think it would be, it would be a sensitive issue to i \
\"j 3 carry out given the small population size there. You can
( 4 see very dramatic changes very quickly in things. And you 5 have to lock at long-term averages --
6 MR. IIINZE : That also speaks to the robustness 7 of your results then?
8 MR. SWANSON: -- pardon me?
9 MR. Il1NZE : That also speaks to the robustness 10 of your results from Amargosa Valley, right?
11 MR. SWANSON: Yea..
12 CilAIRMAN GARRICK: Dave, that's a very 13 interesting study. I think that some of 'to have been 14 hoping that more of this sort of thing would be done.
15 I wanted to ask you, based on your experience 16 I assume you've done other surveys like this?
17 MR. SWANSON: I've done them, yes.
18 CllAIRMAN GARRICK: What about this survey 19 stands our, or were there any surprises or were there any 20 things, any observations that were peculiar to the 21 environment of these people, and are there any signals 22 whatsoever that we're dealing with a situation here that's 23 got unique aspects to it-24 MR. SWANSON: One, I think that one of the (y) 25 first things that stands out, if you turn to one of the N EAL R. GROSS COURT REPC LTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASH?CTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
198 1 ear'siet vanw graphs or the pages in your handout that 73 2 talks about the pilot study, there's an extremely high
('~) 3 level of cooperation we received throughout the study 4 area, and particularly in the Amargosa Valley. So that's 5 one that stands out.
6 As a matter of fact in the pilot study we 7 experimented with different introductiona. For example, 8 sould it make an effect on the refusal rates it ce 9 described this survey as being sponsored by the Department 10 of Energy right in front or wait, to hold that information 11 back from them? It made no difference whatsoever whether 12 or not we're going to do that.
13 on the whole the people in rural areas,
(~'$
(- J 14 generally in the west, and I find this to be true in the 15 Amargosa Valley and the other areas that are included in 16 the study, are very responsive, their answers as far as we 17 can tell are very honest. We looked at some of those 18 issues when you aggregate the information up, for example, 19 in that one chart and table that I showed you were we 20 looked at the validity issue, they're in the ballpark and 21 that's what you'd expect. You would expect them to be 22 the same, but you expect them to be close.
23 Moreover, between the pilot study and the full 24 survey we had the chance to conduct some reliability
(
!v )/ 25 tests. We had some questions that were worded exactly the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE =, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005-3701 (.M2) 234-4433
199 1 same. Given sampling frequency, did we get the same set
,x 2 of responses? And in fact we did.
! )
3 So I think the indications are this is a 4 group, even though it's been intensely studied and has 5 what you might call a high response burden placed on it 6 because of its location, that they're extremely 7 cooperative, they're a good group to work with and I think 8 the answers we got from them for the most part, and I was 9 present at many of the interviews that took place, I was 10 down at the counting center with the interviewers, I think 11 the people did their best to answer the questions as 12 honestly as they could, 13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Supposing you had just t [~ h
\/ ~ 14 focused on Amargosa Valley and supposing you had taken the 15 position that rather than trying to sample, you 16 interviewed everybody, that you did a rigorous survey so 17 to speak, to distinguish it from a statistical and a 18 sampling survey, Do you think that the results would have 19 been any different?
20 MR, SWANSON: No, because I think the largest 21 single source of error that you're looking at there would 22 be the non-sampling area in the non-response bias. And 23 from the tests we did using that group that we proxied for 24 the non-respondents versus the rest of them, that was all
( ,) 25 specific to the Amargosa Valley. There virtually were no, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
200 1 in any of the tests I think we conducted 13, 14 different p 2 tests on key indicators, I think in only one was there a 3 difference and it was very, just slightly under the level 4 of statistical significance.
5 So in answer to your question, I don't think 6 you would get much in the way of a difference because all 7 you'd miss, there would be people who would refuse to 8 cooperate and they would be the non-respondents, that's 9 it. And I think this sample is highly representative of 10 the entire population of the Amargosa Valley.
11 MR. FAIRilURST: I think that something that 12 would be of interest to the committee, and I don't know if 13 you can say ar.ything about it, but it would be the answers V 14 that they gave you to questions you didn't ask. I guess 15 by that I mean any insights or any information you got as 16 to attitude, interest, awareness, consciousness of the 17 Yucca Mountain project.
18 MR. SWANSON: Well, there are three sources I 19 can think in my personal experience spending time out 20 there, again results from the pilot study in particular we 21 asked people questions like that so we could help design a 22 larger questionnaire. And then third, a focus group we 23 did with a selected group of representatives from the 24 Amargosa Valley.
/ 25 And I think they're all highly aware of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344 433
201 l 1 Yucca Mountain project and are aware of it, but at the 1
,,3 2 same time all the indications that I have from all those t <
3 sources is they're probably ranging slightly to the 4 positive side as opposed to negative side on it. That's 5 from the focus group, it's from the pilot study, and again 6 from my own personal experience from having been out there 7 and talked to a number of people.
8 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: And that seems to be a 9 pattern --
10 MR. SWANSON: I would say so.
11 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: -
that exists at other -
12 installations and other facilitien?
13 MR, SWANSON: That I don't know, but I can
( \
O 14 tell you that exists in the Amargosa Valley. .
15 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Yes. Well, there's 16 certainly a lot of evidence that it exists, and the only 17 other underground repository that it exists, namely the 18 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant seems to have a similar 19 reaction.
20 Any other questions?
21 Ray?
22 MR. WYMER: You know, if you assume that any 23 population growth that took place out there had to rely 24 entirely on the water that they obtained locally by wells p
ij 25 or whatever. Were you able or have you thought about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
202 1 establishing an upper limit based on reasonable 7s 2 assumptions about the availability of water or what they
( /
3 might grow tJo in that area?
4 MR, SWANSON: I haven't personally been 5 involved in dramatic long term projections of the 6 population of the Amargosa Valley, Some of my other 7 colleagues in the regional studies division are, and I'm 8 positive that that's one of the constraints that's in the 9 modeling that they use.
10 MEMBER POMEROY: Let me ask a question while 11 our chairman is standing up. In the 77 percent of 12 households that classified as partial subsistence, if I 13 looked correctly at some of the graphs, and I did that
(_ l 14 very quickly, I didn't see major variations especially in 15 the results of this survey from the NRC 77 Guide except 16 well one that stood out was the consumption of water, 17 which was a factor too different, so therefore that would 18 certainly alert you that that was going to be an important 19 source, but we know that anyway. Are there other major 20 factors that were 31fferent in those other categories 21 beside tap water?
22 MR. SWANSON: That is, it you go down to lower 23 levels, i.e. --
24 MEMBER POMEROY: That were kind of --
r^x
( ,) 25 MR. SWANSON: -- instead of aggregated --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1RANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
203 1 MEMBER POMEROY -- at a d.4fferent level th:n (ql 2 that indicated roughly in the NRC 77 Guide?
3 MR. SWANSON: To my recollection I don't think 4 there were any huge differences across any of those food 5 groups.
6 MEMBER POMEROY: Okay, thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Any other comments, 8 questiono, inquiries?
9 Thank you. That's a very interesting survey.
10 MR. SWANSON: Thank you.
11 And thank you, Bob Kimball, for the view graph 12 job.
13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Well, I believe that
(~N, V 14 concludes the presentations by DOE, does it not?
15 MS. HANLON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it does.
16 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I think that our maneuver 17 to have lunch and listen to you while having lunch has 18 achieved its goal and maybe beyond because we now are 19 suddenly a little ahead of schedule. But, if you don't 20 mind, I think we will move right ahead and take advantage 21 of the time to move into the next phase of our meeting, 22 which has become a very important phase. And as the last 23 few years, when we have come out to Las Vegas we've taken 24 advantage of the location to hear from various
(~S
(,
) 25 representatives of different groups and stakeholders and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE- N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
204 1 the public, and it has always been one of the highlighto
,e m 2 of our visit, and I don't expect it to be any different i i O 3 today.
4 Based on our past experience of doing this 5 three or four times, there have been several people that G have expressed an interest in participating with us and 7 talking to us, and some of those people, where it was 8 obvious that their level of interest was high, were 9 invited. Of course the mechanism exists for anybody to 10 participate, but based on what- we've heard we have on our 11 program representatives from the State of Nevada, both the 12 Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Nevada Nuclear Waste 13 Task Force, and we also have representatives from Nye V 14 County, from the Moapr Band of Paiutes, and we have 15 received in the meantime from staff indication that a 16 representative from the AFL-CIO would also like to make a 17 few remarks.
18 So what I'd like to ask each of the speakers 19 to do is introduce themselves, tell us a little bit about 20 their affiliation and who they are so that we can have the 21 full benefit of not only what they're saying but 22 understanding the conte:<t .
23 And I guess with that, we'll just follow the 24 order of the program, ana it looks like, Steve, you're the
,7
() 25 first one up. So unless it's the wrong time, we'd like to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433 l l
205 1 go ahead.
~s 2 MR. FRIShMAN: I'm Steve Frishman. I'm
! \
\
)
3 Technical Policy Coordinator for the Nevada Agency for 4 Nuclear Projects.
5 I've spoken with you a number of times before, 6 and I appreciate the opportunity today. And what I 7 usually try to do, as you know, is pick on maybe just one 8 or two topics to point out some observations anyway, 9 especially in this case since you have the role of 10 advising the Commission not only technical basis, but you
, 11 can branch out into regulatory policy.
l 12 I heard John, your chairman, in the meeting in 13 San Antonio say something that I thought I heard correctly 7
! 4 N- /
14 and I went back to the transcript to read it just to make 15 sure, because I think we're at a point of real 16 significance in our thinking about waste isolation policy.
17 And, John, what you said, and I'm reading 18 right out of the transcript --
19 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: That's dangerous.
20 MR. FRISHMAN: -
"It is clear to me that 21 we're never going to be able to characterize a geologic 22 site with sufficient confidence to say that we can depend 23 on that 100 percent for containment for all time. We 24 haven't been able to do that, we're not even close to it.
(y) 25 So unlike maybe the way we were thinking a few years ago, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1322 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \
~
206 1 where we were sort of content with the concept of geologic 1
l ,q 2 isolation and its ability to dispose of waste, I think now l(
)
3 we're seeing that at least for high level waste we're 4 going to have to depend on some sort of an engineered 5 system probably regardless of the site."
G This I think is a significant observation on 7 your part. It is clearly the direction the department is 8 going with its Yucca Mountain project right now. And it's 9 of considerable concern to me and a lot of other peop3e 10 who have been involved in the concept of waste isolation 11 for a lot of years.
12 I recall years ago when I was writing comments 13 for an organization on the draft environmental impact
/3 1 \
\ss/ 14 statement on management of commercial spent fuel and 15 commercial high level waste, what finally became the final 16 EIS in 1980 that resulted in the selection of the 17 preferred alternative which was geologic isolation.
18 Now, in thinking about this comment going back 19 to how I and a number of people were thinking that led to 20 that 1980 EIS. I think we have gotten to the point now 21 where because of the realities of Yucca Mountain and the 22 department's work there, your observation and many other 23 people's same observation, we're to the point now where I 24 think we have something of a policy disconnect. Because n) 25 what you're saying is the situation is contrary to what we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
r 207 l
1 were all thinking at the time that EIS was being written.
[ 2 Now, let me go just to this concept and redo a t
(,,\
f ("/
3 couple of paragraphs out of the 1980 EIS, " Management of 4 commercially generated radioactive waste, October 1980."
5 This is the document that became the basis for the policy 6 in 1982 Nuclear Waster Policy Act. Without this document 7 there would not have been the underpinning for the Waste 8 Policy Act saying that geologic isolation is the policy of 9 this country regarding highly radioactive waste.
10 Let me read you a couple of paragraphs that 11 have to do with engineered and natural barriers out of 12 that document. " Geologic disposal as analyzed in this 13 statement also employees the concept of multiple barriers.
p V' 14 Multiple barriers include both engineered and geologic 15 barriers that improved confidence that radioactive waste 16 in biologically significant concentrations will not return 17 to the biosphere.
18 Engineered barriers include the waste form 19 itself, canisters, fillers, overpacking, sleeves, seals 20 and backfill materials. Each of these components may be 21 designed to reduce the likelihood of release of 22 radioactive material and would be selected based on site 23 and waste-specific considerations.
24 Geologic barriers include the repository host n
(v) 25 rock and adjacent and overlying rock formations. While NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
208 1 engineered barriers are tailored to a specific containment
,x 2 need, geologic barriers are chosen for their institute
- i \
l \
)
3 properties for both waste containment and isolation.
4 Geologic barriers are expected to provide 5 isolation of the waste for at least 10,000 years after the 6 waste is emplaced in a repository and probably will 7 provide isolation for millennia thereafter.
8 Engineered barriers are those designed to 9 ensure total containment of the waste w; thin the disposal 10 package during an initial period during which most of the 11 intermediate lived fission products decay. This time 12 period may be as long as 1,000 years, in which case the 13 radiation levels and heat generation rates of the total i 1 k/ 14 waste will drop by factors of approximately 1,000 and 100 15 respectively."
16 This is what we were thinking when through the 17 public NEPA process this country came to the conclusion 18 that geologic waste isolation should be the policy. Well, 19 is that, what I just read, really resemble what's going on 20 with the thinking regarding Yucca Mountain right now? I 21 don't believe it. It does not.
22 Yesterday or the day before yesterday in your 23 discussions about defense-in-depth, you were greatly 24 concerned and in fact apparently going to forward some l3
( ,) 25 recommendations to the Commission about the fact that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
209 1 staff, the NRC staff, has not put emphasis on the 73 2 engineering side of waste isolation and containment. In 3 fact, if you notice from this, I picked up in your draft 4 letters you used the word " containment" all the time.
5 Well, containment in isolative to 10 CFR 60 are 6 essentially terms of art. Containment means that period 7 in which you rely on the engineered container or the 8 engineered barrier to completely contain the waste.
9 Isolation is the long term period in which you rely on the 10 capabilities of the site.
11 So I noticed in your letters, at one point you 12 used the word " containment," at another you used "long 13 term containment," long term containment is not a term
.f%)
\_/ 14 within the regulatory system. You have containment and 15 you have isolation. So you're -- and through that 16 language, you know, I sense that what we're having is a 17 shift in the concept of the regulation 10 CFR Part 60, but 18 the Commission has not changed anything.
19 The staff, you say, should be putting more 20 emphasis on engineering containment and long term 21 containment as well, but at the same time all the guidance 22 ti have is 10 CFR 60. And when they were faced with 23 fund ahortages, what they did they made a decision that 24 they were going to put emphasis on the KTIs that appeared
(~h
( ,) 25 to them to be most important as elements in 10 CFR 60. So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
210 1 what they did was set aside such things as the various
,r 3 2 elements of near field transport, which would be
( )
3 responsive much more to engineering than to the site.
4 So they didn't do anything that is contrary 5 to, you know, to the way they read their duty. And they 6 read their duty from 10 CFR Part 60, which has its major 7 emphasis on geologic isolation and the capability of the 8 site to provide that in concert with what is some 9 necessary level of engineering only because what you're 10 doing is you're mechanically doing something to a natural 11 site. That's engineering, you're deciding what you're 12 going to do to the site.
13 So I wanted to sort of lay that on the table i
(~~'T 4
\/ 14 and put out the suggestion first that, if in fact you're 15 right, John, that no site could rely on the geologic and 16 hydrologic characteristics for geologic waste isolation as 17 we knew it back in 1980 and had been sort of developed in 18 concept since those famous meetings of the National 19 Academy back in the late '30s.
20 If we're going in another direction now and 21 we're going to have to be engineering waste isolation 22 facilities or, as you put it, containment or long term 23 containment facilities, then we really need to restart 24 this whole process. We need to go back and essentially (7-x; )
25 review the findino of the 1980 EIS to find out.
NEAL P. . GROSS COURT REPORTE' . AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE :re.ND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
211 1 If given what we have learned, and we have 1 - 2 learned a lot since 1980 about geologic isolation, 73 i I 3 unfortunately we've learned an awful lot about politics 4 too, but as far as geologic isolation having looked at a 5 number of sites at various levels, having been through 6 sort of the ins and outs of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 7 if geologic isolation can't provide what we and the public 8 expected of it back in 1980, then we need to go back and 9 as a nation try to decide whether it's the right policy to 10 be pursuing and reopen the whole question.
11 If we want to talk about engineered, or maybe 12 call it engineered enhanced high level waste ctorage, then 13 maybe that's something we want to talk about. But we need (3
'v_/ 14 to define what it is we're talking about because if you 15 recall back to 1989 with the National Academy panel on 16 rethinking, one of the things that they said is that a big 17 problem with whether a high level waste program can be 18 successful in this country, one of the big problems with 19 that is that people have been led into having expectations 20 higher than can be delivered regarding the safety of waste 21 site selection, 22 Well, the only solution to that and the one 23 that seems to be being implemented every day now is well, 24 it's obvious, the people have to lower their expectations, n
i s ) 25 And that's exactly what we're seeing in this concept of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 2344433 l
l 212 l
j i doing just what former Commissioner Jim Eselstine got I
gx 2 written into DOE siting guidelines. What's happening is
! )
~~
3 we're seeing just what in terms of an NRC condition in 4 those siting guidelines was not permitted, and that that 5 you cannot use engineered barriers to compensate for 6 deficiencies in geology.
7 Well, that's exactly what's harpening right 8 now. And it seems, you know, for people who say, you 9 know, we must do something, well that's about the only 10 place you can go, if you have only one site and if you 11 have on a daily baais things cropping up that appear to be 12 more and more deficiencies.
13 so what I'm suggesting is that, if you're (3
\- / 14 going to go forward to the commission with suggestions 15 such as the staff needs to put more emphasis on 16 engineering, you .eally need to understand what this means 17 at a legislative policy level and at a regulatory policy 18 level and be very, be very cautious about recommending 19 that the Commission do something that is essentially a 20 breach with the public process. We got to where we are 21 through public process through this EIS, through public 22 law, through rulemaking by the Nuclear Regulatory 23 commission, and all of that was about something that we're 24 not talking about anymore, but we need to figure out what (n , ) 25 it is we da want to talk about.
HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W (202) 234-4433 W'SHINGTON. D C, 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
213 1 I know that this appears to be sort of an zs 2 effort to maybe obfuscate the system, but in the long run
( )
We know
~
l 3 it is an effort to try to clarify the system, l 4 that the Commission is going to go to some type of a 5 rulemaking once EPA has a final standard.
6 We sense, as I listened to you the day before 7 yesterday, you also sense that beyond just conforming or 8 even just reviewing whether 10 CFR 60 in fact conforms 9 with whatever EPA rule is out there finally, the 10 assumption has already sort of expanded to well we've got 11 to do something about the subsystem performance 12 requirements. And your discussion was an interesting one 13 the other day, and I disagree with your one consensus
(
k/ 14 point, but I think you know that already, but I think, you 15 know, you need to keep that kind of discussion and debate 16 in mind and in the context of what we used to think was 17 geologic isolation, keep all of that sort of wrapped 18 together in whatever recommendations you make to the 19 Commission, 20 Because making sort of piecemeal suggestions 21 to the Commission about different things that need to be 22 done both operationally by the staff and things that need 23 to be adjusted in the regulation, if you do it in a 24 piecemeal basis we're going to end up walking ourselves
()
,m 25 farther and farther into a system that is totally NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 224 4433
214 1 unacceptable to people who thought and expected a lot of I , 3, geologic waste isolation.
,-)
( '~'
2 3 Going through a rulemaking, well you see the 4 response that the Department of Energy got to their 5 proposed change in the guidelines from a set of 6 characteristics as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy 7 Act, looking at various aspects and attributes of a site 8 and detertaining f actors which quality and disqualify a 9 site, and things that you can do deterministically. Well, 10 10 CFR 60 is primarily a deterministic rule.
11 But the Department of Energy in dropping that 12 away and saying okay we're just going to go to performance 13 based and we have about a two-line rule, not or.'y does O) 4
'N_/ 14 that not conform to the Waste Policy Act, but ir also says 15 that we're no longer thinking about geologic isolation the 16 way we used to think about it. We're no loner thinking 17 that geologic characteristics and specific characteristics la to a site that are measurable characteristics no longer 39 matter. The only thing that matters is can you balance 20 out your model of a system to the point where you think 21 all the bad stuff is outweighed by the good stuff in order 22 to meet whatever bottom line you want.
23 Well, if you start making piecemeal 24 suggestions to the Commission that leads the commission to
!,) 25 wanting some type of a rule like that, which is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
215 1 essentially a one line, you know, total system performence 7- 2 rule, this is going to cause tremendous difficulties for
\~#
3 everybody in the system. The reason being that the only 4 basis that we have for geologic isolation right now is 5 this 1980 EIS.
6 And, if the commission tries to write some 7 type of an EIS or an EA or whatever it takes to support l 8 its new 10 CFR 60, then we're going to have a public l
9 debate that's going to go on for a long time, one that is 10 probably not useful in terms of current safe waste 11 management because we will continue to be in this turmoil 12 of whoever has got the waste is just trying to give it to 13 somebody else so they can make some more, and we're going
'\_ l 14 to have a long difficult rulemaking at the NRC.
15 And I think it's important to consider how big 16 the policy impact is of some of these piecemeal things 17 that you were talking about the other day. So I just 18 wanted to pass that on. And also in terms of reliance on 19 engineered barriers and, if you look at what was presented 20 t day, that one reference case graph that came back a 21 couple of times, you're looking at the Department at 20 22 kilometers not expecting essentially any doses for about 23 12,000 years.
24 At five kilometers it looked like not
() 25 expecting any real measurable dose until about 9,000 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR:BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHit,GTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 433
216 1 years. And you're looking at a change in dose through
,f-s 2 that 15 kilometer period and that 3,000 year period, U 3 looking at a chance in dose from over 300 millirems to 4 less than 25 milliremo. That's reliance on dilution, it 5 can be nothing else. But it's also reliance on a very 6 long lived engineered system because at five kilometers, 7 if you don't even see significant dose for on the order of 8 9,000 years, that means you're relying on a waste 9 container to do the work t'lat the geology should have been 10 doing after, according to the approach in EIS, to do the 11 work that the geology should have been capable of doing 12 from about 1,000 years on or even before that.
