1'it FEB 2 1990 89000982 TRIP REPORT …1'it FEB 2 1990 89000982TRIP REPORT I MEMORANDUM FOR: Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Geosciences and Systems Performance Branch FROM: David Brooks,

1'it

FEB 2 1990 89000982

TRIP REPORT I

MEMORANDUM FOR: Ronald L. Ballard, ChiefGeosciences and Systems Performance Branch

FROM: David Brooks, Section LeaderHydrologic Transport Section, HLGP

Donald L. Chery, Jr., Senior HydrologistHydrologic Transport Section, HLGP

SUBJECT: TRIP REPORT: HYDROLOGY AND GEOCHEMISTRY TRB MEETING,DENVER, COLORADO, DECEMBER 11-12, 1989 (411222, L62230)

On December 11 and 12, 1989, the DOE Yucca Mountain Project Office presentedto the uclear Waste Technical Review Board (TRB), Hydrogeology andGeochemistry Panel, descriptions and some findings of selected DOE hydrologyand geochemistry programs. The Hydrogeology and Geochemistry Panel is chairedby Dr. Donald Lngmuir and has one member Dr. Clarence R. Allen. The panelwas supported by two consultants; Pat Domenico and Roy Williams. However, thepresentations were made essentially to the full Board with all board membersattending from the beginning except Dr. North who arrived Monday afternoon andDr. Allen who arrived Tuesday. Copies of the list of Board Members and listof Panels with members are attached for your information (Enclosure 1).

The presentations focused on the following seven topics:

o Characterization of Infiltrationo Measurement of Unsaturated Zone Hydrologic Propertieso Importance of Fracture vs Matrix Flowo Radionuclide Gas Releaseo Overview of Model Validation Strategy (Building Reasonable Assurance)o Applicability of Laboratory Experimentso Overview of Effects of Repository Development

The presentations provided an excellent overview of some of the technical workbeing done by the DOE. Significant observation were:

o Geochemistry

1) If continuous pathways exist, saturated conditions are not requiredto generate travel times of less than 1000 years (Kaplin),

FDCR kw$TEWM-1 FLI,

~> A(IJ . h11 A! , t ^/S/

* I

TRIP REPORT 1-2-

2) In the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, substantial airflow has beenobserved in most wells drilled that have a section of open holeabove the water table. Typically, the observed flow rates are sogreat they can only be explained as fracture flow phenomena (eeks).Flows measured in boreholes exceed values predicted by (buoydncy)modeling (Ross)

3) Subsurface temperature at the time (14)C is released is a keyvariable (Ross). Aqueous release of (14)C from U(2) fuel wouldcontribute to gaseous (14)CO(2) release by an isotopic exchange with(12)CO(2) in the pore space (Van Konynenburg),

4) Pu(IV) solubility decreases as a function of increasing temperature(Hobart), and

5) Pu(IV)-colloid is stable under expected conditions

a Hydrology

1) For infiltration studies, a sudy has been made of soil propertiesat a "wash-ridge" system north of Highway Ridge. Determinationshave been made of cobbles, clay, silt, sand percentages and bulkdensity for between 32 to 126 samples.

2) For infiltration studies, evaluations have been made of 8 years ofprecipitation record from 42 stations in southern Nevada andCalifornia. A kriged estimated of yearly precipitation amountsshows the site to have between 160 o 180 mm of precipitation peryear. A smaller scaled evaluation focused on the site shows 180 to200 mm of precipitation per year. Another evaluation using 8 USGSmeteorological stations in the near vicinity of the site(unspecified length of record) shows annual precipitation to be 145to 185 m.

3) For infiltration studies, instrument calibration and fieldinvestigations are developing predictions of evaporationutilizing the solar radiation instrumentation installed at the USGSmeteorological stations.

4) For infiltration studies, there has been an ongoing program ofneutron logging in 74 boreholes from 5 to 150 eet deep.Evaluations were presented before and after flow measurements inPagany Wash and contour plots were shown of average water contentin the top meter of the bore hole and top meter of bedrock.

0

TRIP REPORT 1-3-

5) For infiltration studies, tritium and 14C determination of groundwater age have been made with general trends showing increasinggroundwater age with depth (1000 to 5000 years and maybe greater)but with some anomalously young water (ie. 30 years) at depth.

6) For infiltration studies, the results of an excruciatingly detaileddouble ring infiltrometer study were presented.

7) For both unsaturated and saturated flow and transport modeling, anextensive program continues to evaluate the hydrologic properties ofrock matrix. A summary of the geostatistical analyses of drill corefor bulk density, porosity, water retention and unsaturatedhydraulic conductivity was presented.

8) R. Trautz discussed a theoretical development of gas flow in afractured rock system. There will be an attempt to evaluate theserelationships with data from the NRC Apache Leap Tuff site.

9) J. Rousseau discussed information and findings from the ongoing "insitu monitoring" program that is designed to measure pneumaticpressure potentials, vapor pressure potentials, water potentials(matric and osmotic), and thermal potentials. Data and informationhave been obtained from 4 years of observation in drill holeUZ-1 and 13 months of observations in the 15 foot vertical and 150foot drill holes in G Tunnel in rock similar to the Calico Hillsvitric unit. (Note: H-T Section has concern that the prematureclosing of G Tunnel and ending of the "in situ monitoring" programthere compromises the resolution of CDSCP Comment 11.)

Eventually this program will define a very sophisticatedcomputer/instrument system to monitor the desired potentials in theunsaturated zone using 17 wells having a combined length of over31,000 feet.

10) P. Kaplan discussed a general conceptualization with majorassumptions of the Yucca Mountain flow system and then discussed hisevaluation of HYDROCOIN Level 3, Case 2, problem.

1I) D. floxie discussed model validation, which he defined as "assurancethat a predictive model provides an adequate representation of thesystem that the model is intended to simulate." The ValidationOversight Committee has prepared a document on this subject. Thedocument was submitted to DOE Headquarters October 1989 for review.

12) W. Glassley discussed the effects of emplaced radioactive waste(particularly heht and radiation) on flow and transport in the

TRIP REPORT I-4-

"near field" and on the generation of a "source term." He gave apreliminary discussion of information from the G-Tunnel PrototypeHeater Test. Results from the G-Tunnel heater experiments were tobe discussed in greater detail in the January 1990 YMPOpresentations to the Technical Review Board. He also mentioned thatthe incorporation of other man-made materials (i.e. paints, concrete,rubber, grease, potato chips, peanut butter, etc.) may have chemicalconsequences that would modify the water chemistry.

Numerous viewgraphs were presented and are on file if more information isrequired. The presentations were videotaped (availability uncertain). Apresentation was made by EPRI (Enclosure 2). A statement was made to the TRBby Dr. C. Frederick Sears on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute, thatbasically argued for the expeditious development of a monitored retrievablestorage facility and warned against the utilities paying multiple times forwaste storage (Enclosure 3). The detailed agenda is provided in Enclosure 4.

