Division of Waste Management I ho± FROM: k4h J JA/WMEG r/f NMSS r/f REBrowning MJBell JTGreeves...

DEC 16985

JTB/85/12/12/0 Ml GI

MEMEORANDUM TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

REEVES- 1 -

D isr Vit ?u 0-wenctnfDltibuti~n: A

WMEG r/fNMSS r/fREBrowningMJBellJTGreevesMSNatarajaHJMillerJOBuntingLBHigginbothamPDR/LPDR (B, Nj:S$:

417, I ho±

k4h J1 ( JA/?LR GIzhs

rhaL +'r

John T. Greeves, ChiefEngineering BranchDivision of Waste Management

Mysore S. Nataraja, Section LeaderRock Mechanics SectionEngineering BranchDivision of Waste Management

John T. BuckleyRock Mechanics SectionEngineering BranchDivision of Waste Management

Sher BahadurRock Mechanics SectionEngineering BranchDivision of Waste Management

TRIP REPORT BWIP EXPLORATORY SHAFT WORKSHOP

Attached is a copy of our trip report for the BWIP Exploratory Shaft

Workshop held in Richland, WA on December 3-5, 1985. DOE's viewgraphs have

i_> also been enclosed as attachments to the report even though they are quite

numerous. If you desire any additional information about the trip we will

be happy to provide it for you.

WM Record File/La/,

Distribution:

WM Project / / I .Docket No.

LPDR a -

Mysore S. Nataraja, Section LeaderRock Mechanics SectionEngineering BranchDivision of Waste Management

8601240157 851216PDR WASTEWM-lo PDR

: . 1. :~~~~~~~~~~~(Return to WM, 623-SS)

IFC :WMEG :WME9> :WMEG :

[AME :JBuckley/km-:MNataraJa :SBahadur

*ATE .: &iOs85 .t3/85 : 8 .5

s, - - A ;x

. I

JTB/85/12/12/0 Ml GREEVES- 2 -

John T. BuckleyRock Mechanics SectionEngineering BranchDivision of Waste Management

Sher BahadurRock Mechanics SectionEngineering BranchDivision of Waste Management

FC :WMEG :WMEG :WMEG

NME :JBuckley/km MNataraja :SBahadur :

UTE :10/ /85 :10/ /85 :10/ /85 :

6 eA4j cyZare t p w/z5 r6Sop*

/0/

ATTACHMENT 2

DOE/ARC EXPLORATORY SHAFT DESIGN ORESHOP AGENDADecember 3-4, 1985

Hanford House, Vernita RoomRichland, Washington

Subject Presentor Time Start Time

DECEMBER 3, 1985

Introduction DOE/Meeting Strategy

Introduction NRC

Exploratory Shaft Overview

Exploratory Shaft/Repository SiteSelections

Exploratory Shaft Design

LUNCH

Exploratory Shaft Construction

Construction Testing

Prerequisite Plan

DECEMBER 4, 1985

Reiterate Meeting Strategy

Summarize 12/3 Presentations

Seals/PA Overview

Effect on Site Characterization

Performance Assessment

Postclosure Seals

Quality Assurance Overview

Exploratory Shaft Q" List

LURCH

Graded Quality Assurance Application

Closing Statements

R. P. Saget

M. S. Nataraja

R. P. Saget

P. E. Long

A. McElrath

E. E. Hershberger

T. M. Wintczak

N. M. Hutchins

R. P. Saget

R. P. Saget

A. J. Knepp

R. M. Craig

R. G. Baca/B. Sagar

E. Fredenburg

R. P. Saget

K. A. Hadley

D. F. Hanlen

20 Min.

20 Min.

30 Min.

30 Min.

8:30

8:50

9:10

10:00

30 Min.

30 Min.

15 Min.

30 Min.

11:0012:00

1:00

2:30

3:00

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.p.m.

p.m.

p.m.p.m.

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.

atL.

a.m.

a.m.

a.m.p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

10 Min.

15 Min.

15 Min.

15 Min.

30 Min.

30 Min.

15 Min.

20 Min.

8:30

8:40

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:45

11:00

11:30

12:00

1:00

2:00

20 Min.

ATTACHMENT 3

Workshop On

EXPLORATORY SHAFTDESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

ES . X"14w RA"d*r16 M_&02

December 3-5, 1985Richland, WA

To Ensure That ES Activitiesare Performed in AccordanceWith 10 CFR 60.10(d):

* Limit Adverse Effects onLong Term Performance

* Obtain Information Neededfor Site Characterization

* Location of Boreholes andShafts

* Coordination with RepositoryDesign/Construction

Background Information Requested

By The NRC To Conduct Effective

Review of ES Activities:

* Performance Analysis

* Performance Allocation

Sources of NRC Comments onBWIP ES Design/Construction:

* BWIP

* BWIP

SCR Review

Meeting/Workshop Minutes

* BWIP EA Review

* NRC/DOE ES Correspondence

Aug. 6. 1982

Sept. 23, 1982

Oct. 15, 1982

Nov. 5. 1982

DOE/NRC Correspondence OnBWIP Exploratory Shaft

NRC Requested Details of Sealing and QA

DOE Response to Aug. 6 Letter

NRC Requests ES Test Plan

NRC Identifies the Requirementsof 1OCFR6O.11(a)(6)iii

NRC Requests Specific Information on ES

DOE Response to Jan. 13 Letter

DOE Detailed Response to Jan. 13 Letter

DOE Revision of April 1 Response

NRC Comments on DOE Response

NRC Comments on ESTP

Jan. 13, 1983

Feb. 23, 1983

April 1 1983

April 29. 1983

Nov. 9, 1983

Mar. 12, 1984

Sunnary of Information Request

By NRC On BWIP ES Activities:

I Design* Shaft & Sea'

* ES Construction Procedures

* Sealing/Grouting Procedures

* Testing/Inspection Procedures

* QA For The Above

STATUS OF BWIP ES REVIEW

Based on Design DocumentsSubrnitted To This Date TheNRC Staff Has Not IdentifiedAny Major Adverse SafetyRelated Effects ResultingFromn ES Construction.

NRC Continues

Inforiation onto Requestthe Following:

* Performance Analysis

For Exploratory Shaft

* Performance Allocation of

the Repository Conponents

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENTX

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR

ES PHASE I MEETING DECEMBER 3-5, 1985

1. Exploratory Shaft - Phase IFunctional Design CriteriaBWI-FDC-003 August 1984

2. Exploratory Shaft - Phase ITitle II Design ReportSystem Design DescriptionBWI-DR-001 July 1984

3. Functional Design CriteriaExploratory Shaft - Phase IIBWI-FDC-007 January 1985

4. Task VIIIExploratory Shaft Phase IIConceptual Design ReportMay 1985

5. Exploratory Shaft Test Plan, Vol. IExploratory Shaft Test ProgramBWIP-TP-007 December 1984

Exploratory Shaft Test Plan Vol. IIPreliminary Test DescriptionsBWI-TP-007 December 1984

85/11/26 4 DOE/NRC ES SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 5

EXPLORATORY SHAFT PROGRAMOVERVIEW

PIERRE SAGET, QUALITY ASSURANCEBRANCH CHIEF

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - RICHLAND

ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS

rs.2-373 [*i I

EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY PROGRAMOVERVIEW

* INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

* INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW

* EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY PROGRAM STATUS- TEST- DESIGN- PROCUREMENT- SCHEDULE

* EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY RISK MANAGEMENT- PREREQUISITES PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS, SPECIAL

STUDIES DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEWS, EXPLORATORY SHAFTFACILITY SAFETY PROTECTION PLAN, etc.)

- QUALITY ASSURANCE IMPLEMENTATION

\ v;'. \{<<~

x \t , I \ I V'

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

* INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO PRE-SITE CHARACTERI-ZATION HAVE BEEN ON GOING SINCE 1976 UNDER THENATIONAL WASTE TERMINAL STORAGE PROGRAM

* SUBSEQUENT TO PASSAGE OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACTOF 1982, THE FOLLOWING IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTSWERE ISSUED:- MISSION PLAN

- SITING GUIDELINES

- GENERIC REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT

- SUPPORT DOCUMENTS

* EXPANDED ROLE OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY TOINCLUDE:- SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS CONSISTENT WITH THE NUCLEAR WASTE

POLICY ACT OF 1982- CONFIRMATORY TESTING

- USAGE IN SUPPORT OF TWO-PHASED REPOSITORY CONSTRUCTION ANDOPERATION

PSAt 2023.Id)f

9

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS (CONT.)

* PROGRAM OVERVIEW TO STAY ON TARGET WITH A DYNAMICEXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY PROGRAM, THE PROJECT HAS:- INTEGRATED THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY PLANNING USING THE

SYSTEM ENGINEERING APPROACH FOR REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS ANDDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PLANS

- ESTABLISHED A QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM BASED ON THE NUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION SITE CHARACTERIZATION REVIEW PLAN NQA-1,10 CFR 50, APPENDIX B, RESULTING IN DETAILED PROJECT PLANS ANDPROCEDURES WHICH DRIVE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BASALT WASTEISOLATION TASKS

- ESTABLISHED A PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO MEASURE AND REVIEWPROGRESS AGAINST COST, SCHEDULE, FUNDS, AND TECHNICAL BASELINESAND CONTROL CHANGES TO THESE BASELINES. TOOLS USED TO CONTROLTHE TECHNICAL BASELINE INCLUDE CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT ANDQUALITY ASSURANCE

t".8. e I iI 1

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECTPROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROLS

* THE BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT MANAGEMENTSYSTEMS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEPARTMENT OFENERGY ORDERS

* HIERARCHY OF WORK REQUIREMENTS AND CONTROLSESTABLISHED

* BASELINE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENTOF ENERGY-HEADQUARTERS- MISSION PLAN- GENERIC REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT- THE BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT CHARTER

* BASELINE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY PROJECT OFFICE- THE BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT PLAN- THE BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN- THE BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PLAN- THE BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT SITE-SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS AND

REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT

Pt8-, 2 I Of,


SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PLAN

* STRUCTURES THE CONTENT AND CHARTS THE COURSE FOR THETECHNICAL PROGRAM

* ASSURES WORK REQUIREMENTS ARE MISSION DERIVED- SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM- WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

* SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT OF DATA REQUIREMENTS

* PRESENTS A HIERARCHY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES ANDDOCUMENTATION

* SUPPORTS AND INTEGRATES QUALITY ASSURANCEACCOUNTABILITY AND TRACEABILITY WITHIN ITS FRAMEWORK

poka[.:. . 1 .