13 So I think you need to sort of look at that,
/,_T
\-) 14 and it's easy to see that the reliance on the engineered 15 barrier is going farther and farther out into the future 16 while the Department is still saying, I think debatable 17 reason, that 10,000 is really sort of the cut-off for 18 calculation purposes.
19 One other observation that goes into all of 20 this, and that's, you know, in the past couple of weeks we 21 have suddenly gotten information about the mobility of 22 plutonium out of an underground test not too far from 23 Yucca Mountain. We have learned that yes plutonium does 24 move in ground water, we have learned that at in this case r~
(,N) 25 it moves as a colloid, and before this there had been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
l 217 1 considerable debate. I looked at one of the papers on the 73 2 subject, you find that there is no plutonium insolation, t \
\
'~'/ 3 all of it is either in colloidal form, attached to 4 colloidal mineral particles or possible, and they haven't 5 been able to determine yet, possibly some of it just as 6 plutonium oxide in its colloidal form.
7 And it's moved a significant distance. The 8 researchers are pretty well convinced from past experience 9 with weapons sho:s that this is not an injection phenomena 10 from the shot itself, it's something that's happened 11 through time. But what it tells me is, among other 12 things, is if we're getting to a situation where we're 13 going to rely on long term containment based on the
(- / 14 container itself, you're still not meeting the real notion 15 that led us to think about geologic isolation in the first 16 place. You're not meeting the ability to take care of the 17 very long lived actinides.
18 Plutonium moves, we have an example of it now, 19 whereas before, you know, people thought maybe magically 20 plutonium doesn't move. Well everything moves. At one 21 time or another it's going to move. But if you rely on an 22 engineered container to make yourself feel good for the 23 next maybe 10,000 years, you're not addressing the problem 24 that the EPA has to worry about in its regulation, and (9j 25 that's the very long lived actinides, how do you keep them NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 218 1 away from being released to the environment.
73 2 So you might be solving your problem
() 3 cosmetically and getting a real good feeling about 10,000 4 years. I myself have a hard time believing that we can 5 have any confidence in a 10,000 year container anyway, and 6 there are reasons for that, one of them being the 7 Department doesn't even really know what the environment 8 is putting its engineered container into, and if you don't 9 know what the environment engineered container has to 10 respond to, you don't know what it is, how can you have 11 any kind of confidence that that engineered material will 12 maintain itself.
13 But I think that the plutonium movement issue
()
'w-) 14 right now is one that ar; e or tells me, you know, we have 15 an example of it, I think we all should have expected that 16 we would have seen this at some point, but what it tells 17 me is that reliance on engineered barrier as the program 18 appears to be going right now, as people's thinking it 19 appears to be going right now, primarily I think based on 20 knowing a lot more than we did about Yucca Mountain a few 21 years ago, if that's what's going on and if that's going 22 to be essentially the policy that drives our waste 23 containment in this country, we're not getting at the real 24 problem. And the real problem is long lived actinides (a) 25 and keeping them away from the environment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2Mos-3701 (202) 234 4433
219 i So, if circumstances are driving us to do
- 2 something that is fundamentally different from what we as t
' '/
3 a country decided is the preferred policy in 1980, then we 4 need to go back, talk about everything that we know and i
l 5 have learned and decide whether there is some preferred 6 policy that's different from just piecemealing moving 7 towards one that is essentially, in terms of the life of 8 the waste, essentially a cosmetic solution rather than 9 waste isolation.
10 One other point entirely different, and that's 11 that I have been watching the developing information on El 12 Nino that got mentioned a couple of times today, and it's 13 very easy to find information from NOAA that shows that
( \
U' 14 southern Nevada is within the area of expected 15 considerably heavier than normal rainfall for the period 16 November through about March. I think one of the things 17 we might have at least begun thinking as a result of 18 chlorine-36, if fast pathways are operating on an episodic 19 basis, it's just possible that this winter is going to be 20 one of those episodes. And I would hupe that you and 21 others could encourage the Department to do some real 22 planing to catch some real data, if this is one of those 23 episodes.
24 Once it starts happening it's almost too late
/- n
(,) 25 to plan how you want to research it. It's something that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 132,9HODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (?O2) 234-4433
220 1 I think nhould be researched. That chlorine-36 got there l
w 2 somehow, one of the big questions is how much more has
( )
\~ /
3 already run through the system. So there's a real
?
4 possibility that since they're saying that this is 5 probably the strongest El Nino in maybe 150 years, this 6 may be one of the episodes. Because there was some other 7 episode that was less than as predicted happened this 8 winter that moved that chlorine at least once already. So 9 if you think about it and maybe there are ways that you 10 can encourage the Department to spend a little bit of its 11 money and thinking ahead of time to maybe have some 12 experiments in the wings that can be implemented very 13 quickly if it looks as if there is going to be abnormally V 14 high infiltration.
15 I guess that's probably enough for now, unless 16 you have questions.
17 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thanks very much, Steve.
18 Judy, will you do the same, introduce yourself 19 and your activities.
20 MS. TREICHEL: Yes, It's very difficult to 21 describe my activities because it just depends on what 22 happens on the telephone and on the television every day.
23 My name is Judy Treichel, I am the Executive 24 Director of the Nevada duclear Waste Task Force. We began p
25 a little over ten years ago working strictly in Nevada to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
221 l 1 try and disseminate information about this project and try 1
2 and be au creative and inventive as we could and working
\
o\/
3 with communities all over the state to try and get them l
! 4 invc.lved and figure out a way that they could get 5 involved, and bringing people up to speed so that they 6 could do comments on EIS or on the myriad of things that 7 come out that require comment.
8 And we have within the last couple of years 9 been working in Nevada still. We will always do that, but 10 also in conjunction with other groups around the country 11 because more and more of our calls are coming from other 12 places in the country, and there was a question about 13 whether we could do that when we were under contract to (q 1 V' 14 the State of Nevada. We no longer are and have not been 15 f or quite some tirne because, as you know, their funding 16 was cut off so we are not working that way now.
17 But we have been funded by some very generous 18 gifts locally and also through some foundation grants.
19 And we were urged by those people to reach out to cthers 20 because is not a Nevada problem and people are certainly 21 seeing that now.
22 One of the vivid examples of that is the 23 concert tour that's just come down the east coast was in 24 Wa.shington yesterday and today where a bunch of recording
{Oj 25 artists have gotten together and we knew nothing this, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
4 . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .I
222 1 just got a call telling us that next Tuesday they'll be in
!s i 2 Las Vegas. And there's about six major artists that have I f 3 come together on a tour called " Honor the Earth," and well f
l 4 their big focus here 10 not having Yucca Mountain happen.
5 And it's become an agenda item for a lot of 6 national groupn. And I'm always surpris.a when I get 7 thoee cal.1 0, but 1 think a lot of pecyle are thinking 8 about this. And Steve was alluding to the expectationo 9 that people had and their beginning to see that this is 10 not what they thought it was going to be.
11 I was not able to be here yesterday for very 12 much of the time, but I was told that the statement was 13 made that the public should be involved and tnere will be
(-) 14 opportunities for public involvement in the development of 15 the probabilistic risk assessment and that the public 26 could possibly lay out scenarios, they could talk about 17 what risks are of their greatest concern and they can 18 question the Rethods used to analyze those. And I guess I 19 would like to find out if it's possible from you or from 20 anyone when that happens, how the public gets involved.
21 It's been real tough, Right now I am carrying 22 on this war with NRC and the DOE because they're doing a 23 lot of interaction with each other on issue resolution and 24 that word has been a real flag word for a long time
(~
i 25 because each of them say we'll we're not really resolving
(% )h NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
223' 1 except that's what it's called. And the fear of the task
,- 2 force and other groups is that by the time this thing gets l \')
3 down to a licensing process where there is mandated public 1
4 involvement, if it gets to a licensing process, that by 5 the time the public got into it there would have so many 6 issues resolved that what they were saying or what they 7 were asking about was no longer relevant.
8 So I am battling the letter wars with -- the 9 NRC has been relatively cooperative. The chairman told, 10 well she appointed someone to work on this, she thought it 11 had merit and she appointed somecody, and when it was 12 brought up to DOE in a technical exchange both DOE 13 headquarters and DOE locally at the Yucca Mountain project
(T
\_ / 14 through that there was no need for public meetings.
15 And DOE here was kind of a laugher. They 16 talked about how that particular meeting was the 37th 17 public meeting that's been held. I'm sure that this one 18 right now is going to be number 38. And as you can see 19 these things aren't set up at all. The latt thing you 20 would want, and they too, during technical exchanges would 21 be that whole audience and maybe another room as well 22 filled with the public who 'idn't understand any of the 23 acronyms or whatever.
24 At any rate I would like to find out if there p'
(x ,) 25 is any assistance that can come from this grouo on how the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINuTON, DL. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
224 l
i i piablic can and when they can get involved in probabilistic L
7-s 2 risk assessment.
~
3 One of the things that would go on with that 4 would be the use of probabilistic models and that's where 5 you're going to see that people have a very difficult time 6 being convinced by modeling. They sort of figure it's a .
7 kind of a system of sophisticated guessing. And I was 8 interetced last night on CNN News, they reported that a
[
9 group of scientists had tried to model or simulate the 10 formation of the moon, the Earth's moon, and that 11 apparently the moon had resulted from an astroid hitting c
12 the Earth and it wound up out there. And when they wrote 13 their model and they ran it, they wound up with 16 moons
,1%
\~ l 14 as a result of having fed all of this in there. And then 15 the real key that they had was through that they knew the 16 right answer, so they were able to sorC of twiddle with 17 the models and get down to here they just had the one 18 moon.
19 And when people see modeling going on or 20 expert judgement, they have real problems with that one 21 too, but when they see modeling going on where you don't 22 know the right anower, they're extremely skeptical and 20 they're going to be very, very hard to convince.
24 And I thought it was interesting in the
,7
(,) 25 Amargosa Valley study that was the last presentation you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
225 1 had, it said in there that to predict the future 73 2 population's characteristics would be speculative and
(
~') 3 insupportable. Well, I can think of a whole lot of folks 4 out here that live here or across the country, just plain 5 citizens, that would way rather be making predictions e about what that community is going to do over the future 7 than they would to try and believe predictions being made 8 about the geology out there very close to those people.
9 In regard to wnat Steve was saying, when I 10 looked out the window this morning I had to think of this 11 ad that ran all over last year, and it's always been a 12 favorite of Nevadans, chere it shows the location of Yucca 13 Mountain -- well, it's the Nevada Test Site because it's f
x t \
k/ 14 promoting the current legislation, but it says " Bone dry, 15 oppressively hot, and uninhabited," and goes on to say 16 that absolutely nobody lives within the region that this 17 project is planned for, and we have just heard about the 18 people who not only live out there, but live off the land 19 to a great extent. It's a very unusual community for this 20 area, and certainly an interesting surprise that it would 21 wind up right next to this sort of a facility.
22 So I would say that modeling is going to be 23 something that's going to be very difficult to use when 24 you're building or attempting to build public confidence, C'\
( j 25 if there ever is an attempt to build public confidence, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l 1
226 1 modeling is going to be a problem.
i
's 2 The public here is constantly faced with very
\
' ~ '
l 3 bad surprises when it comes to anything having to do with 4 radiation, toxics, whatever. Right now there is a lot 5 being said in the paper about perchlorate being found in 6 the waters out to the southeast of here where rocket fuel 7 was produced. And the owners of the plant have said we 8 followed every rule, we did everything exactly the way we 9 were supposed to, but there's a big clean up that's going 10 to have to happen out there.
11 The plutonium that's moving off of the Test 12 Site, that Steve was talking about, has caused people a 13 great deal of alarm. As has the atmospheric testing that
,m i \
\_/ 14 we found out about in the way that that sort of thing has 15 moved. But everybody will always tell you we didn't know 16 at the time, or we followed all the rules, and usually 17 both. And people understand that that's probably true, 18 but it resulted in damage.
19 And if you went to list all of the things that 20 you don't know about this program and particularly by 21 Yucca Mountain and put that list next to the list that you 22 have about what you do know and what you're absolutely 23 confident in and that you know for a real fact, I would 24 guess that that list of uncertainties would certainly be a (n) 25 whole long longer. And that's a serious problem.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
227 1 And I don't know what happens in this program
'7s 2 when people say no you can't do it, but I know that it i
' ~
3 puts the NRC in a terrible position as being the people 4 who are going to put the Good Housekeeping Seal of 5 Approval on the thing and the people that are going to 6 have to go through the incredible public hearings, if in 7 fact they are allowed to take part in the way that they 8 should or tehe place in the way that they should.
9 So I certainly would like to follow on what 10 Steve had said about taking a new look at this and 11 allowing the public in. They're really very bright. And 12 I get calls from all over the country from people who know 13 a whole lot more about this than I would have guessed that r~b i )
k/ 14 they would. So I think that's about it for what I had to 15 say. Are there any questions?
16 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you very much.
17 MS. TREICHEL: Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Calvin Meyers?
19 MS. TREICHEL: I don't think he's here, I 20 haven't seen him.
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Okay.
22 Nick?
23 MR. STELLAVATO: I'm Nick Stellavato, the On-24 Site Rep for Nye County. And I passed out a written
( ) 25 statement, and I'm just going to hit a couple of high NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2'e8 1 points on it. If anybody needs a copy, there are some
,c~3 2 copies in the back there,
, t Q/ I'm going to be fairly focused and it's going 3
4 to be on the issue of repository performance and the open 5 repository or the naturally ventilated repository, as we 6 want to call it.
7 We've been collecting data, and we presented 8 this to you last year, I think it wac a year ago that we 9 were up here, and we presented this concept to you. And 10 since then we have been collecting data in the tunnel 11 until the TBM shut down and daylighted, so we're right 12 now in the process of analyzing that data. Harvey Monazar 13 back there is our prime contractor and has been running e
5-) 14 some 3-D models on that temperature, pressure, and 15 relative humidity data that we gathered continuously in 16 the tunnel, and we'll be coming out with those results .
17 pretty soon.
18 But right now from basically what we've seen 19 is that the repository left alone and let ventilate with 20 the heat load that will be put in the repository, i.e. the 21 canisters, it's going to remain basically dry and cool for 22 up to 10,000 years. And from everything we've seen and 23 with the -- and I agree with Steve a little bit on the 24 increased reliance on engineered barriers. We're
( ,/ 25 concerned that for safety the more it's engineered the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l
229 1 worse it's going to become because the mountain now itself
,s s 2 is drying out with just the natural ventilation that we
, C i s /
3 see during mining.
4 So we want to get cross that we feel, and if 5 this proves to be a viable alternative for alternative 6 design, we would like someone to analyze it, and I hope 7 that someone will in the future.
8 The NWTRB took our suggestion and had Dr.
9 George Danko at Mackay School of Mines analyze what we 10 presented so far, and just a part of his comment, he says 11 "The Nye County suggestion to incorporate long term 12 ventilation," and it goes on "as designed for the proposed 13 high level waste repcsitory has a definite merits
(')
(. l 14 regarding reduction of rock temperatures, the decrease in 15 periodic temperature variation along the emplacement 16 sequences, and the overall reduction of the host rock 17 moisture content. Other studies of the Yucca Mountair.
18 project indicate similar results." And I think the DOE 19 is seeing the same type of chings. It's not that we're 20 proposing a design for the repository, what we're saying 21 is we'd like to have someone analyze this and see if it is 22 a viable alternative design.
23 As you know, Nye County is neutral. We're 24 neither for nor against the repository, but our scientific
,r~
( ,) 25 program is designed to look at the safety aspects of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
230 1 project. And we have our own independent data analysis
,m 2 and collection, and if we have problems with some of the
/..' 'ji 3 designs, we'll base on our own datasets to analyze those.
4 And that's basically what I have to say. You 5 can read the statement and we'll be coming out with a lot 6 more data in the very near future.
7 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.
8 Bill Vasconi?
9 MR. VASCONI: I'm glad I brought my pickup 10 truck, you folks got enough information down here to haul 11 back home, 12 I'm a construction worker. I'm affiliated 13 with the AFL-CIO, Southern Nevada Bt.ilding Construction C'
k._)N 14 Trades Council. But that doesn't say it all, I worked the 15 Test Site for 17 years. I'm not working there now. Some f
16 tell me I'm retired. Well, I've been retired twice, but 17 I'm not done. I've also been a radiological technician, a 18 construction electrician. I've been the Chairman of the 19 Future Land Use. I've worked with your CROs, Community 20 Reuse Organizations, that are known now as NTS Development 21 Corporation. I've worked with your site specific advisory 22 boards for Nevada Test Site projects.
23 Everything I say today is basically concerned 24 citizen, not as a spokesperson for any organization, n
( ) 25 Southern Nevada Building Trade has got 26,000 members.
%J NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
l 231 1 Most of them affiliated with a study committee, which is a
,s 2 group here in Nevada that are not in opposition to Yucca
( )
3 Mountain, but they are in favor of the studies. They're 4 in favor of equity issues. They're in favor of health and 5 safety. They're in favor of oversight. In many 6 conditions, in may situations we feel our state has been 7 negligent in providing that for us.
8 But I don't want this committee to leave today 9 thinking that all Nevadans are opposed to nuclear waste 10 s.orage at Nevada Test Site. I don't want this committee 11 to leave today thinking that Nevadans don't view this as a 12 national problem, not Nevada's problem. Nevada would be 13 quick to tell you that we derive nothing from nuclear
("'s t
\_/ 14 energy, yet as many of you well know an electrical grid, 15 whether it be in Washington State, C9lifornia, Arizona, 16 that power comes here.
17 And as a construction worker, we don't do bad 18 by building these buildings, bringing folks in from other 19 states. You know, we'll take the produce from southern 20 California, we'll take the steel from Gary, Inaiana and 21 Pittsburgh, we'll take the textiles from southern states.
22 We want the rest of the country to come here and spend 23 their money. Bring your kids, if you want to, we've got a 24 good atmosphere here. But don't talk to us about bringing
( ) 25 nuclear waste, we don't want to hear about it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
232 1 of course the only thing they won't tell you I
gy 2 is we've got Nellis Air Force Base right outside of town N]
3 here. I used to say we've got 200 nuclear devices stored 4 in Nellis Air Force Base. I was wrong. It came out in 5 the paper here a while back, just two or three weeks ago, 6 we've got 1,450 nuclear devices stored at Nellis Air Force 7 Base, Tomahawk, Cruise missiles, weapons assemblies. 1,450 8 inside of a population of close to a million people, 9 They're not packed in canisters.
10 Most of us have looked at missiles. They were 11 there, they got transported there by antiquated B-52 12 bombars, C-5 cargo craft, in some cases trucks. Nothing 13 ever happened. Three decades of moving nuclear waste, t
o i
\_) 14 Can't point to an accident. I defy you to look at the 15 statistics of Las Vegas, Nevada on the crime rate, on how 16 dangerous it is to be here in some parts of this city.
37 You know, we did a recent survey through UNLV 18 asking what their concerns was. It seems like a good 19 place to have a survey done. Talked about nuclear waste 20 issues. Well we come to find out that traffic is a big 21 concern of their's, crime is a big concern, schools, 22 water, on and on and on. Yucca Nountain is about number 23 14. People are more worried about the weather at the lake 24 and what's on TV. They view it as a national problem.
w
() 25 They still think there is an equity issue. 74 percent of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
233 1 Nevadans feel it's coming here whether you want it or not
,- 2 and we ought to get something for it. If you ask most of
! \
~'
3 the people in Nevada, they don't want the nuclear waste, 4 but my God 98 percent of us is going to say it's going to l
l 5 come here anyway.
6 You know, I often think of the fact that 7 Nevada says " Battle born," is what their state flag says 8 "All for the country." Well, this country was founded in 9 1776. Nevada came into existence in 1864. That's 88 10 years. You know, there was a lot of sacrifices made to 11 this country in 88 years. No, Nevada wasn't involved, but 12 I bet you all that dirty Yucca Mountain doesn't cover the 13 measure of the men, the sacrifices they made. You know, a (3
\/ 14 lot of people will tell you hey, that waste is back east.
15 Why don't we leave it there? Why don't we leave it in 16 Delaware or Rhode Island, Connecticut, etcetera?
17 Well, you're in Clark County, Clark County, 18 Nevada. Nevada is the seventh largest state. Clark 19 County, Nevada, you could put Delaware, Rhode Island and 20 Connecticut in the county of Clark. When they say 100 21 miles from the biggest metropolitan area, indeed they'd be 22 in another state. You take Nye County -- of the Yucca 23 Mountain project, you can put all three of those counties 24 in there and you can also throw in Massachusetts, Nine of
,r %
() 25 the original 13 Colonies, the nine smallest of the 13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR:BERS (
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
234 1 Colonies would fit in the State of Nevada.
1
,- 2 Well, let's ship it to Texas, they're bigger l
N]'-
3 than we are. Nevada has ten times more federal lands than l
4 Texas does. Well, do y4 a want to think about it in 5 another way, I'll give you some trivia here, a little 6 trivia. You could put Wales, Scotland, England and 7 Ireland in the State of Nevada. How about three Austrias 8 or three Portugals would fit inside the State of Nevada.
9 Yes, the State of Nevada doesn't want your 10 nuclear waste. Where am I going with all this? Well, I 11 should have read my notes I guess. One thing about it is 12 we talked about that 10,000 years, and I appreciate that, 13 Steve, 10,000 years, my God, if we've done this much with
[N l
\_/ 14 nuclear in 45 years -- I'm originally from Pennsylvania, 15 shipping port, went on the line, served his community 16 well, and it's resolved. But being from back east, and 17 I've been here 33 years, so I am a Nevadan, I know what 18 water aquifers are, I know what lakes and rivers are, I 19 know what populated areas are, what's wrong with taking 80 20 sites, 80 sites, storage sites, in 40 states and 21 centralizing it? Nevada is a good choice, the Nevada Test 22 Site.
23 You've heard all the statistics, 700 miles of 24 roads, 600 miles of transmission lines, a very good
,m
() 25 educated nuclear force. Hey, we had 1,030 nuclear devices NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
235 1 detonated by the United States. 24 of them was with the
,- 2 United Kingdom. All total of those 928 were at the Nevada
- s
3 Test Site. Of those 100 were atmospherics. The rest were 4 all underground.
5 Yes we've g at a natural storage area, yes 6 we're concerned with plutonium, yes we're concerned with 7 tritium, yes it goes migrate, but after 824 underground 8 nuclear devices something has got to move around a little 9 bit. Keep telling me it's closed water aquifer. I 10 believe it, and we drilled wells all over that Test Site.
