UNITED SrArES NUCL.E.AR REGULATOR'V COMMISSION

,1,[)liISCHY COMMITTEE ()N ~IUCL,EI~,R WASTE 'NA3HINCn{)~,I, [},:': 2,!)[i,E':'i{~I)01

MEMORANDUM TO: ACNW Mernbl:lrs ACNW ·Staff

~I , i ., I .r I.l'i' " I' I.

FROM Michele SKelton Tectmical Secr€!tary, ACNVV

SUBJECT CERTIFIED MINUTES OF THE 151 sT MEETING OF THE ADVISOR'{ COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) ,IUNE 2:,~-,24, 2004

The proposed "ninules :)f Ih~l sublect meet!nq ~Iave been certifif.1d as the ()f'llcia~ !eo::tl'd of

the proceedings for that rneetinq.

Atlachmerlil Certified Minutes of the1S'1 sl Meetinq, June 22-24. 2004

cc ..1 Larkins, ACRS/ACI\I\N H. L.arson, ACNWJACNW A. 8ates. SECY (0-16<:;'1:1 S. ,lones, NMSS (T-8A.23) I. Schoenfeld, EDO (O-16E15)

R Tadesse, NMSS (1- 'l'J8j

MEMORANDUM TO Michele SKelton. Techmcal Secretary Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

FROM Michael T Ryan, Actin!~ Chairman AdVisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

SUB,JECT PROPOSED MINUTES OF THE 151sT MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) JUNE 22-24, 2004

I certify that, based on my review of these minutes1, and to the best of my knowledge and

belief, \ have observed no substantive errors or orrltssions In the record of this proceeding sllbject

to the comments noted below

'"� UNiT ED~,l~\rl;S

NIJCl. EAR: i~EGULArORY COMMISSION� .-,I!'V'ISIJR"( COMMITTEE (IN NU·:.:,l.I:A'~ WASH

W.11,SHlil'"IG'T{H~ f) (; :!·Ob::!5·()OO I

September 9, 2(l04

MEMOf~ANDUM TO:� Michael']", Ryan, ActinU Ctlainnan AdVISory C;ornmiltee ofll NudmH Waste

M~;;'~I~,:~I':'K~~t~n,T:~;''''lical Se~retalYFROM' Advisory Gomrnitlee on "luclear Waste

SU8•.I[(~T. pr:;tOPOSED MINUTES (>F THE 15f T MEETING OF THE ADViSORY COMMITTEE: ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACI\JWl JUNE 2224, 2004

Enclosed al'e lhe proposed ITHnutes of the l51'1neeimLI of the ACNW, This drall IS be:fl':1 pi ()vlded to £live you an opporlunit.:,r to review the record of thiS meeting and prOVide COmIT1f:mt~; Your comments will be incorporatelj into IhFl final certifiHd SHt of minutes as appropriate PleaSE! provide your corre[:tions and commenlls to me

Please noli;:; that theSE: rninutes are bein9 issued In lwei parts: (1) main body (\'\I(H'kil'lf~ cor:;,y form) and (2) appendices The appendices are being sent only to those members who tlave requested them

A copy 01 tlle certifif.~(l minutes Wltr'l appendices \/,1'111 be fOlwarded 10 each rnelnber

Enclosult'e As slah::cI

ccw/o EncL 2� ACNW Mernbers ACNW Staff ,J Larkins, ACf~S/A(~I\JV\I

CONTENTS

I. Chairman's Report (Open)

II. Working Group on Geosphere Transport of Radlonuclides at the Proposed 'I"ucca Mountain High.Level Waste Repository . , 2

III. Department of Energy (DOE) Response to NRC's Independent Evaluation of DOE Technical Basis Documents Supporting the DOE's Yucca Mountain License Application . . . . " , , . , . ,. , , 20

IV. Preparation for Meeting With the NRC Commissioners , .. .22

APPENDICES

A Federal Register Notice B MeetIng Agenda C Meeting Attendees D Future Agenda E List of Documents Provided to the Committee and Meeting Notel)ill)ok Contents

CERTIFIED Issued: 9/9104 9/10/2004

By MICHAEL T. RYAN

CERTIFIED MINUTES OF THE 151ST MEETINO OF 'T'HE� ADVISORY COMiM;ITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE�

June 22-24, 2004�

The U,S. ~~uclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Advisory Committee on NLJclear VVaste (ACNW or the Committee) held its 151'1 meeting on .Iune 22-24, 2004, at Tw() White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike', Rockville, Maryland, The ACNW published a notice of tim; meeting in the Federal Register on June 5, 2004, 2004 (69 FR 33427) (AppendiX A)o, Thi:~;i

meeting served as a forum for attendees to discuss and take appropriate action on 1,110.' Items listed in the agenda (Appendix B). The entire meeting was open to public attl:mdancl!!,

A trar'script of selected portions of tM meeting,s c:lVclilable in the NRC's Public Docunlent Roon' at One Wl1ite Flint Nor1h, Room 1F19, '11555 Rockville Pike. Rockville. Marylard Copies of the transcript are availabltl for purchase from Neal R Gross and Co, Inc.. 1323 Rhode Island Avenue. NW., Washington. DC 20005. Transcripts may also be dClwn· loaded from. or reviewed on, the Internet at h.HQ:L~~'!V.J:lrc.gov/readingj".m/Q!:~~:@JI!iQtlQ.rl~;/

§.Q.!lW-/l.,j at no Cosl

ACNW Members Michael T. I~yan, Acting Chair'lnan. George M. Hornberger, and Ruth F. Weiner attended this meeting. B. John Garrick, ACNW Chairman, did not attend this rrleeting. For a list of other attendees, see Appendix C.

I. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT (OPEN)

[Dr. John I.. arkins was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the m'I3Eltin91

Dr Michael 1. Ryan. Acting ACNW Chairman" convened the meeting at 10:00 a.m, ar~d briefly reviewed the agenda. He aJso stated tnat the meetinq was being conducted in conformance with ttle Federal Advisory Cc)mmittee Act. In addition. Dr. Ryan asked membt.~rs of ttl0 public who were present and had something to contribute to the meeting to infornl the ACNW staff so that time could be allocated for them to speak .. He concluded his report by n':lting the foll(lwing items of interest.

Dr. Latif S. H(:1lTldan, o,fficially rejoined the stan on June 7, 2004, as a SElniol Staff Scientist.

Dr.. John Flac~ willi JOin thE: ACRS/ACNW ofliCfi1 staff as a Senior Tecllllllcal 1\c1vi,~,ul in ,.LJly 2004

.. I

MINUTES 151 ST ACNW MEETING JUNE: 22-24, 2004

ThH Senate recently paSSel) a bill to let the DE:.,partment of Energy (O()E.) reclassliy high­level waste (HLWl residue {in the cleamld oul. underground storage ttlinks) tl] low level waste (LLW) at its Savannah River site in South Carolina. House approval is ,mcertain It should be noted thaI this bill only applies to South Carolina waste, riot SLlch similar wastes at Hanford and Idaho.

Tt1f.: issue of Iiscal year (Fyi) 2005 funding for the Yucca Mountain project is still unclear, and according to the trade press, DOE Secretary Abraham has stated that the appropri­ations are in "turmoi I"

The US Court of Federal Claims recel1t1y nJIBd in a case involving the Indlana·Michigan Power Company (a subsidiary of American Electric Power Co" Inc.) that thE: "govern­ment owes a utility nothing for failing to take nuclear waste off its hands, even though DOE committed to begin accepting the waste by 1998: The justification was that lhe utility did not prOVfi lh(lt it lost money as a result of the government's f"ailure to lake Ihe waste It dOHS not aftecl thl:} status of lawsuits by other utilities.

Earlier this yE."H the· South Carolina House passfld a bill that would haV€l allOWI;td Chem­Nuclear an .additional "100,000 cubic feet of storage capacity at its Barrlwell sitE:: The cornpany agreed to pay the slate $6 million fol' the space. The South Carolina Senate olirninated that provision on the grounds that the State would be undersellinn the space Clnd hurting the State's image in that SUdl a s;:-lle would "perpetuate tt'II'~ state's 'rnoniker' of being thE~ nation's nuclear dumping !~r:)und"

DOE is expected to issue its inlllal certificator! of the Licensing Suppol1 NHlwork: {l.SN) on June 2:-\, 2004 This certification IS rSQuire(! by law 6 montlls befml:! the slJorniUai of a iicense application to construct a geologic repository at Yucca MOUIl'llaln DOE expects to l.ISEl th(;\ lSN as the electronic: archive for the reference malerial dIed by its licElnse application

Dr. BrUCE! D.. Marsh 11m; recently been ,added as an ACNW consultants. Dr. Marsh is a professor of igneous petrology in the Depar1menl of Earth and Planete:w)I SCiences at the ,Jotms Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. His research interE~sts also incll.lCle neophysics and magma dynamics ..

II.� WORKING GROUP ON GEOSPHERE TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCUDES Al THE PROPOSED YUCCA MOUNTAIN HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REPOSITOny (OPEN~

The ,cICNW hosted a 'Workin9 group on the geosphem transport of radiol1uclkles al Yucca Mountain, Nevada.. Along with the members, ~:he working group included four experl: panelists who commented on Ihe proceedings. These panelist.s were Don Shettel (representative for the State of Nevada), Rictlard Parizek (Pennsylvania State University, and a Nucl,ear Waste Technical Review Board INWTRBj member), tnes Triay (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE]), and James Davis (US. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California). Over thei Gourse 01 :~~ days,

MINUTES 151 51 .ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24,2004

presentations wem given by representatives of the NHC staff, DOE, the Statl:!: of NevCllt:l, l\Jye Counly, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) .. .A special focus at this meeting was the behavior of neptuniurn-237. a radionuclide that mildly sorbs to subsurface materials and can potentially contribute to future doses frorn a repository. It appears that even modest neptunium retardation in alluvium can delay arrival at the compliance point beyond 10.000 years. Representatives hom N:r'E; County. Nevada, talked about the results of recent sonic: coring in alluvial materials, aln f!valuation of current hydrologic GOnditions and pn>posed future monitoring, the rap~d population \J!owth in Nye County, and the cumulative impacts of Federal rE~source management actions Nye County desires I()nl~·terrn permanent statutory involvement in performance confirma!i(ln studies at Yucca Mountain.

After thE! presentations, the o:<pert panelists surnrnarized their views of t'1e mt:etin!~ presenta­tions. Public comments were presented The ACNW plans to write both a leHer report i.l!I'ld a NUREG report to document their findinus and the proceedings of this rneelin~:

Dr ,James Davis gavl~ the keynote a<ldr€lSS titled "A New Approach to Modeling Ret,H11alio(l by Sorption at the Field Scale." His talk reviewed the development and testing (Jf a surface complexation model for transport modeHng at the field scale (versus laboratory ~)call~) l)r Davis summarized his conclusions as follows:

Current reactiVE! transport models can ac(.'Ormnodale the surface compl€lxalk)n concept to describe retardation of inorganic contaminants during transport. U::3,e of 1l1e (jistribu­lIOn coefficient (K,.~., concept is no longer required

2.� Semiempirical surtac€~ complex.ation modelling cem reduce transport rnodeling uncer­tainty wilh respect to sorption under conditions of temporally or spatially variable chemical conchlionslrl groundwater.

3.� Spatial variability In !¥oundwater cllernislry may be more important In influenGin~l the retardation of strongly adsorbing species than is the variability in the surface properties clf aquifer materials .3t the kilometer scale.