David Brooks, Section LeaderHydrologic Transport Section, HLGP

/s/

Donald L. Chery, Jr., Sr. HydrologistHydrologic Transport Section, HLGP

Enclosures:As stated

Pt4

TRIP REPORT 1- 5-

DISTRIBUTION

Central FilesRBrowning, HLWMRallard, HLGPPJustus, HLGPJKennedy, HLPDDBrooks, HLGPWOtt, WMB/OEIM, LDK

HLGP r/fBJYoungblood, HLWMJLinehan, HLPDSCoplan, HLGPRWeller, HLENJRandall, WMB/DEMSilberberg, WMB/DE

LSUS

NMSS r/fJBunting, HLENOChery, HLGPRJohnson, HLPDMNataraja, HLENJRussell, CNWRADCodell, HLGP

OFC : H HLGP

NAME:DBroo/cj : DChe

Date: 2/2 /90 : 2/ /90 : / /90 : / /90 : / /90 : / /90

P 17OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

UNITED STATESNUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

1111 18th Street, N.W., Suite 801Washington, D.C. 20036

ENCLOSURE I

12/1/89

1.

2.

CONTAINERS AND TANSPORTATION:

Chairman: Dr. Dennis L PriceMembers: Dr. Melvin W. Carter

Dr. D. Warner NorthDr. Ellis D. Verink

RISK AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSTS:

Chairman:Members:

Dr.Dr.Dr.Dr.Dr.Dr.

D. Warner NorthJohn E. CantlonDon U. DeereDonald LangmuirDennis L PriceEllis D. Verink

3. MUCTURAL GEOLOGY ANDGEOENGNERINQ:

Chairman:Member:

Dr. Clarence R. AllenDr. Don U. Deere

4. HYDROGEOLOGY AND GEOCHEMISIRY:

Chairman:Member:

Dr. Donald LangmuirDr. Clarence R. Allen

I5. ENVONMENT AND PUBLUC HEALTH:

Chairman:Members:

Dr. Melvin W. CarterDr. John E. CantlonDr. D. Warner North

,....4 . . .

Telephone: 202.254.4792 Fax: 202.254.4803

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD11I1 18th Street, N.W.. Suite 801

Washington, D.C. 20036

PUBLIC LAW 100-203

December 22, 1987

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Functions

Section 503. The Board shall evaluate the technical and scientific validityof activities undertaken by the Secretary of Energy after the date of theenactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, including--

(1) site characterization activities; and

(2) activities relating to the packaging or transportation of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel.

Investigative Powers

Section 504.(a) Hearings--Upon request of the Chairman or a majority of themembers of the Board, the Board may hold such hearings, sit and act at suchtimes and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence, as the Boardconsiders appropriate. Any member of the Board may administer oaths oraffirmations to witnessess appearing before the Board.

(b) Production of Documents--(I) Upon the request of the Chairmanor a majority of the members of the Board, and subject to existing law, theSecretary (or any contractor of the Secretary) shall provide the Board withsuch records, files, papers, data, or information as may be necessary torespond to any inquiry of the Board under this title.

(2) Subject to existing law, information obtainable underparagraph (1) shall not be limited to final work products of the Secretary,but shall include drafts of such products and documentation of work inprogress.

RgDorl

Section 508. The Board shall report not less than 2 times per year to Congressand the Secretary its findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Telephone: 202-254-4792 Fax: 202-254-4803

a ~



1211/89

BOARD MEMBERS

Dr. Don U. Deere

International Consultant in the construction of shafts, tunnels and dams,engineering geology and rock mechanics, and

Adjunct Professor, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Board Mmber

Dr. Clarence R Allen

Professor of Geology and Geophysics, Seismological Laboratory,California Institute of Technology.

Dr. John E Cantdon

Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies, and Dean of theGraduate School at Michigan State University.

Dr. Melvin W. Carter

Neely Professor Emeritus in Nuclear Engineering and Health Physics,Georgia Institute of Technology, and an International Radiation Protection Consultant.

Dr. Donald Langmuir

Professor of Geochemistry at the Colorado School of Mines.

Dr. D. Warner North

Principal, Decision Focus, Inc., Los Altos, California; Consulting Professor,Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, and Associate Director,

Stanford Center for Risk Assessment.

(over)

Tlenhnne: 202-254.4792 Fax: 202.254.4803


1111 18th Street, N.W., Suite 801Washington, DC. 20036

Dr. D. Warner North

The President appointed Dr. North to serve on the NuclearWaste Technical Review Board on January 18, 1989. His 2-year termexpires April 19, 1990.

Dr. North is a Principal with Decision Focus, Inc., LosAltos, CA; a consulting professor in the Department ofEngineering-Economic Systems at Stanford University, and AssociateDirector of the Stanford Center for Risk Assessment. He wasdirectly involved in the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) reviewof the methodology used to select prospective sites for thenation's first geologic repository for high-level radioactivewaste. In addition, he has participanted in 7 NAS studies dealingwith environmental issues.

Over the last 10 years Dr. North has served on twocommittees of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ScienceAdvisory Board (SAB): Subcommittee on Risk Assessment andEnvironmental Health Committee. In addition, he has been a SABreviewer of the Cancer Assessment Guidelines, panel chairman forthe Review of EPA's research program on risk assessment,co-chairman for the Acute Toxics Subcommittee, and a consultant tocurrent reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards forlead and for ozone.

Since 1977 Dr. North has been the principal investigator ora consultant on many projects at Decision Focus, Inc. for clientssuch as the Electric Power Research Institute, Utility AirRegulatory Group, Department of Energy, EPA, American BarAssociation, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Solar Energy ReseachInstitute, and a major oil and a chemical company. In Californiahe is a member of the Governor's Scientific Advisory Panel for theProposition 65 Toxics Initiative passed in 1986.

Dr. North has conducted numerous studies on a wide varietyof public policy issues including: seeding hurricanes, emissioncontrol strategies, control of toxic substances, space programplanning, energy policy, wildfire protection, disposal of chemicalmunitions and agents, acid rain policy, and risk assessmentmethodologies, and risk communication.

His research interests include risk assessment and riskmanagement; decision analysis; planning of research anddevelopment; public policy analysis of environmental impacts; andthe modelling of complex engineering, economic, and ecologicalsystems.

Dr. North is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Yale University(1962) where he received a B.S. in physics. He also received threeadvanced degrees from Stanford University: an M.S. in physics(1963), an M.S. in mathematics (1966), and a Ph.D. in operationsresearch (1970).

He resides in Woodside, California.Telephone: 202.254.4792 Fax: 202-254.4803


111 18th Street, N.W., Suite 801S 15:fA ~~~~Washington, D.C. 20036

Dr. Melvin . Carter

The President appointed Dr. Carter to serve on the Nuclear WasteTechnical Review Board on January 18, 1989. His 4-year term expiresApril 19, 1992.

As Neely Professor Emeritus in Nuclear Engineering and HealthPhysics, Georgia Institute of Technology, and an internationalconsultant on radiation protection, Dr. Carter has expertise in a broadrange of issues related to radioactive waste management. He serves asa consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) AdvisoryCommittee on Nuclear Waste and its Advisory Committee for ReactorSafeguards, and has been on hearing boards for both the NRC and theDepartment of Engery (DOE).