11 Poured iodine-131 down there and I chased it for four 12 years and never found none. Plutonium, I didn't think 13 plutonium would migrate a mile or 5/8ths of a mile, but t
's-) 14 maybe it did after that many nuclear tests.
15 At any rate, that nuclear Test Site, the 16 Nevada Test Site, we've seen a downsizing of people from 17 11,200 down to 3,000. We see a lot of our technology 18 leaving this area. A lot cf us would like to diversify 19 and gone te sSuthern Nevada. A lot of us would like to 20 make the NTS a show place. A lot of us would like to see 21 a railroad system to central Nevada, get out of Clark 22 county and take Clark County completely out of the 23 equation because we've got crazies here that will lay down 24 them railroad tracks, we've got crazies here that will lay
(~h q ,) 25 down the highway. They don't want that nuclear waste NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
236 1 here.
I 2 But keep in mind we've got 114 nuclear 7-~
'( ')
l t
3 submarines. We've got 15 surface vessels, whether they be 4 aircraft carriers or whatever. We've got 71 reactors in 5 universities. My God, we've got 41 countries signed on 6 through the Eisenhower Administration that we give them 7 enriched uranium for reactors, whether it be research or 8 running power stations, commercial powerhouses. It has to 9 come back. That was the deal. That was the deal with 106 W 10 nuclear powerhouses in the United States, it's got to come 11 back, it's got to be under the control of the federal 12 government.
13 I don't see those kids in those atomic (3
's 14 submarines and those aircraft carriers having any 15 problems. I don't see the 71 univers1*y reactors kids 16 having any pr:,blems. We've got to recognize the nuclear 17 issue for what it is. We've got to take care of it in the 18 generation that created it and not pass it on to the next 19 Congress or the next generation of sons, daughters and 20 grandchildren. We've got to be more realistic about it, 21 we've got to educate our public, but we've got to get the 22 job done.
23 Now, this committee apparently has little bit 24 of pull. When you go back there and you tell them folks n
) 25 that we're all not hindsighted here in Nevada, that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
237 1 recognize issues, nuclear issues, we're willing to talk 73 2 about it. Sure we're going to be hard-pressed not to say
( )
~'
3 okay, the federal government mandated, the U.S. Congress, l
l 4 this is my only note, the federal government mandated, the 3 U.S. Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy of 1982 to 6 solve the nuclear issues and problems of this great 7 nation. Well, I think it's time we got on with it.
8 Maybe folks like you will make them think a 9 little straighter. Maybe folks like you will take time to 10 say hey, there are folks in Nevada, this is a national 11 issue, let's solve it and let's get on with it. Thank 12 you.
13 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you, Bill.
('\
(-) 14 I think the final speaker that I have 15 information on at least is from Clark County, Engelbrecht 16 Van Tiesenhausen.
17 MR. VAN TIESENHAUSEN: My name is Engelbrecht 18 Van Tiesenhausen, I'm the Technical Representative for 19 Clark County. And I'd like to thank Dr. Garrick for not 20 murdering my name too badly. '
21 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: I apologize, I owe you one.
22 MR. VAN TIESENHAUSEN: I just have a couple of 23 very short comments to make. Some of them have been made 24 already by other people, and I'd just like to reiterate n
( ) 25 some of the concerns that Clark County has.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 j l
238 1 To us one of the prime directives, so to l
l
,s,i 2 speak, that we hav? always felt the NRC has in defense-in-l l ('~) 3 depth was that it should have been a dual system based on 4 engineered barriers and the geologic system. And as Steve I
I 5 has mentioned, fron a policy standpoint we seem to be 6 drif ting away f vcin that .
7 The disturbing part to me in going to the 8 engineered barrier system is that the lack of knowledge of 9 the near field environment is still very large. And there 10 seems to be a inclination by DOE and its contractor to get 11 away from site characterization or get away from an 12 understanding of the hydrology of the near field, both 13 from a spacial and temporal setting, and try to rely on (O _) 14 engineered barriers. And I happen to be a metallurgical 15 engineer and unless you tell me the environment that I 16 have to protect my system in, I cannot do it.
17 So we strongly urge DOE to continue its site 18 characterization efforts, not only in the near field, but 19 also in the saturated zone where they seem to be taking 20 credit, as Steve mentioned, for dilution which may be 21 inappropriate.
22 Another issue that Steve mentioned was the 23 fact of finding of dolloidal transport of plutonium due to 24 a shot on Test Site in 1969. The only comment I have here r
25 is that I would like to see this issue investigated
('x)h)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
239 1 further and considered in TSPA. Whether they can get it i
2 into VA I doubt, but it should by investigated, not l(s i
'~~) 3 necessarily just by the Test Site but by Yucca Mountain i
) 4 per se.
5 And then I just have one more request to make 6 of the committea. An integral part of this meeting was a 7 field trip during which many of the issues on today's 8 agenda were discussed. In future could the committee 9 ensure that legislatively designated entities charged with 10 oversight of this program be allowed to attend this type 11 of field trip? That's it for me. Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: Thank you.
13 I don't know if you noticed it or not, but the b)
\__/ 14 members during the course of these presentations took 15 extensive notes, and of course we have our transcript, and 16 I am very confident that this information and this input 17 will be a very important part of our future evaluations 18 and considerations. And we apprer Tte very much the 19 comments that have been made.
20 This is part of the issue that we talk a great 21 deal about, of public participation. It's not much, but 22 it's a start and it's something we take extremely serious, 23 and we thank you.
24 I don't think we have anybody else that wants t
O) sj 25 to make comments at this time. I think that brings us to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W, (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l l
240 1 a point that we have finished with the formal fx 2 presentations of our meeting.
I )
~
3 I think however before we go off the record I 4 want to represent the committee in recognizing one of the 5 stalwarts of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste who 6 is coming off the comvattee after this meeting, and in 7 particular I'm talkirt about Dr. Paul Pomeroy who will be 8 coming off the committt' 9 Paul has benn a major force in the committee 10 for many years. His contribution has been many-fold.
11 It's probably been most obvious in his leadership, in his 12 management skills, but he's also made enormous 13 contribution to a number of important technical issues.
\s l 14 To mention a couple, of course seismic, the issues having 15 to do with seismology. We all know his efforts to bring 16 in greater understanding and process to the whole issue of 17 expert elicitation, and that contribution will be felt for 18 a long time. And he may not realize this, but I think 19 he's made a major contribution to something that I have 20 been very interested in since coming on the committee and 21 that's performance assessment, because I initially 22 supported him and picked up on that issue.
23 So, Paul, we're going to miss your vision and 4
24 our contribution, but nevertheless we expect to see you
,~
( ,) 25 here from time to time as a consultant or an invited NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
241 1 expert or in what.ever form we can create to see you from
,m 2 time to time. So we are delighted to be able to
(
'~'
)
3 acknowledge you and your contribution in this way.
4 MEMBER POMEROY: Thank you, John.
5 I would just say at this point that it's been 6 both an honor and a priv31ege to serve with all of you and 7 to have this opportunity to have the kind of input that I 8 hope I've had over the years to this problem.
9 I'm sure that you can do a better job than I 10 could, and I look forward eagerly to focusing my attention 11 on your activities in the years ahead. Thanks again.
12 CHAIRMAN GARRICK: All right, unless there is 13 further comment I think what we'll do is end the formal n
t t
(,/ 14 presentation part of our meeting, take maybe a ten minute 15 break, and I don't think we need the recorder for the rest 16 of our activities, okay.
17 (Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the meeting was 18 adjourned.)
19 20 21 22 23 24
,r-
't v
/ 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT I EPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 9HODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASF INGTON, D C. 2000'# 3701 (202) 2344433
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: 94" ACNW Docket Number: N/A Place of Proceeding: LAS VEGAS, NEVADA were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to O
D typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
t'" f +tts
'60RBETT RIhER Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
I C\
t )
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RIIODEISLAND AVENUE,NW (202)234-4433 WASl!INGTON.D.C. 20005 (202)234-4433
YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT n - , i.-
Viability Assessment Product Introduction Presented to:
, 94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Presented by:
Tim Sullivan ,, ;' , .-
U.S. Department of Energy .,
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office ' r
,I 4 z, <..
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive September 25,1997 waste Management
O O O VA Products
- VA Design
- TSPA-VA MGDS Cost Estimate for VA
- LA Plan TsrNT PPT.125.ACNWM-15-97 2
VA Products (continued) i
- VA Design
- 9/97 Phase i Design Complete
- 2/98 CompleteVA Design
- 8/98 Final VA Design Product
. TSPA-VA !
- 9/97 Phase i Design Complete
- 12/97 Peer Review int. Report 3[97 - 3/97 Reference Case Complete
- 6/98 Peer Review Interim Report
- 8/98 Final TSPA-VA TSINT PyrL125 ACNW/09-15-97 3
. O O O VA Products (continued) l
- ,MGDS Cost Estimate for VA
- 9/97 Cost Analysis
- 2/98 Complete VA Design
- 11/97-6/98 Independent Review
- 8/98 Final MGDS Cost Estimate for VA
- LA Plan
- 9/97 Preliminary Draft
- 8/98 Final LA Plan TSINT PPT.125.ACNW/09-1547 4
, .. O O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
- - i-. . . .
License Application Plan Presented to: !
94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste I Presented by:
Paul G. Harrington m License Application Team Leader .
~
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office L' i 1y _ ' L U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive September 25,1997 wasic u,oogemco, 1
l
Introduction
- The License Application (LA;i Plan is One of the Four Viability Assessment (VA;i Products
- The LA Plan Describes the Work to Be Done Between the VA and the LA, including Associated Cost and Schedule information LAPPAH PPT.125 ACPMM15-9/ 2
. _ O O O Relationship to Licensing Products
- The LA Management Plan Describes How the LA Will Be Prepared
- The Technical Guidance Document for License Application Preparation Describes the Detailed Format and Content of the LA, including Acceptance Criteria and Level of Detail Guidance LAPPAH PPT.125 ACNWC9-15-97 3
..O O O Development Schedule for the LA Plan
- Management Plan for the Development of the LA Plan Will Be Prepared for DOE Review and Acceptance 11/01/97 Draft LA Plan Will Be Prepared for DOE Review l
5/15/98
- Final LA Plan Will Be Prepared for DOE
! Acceptance 7/01/98 LAPPAH PPT.125 ACNW/09-15-97 4
l Source of Information l for the Draft LA Plan l
l Work Descriptions, Cost Information, and l Schedule Information Will Be Derived from the l Project's Multi-Year Plan i
i
)
i j LAPPAM PPT.125ACNW,V9-15-97 5
. . . O O O Development of the LA Plan '
- Scope of the LA Plan Will Be Reflected in a Management Plan to Be Completed by 11/01/97
- Draft LA Plan Will Reflect Current Information From the Project's Multi-Year Plan LAPPAH PPT.125 ACNWS9-15-97 6
- /
. . . . O O O Major Milestones Between VA and LA (Current Project Baseline) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 i i : i Complete Prep LA (8/00) f i License f j u _ _g _) __
j j
-{
Application j l l l (3/02) l g .___. .. _ __1__ . _ . . . _ . 1._ ; _ _ _
l _ ,
O Sufficiency Comments from NRC [SR] (1/00)
- - - - . . - - - - - . - - - - - - , l ._
Site Recommendation (7/01) l 3 , _ _ ..
g l , NRC Certification [LSS](9/01) ;
[ ! !,
l, ,
,,l j ' DEIS (7/99) ! FEIS (8/00) l
_ __. _2_ __
g g ;
Viability Assessment ! l (9/98) li i !
_ _ _ _ . _ - _ _.. J j
, l, 1 l
1 I I l TSPA-LA (3/00) .I m . ,
i I I !
z l 1
9 i Phase II Design (7/99) l Phase ill Design (3/02) m i -,-
m l o I l l
! I i
m r !
Confirm Flow and Transport Models for LA (5/99) l 7 l _ . . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
g
-W i
. _ _ _ . _.._ _ i m I "^"m.32sawtur 7
- i ;j. .Confirm Near-Field Models for LA (9/99) ;
i _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ _ _. _ ,
~
O O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
~ - _ >: . . -
Systematic Approach In Development of EBS Design l
Presented to:
94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Presented by:
Jack N. Bailey ..n, Deputy Manager, Engineering & Integration Operations y. #
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office /
U.S. Department of Energy September 25' 1997 f6" f C""i"" Mi"*c'i'c Waste Management
O O O Engineering Goals
- Performance
- Waste Package integrity
- Limit transport of waste once waste package is breached
- Mitigate / Condition further transport
- Defense in Depth
- Consider uncertainties in performance of natural barriers
- Consider uncertainties in performance of engineered barriers
- m m _.,m, 2
I\ !i lili 6 !! ii
-O
- 3 7
9
- 5 1
9 C
- W N
C A
5 2
1 T
P P
D B
E D
A A S
_ P
_ S T
A n V i d
r e f
o t a
O i
n g
l u
a v
e s n e n g D g i
s s de n i
e l a
D he P e t g l
b e i n
a b s k t t n r
o s s e u o c WMCL i o
- 4l
- , .
-o O O Systematic Approach in Developman.i. vi 4 ruso n coo ve sign j VA FOCUS i IDENTIFY SET OF SELECT EBS :
- EVALUATE PA :
> REFERENC,E DESIGN ~::
EBS OPTIONS FOR -
MODELS OF EBS WASTE ISOLATION AND OPTIONS :
OPTIONS :
j DEVELOP EBS OPTIONS FOR VA ll RE-ADDRESS ALL j -
4 i i! EBS OPTIONS IN i l* IN PARALLEL WITH li
- SUPPORT OF LA :
i THE REFERENCE !! :
- DESIGN ! ! LA FOCUS SAJEBD PPT.125 ACNW4)S.15-97 4
- ao O O EBS Design Development Strategy VA DESIGN FOCUS
! STANDARD h VA EBS REFERENCE
$ I > DESIGN 5 :
3 f 5
G :
u 1
VA EBS DESIGN -
! Ol'flONS
((
time scCnario U LA DESIGN FOCUS i
8 '
~
STANDARD LA EBS REFERENCE -
DESIGN (defense-in-depth) E -
b a
o N-8
,. ~
) to. g.sitity SCCflatio tame SADEBD PPT.125 ACNWSJ-1597 5 i
7... . . . , . .
s EBS Options for Waste Isolation
_________ __- -- ..-...._....--_.------_---- 3
- ta tsuvs e
ses asT tes e utNfWv5FitF A 6% As sjaTF P4 y EMsGN *
- ensim,m nm ..u en ess a,e <m m e e waste ssrxAYue orTRoss e
- ; a I
- ::::::::::::nuncx__xn_::d Design Op; ions ihr Wade Isolation
- 5-face Cennd Therm.: rkug.
Il e
- 8 Iand W almire=al
- Arcad b88* Iasal 08 th laml e
l e Infdiragem iemand e WP Sgm. tag (Rans. I and e ba
, y e ses ses : A"
- Ahrsed M arfschl Ra k SNI A e ;;;;,g0,-'= ::f
---a : one, o -
- ,,,,o,,
- . *-C. i. m. u., -
e
- e u
. . u- ,di C--e . C dne, v ,
v-
- . P,,t C_ ,
.. %, m , a. C.n , % .m
- m. 5 ,,,. mg e *
. Carine.ax Centecse . o .= %
t : ____.____________________---_____:
- Sa=* 5cm qI IJet Skwage
- 5*=='1==
, C_ g., - 4
- 5='*"
, g, c,,,, 3.,,,
P .
13rver bhidi Weasdatum e Rak Ia5 Pnsectaw
. Ines thee & Hueneday Asr Gap * *
- W7 e Caside a ascr L
(W Caede k .
- Su eied h ItaktdB F1ec Seas >Img Wade Patiage -
Saggn=ried h WP e Carnaam Aihmante Masenal e Canmune Revease Masenal tw kkf*R e Gal nnc Pnnectam
- Camdema %mer e Fdier A 5vt>Reicaws e Ceramuc Camrmg laamsde sw Onassdd e Ispr Sman.Sean-urimpe e hnints. vertaat Ibschde, fann Ibsehde .
- ftdnsal
% _n
- I'ytaarmcw M t g,,,,,
e smaWPF - T
. R,A WP Imme Mt6duarue
\ s.et t
A zude . .
=
Add"."*5 "n*c*=*=*g*M Ad.n . i A Radumedsde Oswicerarasam Reductum SADEBO PPT.125 ACNWO9-15-97 6
l y
w m
- eJ i
,u f3 I#
Lm s e,d fgs. =ei ,i r y
e Iqt* m a d s m B u s e i
re -
Ote=ne,b n n.
sl f deew m
i s
igs m l e la--
t am 7 s gh 8 t aaenyre eca i Sma w r n
e 4
- e. '
- a. = -iJ
= y y a tt e.-
Ue m a == a nnOe e rfeewd e Oo b%a w-lb a e m = ee,, .e.gfe i S m f m
mpir s S^ = ,, .,a S r gu rm h mt s d
m a e as a n r PNT. y, C r0aSSue mp S ,
l e a-d Wl Aw5 wL 4 C m.
s s
e d
A-
!WT,% -
t 5 d L
- e. + * * *
- ea.. e a f
e l:
n @e i
ee.. +
- e. o a.-
g t
W
/
f j -
w t
s oi s s
s i s .
i~- Ca Mr.m~
^
m- -
a-
- ne w' sa w $ ~
,iyfn oD I
M '-
- f I l
l 48 e U i m-o ds n- W t
cA A
e s
WPe e
^ I A
l eV ~a
/
id e/ -
/
- -m.
er l
=
r e
h e
Sof m
e n e t - -
r m = .
a w em s r
d Cw a
m m
ag go s
.prcC m
m o
m(m me ac CnI sg a
a} ,=
,m
,A
=
m -
_e
_ e m
s m
_ ew
.m s
s ,
e r
.m "
o e' m e
ma t a n mtHlCi mie'w a
e S =m,%= - g, m = - E igr e' rse .,y e d.
n rd w
Pw.
ey #r g__s..,'
u i u a ne r, n= W,.
m r I" FCS cg d rgm e
t
, a f S
.- re e
w,C
,r* **ee*a,v o mm m e .eg Eai l oo , .
- e..
ai n tp l l ;.' ..
- t . * .;.;.;..;.
oO- -
i _
=s t - _
,m m .
aS-
.I u
o.n = a e" 4 uWe : ss s.
RB- -
sua a 7
snw e
msyr s re po, a
s t
7 E -
am r r mee ams se 7
9 5
1 9
- mr 0 Eo : _
T assn :
_ W N
/
_- IUaio :
- _
C aor : _
5 vnr E.a :
- _ A 1 : _ 5 M : ;.:..;i
_ 2 1
E F c .:: . ,
. p .;..;.l T
- a P D
e - P arn D r=u e nT m
s vwi -
B E
v e sA m m u a. m wsrna s s. E D
o a A
- s anmuu an S ymE w
s T n aa a m
_ i.s e
s vrres ec
_ u a mmw t umne n
. , .l: . I
- I :: * .: .'I!..;.I ll .I
T O U v Reference Design Reference Design selected as a cost-effective combination of engineered barriers that, in conjunction with the natural barriers, has been calculated to satisfy the interim postclosure performance standard
- .. nmu ;
- ,,, m , Design Options for Waste Isolatim
- amamm menn ser
- __,, ev.w .rer. (Reference Design)
- e.se m -s -
..sn i==2==
x=2 or m Dommi
_w 7 x
. om,.
. .v us
- ; .r e u <- .,w ~
. s,. ,
. r. - .. -
, ______=_________~__,., A.
3
- ._ .s .. . .
<*a== = va '- - m,,,,,,
s om os . :*
,3 m P.a.a.m N . F stTFt.T O, LA .
e TieE SEPEREF.EE rassue.
j
- 8 . EW amreed L.nw1us
.f
- l*
- f. M
. *=.ne a P= ha.ar e atmees Pnamen m
. 1,,e
. Isrede $-
i ......1 1. . o. s . ms i. ,, r. , a u r. o. . ., s 28km/A ve ra g e Fle s = 6 m an ty r
- Ee.r.eete De.ga tR De
- e. tme we t-e n.e *F-
.m
, r iam.e .dneminansen 1.000 r- I* - ' ' O + *** * * *d = s = ""= c ah _
S D*96S s teddag ef e ram ar t'lS E I S E yfs l ,,, ,.
100-r l m D+*** < =ddes Ce == = t'Is t 8 5 K **= l dev .h= ad ny 10 - r T _ _ _ 's.: - _ :.;rx;.: n : ; w ,
be l
i -r -~;
L' : ,9
_.__ _ _ _ _ _ _1 5 0.1 -r .
i j 1
0.01 I
% 3 / 3 3 0.001 r I
I l r , , _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ __
1 0.0001 -- r l ,-
1 SADEBD PPT 125 N1D9-15-97 8 0.00001 2- ^- I 4+ # - - 0 - ' -
0 20,000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100,000 Time (yrs)
g Rational for Selection of EBS Options for VA Design e .
Select features to evaluate j su u r . s
- Identify ur.ced .I.es, and a corresporxhng level of
. mennem .
-m---
e IDHWTIFT SET tW ensormesn= A Ev4 EATE P4 y tE.saurs .
W "W "
inness or ens orr= =s .
..sn iscuT=. orrx-s Feasabikty Assunpens
, j -
Technical content
- :=viu sess j -
PA evaluation p ser==s a= v= *!
mm at ess asi or,w-
- mr in =m. .- r sim.,o,su= e Calcuiate cost
! ,",,,"*""*" l;l j -
Se:ect those EBS features that provide the
! ;j u nnu ; greatest overall performance with uncertainties l
j; j currently iww.ided as manageable
______.i_____________________________.
Design Options for Waste holatim (Design Features Evaluation) N N
f w n
.T6 .we t- , . ww,sw
. nt s,. - m%
- Tomaar N tw tems Te esas eressaisy huma WP W e e them tipes
.MfiG Red Fuf Puumasman
. *le4 a -
/
[,ma::: ,
e_
y:
c :.:
=*
<=, immed
! m. emn.,, ..
