-1 .4

NOV23 1983o

DISTRIBUTIONWM S/F 310 M.-"-WMRP r/fNMSS r/fCFREBrowningMBellJBuntingPAltomareMRKnappPSJustusJTGreevesLBHigginbothamHJMillerSMCoplan & r/fRRBoylePDRLPDR, N

Donald L. Vieth, DirectorWaste Management Project OfficeU. S. Department of EnergyNevada Operations OfficeP.O. Box 14100Las Vegas, NV 89114

Dear Dr. Vieth:

I have enclosed two signed copies each of the typed workshop summariesfor the September 20-21 Hydrogeology Workshop, the October 4-6 GeologyWorkshop, and the October 18-19 Waste Package Workshop. Pleasecountersign the geology and waste package summaries, have Max Blanchardcountersign the hydrogeology summary and return one copy of each to me.

In reviewing the summary for the waste package workshop, it becameapparent that a fundamental concern of the NRC workshop participants wasnot clearly brought out in the observations. The concern is that thePreliminary waste package designs discussed at the workshop use averageenvironmental conditions as the design basis and that, therefore, therecould be failure of a significant number of packages where spatial andtemporal variations in actual environmental conditions may cause thedesign basis to be exceeded. While it may be possible to show byappropriate analyses that whatever variations that might actually bepresent would not lead to significant numbers of failures, it is the viewof the NRC staff that a more prudent course would be one of using a moreconservative design basis.

Finally, I would note that the summaries for all three of the workshopsrecord our request for copies of the viewgraphs and slides used duringthe workshop presentations. The brief period during which they areflashed on the screen does not provide the NRC staff with an adequateopportunity to assimilate the material. I understand that theinterpretations of data that are presented on some of the viewgraphs are

WM Record fileaD.

vim ProjectDock.,t No.

PI;1LPOR Z --

Dstribufton:

fR~turfl to WM , 23-SS) c! 2&

I~~~i

I / 83W2220282 83123,PDR WASTE ..WM4-1 . PDR: 115-

V. p

WM-11/SMC/83/11/16

preliminary; however, as wein any way that you feel is

NOV 2 3 1983- 1-

have discussed previously, they can be markedappropriate to indicate their status.

I would be happy to discuss any of these matters with you.

Sincerely,

Orginal Signed By

Seth M. Coplan, Project ManagerRepository Projects BranchDivision of Waste Management

, .. I

ATTENDEESNNWSI WASTE PACKAGE WORKSHOP WITH NRC

Tuesday, October 18, 1983

OrganizationName Phone

&A' 41L r6 .a6-a-Aw /*dov . lz. s3 - 41/

i S74--tio ev- 427-i~

'Ri gs A, d-G

ffi* ^ fi t L L_ :42-3C,-S ~~~~~~~~~~~~

LN L •1 & 23

Z LVL-

ft. .* wjq:<f 42-4g,2gt J~~4)oOSpv wilr5 2 gat

J l4,E T H V5,SAl-X 5QL gng.. 1-831 - kR t r LLL q? L- s ?L41,fr S d Ii L 2Z- S 6