4.� Fln'.!dictions bi:1Sed on a rangl':1 of site-specific Kd values do not always brackl~t simulation results obtained uSing the semiernpirica! surface complexation model. Randorn sampling of a Kd distribution may overlook the spatial character of the distribution

Keitll Compton {NRC:) presmlted "NRC Approaches to the Evaluation of Saturated 2:.01'0 1:low and Transport." His talk ~dentified k~~y regulatory tools used to evaluate analyses of geosi::Jhere transport, and proVided a background perspective for the other NRC talks on salwated zone flow cmd transport and risk insights Compton gave examples of selected saluratedzone lopics thai are identified in !'IRC's Yucca M<)untain Review Plan and in the Risl<, Insi~lhls Baseline

MINUTES 151 ST ACNW MEE:TIN(~

JUNE, 22-24, 2004

Report. Examples inchJde(j the evaluatkm of assumptions, technical bases, data" ar1d 11'loliels used by DOE in Iho abstraction of radiolluclide transport The baseline rep0!1 noles that retardation of radionuclides in the saturated valley fill aquifer has high significil,ncl~IN'itJ, respect to waste isolation Other faciors have medium significance to waste isolation, e.!l, lransport distance III saturater/ alluvium. matrix diffusior', and tile effects of colloids on transpori "I'lhe saturated ,wne,

Dr, Hilbert Andrews (Bechtel SAle (:0, L.LC) gave a talk titled "Overview of UnsaturalediilJld Saturated Zone RadionuclidH Transport Processes and Related Testing," Ho describBd the various features and processes of importance in developing a conceptual model fell' Hie unsaturated zone (UZ), These ir1clude climate, infiltration and percolation. dlvlersion 0' lalf..lral flow, Iracture-matrix interactions, flow-through faults, presence of perehed water lTlatri>:: diffusion, colloidal transport, and spatial variability. Dr Andrews gave an overviEiw of the test raciliti(~s in the Exploratory Studies Facility (E:SF) and al. Busted Butte. He IOCllsed on the tracer transport t,ests, The Busted Butte tests includod the tracers lithium bromide, sodium fluores(".eine, and rnicrospheres. Observations and measure­ments reportedly confirm ttlE'.l I'ole of matrix diffusion as represented in DOE's UZ transporl model. Other important tests are being conducted at Alcove 8-Niche 3 in the ESF. L.ith,IUI'll bromide and pentafluorobenzoic aCid tracers were used in these transport te~Sits H'I8se rli~sults

also indicate that matrix diffusion is an important factor in UZ transport TherE:~ W~IS j~ar1ie!' work near the north porial, in which a SIlll'llllnfiltration pon(l was created on the lancl surface 30 rn above Alcove 1. These Alcove 'I seepage resuns showed that matrix diffusion plays ell

significant role in transport throu9h welded tuffs, and that fracture-matrix interaction apw~ars

lar~Jer than initial estimates,

Dr Andrews reached the following conclusions I'f.!garding UZ transport:

Ongoing and cornpletHd tests provide Input data that constrain the UZ transl:ol"': Irneldel

2.. Tracer tests usin~l Aloove 1 and Alcove B-Niche :] provide evidence 01 :natrix dlifhlslon "lnd proVide data for calibraUng the LIZ transport model.

3. Tracer tests at Busted Buttl~ confirm the porous rnedium nature of trle, vitric (gllassv) Calico Hdls and verify its sorption behavior.

4 Uncertaintif3'S in the UZ transport model and associated parameters h21VH bef.!n pr()pa­naled through the p€!rlormance assessrnenL

Dr Andl'ews then gave an overview of satural,ed zone transport. He discuSSf::d the IOllg··lerrn hydro~~eologic and tracer tests that were conducted at the C wells test complEix. HHl' lon~J'

duration aquifer tests produCEJd responses in WE!lIs several km away and yielde(j large,scalH estimales of aqUifer transmissivity, hydraUlic: conductivity, and anisotropy. Fluid 1()~lging had demonstmted that only a small portIon of the boret,oI1:;1 in the pumping well W,:lS 'contribl.iI~1'19

most (ll thl~ flow, with apparent flowing interval (fracture)- spacings of several tens of meters.

MINUTES 151 sT ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

Tracer tests were conducted in both the Prow Pass and the Bullfrog units. Dr Andrews stated that tile tracer tests confirm the applicability of a dual continuum (fracture-matrix) transpor1 model for the tuffs at the C wells. The matrix diffusion model was confirmed, and sorption values from in situ tracer tests confirm laboratory sorption measurements. Colloid mobility was confirmed using microspheres as analogs, The distribution coefficients (Kd v6Illues) measured in the field for lithium were slightly larger than those obtained in the laboratory.

Single-hole injection testing in the alluvial aquifer at Nye County's well 19 complex indicates a range of groundwater fluxes in alluvium from 1,2 to 94 m/yr. The calculated flux based on the site-scale groundwater model is about 2.3 m/yr for nominal conditions. The effective porosity is estimated between 0.05 to 0.3 .. Laboratory sorption tests are being conductf}(j on radionuclides using samples of alluvium obtained from Nye County wells,

Dr Andrews concluded that In situ and laboratory tests have been used to confirm Iral1spor1 processes and to validate transport models. Uncertainty in model parameters has been propagated through the model abstractions and thereby included in the total system pertor­mance assessment.

Mr James Winterle (CNWRA) gave a presentation titled "CNWRA Modeling of Site-Scale Saturated Zone Flow at Yucca Mountain," The models and results were described as explor­atory in nature and intended as a tool to better understand the saturated zone (5Z) Flow system near Yucca Mountain. The talk began with a discussion of the Hydrogeologic Framework Model developed by the CNWRA using a 3-D Earth Vision® model of the Amnrgosa Region. A groundwater model was developed based on the stratigraphic framework within the Earth Vision model. The CNWRA groundwater model includes structural features such as the Bow R,dge, Midway Valley. Paintbrush Canyon, and Highway 95 faults. During grid construction and model calibration, the zone representing the Timber Mountain Caldera was extended southward to match the large hydraulic gradient north of Yucca Mountain. The CNWRA model has an area of 28 km by 41 km. The regional water table was interpreted to estimate cOnl:itant head values for the sides of the model. The bottom of the model is represented by a no-flow boundary.. The top boundary varies with the water table elevation. Recharge is simulated in the northern high­elevabon part of the model and is also considered in some scenarios for the Yucca Mountain and Fortymile Wash areas Seventy weBs were used for calibration points.

Mr. Winterle showed through root-mean-square error analysis that calibration error was substantially reduced by modifying hydrogeologic features. Interestingly, in ol)mparin~J the results to earlier CNWRA and DOE model results, the modeled flow paths prclduced significant differences east of Yucca Mountain, but produced similar results near the dis1ant compliance boundary to the south. Mr Winterle described the modeled effects of rechar,~e in the Yucca Mountain area. Simulations with 5 mm/yr recharge result in deeper flow pathn that bypass much of the nonwelded tuff section. producing faster flow in deeper. fractured tuffs with low porosity. Mr. Winterle also evaluated the effects of potential climate change by IntrodUCing additional groundwater recharge to the region.

-s ..

MINUTES 15fiT ACNW MEETING JUNE 22~24, 2004

Mr Winterle summarized his results as follows:

1, Model calibrations car! be sigmficantly Irnprovl~d by relatively minor adjustments to the geometry of structural and hydrostratigraphic features. However, the overall effect on modeled flow paths was modest and did not affect transport distances in saturated alluvium

2, Small amounts of recharge in the repository area have a significant effect on the depth of modeled flow paths, However, further incmases in recharge do not add to this effect.

3"

4

The effective porosity used to model the Calico Hills nonwelded tuffs I::an have a dramatic effect on groundwater velocities, The velocities decrease as the porosity values increase. A 5-percent increase in boundary head values to account for the potential watE~r table rise associated with climate change results in a rise of 50-150 m. This woule! riot be enough to saturate a potential repository unless the repository footprint were to b(~

extended further north, The water table rise initiated spring flow (simUlated) near ,:it

documented paleospring locality (Nye well 9S),

5. The scenario of combined water table rise and increased recharge did not Significantly change modeled groundwater flow paths or travel times to the compliance boundary,

Dr. Paul Bertetti (CNWRA) gave a talk titled "Development of Sorption Parameters for th(~

Saturated Alluvium South of Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Like Mr. Winterle's talk, Dr. BerteW noted that the res,ults are exploratory in nature and intended as a 1001 to botter understand radionuclide transport in the saturated ZOI'le. Dr. Bertetti commented that chomical sorption on mineral surfaces is a primary retardation mechanism. The magnitUde of sorption is represented by the distribution coefficient (Kd), which is affected by the particl.i1ar radionucHde, mitleral characteristics, and the chemistry of the solution (i.e., pH, dissolved CO2, and redox conditions). CNWRA is conducting laboratory experiments using relevant minerals, watel chemistry, and radionuclides to develop independent data and modeling capability to lest DOE models and assumptions and to generate parameters for performance assessment

Dr. Bertett; reported that sorption behavior is effectively represented by a surface comple>:ation modeling approach. Solution pH and inorganic carbon are key parameters fot' controlling sorption of radionuclides. A l~pproach using surface complexation modeling has been eHective at reproducing sorption behavior over a wide range of conditions. For neptunium, the median value of the retardation coetnclent (Rd) is higher in TFIA code version 5, while the range of Rd is narrowed. For uranium, the median Roj value is iower but the range remains similar Waler chemistry distributions are being updated to reflect sampling and analysis of Nye County wells in the Fortymile Wash region. Additional work IS ongoing to confirm mineral contenl and distribution in the valley fill aquifer. X-ray diffraction results reveal that the alluvium contains significant amounts of smectite clays and zeolites, which should be favorable for sorption

MINUTES 151 51 ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

Model results will be tested against experimentally moasured sorption values using SaiTlpll~S of alluvium and water chemistry,

Dr. Bertetti summarized his conclusions as follows,:

1.� Sorption parameters are constrained in NRC's performance assessment mO(JEi·1 (TPA) by measured water chemistries.

2.� Recently collected and analyzed water and mineral samples are consilf.tEmt with the experimental and modeling approach.

3.� TPA results suggest that the saturated alluvium may be an important barrier to the transport of actinides like neptunium.

Dr. Bill Arnold (Sandiej National Laboratories/Bechtel SAIC Co., LLC) presented "Yw.::ca Mountain Saturated Zone Flow and Transport Models and Results." Dr. Arnold commentod that the bases for quantifying saturated zone transport at Yucca Mountain rely on !iite-specific hydrogeologic, geochemical. and transport testing that was conducted over the last 20 years. The use of a regionaj model helps to define flow directions and constrains volumetric flow rates through the aquifers. A smaller, site-scale model provides greater details about flow directions and rates through different hydrogeologic units. Key controls on flow include the properties of geologic formations and the locations and rates of regional groundwater rech,rge and discharge. Local effects can include groundwater pumping at wells J-13 and ,1-12 and recharge during infrequent flows in Fortymile, Wash.

The DOE site-scale model considers heads at wells USW G-2 and WT#6 to b,e locally perched. Dr. Arnold reports that most water levels along the flow path from Yucca Mountain 10 the southeast of the repository are accurately simulated (within 1 meter of observod heads), Simulated heads along Fortyrnile Wash and in the Amargosa Desert are generally within !5 m of measured values. Hydrochemical patterns have been used to help corroborate inferred groundwater flow paths. These patterns are especially apparent southeast of Yucca Mountain in the vicinity of Lathrop Wells (Amargosa Valley).

Dr, Arnold reviewed the practicallimitallons of carbon-14 dating techniques. The meUlod has been used to estimate groundwater ages and velocities. Velocity estimates range from ,15-40 mlyr, corresponding to advective transport times over 18 km of several hundrEld to several thousand years for nonretarded radionuclides. A key factor for transport timeH is the extent of alluvium in the flow paths and identification of the tuff·alluvium contacts. The Nye County boreholes and geophysical studies have helped determine the extent of the slilturated alluvium.

Dr. Arnold reviewed colloid-facilitated transport. For transport of radionuclidElIS, reversibly attached to colloids, local equilibrium is assumed among the colloids, the aqueous phase, and the aquifer material. For radiolluclides irreversibly attached to colloids, it is assumed that no

'··i'

MINUTES 151 51 ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24,2004

desorption from the colloIds occurs. Colloids are subllect to attachment and [h~tachl1lent hom mineral grains. but no permanent filtration of colloids IS assumed to occur

After a discussion of uncertainty in flow and transport Dr. Arnold reported DOE modeiin9 results for the nonsorbing radionuclides 99Tc and 1291. They exhibit a range of transport times from 100 years to greater than 10.000 years. The val"iability in transport times; for the mildly sorbing mNp varies from less than 1000 years to greater than 100,000 yrs. Arnold summarized his conclusions as follows:

1,� Flow models are constrained by the regional water bUdget.

2.� The flow model projects flow paths that are generally toward the southeast. toward Fortymile Wash. then south to southwesterly, parallel to the Wash.