5'""""**
e C- Ammesmuse temered e C Rammme hemmenus e (minemer Ph e Caummer Casang Easmadse
~
. L *-
A, ,,,, ,, - -
a Ses*
. -m a a*""
SADEBD Pf'T 125 ACNWG-15r97 9
. mm we a 2a f unne RImmehenome _
a aM (' Resurene ======
3 Q l V c hg i g .j- .. ._
p -
$ 1 .
. .... .. ....... !, i' ..
(/) 5
@ ]l E3 m 8 [ t g ,4 3
Q 11 Bg Ep _'
4 8 1l gi 7 g
> 1 3-p ,
..a
....:.1
- y. .:
6 . . .. .... o ..
I'l 1
o 4 3d 1i ) ' i,i
,it!
p g] 2 2 W, l. ....~
7
. 5..... . t. . ;.': J. ' .' g:
(/) { .I l 1 i,,ih llil d' H'i e 815 il i! Dii l i
'.'i: !<! id i
.O 1 g . j' g
" I g,
Ih I1
[*
0- A JI linill ll,i i t1]!...i).. .
O-O h -
(D m 7.................,,..................
W ;
o ! et t
i !
w ! !ll i
i i
c a i nii c
e ^ '
l lil i
i
- .s : :
e E;;; 1 ^
Ee l l g l ~
Om hk ! ! E
,,O,,
"I l : '
5
^ J::::::::::::::::::'
@ h !!$ l O spl jl I til siil!
9 c.........................a.........
O
_.._4 _ _y._,..,. . _ . -.a_m--..*Aws J 4 ,.d,d-.J. & 4 _J4-whrenE_a,4 -..a-.,s,._s 4.4..j...C-, 2.s_._,.___sw.+E a .AA.- - _ 4.m-.a_
k 1 -
1 5 P
- i!!d'!#Dl0!ilddlll3ji h < <<>
1 s 5 ii i !1-+[/
( i o
g , ---
1 ,,.1 .s 2 j
T _I 6,
o
( $ f QA ,.
Ig
> ./
1
- c j)1 '
i O '$ Yi gN.J 8 Oh;;!. I]l '
a wi'n!lid s
nud O \- -
&) .
, (n .................., ......., ,
t LIJ ! !!
5
! i '! IE5 ! l~
! 38 ! h !
- a ,
igl -
3 e
i si '
i n i
l i iir :! r,i l
! !p M! ;
! 3 n i; , v::::::::::::::::::: g
$E! l I
o E = l l
llt: ! i 11 ;
1
0 0 0 YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
~ _
_ z _._
Summary of"TSPA-VA Methodology and Assumptions" Document Presented to:
94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Presented by:
l Eric T. Smistad ,
Performance Assessment -
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office -
U.S. Department of Energy September 25' 1997 5'" "I 'Hian Radhiactist Waste Management
o o o Outline
- Objectives of TSPA-VA Document Contents of TSPA-VA Document
- Key Components in TSPA-VA
- Methodology of Integrated TSPA-VA
- Key Assumptions in TSPA-VA External Reviewers - Input Examples
- Conclusion SUMTSPA PPT.125 ACPfW,99-15-97 2
~
O O O l
I i
Objectives of TSPA-VA Methods and l
c Assumptions Document l
i
- Describe general methodology and approach for i developing TSP 3-VA j
- Present significant features, events and
- processes to be included in TSPA-VA Present TSPA-VA model architecture and methods to abstract process models for input to J TSPA Describe key uncertainties and methods to be i l addressed within TSPA i
SUMTSPA PPT.125 ACNVWO9-1597 3 i -.- -. -. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o o O e
Objectives of TSPA-VA Methods and Assumptions Document (cont)
Serves as a preliminary draft introductory chapter to the TSPA-VA document
- allows time for affected organizations (including external reviewers) to critique the methods or assumptions so that modifications could be made in a timely fashion prior to completion of analyses and documentation in FY 98 SUMTSPA PPT 125 ACNWW15-97 4
O O O
_ Contents of TSPA-VA Methods and Assumptions Document
- 1. Introduction
- History of Yucca Mountain Project
- Objective of Viability Assessment
- Objective of Document
- 2. Objectives of TSPA-VA
- Definition of TSPA
- Plan and Schedule of TSPA-VA
- 3. History of YMP TSPA analyses
- TSPA-1991, -1993, -1995
- Other Yucca Mountain TSPAs _ , _ , , , ,
o O O
~
Contents of TSPA-VA Methods and Assumptions Document
- 4. Components of TSPA
- How Yucca Mountain Repository System is intended to Work
- Key Processes Affecting Waste Containment and Isolation
- What is Being Analyzed in TSPA-VA
- Relationship of TSPA Components and NRC's KTis and DOE's Waste Containment and Isolation Strategy (WCIS)
- 5. TSPA-VA General Approach and Method
- General Approach
- Treatment of Uncertainty and Variability SUntTSPA PPT 125 ACMNr09-15-97 6 i
l l
O O O l
! Key Components of TSPA-VA I
at .
s l - y infi(rati N i
V UJ Floy i i cround summri orst was N
Seepage !
, . . . - Th rmo j
.7f j / '2' Hydrologic
, Oj / ' E n viron m e n t j l PossdWe "?" -
i Drip SNeed
{y
, Y l Meer F-eid rff c..e n.m i s e r Enw e.nment
( l-..
p I l Waste Padage/
El p*; i i
l i
l J
Wo.te Pac k age o e. e. . .t ; ..
Posedde C.n .i .
F
~
Coahng- * '
w ,,g,y,, ,
- . Degradaison
- ca.ow, %_
~'
- '*F "a C f i
,.. y as Tree ,eri -
~
! e.......... Blosphere
'" " d Transh _
SZ Flow & '
8 Trans port SUMTSPA PPT.125 ACNWM-15-97 7 __
h
W
~
O O O Methodology of an Integrated TSPA-VA ESite
- ""%^ ""
- TSPA Peer Review
. Putstic
- UZ Flow i
- UZ Ti _ ,_ :-4
- SZ Flow & Transport
-Thermal Hyedrology 1P
- Neer-Floid E...:.& - _c.: .
Process Model TSPA VA TSPA-VA
+
O
. Wp r , _ - - _ -_ Abstraction Analyses Documentation VA
- WF MW
- WP Degradation Environmental 1r
- ri ,:ae .p p TSPA for LA
,h
- Process Modees y
.va ne,e,i
- Solemic Me,ord Date
- Surface Booed Testing
- SZ Flow & Tronoport
- InsituTests
- Thermal Hydrology
- 1.atsoratory Tests
- WF Disso4ution 3r
- Meterials d
fg
- Weste form T T
- Gooecience < l LA l
- Natural Aneiogs SUMTSPA PPT 125 ACM#M-1597 8
1 1 O 9 7
9-5 d 1 n W W
N a C A
5 2
1 s A T P
P dt n P t r
A P
S o e S T o
p M
U h T s S
e min t n tr ar u sn oT Mc o o n pe sd Ao i
y t ni i g a al r c V D t
c l o d a Tun a o r
r g eo
- s r dy e di An t d i
O s nDt r ca l
h o b o igouR Po A wrt mytaisod r
npn Sit l elo ddnin esarTRwtadada Tp hir FTmgl a f
o md u
oee Moo nnhD eeC c i eel ddnFpsty o enl etoen nvsvc oo r
st i i
notyla i i t
i y
t sss f oddGa ZZegacZna ee u
kmndorTE AtnAC v cr ci r uiit t d c r. i toeZ sI cr nA e
yt r
a t
aal r r a
ePkdadr .
uuFeeRtutahpnemslc i a r eev unia eeioame t
p u gHueu i
t t n mtaart t r a usrI SN ssa mnne aaBnaii****ssSst os o u UUNWWEUSBD C S - - - - - - - - - -
6 o
ll
- O O O Contents of TSPA-VA Methods and Assumptions Document
- 7. Implementation of the Base Case Model
- Information. Flow
- TSPA-VA Model and Code Architecture
- Software QA
- Treatment of Uncertainty and Variability
- Alternative Design Analyses
- Sensitivity Analyses
- 8. Summary SUMTSPA PPT.125 AChWM-15-97 10
O O O Key Assumptions Reference Design for TSPA-VA Concrete Drift Liner Air Gap g
- >5a s
g ,
Waste Package 1 q ! !
-10 cm CAM
- f
[f -
-2 cm CRM
^'
L -l h -
C! adding il . .
e.
'- ^"
P, -
3( Steel Pedestal
< Concrete Invert (1m)
~
l SUMTSPA PPT.125 ACNW99-15-97 11
~
Key Assumptions (con't)
Design Feature Options for TSPA-VA f .
Desian Feature Options
.. , - Air Gap pf" ' '
Backfill J;f ,
y :. . .
Drip Shield -
1;77 I
~'
f((. [ Waste Package j.
Ceramic Coating .,
I -10 cm CAM P
R 4
-2 cm CRM I
g -
.y ~
4
~
n:\
, Steel Pedestal
.A _.
Concrete invert (1m)
SUMTSPA PPT.1254hD9-15-97 12
Key Assumptions (con't)
EBS/ Natural System
. Drips on WP and WF Diffusion transport through the EBS
- Fracture flow
- Vertical mixing in the SZ Exclusion of T/C effects in the EBS
- WP pitting rate slows with time *
- Corrosion products credit *
- Cladding credit *
- Change from TSPA-1995 SUMTSPA PPT.125 ACNWWt5-97 13
O O O
~
Externar Reviewers - Input Examples TSPA Peer Review Panel
- Explain How tl)e System Works
- Compounding Effect of Conservatism
- EBS Defensibility Waste Package Expert Elicitation
- Longevity of Ceramic Material
- WP corrosion Pitting Rate
- CRM selection (625 vs C-22)
SUMTSPA PPT 125 ACMWC9-15-97 14
O O O Conclusion Document represents a status on the path to TSPA-VA It allows for early internal and external review of TSPA-VA content and introductory chapters TSPA-VA will evaluate both design options and alternate conceptual models l
SUMTSPA PPT.125 ACNW/09-15-97 15
O O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
~ ~
_ i..
Mined Geologic Disposal System Viability Assessment Cost Estimate Plan Presented to:
94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Presented by:
Mitchell G. Brodsky . r, General Engineer
+.-1 U.S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Sice Characterization Office ai 3 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive September 25,1997
= = - - - -
O O O OUTLINE
=
MGDS VA cost estimate - Purpose
- Operational Phases - Timeline Cost Elements Excluded from MGDS-VA
=
Cost Elements included in MGDS-VA
= Estimate accuracy and Risk Cost control proce.ss and review plans Example (Reference Design Description Rev 01, Appendix A) estimate
- Key milestones on path to final MGDS VA cost estimate i
^
M8vAMGD PPT.125.ACNW/tF-1SF
O O O Project Cost Estimates - Purpose
- MGDS-VA cost estimate
- Required by the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill,1997
- Provides the cost to build, operate and close the VA reference repository design
- Used as a basis for preparing Program cost estimates
- Supports project trade and optimization studies M8VAMGD PPT.125 ACNWOJ-15 :
l
O O O Operational Phases - Timeline 98 MGDS-VA Cost Estimate 8 8 @ g " S S 8 E 4 0 ? $ g s o
"? E a $ R e 8 8 8 8 8 g 8 $ g l I Development and Evaluation 2002-2010
, Pre-Emplacement Construction 2005-2010 Emplacement Ops. 2010-2033 Caretaker Operations 2034-20591 1 Closure and Decommissioning 2060-2066 MSVAMGD PPT.125 ACNW/09-1547 4
O O O Elements Excluded From MGDS-VA Estimate Historical MGDS D&E costs (prior to 1998)
- Site characterization, prior design activities License application cost (10/98 - 3/02)
- Program costs
- Waste acceptance
- Storage
- National transportation (Region'ai Servicing Agent (RSA) concept)
- Other Program costs ueVAMGD PPT.125 ACNWG-15-97 5
O O O Elements included in MGDS Estimate MGDS development and evaluation (D&E) Costs Capital and Operating Costs
- Surface facilities
- Subsurface facilities
- Disposal containers
- Performance confirmation
- Nevada transportation MOVAMGD PPT.125 ACFM109-1s-or G
W O O O Assessing Accuracy and Risk
- Developing a plan for Contingency as a Function of Project Life assessing risk of the <co i e- voi - -- - i a>
overall estimate ,o 70 Current estimating - - - - - ---
guide and industry ill~;l ZZZ "! '-
experience provides -- -
so i "#
for a range of ^ ~
contingency levels, ,
o based upon design maturity, which are ;
[i 13 ij
"" ;j"j !
applied to elements of the estimate MBVAMGD PPT.125 ACNWS9-15 I
O O O Current Estimate Contingency level MGDS-VA '
risk analyses may affect the contingencies surface
- 30% for all capital costs, conceptual design status
- 0% for all operating costs Subsurface (15% - 25%)
- Low - Industrial experience exists, pre-preliminary design status
- High - Items without historical precedence, less mature design M8VAMGD PPT.I25ACNW@-1547 8
~
Current Estimate Contingency level MGDS-VA risk analyses may affect the contingencies (continued)
Disposal container (20%)
Nevada Transportation (35%)
Performance Confirmation (20% - 50%)
- Low - work packages similar to Site Characterization, (testing, mapping & sampling activities)
- High - Incomplete and/or pre-conceptual design status (Waste package and repository testing)
I MOVAMGD PPT 125 ACNWO9-15 97 9
o O U Cost Control Process Documented l M&O Cost Estirnating Analysis, Controlling Assumptions DOE Cost Guide Documents Cost Estimating and standardization (HO, YMSCO) Guide (DOE Order 57002D) Volume G,11/94 7,________ ______________________________________________ ,
=
V l
Cost Estimate
- l[ Heferences:
- l- - - -l> Vl Cost integration
- r cess Review Process Cost Estimate j
'
- Estimating l l Project Cost M&O/ DOE Document '
l Databases LS Estimating l
- Selected on l ll Process l l Studies ll A Cost Trend l l .
[________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ __ _____ __ _Assessment _ _ _ _ _ _Cost _ _ A___ _ __
Design Outputs V
Technical Design Data for Cost + Design Activity
- I *NM -
inputs (Preliminary) *U E M Estimates u 't e .: e -
~
usvauco een2s Acnwm9-IS-97 10
MGDS VA Estimate Reviews Yucca Mountain Project (YMP)
- Multi-year planning January - February 1998
- MGDS estimate April 1998 and July 1998
- External Review Team
- Review completed segments and submit feedback at end of segment review
- Assumption segment - October 1997
- Disposal container segment - January 1998
- D&E (multi-year segment) - February 1998
- Repository and remaining elements - April 1998
- Draift Final report - June 1998 MOVAMGD PPT.125 ACNWM-1597 11
o o O 9
Reference Design Description Rev 01 Life Cycle Cost Summary CAPITAL and OPERATING COSTS
$1.236.6 (8.4%) PERR)RMANCE CONFIRM ATION 11.828.3 (12.3%) DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION (2002 2080) 5724.3 (4.9%) NEVADA TRANSPORTATION 53.747.6 (25.3%) DISPOSAL CONT AINERS $ 3.883.0 426 2%) SURFACE FAOLITitis 53.388.7 (22.9%) SUBSURFACE FACILITIES TUTAL = 514RYd3 M MOVAMGD PPT.825.ACNWm697 12
O O O Reference Design Description Rev 01 Life Cycle Cost Annual Summary 1000 TOTAL = $14808.3 Ml 900 -
800 -
700 -
16 -
500 -
.h 400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042 2046 2050 2054 2058 2062 2066 Years 3 Development & EvaluatioW Surface W &nbsurface El Disposal Gmtainers M Nevada Transportation W Performance Confirmation MBVAMGD PPT.125ACNWW15-97 13
-_-____.___m.- _ . _ _ . _ _ . _
i...-...i I .
O O O Key Milestones for MGDR-VA Cost Estimate Cost Analysis Report - VA assumptions 9/30/97 Disposal container design freeze - 9/30/97 Bin 3 freeze - 9/30/97 Final design freeze (non-Bin 3) 2/10/98 VA Document due - 8/28/98 I
MOVAMGD PPT.125 ACNW,99-15-97 14
.- ., , r
l
[O O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT n - A -.-
Status of Project Integrated i
Safety Assessment (PISA)
I Presented to:
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Presented by:
Carol L. Hanlon Physical Scies/Or [,'-
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office p ir U.S. Depart nent of Energy Wim f vdian Radioadive September 25,1997 Waste Management i
lO O O
Background
The Project Integrated Safety Assessment (PISA) was originally planned to be completed by August 1998 The document was to contain 11 chapters
- Formatted similar to 11 chapters of the LA In FY 1999, the PISA was to provide input to the Draft LA
- Update the 11 chapters, as needed
- Add the remaining 3 chapters CLHWDLA PPT.125 ACNW/09-15-97 2
'; O O O Current Status
=
internal concerns have been raised regarding potential resource conflicts during FY 1998
- PISA vs. VA products Consequently, the PISA will not be developed as planned Efforts that were currently underway for the PISA will be re-directed to the preparation of a Working Draft LA
- To be assembled by July 1999
- Will contain working drafts of all 14 LA chapters cufWDLA PPT.125.ACNWA)9-15-97 3
- o o o Working Draft LA (Preliminary Schedule)
FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 E Chapter 3 Site Description uwe as nm E Chapter 8 TSPA
" I"""
Remaining 12 Chapters Development 7/99 Working Draft LA cum:u m.usunw=-ism 4
YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT Yucca Mountain Project Scientific Studies Update Presented to: ACNW Presented by:
l William J. Boyle '
Team Leader for Performance Confirmation -
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office z I*r bnr .
U.S. Department of Energy September 25, I997 fI7,7,$[j,""y",",[""i"*
- O O O Overview
- Thermal Studies
- Drift Scale Test (ESF)
- Single Heater Test (ESF)
- Large Block Test (Fran Ridge)
- ESF Moisture Studies
- Moisture Balance Study
- PTn monitoring
- Fault characteristics
- Niche studies Other Studies
! - WT-24 and SD-6 boreholes
- Enhanced Characterization ,
. r .
e jN
- x. y -
9 mw. mw. m.r. m. m,p.
/:1 l 75' ?'.J_.,~ .2 4..r.N 2 - r. ,, ...b, s' 2, -
~g. . ..
~ y.
3:
% , y *._,c.w.#
- VN, ,
2
-s e m.., o,9.:x.9., ' - .- _,
~
s
%1_ , . ~. ,cc,ev,n.Q , m. . . .. . . .
\o. z.,
.- ,, . ,> i.r,, ; . ,a .
r
. ~ - ./
.e: v I
/.
{./ .', 4 M, , ., ,
,,e.
=
)J s , .- 1 .
'-'/ ~')-
Q}
> fu%-j .v .t
,.7/ ,
]- -'/ g~p> , .-;-) .X b, , , , , , .
.s ~
.5 ,s,i ,.I ., ., ,'!.. ...
c.,.i,.v .,-1
.. .s
- p. ,.,
,. . .. g . , . .. ; ..
i ., ,, >,*i ,,,y . o.. . ..n ,,
8 - i~ , ..
.!.f% is ,s #. , P..c.f;..;.: ,
' S5~.
&7'
/, ,. 5/,. ; Vg, w~W. ..., ., .A.,
~ ..,
.~
> .- . . e. - a . . .-.-
p * ) ,;; ,t"* -
!\
I3.. -
u >M. 6 &{p bf y.s/ -
i (
/ w!v;AfS; b y/e pig:e=,N.f,;.u.s..a.,..e...n g ..
ep
-);,., w . >,... .W.' a a w eu
., . ,2:s cging.5,,, .
p/ -
^..~d '
?.. ~
~. -
""'... L . a
/p~-. , ? .fQ,g M'+.......:,cm~ rq-=C:: c .% is5 =;.:='sa,. ,y "..'" s
'*b'r:J:f'{
J .
l ' 4'.I
. s ' ^* $ %,$ /,..'.!5 ,k <,'h l..liVN' $ ? p &::; , "' "ti r Q ? $,. - k .= %~"?~
'Y O
' ~~, ,f,%' f -
,,)tlt.. hh, ~.' . *- , N.rr~',a ,A. ' && t.
i H. \ ~
2 iff i. -
% s--
-w m ),e0 1 m < s, W ):::w".?x':S ' . . W %'?'~~~ s.g%., :- 3 ' 'ns TQ.L.
/ 5/
L -e-: .,~,s.y., s%,~ ~~ Q . e.iv~.'_~q>_,,,f ,< c. >
- v i.2,..N.3...c.""g.N i .~~> '^' *"'
-~% 3 s.N -
.*'. 1%%f',','.",%" r s o..- - q;;;, ~~
sWv y
,,'s
.e i .x
. - > g' ._ f. ?.+ -, w~9).. .,,,, r - ~- ~%~~~.p.
. e,,.~
Q
""""4 "**"*"""',I""";l"yJ'
~ ~ ~'~~ '-
, 7. .r. ,,
"""""""""y.: .%" """' '
, , , i
- i i h
\
v
% o. *
- O O O Thermal Studies Update Drift-Scale Test Status .
- The test will provide information regarding coupled effects h
essential to design and -
performance assessment of the repository system
\~-
fg i ls
/
u#
- Baseline conditions are being '3 ,
established -
>\
- All wing and canister heaters p'@ ny ~
emplaced ""*"I
\
\. M;yg ,r=
- Most borehole instrumentation installed
\[f
_ m m .. .
%"1.I summmme ifydrological
- On schedule to begin - ~ * ~ ->
December 8 ..
4
-; o O O Thermal Studies Update
. Single Heater Test Status .
1 l
- The test provides shakedown of instrument performance and logistics for the Drift Scale Test Also provides data regarding rock .'
46 1.. <
mass response and properties at ,
x e ,, ., i intermediate scale
.gsg,, ;
Heating phase has been ~ """7.?)
completed; results provide useful constraints on thermal and u.--i hydrologic parameter sets -->" Z "' $
- ci ..
Cooling phase underway, rock response being monitored l l
5 l
se
- O O O Single Heater Test--Temperatures in Cooling Phase .
Temperature Data Boreholes ai6 & saa sg . . . . .
g, .. .. . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . .
t -
as . . . . . - - . _ , _ _ . . .-
- IM4TEMPis4
- ' I eiuA TEMP 18 3 se .a. A -
TMAfEMP#82
- - _. f-f A rE, . .