4ktf4 D-A 4,Z Z Z.at-ut Y-. >/<d --0g

*a -I 4, ,

ATTENDEESNMNSI WASTE PACKAGE WORKSHOP WITH NRC

Tuesday,.October 18, 1983

Name Organization

& gDeorier . ZAALI J kBisvi LAN L

Pc4 V o DocJ ~j tijL

?R~e flo.S< D j C(e ro

tfc^- l y/ t.nrw 4z>t L J?Mvtl >-- kjt s"G

CAM ~<t2 NS 0 Nrvi'L

13o6V;Iv LL3

Ot tz t L-( _L_

feeTtLa e

/ - ee5 h/c be

A.JFF.k LLL

J~ssr L. ow JR. LL tJL

r 1, )e o L B

SE_ 5S L VA tLL

k B~les WI

Phone

F75 13 - /Z//FTS g43 -4337

6; 3-2t62*,o1- vs; ,- 4o Fo

-rTS Se 13 - - ts6g)0 l. -88 '6,

Mt 532-705 2

F-70 Slsz7 -1'4417 q 2 - 2S49

- 6 G - o I

(-02) 4 SW -6 342

F- rs7 27 YS 5PTS '2-1---5iso3

LrS k%33-3)57Z/

rrS *.b53 Z- 3!srz/

Fr5 6,6 - 667FTS qc)-gifo-S S q/- qg/q

FTr- YJ7 - / /PrS q-7- M T

I. I Q4ATTENDEES

NNWSI WASTE PACKAGE WORKSHOP WITH NRCTuesday, October 18, 1983

OrganizationName Phone

&/5Vw (6S7) 3rpeG -s7..r

<M> Sg (;;t~o~v t~tXL (VIC) VSL27Z- 7ZZDAvciJ Lesj sAT (ali 95C- azz

Cab L ~vv( 2.qf ) 2- 312S

test~~~~~~~CCIZ -,s 6CM 14tYIeeSL n

,OPI'me ,, rqAS- 4v ,s6S0 / 8 ^-~ St jF Car) FY

quad U$L (4f/$J n/D-I4/f/..

102.2/SMC/83/09/23/0

SUMMARY OF THE NRC-DOEHYDROGEOLOGY WORKSHOPSEPTEMBER 20-21, 1983

The following points were made by NRC:

Observation

1. Significant progress has been made toward defining thepotentiometric surface especially to the east of the Solatariofault; however, more work needs to be done to define thecharacteristics of the anomalies in the hydraulic gradient to thenorth and west, and to understand the hydrologic significance ofthe anomalies. (The lack of a physical understanding of theanomalies seems to result in an inconsistency in the way the faultsare treated in the modeling done at different scales, e.g.regional, sub-regional, etc.).

2. A great deal of data has been acquired since the January, 1983meeting; however, publication of analyses and interpretations hasbeen relatively slow. There is a need to make interpretations ofthe data available in a more timely manner.

3. Several alternative conceptual models have been developed for theunsaturated zone, all of which are consistent with the availabledata. A similar approach, i.e. considering reasonable alternativeinterpretations of the available data should be carried into otherareas of the program.

4. There is a concern that measurement techniques proposed for thedetermination of unsaturated zone hydraulic properties may notdifferentiate between porous and fracture flow. This is animportant concern because in the presentation on characterizationof the unsaturated zone it was stated that, at least in some units,fracture flow is relatively insignificant. NRC considers thequestion of relative significance of fracture versus matrix flowto be open.

5. There is a need to examine the time variation of water qualitydata with respect to time.

102.2/SMC/83/09/23/0- 2-

6. The meeting provided a valuable opportunity for pre-licensingconsultation.

Topics for Further Discussion

1. Characterization of the unsaturated zone.

2. Whether there should be a break-out from the exploratory shaft intothe upper clastic unit.

Information Requested

1. A map of the piezometric surface.

2. A description of the strategy, rationale, and objectives of thetest series planned for the C-well cluster.

3. A description of the strategy, rationale, and objectives of theunsaturated zone test plan.

4. Copies of the viewgraphs used by Parviz Montazer.

The following points were made by DOE:

Observations

1. The meeting provided good insight into the logic of NRC'stechnical staff to aid NWSI in identifying technicalissues that will have to be resolved later when we submit theSCP to NRC.

2. These meetings continue to provide the NNWSI technical staff witha good understanding of the potential regulatory needs.

Topics for Further Discussion

1. Disturbed zone - There still seems to be a-difference inperceptions between NRC and NNWSI technical staff about the sizeof the disturbed zone ad what constitutes a "significant" change.NNWSI desires additional discussions on this topic at a futuremeeting.

102.2/SMC/83/09/23/0- 3-

2. Paleohydrology - NNWSI recognizes that the link between futureground water recharge and the ongoing paleohydrology investigationsis difficult and asks that NRC provide alternative approachesand investigative methods that would be acceptable for licensing.In the absence of direct evidence the approach adopted by NNWSIutilizes indirect evidence based upon several different methodsand NNWSI wants to insure all viable alternatives are considered.

3. Modifications to 10CFR6O for the unsaturated zone - NNWSI requestsa meeting with NRC to have NRC's technical staff explain therationale behind the changes proposed to 1OCFR60 for theunsaturated zone. NNWSt is preparing, a technical position paperabout this subject and needs the benefit of additional technicaldiscussions to sharpen our position.

4. The NNWSI program to characterize the unsaturated zone is pushingthe state-of-the-art in hydrology and we ask for a meeting thatpresents NRC sponsored research and applied investigations aimedat characterizing this zone.

Information Requested

1. The NNWSI program would benefit by the receipt of monthly andquarterly progress reports from NRC contractors working on projectshaving significance to the NNWSI Program.