Dr. Carter has also been a consultant to almost two dozen federaland state government agencies and private companies including the DOE,UI4C Nuclear Industries, NUS Corporation, Westinghouse Electric, Roy F.Weston Inc., Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, EG&G Idaho, andLos Alamos National Laboratory, Coca-Cola, Homestake Mining Company,and the Georgia Department of Human Resources.

Among his many administrative posts, Dr. Carter has served asDirector of the Office of Interdisciplinary Programs and theBioengineering Center at the Georgia Institute of Technology, andDirector of the Environmental Protection Agency's National EnvironmentalResearch Center in Las Vegas, NV and the Public Health Service'sSoutheastern Radiological Health Laboratory in Montgomery, AL. Inaddition, he has been elected President of both the InternationalRadiation Protection Association and the Health Physics Society, was onthe Board of Directors of the National Council on Radiation Protectionand Measurements, and has chaired or served as a member of several ofthe Council's scientific and administrative committees.

In addition to developing and teaching a large number of graduateand undergraduate courses at the Georgia Institute of Technology overthe last two decades, Dr. Carter has organized five major conferenceson different types of radioactive material, and has developed a dozentechnical short courses on a variety of topics including radioactivewaste management, radiological health and safety, toxic substances inthe environment, and environmental protection.

Dr. Carter has testified before the Committee on Labor and HumanRelations, U.S. Senate, and the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Houseof Representatives. With nearly 100 major reports and publications tohis credit, he is also editor of Environment InternationAl, a monthlyscientific journal published by Pergamon Press.

He received a B.S. in Civil Engineering (1949) and an M.S. inPublic Health Engineering (1951) from Georgia Institute of Technology,and a Ph.D. in Radiological and Environmental Engineering (1960) fromthe University of Florida.

Dr. Carter resides in Atlanta, Georgia.

Telephone: 202-2544792 Fax: 202-254-4803

UNITED STATESNUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARDpffy 1111 I8th Street, N.W., Suite 801

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dr. Ellis D. verink, Jr.

The President appointed Dr. Verink to serve on the NuclearWaste Technical Review Board on January 18, 1989. His 2-year termexpires April 19, 1990.

Dr. Verink brings to the Board over 50 years of experiencein materials selection and corrosion. He is a DistinguishedService Professor of Metallurgy, former Chairman of the MaterialsScience and Engineering Department at the University of Florida,and President of Materials Consultants, Inc. He was elected Fellowof the Metallurgical Society (1988) and the American Society forMetals (1978).

In addition to his election to President of theMetallurgical Society, Dr. Verink has also served on the ExecutiveCommittee, Board of Directors, and Board of Trustees of theAmerican Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and PetroleumEngineers. He was a 3-term national director of the NationalAssociation of Corrosion Engineers, and served on 5 NationalAcademy of Sciences committees, including two that reviewed theconceptual geologic repository designed by Swedish engineers. Dr.Verink has also chaired or been a member of over 20 other nationalcommittees or advisory groups.

With over 25 years of academic experience, Dr. Verink haschaired 9 committees including the Search Committee for thePresident of the University of Florida, and has been a member of8 other university committees. For his contributions to materialsciences and university teaching Dr. Verink was elected Fellow ofthe Metalurgical Society, and has received nearly a dozen otherawards including the Willis Rodney Whitney Award, Florida Blue KeyDistinguished Faculty Award, Educator Award of the MetallurgicalSociety, and University of Florida Scholar of the Year Award.

As a registered professional engineer with specialaccreditation in corrosion engineering, Dr. Verink has been aconsultant on numerous projects for private clients such as theAluminum Association, Copper Development Association, SandiaCorporation, and the Lockheed-Georgia Co. He has been a member ofAmerican delegations to both China and the Soviet Union, and haslectured in 5 foreign countries.

With over 75 technical papers, editorship of two books and9 chapters in other books to his credit, Dr. Verink has served asCorrosion Editor for the Journal of the Electrochemical Society andon the editorial board on Surface Technology Magazine and Journalof Materials Education.

Dr. Verink has three educational degrees in metallurgicalengineering: a B.S. from Purdue University (1941), an M.S. (1963)and a PhD. (1965) from Ohio State University.

He resides in Gainsville, Florida where he has served in thepast as President of both the Kiwanis Club and the YMCA.

Telephone: 202-254-4792 Fax: 202.254.4803


11 11 18th Street, N.W., Suite 01Washington, D.C. 20036

Dr. Dennis L. Price

The President appointed Dr. Price to serve on the NuclearWaste Technical Review Board on January 18, 1989. His 2-year termexpires April 19, 1990.

Dr. Price is now a Professor of Industrial Engineering andOperations Research, Director of the Safety Projects Office, andCoordinator of the Human Factors Engineering Center at VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University (VPI). With over 20years of teaching experience at three institutions, and eight yearsindustrial experience with two corporation, his present interestsinclude transportation of hazardous materials, human factorsresearch, engineering psychology, industrial hazard control, designand evaluation of man-machine systems, and systems safety analysis.

Since 1977 Dr. Price has been a human factors/safetyengineering consultant for a wide variety of clients including:Florida Power and Light, U.S. Navy, IBM, Union Camp, Mountain WestResearch in Nevada, Aetna Life and Casualty, Liberty Mutual, Sears,and product liability attorneys in ten states. He is alsocertified as a Hazard Control Manager and a Product Safety Manager.

As a member of National Academy of Sciences' (NAS)Transportation Research Board (TRB), Dr. Price has chaired or beena member of six committees or subcommittees, including the Chairmanof the A3C10 Committee on the Transportation of HazardousMaterials. In addition, he was chairman of the AS' Task Force onPipeline Safety, and a member of its Committee on Demilitarizationof Chemical Weapons. For his NAS service Dr. Price received theDistinguished Service Award (1987) and the Outstanding ServiceCommendation (1981).

Dr. Price's publications include over 30 papers in the openliterature, one book, 7 chapters in various books, and over 160technical reports for private industry, clients, or governmentagencies. Some of these studies were the subjects of publichearings, and radio and television programs with nationwidecoverage.

He is also on the editorial board of Human Factors, thejournal of the Human Factors Society, and serves as a professionalreviewer for seven different organizations. Dr. Price is a memberof six professional organizations and has served on numerousuniversity committees.

Dr. Price has a very diverse educational background with aB.A. from Bob Jones University (1952), an M.A. in psychology fromCalifornia State University at Long Beach (1967), and a Ph.D. inIndustrial Engineering from Texas A&M University (1974). He alsoreceived an M.A. and B.D. from American Baptist Seminary of theWest (1955).

He presently resides in Blacksburg, VA.

. _ an ,, -en-1 V_ -. I ^ ' A OAA



Dr. Donald Langmuir

The President appointed Dr. Langmuir to serve on the NuclearWaste Technical Review Board on January 18, 1989. His 4-year termexpires April 19, 1992.

Dr. Langmuir brings to the Board an extensive background ingroundwater geochemistry. He is presently a Professor ofGeochemistry at the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO. Duringhis career, Dr. Langmuir has accumulated over 25 years of teachingexperience at Rutgers University, Pennsylvania State University,the University of Nevada, the University of Sydney in Australia,and the Colorado School of Mines. He has also worked in the WaterResources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey.