PROJECT BASELINE SUMMARY

CRWMP- CIVILIAN RADIO-ACTIVE WASTEMANAGEMENTPROGRAM

OGR - OFFICE OF GEOLOGICREPOSITORIES

SWIP- BASALTWASTEISOLATION PROJECT

MGDS - MINED GEOLOGICDISPOSAL SYSTEM

FEDERAL MISSIONREGULATIONS PLAN [

LEGISLATION AND } b

1'

INTEGRATING CONTRACTOR'SMANAGEMENT ANDINTEGRATION PLAN

BWIP PROJECTMANAGEMENT

SYSTEM

I PROJECT PARTICIPANTSL MANAGEMENTPLANS

g - --- -_ _ Z.____- ---------------

TECHNICAL WORK SYSTEM PROJECT PROJECT PROJECTI REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION DESCRIPTIONS SCHEDULES ESTIMATES FUND

(SCHEDULE (COSTrFUDI __ l BASELINE) DASEUNE) BASELINE)

I | TECHNICAL BASELINE I- ---- J PROJECTOASEIINE

-------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

,. j.. .1?3 8

-SCHEMATIC-

BWIP HIERARCHY OFTECHNICAL ACTIVITIESAND DOCUMENTATION

- HIERARCHIAL RELATIONSHIP

.... KEY INTERDEPENDENCIES

DWIP MISSIONI

TECHNICAL BASELINE

BWIP ISSUESCORRELATIONDOCUMENT

BWIP INFORMATIONAND DATA NEEDS

ANALYSIS DOCUMENT

BWIP MINEDGEOLOGIC DISPOSAL

SYSTEMREQUIREMENTS

DOCUMENT

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

J.MANAGE-

MENTCONTROLACTIVITIES

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.

J. -

BWIP TECHNICAL RESULTSAND SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS

IWIP MGDS BASELINESYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS

L ------- _ J

r - - -- -I SUBSYSTEM

DESCRIPTIONS I

SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS

*1

IWIP MINED GEOLOGIC DISPOSALSYSTEM SITE INVESTIGATIVE AND

ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES

r - -- J- - .IWIP SITE INVESTIGATIVE

PROGRAM PLAN_ - - - - - - -

I* WIP MINED GEOLOGIC* SYSTEM DESIGN * DEVELOPMENT ACTI

. r--- -: i WIP MGDS DE SIGH

DEVElOPMENTPI. L---J -

DISPOSAL: I IAND * BWIP PERFORMANCE BWIP IN SITU. FIELD, ANDIVITIES ASSESSMENTACTIVITIES LABORATORY TEST ACTIVITIES

£

AND1.AN _J-I

.

I EWIP PERFORMANCEASSESSMENT PLAN

LrLr -- - _ _ WASTEPACKAGE REPOSITORY COMPONENTS

~ ENGINEERING AND EQUIPMENT

SCIENCE PANS _ ACTIVITIES ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES

WORK DENGINEERING ENGINEERING > _ _ _ = = J PLANS 'fll I PLANS oil

WORK DEFINITION

r--_ -- _- - -

I WIPTESTFACILITYNEEDS II FORECASTING DOCUMENT IL - - - - - - - A

I TEST FACILITY II OPERATING PLANSI

I1LI-____-, _ _ _ _ _ J.

SYSTEM ENGINEERING PROCESS

PRIORITIZATIONAND PLANNING I

3.3

(ALTERNATIVESEXHAUSTED)

4' SYSTEM NVERIFICATION

NOSUFFICIENT

CONFIDENCE THATSUBSYSTEM

PERFORMANCECRITERIA CAN BE

\ MET? /3.6

QUALITY ASSURANCE CRITERIA TO PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN SYSTEM ENGINEERING MANAGEMENTPLAN

1. ORGANIZATION 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM(TECHNICAL BASELINE)

2. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 3. DESIGN CONTROL

3. DESIGN CONTROL (CHANGE CONTROL) 8. IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF ITEMS

4. PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT CONTROL 9. CONTROL OF PROCESSES

5. INSTRUCTIONS, PROCEDURES, AND 11. TEST CONTROLDRAWINGS

6. DOCUMENT CONTROL 12. CONTROL OF MEASURING AND TESTEQUIPMENT

7. CONTROL OF PURCHASED ITEMS AND 13. HANDLING, STORAGE, AND SHIPPINGSERVICES

10. INSPECTION 14. INSPECTION, TEST, AND OPERATING STATUS

15. CONTROL OF NONCONFORMING ITEMS

16. CORRECTIVE ACTION

17. QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS

18. AUDITS

III .-'I1.g.oI

EXPLORATORY SHAFT TEST PLAN STATUS

FIRST DRAFT TEST PLAN ISSUED DECEMBER, 1982

SECOND DRAFT TEST PLAN ISSUED NOVEMBER, 1983

DOE/NRC WORK. k.

I DRAFT TEST PLAN ISSUED

DOE/NRC WORKSHOP SCHEDULED

DECEMBER 3. 1983

DECEMBER 7, 1984

-DECEMBER/JANUARY, 1986) 'I\s

EXPLORATORY SHAFT DESIGN STATUS

COMPLETED

COMPLETED

IN-WORK

FY86-87

ES-I CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SEPTEMBER, 1982

ES-I TITLE II RELEASED SEPTEMBER, 1983

ES-Il CONCEPTUAL DESIGN IN FINAL STAGES OFREVIEW

ES-I DESIGN UPGRADE AND ES-Il DEFINITIVE DESIGN

PS86-2023-fno 12

37vx O.L.LON

(I6t) VO'L

(Ot'C) 8L

310H DNO1lU!-Ot 1) UJ o082

(NQZIWOH 1VQOIGO ( HC33d)MOi J..LBSSVMwOMo0j 33nnoo A)4oo

U3NI1 "VHS

I'S d3S C

v3Nl3310H 3viHfnSi - I (ut) O unn

(0t'9) SeL

(OW DC

233AI13a

3A3A1f3a

1311VJSNI

310H 3ov:jufSlul-IO uso-

aS uvq a

4 WI3.LVS109"t

ZS AON

3%O)H31JSPut)2| Ut w

3nvjins(4) wHM

. Si S S. Si S 5 . Sf I 5 S W aS i . J I I I IaI 1 I L 81Î"I 'I I' ' 18|n I'l rI|:U 1 I2Il0 1 1 -| -- | I {ItI "I-I-II S1 |ta|I|"| l SIAIIIOISSI.IIMIIMI 1 II t Glr OI |N|I|J 1 I

v 5555

FIRSTSHAFT I 1, II I .5.5

|~~~~ .....

A*5.t .. *NA.

i.. IIII I *Wdab%&I

-

.AA r 4411 1 41.01f55 "Al 5tl SW Ifn.ZINp...^ I 4th,

I t~ lt tI1 li'me.

Pa. MUt

atSP ".555 WINS

.,.55..

BWIP EXPLORATORYSHAFT TEST PROGRAM

PROPOSED BASELINE(5 MONTH PROGRAM)

REV.I 57/YS%S.-iI5SS.445 P4S. 555 55

ad 1.zd 15*4 r4flSSSA5 t5 I.. J5..

\.5* s~bs6

5. .

SttS 1 l1.