3.� Groundwater fluxes are predicted in the range of 0.7 to 2.4 mlyr alon!;]ltle flow path from the potential repository

4.� The fraction of the flow paUl in the saturated alluvium ranges between 1 and 1() krn.

5.� Matrix diffusion in the tuff and effective porosity in alluvium have been d(~terrnirledlrom

tracer tests.

6.� Travel times of several hundred to severa thousand years for nonretarded species are consistent with carbop-14 ages

7.� The processes of matrix diffUSIon and sorption have been coniirmed IIr1 field tests.

8.� Uncertainty in groundwater flow and transport parameters are being evaluatE::d with the model for incorporation in performance assessment analyses.

Public comments:

Dr. Elzeftawy: My name is Atef Elzeftawy, and I'm here for the second revit,iw on behalf of the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe. Aner all those years, we have not really nailed down the so-called expected behavior of radionudides in the tuff and the valley fill. In other words, we have not really gotten enough data to say the distribution of this behavior is a log-nomlal or normal distribution, or a gamma function, or whatever il. is. We know that we have some data. We know the DOE has provided some information, but what does it mean to the normal person. I think that was very good information with regard to the conceptual and mathematic8' models. implementation of the site data, and the confidence in the site data with regard 10 the I"etarda­tion of radionuclides

MINUTES 151 5T ACNW MEETING JUNE 22·24, 2004

We all have our own conceptual rnodels as scientists and as people. We also tlav~) our mathematical implementations. But I think it's going 10 come down to the silo data that would provide enough confidence beyoncl the 50 percent range to say that the geosphere can retard, not may-- remember, there's a big difference between "can" and "may"-ean retard the transport of the radioactive materials in the system.

So far, my personal comment now as a citizen is thai in 1983 when I looked at the data off the saturated zone hydrogeology back when I worked with the NRC, we commented that it looks like surface groundwater moving toward the south, maybe a little bit southwest. After all these models, and after 21 years of work, the Department of Energy has not really made any different interpretation, except perhaps to bound the groundwater system of the Amargosa Desen area. I have a problem with all the beautiful models we have and all the money we l!,pent I haven't seen somebody push the envelope a little bit with regard to the models. The fellow who talks about the recharge. how about trying 5,10, 15, and 20 millimeters per year n~charge and find out how the system is going to reaGt uSing those,

I have one comment for Ruth Weiner. If you go back to the University of Calilornia at Berkeley, there was a paper published in, I think" 1973-1974 related to the so-called soli water or porous media parameters that we really deal with regarding the unsaturated zone. The soil moisture, retention curves. the hydraulic conductivities, the retardation factors, and all ttlat. ~ think you need to get it and read it, and find out what Don Nielson had published in 19'7:3-74.

I published a paper when I was work.ing for my second Ph.D. degree in 1973 at the UnivEHsity of Florida, way back then, and it was dealing with the absorption of tritium in just the porous media. I think I have a copy at home, but go and find it and find out what wa:s said about the absorption and desorption of the tritium.

,lim Davis. whose presentatilon I didn't see, I think I told Allen Freeze and John Cherry In: 979 that that figure that you quoted from him is really misleading. Actually, it's scilmtifically wrong. I'm not sure whether AI Freeze and .John Cherry have corrected that or not, but it's misleading to have this figure, which talks about "sorbing solutes and nonreactive tracer' I think you need to switch that back and fort~1 because if we talk about the sorbing solutes bre~tkthrough curve, that tells me that this is only the error function distribution, and that is not the (mol' function distribution. There is a nonreactive tracer flat in the curve, and that is not trUE!. Usually, the nonreactive tracer acts as a "piston flow" in the porous media analysis. so I think you need to correct that draft. You quoted it wrong.

And one of the things I wanted to mention, way back then when we were working undl~r NRC's 10 CFR 60, we were talking about the 1,OOO-year groundwater travel time. During the public meeting of the Nuclear Transportation Research Board, if they changed the n,ame, whatever the case may be (the Department of Energy made thl3 comment) Mr. Russell himself made the comments about the transport of radionuclides in a PI)roUS unsaturated or saturated system. He said they have nothing to do with the existing regulation, 10 CFR Part 63, So my question to you as a citizen, why are we sitting here in a sense wasting all that time tryin!:l to lind out the

MINUTES 151 ST ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

nitty-gritty of the absorption, desorption, groundwater travel time, and all that, and tle Depart­ment of Energy and the NRC already made the decision that they are not going to Gonsider that, except in the performance analysis, So how can you relate all the things you do today with regard to the licensing? That's really what the bottom line is.

Mr, Tim McCartin {NRC) gave a presentation titled "NRC's Performance Assessment and Risk Perspective." He first summarized the principles and objectives of a risk-informed approach. The primary objectives include (1) identification of important parameters. mo(JJ~ls, and assump­tions, (2) identification of important uncertainties, and (3) focusing the review on technIcal support in key areas of performance assessment, seeking to avoid inappropriate conservatism (Le" avoid adoption of a conservative SUbsystem model or parameter that leads to a nonconservative overall result}. A number of risk insights have been obtained for saturated zone parameters and processes. With respect to waste isolation, retardation ~n alluvium has high significance, especially with regard to retardation of 237Np. Matrix diffusion" effects of colloids, and transport distance in alluvium all have been found to have medium significance. Mr. McCartin showed a table that indicates that wArn, 240pU, and 239pU cornprJs~~ -97~;;) of the inventory (by activity) 1,000 years after repository closure.

A key aspect of Mr McCartin's presentation was the finding that the saturated zone, sl'ould be seen as a significant barrier to all radionuclides. induejing 99Tc and 1291which experience little or no retardation. Transport times of these mobile radionuclides are hundreds to thousands of years due to the relatively slow groundwater velocities The saturated zone hus a number of favorable transport characteristics. A relatively flat hydraulic gradient exists bE~tween ll1e repository and the compliance location. The alluvium in the flow path supports POrol.IS flow at a much lower velocity than In the fractured tuffs, and the alluvium matrix has favorable sorption properties. Field testing has also shown the degree of matrix diffusion in the fractured tuffs, although the significance of this process depends on the sorptive properties o'f the tuff matrix and the extent of fracturing. Retardation factors can vary by orders of magnitude for certain radionuclides, such as 237Np. Mr. McCartin summarized his conclusions as follows. Risk insights have been based on a comprehensive understanding of the repository system that (1) identifies important parameters, models, and assumptions, (2) considers uncertainties, and (3) provides an "informed" and focused ,approach for NRC's review of a potentia! ~icense ,;lpplica­tion.

Dr, Don SheUel (Geosciences Management Inslttute, Inc" representing the State 01 Nevada) presented the "State of Nevada's Perspective on Sorption." His talk focused on assumptions that have been made about the solubility of mNp and the sorption of radionuclides in Ihe unsaturated and saturated zones. Dr. Shettel concluded that DOE's solubility models may be realistic, but are not conservative, Dr. Shettel commented on the rapid transpol1 ollllel from the surface to repository depth, He noted that this nonsorbing radionuclide h,~s apparenll~c

traveled to that depth in about 50 years, and may already have flushed through the repository level in the more fractured southern portion of the repository footprint. Dr. S~Iil~ttel noted that

.jl}

4

MINUTES 151 5T ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24,2004

experimental distribution coefficients for neptunium vary over more than 3 ardors of magnitude. He raised questions about this variation and wondered whether it is due to colloidal transport, sample heterogeneity, insufllcient sample sizes, or crushing of rock grains. Dr. Shettel noted that neptunium sorption coefficients are being developed using samples from Nye County wells. However, he considers that only two wells, Nye 190 and Nye 20, are directly in the flow path.

Dr. Shettel reviewed a series of assumptions about sorption that are apparently being made in performance assessments He noted that confirmation is needed for the assumption thal sorption parameters measured in the lab are not significantly affected by microbial activity. Dr, Shettel stated that DOE needs to perform sorption experiments with fractured core or with cores from the alluvium. He ellso debates the assumption that waters from wells .1-·13 and UE­25p #1 (a well in deep carbonates) bound the chemistry of waters in the unsaturated zone. Dr. Shettel considers that confirmation is needed for the assumption that hydrogeQlogic strata at the site can be classified into five representative rock types. Also. there is a need to consider competitive sorption effects among multiple radionucliides and the potential effects of high concentrations on sorption coefficients in the nearfield Dr, Shettel questionerl the assumption that nonequilibrium conditions are adequately addressed by lowering the minimum K,j ~n the sorption coefficient distributions (primarily for plutonium because of its slow sorption reactIOn kinetics). Dr. Shettel reported experimental results that suggest the time step in DOE modeling of the unsaturated zone is too long to properly simulale fracture flow. Dr. Shattel questioned the assumption that sorption experiments conducted under saturated conditions can yield parameters that are applicable to unsaturated conditions. He also noted that decreases in aqueous radionuclide concentrations during sorption l~xperjments could be dlJ,e to precipitation of new mineral phases rather than due entirely to sorption. Dr. Shettel summurized his conclusions as follows:

1.� There are numerous chemical complexes of Np, some of which DOE may nol have c:onsidered.

2.� DOE needs to recom~ile nonsorblng radiollucIJde transport in the unsalurated zone with 36CI transport .

3.� Saturated zone sorption IS better understood than sorption in the unsaturated zon€!, but there are uncertainties about the length of the flow path in alluvium and tYPE~S and distributions of grains along flow paths in the valley fill material.

All sorption assumptions stHl require confirmation.

5.� The treatment of colJoids needs to be integrated with results from colloid transport. at the Nevada Test Site (apparent ~Jroundwater transport near the site of the Benham nuclear test).

.J J­

MINUTES� 151 81 ACNW MEETING� JUNE 22-24, 2004�

Nye County Presentations (Mr, Thomas Buqo, Dr', Dale Hammermeister, and� Mr. Les Bradshaw)�

Mr. Tom Buqo (Nye County, NV) gave a talk titled "Nye County's Groundwator Evaluations,"� He described Nye County's program, which includes expanded water level mcmitonng"� numerical modeling, and a study of groundwater conditions in Ash Meadows, He reporled� discrepancies in estimated rates of evapotranspiration in southern and eastern Nevada, Mr.� Buqo presented a map showing the regional distribution of wells and springs, Water use is� growing rapidly in Nye County, Nye County has future plans to (1) evaluate lJpper and deeper� groundwater level trends in Pahrump valley, (2) evaluate effects of groundwater mounds on� water withdrawals, and (3) continue 'Water level monitoring in Pahrump, the Amargosa Desert,� Stewart Valley, Chicago Valley, and elsewhere.�

Dr Dale Hammermeister (Nye County. NV) gave a talk titled "Success Story Sonic Corin9 in� Fortymile Wash." Nearly 300 feet of continuous sonic core from the alluvial aquifer have been� collected, logged, and tested. The value of sonic coring is that samples are minimally disturbed� and more suitable for description and testing. Layenng is shown to be preser.ted in the sample� intervals. Other alluvium sampling techniques tend to produce chaotic mixing of the material.� Dr. Hammermeister reported that little evidence of buried soils was found in tl1e sonic cores.� Munsell colors indicate oxidizing conditions. Coarse fractions were subangul~~r to s~Jbrounded.