The following statement was made for the State of Nevada:

1. The State of Nevada appreciates the opportunity to participate inthe NRC/DOE hydrogeology workshop. The technical dialogue was mostinformative to the state and its review of the NNSWI program. Wewould encourage future technical workshops of this kind. (Statementprovided by Carl Johnson)

Agreements Reached

1. NRC and DOE agreed to hold a meeting regarding characterization ofthe unsaturated zone at an early time. Within two weeks, DOE willpropose a date for the meeting and by October 31, NRC will propose alist of discussion topics.

102.2/SMC/83/09/23/0- 4 -

This Summary was prepared by Seth M. Coplan (NRC) and Maxwell Blanchard(DOE).

Se-th M-R.-opl /an Project ManagerDivision of Waste ManagementU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Maxwell BlanchardChiefGeologic Investigation BranchDOE-Nevada Operations Office

AGENDA* NNWSI YDROLOGY BRIEFING FOR RC

September 20-21, 1983

Holiday Ihn West14707 lWest ighway 40 (Colfax)

Golden, COPhone: (303) 279-7611

Tuesday. September 20

0830-0900

0900-1130(includes15-minutebreak)

*1130-1300

1300-1345

Introductory comments -- DOE/NRC/USGS

Yucca Mountain hydrology (saturated zone)

Test-drilling program (Robison)-60Eead distribution (Robison)-45Tracer Tests (Waddell)-30

Lunch

Subregionsl flow and transport model(Waddell, Czarnecki)-45

1345-1630(includes15-minutebreak)

Paleohydrology

Relation to Information Needs (Wilson)-20Ongoing program

Packrat midden studies (Spaulding)-40Flood-hazard studies (Glancy, Costa)-30Amargosa mapping (Wilson)-10

Proposed investigationsLacustrine studies (Benson)-15Water-balance model (Nichols)-20Ground-water flow model (Waddell)-15

Wednesday. September 21

0800-1130

(includes15-minutebreak)

1130-1300

1300-1400

1400-1415

Yucca Mountain hydrology (unsaturated zone)(Montazer)

Conceptual modelSurface-based tst dril'lingExploratory Shaft test plan

Lunch %

Yucca Mountain and regional hydro-cbemistry(Henderson)

Break

1415-1500 .NRC caucus

1500-163 0 Feedback (RC) and wrap-up discussion (All)

REGISTRATION

NAME COMPANY TELEPHONE NAME COMPANY TELEPHONE

t l l ) 4, 4I .L 7 &SS 2 , .

-D VLSA 4JL

M~e~1e- sbOE 7ps sgs6A

7 7 ( A/fg &e k/ Xaj I0 ~eT 2 'V-I667-

MRC-~7/

Zas*^ Bevscov vsac . 2S-

G:<@S~f<6ez~ vsrs p06)#RRs

1ffivi~~~~~~~~~~~- vCrS ' " 9

5.s W4 RS r 3

g/r610°X/ 2fgrgrZ7Z'X/

C1e Vkc5 Fl- 5 4t7

TouR AA&,'t, 6'&-7eS 7D0-414b

rSlErlcif ytety

I6pl'pc AA~j~6 '

34r V eA ',,- fl G

-1 (~&c /57M~o LbS& 23-\

r5et., L,,tt v r LL A/ - !,-III o

S6,h o n Ls v) L)r 5 A j^< (? .5 a - tcF4

/, 4rr1 &SteA2 s t.4c-"Alz4 s - I -]

L4arv-s2 C\aerl^2; LSGS Z34-22-4

!0 y kJ/LL/fi'JY" C~ONU4C><J1Y 8Sd7s

Vt-~~~27 -7

, ffi o27A Ra u .- o72-3 w

S~~~sMo-,c. e sU5X S as ,ow3 e4-

Ng R 40-CtL- as,27- 7d/ I 2;?-

CarJ i 0J/se 5t;7t Yi&.~~~r4 5~~~4I o703

7,

r co7U !;;^07cscZ /i FG~0E

95eoe7.e. i[o5cr fzaws5=C

SUMMARY OF NRC-DOEGEOLOGY WORKSHOPOCTOBER 4-6, 1983

The following points were made by NRC:

Observations

1. A substantial base of geologic and geophysical data have beenacquired by the NNWSI. The meeting provided a valuableopportunity for review and discussion of the data at a broadlevel of detail. Having completed such a meeting, NRC nowconsiders it appropriate to begin a series of meetings each ofwhich focuses on a limited number of closely related issues sothat the data can be reviewed and discussed at the greaterlevel detail needed to further the process of prelicensingconsultation.