oovSxkcav DO* Jkha

Afl SUN Make 11VSECONDSHAFT

s. t I.S.f*'KN l

.. ". * 'fl ,,~lUS|s_

55555 104

- 4 SWsI- K t105C4G5 S *D1

S'S, 5e S5 Sz U tAL ISI *sSC SSNSAL O

. , oh ss 4S5 I SU 3.8 5 5 5,5 tf .5 5, 5

r S w Page

~~~~~~(.... Pa. . ,., P.M..

6.14, (l ,wS

.4W SAA

i W.SSn a It * ,t 5 , 5545,,.

h5..% I5I.M.

3 i

SA-1 5SIL ' S1

1 1 f.-~~~~611(1855055MthIt

I 'we. II 4I I

r 1515555501 (hA.M6.0 1(ti

S SIL, 51110 .9 C 55 551 155 ..

lk 5-5l I .tAla a Me' 5(

I ..-11.0d4to St

A.. IM

b,,t.

T i. ,.. .. &0"" I MO. .. "*^ StI1 SOS 55 .4I.......

3 ' 4 55' 55 1

: "A554I. I

aMSA

I I

I i 5 .4. f. S .%I

§ T If LA.

1wea I 4 V

I Hl ;; I Al -

* IfX | e1^ rPA55'U aim 4h S

t v

1 I 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 ls l* a * ls . .! 4S . S 6 ..I5e S .S .5 S . , 6

EXPLORATORY SHAFT PREREQUISITE PLAN

PURPOSE

MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT TOOL TO IDENTIFY, DEFINE, ASSESS,AND SCHEDULE THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NECESSARYPRECURSORS TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS,AND TESTING

* & BASIC ELEMENTS:- FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

- SAFETY PROTECTION PLAN

- SPECIAL STUDIES W t, 4 -Lt

- DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEWS ad

- READINESS REVIEWS _

, Q_ f ___i__

"v ; A cnt9;QS

EXPLORATORY SHAFT PREREQUISITE PLAN (CONT.)

PROPOSED DOE-RL HOLD POINTS

1. THE ES-I START-TO-DRILL

2. THE ES-Il START-TO-DRILL

3. THE ES-I LINER INSTALLATIONS

4. THE ES-Il LINER INSTALLATIONS

S. PERSONNEL ENTRY INTO ES-I

6. PERSONNEL ENTRY INTO ES-11

7. BREAKOUT FROM ES-I

8. BREAKINTO ES-Il

ATTACHMENT 6

REPOSITORY/EXPLORATORYSHAFT SITE INVESTIGATIONS

P.E. LONG, MANAGER OF HOST ROCKSTUDIES UNIT

BWIP SITE DEPARTMENT


PSB6 2013 1

1. SELECTION OF REFERENCE REPOSITORYLOCATION

II. SELECTION OF EXPLORATORY SHAFTLOCATION

Ill. SELECTION OF REPOSITORY HOST ROCK

PS862021 r

SELECTION OF REFERENCE REPOSITORY LOCATION(STUDY CONDUCTED FOR BWIP BY WOODWARD-CLYDE

CONSULTANTS 1978 TO 1980)

* IDENTIFICATION OF SITE LOCALITIES- DEFINE CANDIDATE AREA

- DELINEATE SUBAREAS

- IDENTIFY SITE LOCALITIES

* IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING OF CANDIDATE SITES- SCREENING TO IDENTIFY CANDIDATE SITES

- RANKING OF SITES USING DOMINANCE ANALYSIS

REFERENCES:

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS, 1980, R"O-BWI-C-62

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS, 1981, RHO-BWI-C-107

PS!,:f.-)nfl1 1

-

Stup I: SCREENING AREA

I

SwP : suaARA

Stop 2: CANDIDATE AREA

LSup 4: SITE LOCALITIES

Stop 5: CANDIDATE SITES

FIGURE M2

RELATIONSHIP OF AREA DESIGNATIONSAND SCREENING STEPS

I% ) ji'a Isaws- Ito1; t-C1I1 iv Q

H sa4s Is. tV, H ,

RANKING CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF THEREFERENCE REPOSITORY LOCATION

* LINEAMENTS

* THICKNESS OF REFERENCE BARRIER INTERIOR

* TIERING WITHIN HOST FLOW

* POTENTIAL EARTHQUAKE SOURCES

* GROUNDWATER TRAVEL TIMES

* BEDROCK FRACTURES AND FAULTS- CONTAMINATION- SPECIAL SPECIES- VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES

- UNIQUE MICROHABITATS

P'Al.- Ino 1 .

ORDINAL DOMINANCE ANALYSIS RESULTS

CANDIDATE 1' l' ' 1'+h+t 1'+h+t 1'+h.+t 1'+h+t SKING D SITESITE V 'h1+ 'ht +p .ep+g'p g'b RAKN DOITE

VALUE BY

A 1.84 2.51 2.84 3.51 4.26 4.39 4.66 0.834 H

B 0.50 1.50 1.17 2.17 2.79 3.05 3.15 0.496 AHJ

C 1.00 1.58 1.67 2.25 2.72 2.97 3.47 0.550 AH

D 0.66 1.41 0.99 1.74 2.62 3.12 3.28 0.495 AHj

E 0.66 1.33 0.66 1.33 2.33 2.83 2.95 0.442 A.C.DH.J

F 0 0 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.46 0.92 0.088 All

G 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.255 ACQJK

H 2.00 2.67 3.00 3.67 4.36 4.49 4.68 0.860

J 1.16 1.83 1.49 2.17 2.79 3.28 3.70 0.584 AH

K 1.16 1.33 1.16 1.33 1.71 1.84 1.84 0.366 AHJ1' = lineaments.h = thickness of host flow.t = tiering in host flow.p = potential earthquake.g = groundwater travel time.

= bedrock fracture.

ps8raO,0.i j

SELECTION OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFTLOCATION

(STUDY CONDUCTED IN 1982)

* TECHNICAL FACTORS

* RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

* EVALUATION OF ANOMALIES

* REPRESENTATIVENESS

REFERENCE: ROCKWELL STAFF, 1982, RHO-BW-ST-16

P' 86-O231.6

TECHNICAL FACTORS FOR THEEXPLORATORY SHAFT LOCATION

* GENERAL CONSIDERATION: BASALT DIP

* SPECIFIC CRITERIA:- LAND USE

- SURFACE CONTAMINATION

- GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

- REPOSITORY ORIENTATION

- PROXIMITY TO EDGE OF THE REFERENCE REPOSITORY LOCATION

Pset,2023-It I

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OFTECHNICAL FACTORS

* BASALT DIP DID NOT DISCRIMINATE

* SPECIFIC CRITERIA WERE EXCLUSIONARY AND UNBIASED

* PRINCIPAL BOREHOLE LOCATION BASED ON:- LOCATION OF EXISTING BOREHOLE

- LOCATION OF SECTION CORNER AND ACCESS

M&J2021 rS

I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 29 22726 25 g 30 29 28

b 3

J EXPLORATORYSHAFT

Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~t

I ..'.s \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R FERENCE

_ _AREA ELIPAU O 0U SITING t- - - - - - --OF SURFACE FACILITIESI

*1 05i 1 KiOMETERI IIt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~j 22 I 23 24 I9 20 2

0.5 I MILE IggI RP178a a~~~~~~IES CP 178

it

!C.

EVALUATION OF ANOMALIES, 1982

* AEROMAGNETIC FEATURE N-85

* SEISMIC REFLECTION DATA

* AVAILABLE DATA NOT JUDGED TO WARRANT MOVING THEEXPLORATORY SHAFT

PS86 Mni 1 9

TABLE 11-13. SCALING CONSTANTS FOR MULTI-AlTRIBUTE UTILITY FUNCTIONS.

UTILITY FUNCTIONS BEST LEVEL BASE LEVELSCALING

CONSTANTSWITHIN GROUPa

FUNCTION A (PERFORMANCE-RELATED MEASURES)

Radionuclide releasea -4.0 0.0 0.208

Groundwater travel time (yr) 100,000 10,000 0.448

Radionuclide plume depth (m) 600 200 0.344

FUNCTION B (CONSTRUCTION-RELATED MEASURES)

Mean interior thickness (m) 45.0 25.0 0.785

Minimum interior thickness (m) 36.0 24.0 0.674

Percent vesiculation 0.0 25.0 0.792

FUNCTION C (COST-RELATED MEASURES)

Cost savings ($ million) 400 0.0 0.637

Schedule savings (rno)c 12.0 0.0 0.363

COMPLETE UTILITY FUNCTION

Function A 0.108 11%

Function B 0.874 87%

Function C 0.018 2%

aThe scaling convention is such that the utilities of the best levels are one and those of the baselevels are zero.

bLog1o of curies per 1,000 t heavy metal.

PS6.7O21-F74

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

1. WEIGHTING SCHEMESCOHASSETT RANKS HIGHEST UNLESS ALL WEIGHT IS PLACED ON EITHER COST ORRADIONUCLIDE PLUME DEPTH. BOTH ARE UNREASONABLE WEIGHTING SCHEMES

11. VARIATIONS IN LEVELS OF MEASURESOF VESICULATION IN COHASSETT WERE MUCH HIGHER (e.g., 20% COMPARED TO0%) THE FLOW WOULD STILL RANK HIGHEST

Ill. CHANGE IN JUDGMENTAL INPUT OR CHANGE IN MATHMATICALFORM OF UTILITY FUNCTIONNO CHANGE RESULTED IN PREFERRED HORIZON

PS8 2023 E 16

FLOW TOP VARIABILITY

* CAPTURED IN DECISION ANALYSIS BY MINIMUM THICKNESSMEASURE

* AVAILABLE DATA SHOW CONSISTENCY IN COHASSETT FLOWTOP THICKNESS

* COHASSETT DENSE INTERIOR THINNEST IN DC-19C, OUTSIDE THEREFERENCE REPOSITORY LOCATION

* WORK IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY TO ESTIMATE VARIABILITYUSING GEOSTATISTICS

PSe.1013 If,

VERTICAL FLEXIBILITY

* CONSERVATIVE REQUIREMENT FOR FLOW INTERIOR THICKNESSIS 27 m (DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)

* COHASSETT FLOW INTERIOR THICKNESS IS -75 m AT THEEXPLORATORY SHAFT SITE

* TESTING NEEDS IN THE VESICULAR ZONE OF THE COHASSETTFLOW INTERIOR ARE BEING ASSESSED

rM g70?c'iI I

SUMMARY OF RESPONSESTO NRC QUESTIONS

PMBl??23-F I

LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY

* TECHNICAL FACTORS IDENTIFIED

* RELATIVE IMPORTANCE DISCUSSED

* THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY"RANDOM" SAMPLE

* THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITYCHARACTERIZATION PLAN

LOCATION VIEWED AS

IS PART OF OVERALL SITE

* REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITYCAN ONLY BE EVALUATED AS SITE CHARACTERIZATIONAPPROACHES COMPLETION

:-e " IV,) If "

SELECTION OF REPOSITORY HOST ROCK

* SELECTION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS DISCUSSED

* VERTICAL FLEXIBILITY WITHIN COHASSETT FLOW INTERIOR -AVAILABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT 27 m CAN BE ADJUSTEDWITHIN THE 75 m FLOW INTERIOR THICKNESS

* FLOW TOP VARIABILITY IN THE COHASSETT IS LIMITED BASEDON BOREHOLE AND OUTCROP DATA

PS86 -023-E20

ATTACHMENT 7

EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITYDESIGN

ALDEN McELRATH - PROJECT MANAGER

EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY DESIGN

RAYMOND KAISER ENGINEERS/PARSONSBRINCKERHOFF, QUADE AND DOUGLAS, INC.

' 2. )fsi . I

EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY DESIGN

* SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN

* RELATIONSHIP OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY TOREPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT

* SHAFT CASING DESIGN CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

S8G6.423 ESfac.2

SITE LAYOUTOPERATIONAL PHASE

WATER SUPPLYINTERFACE

POWDERMAGAZINYE12 K CAPACITY

SEPTIC TANK& DRAIN FIELD

TOROUTE

240

FACILITY ISOMETRIC

EXPLORATORY SHAFT ES I

SURFACE FACILITIES

EXPLORATORY SHAFT FS 11-STARTER HOLE

ELEV. 100'

112" I.0. CASING

-72" I.D. CASINGMAIN

ELEV. 3163'

HEATER

-ELEV. 3161'

tST A

CLUSTER TESTBOREHOLEGROUP AREA

CHAMBERTEST AREA /

, . PROPOSEDz MINE-BY

TEST AREA

ROCK MECHANICS DRIFT 2

ELEV. 3330'

ELEV. 3393

SECOND EXIT DRIFT

SUBSURFACE EXCAVATION-HEATER TESTPROBE HOLES AREA

lI ESII600'

-HYDROLOGY DRIFT(ALTERNATIVE)


' SHAFT STATION

/

MAIN DRIFT

184'

* |-MINE-BY TESTSECOND EXIT DRIFT

IDcoen2


DRIFT

SUBSURFACE LAYOUT

SHAFT

13' DIA.STARTER HOLE

ELEV. 0'

ELEV. 12'

ELEV. 17'

7

112" 1.D. CASING

INSTRUMENTATION, TYP.

WATER8" UTILITY LINETYP. OF 4 / A.

I.D. CASING

* ELEV. 100'

* 144" DIAMETERSURFACE HOLE

* 112" 1.0. STEELCASING

ELEV. 840'

110" DIAMETERLONG HOLE

72" I.D. CASING

LINE,

8" COMPRESSED AIR

4" EUIPMENT AIR

GROUTS SECTIONRING SUPPORT

ELEV. 3330'

SECTION

I ' * aj - ELEV. 3393'

SHAFT ELEVATION.

ES I - CROSS SECTION

4-7" O.D. VENTILATION LINES

1%" WATER LINE

CAGE & SKIP -

72" I.D. CASING

8" O.D. VENT LINE SPARE

TERMINAL BOX

) 4" EQUIPMENT AIR LINE

SCROLL ROLLERS

GUIDES

GUIDE BRACKET

I

SIGNALLING &MONITORING CABLES

2-7" O.D.DEWATERING LINES

110" 1.0. BORE HOLE

911" O.D. STIFFENER

RELATIONSHIP OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFTFACILITY TO THE REPOSITORY

* LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON REPOSITORY

* MAXIMIZE USEFULNESS IN REPOSITORY FUNCTION

* COORDINATE USE WITH REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT

* USE TO INITIATE DEVELOPMENT OF REPOSITORY PHASE I

* USE AS CONTINUING TEST FACILITY DURING REPOSITORYDEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION

* AUXILIARY AIR EXHAUST OR INTAKE FOR REPOSITORY--TO BEDETERMINED

* EMERGENCY EXIT FOR REPOSITORY--TO BE DETERMINED

eisG-2023-ES fac.3

FUNCTIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFTS FORTHE REPOSITORY

ES-I ES-II

K PHASE I REPOSITORY

PHASE 2( PHASE 2 REPOSITORY

* DEVELOPMENT INTAKE* ROCK HOISTING* PERSONNEL HOISTING* SUPPLIES AND SERVICES* UTILITIES

* TO BE DETERMINED

* DEVELOPMENT EXHAUST* EMERGENCY EXITa UTILITIES

* TO BE DETERMINED

I'4 s '

A\( S t, f.i;.,St.f:/

PS86-2023-f S tic 4

EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY INTERFACE WITHPHASED REPOSITORY

* REPOSITORY SHAFT SINKING COMMENCES TWO MONTHSAHEAD OF PHASE I SHAFT

* REQUIRES APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE ANDOUTFIT A SHAFT

* SHAFT FUNCTIONS:- ES-I

- ES-Il- R-3- R-6- R-1- R-S- R-9

- EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY SERVICE AND DEVELOPMENTEXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY VENTILATION--INTAKEREPOSITORY PHASE I DEVELOPMENT

- EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY VENTILATION--EXHAUST- BASALT HOISTING DEVELOPMENT EXHAUST- CONFINEMENT EXHAUST- SERVICE AND DEVELOPMENT VENTILATION INTAKE- WASTE HANDLING- CONFINEMENT INTAKE

PS86-2023- Macs

U I I V I a i a I . I P I u I B 1 _ i a I a i i

X.*.*-a S

U r

a a

a

S

( J-;),:bi

UNDERGROUND LAYOUT

SHOWING HINI REPOSITORY

¾

a

RS S

A,._

Sa- moa.m*a

_ ..

toI. I T ' asII I I I - 0 4 I 6 I I I t