Calculated porosities were in the range of 25-31 %. The alluvium was found to be rnme coarse­�grained than anticipated. mainly gravels and sands with silts were found in ttlf.~ upper '160 ft of� the Nye well 19PB sonic corehole. Gravels were less common in the lower 100 ft of H18�

corehole. Los Alamos National Laboratory is planning laboratory work on the sonic: Gores to� determine transport parameters versus porosity and particle size distributions A new sonic� corehole will be drilled at Site 22. Single-hole and crosshole tracer tests are planned at Site 22� located along Fortymile Wastl north-northeast of Nye well 19. At the end of� Dr. Hammermeister's talk, Mr.. Jamie Walker of Nye County spoke briefly about several backup� slides. He said that Nye County presented at the most recent Devil's Hole Workshop. He� described an interpretation of depths to pre-Cenozoic basement rocks, which also defines the� thickness of basin fill. This is one of the interpretations that Nye County is WOrking on in their� Phase 4 drilling program. Me Walker also presented two new preliminary cross-sections" and� concluded that Nye County's Phase 4 drilling has improved the understanding of some of the� older underlying growth faults in the flow path from Yucca Mountain to Amargosa Valley�

Mr. Les Bradshaw (Nye County, NV) gave a presentation titled "Basin-Wide Coordination of� Water Resources Definition, Development. and Management." He discussed patterns of� population growth and land use in Nye County and the cumulative impacts of Federal resource� management actions, Approximately 98% of the county consists of Federally managed lands.� Mr. Bradshaw emphasized the need for coordinated water resources definition, development,� and use. Nye County desires long-term permanent statutory involvement in performancf.:� confirmation studies at Yucca Mountain.� Mr. Bradshaw noted that Nye County will likely adopt a water resources plan t)y mid-summer of�

- ~ 2 ..·

2004

MINUTES� 151 ST ACNW MEETING� JUNE 22·24, 2004�

Matthew Kozak (representing EPRI) discussed "EPRI Evaluations of the Saturated ZOnl:1,"� EPRI finds that both the unsaturated and saturated zones contribute to the safety case.� Conservatism in contaminant transport analyses has lead to the elimination of attenuation� mechanisms that are not well understood and the exaggeration of primary transport mecha­�nisms like advection. Mr. Kozak concluded that DOE's models for both the unsaturated and� saturated zones represent worst cases that are likely to be significantly conservative compared� to reality. Realistic analyses are needed.�

Panel Discussion�

Dr. Davis: There were two rnain things that I wanted to bring up. There seems to be a lack of� consistency in the field testing that seems to suggest that matrix diffusion isn't important. I� believe that's referring to the work that was done at the C wells complex. Is that corrE'ct? As an� outsider coming into this process I'm surprised there IS still that lack oJ agreement in interpret­�ing the field results. There should be some focus on reaching agreement about the meaning� of that field test.�

The other point has been mentioned severa) times, which is the effect of chemistry on retarda­�tion in the alluvium. DOE's approach with respect to building a distribution of Kg values has� focused on the variability of the porous medium in terms of its sorptive properties, but has� possibly not adequately accounted for the effect of chemical variability on retlllrdation. The� CNWRA's program is closer to the mark in terms of looking at that as a variable, but I also think� that that has a few key elements missing from it. such as looking at complete groundwater� compositions, including the possible role of fulvic acids, and also comparing work with actual� alluvial materials in comparison to what their predictions are from their extracted modl"~1. Those� are the two key areas that I felt concern about in terms of having confidence In the performance� assessment.�

Dr. Parizek: From an NWTRB perspective. there are some points here that flppear in the� board's letter to the Department of Energy and then others are observations which we can� make as part of this meeting. First we would say the observations and analys.es presented by� DOE and others suggest that the nalural system provides an effective barrier to migration of� some radionuclides over time periods that may be comparable to the regulatory period. So� clearly, that natural barrier can be counted upon for many of the radionuclidet;,.�

However, there are several key hydrogeological features or processes that may significantly� affect fluid flow and radionuchde transport that are not well understood that are constrained by� limited or poor data or both. So trying to improve on the understanding and rf~duce uncertainty� is an NWTRB concern. DOE often deals with uncertain features and proces~ies by making� conservative estimates of their effects on the radionuclide transport. Such conservatisms tend� to emphasize more rapid advective transport processes. This statement is similar to what� Frank Schwartz and other presenters from EPRI are stressing. More realistic estimates could� slow transport predictions for some radionuclides. There is also a possibility that some other� poorly understood processes or features may lead to faster radionuchde transport. So it is�

-13·

MINUTES 151 sT ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

important that DOE develop a better fundamental understanding of the overall behavior of the natural system.

Dr. Triay: I also thought thalthis was an extremely 900d meeting in terms 01 trying to zero in on the issues that still remam I would like to make comments on two particular topics One of them is sorption and the other is colloids

In sorption, I believe that it would be a good idea to try to concentrate our effclrts In trying to address the main issue of whether sorption coefficients can be utilized to appl"oprialely describe retardation of radionuclides From the presentations, we're down to two elements, neptunium and uranium and whatever isotopes of uranium you want to consider, but frorn the chemical behavior, neptunium and uranium. It would be good to look at the data that are available for uranium and neptunium and see whether we can make some kind of correlation in terms of available data for neptunium and uranium and the data that exists for site-specific conditions and try to come to a resolution of that question or at least try to understand what would be the path forward to resolve that type of question. So I think we're down to those two elemenls and we need to focus on how that question could be addressed based on available data. both in the literature with surface complexation models versus site-specific data, and try t.o understand (1) where are we and (2) what needs to be done to close that gap or answer that questIon

The second point that I would like to make refers to colloids. When one talks about colloids, I think that the only recommendation is whether it is possible to use some of the information that we have with respect to water chemistry to try to bound the type of concentra1ion of colloids that could exist in order to carry those radionuclides through a system, whether it'e, a natural system or they introduce radionuclides when the waste gets emplaced in the repository.

The conceptual models of regional flow that were being talked about by Nye County ought to be commended. I think that it is important to have a regional model in order to roaHy prove to the public and scientific community that we really understand what is happening from a regional perspective. That very important effort ought to be endorsed.

Dr. Davis: Dr. Triay just reminded me. There have been a couple of times w'hen I've won­dered whether some of these unknown things could combine to create something that isn't being considered. So, for example, since we don't understand colloidal transport very well in the unsaturated zone, I'm not really sure whether this would make a difference for the arrival of neptunium in the saturated zone, but if americium was being transported relatively quickly through the unsaturated zone to the water table by colloidal transport then that gets a lot of the americium there. Whether that would make the neptunium arrive faster down gradient, I'm not sure. But it seems that you have two of these uncertain things possibly combining.

Dr. Shettel: Overall thiS has been a very good meeting. Several talks have been very useful, especially the first one by Jim Davis. Here are some very specific comments First, concerning the unsaturated zone, I don't believe the DOE has any substantive experiments that eire appropriate for the unsaturated zone. They had used J-13 water instead of pore water. which

-14..

MINUTES 151 ST ACNW MEETING JUNE 22·24, 2004

would be more appropriate, but we still don't have any samples for analysis of flow in fracture water.. So I don't see how we can do any sorption experiments that are relevant to the unsaturated zone until we have some of this informati·on. The experiments that have been done have been under saturated conditions, and that just adds to the uncertainty in the unsaturated zone.

Regarding matrix diffusion, flows have been injected as has been stated at 100-1,000 Qr more times the natural rate. If these are into dead end fractures, then some of thell;e injections may have been pressurized. I don't have access to the data so I can't say for sure, but il. seems like a possibility that some of these could have been pressurized injections. This would be totally unrealistic I think the conclusion that one could make from all this is that DOE has nothing in the unsaturated zone for sorption. nothing that is credible and defensible.

Regarding the saturated ZOnE~, Paul Bertetti'slalk was very interesting. It shows a very systematic approach to sorption which I think the DOE could learn from. However, the State has been saying since the 1980s that J·13 water has been overused in experiments in Yucca Mountain, so therefore it's somewhat ironic that the Center has done their sorption experiments not in J·13 water.

Regarding DOE's sorption experiments in the saturated zone, at least they h~vEl the nght water, J-13, although this doesn't necessarily bracket the water compositions in the saturated zone. They have not done any experiments at CO2 pressures that are above atmospheric. They have assumed sorption without actually proving that they had sorption in those experiments.

A lot more work needs to be done on colloids to quantify the models. There are organic acids no doubt in the saturated zone. This may be at small levels, but the radionuolides that may eventually make it into the saturated zone will be at very small levels too. So there's a possibility of complexing there These sorption models don't always include all the possible ligands that can contribute to solubility.

So overall, I would say there is better data for the satrurated zone versus practically nothing for the unsaturated zone. But even the data that's available for the saturated zone is suspect and I think this raises a question of why DOE is even goin~l to licensing at this point. You know really little that is credible and defensible about radionuclide transport, sorption, and retardation in the entire Yucca Mountain system.

Dr. Clarke: I have a really hard time with these time horizons and, for me, Ule eleprlanl in the room has always been the daunting task of trying to predict the performance I::>f something that we don't have a lot of experience with over hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

The research that I do is focused on near-surface containment systems where you're looking at shorter time horizons, but they greatly exceed our experience base as well. For that reason, it strikes me that the work that's being done on risk insights and risk informing and building

MINUTES 151 sT ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

confidence in the areas where uncertainties are known and processes are gc>ing to bE~ totally understood is very important.

I'm just using that tool to increase our understanding and build confidence. So I would greatly encourage continued use of that and really recommend that that tool be used for other system components as well to the extent that the NRC can do that.

I guess I'm still a little confused about matrix diffusion in the unsaturated zone. It seems like it's important to one group and not being used at all by another group. Yet everybody seemed to think that it's quite beneficial as well so there may be value looking at that a little harder.

Member Croff: After listening to all this. I come away with two fairly strong messages. One, paraphrases James Carville: "it's the neptunium, stupid." :That's really where the action IS for reasons already stated by a number of speakers. ~ won't reiterate them, but the importance of understanding that element and how it behaves is k.ey.

Another point is the importance of the subsurface chemistry and its apparently very profound effect. What surprised me is that it apparently hasn't been taken into account before. I'm a chemical engineer. but I would have thought it was fairly obvious that the chemistry of the groundwater and these complexing agents will certainty affect sorption. solublHty and 10rmation of colloids, and all sorts of other things. but I think there's a clear need to do that and am surprised that it hasn't been done.

Member Ryan: From the risk perspective, I think the work that is going on In every corner to do the risk insights work, whether it's what Tim McCartin presented from the TPA, or what's going on in DOE's TSPA, and also what's happening at EPRI in terms of a third independent view of risk insights, it's helpfUl and important in a number of ways. One is wt1ether you call it a margin of safety or whether you call it a conservatism or however you look at ~t, you make some prediction of reality and some predictIon of a model and try and assess where's the truth in that and gain confidence in that process. I think that ought to continue.

I think it also serves a second function. It can help inform the science in terms of where Ijo we really focus our energy and expertise and resources to answer the critical questions. I appreciate Dr. Parizek's comments on recognizing compliance and confidenGI~ as two comple­mentary, but different, endpoints. I think that's an important observation.

A third dimension to me is in response to what the representatives from Nye County talkE:d about. That is. that the contidence-building process can aid some of the points that they raise· as global, and in terms of communicating, and in terms of having a risk tool. "rhose risk lools will hopefully have a bigger dimension other than just the review of the license application

Member Weiner: I am very interested to see the role that the chemistry playEi. the Interaction of the compounds with the substances or surfaces they will or won't absorb on. I. too, am

-1 {).

MINUTES 151 ST ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

surprised that it is a little late in the game to be studying this, but the importance of this really came home to me in some of these presentations.

In structuring inputs to performance assessment, we have to be very careful to make sure that the distributions reflect what we know and aren't just a convenient kind of distribution to make. Having done some perfonmance assessment, I have an idea of how complex it IS. I want to commend Tim McCartin for his presentation, which pPJt performance assessment in the context in which it can be used. 'think this was a very important role.

I also hope that the people who are panelists take back to whatever their constituency is lhe role of risk insights because we've been struggling with what "risk insight" means. Mr McCartin's presentation was very clear on what it meant to performance and to performance assessment.

I do agree that we need to look at the role of c;olloids and study what happens with coIIOI(JS Finally, I was so impressed with Nye County's sonic coring. That showed some stufl that I really didn't think you could get out of a core.

Member Hornberger: First of all, I was struck in lislEming to Dick Parizek point out somE~ of the perspectives from the board on the basis of what the NWTRB's role is. What struck me was that the ACNW, of course, has quite a different role.

I probably should point this out for the group just to make it clear. The ACNW advises the Commission and the NRC staff on how they might review a license application in terms 01 the regulations. The ACNW is not driven by compliance. certainly not by blind compliance. That's not our role. Our role is certainly nol to ignore science. But I think to just characterze how our role is different from other committees/boards is that the NRC is faced with reviewlng a license application and making a decision on whether the criterion of reasonable expectation has been met.