2. While a substantial base of pertinent data has been acquired,these data have not yet been integrated into a tectonicframework for the region and the site. This is importantbecause it is through the understanding provided by such aframework, that the release and transport scenarios involvingtectonic deformation or volcanism can be identified andevaluated for the purpose of doing the assessments required by10 CFR Part 60 and the EPA Standard.

In developing the requisite understanding of the regional andsite tectonic framework, it is essential that all of therelevant data, i.e., geologic mapping, exploration geophysicsdata, seismicity, focal mechanism solutions, stressmeasurements, instances of Quarternary fault displacements andvolcanism, paleomagnetic data, and others be integrated. Theintegration of data should give explicit consideration toalternative conceptual models that are consistent with the dataand the range of uncertainties in the data.

3. There appears to be an inconsistency between theinterpretations of geophysical data presented during thismeeting which suggest no structural control of 40 Mile Wash andworking assumptions concerning the same feature used by thehydrogeologists in presentations made during the recenthydrogeology meeting.

Topics for Further Discussion

1. Interpretations, completeness and relevance of the geophysicaldata.

1

2. Interpretations, completeness and relevance of the seismicitydata.

3. Tectonic models for the region and the site.

4. Interpretations, completeness, and relevance of data fromtrenches across Quaternary faults (including field inspection).

Information Requested

1. Copies of the viewgraphs and slides used during the meeting.

2. Copies of all trench maps.

The following are the impressions of the meeting held by DOE:

Observations

1. It provided the DOE contractors (USGS and LANL) with a goodunderstanding of questions important in a regulatory area.

2. It provided good insight into the logic of NRC personnel on howthey will review geological data important to licensing.

3. The meeting was conducted in a professional and open mannerwhich facilitated an effective exchange of information.

Items for Discussion at Further Meetings

1. The value of probabalistic approach to risk assessmentconsidering the limited data base for establishingprobabilities.

2. NRC logic in determining whether a hazard is acceptable orunacceptable.

3. Evidence required to establish an acceptable position that 40Mile Wash is not a structurally controlled surface feature.

4. Basis for establishing that significant faults have beenidentified.

5. Definition of tectoncially active and volcanically activeareas.

Information Requested

2

1. What is required to demonstrate that DOE/USGS has considered afeatureless area such as Jackass Flats?

2. Examples of work on faults in alluvium to show that it ispossible to trench along the strike of a fault to determinenature of faulting.

3. Position as to whether seismic reflection is a viable techniqueto obtain structure information at NTS/Yucca Mountain.

4. Position of how variation of Tuff physical properties willaffect formations capability to isolate waste.

The following comments were made by Carl Johnson for the State of Nevada:

The State of Nevada appreciates the opportunity to participate in thisworkshop. The technical discussion has been most informative to ourreview. Some specific comments are:

- It is suggested in the future the geology workshop be heldprior to the hydrogeology workshop. The geologic backgroundwill make the hydrogeologic discussion more meaningful.

- It is obvious from the workshop, the USGS has collected muchinformation about the site. We would encourage USGS to beginsynthesizing this data.

- We would uncourage the scheduling of a separate field trip toreview the evidence for quarternary faulting in the site area.

Donald L. Vieth Seth M. Coplan Director Project ManagerWaste Management Projects Office Division of Waste ManagementDOE/NV USNRC

3

AGE 4' FOR THE NRC/USGS GEOLOGY WORK POctober 4-7, 1983

Colorado School of MinesMetals Hall, Green Center Auditorium

Golden, ColoradoW. W. Dudley, 303-234-7277 or FTS 234-7277

TUESDAY,- OCTOBER 4

8:30-9.00 '9:00-10:00

10:00-10:1510:15-10:45

10:45-11:3011:30-1:001:00-2:00

- 2:00-3:00

3:00-3:153:15-3:45

3:45-4:45

Opening Remarks IntroductionsRegional geologic and tectonic setting - broad overview ofgeology and tectonics and implications or impact to YuccaMountain - W. J. CarrBreakConfiguration of regional aquifer system - pre-Tertiary rocks -