~~~41 I 12 ~ I 11 I *1la I 1.6 I I I S I Sm I 4 I a I a I I-t I-

a £OnDIRE*1IS OF SHAVIS S

if,' I , "~' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

gj..~~~~~~..Fi:.L2I~~~~~~~~~~2~~~1,S U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ jJS*~~~~~4.4t5 It lO~~~~POR 1611OttIMo

' * i i ~ L J I M_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ a eu . ~wo f m r

of !' .- ~ ,.~.=: rneiUBW~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ***.*iS '&t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!±!~smump Ifs

a

V

a

a

I. . etI -il-l

I: .* St..,. S. Mt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~61sMIom w Osn

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ee

YR. 3 20"Wed ~ IJ "a-MG, ~I Roca

am-A. t4 ~

t, I' 4,wm .,a~CSSS 15 ~mg IF

"MI, , *0

I' i:11:1Ia .1��6la'

F

F~~~~~fi~~~4S.

iII

I I I

I' I

I!, qII I

SIII.II i5Ii

.II I

a

I

a

C

U a

A TJVWIO5/ SCP CHIAPTERI 6 A

j 11F4 114A11JP M tPt4f~F DL W PA

-ISWM. 40,10e 0.1r_ _W

- - - - - - 0�-Is I � I �I *0 � I I f � I * I ' I I ' I ' I13 1 is . I It I 0 1 a I I I r I 4 I I I 4 1 8 I a I

-.1

a

v

a

B

*13 I** I4 I a 1 .

as if ~~w.~.I.'~~~~ .1 *. Ii £5u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!.~~~~~atE~~~~~~~ or so ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Imomaraasofoe .I"

uuM [flI I)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~swl -44bWNI, .* (1~~~~.04 cs..

go!v 44r--rtaIwII S. S.. uIO.O.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * 0~~W -s

I:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I:

2 . i LuI . -.. -

.--jA_ _ _ _ _ j .- ~ :JaA~~La f7 7] ~ ~ ~ * , ~~~- iiic- -- ______________________________________________~~~~~~~~~41,

____________ S.~~~~~=2w"_______________ 5,~~~~~~~~~~~~ s bfI 7j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.11 I

P. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iIl

is II A.-~~___ ~l&~NSII

-~~~ II...- El II z II, IA4,6

"I - .LU.AIL S L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JLLL..LLAJL LL J-UhJ IAII A I I A I I I I LJ4 IJLALLLU LLi.JIJL .' 1Tr-f_-'i-r-IITFui p1ii...i ITJT.;..aTI 1711Yffll IISIS

is MW I ,*

o*l,~ loo,*CaowI 1 I o-la. lo-iss No #W.1 NO& 1484148 P*I.* D 11.

____Ic *. WIP- S1DY IO/ sSC CAPERA s

*'.A4m Jr OF 4PHSE5 I-f4ESOU10O~v-§WS4ILi0f IAIOUJ F-LANd

13 12 I 0' I a I '

a

a

A

-I-

I

13 I "a .J " L t " i: .!a - I 8 I I I a I I 1 ' I a I I I I- -

--

f S.15 45d4

s ~ : 1 _ I .__._: .Il

C.7 _--,---__---

Y6A^ 3 -,i s .1xytimbffs Of J.!. a

*a] a..-,^. s....a.e..,s "'_ s.,m.,s

'! *.- 5 '*.&.e5 .--.. , ! itamn'!

i ;

559 " ... 5 Iw.*I¢ l^ 55*.55 5151

a

ina U ck it Vrw S 11-w . e= - = - =eWeI =tf 0

F

*~~j sm~le. i!j -=a=:- "ZZO:: ,55e5W55 :: ..

-J -_JS! - - I

Er-JI INRLRIREl i2>YR-3WII .ifr

I55'j S

;, '.!L -

'''. g,

5 I

Oo,5 I.S

II

-1

I.

I

i

i

I.1

I

ri

I,

.5 -55.,. -SM.... - s =-____________________ _ -IWO'

to S 1 = * res.-*. s o= =

_55.415m1. *~ - ,ie ,sis..e ---. r;* . -. - --- - I -'I~~~~~~~~"

: a3 ; a_..

*st , II 1g~~~~l<P1ALXPIII-LLUL~~~D.O[ |wua.

- Ej '^ , >---- ¢g]1 ~~~.8.0'....... ln<TlnsTrrT rc

Is $M."#OR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

g o n e P....... '@T,||W|§ ...................................... "luul||ll|~iill

. . f

, :'

. ,:t t:, I

as as

,I gac$I a

Il I5a *

I Ils

I Il

85 Ia:

Ii i

Ii it

5 Ilas aaas1 saas IaUas sLa aI

a

I

C

U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-co f.1 " /w "o sft"60W 10

a C i "I 0 ta aeses.. tea 11s ~Ca. as *eft * fts am as.

a I ; -s"..... .. casa le- *a.4,66,.

..l! 1SI,i . ..a. a.. ....

P-SLOINO/SCPCCAPV(RS AI.

| Esf I PSIt -fIMf -ha1OMi 4 E1 M* T K

I SW0 . -asw P.s:

�Mi.A ..w 5.