Tim McCartin pointed out that for this particular working group meeting focused on the geosphere, the way this enters is in the mUltiple barriers idea. It doesn't suffice to say that we meet the 15 millirem standard because we have an engineered package that will persist for tens of thousands of years. The regulation requires that the geosphere provide a significant barrier

The focus in this meeting has been "Well, all right. Where do we stand in tenns of l.hl~ data, the models, the analysis that can contribute to a jUdgment that, in fact, the geosphere daBS playa significant role in retarding the potential migration of radionuclides away from a reposItory?" We've seen how the CNWRA has treated some of the groundwater modeling and the geo­chemistry in support of the NRC's TPA model. Again the TPA model is not aimed at bUilding a safety case, but in fact at gaining insights that will be valuable for the NRC Sl~lff in their evaluation of a license application assuming that DOE does submit that license applic.ation. think that there certainly are remaining uncertainties. There is certainly wor~:llhat can be done

I

MINUTES 151 5T ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

in an attempt to reduce lhose uncertainties. Dr. Clarke pointed out that continuing work to build confidence, to learn about how to build confidence as our horizons go we,ll beyond human experience, will be important.. This will be important as a continuing effort even if the license application does come in and get docketed and even if it is approved, There will be a need for continued work to basically build confidence in our knowledge of the hydrogeology and the geochemistry of the site.

Public Comments:

Mr. Frishman: I have just a couple comments on the two places risk seems to be most I~vi(ient

in the conversation, First was Matt Kozak's presentation, I think he tried to draw us the distinction between "reasonable expectation" and the Commission and DOE's approach, wnlch is a much more compliance-based approach.

Before you go too far with trying to adopt this line of argument, it's important to n)member thal in the lawsuit that the State of Nevada flied, one of the issues in the case in the fling against the NRC had to do with the meaning of "reasonable expectation" versus the traditional and continually used "reasonable assurance" by the Commission,

But that portion of the lawsuit is over, The NRC conceded in their response that reasonable expectation and reasonable assurance mean the same thing relative to 10 CFR Part 63. So before you go too far trying to draw any differences, remember that tnlS issue has been litigated and it has been confirmed that reasonable expectation and reasonable assurance in its currently understood meaning are the standard for 10 CFR Part 63. I just wanted to let you know that in case you didn't so you wouldn't get too far afield.

The other has to do Wittl Tim McCartin's presentation that I believe gives a misguided Idea of risk perspective. The title includes "Risk Perspective" but if you look what's going on here It doesn't do what would be expected. If your mission is to risk-inform the decisionmaking them this approach really doesn't do it. The reason it doesn't is because the real risk of the reposI­tory is not what you put in it. The real risk is what gets out and gets to the accef;sible environ­ment. This presentation doesn't reflect that real risk. And I don't think it's in an)" great dispLJte that technetium and iodine are the big players in the dose in the first, maybe up to 100,000 years, and beyond that the peak dose is primarily driven by neptunium. This presentation doesn't Indicate that would be the case.

In fact, it doesn't really tell you anything other than for long !lalf-Iife radionuclides thaI ileNe half­lives beyond 10,000 years you ought. to pay a lot of attention to the plutonium. There may be a need to. but we don't know yet and we don't know the extent to which we have to because of the whole question of plutonium transport as a colloid. It doesn't tell you in any way that the neptunium is what you really have to worry about because of its chemical characteristics in the Yucca Mountain site environment. It doesn't tell you that technetium and iodine: are what you really have to worry about because of their behaVIor in the Yucca Mountain environment

-18

MINUTES 151Sl ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24,2004

So if you're looking for new ways to communicate a risk perspective, it ought to CIt least tell you or be responsive to what the risks are rather than clouding the issue with things that either we don't know or things that are wrong, For americium, I think it's also not argued, but americium is a big player if you have volcanic disturbance early in the history of the repository. So, yes, it is a big player,. If you're going to get into new ways of communicating a risk perspective, it should at least tell you what the risks are and why you believe they are the risks Irather than clouding the issue with Lhings that, yes, they matter but we understand, at least to some extent we understand, some of them, as to why they really matter. but they are not the most important issues in a risk discussion.

Ms. Teichel: After all this time, I think you need to get another citizen voice, I count Les Bradshaw as a spokesperson for Nye County and there are a lot of citizens who pay clttenlion to what goes on in these meetings, but aren't directly here. I was glad to hear that 4 millirem was finally mentioned because that is what we understand as the groundwater standard and if this stuff gets to anybody, it has to meet a 4 millirem standard. I always kind of talk with a laundry list here because I take notes as I go along. But we're very concerned and, in fact, I've written a letter, So many of these meetings sound like there's already a review going on of an LA (license application). There's sort of an assumption of what will be in there. Of course, there can be an assumption because this has been talked about so much and DOE is continu­ally being told: "Now what you need to do when you file this LA if it's to be successful is this, this and this." But the State, the effective units of government, and the citizens who are concerned and want to be involved in this and plan to be involved one way or another are never told: "Now what you need to do about your concerns is this, this, or this." I have written about that. I just wanted to mention it.

Every meeting, no matter if it's trle ACNW, a technical exchange of the NWTRB, or whateVf,r, generally ends with "I'm so glad to see that work happening, It's a little late in the process, but it's good that it's happening. We need more information about this, this, and, this." Here we are coming screaming down in this incredible race toward a license application that's really very silly to be doing it that way.

There was conversation about conservatism versus reality and I would play it oul from a citizen point of view The repository located within the Death Valley groundwater system is not I"ealistic and you have a balanced use of water out there right now where it supports the kinds of things that the people who live out there want supported. To introduce a repository into that is not realistic and there are so many IJncertainties associated with it that there have to be hig~1 levels of conservatism. When you are using a risk.informed, performance-based kind of process here where you're talking a.bout something where you have no track record, no performance, and you're not really all that sure what the risks are because of all of the uncertainties, the le,3st you can do is be very, very conservative. To talk about it being realistic, I think is disingenuous. It's sort of silly and when you ask people about analogs. they can look at a lot of analogs because what they fUlly expect is some time out in the future, you're going to have analogs for thh thing that you could find today at Hanford, at Savannah River, at Idaho National Engineenng clnej Environmental Laboratory, at Oak Ridge. You can list them forever about things that were not

-19··

MINUTES 1515T ACNW MEETING JUNE 22·24, 2004

supposed to happen with radioactive materials and they did. What we're worried about is that the first indication that something went wrong is the RMEI (reasonably maximally exposed individual) kid who just doesn't seem to be very healthy. I wonder what's wrong with that kid's immune system. So from a public perspective, I think those things need to be said and need to be heard

III.� DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) RESPONSE TO NRC'S INDEPENDENT EVALU· ATION OF DOE TECHNIICAL BASIS DOCUM,ENTS SUPPORTING THE DOE'S YUCCA MOUNTAIN LICENSE APPLICATION (OPEN)

In late 2003 and early 2004, the NRC staff decIded to IncJependently evaluate CE!ltain DOE {:Jr the Project) technical documents and supporting activities integral to the development of a Yucca Mountain license application This "independent technical evaluation" was conducted by the NRC staff and its technical assistance contractor, the CNWRA, It focused on three' of the 120 analysis model reports (AMRs) and other technical documents expected to be used to support DOE's license application. The staff's independent technical evaluation was not unlike an independent quality assurance (QA) audit. The technical evaluation concentrated on reviewing the process for developing and controlling information contained in the AMRs as well as the effectiveness of past and recent correction actions related to model develclpment, software development, and data acquisition. At the end of each technical evaluation, DOE was briefed on the results ()f the evaluationleam's findings.

In a letter dated April 10,2004, the NRC staff publicly re~eased the results of its tl~chnlcal

evaluations. (This release coincided with a technical exchange meeting held with DOE on May 5, 2004.) In summary, the NRC staff noted in its letter that information in key DOE documents supporting the forthcoming license application needed to be reviewed and clarified to improve the transparency and traceability of that information. In an April 2004 letter, the NRC staff requested that the Department respond within 30 days of the May 5, 2004, technical exchange' At its 150th meeting. the ACNW was briefed on these facts by an NRC representa­tive, Mr. Tom Matula,

During this meeting, ACNW was briefed on DOE's May :28, 2004, response by Mr. Joe Ziegler, representing the Project Overall, Mr Ziegler noted that DOE agreed with NRC's, recent ()A concerns and observations. To address these concerns and observations, Mr. Ziegler reported that the Project had brought in about 150 subject matter experts to independently review thf: technical quality of each of the 120 AMRs. Mr, Ziegler noted that the review activities of this newly created Regulatory Integration Team (RIT) would be subject to a newly crE!ated Q)~

---'---'--­'''Generalized and Localized Corrosion of the Waste Package Outer Barrier:'

Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Waste Form Degradation Model," and "Drift De~lradatlon

Analysis .. "

IDOE issued its written response in a letter dated May 28,2004.

-20­

MINUTES 151 51 ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

corrective aclion procedure. Mr. Ziegler summarized DOE's post-evaluation re\riew of the NRC QA evaluation and discussed how this procedure was intended to address the N!RC-identified QA concerns related to the transparency and traceability of information. In particular. Mr. Ziegler observed that the primary focus of the RIT corrective action was to inlprove human performance in implementing QA which was determined by the Department to be the root cause of most of the QA concerns identified. Mr. Ziegler noted that the primary focus of the RIT group would be to review and revise the AMRs. as appropriate, to ensure thl~Y are integrated and suitable to support regulatory decisionmaking necessary as part of the forthcom­ing DOE license application submittal. This review and revision effort was divided into two phases. The review phase, designated Phase 1, would be completed in September 2004, Thus far. approximately 3,000 actions were identified in Phase 1 that relate to improving the transparency and traceability of the information contained in the technical documents. Phase 2, which is intended to be completed by the time of the license application submittal, will include remedial QA actions intended address the aforementioned transparency and trcJGeability issues.

Following his presentation, Mr, Ziegler responded to questions from the ACNW members. staff, and invited consultants Mr. Allen Croff and Dr. Jim Clarke. As part of the questioning. he reviewed the QA process applied to the development of AMRs. Other ACNW questions were points of clarification regarding information contained in his slides. In response, Mr. Ziegler noted that:

About two-thirds of the 150 subject matter experts brought in to support the RIT in Phase 1 were from the national laboratones.

Many of the QA deficiencies identified historically in the program could ttn attributed to DOE working in a regUlatory environment for the first time, with the attendant issue of implementing first-of~a-kind QA policies and gUidance (for the Project).

DOE believes that the RIT effort now in place will adequately address t~I~~ QA issues identified by the NRC staff during its recent independent QA evaluation.

The Project is unclear as to whether the NRC staff intend to respond to the Depart rnenl's May 28,2004, response.

The only outstanding DOE QA correction action relates to the model validation process. DOE expects to see some revised AMRs in the near future that reflect improved QA procedures to address the existing model validation QA concerns.

21­

MINUTES 151&1 ACNW MEETING JUNE 22·24, 2004

IV.� PREPARATION FOR MEETING WITH THE NRC COMMISSIONERS

The Committee agreed to transmit the following to the NRC Office of the Secretary as a proposed agenda for the meeting:

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ACNW PRESENTATIONS

A. Opening Remarks B. Risk Insights Activities C. ACNW Working Group Sessions D. Other Commitlee Activities

NRC/CNWRA Research� NMSS Decommissioning Programs (viz.. West Valley)�

E.� Closing Comments�

Proposed Future Activities�

Federal blister1Vol. 69, No. 114 1TUIScUIY, June 15, 20041 'Joticer H427

to Conduslon Accordingl \', the Commissum has

,jetemlined that, pursuant to :10 CFR .w,2 301 ,the exempUou requested by :~CE in its January ,l6, 2004, letter is 'llitboril.ed bv law ilnd will nol r~~sll1t In

11I1dlle hazal'cls tl) lire or prOpl!rt)' Therefore, tht! Conllnissioll hereby ,,{ranis SeE an exemption to extfllid the :W-day investigatiull and reporting requirements for shipments of low-level radioactive Wilste, [IS requimd by \0 CFR felart 20, r\ppHndix C, Section III ,E. to :15 days,

r'ursuant to 10 CFR 51.31. the Commission has dfltermiued that the ll'imting of this exemptiuu will not hilvB I significant offect on the qIlahty nf the IlUman environment as documented in Fedl~al Registel' Hotice 69 F'R 2~l229

:Aplil2B,20(4). This eX'~lllption j:; effecliV!' upon

ISSUHnCH

Dalad at Ruckville, Marvland Ibis .:nd {h,y 'J! 1','lIa, 2lJ04. .

hr thH Nudu,H Rngl.11atory COJTludss.ion.