35 -*- --a-- p e"
. f. E. 2
- y. ._ . . -- --. . .. ._____l - tua ILMP3 s i i <
ys. ...
! i ! ; :
. ! ! I Ft3 46 S.1946 ll&B4 s2r2am6 2/1642 4/74# 1t2787 Fiesef Draft G
. . . . . . . _ _ . . ..=
- o O O Thermal Studies Update
. Large Block Test Status
- Test provides information regarding thermal effects under conditions that are well defined and controlled .
i
- Tests conceptualizations of these s.h.
.;.7..
effects to support models that will s .i ; . ;% '
be applied to the field ,
'?{y
- Heating phase underway, cooling y;p;.. pj[
phase to begin January 98. 3lj '.jpj t.1 r g . .-
, w ,
- . i -I
iaa u O % ,, .,
e s - .
1 k
E A
OO-% gg , 3
~
. . ,a n Wl
$ 5 O
. . t -
g ..
u -
N .
J 85 y c EE Sxe 2 g, z.z. , z $*
hb5"3h
$555i8 O
4 Ch O
w 3
W G
w Q
Q.
E G
l-W G
l-x 0
0 t
At W 3, -
- e$[ see2 h
w fla
~<- v
{3 em
$jjjfj[$E5%
1222: e ~' Case c.
ae a eac :: e c g 9 333
} '
r, : vvc l
g %
w @ }}
iv E : : :
(
i(7 ss s,
- Nd4 kb N
- r m j
O O O Large Block Test Temperatures Temperatures at TT1-14 to TT1-19 from 7/18/97 to 8/21/97. -
140 -
o c.Y .
( .- m.,a je I TT1-is.
TT1 -16
'I7 60--
y .- m.is TT1-19 40 20 I
0 : : : : : : : :
3300.00 3400.00 3500.00 3G00.00 3700.00 3800.00 3900.00 4000.00 4100.00 4200.00 Elapsed Time, h 10 1
- O O O ESF Moisture Studies Update
-Status of Moisture Balance Study . .
Testing is evaluating removal of moisture by ventilation,.
water potential of the rock, and other aspects related to
. moisture balance in drifts Results suggest moisture removal by ventilation may be less than volume of introduced construction water May suggest percolation drainage from drift; studies are continuing to evaluate potential for drainage into and seepage out of host rock 11
- O O O
~
ESF Moisture Studies Update
~
Status of PTn Monitoring -
Testing will evaluate flow through PTn, potential for diversion at PTn
- 212-m holes in North Ramp to detemine water retentions, properties, and contrasts of PTn layers 44 PTn holes in South Ramp focus on features (e.g.,
faults, contacts) .
- Analyses of lab specimens and field tests are ongoing to provide an integrated interpretation of the properties of the PTn I
- O O O ESF Moisture Studies Update ,
Status of Fault Studies .
- Testing in Alcoves 6 and 7 examining basic role of faults in UZ flow system, complementing surface-based testing
- In addition, air-injection, temperature, pneumatic, gas chemistry, fracture fill and isotope measurements underway to evaluate host rock characteristics
- Alcove 6 (North GDF) excavation completed; fault crossed and evaluated; ongoing pneumatic suggests possible importance of microfractures in water content and flux
- Alcove 7 (South GDF) under construction; splay crossed; some testing has been conducted.
I
- Considering bulkheading off Alcove 7 (and Alcove 1) to monitor potential effects during El Ni50 wet year 1 '4
- O O O ESF Moisture Studies Update Niche Studies Status .
- Test principal models for - - - - -
percolation, seepage, and -
transport in host rock _ _ _ ,
- Niche 3566 drilled, tested, and bulkheaded a Niche 3650 drilled, tested, and
' ~ ~
excavated. Bulkheading underway. , ~~ '- " '" *L . . ._ ,.
/N < /'
=:/ -
, \ _
J
' /._- . . N' =:7 i
14
d y i
y D d -
5 3" n i G g g - t B - u 1 $
M 5 g b 5 G t
' e b M n
[ 'tw . ? 7.7 i i 7.7 ? ?.1.f.? 7.? i.7.?>7 7 i q dsj ' ,, Q.{~If. N3% 7 c g}
C <g.=4y - r pp
% y A .i,wi,d h '. Ts a; o
. v- <wm- - "- ,.l\
o-E '
~
a ,
g .-
f hf pk.h ,,s ' .
o _
A381 i e ,9 . .
A,p,. u. . k 2
s3 L -
O ~
G; ..
,9,Ne J _
, ';v yQQfy '.
Tuum
' I N ,4 1i. .. ,.. . ,8 ,5' , ,
. . I ,$ss d*'.2..'" ? [ j *Y . -
._,m N
G 8; g
kc.,i ,y b L a w . '. . @ <, m 'Ets m n~ . >
.C H i
9~ ,
Oag t z1i ,
i ,
. .c 1 ==
+d, wh s
c@s.h.. y .J.
i.,
O e in.m -
'g (ge..-4. A 4.n.] */.f p *.? 'I a* jp -
2 Zgg. {u ,
q' r' 'yhVnga f. '. g g
', . 3 .>< w* n g i .-9t N{~4-.
E r ,.e asj I r/, , m ..o '
c2c ' '
M=
E
.-C g, i
spga, v . d h. .. ,y .
n 5
tie 6 ",1 ,D D.. ..-
N e ln g.
i n.
_ q .-
.g .. #s ,h n e,ang , y ;::
I4 n se gg s 7'E 7; t J yd fy wd , s'.
. +g 1 w .w.. Wri ,/
7@.*fr ,-
. .-.=,,M, i.
A*m
' W & nic n ir .
a3 % w .. e , ,7 3
yI4, \ 7m~e,r, -
,g u rgu r _ m -
w ;.r ,g ' _
o a g ,. A e
/ 1 w_ .c' F. 4 ..
~
s i .
' U.dlTLw e. m ~
m,@, .
E; A
. W4 s
- . =:mn. ed- _,y emu .. a
, y, . ..o%""'__,
g _
i ../. \ Y n.
9, e g
~
O O O Selecting Niche #2 Location Niche 36+50 Center Line 1
" " " . " I**
..,,,,.I". . , , , . .
~' k ,
}' :
p: mm a l~. c
.n : .
d
- - m,- -4 m.
. RICHT SPRINCLINE
~
3 ...
y5 {k f ,f Pj -
=
,m t
i'ha
_2 ..~ ., , . . -
55 o *le v f- ,
a w
.pi f
W LM f 5 C .~._. s.J. L. C (Q Ui LA
' 3 j (8 '
. L L i j , .
h la r-
.e n ke,n E $[/j id
" a g . -
~ g 41 'i ?imiNI% .
[ lI ~{- f 3 f ,> ;%..,;..Mj f- g jg I..T."""
s "
b CAT h g S
r s p ,:.- :.~
d
. I i
- ;- < ' s ,-w i
.! E Mi~' '1
.b. .Q ' - :-4
- m. ~~
Y/q. lds-.d____.,(,f'.s,_ 4..tM ~h
~ '
. N__.4 .. W_.N4 _, .
e F
LDT SPRINGLINE
+
g or
- i s -
'I ,_ _,
Y e ,
f
- Q
~ '
f*
% \ '- N.:
~
- h{hh' ~f
. _ _ . i' -
' -w t.='i Or LEFT WALL
"" " I.
.....s., ... ". . . . t .... ....e , ,,e . . .
STATIONING IN METERS jg
}
1 l ll 1 i I .
l1 I
5 O
s l
e o
h , =
e r . .
o s R. ,
B s ,
N '
s.
q , '
(.
) -
6 -
h 6 .,
~r '
5
. ~
4 c
- 3 . , :
c,' s'. :# c ~.,, ',
O
, e S
. h
, ? $
r
._) ql' ,,r C
/
h >
e ;. ,. ' 6': . ' ~
j
( I
,wIfq?. !
- ^
>. h '?, ,
=
I
., lA 1 p '
's I a' \
.,ja
./ , I
- . ' ,fe
? f. l ,.
,t r.
e W 4
,/l.f
)
4,-
o
? ,
.v t h
h %
s
/
's, ,
i c
N O
[
l\ l
l 8
1 s .
e r .
t u .
c a
r F .
f o .
n o
=
i t
a c
o L- .
m 6 .
6 5 .
3 .
e h .
i c .
N o
. m
~
Niche 3566--Dyed Water Intervals SE-12 I
=
-- 0.9 4E-12 m
N 0.8 e$
g --0.7 $
" 3E-12 b 06 "3 j - - 0.5 .$,
@ 2E-12 7 o,4 M s .
5 -- 0.3 5 1E-12 0
0 r ^
i 5
- l.= 10
^~ :
15
= - t-20 25 0.2 >
- - 0.1 0
Zone # From Collar Permeability a Volume Injected 19
,ll1 \
j, l '
O m
r e .
3 t
a t
s ,
l u ~n s
e R-
- O O 6 6
~~
=
C 5 . _
3 .
e ,
h '
i c p N
O
,\l !; }!1 lll i!: '
l1 ll o
O -
m 5
t a
t s
l u - -
s -
e pl R : %
h
, r O 6 6 (v 5
3 w lL e
h i
c N
O 1l
Niche 3566--Breccia Feature at 10 m n
1
- O O O f
Niche 3650--Location of Fractures 1E-10 r IE-11 1 E-12 T g
i -
- =
~. 1E 1E 1E - -
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ft 12 13 14 15 16 87 38 19 20 28 a eu eaa.r 23
10 0 O Status of WT-24 and SD-6
- Purpose of WT-24 and SD-6 is to obtain stratigraphic, hydrologic, .. -c r . .. ., . w ., . - . .:j u .
and rock properties data to the :.yPMgtQed"p'M$;$g north and from the westem ' .';..!',:'3w ;W'W#@lO
.>;....: \
'f4q r. )
portion of the proposed repository
! p?;.,*g*r ips... y 7;7. ,;'. .
block . ;i-: :: ::v:+.9, c i
- Perching, saturated zone, and J;l:*: .r%.c/.lfl61-Q;..
7J:if;%l M d :::4-Q large apparent hydraulic gradient j.'{ ' ? / f }[ $! % ~' ' C -
will be investigated in WT-24 4
- ;&T:g!,
u di ? n= @ =. -
I,p m-05@!LV 45:.fAk.~j'i=
- Solitario Canyon fault will be investigated in SD-6 [.b+NNYID i ,r ., . n ,u. o o h. c s. . .
'r/=U,- m>
1 WT-24 has reached 250 m h.yp fig &\l l *#, V.$.0 ,
(perched zone at 450 m) j^f r inj. Q f-SD-6 pad and access road under construction i
- O O O Status of Enhanced Characterization Effort
~
g SD-13
- Effort involves Cross Drift, two additional boreholes (SD-11, bh SD-13)
Exploration in proposed .
cross repository block, will f/ orm complement and enhance -l characterization from existing Cr-si.
surface-based testing and ESF d %,
Dance Fault Effort just approved; plan to begin excavation Spring 1998, so-11 e reach Solitario Canyon fault late "j[
Summer 25
7
. Testing in Enhanced Characterization Effort .
- Perched water, mineral distributions, rock properties in SD-11, SD-13 boreholes
- Testing in Cross Drift
- Fracturing and faulting
- Gas pressure and flow, rock moisture, and temperature
- Moisture balance -
- Chloride concentrations and Cl isotopic compositions
- Abundance and distribution of calcite and opal
- Hydrologic alcoves at cross-over of ESF, crest of Yucca Mountain, and Solitario Canyon Fault
- Single Heater Test 26
.. O O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
~ - _ i ... .
Status of Chlorine-36 Peer Review 4
Presented to:
94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste l
Presented by:
Russ Patterson
.j .,
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office v st* ,
U.S. Department of Energy
- I """ ""di"*i" SeEtember 25' 1997 Waste Waagement ie
) ll l
!II 1
O e l a
t a
d .
t i
v t
n e x _
n o e t u e i l r
r u l r
p m n t sfr nt e a ro _
l l w cdi aa e r n w ni v vw _
i v uawe ot in t
o a re l ed en e ni n ev t ee ho r u R
i mr e rh t r wg l
a er pt i r t r e nve e o ncl t
e eoe mmp tn d n oied v P e e i i u rA d a t
O r e .t : n6 ar r p l 6 t st a3 - g y 3- n aMa eoro wY ko
,l t t e
i sgt l
aC cr n tai t a s i
n i
6i naloio t yf t a dp o i
r 3dxt r u n a d l a o l l
e n e dse c r Caf g d a s f il ot si a l
h : e oen n ,u C er gh yitr n
vgtip nc s e
ce e i
t nlaeia ciod n pop at uct qra po l
ek c r o jnr i m pt e a e bienpa Oh apod Act h h t Sais O * - *
.F i
.. O O .
O Cl-36 Peer Review (cont.)
Review Panel Members:
- Dr. Thomas W. Doe, Chair, gal Fracture flow modeling Dr. Anthony B. Muller, BAH isotope geochemistry Dr. Fred M. Phillips, NMT Cl-36 in geologic media
. Dr. Bridget R. Scanlon, UTA/TBEG Unsaturated zone transport CtJEPEER PPT 125 ACFMf.09-15-97 3
O '
4 7
7 d s 9 n m 9 a 1
r
, s n
s e o 8 u 9
wb m i
) s /
a t
. em ie s
u 2
1 8 m v 7 c /9 r n ep/
r t
9 s 1 0
l i
u c
o i
e 0 : d r
) p 7
9 S 1
s , :
(
c Yd
/
0 y a
s n
E A-O b Fi myd 1 o D i
t t e
w e y b 4 ta r
oF l
o e ba b s s en is r e p
e t
t r d n a s i
v l
a g e R o o 8 O e ve ab t o e r p w pi r e e 9 s V e e R p y R dme n ei asl d u iv )8 weM a
r amML l e9 e s c R n y e :
e6l9e 79
(
gi n n r a e ob i
v p
P eluYn Y t (
d FapFf e 5 )p Pd i
n to eJ e R s de r e e r t ef oo o e1 f i e
6 h t mr i r o med n l
p 3- c n ot s ol bd ot f a m n et noP S t ni t en mle t v ot i . o l
e ue u ap ef i i
y e n c C vbmb r v ot e ao r
aN r
e m w pei v mi e i i ir t ut t Ns i
t a s coi s r
- i t
i s
ret a
l e o e v
nDd D F P (l D C R e -
T - - - - - -
O
- 1 !!ll
- O O O Cl-36 Peer Review (cont.)
FY96 Milestones to be reviewed by panel:
Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies:
Sampling, Analysis, and Simulation in the Exploratory Studies Facility (Fabryka-Martin, et al, August 1996)
Modeling of Flow, Radionuclide Migration and Environmental isotope Distribution at Yucca Mountain (Robinson, et al, August 1996)
Summary Report of Cl-36 Studies (Fabryka-Martin, et al, August 1996)
CL36 PEER PPT.125 ACNWWt5 97 5
q O O O Cl-36 Peer Review (cont.)
FY97 Milestones to be reviewed by panel:
a investigations on Structural Controls and Mineralologic Associations of Chlorine -36 Fast Pathways in the ESF (Levy, et al, March 1997)
Results of Cl-36 Analyses and Interpretations (Fabryka-Martin, et al, August 1997)
Development of the Final UZ Site Transport Model (Robinson, et al, September 1997)
CL36 PEER PPT.125 ACNWM-15-97 6
v i
l O
STATUS OF ANALYSES, INTERPRETATION, AND SIMULATION OF CHLORINE-36 DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE ESF Work conducted by:
June Fabryka-Martin, Schon Levy, Andy Wolfsberg (LANL)
Don Sweetkind and Alan Filnt (USGS)
Presented by June Fabryka-Martin (Los Alamos National Laboratory)
Q to the ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE September 25,1997 Las Vegas, NV Fabryka Manin O AChT,9 25 97 Page1
e OUTLINE O e Objectives of ESF Sampling Program
. Why chlorine-36?
e Approach
. Sample collection criteria e Analytical results
. Statistical evaluation of data e Detailed characterization of sample sites
. Testable conceptual model for fast paths G, e Predictions for bomb-pulse in the EW drift e Comparison with transport simulations e Conclusions
. Current focus of present work Fabryka Martin Page 2 ACNW,9 25 97
O OBJECTIVES To develop and test alternative conceptual moc.els for UZ flow and transport, based on measurement and simulation of suitable environmental tracers (36Cl and Cl)
Specific objectives are:
a to select appropriate numerical model (equivalent continuum vs dual permeability)
O . to bound hydrologic parameter values
- to test alternative conceptual models a to evaluate flow and transport through the PTn as an analog for the CHn unit to evaluate the significance of considering different temporal and spatial scales O i'ai".3.1 ""
l CHLORINE-36 O AS A HYDROLOGIC TRACER (Half-life: 301,000 years)
Sources Estimated Value Relative at Yucca Importance at Mountain Yucca (36C1/Cl x 10 is) Mountain ATMOSPHERIC SOURCES Anthropogenic sources Up to 200,000 Dominant in
- Global fallout (peak global young waters
- Local NTS activities fallout)
Natural atmospheric sources 500 at present- Dominant in
- Reactions of cosmic rays with "Ar, 36Ar, and 35Cl day, but up to 1200 over past pre-bomb waters g
40,000 yrs IN-SITU PRODUCTION In Rocks and Minerals Near the Variable. Probably Surface Function of negligible
- Reactions of cosmic rays with exposure age relative to 3'K, "Ca and 35Cl and elemental atmospheric composition sources In Deep Subsurface Rocks and Generally Waters 20-50 negligible
- Neutron capture by 35Cl Fabryka Martin Page 4 ACNW,9 25-97
O APPROACH
. Deve op extensive data sets of 36Cl and -
porewater Cl concentrations for the ESF and its alcoves
= Provide tailed structural and petrologic characterization of each sampling site
. Develop anc. evaluate alternative conceptual models, by a team of hyc rologists, structural geologists, mineralogist, and PA modelers
'O . Test models through simulation of 36Cl and Cl transport using Project's most current infiltration moc el, geologic model and hydrologic parameter sets
. Test moc.els by predicting tracer distribution in the E-W drift O 1"c?!v".ts,",
- ESF SAMPLE ANALYSES, O STATION 2-M TO 77+10 -
Sampling Category Number of M
g analyses -
)
Systematic samples: 49
) Every 200 m from Sta. 2 to 59, ar.d
_ every 100 m from Sta. 59 to 77
( Feature-based samples: 170 L
Faults, fractures and adjoining matrix, brecciated zones, wet zones, intact matrix blocks, contacts g Sampling of PTn subunit contac[ts 28 (usually 3/ contact)
% Total 247
[
r See ESF location map 4
b Fabryka-Mutin Page 6 ACNW, 9-25-97 K
$35,000 560,000 565.000 570,000
=: ,, ;
I.
eip. :le.
1 jf 4
l ,.,
P, he ,
I. ,
'7 5
c.
I 4
~
I. ,% '
! su o 5 b t b d I. t 3 i:'.8.1
?
I:
i 4
M eled nfiltra on(mmlyr O Figure 2-3. Conceptual model ofinfiltration for Yucca Mountain. Numerical model of infiltration, using average annual precipitation, from Flint et al. (1996).
The area depicted corresponds to the v ca shown on Figue 2-2. The reference coordinates correspond to the Nevada State Plane coordinate system, in feet.
g-.....- . . . - . . . . . . . - . . . .
DISTRIBUTION OF 36Cl/Cl RATIOS MEASURED FOR ESF ROCK SAMPLES O o Feature-based samples (e.g., fractures, faults, breccia, unit contacts)
. Systematic samples Fault mapped at surface and projected to ESF depth South Ramp Main Drift Nonh Ramp g 6 5 4 322 !
7 5000 ..
2 -
I
$ 4000 - a _
o
= -
o o _
$ 3000 -
n _
y - o o o
b l
$ 2000 -
- o l a g ._
]i o
o Estimated range f m te ri signal
?y 1000 4 95 gg ~~ B y over past 50 ka n , f .,
- t .
o 0 ' ,, , , , , ,l, , , )( Present-day 2 80 70 60 50 40 30 70 10 0 meteoric background ESF Station Named faults labelled on figure 1 Bow Ridge fault 2 Drill Hole Wash faults 3 Projected location of Diabolus Ridge fault above the ESF 4 Sundance fault 5 Ghost Dance fault 6 Dune Wash fault g l
PRELIMINARY DATA -- NOT REVIEWED l
{$ 7 AC 9 ,, p g ,9 g
DETAILED CHARACTERIZATION
- O OF SAMPLING SITES Analysis of 36C1/Cl, Cl, Br, SO 4 Lithologic unit Local structural setting Fracture orientation Observed connection to other features Mineralogy and petrology Relationship to regional structures O
Relationship to surface infiltration Relationship to soil thickness
=
A ,9-2 -97
~ _ - _ _ .
A TESTABLE CONCEPTUAL MODEL O FOR FAST PATHS Conditions necessary for fast path to exist to the ESF
- 1. A continuousfracturepathway extendingfrom surface to ESF. Because there is no shortage ofpathways in the TCw or TSw, this criterion requires the presence of faults that cut the PTn.
- 2. The infiltration rate must be sufficiently high to initiate and sustainfractureflow along the connectedfracturepathway. ,
Model simulations indicate that the minimum infiltration rate necessary to meet this condition is 1 mm/yr.
O Furthermore, in order for the fast path to conduct bomb-pulse 36 Cl, a third condition must also be met:
- 3. The travel time of water through the alluvial cover must be
< 50 yrs. This means the soil thickness must be < 3 m.
A case-by-case evaluation of ESF bomb-pulse sites against these criteria shows that the conceptual model accounts for nearly all cases.
The conceptual model is also being tested by predicting the occurrence of bomb-pulse 36 Cl in the EW Drift.
Fabryka-Martin Page 10 ACNW,9-25-91
uns0c u 54srso u sscoco u $50250 u 55c500 u sso750 u ssio00 u
, \
i 7, h> w. \ /
/!*
! O \
tem p i
% \
i i %
5 N \
v.%$7y' w
... T
/ T
_ 4, y' '
l ~,. *:- '
n=,
s x b \(i x ,
, .,y s
N" \ , * /
f p.9 y "z, f*
$ ~Y y)k s L n*.*'w' I- [- '
UE.Tase
, N.p =
n~ ..
s
'f'
)p77 lN g!c, g
3 i / -
hm )l\@i
] *y x!