S -- -- -- - - - - - - -I-*13 U I 11 " I U * I , I S I I ' I I, U I U I 11 I I I I a I 7 I I 4 I S I a I I

_ . _

STUDY 1t

SHAFT CASING DESIGN CRITERIA ANDMETHODOLOGY

PS6-20Z3-.S foc 6

o VS A \ A'

K CURRENT DESIGN PARAMETERS a

* TWO SHAFTS

* SIX-FOOT INSIDE DIAMETER

* INCORPORATION INTO REPOSITORY TO BE DETERMINED

* DUTY- PERSONNEL- MATERIAL- EQUIPMENT- MUCK- VENTILATION- UTILITIES

o SEISMIC

* SAFETY FACTOR 1.5

* HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE NORMAL TO CASING OUTSIDESURFACE

* MISALIGNMENT

\@k,'2 ;oY

/~~~~~~~ " i .A 4" i ~~ W- t.,~ ~ -'

2

I 4,1!1 ve il AU'. 7

OTHER DESIGN PARAMETERS CONSIDERED

* CORROSION* HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE IN LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION* UNEVEN GROUT LOADS* OPERATING LOADS* EARTH LOADS* THERMAL EFFECTS* ASYMMETRIC LOADS* BREAKOUT LOADS* BLAST LOADS* CREEP* RESIDUAL STRESSES* EXPANSIVE GROUT FORCES* CAVE IN* CONVEYANCE DROP LOADS

pst8t6.)ti~3(. I c aB

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY 11

* INTENDED TO BE A GUIDE IN ESTABLISHING DESIGN BASES FORCASINGS

* DEFINE DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIAFOR DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF SHAFT CASINGDESIGNS

* ALL SIGNIFICANT LOADING CASES ARE IDENTIFIED ANDEXAMINED

* SIGNIFICANT COMBINATIONS OF LOADS IDENTIFIED ANDANALYZED

* METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATION OF LOADS WAS DEVELOPED* APPROPRIATE DESIGN CRITERIA SUCH AS FACTORS OF SAFETY

IDENTIFIED* DESIGN CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY APPLY TO RING-

STIFFENED STEEL CASINGS ONLY* NO INDUSTRY STANDARD DIRECTLY APPLICABLE EXISTS

eP6-1023-ES fac 9

PS8-20234%Sd 10

LICENSING CONSIDERATIONS

* LINER ASSUMED TO HAVE NO PRECLOSURE RADIOLOGICALSAFETY FUNCTION

* LINER ASSUMED TO HAVE NO POSTCLOSURE RADIOLOGICALSAFETY FUNCTION

* LINER SYSTEM NOT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY

* PERMANENT LONG-TERM SEALS INSTALLED

* LICENSING ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN STUDY 11

* HOWEVER, RECOMMENDED THAT LINER BE DESIGNED,FABRICATED, AND INSTALLED AS A QUALITY LEVEL I ITEM

P$Brj?023-Si Fal

SHAFT CASING DESIGN CRITERIA ANDMETHODOLOGY

* INTRODUCTION

* DESIGN CRITERIA- CASING DESCRIPTION- DESIGN BASES- DESIGN LOADS- CODES AND STANDARDS- SAFETY AND STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTORS- DESIGN CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE- DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

D DESIGN METHODOLOGY- DESCRIPTION- DESIGN EQUATIONS AND FACTORS- DESIGN PROCEDURE

* COMMENTARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

i1SB6.202-FS FE 12

SHAFT CASING DESIGN CRITERIA ANDMETHODOLOGY (CONT.)

DESIGN EQUATIONS AND FACTORS- ELASTIC BUCKLING BETWEEN RING STIFFENERS- ELASTIC INSTABILITY- YIELD COLLAPSE PRESSURE- STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR- STABILITY CRITERIA FOR CYLINDRICAL SHELLS- HEMISPHERICAL HEAD UNDER EXTERNAL PRESSURE- STABILITY CRITERION FOR HEMISPHERICAL HEAD- SHELL STRESSES AT MIDBAY- STRESSES AT STIFFENER-SHELL JUNCTION IN SHELL- STRESSES IN STIFFENERS- COMBINED FACTORED STRESS INTENSITY- STIFFENER-TO-SHELL CONNECTION- STRESSES AT JUNCTION OR SHELL AND HEMISPHERICAL HEAD- SHELLS SUBJECTED TO AXIAL COMPRESSIVE LOADS

PS86 2023- S f By. 13

ran

N

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS

Q. DESCRIBE TECHNICAL FACTORS IN SELECTION OFCONSTRUCTION METHOD.

A. SHAVT=CONSTRUCTIN METHOD WAS SELECTED BASED ONSAFEThT COST, AND SCHEDULE.

Q. B EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY INTERFACE WITHREPOSITORY.

p'.7 -'

�t 4

�z �

�;v'. �

A. - LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON REPOSITORY- MAXIMIZE USEFULNESS IN REPOSITORY JUNCTION- USE TO INITIATE DEVELOPMENT OF REPOSITORY- CONTINUE AS TEST FACILITY DURING REPOSITORY

DEVELOPMENT- OTHER USES - TO BE DETERMINED

WAGt 02i-r, v , 4

ATTACHMENT 8

EXPLORATORY SHAFTCONSTRUCTION

ED HERSHBERGER, PROJECT DIRECTOR

MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER


PsC-2023-MAV-1

OVERVIEW OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT ANDUNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION

1. EXPLORATORY SHAFT CONSTRUCTION* METHOD SELECTION RATIONALE

* DRILLING EQUIPMENT

* SHAFT DRILLING

* SHAFT LINING

* SEALING SHAFT ANNULUS

11. SHAFT BREAKOUT AND DEVELOPMENT MINING* PROBE HOLE DRILLING

* BREAKOUT

a DRIFTING/DEVELOPMENT

P$86-2023MSm-2

OVERVIEW OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT ANDUNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION

EXPLORATORY SHAFT CONSTRUCTIONREASONS FOR SELECTION OF DRILLED SHAFT

* SAFETY

* READILY COPES WITH AQUIFERS

* TIME AND COST (PROVEN TECHNOLOGY)

* MINIMUM ROCK DAMAGE

* SHAPE RESISTS DEFORMATION

* RELATIVELY EASY TO SEAL ANNULUS

* SEAL CAN BE VERIFIED

* HIGHER CONFIDENCE LEVEL

DRILLING EQUIPMENT CAPABILITY

* RIG #32 HAS DRILLED A LARGER AND DEEPER SHAFT

* PIPE AND TOOLS HAVE BEEN STRENGTHENED

f , 110 .1. " I

OVERVIEW OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT ANDUNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION (CONT.)

SHAFT DRILLING* IN SITU STRESS

- SUCCESSFUL DRILLING AT HANFORD- DEFORMATION STABILIZES STRESS- LONG-TERM STABILITY

D SPALLING DUE TO FRACTURING OR JOINTING- VIBRATIONS DISLODGE- BIT CRUSHES- MUD COLUMN RESTRAINS

* LOST CIRCULATION- CAREFULLY CONTROLLED DRILLING MUD- LOST CIRCULATION MATERIAL- WELL-IDENTIFIED ZONES- CEMENT PLUGS- MATCH ARTESIAN HEAD

P'I .i . ..


* DRILLING CAMPAIGN- 0- TO 104-FT SURFACE HOLE, WITH 1 56-IN. LINER

- 104 FTTO 640 FT 144 IN. THROUGH ALLUVIUM INTO BASALT- 640 FTTO 3,393-FT 110 IN. THROUGH ROCK FORMATIONS

SHAFT LINING

* TRIPS TO CLEAR SLUFF

* CONDITION MUD

* GYROSCOPIC SURVEY

* CALIPER (MECHANICAL AND SONAR)

* CONTROLLED WELDING

• CASING "FLOATED"

pStib20SMih 5


SEALING SHAFT ANNULUS* CEMENTING EQUIPMENT AND CONTROL

* INSERT GROUT TUBING

* PRE-FLUSH (WATER)

* CEMENT IN STAGES

* DENSITY LOG SURFACE

* SET, "TAG" AND RESUME

* FIRST STAGE - 50 FT MINIMUM ON CASING

* FILL WITH WATER

* EXPANDING CEMENT STAGES- MINIMIZE MICRO-ANNULUS,- ABOVE CONSTRUCTION HORIZON

PW65-JWO6 -Mk


* CHEMICAL SEAL RINGS- CHEMICAL/WATER FLUSH

- POLYMER

* UPPER-STAGE SEALS- CEMENT EXTENDED WITH BENTONITE

* TESTING- MONITORING OF MIX

- VOLUMETRIC CHECKS

- CEMENT BOND LOGS - (UTILITY LINES)

- PORTHOLE DRILLING/GROUTING

PS56-2023 Mr.r


* CASE HISTORIES- CSR - TATUM DOME, MISSISSIPPI - AEC

- LOUISIANA - SALT- SASKATCHEWAN - POTASH

- EXPANDING CEMENT - TATUM DOME, MISSISSIPPI - AEC- MISSOURI - BUNKER HILL- MISSOURI - OZARKLEAD

- CEMENT EXTENDED WITH BENTONITE - INDUSTRY STANDARD

* PROVIDE SHAFT SEAL DURING REPOSITORY PRECLOSURE PERIOD

SHAFT BREAKOUT AND DEVELOPMENT MINING

BREAKOUT DRILLING* DRILL PROBE HOLES THROUGH PORTHOLES

* GROUTING OFF WATER

PS8620234MK-8


SHAFT BREAKOUT

* WHEN SAFE (NO WATER) LINER IS BREACHED

* INITIAL EXCAVATION - MECHANICAL

* UNDERSIZE DRIFT, CONTROLLED BLASTING

* SLASH WITH SMOOTH WALL BLASTING

ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT

* PRECEDED BY PROBE HOLE TESTING

* SMOOTH WALL DRILLING AND BLASTING

* EXCAVATION SEQUENCED WITH TESTING PROGRAM

p"Gi.123)v- 9


Q. DESCRIBE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE TO MINIMIZE ROCKDAMAGE

A. - BLIND HOLE DRILLING- REVERSE MUD CIRCULATION

Q. DESCRIBE THE KEY DRILLING PARAMETERS

A. - SHAFT GYROSCOPIC SURVEY (ACCEPT CASING)- CALIPER DIMENSIONS- DRILLING PARAMETERS- MUD CONTROL MONITORING

Q. DISCUSS IN SITU STRESS

A. - NEAR INSTANTANEOUS RELIEF - LONG-TERM STABILITY

PS86.1023tM(-10

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS(CONT.)