Dan'el M Gillen.� 'kung TJime/oJ', Divj"iOJl of W"st<,� .vlo,wgem""1 ami Em'imnmentaJ l'r%clif"".� Office ofNile/eo!' Motfm'oJ Sa/ely r.md� ~1I1,'guard5

FR Hue. 1J4-13,:lH7 Fiied 1\-14··04 lJ:4!; all" I IIILLING CODe 7590...Cl1-P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY� J,.-"" GOMMISSION�

''1'� Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting

'rhe Advisory Committee on r'illclmll ~'Vaste (ACNWj will hold its 'I ~'iJ!;1

meeting 011 )U1Hl 22--24, 2004, Room T· ~B:l, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Mur)'land. Thl< Working Croup Sossion :m tune 22-2:~ will also be vide')conferel'lced with the Dep8.rtmun I )f Energy offices in Summllrlin, Nevada C:nntact Cilrol Hanlon (DOEl for details ,IOOlit tho location of that ,.. ideoconferellce facilitv, She "'HI b" 'llached at (7021794-1324 or via·)-mail ;,1' C(JroljJanirm@notes.ymp,go•.

The schedule fur this mee1ing is as Inllows:

'I'ur:sday, )um: 22, 21104

10 0.111.-·10'/(/ (I.H1,: Openin,t.: :';Iatl'merr' (()pen)--The Chairml'lll will "pen the meeting ilnd turn it over to tllf.! \Vorl;in~ Croup Chairman,

Workmg (;wup: Biosphere TmnspOJ1 'I} Rudiol1llclides at the Propolied YUCf'O Moun/nin Higl,·J.el'el tVaste Rep()sitoJ"; iOpl,"].

III 10 n m-I .' :10" m.: Kevnotl" I·rp.~ellta!ion: • .'\ Sew lIpprilach 10 \1rJlJding Rptnrdfltiol1 bv SO!'l'lip,,, at the

Field Scale" [Open)--The CDlIlmlttee 'i.... m hear II prosent.atiol' by aw..1hold discussiolls with a rtlprasen1alive of I JSGS regarding radiolluclidfl I:ransport

11 OI'} (I./TI,-11 :45 lUll, RegulatOl)' OI'/1n'iml' of RadionvcJide 7)Y1I!spor1 J'SS/JI"S (Oplm)-The Commitlf,e will hear,I pres€,ntaUol1 by lind 110ld dl,~'cu~sions with rElpmselltativll (If the NRC's Office of Nucloo.l' Material and Safety regarding the rugu]atory overview of rad iOlllJcllde lrallsp(Jf~ issues,

1 p./n,· J;4.5 p.m,; OVtl/View [If' I.)OE'" AS.~f~ssnM"t of the Mad,ll or Hadi[lrrudidll Trun.•por,1 rOpen)-The C,Qmmittee will hear presenta1ions by dod hold discussions with ir~pres!lJ1tiltivesof DOE regardUl8 DOE's Ilssessment of the mC'del oJ radiol\uclidll IlranspIJl1.,

1 :".,. p.m".,3:1.5 p,m. CNWIUI Mode/m~: of Site-Scale Satll ra led ZOlle flow (It l'uccu MOlintoi" {OPl:u)--The Committee will hear a pre8elltation by a CNWRA rllprllsonlativB regarding the modeling of site scale Slltllrated zolle flow at Yucca Mountain

3:30 pW, ..4:I.5 p,m.: ChtrrCII.·tel'lstics oj SaturrJted Zone TraJ)sport 01 YUt:cu MOlintlli}1 (OpenJ--Thf.' Comlllittee will hoar II l'resllutation by lind hold discussiolls with representatives of DOE 'egarding the charllcteristil:s of satureted ,';OIlH transport· at ''\''ucca Mnunlain,

415 pill. -.'i: 15 p,m . Pt,Nii' CO/llmenls C~lfll'l 1-..'1'111: c'Dmmil:too will hear

,':ormmml''' h:HIl th;, public,

'I,Vedlll1sdlly. June 23, 20114

H'()rkin.g (;mup: GClo,sphtm' TrrHl;'pol1 ofRcJ(Jicllludnies at thf~ Proposed l'ucca Mountain High-tel/el H/asl!l IIp.p()S'itory--ContiIlUl~d10pen.l.

9 il.Ill,·..!):O,5 a,lll; Opening Statf'ment (Opunf-T1ll< Working Croup Chairman will makfl opening remark.$ regarding the GOlid lid 01' 1odlly'$ sessi.on,;.

9:05 a.Jfl,-·}(}:O.s a,JII .. NRC':;, P/'lf()/manc/~ As.gess/nent ami His};' {'erspeo;ti~'p (Open/-Tho COl'llI'llittee ',.'~i11 heal presentations by and huld discussions with the Nuclear Material ,Safely lind Sa feguards reprosfllllative regarding NRC's perfonnanc!' ilsseSSlllflnt and risk Pl:lfSPllcli \.'l!,

10:20 (/'111,·-12:45 p,m,; Prest'ntlltlOn.~

hy R"{)l't~sl1lltQtiveso.fthe Stall of NeVIle/II. Nye County, ond thl! Electric rower Re5f:lun:iJ /m;'titule, [Op"n)--The (::(llllmittt~" will hear presentations by ~;lak.Hholdl,r organizations,

2pm ... ,'1 p,Ill,: \!\I'orkingGrDl.,'p J'!olllll1l"I,1'1' Pond Di.l'ctJS.9iof] IOp"'JI J.

3 pl:ll,'-4 p,m, PlImll lind C,'mmittp.1' S'.Immol'y Discl/li.9ion (Dpenl.

'I pm,"'4:,'IU p.II1 .. ' PlIl>lic (,'ommen/s !()pOIl)

4:30 J1.m.-4:3,'" p,m.' Ch'IiII1,~ Comments by tb~" 11,co/'kJl.l,~: 1';1'(1'1.1":.'

Chairman (Open) 4:35 p.m,-S:15 .ll III. 1'l"C.,'/8:"P," of

/\(;N11' Letter Rp,:;,orl (Open ,.- TI I"

Committee will O)'j!,ille the IJI'loO:lpal p.oints t(l be incJtJd~ld ill" pOll'lIt"d letter report reSll ) ling lion' \he,. Working Croup ,;ns~jon.,.

Thursday, June ,H, 200<1

8:30 a,m,-8:35 un.. 111'p.Jriflg Remarks by the ,'leNW (;.!wlrmn,,. lOpenl-The Chairman will mil~(, c)penin!l remarb 'egaI'd] ng thE' ,;, "I duct of todav's sessia II 'J

8:3511.m,-.10 (, .. ,J!,' DOE Fl'1''''ponse /0 NRC fndepencle.rl! li'valufltio/f (,rDOE Documents Supportin,g tIll) Yw:ca Mountain Licen.~l~ AppliclJtmn i I'MLA} (Open)-The GOl1;miltel~ will helll' presentations by Imel hold discu:,sions with representatbll~ of DOE reg!llding thllir response to I hi" NRC's '-\Pl'ii: 10. 2004letler to M Chu, DOE. rega'ding that evaluation by NRC o( tIm documellts intellli ed to 'iIIppDr1 till' YMLA.

10:15 a,ITl.-12:.::iO p,m, i'n·pm'l.dion 0/ ACNW ReportslC'plm)-Th,-, Conlmittee will discuss potelltial.l\CNW r~ports on matters discussed dnring this )rH:etillg. It may also discus~ pussible rllpOl't!1 em matters discussed durinq pricd' meeting.,

1:30 p.m,-2;4: :I,m,' l'p'p'II'r./n.1fI il)r Meeting with the ,'vJlC C:"HI1!'IW,i'JlWr.' I:OpeIll--The Co,nll1ittel;willl'in~lil.t1il~ viewgraph,~ for thl; prIJp(l>~d !"dv:.: 1, 2004 m!leting with thl> '{He Cnmmissinners,

2:45 p,m.-3 p,i! ,. ,'r1i.9C'I'i],mt""," (Open)-The Committoe will di,;'.·l.Iss matters related til thH c:ollduct o! Committee activities and rnOlltlll>; and specific issues tlilit werH Hoi eon: pleted during previous Ineeting:>, !is tim', and availebillty of in.flmnatioll plllltli \

Procedures for I he conduct (.,r 'md participation in .I\.CNW meelillgs were published in the .'''edel'lll Regisll1l' on October '16, 2003 1.68 FR ,)~1f'i4:n fn accordance with those procedures, oral or written statomftllls may II!: prc'sented by members oft111'" public. Electronic recordings will h~ p"rmiHm:1 onl y during thosll port.lons or the Int1l<1lng 1hat are open to the publk I'Cl'sr"IS

desiring to make oral sta1nlllent~; !,hould notify Mr, Howard I· Larson. Spr:{ial Assistllnt [Telephmw :\01-415 ....1 1105), between 7:30 a.m, and 4 pin f,!1 , as far ill advam;e lt~ prudicabll: "0 thai appropriate arrangell.1ellt~CiI/lIW madH to schedlile the nllcAssar.',' tinw d"rmg the meet.ing ror SJ,:h slalemenb ISH 01 ,till, motion piclll"!' UlIt: '"h'\i~J:'H cameras durillg th,,' rnl't,linp: ;\,11 'I"., limited jll select"ll porlh"l" "1'1,,,

33428 fedl!nd Register/Vol. fif), No. 114/'ruesday, June 15, 2004/Notice:

meeting as determined by the .'\.eN\'\' Chairma.n. Inlormation regarding tliH time 10 be s"1 aside for taking pic! UfOS lTIay be obts i Iled hy contacting th., ACNW office prior to the meeting. In \'jew of the possibility that the scheduhl for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by tht' Chairms.ll as necessary 10 I'acililatn Ihf· conduct ufthe meeting, persolls planning to attend should notify Mr. Howard I. Larso)) ,\S to their pafticuhlr l1ellds.

I'urthflr illf()rmfl!.ion regarding topics III be disclIssl1d, whether the rT\lteling IHI~' been canceled or rescheduled, thf' Chairman'~ nding on requests for thll opportllnily to present ond slatllmenls dUd tho lim,' allotted. theref(lfll can be ohtained by I:ontao:lin& Mr Howard I L,lIson

I\CNW meeti.ng agenda, rneeting 1I anseripts, and letter reports an' available thllJugh the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrr::.glJl·, or by calling the PDR Ilt 1-80o-30'l-42011, or from tho Publiclv Available RElcords Sy,tem (PARS) ;omponent of NRC's do,;ument system (ADAMS) which Ii;

a,'cessihle fi:olll the NRC Wflh sile at hrtp:illlwW.llfc.govlreading-rm/ udllIno-.html or htlp:!lwwW,llI'C,gOI'/ readjng-rmidoc-c()lIectionsl (ACRS :'. ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas),

Video Telec:onforencing Sf,lfVu;e is available for observing open sllssions of f\CNW meelings. Those wishing to lise this service ror obHerving .ACNV,' meetings ShuLtld contact Mr. Theron Brown, i\CNW Audiovisulll Tllchnician (3Ul--4 15-8060). hetwtlen 7:,10 a.lll. tlnd .\ 45 p,rn. B,t, al l"asl 10 rlays before the meeting 10 1'IJ\.sure Ihe availnbility of thi:, ,f,rvice,

Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be re~ponsible lor telephone line c:hargf.'s ~lld for proViding t.he equipmenllilld facil ities th~t thev use to establjsh til£; VIdeo lulec:ollf€'I"~ncing link. Tlw aVhilabilitv of vi dill1 teleconfen1Jldn!~

'llrvicEJ'i is no\ guaranteed.

t:~loci ium'· H. 2U04.