His research interests include: uranium, thorium, and radiumgeochemistry as it relates to radioactive waste disposal;groundwater prospecting for and in-situ leaching of ore deposits;mechanisms and modelling of metal and ligand sorption andsolution-mineral equilibria in the saturated and unsaturated zones;themodynamic and kinetic properties of water-rock systems;acid-rain weathering of building materials; and groundwaterpollution.

Over the last ten years Dr. Langmuir has served or chairedalmost a dozen expert panels on various research programs sponsoredby the Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Environmental Protection Agency, and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.He is presently the president of the 7500-member Colorado MountainClub.

With memberships in nearly a dozen professional societies,Dr. Langmuir has chaired numerous society committees and sessionsof national meetings related to hydrology and geochemistry, andprepared several symposia and short courses. He has also beenassociate editor of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, the journalof the Geochemical Society, and served on the editorial board ofInterface, the journal of the Society of Environmental Geochemistryand Health.

Over the last two decades Dr. Langimuir has published nearly80 professional papers and articles, and been awarded 23 grants andcontracts supporting $1.7 million worth of research. He hasconsulted for clients in 15 states, and abroad in Australia,Canada, France, and Sweden.

He is a cum laude graduate from Harvard University (1956)where he received an A.B. in geological sciences. After servingas a naval officer, he subsequently received an M.A. (1961) and aPh.D. (1965) in geology from Harvard University.

Dr. Langmuir resides in Golden, Colorado.

TeleDhone: 202-254-4792 Fax: 202.254-4803


Itl11 18th Street, N.W., Suite 801Washlngton, D.C. 20036

Dr. John . Cntlon

The President appointed Dr. Cantlon to serve on the NuclearWaste Technical Review Board on January 18, 1989. His 4-year termexpires April 19, 1992.

As Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies and Deanof the Graduate School at Michigan State University, Dr. Cantlonbrings to the Board over 20 years of academic and administrativeexperience at Michigan State University. After serving six yearsas Academic Vice President and Provost he was appointed to hispresent position. Dr. Cantlon has also served as Director of theEnvironmental Biology Program at the National Science Foundation.

Over the last 30 years Dr. Cantlon has served on almost twodozen advisory committees with various academic, government, andprivate organizations including the White House, Department ofEnergy, National Academy of Sciences, Environmental ProtectionAgency, National Science Foundation, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,World Resources Institute, and the Boyce Thompson Institute. Mostrecently he participated in the National Academy of Sciences'committee which evaluated and proposed the final list of possiblelocations for the Superconducting Super Collider.

Dr. Cantlon is a member of over a dozen professionaloganizations and societies. In particular, he has served aspresident of the Ecological Society of America; president of theMichigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters; and chairman of theBoard of the Michigan Energy and Resources Research Association.

With over 40 years of teaching and research experience atfour different universities and about three dozen professionalpublications, Dr. Cantlon also is a Professor of Botany at MichiganState University. His diverse research interests includephysiological ecology, micro-environments, Alaska tundravegetation, and academic administration and research related toeconomic development.

Throughout his career Dr. Cantlon has received numerousawards including the Distinguished Faculty Award and CentennialReview Distinguished Lecturer at Michigan State University. In1986 he was awarded the Distinguished Faculty Award by the MichiganCouncil of Governing Boards.

He received a B.S. in biology and chemistry from theUniversity of Nevada (1947), and a Ph.D. in plant ecology fromRutgers University (1950).

Dr. Cantlon resides in East Lansing, Michigan.

Telephone: 202,254-4792 Fax: 202.2544803


II I 8th Street, N.W., Suite 801Washington, D.C. 20036

Dr. Clarence R. Allen

The President appointed Dr. Allen to serve on the NuclearWaste Technical Review Board on January 18, 1989. His 4-year termexpires April 19, 1992.

Dr. Allen is presently Professor of Geology and Geophysicsat the California Institute of Technology where he has served asdirector of the Seismological Laboratory, chairman of the Divisionof Geological Sciences, and chairman of the faculty. He has over40 years of teaching experience, and about 125 dozen professionalpublications.

Over the last 25 years Dr. Allen has served on almost thirtyadvisory committees and professional boards including: the NationalAcademy of Sciences' Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Panelon Earthquake Prediction, Geology Section, and Commission onPhysical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources; chairman of theNational Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council; chairman of theNational Science Foundation's Earth Science Advisory Panel; andchairman of the California State Mining and Geology Board.

He has also been a consultant on major dams and nuclearpower plants located throughout the world including Argentina,Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, Haiti, Iran, Iraq,Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Tunisia, the UnitedStates, and Venezuela. Dr. Allen has also conducted field researchin Chile, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, thePhilippines, Taiwan, Tibet, Turkey, the United States, andVenezuela.

Dr. Allen received the first G. K. Gilbert Award in SeismicGeology from the Carnegie Institute of Washington. He has servedas president of both the Geological Society of America and theSeismological Society of America, and was elected to the AmericanAcademy of Arts and Sciences (1974), the National Academy ofEngineering (1976), and the National Academy of Sciences (1976).

He is a fellow of the Geological Society of America and theAmerican Geophysical Union, and a member of six other professionalsocieties. His wide ranging research interests include seismicity,tectonics of fault systems, geologic hazards, earthquakeprediction, siting of critical facilities, and geophysical studiesof glaciers.

Dr. Allen is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Reed College(1949) where he received a B.A. in physics. He subsequentlyreceived an M.S. in geophysics (1951) and a Ph.D. in structuralgeology and geophysics (1954) from California Institute ofTechnology.

Dr. Allen resides in Pasadena, California.

. - * . -- P% .- %^% ,rA *n.f



DR. DON U. DEERNC KAI RIMA

The President appointed Dr. Deere to serve as Chairman ofthe Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board on January 18, 1989. Histerm of office is for four years, expiring April 19, 1992.

Dr. Deere has over 45 years experience as an internationalconsultant in the planning, design and construction of shafts,tunnels, dams, underground mines, and storage projects, primarilyin the fields of engineering geology and rock mechanics. With over35 years of university teaching experience and approximately 50professional papers, he is presently an adjunct full professor inthe Department of Civil Engineering and the Department of Geologyat the University of Florida.

Dr. Deere consults extensively, both in the U.S. andoverseas, for private and governmental organizations on civilianand defense projects. In the past, he provided services to Fenixand Scisson and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission on the design ofunderground openings for nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site.He has also worked on numerous nuclear power plant projects.Currently, Dr. Deere advises the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation onaspects of the New Waddel Dam near Phoenix, Arizona, and serves asconsultant on the design and construction of the Washington, D.C.,metro system, a position he has occupied for the past 23 years.

He has also consulted on various aspects of several dozenengineering projects overseas in many foreign countries includingArgentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Mexico,Panama, Peru, Rhodesia, Turkey, Venezuela, and New Zealand.