~
h'! a .
e '.
- \
lN ,
i Jh J i Qi 549500 M 549750 M 550000 M 550250 M 550500 W $50750 M 551000 M o
. '. 4 i -
I -
l
. I '
= * - e t .. .,, j es,';. 4'I .
y P' _ , -
.?
'N a
'... y; g =_
N _
' 8" ' " * * ' " O 2 4 6 8 10 Modeled infiltration, in mm/y
s -. .. - . - -
0 <
s
- x. ~ >
i
~
0 .
.g i=s a,
\ s/ s 1
0 '
i
, -(
b oD O gn , -
o ,
j
~
,q %
6 l* , .
7 [ l m
4 a a s jd -) br5c' Af($f-O ; %?lMM $..
Figure 6-8.
Areas (shown as dots) for which the iafdtration rate exceeds 5 mm/yr above a mapped fault at the surface. Surface fault traces, froen the Day et al. (in press) 1:6,000-scale map, are bounded on each side by a 30 m-wide envelope. Surface infiltration rate, using average annual precipitation, from the numerical model of Flint et al. (1996). h
l SIMULATIONS OF 36Cl TRANSPORT O USING FEHM l
Changes in model input for 1997 relative to that used in 1996 simulations (in the August 1996 milestone report):
Uses Project's most current structural geologic model (ISM),
which includes unit thicknesses, dipping, and a limited number of faults Uses LBL's most recent sets of hydrologic parameters from its 7/97 milestone Uses improved input function for 36C1/Cl ratio Uses same spatially distributed infiltration estimates as used last year (Flint et al. 9/96 milestone)
Fabryka-Martin Page 13 v ACNW,9-25-97
COMPARISON OF O 1997 SIMULATION RESULTS WITH 1996 RESULTS Mean travel times to the ESF are less in the 1997 simulation, due to a thinner PTn in the revised geologic model. Times are on the order of 2-6 ka compared to 5-20 ka in last year's simulations.
Pervasive arrival of bomb-pulse in the ESF is predicted, even in the absence of faults, at locations where the PTn is thinnest (< 30 m) in the south part. This is inconsistent with the observed data, and may indicate unrealistic hydrologic parameters.
However, penetration of bomb-pulse to the ESF is very sensitive to the fracture / matrix interaction term used for the PTn (i.e., the term that governs the extent to which fracture flow entering the PTn imbibes into the PTn matrix).
[
Fabryka-Manin Page 14 O
ACNW, 9-25-97
lO CONCLUSIONS IMPLICATIONS OF 36Cl RESULTS FOR MODELING FLOW AND TRANSPORT IN THE UNSATURATED ZONE AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN A dual-permeability formulation is necessary in order to '
capture the complex nature of flow distribution between fractures and matrix.
Site-by-site characterization of the bomb-pulse locations supports the proposed conceptual model for fast paths, i.e.,
O f St Paths that carry water into the TSw are associated with faults that cut through the PTn, in conjunction with a minimum infiltration rate of 1 mm/yr.
Model simulations using the Project's current geologic model, current infiltration model, and teasonable variations of the hydrologic parameter set also support the above conceptual model for fast paths.
Transport simulations using the same input conditions as above yield 36C1/Cl signals at the ESF that are consistent with the values measured at locations away from the bomb-pulse sites.
Fabryka-Manin Page 15 ACNW,9-25 97
c FOCUS OF PRESENT WORK O l
Measuring Cl porewater concentrations for ESF locations as a surrogate indicator ofinfiltration rates and flow paths
. Evaluating data and model to account for the differences in the 36 Cl signals in the north vs south part of the ESF Testing . ' alternative conceptual models t' t may also be consistent with the observed data, e.g., ass ssing the influence of PTn thickness on transport rates Completing 36 Cl sampling in South Ramp and Ghost Dance Fault alcoves g
Measuring other bomb-pulse nuclides in ESF samples Predicting the distribution of 36Cl and C1 concentrations for the East-West Drift 2
O Fabryka-Martin Page 16 ACNW,9-25-97
llll 1!l ; 1 \l\\ ; ,!\l {
1lla i
l e m d -
o 0 0
M 9 l =
a n
n o i
o t a
i s v
~
e n .~
l E
e t
a i
m d D t e
- l a
e u e
r i m _
h S T
i n -
n o ,
w
^~. ' '
r '
'74.
i , ,
t .g.
l.
a , $.&' 4 4. ~$, ,. * , ,. . y p4f<
r \. e t '
i.- c n ^4 sk3 }2:sVp.
s ~~* h s ;
. a e N f sr ,,s 2 e~; ., r i.k u i
c .^8%
i y,sY '~; .,K, ,,7 . J ~ ..
S
- 4. Q n _
~:
,3' s ,t' wy
- t o R" :.~c.
a D. . 4
.l 'p _ ut r.
C yI .
4 - 4, M ~. .. !.'s. h ,. e ,- .
. , f}- '.y e hp n
' r.' '
q ,
$g/y#%-
d i
~ i
~ I r i -
l o '*
h 0 C 0 2 O i 1 ,
RO O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT n - _
, i- .. .
En aanced C:aaracterization of the Repository Block Presented to:
94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste '
Presented by:
Vince F lorii <-
~
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office ,.-
Ll .,
si 6
?
i September 25,1997 v.s. Department or Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
- ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' '
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
d,'
Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block
- Introduction -
Vince lorii
- Planning Overview. -
Vince lorii
- PA Sensitivity Analysis -
Eric Smistad
- Construction, Design and Schedule -
Vince lorii Science in the ECRB -
Dennis Williams VIECRB PPT 125 ACNW/09-15-97 2
YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT n - __ >:-. . . .
2 Introduction r
"It
. V \
- 31. . d U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
WHATIS THE ECRB?
Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block
- History Highlights NWTRB Recommended E/W Drift
- DOE Planned An E/W Drift in Long Range Plan For FY99
- DOE Elected to Accelerate the Schedule to Obtain Data Earlier for the License Application
- Integrated Planning Committee Chartered to Define Activities Which Would 2NHANCE the l
Characterization of the Repository Block VIECRB PPT.125 ACNW109-IP 97 4
Achieving the Enhanced Characterization objective
- Enhance the Scientific Understanding of the Behavior of the Site, As Well As Enhance Understanding of Engineering, Construction, Health and Safety, Cost, and Regulatory and Performance Aspects of the Potential Repository
- Planning Effort
- Develop a Recommended Approach for an Enhanced Characterization Effort incorporating the Appropriate Drifting, Test Alcoves, and Subsurface Boreholes, Surface Boreholes, and Other investigations VIECR0 PPT.125 ACNWG-15-97 5
!O O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT n - i ... . -
1
, Planning
~i
- e. .-
nn -d U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management i _ _ ___ _ . -
Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB)
- DOE's Planning Cycle, Began on March 17,1997, and Was Complete on June 3,1997
- The ECRB Planning Objectives Established by the Planning Team Were to :
- Plan the Necessary Scientific and Technical Analyses and Define the Methodology for Achieving the Enhanced Characterization
- Develop the Cost and Schedule for Achieving the Enhanced Characterization Effort
- Submit a Chrnge Request to the Project CCB to Obtain DOE Authorization to Condisct the Work VIECR0 PPT.125 ACNW/09-15-97 7
Role of the Integrated Planning Committee Provide Direction and Concurrence for 90-day Planning Activity
. Validate Objectives and Criteria for the Enhanced Characterization a
Validate Optimum Enhancement Configuration viECR8 PPT.125 ACFMf/09-15-97 8
ECRB Planning Guidance e
identify Data Needs That Will Strengthen the Licensing Basis for the Performance Objectives, Siting Criteria, Design Criteria, and Safety Analysis Report Content, While Complying With Limitations on Characterization Activities Consider the Relationship Between Ongoing Characterization Activities, How Current Programs Could Complement and Be Complemented by the Enhanced Program, and How Enhancements Could Confirm the Data Supporting the Viability Assessment VIECRB PPT.125 ACNWM-15-97 9
[O O O ECRB Planning Guidance (continued)
. Incorporate Any Potential Efficiencies That Could Be Gained From the Enhanced Program to Support Future Activities I
VIECRB PPT.125 ACNW/09-15-97 10
J IO O O Integrated Planning Committee
- DOE Senior Managernent
. M&O Senior Management
- Five Working Groups, Comprised of DOE and M&O Personnel From Each Technical Discipline
- Testing
- Performance Assessment
- Design, Const. & Testing Controls and Requirements
- Licensing / Regulation
- Design / Construction V!ECR8 PPT.125 ACNW/09-15-97 11
.. O O O YUCCA :
MOUNTAIN- '
PROJECT
_ i ...... .
?
f i
t i
i Construction Design and Schedule I
i i
\
e It sd U.S. Depanment of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
- O O O Highlights of Tasking Assignments Develop & Validate '
Objective ,
Criteria &
Assumptions .
Assess Criteria
& Assumptioni for Potential Benefits / .
Constraints !
Validate ;
Potential Benefits
& Constraints ummmmmmmmu Identify Preferred &
Alternate Sources /
Develop Optimum Configurations !
sammusummu :
i Synthesize Information & ;
Validate Optimum i MBVAMGD PPD 25 ACNWM-15w 12 .
Configuration
[. 0 0 O Optimum Configuration Elements East-West Drift intersecting Solitario Canyon Fault Noithern Borehole (SD-13)
Southern Borehole (SD-11) i Laboratory Testing for Performance Assessment Southern Tracer Testing l
VIECRB PPT.125.ACNW/09-15-97 14 ;
4
- o
- i i
- O O O Preliminary East West '
Drift Layout -- Recommended I
Scale is approximato ,
Feet 2000 n <ooo n i
p ,1_____ ,_.___1 500 m 1000 m ;
Meters
_ _ _ _ _ _ t Development t Waste Ramp Access Ramp WT-24 !'
4 WT-24 & SD 6 are not in ECR8 :
Emplacement Exhaust Shaft ', Emplacement Drifts i East neve rop m e it Main Exhaust e _ _/
[ - [ ' Ghost o
~~
- J!! .
i.._. S h a ft !
i
\
ey -- ----------
l Exhaust Main West Main -- Expansion Area m- a. ,y, , ,, j l VIECRB PPT.125 ACNW!D9-15-97 15 SD-6 r
Enhanced Repository Block Characterization IN: =: '
Deve*opment Access Ramp '
Waste Ramp Launch C i
E/W Drift Above the Re itory Block Emplacement '
Exhaust Shaft i East Development Dance Fauft Main Exhaust
~ Shaft l
[ ' l l f N
\)
ESF Alcove i
-/----- ....... N
( . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - --
Crest Alcove a
Emplacement Drifts I West Main Expansion Area scale is apprommate Exhaust Main reet f
Soeltarlo Canyon 2000 ft 4000 ft Fault Alcove e a
500 m 1000 m
+
Meters VIECRB PPT 125 ACNVWO9-15-97 16
Drift Characteristics Drift Length 2,815m (9,235 ft) t Drift Diameter 5m (16.42 ft)
Excavation Method Mechanical, Tunnel Boring Machine Incline grade 3 to 4 percent Muck Haulage . 61m (24 in) Conveyor Belt Man and Material .91m (36" gauge) rail Ground Support Rock Bolts, Wire Mesh and Steel Sets w/ or w/o Lagging Alcoves 1 @ 100m (328.1 ft) 2 @ 30m (98.42 ft)
Niches Quantity 2 @ 10m (32.81 ft)
Excavation Method Drill & Blast, Muck Elevation 20 meters Above the Potential Emplacement Drifts VIECRB PPT.125 ACNW.09-15 97 17
,0 1 0 O Critical Schedule Elements
~
Finish Start Finish Launch chamber design 05/19/97 10/24/97 TBM planning, acquisition, rehabilitation 09/01/97 02/13/98 and assembly-Delivered On-Site Design Drift 04/08/97 12/09/97 ;
Excavate launch chamber 12/08/97 02/05/98 l Move TBM to face 02/06/98 03/09/97 Excavate Cross Drift 03/18/98 09/11/98 Station 00+90 to 28+15m i Alcove Excavation 10/12/98 01/20/99 i
VIECRB PPT 125 ACNW/09-15-97 18
i o o O YUCCA ;
MOUNTAIN PROJECT
~ --
_ _ i- . . -
Performance Assessment Input to the ECRB Planning Exercise :
t t
Presented to: i 94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Presented by.
Eric T. Smistad .<
[,' '
~
Performance Assessment Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office
+ >
. ris * '
U.S. Department of Energy September 25,1997 Office of Civilian Radioactive wasie management P
o
~
O O Outline .
Background
ECRB Optimum Configurations I
Performance Assessment Criteria Priority List Conclusions 1
f i i
f i
l !
ESECRB PPT.125 ACNWG-15-97 2 l
l
r O O O i
Background ,
Integrated Study ,
- Design
- Site
- Performance Assessment l
- M&O and DOE Participation
" Expert Judgement" exercise No special sensitivity analyses performed
- Results based on finding of previous TSPAs and related analyses ESECRB PPT.125 ACFWV/09-15-97 3 l
g g ECRB Optimum Configurations
- 1. East-West Cross Drif!
- 2. Northern Borehole (s)
- 3. Southern Borehole (s)
- 4. Laboratory Testing
- 5. Southern Tracer Complex ESFCRB PPT.125 ACNWAP9-15-97 4
f%
- . 3
- O O Performance Assessment Criteria Priority List r,irerin _,rirntfil Cn n figura e in n (rm nQ
- l. Scepage into drifts Bound water contact mode with EW cross-drift (1)
W P and m ode of R N transport
- 2. Distribution and concentration Bound the extent of fast Southern borehole (s) (3) of environmental tracers and path w ays and lateral diversion m ajor ions in the Pin
- 3. Dilu tion, m ixin g, and flu x in B ou nd the physical tran sport The SZ Sou thern borehole (s) (3) properties including flow rate Southern Tracer (5)
And dispersion c o m p ic s
- 4. Distribution and concentration Bound the potential for fast Southern borehole (s) (3) of environm ental tracers and path w ay s for R N tran sport major sons in the CII
- 5. Cathodic protection Reduce rate and extent of W P Laboratory testing (4) de g ra d a tio n
- 6. Spatial and tem poral B ou nd the flu x variability Sou thern borehole (s) (3)
Distribution of flux in flow and transport modeling
- 7. Transport throu gh perforated D eterm ine if R N can be Laboratory testing (4) waste packages released through initial pinhole perforations and the mechanism
- 8. Drip Shield perform ance B ound water contact m ode with Laboratory testing (4)
W P and m ode of R N transport
- 9. K no w led ge of N F geochemical B ound the uncertainty on the Laboratory testing (4) en viron m en t rate of W P/W F degradation
- 10. Cladding as a barrier Delay RN release Laboratory testing (4)
ESECRB PPT.125 ACNW/09-15-97 5
Conclusions EW cross-drift and southern (s) boreholes would satisfy the primary PA criteria.
The balance of the PA criteria are being satisfied through existing testing and modeling ESECRD PPT.125 ACNWW-15-97 6
O O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
_~ ~ i ... . . .
ECRB Scientific Program Presented to:
94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Presented by:
Dennis Williams ,-
Deputy Assistant Manager for Licensing Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office
- $[f -
/
U.S. Departraent of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive September 25,1997 waste uanagernen,
O O O
[
r ECRB Scientific Activities .
i
- East-West Drift 1 i
Two Boreholes
- Projected Costs L
i DWECR8 PPT.125 ACNW425-97 2 l
O O O
-.s.__,.o. .
Scale is approximate Feet 2000tr 4000 tt g .__..._, t..____. .I soo m 1000 m u eters
. . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ ___ .-_ . _ w !
Development WT-24 Waste Ramp WT-24 & SD 8 are not in ECRB Emplacement Emplaceme:2t Drifts Exhaust Shaft /
sEast o e we so p m .
/p Ghoes Main Exhaust it y
. ~ ' ~ -
- - - . _os,,** fauit
_ S h a ft Exhaust Mein '
West Main Expansion Area m- con ,m , ,,
~
DWECAB PPT 125.ACNW/9 25-97 3
p.
i O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
2.
al n
e O
.G E C G
.t Q@ ,
co O -
n l .1 I I i O
'O O O ECRB East-West Drift
- Mapping
- Mineralogy
- Rock Properties
- Hydrologic Tests I
- Predictive Analysis i
DWECRB PPT.125 ACNW/9-25-97 5
, lil l!l1 1 O 6 7
g n h S
e o W N
t a i v
i t
a C
A 5
2 1
a t a
r i
l c M B
D t e p p
R C
E W
D n I n A i
o a e s
t s n a i n e i
z o i c
r i s t L t
e t n m a dr .
c e r a O a mf n i
w r g e o a n ni fn C o T h gi t e d d C
i s eR s e n s f D eT l e a u o g o nd o
n c o
s n o F e i r
i t
a Misct s s s e e mses r
ie dc t
r o
U i ni f c
eof r r f g n OPP E n o r -
E C P -
O L
~
O O O
\
Mapping Activities Full-periphery Geologic Mapping Detailed Line Surveys Geotechnical Data Identify Geologic Features of Significance Describe Ground Conditions in East-West Drift Provide Comparison to Geotechnical Predictions DWECRS PPT.125 ACNWV25-97 7
. ________ - - w w
O O lO l
l Mineralogic Studies
- Analysis of Hazardous Minerals
- Silica Polymorphs
- Distribution of Erionite
- Size and Mineralogy of Particles Produced During Excavation Analysis of Calcites and Associated Minerals
- Preferential Moisture Migration j
- Age Dating Potential DWECRB PPT.125 ACNW/925-97 8
Rock Properties
- Faulting Characterization
- Fracturing Characterization l
- Fault Footwall/ Hanging Wall Deformation Predictions Perform Compression Tests, Thermal Tests, X-Ray Diffraction Tests, and Grain Density Determinations Measure Rock Mass Stiffness DWECF1B PPT.125 ACNW,9-25-97 9
o O O Hydrologic Tests '
Moisture Monitoring Water Potential and Saturation Measurements Construction Water Percolation Measurements Hydrochemistry Analyses
=
identify Preferential and/or Fast Flowpaths Assess Effects of Variability in Surface infiltration i
OWECRB PPT.125 ACNWG25-97 10
Predictive Analyses i
Structural Features 4
- Fracturing and Faulting Along East-West Drift Unsaturated Zone Hydrologic Flow Model ,
- Gas Pressure and Flow Predictions
- Rock Moisture Simulations
- - Temperature Variations Chlorine-36 Analyses
- Chloride Concentrations j
- Chlorine isotopic Compositions DWECR9 PPT.125 ACNWS25-97 11
t Predictive Analyses (Continued) l t
Infiltration, Percolation, and Seepage j
- Moisture Balance in East-West Drift t
Fracture Mineral Age Dating
- Abundance and Distribution of Calcite and Opal in East-West Drift
- Hydrologic Characteristics from Surface Based Testing
- Moisture Perching and Other Saturated L Characteristics from Boreholes SD-11 and SD-13 DWECR8 PPT.125 ACNWS25-97 12
- O O O Two Boreholes Northern Borehole (SD-13)
- Stratigraphy
- Moisture Measurements
- Monitor Steep Water Table Gradient Southern Borehole (SD-11)
- Stratigraphy
- Moisture Measurements '
- Monitor Water Table DWECRB PPT.125ACfWVG25-97 13
~
o o O Map of Boreholes SD-11 and SD-13 Scale is approximate Feet 2000 ft 4000 ft l- - - -
1_ __ - ,_._.__i 500 m 1000 m N -e-== *'"*
t Development Waste Ramp Access Ramp WT-24 4 SD 6 are not in ECRS ,
Emplacement Exhaust Shaft 'p Emplacement Drifts
' / , __ East Devssopm. it f / -
hoes ~' - oso[, l*"!' .
Main Exh ust
__ _ _ . _ ; \, Shas.
Exhaust Main West Main Expansion Area m - con , m ,,7
~
DWECRB PPT.125 ACNWS25-97 14 l
l l
\,
Projected ECRB Science Costs j
i
$ 580,377 in FY 1997
$8,236,116 in FY 1998
- $8,574,043 in FY 1999 l
1 DWECRB PPT.120ACNWM2597 15 i
O O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
~ - i ....
Retrievability Presented to:
Presented by:
Paul Harrington, DOE-YMSCO Team Leader, License Application
,,l
-q 7,, . .
September 25,1997 u - or em Office of Civilian Raduccrive Waste Management
l l \1ll! I' I
O :
r m
m a
w s
2 m
s e i s
i n l y
l a
t u n A o O & o i
r a
n s s t
i r n O o n r t e o s a n
e c
i t mp tu eS .
a e e r R ta c l a
t S n i u a S
! l v e
e q e v n a v i r
s R re s r e g e t e
r y t i i i R
e D e e t P r oR R a l
t t a tn n a rm l u e re mo l
g c r r n e e u ob R R C N A o
l!
i :O O O l Regulatory Requirement l
l 10 CFR 60.111(b) j GROA Design must preserve option for waste j retrieval during waste emplacement period and i
completion of performance confirmation program i
- Any or all waste could be retrieved on a l reasonable schedule starting at any time up to 50 l
years after waste emplacement begins PHRET PPT 125 ACNW93-15-97 3 i
Il ljiIIIl ll ii O d 4 n ,
rt h a m oi l _
f w a e t
r ds e e mh _
o p i sg rt oh -
va nt e
i ek h w r c t R)y7 ya g p bl oe b
g9 ee t t
,i ss e/4 asa r os i
r o t
ad t
sw ap n s r l t e ad ve e n O St e il ed ci sa ylp t r
i e nm n t eh r s n t ee g imRn e vr i
l i el a e s bo ac Dums C- r,c ef v e d v( Pi e a oiS r i
e Cvpa l
eteD grG t
r Semn r aM a l e a h te l
R n r,i f a mt r n r oe g er i
i r
gd r -
e nrr vbu OlaniOac O
l ..
l,ll!