:\nllrew I., Ball's,

Ad"jsor)' Com'ni/tl't:' .I,1anogomenl OJ/ie", . FH Doc. 04-U:Ui5 Fil!!(1 6-14-lJ4; /lAS ami BIlLING CODE 7$!l(}-()1-~'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 5D-029)

Yankee Atomic Power Company, Yankee Atomic Pow. Station (ROWE); Notice 01 Pub4lc MMtlng on the License Tennln.tlon Plan

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRCJ ill providing noticl!' thill thE! NRC staff will Gonduct a 1I111etlng 10 di:lcuss and accBpt public continents 0\1 the Yankae (Rowel Atomic Pow"r Station (1'ankflll·Rowe) Licen~e Termination Pilm (LT)'] 011 ThUlsdav, JUlle 24, 2004, £11;' p.m. at Mohawk Trail Rogional High SchooL ,26 Ashtll~ld goad, Shelhome Falls, Mi~ss8chusetts.

Yallketl Atomic Ele{lric Company (1' i\EC, 1.1" Iho HC:llnsee) informed the NRC bv letter dated Fflbrusry 27. 1992, that yanktle·l{owll was permanently shut dOWl' and thai dElCommlssioning would commencll. YAEC submitted a decOlnmissioning plan on Dflcember 20, 199:1, whicb included an envinmmental report The decommissioning plan was approvlld by Order on February 14, 19!15, OJ1.d the plaut is undery;oing dismantlement under 10 CT-'R 50.59.

[n Illxll>rdancl' with J (J CJ'R !'082(alI9). all powerl'flador licensees must submit an appli';ation for termination of theiI lU:lll1se. Tl1(' application for te:rmination e,r license must 00 aCl:ompanied or precedllCj by an L11' to be submitted fOI NRC approval. If found (J(;ceptabJe by the NRC staff, the LTP i.s approved by liceu~e IHnendment, subject 1.0 sLich conditions lind limitations as Ihe NRC 9tl111 deems appropriato ilnd nOGessary, YI\EC snbmitted the proposed LTP for Yankee­Rowe b)r ,tpplicstiOIlS dated l'lovemher 24, 2003, [)ecemher 10, 2003, December 16.200:1, January 1~J, 2004, J.lnUiUY 20, 2004, Fllbruary 2, 2QQ4, Febnlary la, 2004, lind March 4, 2004, III 'jccordance with l(l CfR 20.1405 and 1(1 em 50e2(a){9)(iiiJ, the NRC is proViding ooticn to individuals 111 the \il;inity of the SltR fhnt the NRC is in rt~C£lipl of the Yankne··Rowe. 11'1', will hold a ptlhlic mlletin~\, and will aCcilpt cOlllmfH1ts Ir()!l1 affEfcted partiElR.

,\n eiectr'ol1lc vllTsion Cllllw Y·:mkllO­Rowe LTP may va viewed thtough the NRC ADAMS 5ystem at a~:ce,:.siol1

numbers ML033450398. MLD33S30147. ML04111 02ti I, ML0402 8002·i , MLo40Z11002B. MLO'll:1280031. ML040ZIJ0036, ML040280140. ML[)40~1:I0777, MLO'1042038i), I'vlL041·1110639, and MLIl40f!UOO:"4. or at th" YlIukeeAtornic Powar Cpmpany site dO'iIll"l1 Woli sile, http;/./ ~VI<\··I"'. \lank (~e. conI /8iic(,'/osvr't,,/ inllos: Irtrll.

Commellts O! questions rfJ8w.ding tho YankLJe·Rowe LTP OJ: tho puhlic meeting may be address,·d to Mllohn 1l:, Hickman, Mail :ilnp T-/ -F2? , Decommissioning Diff,(;t{lralrl Division of Waste Managomelll and Environmental Protection, Ollw" of Nuclear Material Safely and SlIfllguards, U,S. Nudear RaguJalOl")" CorrlHiission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 ,I(,lephone (301J 415-301:': 'Ir via !l,n;lil jhh@nrc.gov.

Datad at Rock".lc, Mlln.ld"';. II,,:> 4th da\' of June 2004. •

For tire Nllc!OU.r RII~uli\lu'~I.:I:'"Hi\,s-,iofi

C'audi. Craig, Olier .Reactor o.'i u/flmis8IOn·Jl/l S""',IWII, Deco.mmissianin,q Dite(~torrlU', Divl',r,:ion oj Waste ManClgem""t flml Erl\·lIunl1l1mtaJ ProtflClion, 0ffic.· "f.Vue/"(I I: IHCllr'. :ol.'lafrrty and Salu8UQJ"d. IFR Dor: 04-1:l:lm, fled f;. j.I 1.\. ·'\45 Bill I BILLING 759lH11-P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SunshIne Ace llleeting NotIce

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: l,uclear Regulalory Commissiotl.� DATE: Weeks ollune H, :.(·1, 21i. ,uly 5.� 12,19,2004.

PLACE: ComrnhlsiO\ler~· Cnn!el'enc:e Room. 11556 RO!:kvillr.' ['ike, I{ockville, Maryland, STATUS: Public <il11~1 Clos"d MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week ofJune 14, 2004

There are no rumlin!!!. S~:bEldHJ!ld for dIe Week of lUlu· 14, 20tH

Week of June 21. 2004..··T.mlllli"e

There al'e no rlle;lting~i SCI!IH!,r!'ld for the Week of)um' 21. 2004

Week ofJune 28. 2004·-·y.,nla!I\'e

There are no I1ltlflting!i Sdlf,dlllHd for the W£ltlk of IUIIl 28, 2004

Week ofJuly 5,. :~004·-·TmI1llti",

There aft' no meetillg,; .'ida":"I,,d fill" the WHek of lulv 5 2004

Week (If July 1::. 21104-···Tlml.111 iVI"'

Tuesday, luly l d', ;;'()04

2;] 5 p.m. Disc'llssiOIl III S'~C;'.III I}' Issues (Closed-Ex n

Week ofJlIly 10, 2l)04-·.]'£Hltallvl'

WedIlflsclay, lw'v ;! i' .2001

9:30 a.m. Mllt'tlng \<,'ith A.dvisH\' Committee 011 Nucllmr WustF (ACNW') (f\lblic rv!£wt.i.ng] 1\,oolal:l: John Larkinf.. :101·-4·\"7:\,,,1)

APPENDIX B UNITED STATES�

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION� AOVISORY GOMMITIEE ON NIJCLEAR WASTE�

WASHINGTON, DC :W5S!,-OO01�

June 8, 2004

AGENDA� 151$1 ACNW MEETING�

JUNE 22~24, 2004�

TUESDAY, JUNE 22. 20Q4 L .CONEERENCE ~QOJ1ft 283. TWO WHITEfbINT_~QRIli.

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

1) '10:00 - 10:10 A.M� .o~enmg.Statemen! (Open) (MTR/GMH/JTl) The Chairman will provide opening remarks and items of interest and will then turn it over to the Wor.dng Gmup session chairman who will state the obj,ectives and provide a overview of the next two days Working Group session Invited experts will also be introduced at this time.

WORKING GROUP: _GEOSPHERE TRANSPORT OF RADtONUCLIDEJi.AITJf~

PRO-eQSEO YUCCA MOUNTAIN liLW REe2IlIORY (Open) (GMH/NMC)

The purpose of this working group is to. 1) review the expected behavior of radionuclides in the tuff and valley-fill aquifers proximal to and south of Yucca Mountain, and 2) address the primary question: "For Yucca Mountain, do the conoeptual models, mathematical implementations, and site data provide confidence that the geosphere can retard the transport of radionuchdes?" [The Working Group Session on ,June 22-23 will also be videoconferenced with the Department of Energy offices in Sumrnerlin. Nevada Contact Carol Hanlon (DOE) for details about the location ofthat videoconference facility. She can be reached at (702) '794··1.324 or via e-mail at CaroLHanlon@notes,yrnpgov]

2)� '10'10 - 11.10 A. M~~note ..presentatiQD 2.1)� Views on radionuclide transport will be presentee!

by James Davis, USGS, Menlo Park, C:A. "PI New Approach to Modeling Retardation by Sorption at the Field Scale"

2.2)10:50 ·11:10 A,M� - Discussion ,.� 0'"�

2,) 1'1"10 - 11,4~-A M� Begulatory Overview ofRadionuclide TransPQ.r.t.lss!,!,§§ :~.r) 11:10· 11:25A.M. PresentationbyKeith

Compton, NRC's Office of Nuclear Mat'erial Safety and Safeguards

:I .;i~) 1125· 11 :45 A.M : Discussion

·1·1:45 . 1:00 P.M. ... ..~LUNCH** ...

4) 100··~PM Qyervie~.ofj]OEJ!1\§§.essment of the Model of RJlJjlQD.!,lc;lLQ!?­I@nspoJ!: 41)1 :00·· 1.30 PM Presentation by Robert J\ndrews. ~)OE

4Zl 1:30··· 1:45 PM Discussion

.') ...:..

5) '1:-45- 3:15 P,M. GNWRA Modeling 9f Site-Scale Saturated ZQI1.~J:.J.9..wJl1 YuCca Mountain

:1,. 51) '~'~210 PM.: Presentation byJames W'interle, CNWRA 5,2) 2:10 -~)aM.: DIscussion

......1 .• () (.,.•'

Development of Sorption Parameters for Neptun~u.rTI-237 in the Saturated Alluvium South of Yucca Mountain, Ne~'ada

3:':'; 5.3) "2~- 2:55 P.M.: Presentation by Paul Benetti, CNWRA 5.4) 2:55 ~-&.-+i-P.M.: Discussion

*"'~BREAK**·

6)� Qharacteristlcs of Saturated Zone Transport at Yycca Mounta.LD 6.1) 3~'" 4:00 PM: Presentation byAI Ariz .......lIeFA,DOE 6.2) 4:00 -~P.M Discussion 1'\,' r l·'I''.'''d

,~:';~:' ,1'1.:,)� /1, ~._) (' :/ .,.

4---1£··- 515 P M

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23. 200~Q.NFERENCE_ ROOM 2B3, TWO WHITE;'£.!",!.N.LJiQRTH, ~OCK~LLE!MARYLAND

WORKJNG GROUP: GEOSPHERE TRANSPQRT OF RADtONUCLlD§S AT THE PROPOSED YUCCA MOUNTAIN HLW REPOSITORY (Continued) (Open) (GMH/NMC)

8) 900·· 9:Q6- AM.� oQpening Statement (MTR/GMH/NMC) The Working Group Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions.

9) 905 - 1-&-re·AM. .NRC~"performance Assessment and Risk P~~ctlV5l

',) , " ", 91) 9:05 - 9:40 A,M.: Presentation by Tim McCartin, NMSS, NRC

92) 9:40·· 10:05 AM. Discussion .. ... . I� / ("I ".~~, :)

~-1&:-29 A.M. "'..*BREAK..•..

1O)1·e~(]-" 12 45 P. M Presentations b.y.J~~Qrnsentatives of the Stat~LQf N,~v,§Qg... i"'~:i':)"I, : :': Ny,e CQunty. and the Electric Power ResearcQ Institute

10,1) Don Shettel, Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. (representing State of Nevada)

102)� Les Bradshaw, Tom Buqo, and Dale Hammermeister (representing Nye Co., NV) Basin-Wide Coordination of Water Resources Definition, Development. and Managen1ent Nye County's Groundwater Evaluatiom>: Success Story: Sonic Coring in Fortymile Wasil

10,3) Mtehaet-Apted (representing EPRI)� , ";,:1': l'/!, ' l~ ,:J .(1·(::'�

1~ 2:00 P.M."""· LUNCH ***�

"j

J

11) 2·{}O- 3:00 P.M.�

.'\ ". 'I .." ,.'

Working Group Roundtable Panel DiscussioI1Q.o..Geo§,Qtlere Tran§pQrt at Yucca Mountain Expert Panelists James Davis, USGS Menlo Park, CA Maury Morgen8tein, Geosciences Management Institute, representing State of Nevada Richard Parizek. Penn State University, and NV\rrRB member Ines Triay, US DOE

14) 4:·30~-4735··P.·. M. '''~~~: 'Lf' 5 e", ~l .' ,.,. ;,)

15) 4:-36 -~P.M.

, ,

Q./.Q§lng_Comment~L.Qyj(IJorking Group Sessi~l.Ch~lHlli!.n !~: ,:1 (. ,~~~' 1'<

e,reparatjon of ACNW Report (Open) (GMH/NMC)� Discussion of principal points in a potential ACNW report to the� Commission on the results and observations from the Geosphere� Transport Working Group.�

Adjourn Day 2

rHURSpAY, JUNE 24, 2004, CONFJ;RENCE ROOM 283, TWO WHITE FLIN.I.J·~_ORT.!:f,

.ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

16)

17) ..-&.-3& -- H);{)()..AM.

i./ I}:

I' I' ~ ":)4

.~- ~A.M.