M. CarrRegional gravity and magnetics - subsurface framework - H. OliverLunchSeismic reflection/refraction - status of seismic studies ofYucca Mountain area - W. Mooney/L. Pankratz/ T. McGovernSeismology - regional and site seismic activity, relationship ofseismic activity to active faults, and teleseismic p-wave delay -A. M. Rogers/W. S. SpenceBreakGeomorphology - Quaternary stratigraphy active processes, climate,mapping - D. L. HooverNeotectonics - Quaternary fault investigations - W. C. Swadley

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5

8:30-10:0010:00-10:1510:15-11:30

11:30-1:001:00-1:45

1:45-2:15

2:15-2:302:30-3:30

3:30-4:30

Volcanism - rates, potential, and risk - B. M. CroweBreakGeolngic setting of Yucca Mountain - distribution and continuityof volcanic rocks in the YM block - R. W. SpenglerLunchBorehole geophysics - Bulk physical properties and distributionof units - D. C. MullerPaleomagnetic tudies - magnetic properties of rocks to determinestratigraphic continuity - J. B. RosenbaumBreakHeat flow - Yucca Mountain and regional thermal gradients andanomalies - J. SassOpen discussion

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6

8:30-10:00

10:00-10:1510:15-10:4510:45-11:45

11:45-1:001:00-1:30

1:30-2:002:00-3:003:00-3:45

Structural geology - surface and subsurface distribution offaults and fractures at Yucca Mountain - R. B. ScottBreakAeromagnetics - status of survey at Yucca Mountain - G. D. BathIn situ stress'- Analysis of borehole hydrofrac measurements -J. Healy/C. MorrowLunchCrustal deformation - newly established level lines and strainnetwork - W. Carr/W. PrescottOpen discussionBreak and caucusClosing session

(please print) REGISTRATION

NAME COMPANY TELEPHONE | NAME COMPANY TELEPHONEI

No-TAS . .56

Gc;A'C. 8-ff;eta 6

424 4Dya/P31/}DIE VVS 703

4c ,s

/a, Ias .S.Use5CL'1. tR (~

I .

ej.tZ3(.7z77

@0.) 2 + 07Ir 1, J,

d-p6eb9?7&99-tK 74

2-34 .C

73- 221Z(

. 'e4J L. &LLVLJ L.45- it

A4vy Sck(7e rr, Orf * -Gg~

wCP- LLC., LL L IV -L L.(.Oe~ ~ ~ W/.4 t FM S IS; 2 3 7- 17 Or

F'o'z~~c J ~ 1,4RAIL& ,31os-1L

S4 h) n 4t7 kXk'L ;L 3 /AC

JC,:~~~~~U 6,R 5AI I IS 30

g f6i *Lc- n.lZle

S E 3.qg L

?t LLo s AL3Y',-ct1s

ws ww4y- _ 1 -Jz17J-6

. *. _'4,,. __ f r 4AS 4;

M. vo b'3C S F'ts f12

gfi7) 7~~~~V C6-S pts 46 ;L

6 I erS4A4:. 4.b-. 565 Fr53 - z3AA/A SL 807 4'-tosi

1 %-IA6t°4>X~to P1 ~ a45 7- 3 P1

Wetws V4eD '-s s oSle"Joo~~~l P -t-Z % 4-2a

elyn ra- ,Zy~t

V¶,,ef4 Mqo 64E0_ & VZ

Ct 1fT5dcJCyUyl77a6

Ig,&Eec jjbe 422- qG4-5~~'so 4 5 c n ovc Y2-7 -fi7-

14Ui -4erioo Ne /.

AWM11r1 ozefzorolv c f7

? "P, sWe.{4 I 427 4177

,>zrJ0.1 A-9S it/. ,2R cqg

7se sc4 4;/ M c t27 qjZ37U cr Z3 - z /

,cL

(please pit

(please print) REGISTRATION

NAME - COMPANY TELEPHONE NAME COMPANY TELEPHONE

A - . - -- ^ --. A . I

%TZ 1 7TW C --+ DC~%%33 #E -S

9;.r Scl;

1l ) IcJL

- 235-0'78,.

2 Xf AJA 4-o 5

S f-CI b tot)< 6zK

U5 &56(JASr;

5-Dt) uz

2zY-?4�T

st7~ a X En4 4Lt~ -*L

C SfI

6fV A f -1ff

1

CLOSEOUT COMMENTS OF NRC AND DOE ONTHE NNWSI WASTE PACKAGE WORKSHOP

Dublin, CaliforniaOctober 18-19, 1983

The following points are raised by NRC.