Dr. Deere will receive in the BEAVER Award in January 1990,and received the MOLES Award in 1983 for Outstanding Achievementin Construction. In 1987, he participated in the National Academyof Sciences committee which evaluated and proposed the final listof possible locations for the Superconducting Super Collider. Hewas elected to the National Academy of Engineering (1966), theNational Academy of Sciences (1971), and the National Academy ofSciences of Argentina (1987), and is a member of a half dozenprofessional societies.

He received a B.S. in mining engineering from Iowa StateCollege (1943), an M.S. in geology from the University of Colorado(1949), and a Ph.D. in civil engineering from the University ofIllinois (1955).

He resides in Gainesville, Florida.

Telephone: 202.254-4792 Fax: 202.254.4803

ENCLOSURE 2 -

EPRI HLW RESEARCHPROGRAM

4?A, fr = C4k

E

by

-Robert A. Shawwith assistance from

Robert F. WilliamsJ. Carl Stepp

for presentation to

Nuclear WasteTechnical Review Board

December 12,1989

r EPRI / NPI D

Background of EPRI Program

Discussion with utility advisory structureRecurring themes

Why pay EPRIto do?

to do what we're already paying DOE

How can EPRI have any influence over this big DOEprogram?What deliverables can we expect for our money?DOE program is not spending our money effectivelyThere is a need for technical input from the utility

* perspective.Y What can we do that is useful?

2X&RAS 949

rgO EPRI / NPD

Basis of EPRI's HLW Plan

* Emphasis EPRI's technical strengthsInfluence DOE and leverage our relativelysmall resources

* Emulate recent successesSeismicity Owners' Group

* Address near-term crucial issuesDevelop a process for early site suitabilityassessment

.

EPRI / NPD

Introduction -2

Probabilistic methodology developments

- Currently no accepted method for HLWrepository

- Early development would be particularlybeneficial

- - Focus site characterization activity

- - Reach early resolution of site suitability issues

- - Early perspective on overall performanceuncertainty

EPRI / NPD

Regulatory and LicensingConsiderations

* HLW repository objective

- 10,000 year time frame

- Reliance on both engineered and naturalbarriers

* Characteristics of Basin and Range

- Complexity

- Relatively rapid tectonic processes

- Potential interactions

JCSIRAS 9-89

EPRI / NPD . *

Direct Probabilistic Approach

* Facilitates quantitative statements about Vllfl f V .1

I

qualitative interpretations

- Can deal with both data uncertainty andprocess and model uncertainty

L Very compatible with earth science predictionas used for the EPRI seismicity owners group

EPRI /NPD

SOG Program Elements

1. Collect and display scientific data|

2. Develop deterministic correlations and models,based on fundamental earth science principles

3. Evaluate deterministic models in a probabilisticcontext, using fundamental earth science principles

4. Develop a seismic hazard calculation methodologyto use the deterministic and probabilistic models toevaluate the seismic hazard and its uncertainty atnuclear plant sites.

JCSIRAS 9-89

. ww

. '

UILLSTOS J3

SENSITIVITY TO EARTIH- :,CIENCEC TEAMS

lo-,

Wz to-3

U 10-'x

Z4

0

rso

Q0 10-*

pe to-'z:he0

lo-D

A&P. /) +-I-

7< EPRI / NPD eala�__

F Lessons From SOG ProgramOn Extracting Subjective

Opinion From Experts

pj S 1

.

-- a 1. Use Teams, notindividual experts 0>2

2. Define Multi-science teams: Require consensuswithin each team

3. Use structured, step-wise approach that reachesconsensus/approval at intermediate stages

4. Develop a procedure that is compliant withfundamental earth science principles

5. Allow enough time fordefinitions/differences/objectives to be resolved 2

JCS/RAS 9-89

ALTERNATIVEMODELS,BOUNDARYCONDIMONS

POTENTIALLY DISRUPTIVE PROCESSESIEVENTS

GEO-CLEWCAL HYDROLOGIC

ANALYSISCASES:

0

0

0

GEOLOGIC TECTONIC CLIMATOLOGIC CULTURAL

0

0

Figur 2. Schematic of ogkc Iree elements og assessing uncertainty due o

ground water sMtem models.

ENCLOSURE 3

Statement ofDr. C. Frederick Sears

Vice President, Nuclear and Environmental EngineeringNortheast Utilities

Before the

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNiCAL REVIEW BOARD

On Behalf of

EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTEUTILITY NUCLEAR WASTE and TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

December 12, 19119Denver, Colorado

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I am Dr. C. Frederick Sears. Thank youfor the opportunity to discuss electric utility concerns regarding the Department of Energy's(DOE) High-Level Waste Program. I appear before you today as Chairman of theSteering Committee of the Edison Electric Institute/Utility Nuclear Waste andTransportation Program (EEI/UWASTE). I am accompanied by Mr Loring E. Mills, EEIVice President, Nuclear Activities and Mr. Christopher J. Henkel, EEIUWASTE ProgramManager for the High-Lcvel Waste Rpository. Dr. Robert Shaw will be making aseparate statement on behalf of the Electric Power Research Institute.

Edison Electric Institute is the association of the nation's investor-owned electricutilities; its members generate over 75% of all the electricity in the nation. The UtilityNuclear Waste and Transportation Program is a separately funded activity administered bythe Edison Electric Institute. EEIIUWASTE is a group of electric utilities with nuclearenergy programs that seeks to ensure radioactive waste management and disposal, andnuclear materials transportation systems are maintained or developed in a safe,environmentally sound, publicly acceptable, cost effective, and timely manner.EEI/UWASTE is the lead organization for utility oversight in the highlevel nuclear wastearea.

At the outset, I want to say how much the electric utilities with nuclear energyprograms appreciate the efforts of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. WhenCongress was debating the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act, we stronglysupported the creation of this Board. We believe that independent oversight by a groupof highly qualified, experienced, individuals is vital to the success of DOE's High-LevelWaste Program.

1

During my presentation I hope I will be able to convey the following to the Board:(1) why this program is important to the nation; (2) how the industry works together onthe civilian high-level radioactive waste program; (3) industry concerns with respect to theDepartment of Energy's High-Level Waste (HLW) Program, including the possibility ofDOE failing to accept spent fuel by 1998; (4) how the TRB can best assist the program;and (5) the role of the Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) Facility.

Whv Is the HLW Program Important?

First, it is important for society to dispose safely of its industrial by-products. Itis clearly not appropriate to leave the solution of such problems to future generationsThe Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, (NWPA) provided a congressionalmandate for DOE to develop the needed HLW disposal system. Further, it clearly definesa time frame for DOE to begin accepting the utility industry's high-level waste for disposalas well as the fee the utilities were to pay. It would be an inappropriate imposition on ourcustomers for them to have te pay again for temporary storage of our HLW due to non-performance on the part of t)OE.

Secondly, EEI's recent study, ElectricitV Futures shows the need for additionalgenerating capacity in the near future. Conservation will play an important role indampening the increase in overall energy demand. However, our studies show that,because energy conserving technologies are electricity based, electricity demand will rise.Recent history indicates that, over the long run, the most reliable, cost-effective electricsupply depends upon a mix of all fuel sources, including nuclear energy. Having a healthyprogram leading towards the permanent disosal of spent nuclear fuel Is crucial for publicacceptance of the next generation or nuclear generating plants.