- !1 I O
5 7
9 r S o
T M
f W e
g n
o N
C A
5 2
1 T
a i P -
t P p T E
k i r
R H
P c c a )
s e
P 7 d e
t /
9 t n r s al 8 e e avd m:
pe s t
r o
Witeeig eqa u p s
O rt r
e kc n e oepya r p l
a r
l i
c f
t n Rma o ne T
e g t y
r h
e p V m cms t,
e n e Du i
ia a a
( k s -
m l e w c G ol p rf a l p u po P a r a e e a puH -
i u sy v l q er l s tr rmid t i de v a a t l
a E i e o u o v o o
r c mWR n o - - b ML r
Pr e N A - -
O
? -
ci i.ll1l,jl { iij;l,l ;l jl !l.! l!
3
- - O O O '
l '. .
l i.
Remote Handling and Controls j Description l (expected completion 9/97)
! Provides a description of the Remote Handling
- and Controls equipment that is envisioned for the j emplacement equipment. These same controls l will be utilized in the retrieval equipment, and will serve as input to the retrieval equipment design.
l l
PHRET PPT 125 ACNWWtS97 6 4
- O O Current Status
. VA design changes to the ACD repository layout and emplacement method that made retrievability more credible include:
- retrieval from both ends of the emplacement drifts, enhanced ventilation system with a central exhaust air main
- gantry emplacement of the waste packages onto pedestals.
Pt tRET PFT 125 ACNW.09-t5-97 7
- . O O O i
Current Status (continued) l The current VA design for gantry emplacement
[ supports retrieval on a when and as needed basis l
The need for performance confirmation j monitoring requires periodic access into the i
emplacement drift and to preserve a retrieval option requires an intact access system (such as l
' gantry rail, power, control systems, and gantry) and a stable drift ground support For normal conditions retrieval is essentially the reverse process of emplacement. The same equipment can be used for both emplacement and retrieval.
PHRET PPT 125 ACNWm-t597 8
j io
=
s 8
i e
O E i
i
% g
! N l C l O
! .O I
M i
i o .
6
=>d G
- E 1
E m
1 o
- z i
l i
i 4 o
- . O O O
~
Waste Emplacement System (Diagram from 9/97 RDD)
Walk-through of Normal Retrieval "E3 PHRET PPT 125 ACNWW1597 10
- - O O O Isometric Drawing of Emplacement Gantry L ARCE WP L IF T ING HE AD -
SMALL WP L IFTING HEAD PLIFTING HE AD TROLLEY GANTRY FRA(m CHAIN GUARD \
^ !"
ELECTRICAL CA8INETS TYP HOIST FRAE DRIVE ,A M '
mu/ ~g,t }/
~,1L,4
/ _ ,
A/C tMIT TYP- " a j g,
' /
GANTRY FRAW - L IF T ING HE A0 DR I VE e , i , LIFTING HEAD TROLLEY SCREW j j ,/ -HOIST FRAE
.g / , : - / ,
s 0 !E I -
. " THIRO RAtt ELECT. POWER pgg5 j 6 PICEUP TYP j CANTRY FR AW 7
BOGIE ASSY / JacalNG PAD $ TYP
[ '
- BDGIE Piv0T PIN TOW LUGS CHAIN GUARD TYP PHRET PPT.125 ACPr#U9-15 97 11
.Am., Ah _a,a .dh a._._Am._4_%=A_4.a_4e A__c4 3.,a_,_-.4.,_A4_.uma,A_.sd-,hAn_hm_.44,2,sa._h&aMM#...s,,_m_a_a._,.Mw.m4_,,L_4J.sJ_.,,h_aA,4_ah.h,AA_ ahm m,k* -
-h_
4
)
N e
A O
d
~
- w
- 1
- C 5 2
1 m i ! g 0
W V6 2 I,kb I I E
C : 1 y : n 1: E
@ =h E
- .I .
I [f
. E. v' e%-
ew f w
~
go-i g ng 3
- LgM a
g ,,,, .
N
.\
g y bje s gA. * - w <.
,,5 g me a ~" -
3 g\ ' M ng
! s . .c.s -
e-. Cg 9 g we E.
~
- k
' i *j ^ Cid t.,. , , ' j e s Emu 2 OW 5
S *
- v z ,. '. . , = , - - .
A*
, ./ m*
m i
=
O l9 ,.; ,,Q. t y e o ,o_ r $W.x y ~ 4, u ~
- . . p, t$uus Q f*g.
- E N 'lf Ng $ p~ [ '
7 +
o 4 Oe c C4
~
3\* y'sJ g. '
, ;G g""
)om ea' W WW'.
e_s g
> ya> CQ e ;
l n %,# ,
,].
%..-%p+- :
i
[ _hha d . . .
- a.
a z
,,. A\.:i 1 .- < ,
x _g, ,
M Q ,
f R,;'.#ag~~~-: o ,,fh .
g 0 ,c emmu /.
1 . .~. :~s >% -
t' "v -
.; =
Y. E h
@* N I h[ 5 m
- a Y.
i al as E -
W b = "0 w EU u-
- es ;*
3 .
2 D f C -
L1J l
1 1
1 e
g4 0 6 %g
. - --- ,- - . . - _ _ . _ - . _ , _ - . _ . . - _ _ . , , . _ . . . . . . _ , _ _ . . _ _ , . _ , , . . .,_..m______,_,..._,, , _ . ,
Rotrioval Control and Communication System O (Showing Remotely Controlled Normal and Abnormal Retrieval Equipment)
Operations Control Center
.d b~..
g, I ~.*b
% i /
.Yb - \ml EM{], I y D' ' ' ' '
MI NC7FK f ,;h, 'L , % %, -
..<__...~,.-__....~..
$tRT4CE _ _
O $lB.58RT4CE s.t . , ww c .. n* %.,
1cadl' ceder --'
l Eia ,-
- =
.} m
' b r.in sport Launanne r0 Rab
- s. [, F w- -
{ ch . -
- -?
' Stationart Subnetems Lmplawment Gamr> ,- . Shielding Doors.
, , ,, - 5'*+' . , - - . Rail Switches,
-i.-- .
Thermal & Radiation
- ^ '
Monitoring instruments.
.) W{ r~A 4 !
. Cameras in Mains
,A -
Remote inspection %) stems g & furnouts
'f,
" vra.5,'3 g,,,,,,, .N ' ,
- I-
- n , h kw OfI*nemal q 7, ' Reuwini g., L Multi purpose Vehicle (3 " ihd Load Haul-Dump (LHD)
] Subsurface Repository Control Systems for Retrieval
' PHRET PPT.125.ACNWS915 97
,, s .-
13
-~~ - -
- .- ----- - _ - - - - ~ ~ - --
k i
i W
!O a
. i; l
4
.O E n
N g C
G U
M l
- W
! G E .
m E :
O c
.D 4
!O 5"$ e*
., _ .-. _ ._-.-,__ ...- _.- -~..-._.._ _ .. _ ,-._ ._.. _,._.._ . ..
3O O O Equipment Used for Abnormal Retrieval
- High Efficiency Particulate Air Filter Bulkhead Performance Confirmation Gantry
- Forklift
- Bottom Lift Transporter
- Bottom Lift Transporter Carter
- Recovery Locomotive
- Multipurpose Vehicle
- Load-haul-dump (LHD) Loader PHRET PPT.125 ACNWW15-or 15
- O O O Equipment Used for Abnormal Retrieval
- Covered Shuttle Cars
- Scaling Maching
- Tunnel Forms
- Fill Material Extendible Conveyor
- Ternporary Shadow Shields Temporary Dock and Modified WP Transporter PHRET PPT 125 ACFMO9-15-97 16 i
- ~} O O __-O _ _!
t i
! Breached WP in Emplacement Drift w/ Ground Fall onto WP
. Conduct Radiological Survey (multipurpose inspection vehicle) '
- Establish Access Control at Limits of i
Contamination l,
Confine Contamination (molaile HEPA filters) j Collect Non-radiological Data (multipurpose j
4 vehicle with video) 4 PHRET PPT *h ACNWV9-15-97 17
l O m t ,
f i
D r
,m t -
nP e )
e t mW eo C l l
i c
f i
l ct 0 oh r e m o ano 5 y t n v t o
~
t l a o e o p t wC s l f t
d o (b mla i D
r s P
a o
f o pP r O EF t o u W WRy R tp d nd n i e d r ry e i
n me a g r a l
u h Pu e a o ro (m a c
Wro c
a mp p s re l
p a m mi r B dG mnd e e b T T e e )r he /w E U tc h D he t t c e e u s e e ro a h v r i v s ot s b o ops l
t e
r l
o mn a mmn B o t e o s e ear C R C E R Rt O
2r j1
~~
e J
r
% O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
_ _ m -L. . . .
DOE Interim Postclosure Performance Measure Presented to:
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Presented by:
Dr. Stephan Brocoum . <
Assistant Manager for Licensing [','
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office b T1.NO U.S. Department of Energy
- "'* "' " "'" "'d'"'*
September 25,1997 Waste Manag-ment i
j '
- 1 :llll\i-!
O 2 m,
e s
_ e r r 2, _
- u u m _
_ s s
a a e e M M _
e e c c n n a a
- e m m
- i n r o
r o
_ l f f r O t u r e P e
O P e r n
e u m
_ r s o u ea i i
_ r t s m t e a c
l o e I n l o
c c r e t e
_- d n
t s n a o min c
- u o m f
e a ma
- oP r
r ol l
a f r i l
e i
l p
g mf er a n e oioms o m
k i r o _
c eP G i t T D C a t n a
- B I R - - -
-O_
tj,j !!l 5;:) :l;! i I ;i
Background
- In 1987, the U.S. District Court remanded EPA's 40 CFR 191 Since that time,,the Yucca Mountain Project has
~
i been without an applicable postclosure standard
=
In 1992, Congress directed EPA to promulgate a site-specific standard for Yucca Mountain
- EPA has not promulgated such a standard Until an EPA standard is promulgated, DOE is using an internal interim performance measure developed to guide the technical program SJBACNW PPT 125 ACFM931597 3
- O
=
O O Interim Postclosure Performance Measure Performance Measure The expected annual dose to an average '
individual in a critical group living 20 km from the repository shall not exceed 25 mrem from all pathways and all radionuclides during the first 10,000 years after closure l
SJBACNW PPT 125 ACNW<tML15-97 4
- o O O l
j interim Postclosure
- Performance Measure (continued)
! Goal I Conduct analyses beyond 10,000 years to gain insight into longer-term system performance. For l this period, the expected annual dose to an j
average individual in a critical group living 20 km j from the repository should be below the 10,000 l year performance measure.
i l
i l SEACNW PPT 125 ACNWVJ-15-97 5
+
O O O Rationale Time Frame 10,000 years is a sufficiently long time period for public protection Regulatory precedence (nationally and internationally) exists for a 10,000-year compliance time frame SJBACNW PPT 125 ACNWW!$ 97 6
Rationale (Continued)
Time Frame (conunu.m A regulatory compliance time frame greater than 10,000 years adds to the regulatory complexity without providing added public safety protection
- Dose calculation results in the far future are driven largely by expert-judgments concerning the evolution of the system and the biosphere
- Results are highly stylized, even speculative, and have little meaning in a predictive sense Post 10,000-year calculations can provide insight regarding longer-term system behavior
- Results can be used to evaluate potential engineered barrier enhancements _ , , _ ,,,, ,
1
- O O O Rationale (c->i w )
Time Frame <connoo.o)
The post 10,000-year " Goal" was established to complement the 10,000-year performance measure
- Based on recent information regarding time of peak dose
- Peak dose now in the tens of thousands of years vs.
hundreds of thousands of years
- The intent of the goal is to provide additional safety margin by flattening the peak dose curve SJEACNW PPT 13 ACNWO9 35-97 8
. m
o O O 100,000-yr All Pathways Total Dose History At 20km boundary Reference Design (RD) 1,000 m
, , -- RD + 90% cladding , , .
E ------ RD+90% cladding + Ceramic U[5K-15K yrs] E
-- RD+90% clad + Ceramic U[5K-15K yrs]+ drip shield -
100_ -
25 mrem /yr 3
g 10 - r- -
]
E y
1-r- .: * ' -w.i- .
5 . . ... .. .- --
u
- ).
E 0.1 -r- -
1
- E
//i E o
0.01 r- j= .. --.................... :................................;
=
. :. ~
E Q 0.001 4 l/ie-e j g- _________;
0.0001 -r:
~
h I )y'~ ,________- -
1
=
l::!l'
~ ~
0.00001 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Time (yrs)
~'
O O O Rationale
<c-**
Dose Limit A dose limit on the order of 100 mrem / year is protective of the public This is consistent with:
- 10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation
- NRC Chairman Jackson's testimony to the House l Subcommittee on Energy and Power (April 29,1997)
- Recommendations of the National Councii on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP-91)
- Recommendatior:s of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP-60)
- EPA generic Radiation Protection Guidance S2ACNW PPT 125 ACNWT39-1597 10
g ,
Rationale (Continued)
Dose Limit (contino.o)
- A' dose limit of 25 mrem / year was selected as the interim performance measure
- Represents a fraction of the 100 mrem / year primary limit
- Provides for reasonable assurance
- is consistent with NRC Chairman Jackson's testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power (April 29,1997)
- is consistent with the recent NRC decommissioning rule (10 CFR 50) ,
SJBACNW PPT 125 ACNWO9-15-97 11 j l
- O O O Rationale (Continued)
Compliance Location The critical group should be located down gradient from Yucca Mountain
- Down gradient population is the group most at risk The characteristics of this critical group should I
be established based on present-day knowledge, using cautious but reasonable assumptions
- To predict future population characteristics would be speculative and insupportable
- This is consistent with NAS recommendations to EPA SJBACNW PPT 125 ACNWM f 5-97 12
o o o Rationale !
(Continued)
Compliance Location (conuno.o)
- l Based on present-day characteristics, the critical group would be located in the farming community 1 of Amargosa Farms (30 km from repository)
- This is where people are living today i
- This is where the majority of wells are located
- Groundwater is readily accessible :
i
- The water is used for both farming and personal use i
&)BACNW PPT.125 ACNW/09-15-97 13
O O e
O General Map of Yucca Mountain Vicinity O. . '
l*$ L', O ,
,' l e 3 E Nevada f 1 ,
p Qy--- s Repository Test Site 'xs.__ 1
,1 i Paleodischarge bl v
- ca.
cm ca.
\
o
~
m
}
5 '-
W 2 Amargosa Farms Ns gs \ 2ekm P
5 km = 40 CFR Part 191 i
Ash Oy b adows 20 km- Approximates !
} Nevada Test S:te
. E % 1 30 km- Approximates Franklin q, g dstaa to Amagma Lake Playa ' e., 5 i
SJBACNW PPT.125 ACNW.1)9-1597 14 f
1
l0 -
O O Rationale (Continued)
Compliance Location (conunoom However,20 km was chosen as the compliance location
- This is considered to be conservative
- While there are several wells located at Lathrop Wells Junction, these wells are not representative of current day characteristics for the critical group I
SJBACNW PPT.125 ACPMMP9 t5-97 15
TO O O Summary The DOE interim postclosure performance j measure provides a reasonable target to guide our technical program The interim performance measure is protective of the public health and safety fuBACNW PPT.125 ACNW,t)9-15-97 16
P O O Table 6 Notes 1.
The study area is comprised of the following areas: Amargosa Valley, Beatty, Indian Springs, and Pahrump. All food amounts shown are in kilograms. Water and milk consumption are shown in liters. The summary statistics reflect weighting (post-stratification) by gender and area population and are provided for the resident adult population (18 years and over).
2.
The denominators of the means of the " total population" consumption levels (per resident adult) INCLUDE all who responded to the question of whether or not they consumed locally-produced-food of the type in question. This denominator is comprised of those who report that: (a) nothing they consume is locally-produced, and (b) that "all,"
"some," or "very little" of the food type in question they consumed is locally-produced. Only those who responded " don't know" or refused to answer are excluded. Thus, the conceptual denominator is constant across all food types (including tap water): it is the total resKlent adult population of the Study Area.
3.
The denominators of the 1eans of the " partial subsistence" consumption levels (per resident adult) EXLUDE those who report that nothing they cc nsume is locally-produced. Those who responded " don't know" or refused to answer are also excluded. This denominator includes only those that report "all," "some!' and "very little," of the food type in question (that they consumed) is locally-produced. Thus, the conceptual denominator varies across food type and is comprised only of those adult reskjents who report consuming locally-produced food of the type in question.
- 4. 1 The denominators of the means of the " subsistence" consumption levels (per resident adult) EXLUDE those who report that either-(a) nothing they consume is locally-produced, or (b) that only "most," "some," or "very little," of the food type in ,
question (that they consumed) is locally-produced Those who responded " don't know" or refused to answer are also excluded Thus, the conceptual denominator varies across food type and is comprised only of those adult residents who report that "all" of the food type in question they consumed is locally-produced.
5.
The denominator of the mean of the " total population" consumption level for tap water (per resident adult) INCLUDES those i who responded as described in note 2 above. The denominator of the mean of the " partial subsistence" consumption level +
for tap water (per resident adult) EXCLUDES those reporting that they consume zero glasses of tap water per day. The water consumption questx>n was asked in such a manner that precludes directly calculating a " subsistence" level. We assume that the " partial subsistence" mean approximates the subsistence mean.
The standard deviation is calculated using weighted cases. There is actually more than one case but when summed the
" weights" add up to approximately 1.00.
" Only one case was found for subsistence fish consumption.
& O O YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
. _ m i ., <. . _
The " Biosphere" Food l Consumption Survey Presented to:
94th Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Presented by:
David Swanson <
4, -',
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Ofnce >
14T13d U.S. Degurtinent of Energy J
"'"'""'*'"""""i""
SeI3tember 25* 1997 Waste Manage:nent N
' ~
w
D O O The Biosphere Food Consumption Survey I. Background i!. Goals of the Full Survey 111. Characteristics of the Full Survey IV. Data Quality and File Development Steps V. Uses to-Date VI. Discussion issues
O O O
1. Background
Amargosa Valley Pilot Study conducted January-February,1997 No quantitative figures existed on the level of consumption of locally produced food in the study area so M&O's socio-economic group designed a pilot study with two major goals, for which data were collected by UNLV's Cannon Center For Survey Research in January-February,1997 using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)
Goal 1. With a random sample of n=55, the pilot revealed that locally produced food was consumed in 76 percent of all households in Amargosa Valley (95% certain that it is consumed in at least 63 percent of households). This indicated that a full survey should be done.
Goal 2a. Identified a suitable Sample Frame for a survey of the entire 80 km circle Goal 2b. Identified a suitable instrument for a survey of the entire 80 km circle (hypothesis tests involving selected criteria and 16 alternative instruments in pilot)
Goal 2c. With only 24 refusals, Cooperation Rate was very high (69% = [55/(24+55)]*100)
Goal 2d. No strong community, food group, or frame bias but a need for Spanish language version of questionnaire and Spanish speaking interviewer Recommended use of inverse gradient sample design with following target sample sizes by area: Amargosa Valley, 280; Beatty,300; ladian Springs,50; Pahrump,500.
. Need for specific food & water consumption information to calculate annual consumption locally-produced food.
O O O II. Goals of The Full Survey
. Measure the annual amount of water and locally-produced food, (in 11 categories), consumed by adults residing in the study area that can be used for input to GENil-S. Also capture additional information that may be needed for GENil-S Input (e.g., swamp cooler use) and provide estimates of precision (sample error) for data obtained from the survey.
. Measure demographics of adults residing in the 80 km circle study area, The study area includes Amargosa Valley, Beatty, Indian Springs, and Pahrump.
. While maintaining respondent confidentiality, collect data so that consumption, demographics,
& geography can be linked and jointly measured for subsets of the adult population, one or more of which may serve as an empirically-based " critical group."
ill. Characteristics of The Full Survey M&O's socio-economic group designed a full-scale sample survey that was approved by OMB
(#1910-1400) April 31*' and subsequently conducted using CATI system at UNLV.
A stratified random design insured an efficient sample, for which sample error was both measurable and minimal, given the resources available.
l Using informaHon gained from pilot study, careful questionnaire design and interviewing procedures, thorough interviewer training, close supervision of interviewers, and CATI system, were used to minimize non-sampling error, given the resources available.
1,079 completed interviews completed in early June, with n = 195 in Amargosa Valley; n = 250 in Beatty; n = 65 in Indian Springs; and n = 569 in Pahrump.
- 21 Spanish language interviews completed.
Special " Difficult To Interview" sample (n=33) collected to determine if "non-response bias" was present and if special adjustments would be needed.
O O O IV. Data Quality & File Development Steps Data Quality Control & Non-Response Assessment
. 1st staae:1nitial quality control checks
. 2nd staae: Descriptive statistics & " logical" checks 3rd staae: Assessment of non-response bias through comparison of " difficult to interview" respondents with other respondents Weighting & Consumption Calibra* ion
. 4th staae: Appropriate weights identified & in place 5th staae: Food consumption calibration Food Consumption, Linkage & Confidentiality Assurance 6th staae: Individual & aggregate estimates of AAC, completed, population, geography, and food consumption linked 7th staae: Grid Cell matching for Amargosa Valley 8th staae: Respondent ID detached (Confidentiality assured)
Final File Construction & Documentation 9th staae: final documentation, EBF construction, and report on results, to be completed in September
O O O Data Quality Control: Non-Response Asscssment Are those who refused or otherwise did not respond different from those who did? This question is important because of the potential for "Non-response Bias" in a survey.
Non-response Bias = B( y, ) = ,- = M( ,- Vm)
Where y, = Respondent sample mean B( Er ) = Bias of respondent sample mean
, = Respondent Population mean
= Population mean (respondents plus non-respondents)
M = Proportion of non-respondents in the Population m = Non-respondent Population mean To answer this question we used highly skilled interviewers to " convert" a random sample of those who initially refused to be interviewed or were extremely hard to contact (9 or more attempts). This sample (n=33) was termed the " difficult to interview" group.
Statistical tests were conducted to see if response patterns for key questions differed between the " difficult to interview" group and the "not difficult to interview" group. This was done to see if special weighting or adjustment was needed for "non-response."