Observations

1. LLL, in considering environments that could affect the waste, didnot show that they have considered the effects of salts (silica,calcite) that could be deposited when groundwater is vaporized.These deposited salts could plug the pores of the rock and preventsteam, and later water, from escaping from the emplacement hole.These deposited salts could also be redissolved and result in ahigher dissolved salt content in water contacting the waste package.

2. LLL bases its waste form leaching or dissolution estimates on theassumption that leach rates are controlled by maximum silicasolubility in the groundwater. This assumption is not yet acceptedby the scientific community. For example, colloidal silica shouldbe considered.

3. The sensitivity of the waste package to water flow and temperatureshould be considered. For example, the distance of the repositoryfrom the water table varies (a 6 to 8 degree slope was mentioned)and this could result in different waste packages experiencingdifferent water flow rates and temperatures.

4. NRC encourages continuation of the spent fuel cladding studies andsuggests that actual failed fuel rods be used.

5. The Draft EPA standard 40 CFR 191 is tentative and may be changed.If it is changed, NRC must reevaluate 10 CFR 60 to see if it must bechanged.

6. Graphs should contain error bands. For example, data used to showdifferences may actually overlap if error bands are considered.Also, experiments should be replicated for each test condition.

7. The horizontal borehole esign for spent fuel uses a 15 centimeterannulus of packing material that is encapsulated. Thus, an annulargap between the waste container and the packing material will benecessary to install thelwaste package. The benefit of the packing

2

material, therefore, is not obvious because the roundwater willflow through the annular gap rather than through the backfill.

8. The use of equilibrium codes in obviously non-equilibrium situationsis not clear. It is not clear how kinetics are treated. Forexample, what are the effects of flow rate variation? Anotherexample is that the observed compatibility of J-13 well water andTopapah Springs water may be just lack of time for reaction.

9. Parameter values should be estimated realistically, even when"conservative" values are used. Otherwise, there is no way to judgehow conservative the estimate is. The estimated parameter valuesshould also include reaslistic upper and lower bounds.

10. The selection of candidate container materials from only two genericclasses of metals is very risky. It is especially risky to selectthree austenitic stainless steels because they are susceptible tostress corrosion cracking in the presence of chloride ion andoxygen.

11. The number of stainless steels tested should be minimized and thenumber of metals from other generic classes (e.g., titanium orzirconium-based alloys, carbon steels, and low alloy steels) shouldbe increased.

12. The ranges of repository conditions should be defined so thatmeaningful corrosion tests can be designed. The conditions whoseranges need to be defined include temperature, water chemistry, pH,gamma dose rate, stresses on the canister, aqueous phase (water orsteam) and oxygen level.

13. A range of tests should be selected which encompass anticipatedenvironmental conditions; tests under accelerating conditions shouldalso be carried out. The data bases obtained from these testsshould be modeled to obtain constitutive equations for observedfailure modes. Accelerating parameters may include highertemperature, higher stress level, and groundwater containing higherconcentrations of impurities and increased levels of oxygen.

14. Multiple heats of each candidate canister metal should be tested toensure that heat-to-heativariations are quantified and factored intothe derived constitutive equation.

15. Very long-term tests (10-15 years) should be performed underprototypic conditions to investigate stress corrosion cracking,pitting, and uniform corrosion rates.

3

16. Weld qualification must include demonstration of acceptablemechanical properties and corrosion resistance.

17. Experimental effort can be minimized by selecting materials with asfew documented failure modes as possible.

Items for Further Discussion

1. Susceptibility of container materials to stress corrosion cracking.

2. Reliability of the waste package, including demonstration of thereliability of the method itself.

Information Requested

1. Where can iron-bearing smectite for the packing material beobtained?

2. What information will be gained from the near-field hydrothermaltests and how does the information relate to the information needsof the project?

3. NRC is interested in all supporting analyses for the conclusionspresented in the meeting.

4. Copies of all viewgraphs and slides used during the meeting.

The following points are raised by DOE.

Observations

1. The meeting provided the waste package development staff (LLNL)supporting the NNWSI proJect good insight into the questionsimportant in a regulatory arena and the requirements necessary toaddress issues of importance.

2. It provided good insight into the logic of the NRC staff and itscontractors and how they might review information important tolicensing.