Q. DISCUSS LOST CIRCULATION

A. - ZONES WELL IDENTIFIED- CONTROLLED IN ADJACENT HOLES

Q. DISCUSS JOINTING AND SPALLING

A. - DRILLING METHOD AND MUD CONTROL

Q. DESCRIBE DRILLING EQUIPMENT

A. - ADEQUACY PREVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED

Q. DESCRIBE LINER PLACEMENT/WELDING CONTROL

A. - PREDETERMINED SURVEY OF HOLE- LINER SEGMENT ALIGNMENT CONTROL- NDE OF ALL WELDS

PS86-2023-MK-1 I


Q. DESCRIBE SEALING SHAFTILINER ANNULUS METHODS

A. - EXPANDING CEMENT- CHEMICAL SEAL RINGS- CEMENT EXTENDED WITH BENTONITE- SEAL REPAIR BY GROUTING

Q. DESCRIBE SEALING SHAFT/LINER ANNULUS CONTROL

A. - MATERIALS TESTED- MIX PROPORTIONS VERIFIED- QUANTITIES COMPARED TO CALCULATED- DENSITY LOG- COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTING- CEMENT BOND LOG

PSOC-2073 M212


- PORTHOLE DRILLING-- TEST FOR WATER SEAL-- TESTCEMENTCORE-- TEST DISTURBED ROCK ZONE

Q. DESCRIBE CONTROL OF WATER DURING BREAKOUT

A. - PORTHOLE DRILLING TO ASSURE SAFE CONDITIONS- GROUTING AS REQUIRED

Q. DESCRIBE CONTROL OF UNDERGROUND EXCAVATION

A. - MECHANICAL EXCAVATION NEAR SHAFT- SHAFT STATION

-- UNDERSIZED DRIFT, CONTROLLED BLASTING-- SLASH WITH SMOOTH-WALL BLASTING

- ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT-- CONTROLLED BLASTING TECHNIQUES-- ADAPT PER TEST RESULTS

ev, u. %~t. !

STANDARD SHAFT DRILLING TECHNIQUESINGLE PASS AIR ASSIST REVERSE CIFICUI ATfON MET10

FIGORC I

FIGURE 2

'�

1 *� �1�s.

M- -�

�.� �

2

-

� �

FIGURE 3

.W--�

-

TREATING LOST CIRCULATION WITH CEMENT PLUGS

I AII-/'

DRILLED HOLE

1. LOST CIRCULATIONOCCURS

* 2. CEMENT PLUG ISPLACED

, {,Lost Circulation Zone (L.C.)..(Soft or Brecclated Formation

Tends To Erode While BeingDrilled)

Hole Bottom

Cement Plug

, Due To High SpecifLc Gravity Of. Cement, It Flows Into L.C. Zone

'And Consolidates Material

3. PLUG IS DRILLEDOUT

DRILLING CONTINUES

Cement Sheath StabilizesFormation And Seals Off L.C.Zone

az�m-

FIGURE 4

12112184SHAFT CROSS SECTION

I8 I 'INLET

ISTAR

112 I.D.

33720CM

33I.D.

BING

3393

_ _

FIGURE 5

- .V0 SW4~

.7.. 4-~~~~~n

*\sq.q K��;

� IA �*

.�r.** . .-- -

I. '*

- � � �

4-.--.. �1

* -. . 4

4

1 ...*�.

4�*1-. � � II �

* I.4 -i.. **4�.'.. . .* 4

'IFIGURE 6

DECISION ANALYSIS

STEP 1:

STEP 2:

STEP 3:

STEP 4:

STRUCTURE THE STUDY

DESCRIBE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR EACH CANDIDATEHORIZON

ASSESS THE PREFERENCES

RANK THE CANDIDATE HORIZONS

Ps8e6 opir 1 l

IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO BE RANKED (SCREENING)

SCREENING CRITERIA CANDIDATE HORIZONS

1.EXCLUDE * FRENCHMANINTERBEDS AND SPRINGS *ROCKYSUPRABASALT FLOW I I COULEE

POTENTIALSEDIMENTS. (APPLICATION 0 ROCKY APPLICATION .COHASSETrPOTENTIAL 2.EXCLUDE FLOWS OF COULEE OF'S McCOYCANDIDATE WITH< 24m Scfl EENINA * C( } IASSETT PROFESSIONAL "CANYON

HORIZONS THICKNESS OF CRITERIA CoA NY JUDGMENT CMTANUMDENSE INTERIOR CIEA*CCNO3.EXCLUDE FLOWS*UTAU

ABOVE THE *_UMTANUMDEEPEST TAPPEDAQUIFER WITHIN1D ksm OFPROPOSEDREPOSITORY.

-

Hanfard FonnationPUO.PLIISOCUdE

UN"

AiGWUNIT

7 WAWI~NUOW UNIT a

LOWER Ralld0W UNIT cc I

m&u"PhGoWUNIT1IM

600. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~fU~ga06 111

SOO. ESQUATZ&L MEMSER

1.100- L -- UMATILLA

1.400- 450 L~~~~~~~~~~~OLO FLOW PIS

1.600, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RAPIDSMEMBER

-' taco RO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SALIA FLOW

2 A0 6INT&AL GAPFLOW

2. 0Gom0POW

2,400-

*1 I~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~VAT"Iflnw3.700-

3.00 86 N

3.00

1200-

INTERDS ARE STRAT1,O3AMICALLY CONTAINED IN THE ELLENWG FORMATIONRCPS07.4

HORIZON IDENTIFICATION STUDYRANKING MEASURES

* PERFORMANCE-RELATED MEASURES- RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE- GROUNDWATER TRAVEL TIME- RADIONUCLIDE PLUME DEPTH

* CONSTRUCTION-RELATED MEASURES- MEAN INTERIOR THICKNESS- MINIMUM INTERIOR THICKNESS- PERCENT VESICULATION

* COST-RELATED MEASURES ! (2- COST SAVINGS ( '- SCHEDULE SAVINGS "

A it $ ,' '''''

I'Stf'.)OO1 a a

TABLE 11-6. POTENTIAL RANKING MEASURES CONSIDERED BUT NOT USED.(sheet I of 2)

POTENTIAL RANKING MEASURES PRIMARY REASONS FOR

PERFORMANCE-RELATED MEASURES

Flow top thickness R

Thermal conductivity D, R

Mean fracture density D, R

Mean width of filled fractures D R

Percent water content D, NM

Oxidation state of iron D

Mean head gradient R

Mean hydraulic conductivity of flow tops R

Mean weight of total dissolved solids (groundwater) D. NM

Mean observed value for pH D

Mean observed value for Eh D

Sorption differences R

Capping flows R

Petrography and mineralogy of flows D. NM

Effective porosity R

Dispersivity R

*D = Does not discriminate; NM = Not meaningful; R = Redundant.See Appendix Il-B for a more complete explanation of the reasons for elimination.

PS1-2023 E01

TABLE 11-6. POTENTIAL RANKING MEASURES CONSIDERED BUT NOT USED.(sheet 2 of 2)

POTENTIAL RANKING MEASURES ELIMINATION*

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED MEASURES

Hydrostatic pressure D, R

Rock mass uniaxial compressive strength R

Estimated rock mass rating index D

Mean total flow thickness NM, R

Percent disking D, NM

Concentration of methane gas D

Mean observed in situ temperature D, R

Ratio of maximum horizontal stress to vertical stress D, NM

Formation temperature D, R

Unusual occurrences NM

COST-RELATED MEASURES

Mean depth to candidate horizon midline R

Percent savings in heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning costs R

Mean depth to candidate horizon flow top NM, R

*D = Does not discriminate; NM = Not meaningful; R = Redundant.See Appendix 11-B for a more complete explanation of the reasons for elimination.

PS'li O2 E 72

MAXIMIZESUITABILIT YOF HOIZON

_I|

I I 1A 0 C- a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____________ & - & -u

MAXIMZEREPOSITORYPERFORMANCE

MAX IMIZECONStnUCTABILITY

MINIMIZE COSTS

- U I.

Ia t

I I I ID3E F I J

-

. MAXIMIZEGROUNDVIATERTRAVE LTIME

MINIMIZESEVERITY OFRELEASES

F~~~~_ 1MlNIMtZEINI EiIACTION OFTRANSMISStVE ZONESWITH tITE ACCESSIBLEENVItONMENT

* RADIONUCLIDFPLUME DE'TH

MINIMIZECONSTRUCTIONAND OPERATINGCOSTS

* COST SAVINOS

MINIMIZECONSTRUCTIONTIME

.............. 16�� -

* OIOUNDWATIETRAVW LTIME

* RCIONUCLIDEnE LEASE

* SCtEDULESAVINCS

.

IG I

MAXIMIZEPIOBABILITY OFMEETING DESIGNSPECIF ICAT IONS

If

MINIMIZEENGINEERINGDlFrrICULTIES

PE cCENTVESICULATION

* MEAN INTERIORttu CKNt SS

* MINIMUM INTERIORtHICKNESS

FIGURE 11-7. Relationship of Final Ranking Measuresto Final Hierarchy of Ranking Objectives.

TABLE 11-7. POINT ESTIMATES FOR RANKING MEASURESUSED IN DETERMINISTIC EVALUATION.

CANDIDATE HORIZONS

EASURES ROCKY COHASSETT cANYON UMTRANKING M ANUM VOLUME IREFERENCE

PERFORMANCE-RELATED MEASURES

Radionuclide releasea 0.001 0.0001 0.1 1.0 Table 1-76

Groundwater travel time (yr) 38,000 64,000 34,000 36,000 Table 1-74

Radionuclide plume depth (m) 285 335 460 510 Table 1-75

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED MEASURES

Mean interior thickness () 41.1 41.3b 31.7 35.3 Table 1-2

Minimum interior thickness (m) 30.5 35.6 30.5 25.3 Table 1-2

Percent vesiculation 18 0 17 0 Table 1-3

COST-RELATED MEASURES

Cost savings ($ million) 290 210 80 0 Table 1-68

Schedule savings (mo)c 10 7 2.5 0 Table 1-68

aUnits are curies per 1,000 t of heavy metal.bThickness below the internal vesicular zone. (See Table 1-2 for total thickness).cUniform ranges were provided for schedule rather than point estimates. The midpoints of these ranges

were selected for the deterministic evaluation.