Thirdly, we can all agree that environmental protection must be an integral part ofan energy strategy. But we cannot seem to agree on how clean is clean enough. Long-term environmental and public safety objectives need to be quantified, and balanced withtheir monetary costs to society.

From an environmental standpoint, nuclear energy produces none of the gases thathave been blamed for a possible global climate change. The uclear fission processproduces no combustion by-products. As you all know, the end product of producingelectricity with nuclear energy is spent nuclear fuel, and it is the dispoial of that fuel thatmakes this program absolutely crucial to the national economy and the environment.

We as a nation need to maintain a national energy strategy that: (1) provides adiversity of fuel; (2) uses economic sources of energy to ensure that our economy remainscompetitive with the other nations of the world; and (3) produces minimal environmentalimpact.

2

I

However, one of the most significant obstacles in the way of nuclear energy re-emerging as an option to meet our future energy needs is the public perception that thesolution to the disposal of high-level waste (HLW) has not yet been found. We, mustassure the public that spent nuclear fuel disposal can be accomplished safely. This isabsolutely crucial before the investment community and the general public will besupportive of a renewed nuclear option. At the moment, electric utilities are unable tocommit to an expanded nuclear option. Without the nuclear option there will be a greaterreliance on fossil fuels for major new generating capacity.

How the Industry Works Tolether

There are several industry associations working on high-level waste. They include:EEI; UWASTE; American Nuclear Energy Council (ANEC); Electric Power ResearchInstitute (EPRI); Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC); and U.S.Council for Energy Awareness (USCEA).

The various roles of these associations sometimes overlap, mainly due to differencesin membership (i.e., some associations include nuclear vendors, as well as utilitycompanies), but each association provides a significant contribution to the utilities' high-level waste efforts.

As I have already explained, EEIIUWASTE seeks to ensure, on behalf of electricutilities with nuclear energy programs, that radioactive waste management and disposal, andnuclear materials transportation systems are maintained or developed in a safe,environmentally sound, publicly acceptable, cost effective and timely manner.

The American Nuclear Energy Council is responsible for establishing and executingthe comprehensive, industry-wide governmental affairs program on behalf of the U. S.commercial nuclear energy industry. The Council's primary objective is to promote andfoster support in both the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Governmentfor policies and legislation, as well as programs and activities, which encourage, supportand enhance the safe development and utilization of nuclear energy.

The Electric Power Research Institute is sponsored by the public, private, andcooperative sectors of the U. S. electric utility industry. The mission of the institute is toconduct a national research and development program relating to the production,transmission, distribution and utilization of electric energy. This includes a strong researchand development program in support of the nuclear utility industry, including on sitehandling and storage of nuclear waste. EPRI has recently received approval for a programin support of DOE's early site suitability efforts. Dr. Robert Shaw will be briefing you onthis following my presentation.

3

6 .

The Nuclear Management and Resources Council is the industry group responsiblefor coordinating the efforts of utilities and organizations in matters involving genericregulatory policy and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issuesaffecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility that is responsible for constructing oroperating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member ofNUMARC, as are major architect-engincering firms and nuclear steam supply systemvendors.

The U.S. Council for Energy Awareness is a private non-profit association of 400organizations around the world that have an interest in energy and electrical issues. TheCouncils public information program emphasizes the importance of electricity to oureconomy and the role of nuclear energy and coal in providing it. USCEA also examinesissues relating to peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

DOE's HLW Program

DOE has gathered together some of the nation's best talent in the various scientificand engineering disciplines that are applicable to the civilian high-level waste program.This is quite understandable since this program presents an unprecedented opportunity toconduct unique research and is a major engineering challenge. However, these sameoutstanding scientists and engineers appear to lack the coordination of firm managerialleadership that is absolutely essential to ensure the success and completion of such a largeand unique program. It is the industry's sinccre hope that a new Director of the Officeof Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) will be confirmed soon and givethe program the leadership and focus it so desperately needs.

It is intuitively obvious that there are an enormous number of questions that canbe asked with regard to a 10,000 year period. Certain questions are vitally important andmany of them arc of minimal consequence. Yet, DOE is intent upon answering everyquestion put before them in an unprecedented and often unnecessarily comprehensivemanner. Leadership for this program must be able to work through the maze of data andinformation and steer the program on the course toward technical solutions and scientificconsensus. The focus of leadership should be toward quality, not necessarily quantity. Forexample: %

1. Site Characterization Plan; Although we are impressed with thequality of the Site Characterization Plan (SCP), the industry believesthat the SCP is much more extensive than Congress intended. Thereappears to be no attempt to select and concentrate on the importantelements, while recognizing and setting aside the curious but relativelyinsignificant elements.

4

S . .

2. Exploratory Shaft Facility alternative design study: The Board maderecommendations regarding an alternative design study of theExploratory Shaft Facility. DOE has allocated 18 months to conductthis study through a process of re-evaluating existing information.This seems like an inefficient approach that entails an excessiveamount of time. DOE should certainly be able to complete thisactivity in less than 6 months.

The industry also has had several other areas of concern. First, the organizationof OCRWM does not appear appropriate for the task at hand. Despite prior promises bythe Secretary of Energy, we have yet to see any significant improvement. Recently,Secretary Watkins released his Report to Congress on Reassessment of the CivilianRadioactive Waste Management Program. The report indicated DOE would be makingsome long-needed changes to the program. The industry is reviewing the Report and willbe providing additional suggestions.

Second, there have been too many delays in appointing the Director of OCR WM.Despite the recent efforts to appoint a Director, the fact is the program has been withouta permanent Director for almost 2 years. Secretary Watkins has also expressed hisconcern about this issue; his report to Congress indicates the nomination of a Director ofOCRWM will be made shortly.

Third, there is a need for an early site suitability program. We have recently seenevidence that DOE is planning to conduct something resembling a "cost/benefit analysis"with respect to the site characterization program. The Scretary's Report to Congressdoes address the concept of evaluating disqualifying conditions during the first 2 years ofsurface based testing; however, the industry is still not convinced that DOE will developa well planned "Early Site Suitability Program". This is one area where the industrybelieves it can make a further contribution to the program. As I said before, Dr. RobertShaw of the Electric Power Research Institute will be telling you more about thatfollowing my presentation.

Fourth, DOE may well have developed an overly complex Quality AssuranceProgiam. Although DOE has made great strides in the area of quality assurance, 4h*.DOE appears to have developed a Quality Assurance Program that has become amanagement obstacle rather than a management tool. Quality assurance programs area means of demonstrating reasonable assurance; nothing can rovide absolute assurance.Further, a quality assurance program should be effective ' as straightforward aspossible. However, DOE appears intent on making it as compxx as possible.

Fifth, DOE must develop firm believable schedules. If the nation is to have faithin DOE's ability to meet any schedule they set, the schedule must be realistic. Therecently announced delay to 2010 may be closer to the truth, yet DOE is still reluctant

5

to admit that a facility as controversial and unique as this will be extremely difficult tolicense in 34 years. This is especially true when you consider the voluminous informationavailable to all parties via the Licensing Support System. It is clear that the Report toCongress has set out some reasonably well thought-out, long-term milestones for the HLWRepository Program. However, DOE needs to set interim milestones as well, so that thenation, the industry, and DOE itself can have some short term measures of progress.