3. The meeting was conducted in a professional and open manner whichfacilitated an effective and constructive exchange of information.

4

Topics for Future Discussion

1. NRC's view point of what constitutes the physical evidence for awaste package containment being "substantially complete."

2. Discussion of the treatment of uncertainty analysis with respect tolikely events and unlikely events. Attention should be given totesting requirements for selecting unlikely events.

3. Discussion of characterization of spent fuel - can we use anensemble average or must we characterize the content of everypackage?

4. Discussion of the changes to 10 CFR 60 as they relate to the wastepackage in the unsaturated zone.

Information Requested

1. References by Peter Soo regarding the provisions of stress corrosioncracking of austenitic stainless steel.

2. Information on the level of detail that NRC believes is prudent in adetailed materials test plan.

3. Information regarding the level of design detail for the wastepackage that NRC believes should be included in the SCP.

4. Identification of references for test methods that can be used toaccelerate testing of materials of a waste package.

Donald L. Vieth (Date) MDirector Deputy DirectorWaste Management Project Office Division of Waste Management

AGENDA

NNWSI WASTE PACKAGE WORKSHOP WITH NRC

'October 18-19, 1983Howard Johnson's Hotel

Dublin, CA

Tuesday, October 18

0900-0930 Introductory comments - DOE/NRC/LLNL

0930-1200

Oversby/Knauss (75)

Younker (15)

Oversby (10)

Oversby (15)

I. Waste Package Environment in the Repositorya. Ground water hemistry as affected by thermal and radiation fields

o water chemistry after rock-water interactions experiments at900C and 1$00C including experiments planned for FY84 ingamma field

b. Hydrothermal effects in very near fieldo rock response to near field conditions

c. Current USGS estimates of ground water flux and flow mechanismsat Yucca Mountaino annual volume of water contacting waste package

d. Packing Materialo preliminary assessment/discussion of need for packing material

for release controlo potential functions under unsaturated emplacement conditionso preliminary candidates for packing material in tuff

environment: importance of thermal conductivity of packingmaterial

YounkerOversby

(15)(20)

1200-1300 Lunch

1300-1500 II. Waste Forma. Characteristics of waste forms: assumed reference cases

Oversby (60) b. General approach to waste form testing: plans for acquiringnecessary data

c. Saturated waste form testingBates (30) d. Unsaturated waste form testing (Argonne National Laboratory)Wilson (30) e. Spent fuel testing program (HEDL)

o characteristics of spent fuel populationo investigations of role of cladding in containment and release

control

1500-1700 III. Metal Barrier:Testing and EvaluationI (30) a. Selection of candidate materials for containerb. Rationale and supporting data for material selection

McCright (30) o restrictions/specifications for container fabrication andwelding

(15) o potential and probable corrosion modes to be investigated(45) o test conditions to acquire supporting data and plans for

long-term testing

4. - , -

. _ - I: - -- -- : --:-7 - -7. --- -- - -- -

-Wednesday, October 19

0800-1000

O'Neal

,(IV. Waste Package Design and Analysis(30) a. Design requirements/historical development of waste package

designs 1(15) b. Current reference conceptual designs for unsaturated zone(45) c. Analysis of current reference designs

o thermal: very near field temperatures as a function of timeand waste package design

o structuralo criticalityo economic

(20) d. Alternative conceptual designs: single or multiple metal barrier(10) e. Future plans

I

1000-1200<_S Bell (30)

Younker (30)

Revelli (30)

V. Performance Assessment/Uncertainty Analysisa. NRC comments n Reasonable Assurance

I b. Anticipated evironmental conditions in an unsaturatedemplacement environmento variability in characteristics of host rocko potential effects of variability on performance of waste

packagec. Deterministic analysis of time to first release and long-term

release rateso potential use of WAPPAo WAPPA subsystem model reviews to determine applicability to

unsaturated emplacement conditionso model development plans

;0) d. Uncertainty Aalysiso reliabilit;/uncertainty: approaches for predicting waste

package performanceo preferred approach for waste package system

Sutcliffe (3

1200-1300 Lunch

1300-1400 VI. Planned Tests in Exploratory Shaft at Yucca Mountaina. Description of tests

Younker (60) b. Purpose of specific experiments: methods/procedures/parametersc. Predictive modeling of results

1400-1500

1500-1630

NRC caucus

Feedback and wrap-up discussion

Phone Numbers for Messages

415-828-7500

415-829-2144