MP.7O73.11F

.-OJ_I.

0

.a=0

*

_; a

0

0.

w w= _

B; a

U

0.a

IF-

0

a.aa34

S .

EXPECTED UTILITY@o a° a 0

* Co 06 a 0 CR

ROCK Y 1C OULEE *~.~(0.54) .:.~.s,.

COIHASETT*(0.00)

McCOY mCANYON .:-. .:.(0.26)

UMTANUM(0.06) :

EXPECTED UTILITYS0 o o

o ;a o 9 oa CR 0 am 0

=ab

0)mp

-4

0

CO)Po

C

z

a

0 w

ow

In -

m

co

rt0m . m

0 )co

zCo

z.

XCi .w

mI0CrI-CO)wW0

ma

! 2.0m-4mr

jz-0

;~~S>~ :~t~y.~.3r.t R .. v#4 .. *. - i

-?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-V *t. ~~~~~~~~~~ * a~~~i

I

00

LO'-.4

LI.

* - .4

- .. -

CASING INSTALLATION

.

TO PIT -

WVEIGHT OF CASING -

1 12' CASING

BALLAST WATER

72* LINER -

3 MILLON Ibs PLUS

HOOK LOAD CAPACITY OF RIG -

1.5 MILLION bs

10 HOLE

'FLOAT' CASING IN HOLE W/MAX

500o,000 lb NEGATIVE BUOYANCY

FIGURE 9

Lii

UA-

-

8

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 12

p4j rF ,ttt$S �, A' $

r

I

I1. 1j;^

Ati. )

It., *.:

* ,~ XA *

.1,

., .

II

!A,

4'i.

I

. .

laleg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

LLP

I..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L

I'~ ~ 5

'aPo"

i * is .

a -~~

, k.k4, -

- ;1rij r- ~ ,

( I

a. . . I 0.;j'j' 7 r ;, �a .- - -.444 t� �'A�,2 �:UVU,"-2firm-ft- ��A.'`

. at . inw .. I f; -.

-lwm iq -; IX ie {* -. .. , l;-* I1.I.

i'L.¢wNî...'e I'

f1 ½jj 'sA . .4t- a ta

r it -,.5'',"..'

S WW A. wft .

I I.-

-,C*- '3*14.. *. . . , p. *'.*'' .�* t* A3... 3

3' if ,7'. I 2'.3

* 4CCL. -r 1/'

t/%,�gi -4,-� �"�' ).A 7At 't -� ""a';.r'

* -. ,�' it -.

- '-49'.I 'fjj�

.... � -. 2';->j irS 8>14� . . *A . . j '1

.1-.3 .. ".� -a a

.

,

LL.

- �'r-*-�...4r.. .� A

�p I

43 �t� 3 - .4

. Eia.:. .

CASING PERIMETER

\~ ,GROUT LNE(Si

U-.. - ~~ A l. 4 ,.¶ h.. *.

I 1~w~

wi

FIGURE 16

ES PHASE-I CASING / CEMENTING PROGRAM

II-L---

'BOTTOM OF ALLUVIUM

112k SURFACE LINER

ElElEl

AQUIFER

PRE-HYDRATEDFILLER CEMENT

CHEMICAL SEALRING

1750" -

EXPANDINGCEMENT --

2933'

tINE-

3255' -

3333' -

3393' -

PRIEST RAPIDS AQUIFER

BOTTOM OF PRIEST- RAPIDS

-TOP OF COHASSET

72 LNER

EXPANDING CEMENT,I OR 2 STAGES

UPPER CHEMICALSEAL RING

.ENTER LINE OFBREAKOUT

LOWER CHEMICALSEAL RING

-80TTOM OF COHASSET

BOTTOM OF 72' LINER

CEMENT/MUD INTERFACE

BOTTOM OF SHAFT

I

L _,�

F -rFIGURE 17

PROPOSED HYDROLOGY OREHOLES

EXPLORATORYSHAFT

DEPTHm It

GEOLOGICCOLUMNJ

NOTE:

ALL 3OR19HOLES ARE 48 mm (1.89 In.)Simi=

THERE ARE TWO PORTHOLES AT EACHELEVATION. BOTH ARE ORIENTEDPARALLEL TO THE CENTERLINE OF THESHAFT STATION, 100' APART.

S2s-

350-

SHAFTSTATION

COHASSETTFLOW

z rntAKOUT PROBE HOLES

DISTANCE FROM SHAFT 1.000 4

UEsTFRaS v5 1. Ii a

FEET .IO .0 u

FIGURE 18

- - - -

.I-I

1-

i

I I

I

TOP VIEW72 DIA

HA FT

w

u-

BREAKOUT AREA

I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i

i0-- - a - - - -- - . - -.1-- --

I-

. .,

I~

vII/; Y. ef.4 o v

iIII SIDE VIEW

i

/1l

/ 'I/

I100'

I

WJ

LL.

rj - - --

0

SHAFT STATION BREAKOUT AND EXCAVATION

First Shaft

1100 SHAFT

72 ID SHAFTLINER

wcc

:3

I I _ __ I

Excavated ByMechanical Methods

Excavated ByControlled Blasting

Methods

Diroction of Excavation

SK-305 5-92

5

PROBE HOLE OOICEPT

TYPICALPROBE HOLE

A'1'ItI of

- -- -- "-

I -- -

r

('Jc\I

0I

l

Q:- - -=

- - -- - - j - - - -_-4.- -

- -l~

A'

A-A'SECTION VIEW PLAN VIEW

M.T.S. N.T.S.

SK-3055-93

I__-:,-- - Ftl

I 1II II I

CONCEPTUAL UNDERGROUND LAYOUT & EXCAVATION SEQUENCE

.~~~~~~ tRST SHAFT (ES-I) SECOND SHAFT (ES-I) -11 -

SHOP & WAREHOUSE

2 3. MAIN DRIFT 4i I

ROCK MECHANICS K.DRIFT 1 '-t71 | .i*,MINE-BY DIFT

SECOND EXIT DRIFT i

II

ROCK MECHANICSDRIFT 2

-HYDROLOGY DRIFT

NOTE:

TIYNUMBER IDENTIFICATION SCALE: 1cm = 7.2mREFERS TO EXCAVATION (I,,= 80')SEQUENCE

ATTACHMENT 9

CONSTRUCTION TESTINGTOM WINTCZAK, PROJECT ENGINEER

EXPLORATORY SHAFT PROGRAM


CONSTRUCTION TESTING

* SHAFT CONSTRUCTION

* PORTHOLE TESTING

* UNDERGROUND EXCAVATION

11%640P11!-i

SHAFT CONSTRUCTION

MONITORING AND DOCUMENTATION OF DRILLING OPERATION

* RIG PARAMETERS

* HOLE DEVIATION

* CUTTER WEAR

* DRILLING FLUID PARAMETERS

* DRILLING OPERATIONS

* SAMPLE CUTTINGS

1. v I I

.. .~ -

, k _; U

. ..

PSb 2Z1JnJ

SHAFT CONSTRUCTION (CONT.)

MONITORING LINING OPERATIONS

* SHAFT SHAPE AND SIZE

* LINER WELDING

6 LINER GROUTING

IP:l2C .Z 31 4

PORTHOLE TESTING

* SAFETY

* EXAMINE GROUT SEAL

* HYDROLOGY TESTLNG

* GEOMECHANICS INSTRUMENTATION

VISO -ass-ss

SD-BWI-TP-007 REV 1 VOLLWE II

EXPLORATORYSHAFT

DEPTH GEOLOGICm ft COLUMN

NOTE:

ALL BOREHOLES ARE 48.nwn (1.894n.) SIZE

THERE ARE TWO PORTHOLES AT EACHELEVATION. BOTH ARE ORIENTEDPARALLEL TO THE CENTERUNE OF THESHAFT STATION. 180 APART.

- 2.900

- 2950Soo -

925-

950-

975 -

1.000

- 3.000

-3.050

- 3.100

-3.150

- 3.200

-3.250

-3.300

COHASSETTFLOW

i

DISTANCE FROM SHAFT

METERS 46 30 15 0

FEET 150 100 SO 0oPS8311-112A

FIGURE 3-3. Proposed Boreholes into the Preferred Horizon Drilledfrom the Phase I Shaft.

3-12

SD-BWI-TP-007 REV 1 VOLULE II

1.8-m:172-In.i ID _UNER

GROUT _

BASALT _

CENTER COMPARTMENT:DRILLNG EQUIPMENTSHOWN IS HYDRAULICMOTOR UNIT

LOWER COMPARTMENT:HYDRAULIC SYSTEMFOR DRILL. WATERRESERVOIR. AND PUMPS

RCP8303-46A

FIGURE. 2-3. Workdeck in Place in Exploratory Shaft.

2-6

SD-BWI-TP-007 REV 1 VOLUME II

TRANSMISSIONCABLE

MULTIPLEXERBOX

ABSOLUTEPRESSURETRANSDUCER

HIGH-PRESSURE -TUBING

HIGH-PRESSLVALVE

CASING

GROUT

DIFFERENTIAL

PSS4"7-67

FIGURE 3-13. Conceptual Setup for Hydrologic Testing ofLateral-Boreholes in the Phase I Shaft.

3-47

UNDERGROUND EXCAVATION

* MAPPING- GEOLOGY

- ENGINEERING PARAMETERS- SAMPLES

* PROBE HOLE DRILLING- GEOLOGY

- GEOPHYSICS- HYDROLOGY

* GEOMECHANICS- DEFORMATION MONITORING- ROOF DOLT INSTRUMENTATION- ACOUSTIC EMISSION

M6 201i l.

I._. Fl

0 I

CONCEPTUAL UNDERGROUND LAYOUT & EXCAVATION SEQUENCE

RST SHAFT (ES-I) SECOND SHAFT (ES-Il) -

SHOP & WAREHOUSE

t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E ~MAIN DRIFT 4 .