Using the formula given earlier, we are testing to see if , is different from m (or some equivalent parameter cuch as the proportion who answer "yes")
Ho: ,= m Ha: r # m 0: =.05 We found in virtually every test that we could "not reject Ho" and, therefore we assume that ,= m
Conclusion:
Norwespondents, on average, are not different than respondents. This finding made j l " weighting" much less complex than it would have been had the response patterns been diffe l
Example Statistical Test for Non-ResponseAssessment Table 1 Are the response patterns of the " difficult to interview" different from those "not difficult to interview"?
The example uses question no. 3 "....Have you eaten any locally produced food in the past year?"
Consurned Local Food?
InterviewType YES NO Total Not difficult to Interview 60.4 % 39.6 % 100.0 %
(612) (401) (1,013)
Difficult to Interview 65.6 % 34.4 % 100.0 %
(21) (11) (32)
Total 60.6 % 39.4 % 100.0 %
(633) (412) (1,045)
Chi-Squared Statistic = .35 (df=1), p=.55, do not reject H o.
Conclusion:
The response pattern of the " difficult to interview" is not different from those "not difficult to interview." Assume that Y,= Y, o
~
O O O l
Area Weighting Data t Table 2 Sample and Total Household Frequency by Community 1997 Biosphere Survey Number of Total % of households number of households surveyed households surveyed Community nn N3 i Amargosa Valley 195 452 43%
Beatty 250 751 33 % !
Indian Springs 65 529 12%
- Pahrump 569 4,993 11%
Total 1,079 6,725 16%
i
- The sample is rant omly drawn from households within each community.
Gender Weighting Data ;
Table 3 Sample and Total Frequency of Females by Community 1997 Biosphere Survey l Sample
- Total
- l Community pu pn/pn Pn/Pn i t
Amargosa Valley 120 .615 .490 !
Beatty 151 .604 .435 Indian Springs 42 .646 .490 Pahrump 373 .656 .502
- The sample is randomly drawn from households withn each community !
I i
i
Gender, Area, and Total Weights By Community (
Table 4 Weight Community Gender Area Total Amargosa Valley Male 1.32 .369 .487 Female 0.80 .369 .295 Beatty Male 1.424 .484 .689 Female .722 .484 .349 Indian Springs Male 1.435 1.323 1.898 Female .762 1.323 1.008 Pahrump Male 1.444 1.406 2.030 Female .761 1.406 1.078 Area Weight = (1,079*Nn/N)/n3 Female Weight = (pn* Pn,/Pn)/(pn,)
Male Weight = (p3Pnm/Pn)/(pnm)
Total Weight = (area) * (gender)
Food Consumption Estimation Method AAC ij = (DPY;)(CADl i)(Q i j) = (DPY3)(Qi j)(ADl i )/(FPC i ).
Where AAC, = annual amount of locally produced food iconsumed by individualj And (CADI,) = contingent average daily intake of food i(USDA survey)
= (ADI,)/(FPC,)
where ADI, = average daily intake of food /(USDA survey) and FPC, = fraction consuming food iper day (USDA suivey)
And O, = locally produced fraction of total consumption during the months in which respondent jconsumed locally produced food i 1, 0.75, 0.5, or 0.25 as translated from "all,"
"most,""some," and "very little," j's response to 4* part of food question i DPY, = number of days per year that jconsumed locally produced food i= DPWfWPY, DPW, = (Days Per Week) = j=s response to 3rd part of food question i WPY, = (Weeks Per Year ) = MPY,*(4.33) where MPY, = (Months Per Year) = j=s response to 2*' part of food question i and 4.33 = average number of weeks per month over a year.
O O O Example Food Consumption Question 3K1. Over the past year, did you eat any locally-produced eggs, including those from chickens, ducks, or other fowl, whether raw, or cooked in any way?
Yes No DK REF 3K2. Over how many months last year would you say you ate locally-produced eggs? Was it...
1-3 months 4-6 months 7-9 months 10-12 months Don't know Refuse 3K3. During those months in which you ate locally-produced eggs over the past year, about how many days per week would you say that you ate any?
Less than one day per week !
1-2 days per week j 3-4 days per week 5-6 days per week 7 days per week Don't know ,
Refuse l
3K4. During those same months, about how much of the TOTAL AMOUNT of eggs you ate was locally-produced? l Would you say it was all, most, some or very little?
All l
l Most Some Very Lihte Don't Know Refuse
O O O USDA Contingent Average Daily intake for Adults Table 5 leaf root grain fruit poultry beef pork game fish milk eggs
- male 179 150 308 318 147 134 72 143 105 408 100 female 137 114 217 293 103 104 58 67 116 301 71 from USDA 1987-88 " west" classification in:
USDA.1993. Food and Nutrient intakes by individuals in the United States.1 day.1987-88.
- Measured in grams. Given that an adult (age 20 years and over) consumad the food in quest the table shows the amount consumed.
i
i
- Working Definitions For Three Different i "Per-Adult" Consumption Levels j i
- 1. " Subsistence" = Those reporting that all of the food in question they consumed was locally produced i
" Subsistence" per-adult consumption - !
(Amount consumed of Locally produced X by those only eating locally produced X) )
Those only eating locally produced X) t
- 2. " Partial Subsistence" = " Subsistence" + those reporting that some of the fcod in question they .
consumed was locally-produced
" Partial Subsistence" per-adult consumption = i '
(Amount consumed of locally produced X by those only eating locally produced ;
X & those eating both locally produced & ron-locally produced X)
(Those only eating focally produced X and Those eating both locally & non-locally produced X) i i
- 3. " Total Population" = " Partial Subsistence" + those reporting that none of the food in question they consumed was locally produced. !
" Total Population" per-adult consumption = l (Amount consumed of locally produced X by those only eating locally produced t X & those eating both locally produced & non-locally prod t M X) l' (Those only eating locally produced X & those Sting both locally & non-locally produced X & those noi eating any locally produced '"
l s
~
O O O Example Food Consumption Calculations Example 1. A female respondent ate locally produced fruit 3-4 days per week over 4-6 months during the year. Over the 4-6 months, "some" of the fruit she ate was locally produced. Her annual amount consumed (AAC) is calculated as:
AAC = (DPY)(CADI)(O)
= (3.5*5*4.33)(293)(0.5)
= 11,101 gr.
= 11.101 kg.
Example 2. A male respondent said that he ate locally produced eggs 4-6 days per week over the entire year and that all of the eggs he consumed were local. His annual amount consumed (AAC) is calculated as:
AAC = (DPY)(CADI)(O)
= (5.5*11*4.33)(100)(1.0)
= 26,197 gr.
= 26.20 kg.
i 9 O O Annual Adult Consumption Levels of Locally Produced Food and Tap Water '
Biosphere Study Area' Table 6
" Total Population"Leve! " Partial Subsistence" Level' " Subsistence" Level' Variable Sample Standard Sample Standard Sample Standard (Food Type) n Mean Deviation n Mean Deviation n Mean Deviation LeafyVeg. 1035 4.39 10.30 468 9.70 13.47 7 63.55 22.46 RootVeg. 1022 2.13 5.83 342 6.37 8.57 17 28.86 12.57 Grains 1021 0.40 4.37 37 11.01 19.24 60.64 1 18.82*
Fruit 1037 4.47 11.54 441 10.54 15.41 9 59.32 30.81 Poultry 1026 0.45 2.27 94 4.88 6.33 14 15.74 8.94 Meat 1025 0.92 4.97 109 8.66 13.04 63 8.97 10.07 Fish 1041 0.04 0.50 36 1.05 2.33 1 7.50 -"
Eggs 1021 2.32 5.51 32 7.28 7.79 93 15.78 7.58 Milk 996 4.84 19.94 80 60.50 49.59 28 119.39 26.27 TapWater5 1068 646.16 475.02 896 769.70 402.15 (896) (769.70) (402.15) see notes on nextpage
!O O O Selected Socio-Economic Results (weighted)
Biosphere Study Area l Table 8 :
- 1. Housshold Characteristics
- 11. Respondent Characteristics
- Persons Per Household 2.58 ~
Housing Type Count Percent Respondent Age single family house Count Percent 389 36.15 18-44 Years 364 34.31 trailer / mobile horne 652 60.60 45-64 Years 406 38.27 apartment 31 2.88 65 + Years 291 27.43 other 4 0.37 Respondent Race Household income While 989 Under $25,000 93.74 !
283 31.88 Amer. Indian 18 1.71 Black 7 0.66 With Garden 378 35.11 Asian & Pac. Islander 6 0.57 ,
Other 35 3.32 With Swamp Cooler 495 46.00 Hispanic Respondents 63 5.88 Total Households 6,725 100.00 Total Adult Population 12,876 100.00
- Excluding the values shown for " Total Households" and " Total Adult Population," which are for the entire population, the denominator for each sample " percent" shown may vary slightly, depending upon tha number responding. The correct sample percent denominator can be closely approximated by multiplying the value in the " count" column by 100 and t!wn dividing this product by the corresponding value in the " percent" column.
The absolute count for a given characteristic for the total households or the total adult population, respectively, can be approximated by using the " Total Household" and " Total Adult Population" values. For example, in the entire study area there are approximately 2,144 households with an income less than $25,000 ( [6725*
(31.88/100)1 = 2.114) and 757 adults of Hispanic oriain ( I12876*(5.88/100)1 = 757).
Selected Socio-Economic Results (weighted for gender)
Amargosa Valley Table 9 ;
- l. Household Characteristics
- II. Respos. dent Characteristics
- Persons Per Household 2.80 Housing Type Count Percent Respondent Age single family house Count Percent 38 19.49 18-44 Years 78 40.41 trailer / mobile home 154 78.97 45-64 Years 79 40.93 i apartment 2 1.03 65 + Years 36 other 18.66 1 0.51 Respondent Race Household Income White 172 Under $25,000 88.66 47 30.28 Amer. Indian 2 1.03 Black 0 0.00 With Garden 89 45.72 Asian & Pac. Islander 0 0.00 !
Other 20 10.31 With Swamp Cooler 142 72.80 Hispanic Respondents 24 12.27 ;
Total Households 452 100.00 Total Adult Population 893 100.00 ;
- Excluding the values shown for " Total Households" and " Total Adult Population," which are for the entire population, the denominator for each sample " percent" shown may vary Mightly, depending upon the number j responding. The correct sample percent denominator can be closely approximated by multiplying the value in the ~
" count" column by 100 and then dividing this product by the corresponding value in the " percent" column. The l
absolute count for a given characteristic for total households or the total adult population, respectively, can be l approximated by using the " Total Household" and " Total Adult Population" values. For example, in the Amargosa Valley, there are approximately 137 households with an income under $25,000 ( [452*(30.28/100)] = 137) and 110 adults of Hispanic origin ( [893*(12.27/100)) = 110). ,
t c
I
7 O
O z
k e
E o
? ~ 'r
_._%._-.ga _ .a. u_msi.,m _ an .. w. s.mme-m eed. ,,,m .-e>e w .A,,w . . .4 __,M- 4 ,4 ,.a%w-a___, A.e,h,w a_m--us. ..ama_,....g%-4 J,. + h.__ JA as,u.*
I l
- 1 iO e
4 4
4 k
I e
4 4
l.
s 4
j h
)
4 f
1 l
1 t
1
\
\.
t$
5
\
s 4
s 4
s e
i I.
1 J
i l
4 4
5
[
.g-O O O V. Data Uses to-date
. Information from survey used to provide initial" Subsistence" food consumption input parameters for GENil-S, August 1997
. Information being analyzed for other EIS requirements, including Environmental Justice
c.,.
I
}O O O VI. Discussion issues
. Comparisons of consumption levels by group to NRC standard and other data
. How sensitive is GENil-S to alternative levels of consumption?
O TotalPopulation a "Popdlation" Critical Group 0 PartialSubsistence a " Residential" Critical Group 0 Subsistence s " Subsistence" Critical Group O
.,.-,.i-- - -- -. . . -
O O
.]O Figure 1 Annual " Subsistence" Per-Aduit Consumption Level (kg.) of Locally Produced Food by GEMI-S Food Category '
Biosphere Study Area 80 ,
70 ,
60 I 50 Kg.40j 30 1 20 10 oi , . 4 I I leaf root grain fruit poultry fish eggs meat GENil-S Food Category Source: 1997 Biosphere Suney
.= _
O O O Figure 2 Annual " Partial Subsistence" Per-Adult Consumption Level (kg.) of Locally Produced Food by GEPE-S Food Category Biosphere Study Area 12 !
f 10 ,
8l Kg. 6i 4+
2 i
o!
leaf root grain fruit poultry fish eggs meat GENil-S Food Category Source: 1997 Biosphere Suney
Figure 3 Annual " Total Population" Per-Adult Consumption level (kg.) of LocaNy-Produced Food by GNS Food Category Biosphere Study Area 5 i 4
4 Kg. 3li -
2i 1l l
0I -l I I I leaf root grain fruit potA7 fish eggs meat
% ,, % % GEMI-S Food Category
... O O O i i
I
! l j Figure 4 I
1 4
4 i :
- i Annual Per-Adult Consumption of Locally Produced Milk
- Total i Population; Partial Subsistence; and Subsistence Biosphere Study Area 1 :
120 ., !
I 100 l i I !
M' t
60 ;
4 e i !
f 40 l i s 20 '
0! " '
Total Partial- Subsistence l
- Population Subsistence i i
Source- 1997 Biosphere Suney I i
i !
i l
9 1 l
O O O Figure 5 Annual Per-Adult Consumption of Tap Water: Total Population, Partial Subsistence, and Subsistence Biosphere Study Area 1000 I i
. 750 i
500 e
250 '
s .
0<
Total Population Partial- Subsistence Subsistence source: 1997 Biosphere suney
- The
- subs:stence* level is assurned to be equal to the " partial subsistence"levet
o O O i t
Figure 6 ;
i Annual Per Adult Consumption of Locally Produced Food by GEPG-S Food Group:
l ,
Total Population, Partial Subsistence, and Subsistence Biosphere Study Area :
70 i :
i 60 i laTotal Population 50 l :
O Partial-Subsistence i 40 l Kg. O Subsistence i 30 j __
t' i 20 l 4 l i 10 0 "-- --
I -
leaf root grain fruit poultry fish eggs meat Source: 1997 Biosphere Suney GENil-S Food Category l i ;
~'
~,
O O O Consumption Level Comparison Table 7 Fruits, Grains & Meat / Poultry Fish Milk Drinking Water Dietary Data Resource Vegetables (Kg.) (Kg.) (Kg.) (liters) (liters) 1997 Biosphere Subsistence' 211.8 54.7 7.7 119.39 769.7 1977 NRC Guide
- 190 95 6.9 110 370 1994-95 USDA 241.4 69.1 3.7 84.9
- d 1974 USDA 194 97.9 6.8 110.9
- 1 1997 Bosphere Survey. Data represent the 'subsastence" consumption level 2 1977 NRC Gude. Table E-4, U.S. NRC Revisson 1. Reaciatory Gude 1.109. "CalculaDon of Annual Doses to inan frorn Routme Release of Reactor Entuents for the Purpose of Evaluabng Comphance enth 10 CFRpar150, Appendx 1.* October,1977 3 1994-95 USDA.
- Data Tables Combaned ResuNs Froen USDA's 1994 aruf 1995 Conbnumg Survey of Food intake by Indmduals for 1994 and 1995 Det arxt HeaNH Knowledge Survey
- Table 9 (http1/www.barc.usda. gov /bhnrcMoodsurvey/homehtm) June,1997.
4 1974 USDA.
- Food Consumphon, Pnces and Expendstures* Supplement for 1974 to Agncultural Econome Report No.138 Fru:1, Grain and Vege*.able values taken from Table 20 Mdk caluclated by dividmg bs. of fluid rndk equivalent by total, then applyng rato to calcium content basis, then mulhplying by .95 (qts. to Iders)
Fish taken from Table 6 Meat / Poultry taken from Table 6
- no value given
O O O 1
Figure 7 I
i Consumption Level Comparison
\
E 1997 Biosphere Subsistence j 250 i
i 01977 NRC Guide l 200 , _
m 1994-95 USDA l i O 1974 USDA 150 ;
- kg. ;
j l 0 '
i Fruits, Grains & Meat / Poultry (Kg.) Fish (Kg.) Milk (liters) l Vegetables (Kg.)
l i
Figure 8 Annual " Subsistence" Per-Adult Consumption Level of Tap Water (liters)
Biosphere Study Area 800
, l* \
600 ;
500 '
4')0 ,
300 !
200l 100 l 0i 1997 Biosphere 1977 NRC Guide Subsistence
1 I
Figure 9 I t Percent of Adults Consuming LocaNy Produced Food I Biosphere Study Area j 90 80! ' E Amargosa Valley 70 > D Rest of StMy Area
' 50 j 40 ,
30 i
i leaf root grain fruit E,L poultry fish eggs e milk water E
meat l
j GENil-S Food Category Source: 1997 Biosphere Suney i
i
1 O
STATEMENT OF NICK STELLAVATO NYE COUNTY ON. SITE REPRESENTATIVE UPDATE ON NYE COUNTY TECHNICAL PROGRAM TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 4 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LAS VEGAS NEVADA SEPTEMBER 28,1997 O
1
l 1 appreciate the opportunity to once again address the Committee, and bri iQ
- to date on Nye County's work under our Independent Scientific Investigations Program. As you may recall, when we last met with you here in Las Vegas a yea we introduced to you some results of data gathering and analyses which lead us to the conclusion that a naturally ventilated repository would provide significant. advanta for long term isolation of radionuclidas over a scaled backfilled repository.
1
- That data gathering has continued, and further, more sophisticated analyses are now underway. This data, along with our analyses, are of course available to all parties to the Yucca Mountain process, either directly from my office or through the Nye i
County NWRPO Website (www. NyeCounty.com). I want to discuss with you today some regulatory aspects of our suggested approach, but first let me briefly refresh you on that approach.
1 Our observations, based mainly on continuous monitoring of temperature, pressure and humidity within the ESF tunnel, along with numerical simulations based on this j
- data, show that there is suhtantial heat and moisture loss from the rock as a result
?
3 of ventilation. Recent DOE studies confirm this dryout effect. It appears that the host
!} rock may be kept below 30"C, and the repository maintained in an essentially dry Ll]
't condition at least 10,000 years, if it remains in a naturally ventilated, condition, restricted to human entry. Application of natural ventilation, aided by a heat source '
!' (the waste canisters), may thus provide a cool and dry host rock with a capillary i
pressure gradient toward the implacement tunnels during the first 10,000 years of the life of the repository.
- Should this finding be independently validated then the primary mechanism for aqueous transport of radionuclides away from Yucca Mountain to the accessible environment may be significantly reduced, if not eliminated.
i
- . Recent data and analyses produced by the DOE and its contractors produce considerable uncertainty about the net infiltration rate from the ground surface to the repository horizon at Yucca Mountain, at least on an episodic basis, travel times to the repository along the fastest pathways within the unsaturated zone, and travel times as well as dilution within the saturated zone. All of this lends importance, in our
- opinion, to the need to give serious consideration to this suggested alternative as a way to compensate for this uncertainty, and provide an extra measure of assurance to Nye County residents in the capability of Yucca Mountain to isolate the spent iO 2 ,
1
i .-
I nuclear fuel and high level waste for the necessary length of time.
Now I would like to touch very briefly on the regulatory aspects of this approach.
Since introducing the concept of a naturally ventilated repository at your meeting a year ago we have also discussed it with DOE, as well as the NWTRB, the Commission, and, to a limited extent, the Congress. As a result of our discussions, for example, the NWTRB asked Dr. George Danko, Professor, Mackay School of Mines, at the University of Nevada, Reno to review the merits of the Nye County suggestion. Dr. Danko, in his report to the TRB in June of this year concludes that:
"The Nye County suggestion to incorporate long term ventilation in the conceptual design of the proposed high level waste repository at Yucca Mountain has definite merits regarding the reduction of rcck temperatures, the decrease in periodic temperature variation along the emplacement sequences, and the overall reduction of the host rock moisture content. Other studies of the Yucca Mountain Project indicate similar benefits."
i Chairman Jackson, however, when I discussed our work in this area before the k Commission on May 15 of this year, while receptive, indicated that she felt this was P3 p) a matter for the Congress to decide. We don't necessarily agree with that view.
The Nye County NWRPO recognizes that the historic expectations of this program have always included a closed repository. The regulatory framework of the program also appears to anticipate one. We do not necessarily agree that such a closed repository is statutorily required, however. Indeed, we see nothing in the NWPA, which would preclude a naturally ventilated repository as a potential design alternative.
The definition of" disposal", for example, found at Sec. 2(9) of the Act, speaks to the emplacement in a repository "with no foreseeable intent of recovery, whether of not such emplacement permits the recovery of such waste". The term
" repository" in Sec. 2(18), while not as clear, is susceptible to a similar interpretation.
It thus appears to us that the intent to permanently dispose is the critical factor under the statute.
(3 '
Ci 3
The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 60 are more troublesome. It seems
("')
'" clear that, given the consideration of seals and backfill, for example, as well as the tiered structure of the licensing process itself(construction authorization, license to emplace waste, and Gnally license amendment to close), that a permanently closed facility is envisioned, if not actually required. This should not be considered an impediment to the careful consideration of the implications of a naturally ventilated repository, however.
Congress, as we all know, is currently working on a major rewrite of the NWPA. We see nothing in any of the pending bills, which would preclude a naturally ventilated facility. The DOE is in the process of revising its siting guidelines,10 CFR 960 and the EPA will someday adopt final emission standards governing Yucca hiountain, unless Congress dictates those standards itself. The NRC anticipates adopting conforming amendments to its licensing regulations,10 CFR 60, probably after the completion of the administrative process by both DOE and the EPA.
, Nye County has, in comments to DOE, already recommended that the revised 1 guidelines not preclude an open repository as a design alternative, and we will make the same strong recommendation to the NRC. The program plan, which DOE is operating under, with the approval of Congress, calls for a !v.g-term performance
! confirmation period of un to 100 years. That is ceitainly sufScient time to determine ifindeed a naturally ventilated repository can be designed and operated, and provide an enhanced measure of safety and assurance for Nye County residents in isolation of radioactive wastes.
Engineering of a ventilated repository could be quite complicated. hiuch additional study is needed, but we feel, based on the data we have amassed, and the numerical modeling conducted, that this is clearly a potential design alternative, which merits such further work and very sericus consideration. Sufficient flexibility should continue to be provided in the statute and regulations to allow this to happen.
l 1
)
wJ 4 l
~
a