Finally, EEIL YASTE is also concerned about OCRWM's Transportation Program.Specifically, the casks currently under design for the transport of spent nuclear fuel maynot be able to accommodate efficiently the fuel available in utility spent fuel pools whenthe transportation campaign begins. Another utility concern is the size and pace of theTransportation Program. EEIIUWASTE believes that the number of casks beingdeveloped (5) is more than is necessary. Further, given the schedule slippages SecretaryWatkins has recently announced, cask development is much too far ahead of the otherelements of the Civilian Nuclear Waste Program. During the next decade millions ofdollars will be spent on cask system technology that may be obsolete before the repositoryor the MRS is available.

Potential Impacts or Late Acceptance of Spent Fuel

In 1982 the Federal Government defined the means of executing its role in the areaof high-level nuclear waste disposal. The NPWA requires DOE to begin acceptance ofHLW by January 31, 1998. The NWPA also imposed a 1 nilllkwhr fee for suchacceptance and disposal. To date, electricity consumers have contributed over 4 billiondollars to the Nuclear Waste Fund and DOE has spent over half of this money.

It will be difficult for utilities to request that their consumers pay a second time forinterim spent fuel storage beyond 1998, if DOE does not perform as required by theNWPA. If this had been any other contractor besides the Federal Government, we wouldhave long since been in court seeking damages and/or the ability to control the contractorto a much larger degree. Frankly, many utilities are seriously considering doing just that.Some Public Utility Commissions (PUC) appear to be reconsidering the entire program -- the term "government agency" may soon no longer be adequate reason for the PUC's toallow the cost of this program to be passed on to the consumer.

Because of DOE's failure to meet anything close to the original schedule (in thelast 7 years the program has slipped 12 years), many utilities will be forced to plan andpay for interim storage of their spent nuclear fuel at a cost of tens of millions of dollarsfor each utility - EVEN IF YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROVES TO BE A SUITABLE SEB.However, there is another twist to this: what if Yucca Mountain proves unsuitable? Whatalternative solutions are there? A second repository site (this could take an additional 25years)? Long term interim storage?

6

b

Again, the above alternative solutions point right back to the consumer paying forstorage and disposal of the spent fuel multiple times. 11OW MANY TIMES WILL THEELECTRCITY CONSUMERS HAVE TO PAY FOR THE STORAGE OF SPENTNUCLER iEL? All of this strongly supports getting on with site characterization anddetermining site suitability/unsuitability as soon as possible - as I know the Board agrees.Further, this is a strong indicator that DOE needs to provide for interim storage utilizingthe Nuclear Waste Fund.

How the TRB Can Best Assist the Program

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board can perform a great service to theNation. The Board can be instrumental in the high-level waste program in the followingways:

o Provide advice to DOE on management of the scientific process to focus the efforttoward characterization of the Yucca Mountain site; identify those areas whereDOE is allowing the scientific effort to wander off the direct path to an answerabout Yucca Mountain suitability.

o Advise DOE on the need for, and pace of, scientific activities.

o Provide a forum for differing scientific points-of-view to be reviewed and resolvedoutside of the NRC licensing process.

o Review EPA Standards, and NRC and DOE Regulations with a view towardswhether they correctly reflect the need for protection of public health and safety,and whether the existing licensing process is amenable to resolving these technicalissues. If not, what changes should be made to the standards, regulations or theprocess so the issues can be resolved. This should be done for all regulations ap-plicable to the DOE high-level waste program, not just the repository.

o Maintain a systems perspective both with regard to the overall high-level wastedisposal system and with regard to waste isolation at the repository.

o Remain above the scientific fray by avoiding being drawn into arguments over theminute scientific details that will come up during site characterization.

7

Role or the Monitored Retrievable Storage Facil tY

The electric utility industry supports the basic concept of interim storage as anintegral part of the nuclear waste disposal system. We supported this basic concept evenbefore the term MRS entered our lexicon. During 1980 and 1981, EEL in conjunctionwith the Tennessee Valley Authority and DOE, sponsored a study on the concept andissued a report entitled, Conceptual Design and Evaluation Study for an Interim Off-SiteSpent Fuel Storage Installation.

Under no circumstances did we ever, nor do we now, consider the MRS to be thesolution for waste disposal. It is only one step, an important one to be sure, prior todisposal. An MIRS, uncoupled from the existing statutory schedule of the geologicrepository, is an important component of a national waste management and disposalprogram. An MRS would permit early progress and flexibility for the program.

The MRS Review Commission effort was extensive. The electric utility industryappreciates the work of the Commission and its staff, and commends them for ensuringthat all interested parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their views.

In its Report, Nuclear Waste: Is There A Need For Federal Interim Storage? theCommission agreed with the basic conclusions previously reached by DOE and the nuclearindustry with regard to such a facility. Of the five conclusions reached by the Commission,the most significant is stated in Conclusion 3. "- there are a number of advantages thatwould justify a central storage facility not limited in capacity nor linked to the repositoryschedule and operation."

We agree with the Commission's statement in its letter to Congress that "the MRSas presently described in the law, which "-iks the capacity and schedule of operation of theMRS to a permanent geologic repository, cannot be justified."

We also agree with the Commission's conclusions that: (1) both the MRS and no-MRS options are technically safe; (2) an MRS system has a lower net cost than previouslyestimated, due to DOE repository delays; and (3) no single factor makes the MRS optionbetter than the no-MRS option; however, as stated previously, there are a number ofadvantages, that when considered together, justify a central interim storage facility that isnot linked to the repository program.

Unfortunately, the Commission did not carry forward on these conclusions withrelated recommendations. Therefore, the industry recommends that Congress remove theschedule and capacity linkages between the MRS and the permanent waste repositoryrather than authorize much smaller, interim storage facilities.

8

Conclusions

It is important for society to dispose safely of its industrial by-products and, it isclearly not appropriate to leave the solution of such problems to future generations. TheFederal Government has assumed the responsibility for such disposal and the NWPAcharged DOE with executing the disposal using a deep geologic repository.

Second, if the nation wants to continue to enjoy the benefits of nuclear energyplants into the next century, and it may soon be the only available solution to certainenvironmental concerns, we must have an acceptable permanent solution to the nuclearwaste problem. Therefore, this program must be seen as more than an opportunity todo unprecedented research, but rather as a timely opportunity to solve a national problem,not only for ourselves, but for future generations.

Third, a timely, properly configured and licensed MRS, in operation by 1998, wouldprovide the needed evidence to the industry and to the nation of DOE's progress towardan operational disposal system. It would reduce the need for individual utilities to buildadditional on-site storage facilities, with significant cost savings to utilities and theirconsumers. Moreover, a timely MRS would add a significant degree of flexibility to theoverall waste management system in case further problems are encountered in establishingthe nation's first high-level nuclear waste repository.