Opening Statement by-the ACNW Chairman (Open)� (MTRlHJt)� The Acting Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the� conduct of today 's session.�

POE Response to NRC Independent Evaluation ~~f..POr;

,Documents SYPQortillil the Yup;a Mountain Lice[lse AgR.li~!ig.fl .(YMLA) (Open) (MTRJMPL)': Briefing by and discussions with DOE representatives regarding the Department's response to the NRC's April 10, 2004. letter to M. Chu, DOE, regarding that evaluation by NRC 1~lf the documents Intended to support the YMLA.

u*BREAK*...•

4�

18) 10:15·12:30 PM preparation of ACNWBmlorts (Open) (All) ',I' }I; I " The Committee will discuss potential reports on:

18,1) Decommissioning Program Changes (MTR/HJL) " ''1'' j,.:'O, .",j

18,2) NRC Independent Evaluation of DOE Documents /'r:', ' " ' i i

Supporting the YMLA (MTRIMPL) 18,3) Geosphere Transport Working Group (GMH/NMC) , 18.4) Treatment of Uncertainties in Hyrologic Models C,' ';,

(GMH/NMC)

12:30 -1:30 P.M.

19)1·3t}·'~,M f.1.eparation for Meeting with the NRC CommissiotJ.~'.§l (Open) <:;' ,j (:; "I, (:, I;:"� (MTR. etal/JTL, et.al)

The Committee will finalize its viewgraphs for the oroposecl Ju~y 21, 2004 meeting with the NRC Commissioners

!Y1isceHa..!JiQY.§ (Open) The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct 01 Committee activities and matters and specific issll~~s that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit.

::',; ':./,

-3:-00 p, ITl Adjourn 151'1 Meeting

NOTE: .' :", ,-~. ' .' " ,. ,. i): II ,~:;::

•� Presentation time should not exceed 50 percent of the total time allc)cated for a specific item. The remaining 50 percent of the time is reserved for discussion.

Thirty-five (35) hard copies and (1) electronic copy of the presentation materials should be provided to the ACNW.

•� ACNW meeting schedules are subject to change. Presentations may be canceled or rescheduled to another day. If such a change wO~Jld resuh in significant inconvenience or hardship, be sure to verify the schedule with Mr. Howard Larson at 301-416-6805 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., several days prior to the meeting.

APPENDIX C: MEETING ATTENDEES

151 sT ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

John Larkins Neil Coleman Latif Hamdan Michele Kelton Howard L.arson Michael Lee Richard Major Richard Savio

INVITElt~P-ERT

Allen Croff

CONSULTANT

James Clarke

ATTENDEES FROM Tti..E..HYCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS,nN

H. Arlt NMSS P.Reed RES K. Compton NMSS J. Bradbury NMSS J. Rubenstone NMSS A. Campbell NMSS D. Esh NMSS C. Grossman NMSS P. Justus NMSS A. Blancc OIG M.Denrns OIG B. Ibrahim NMSS B. Richter NRR S. Mirata NMSS T. McCartin NMSS

APPENDIX C 151$1 ACNW Meeting JUNE 22·24, 2004

f\TrENDEES F.RQM.THE NVCLEAB REGULATORY COMMISSION (~Q.NT'_Q)

JUNE 23, 2004

B. Leslie C. Greene K. Compton P. Justus M. Nataraja K. Stablein C. Grossman J. Rubenstone J. Bradbury P Reed H. Arlt T. Nicholson D. Lipkey T. McCartin

JUNE 2~, 2004

1. Matula K. Stablein IJ. Rubenstone F. Brown

NMSS OGG NMSS NMSS NMSS NMSS NMSS NMSS NMSS RES NMSS RES OIG NMSS

NMSS NMSS NMSS NMSS

-2­

APPENDIXC 151.1 ACNW Meeting JUNE 22-24, 2004

AlTENDEES FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND GENERAL PUBL/~;__

Via Teleconference With Cent,LfQr.b\,uclear Waste RQgulatory AnalYles

JUNE 22, 2004

E. Pearcy B. Sagar R. NabaJarr G. Wittmeyer C. Dinwiddie

JUNE 23. 2004

E. Pearcy B. Sagar R. Nabalan G. Wittmeyer

Teleconference With DOE, at aJ,

JUNE 22L200~

S Frishman State of Nevada B. Andrews BSe J. Treichel Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force D. Shettel OM IlINevada B. Arnold BSe A Van LUlk DOE D. Coleman DOE M. Wisenbur9 sse S Perkins DOE A. Elzeftawy Las Vegas Pauite Tribe T Buqo Nye CCllJnty J. Prince BSe

APPENDIX C 151 0 ' ACNW Meeting JUNE 22·24. 2004

ATTENDEES FROM OTHER AGENCIES ANDGENEBAL PUBLIC (C.~mTI>l

Teleconference With DOE, !!La.J (Cont'd)

S. Frishman J. Treichel B. Arnold D. Coleman T.Buqo J. Walker D. Davis A. Meyer B. Andrews D. Hammermeister L. Kryder D. Shette~

S. Perkins L. Bradshaw J. Prince

JUNE 24

J. PrinC€l J. Ziegler N. Hunernuller M. Wisenburg

State of Nevada Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force BSC DOE Nye County Nye County Nye County BSC BSC Nye County Nye County GM II/Nevada DOE Nye County sse

Bse DOE DOE sse

ATTENDEES FRQM OTHER AGENCIESAml GENERAL PUBUC (CQNl~l

JUN~2Q04

C. Bezanson N. Henderson E. von Tiesenhausen C. Hanlon J. Winterle M. Kozak D. Duncan R. Parizek P. Bertetti R. McCullum

Booz-Allen Bechtel SAle Corp. (BSC) CCCP DOE CNWRA Monitor Scientific U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)� Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB)� CNWRA� Nuclear Energy Institute�

-4­

APPENDIXC 151 51 ACNW Meeting JUNE 22·24,2004

ATIENDEES FROM QIHER AGENCIES AND GENERAL PUBLIC (C~)~I'.Ql

I Triay K.Hart J. Shaffner J. Russell D. Diodato

E. von Tisenhausen M, KozaK N. Henderson D. Oakley P. Bertettl R. McCullum B. Barnaby D. Duncan C. Hanlon J. Shaffner J. Winterle A. Barkatt J. Russflll D. Diodato

D. Diodato R. Parizek J. Shaffner E. von Tiesenhausen N. Henderson D. Oakley C. Hanlon

DOE Embassy of Australia PARRALAX CNWRA NWTRB

CCCP Monitor Scientific sse FSCC CNWRA NEI NWTRB USGS DOE MTS CNWRA The Catholic University of America CNWRA NWTRB

NWTRB NWTRB NTS cecp sse FSCC DOE

-5·

APPENDIX D: FUTURE AGENDA

The Committee approved the following topics 10r discussion during its 152nd mef.~ting, scheduled for July 20-22, 2004:

Package Performance Study (PPS)

License Termination Rule (LTR) AnalysIs of the Use of Intentional� Mixing of Contaminated Soil�

Risk-Informing Yucca Mountain Inspection System�

August 2004 Japan Trip�

Background Briefing on ~ntegrated Safety Assessment (ISA)�

Health Physics (HP) Issues

Preparation for, and meeting wfth, the NRC Commissioners scheduled 10,r July 21, 2004

Plans for September 24,2004, Committee Retreat

Preparation of ACNW R(~ports on

Geosphere Transport Working Group

Treatment of Uncertainties in Hydrologic Models

License Termination Rule Analysis of USI~ of Intentional Mixing of Contaminated Soil

Risk-Informing Yucca Mountain Inspection System

Package Performance Study

As applicable, report on other topics discussed at the 152"d meetil19

APPENDIX E� LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE COMMlTIEE�

[Note: Some documents listed below may have been provided or prepared for Commit­tee use only. These documents must be reviewed prior to release to the public.'

.MEEnNG~~

AGENDA ITEM-NO,

WORKING GROUP: GEQ§PHERE TBAN§PQRT QF RAPIONUCLIDES ACTHE .EJ.BQP'OSED YUCCA MOUNTAIN HLW REPOSIJjQBY..

2 Keynote ~resentat!21J

A New Approach 10 Modeling Retardation by Sorption at the Field ScaIE~,

presented by J A. Davis, U.S Geological Survey, Menlo Pf:lrk, C/~

[VIewgraphs]

3 Regulatory QyervleY.LQf Radlonuclide Transport Issues

2.� NRC Approaches 10 Ihe Evaluation of Saturated Zone Flow and Transport, presented by Keith Compton, NRC [Viewgraphs]

4 Overview of DOE's Assessment..2f I.he Model of RadionucU~Q....In~DJR9It

3.� Overview of Unsaturated and Saturated Zone Radionuclide Transpoli. Processes and Related Testing, presented by Robert Andrews, Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC [Vlewgraphs]

5 CNWRA Modeling of Slte.scale §aturaled Zone Flow at YU1~~.M.9.Ymin

4.� CNWRA Modeling of Site-Scale Saturated Zone Flow at YIJIGca MOllntaln, presented by Jim Winterle. CNWRA [Viewgraphs]

5.� Development of Sorption ParametNs for the Saturated AIiLlvium SOlJtrl of Yucca Mountain. Nevada. presented by Paul Bertetti, CNWRA [Viewgraphs]

6 ~haracteristic.LQL~aturated Zo!J!.Iransport at Yucca MOU~l~iO

6.� Yucca Mountain Saturated Zone Flow and Transport Models and Resull.s, presented by Bill Arnold, SNL, Bechtel SAIC Company, LtC: [Viewgraphs]

APPENDIX E 151" ACNW MEETING JUNE 22·24, 2004

MEETING HANDOUTS (CONT'D)

AGENpA ITEM NO.

9 NRC's Perfor(TIance Assessment and Risk Perspective

7. NRC's Performance Assessment and Risk Perspective, pre,sented by Tim McCartin, NRC [Vlewgraphs]

10 Presentations by Represent.lm of the State of Nevada, ~~.QY.!l!Y.L..!ill.Q

the Electric Power "'19arch In,tttult

8. State of Nevada's Perspective on Sorption, presented by Don L. Shettel, Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. [Viewgraphs]

9 Nye County's Groundwater Evaluations, presented by Thomas S. Buqo, Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities [Vlewgraphs]

10. Success Story: Sonic Coring In Fortymile Wash, presented by Dale Hammer meister, Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities [Vlewgraphs]

11. Basin-Wide Coordination of Water Resources Definition, Development and Management, presented by Les W Bradshaw, Nye County Departmenl of Natural R.esources and Federal Facilities [Viewgraphs]

12. EPRI Evaluations of the Saturated Zone, presented by Matthew W. Kozak, EPRI [Viewgraph6]

16 Opening Statem,nt lJpy the ACN'll.k.halrman

13. Items of Interest, 151 51 ACNW Meeting, June 22-24, 2004 [Handout}

.,,-...; '""

APPENDIX E 151"' ACNW MEETING JUNE 22-24, 2004

MEETING NOTEBOOK CONTENTS

TAB NUMBER� DOCUMENTS

1.� Agenda,15'1'1 ACNW Meeting, June 22-24, 2004, dated June 8,2004 2.� Color Code -151$1 ACNW Meeting. dated June 9, 2004 3,� Introductory Statement by ACNW Chairman, Tuesday, Jun(~ 22 2004,

undated 4.� Items of Interest for 151 st ACNW Meeting, undated 5.� Introductory Statement by ACNW Chairman, Wednesday, ,June 23. 201)4,

undated 6.� Introductory Statement by ACNW Chairman, Thursday, June 24, 2004

undated

1� Working Group SeNion on Geosphere Transport of RadjQnucUdel!.AUhe Proposed Yucca Mountain HLWReposltory

7.� Status Report

17� DOE Response to NBC Independent Evaluation of DOE DQl!.Y!!l!.nts S-Y.P: portIng 'hit Yucca Mbuntaln Llc,nse Application

8.� Status Report