Finaly, the TRB can play a major role in maling the civilian high-level wasterepository a reality. By providing DOE with advice on managing the scientific effort, byhelping to resolve differing scientific points-of-view, and by reviewing the existingregulations, the TRB can lend focus to the DOE high-level waste program.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. EEI/UWASTE and theother groups stand ready to assist the Board and to maintain open communicationsbetween the Board and the industry.

9

.

Biographical SketchDr. C. Frederick Sears

Northeast Utilities

Dr. C. Frederick Sears is Vice President, Nuclear and Environmental Engineering, atNortheast Utilities (NU). He is responsible for the direction and supervision of NU'snuclear engineering, technical services, nuclear training, quality assurance, andenvironmental programs in support of the Company's generating stations. These activitiesinclude reactor engineering, safety analysis, records, quality assurance, reliabilityengineering, plant operational analysis, radiological assessment, operator and non-operatortraining, and environmental monitoring and assessment.

Dr. Sears received his BS and MS at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and his PhD atPennsylvania State University. Prior to joining NU in 1980 as Director, NuclearEngineering Department, Dr. Sears held a variety of startup and management positions atCombustion Engineering. He also served in the United States Army Engineer ReactorsGroup as Assistant Chief, Nuclear Branch.

Dr. Sears is the Chairman of the EEIIUWASTE, a member of the National Academy ofSciences Panel on Cooperation with the USSR on Nuclear Reactor Safety, a consultant tothe DOE Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility Safety, and a member of the Penn StateEngineering Society Board of Directors. He has also been a leader in the nuclearindustry's severe accident work and is past Chairman of the EPRI Advanced Light WaterReactor Steering Committee.

I

haT

0

z2

05U E

=A L .U

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYOFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

PRESENTATION TOTHE NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION ANDOPENING REMARKS

PRESENTER:

PRESENTER'S TITLEAND ORGANIZATION:

PRESENtERSTELEPHONE NUSER:

MAXWELL B. BLANCHARD

DIRECTOR, REGULATORY AND STE EVALUATION DIVISIONYUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT OFFICEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

(72 794-7939

DECEMBER 11-12, 1989

r-- m.mU U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ m

.

CAVEATS ABOUT HYDROGEOLOGY/GEOCHEMISTRY PRESENTATIONS

* PRESENTATIONS WERE DEVELOPED TO FOCUS ON THE SEVENTOPICS REQUESTED BY NWTRB MEMBERS

* PRESENTATIONS DESCRIBE OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGABOUT THE TOPIC AND PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THAT PER-CEPTION; THE LEVEL OF DETAIL FOR TOPICS DIFFERSBECAUSE OF THE TIME AVAILABLE

* OBSERVATIONS AND PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATIONS AREBEING PRESENTED; SOME HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED ORAPPROVED FOR PUBLICATION BY EITHER THE SPEAKER'SORGANIZATION OR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

* REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS OF NEW INFORMATION CONTAINEDIN PRESENTATIONS HAVE NOT YET BEEN EVALUATED, NOR HASTHE INFORMATION BEEN REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITHLICENSING STRATEGIES DESCRIBED IN THE SCP

NK)RMBSPA23/t2-11e I

TOPICS COVERED IN HYDROGEOLOGY-GEOCHEMISTRY BRIEFING

I sousaarT STUDIES|C OalO BE)AO iiCoIt EXPHTI

DEIFUSIONZEOUT STUTY

NIORL5PA2312-11 89 2

NWTRB PRESENTATIONDETAILED AGENDA

DECEMBER 11-12, 1989

MONDAY. DECEMBER 11.-989

'8:30 INTRODUCTION AND OPENING REMARKS MAXWELL B. BLANCHARD,DOE

/9:00 CHARACTERIZATION OF INFILTRATION

* CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF INFILTRATION* CURRENT UNDERSTANDING* FUTURE PLANS

ALAN FLINT, USGS

_ N

10:30 BREAKvI

10:45 MEASUREMENT OF UNSATURATED ZONEHYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES

-UV4�D I

z m0

.* 11 :45

* OVERVIEW OF MATRIX PROPERTIES J L ALAN F* AIR PERMEABILITY TESTING - <_ X ROBEF

ROLE OF FRACTURES* IN SITU MONITORING- MEASURING FLUID- JOSEP

FLOW POT. ENTIAL FIELD

LUNCH ))- V -

-LINT, USGSIT C. TRAUTZ, USGS

H P. ROUSSEAU, USGS

NIORMPA23112-11 89 3


DECEMBER 11-12,1989

MONDAY, DECEMBER 11. 1989 (CONTINUED)

12:45 IMPORTANCE OF FRACTURE VS. MATRIX FLOW

3 * CONCEPTUAL MODELS FOR FRACTURE/MATRIX FLOW

a. RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS OFEXPERIMENTAL STUDIES AND FIELDOBSERVATIONS

- CHLORINE ISOTOPIC MEASUREMENTS

- OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING AIR FLOWAND WATER FLOW IN FRACTURES

2:30 RADIONUCLIDE GAS RELEASES

* REVIEW OF GASEOUS ISOTOPES

* PRELIMINARY STATUS OF CARBON-14MODELING- CARBON-14 MIGRATION- CHEMISTRY MODELING- GAS-FLOW MODELING

PAUL G. KAPLAN, SNL

A. EDWARD NORRIS, LANL

EDWIN P. WEEKS, USGS

RICHARD A. VAN KONYNENBURG,LLNL

BENJAMIN ROSS,DISPOSAL SAFETY, INC.

NPORJ.SPA23I12-11 89 4


DECEMBER 11-12,1989

MONDAY. DECEMBER 11. 1989 (CONTINUED)

3:30 BREAK

3:45 OVERVIEW OF MODEL VALIDATION STRATEGY -

BUILDING "REASONABLE ASSURANCE"DWIGHT HOXIE,USGS

* RECORD OF MODEL DEVELOPMENT* LAB/FIELD INVESTIGATIONS* SENSITIVITY AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSES* FORMAL TECHNICAL REVIEWSe EXAMPLES OF VALIDATION

45

5:00 WRAP-UP & ADJOURN

/

aS. fOA SPP 2YAI?-1189 S


DECEMBER 11-12,1989

TUESDAY. DECEMBER 12.1989

8:30 APPLICABILITY OF LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS

* PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROCESSESDETERMINING MOBILITY

* FACTORS CONTROLLING SORPTIVE BEHAVIOR* EXPERIMENTAL KD DETERMINATlON - CRUSHED

ROCK AND ROCK COLUMN EXPERIMENTS

AREND MEIJER, LANLROBERT S. RUNDBERG, LANL

10:30 BREAK

10:45 OVERVIEW OF EFFECTS OF REPOSITORYDEVELOPMENT

WILLIAM E. GLASSLEY, LLNL

* LABORATORY AND FIELD EVIDENCE: THERMO-HYDROLOGICAL, MECHANICAL, AND GEOCHEMICALEFFECTS OF REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT(NEAR- AND FAR-FIELD)

* RADIONUCLIDE BEHAVIOR AT ELEVATEDTEMPERATURES; COLLOID BEHAVIOR

DAVID E. HOBART, LANL

* 1145.,

ADJOURNNK)RUB5P A2312-1 89 6