ROCK MECHANICSDRIFT 1 -7 g _p, MINE-BY DRIFT

SECOND EXIT DRIFT I /

I

ROCK MECHANICSDRIFT 2

DRIFT

NOTE:

|LfNUMBER IDENTIFICATION SCALE: 1cm 7.2mREFERS TO EXCAVATION (l = 60')SEQUENCE

CA

I-

00

I-'-4-

I

SINGLE AXIS THREE AXISSENSOR SENSOR PS8409-49

FIGURE 4-8. Elevation View of Shaft and Breakout Station Showing Acoustic Emission Sensor Locations.

PROUIE 1;tOLU 0Or-Er

TYPICALPROCE HOLE

A

I I/

:: -- - - 6 - - - - -- sr

I -:-Y -

F

I-- OVERSIZE HOLE I____L_ -�

IlFOR PACKER

ASSEMBLYIS

- - - -- - -

II

F %. , -Z z Z. -

A'

A-A'SECTION VIEW PLAR VIEW

I fo.T.S . T'.T.S.


MULTIPLE-POSmONBOREHOLE EXTENSOMETER

POINT

SECTION A.A

o ¶ 2MEnGtsI I

o 5 T

TEMPORARYCONVERGENCE

REFUGE ENLARGEMENT POINTBREAKOUT STATION

SECTION 9-8 PS8409-47

FIGURE 4-12. Convergence Monitoring Station.

4-66


GAGE CONFIGURATION

00 90 1800 2707I I 0 I

- 5

- 4

- 3

- 2

-1

IIII 3-[-1-

- I - :II/-]

~~~~~I

I I|| Z k I

V RECTANGULAR ROSETTE GAGES

IUNEAR GAGE PS8409-48

FIGURE 4-7. Strain-Gaged Bolt.

4-43


Q. DESCRIBE TESTING DURING CONSTRUCTION

A. - SHAFT CONSTRUCTION MONITORING- PORTHOLE TESTING- UNDERGROUND EXCAVATION

Q. DISCUSS TESTING FROM SHAFT

A. PORTHOLE TESTING

ATTACHMENT 10

EXPLORATORY SHAFTPREREQUISITES PLAN

NED HUTCHINS, MANAGER

EXPLORATORY SHAFT PROGRAM


FHt. .,:? Ptfet I

THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT PREREQUISITESPLAN IS A MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHTTOOL TO IDENTIFY, DEFINE, ASSESS, ANDSCHEDULE THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT ARENECESSARY PRECURSORS OR PREREQUI-SITES TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION,OPERATING, AND TESTING.

iS116-223-o4lereq 2

PREREQUISITE PLAN GOALS

TO IMPLEMENT THOSE MEASURES NECESSARY TO ENSURE THATTHE EXPLORATORY SHAFT PROGRAM MEETS:

* PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS

* QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

* DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

PS86-2023,fPfee 3

PLAN ELEMENTS

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

READINESS REVIEWS

DESIGN/CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEWS

SAFETY PROTECTION PLAN

PS86o2013.Ptereq.4

.4EXPLORATORY SHAFT

CONSTRUCTION/OPERATIONSPREREQUISITES PLAN

WIREQUIREMENTS

DESIGNCRITERIA

DESIGNSOLUTION

.-

FUNCTIONALANALYSIS

SAFETYPROTECTION

PLAN

DESIGN ANDCONSTRUCTIBILITY

REVIEWSREADINESSvREVIEWS 1

CONSTRUCTIONAND

OPERATIONS IS~lb-2O03-Psereq S

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

P%86-2021-pree 6

FUNCTIONALANALYSIS

PSub-202UPrie~eq

REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THEEXPLORATORY SHAFT LOCATION

* THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT IS PART OF OVERALL SITECHARACTERIZATION PLAN

* AVAILABLE DATA SUGGEST LOCATION IS TYPICAL OF THEREFERENCE REPOSITORY LOCATION

* LOCATION CAN BE CONSIDERED A "RANDOM" SELECTIONRELATIVE TO GEOTECHNICAL DATA

* REPRESENTATIVENESS CAN ONLY BE EVALUATED AS SITECHARACTERIZATION APPROACHES COMPLETION

rse-7v IN I1"

SELECTION OF REPOSITORY HOST ROCK(STUDY CONDUCTED BY WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS IN

CONJUNCTION WITH BWIP PERSONNEL, 1982,1983)

* TECHNICAL FACTORS

* RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

* FLOW TOP VARIABILITY

* VERTICAL FLEXIBILITY

REFERENCE:

LONG AND WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS, 1984, RHO-BW-SD-TY-001

PSB6.1O231 1I

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

* PRIOR TO MAY 1982, THE UMTANUM FLOW WAS USED AS THEREFERENCE REPOSITORY HORIZON

* ORIGINAL SELECTION OF THE UMTANUM FLOW WAS BASED ONITS OCCURRENCE IN BOREHOLE DC-1 (COMPLETEDSEPTEMBER 1969)

* THE UMTANUM APPEARED TO BE THE BEST FLOW FOR AREPOSITORY BECAUSE IT WAS THOUGHT TO BE THE DEEPESTTHICK FLOW IN WHICH A REPOSITORY COULD BEECONOMICALLY CONSTRUCTED

* THE NEED TO CONDUCT A STUDY TO COMPARE BASALT FLOWSTHAT WERE POSSIBLE CANDIDATE HORIZONS, IN A SYSTEMATICWAY, WAS RECOGNIZED (MAY 1982)

* IN JUNE OF 1982, UNEXPECTEDLY THICK FLOW TOP BRECCIAWAS ENCOUNTERED IN THE UMTANUM FLOW. THIS GAVEADDITIONAL IMPETUS TO THE HORIZON IDENTIFICATION STUDYAND SERVED TO UNDERSCORE ITS IMPORTANCE

Ilsfifio2013r 12

9

READINESS REVIEWS

9

PI86*20ki-Prereq 9

REQUIREMENTS -

l~

DESIGNCRITERIA

DESIGNSOLUTION

I

READINESSREVIEWS

CONSTRUCTIONAND

OPERATIONS

PS46.2023-Pitleq 10

READINESS REVIEWS

* A FORMAL ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE THE PREPAREDNESSOF:- THE RESPONSIBLE PERSONNEL- THE FACILITIES- MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

* CONFIRMATION WITH REQUIREMENTS

{a t ' l? II~ rs1

READINESS REVIEW GOALS

* TASK DEFINITION

* REGULATORY COMPLIANCE OF TASKS

* PHASED SELF ASSESSMENT

* MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW (HOLD POINTS)

* PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

* PROBLEM MITIGATION

PS8C 2021 Prereq 12

READINESS REVIEW MUST VERIFY, USIN9 MOR)LOGIC, THAT:

(--r1 >-

1.

2.

3.

FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT (HARDWARE) ARE "READY"

PERSONNEL ARE "READY"

POLICIES/PROCEDURES ARE "READY"

MsG-.Jo23Frereq s

START-UP TEAM

START-UP TEAM CHAIRMAN

ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE

QUALITY ASSURANCE REPRESENTATIVE

SAFETY REPRESENTATIVE

CONSTRUCTION REPRESENTATIVE

SYSTEMS REPRESENTATIVE

OTHERS AS APPROPRIATE

PS86-2023-Prereq 14

S

READINESS REVIEW BOARD

SENIOR LEVEL MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES FROM:

* CONSTRUCTION MANAGER

* ARCHITECT ENGINEER

* ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS

* BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT

* DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE (AS OBSERVER)

* OTHERS AS APPROPRIATE

PSW-2023-Fitieq 15

READINESS REVIEW (HOLD POINTS)

ES-1, ES-11,

ES-I, ES-11,

ES-1, ES-11,

ES-I, ES-11,

ES-I, ES-11,

ES-I, ES-11,

12 TOTAL

START-TO-DRILL

LINER INSTALLATION

PERSONNEL ENTRY

PORTHOLE DRILLING

BREAKOUT

OPERATIONS (TESTING)

P~I6-ZO23 Pwfeq1l6

DESIGN/CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEW

PSG8b2023-Picreq 17

REQUIREMENTS

DESIGNCRITERIA

IDESIGN

SOLUTION

DESIGN ANDCONSTRUCTIBILITY

REVIEWS

f'86-2023-Piereq 18

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEWS

* A FORMAL AND RIGOROUS ASSESSMENT OF:- THE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION- THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION- THE OPERATIONAL DOCUMENTATION

* TECHNICAL VERIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED REQUIREMENTS

PS 20223 Pereq 19

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEWS

* ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT'S DESIGN

* ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT'S CONSTRUCTIBILITY

* PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

* PROBLEM MITIGATION

PS86-202J-Piereq 20

DESIGN/CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEW ELEMENTS

REQUIREMENTS REVIEW

DESIGN REVIEW

CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEW

OPERATIONS (TESTING) REVIEWS

SPECIAL REVIEWS

PS-2P2retseq 21

SPECIAL REVIEWS - DESIGN BASIS EVALUATION

PftalOti*Pge.eq *1

REVIEW ISSUES

* WATER INFLOW

* METHANE RELEASE RATE

* (FLEXIBILITY J)

* CONSTRUCTIBILITY

.� ka"

k,4,'�y t--

CQ

PS862023 lPtereq 23

REVIEW SCOPE

EVALUATION OF THE FOLLOWING:* DESIGN BASIS VALUES FOR WATER INILOW AND METHANE RELEASE RATE

* FLEXIBILITY TO SUPPORT POTENTIAL PROGRAM CHANGES

* COST AND SCHEDULE IMPACTS IF GASSY MINE STANDARDS WERE TO BEIMPOSED

COST, SCHEDULE, AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF ARGER DIAMETEISECOND SHAFT

<~~~

/

, I--

I ;�- 4'1 .74,

,J21t

, � I

PSEG- 223-Piereq.24

REVIEW OBJECTIVES

CONFIRM THE FOLLOWING:* DESIGN CRITERIA FOR METHANE CONCENTRATION AND RELEASE RATE

* DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WATER INFLOW

* DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, HARDWARE, AND FACILITIESBEYOND THOSE CURRENTLY PLANNED

* REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL VENTILATION, DEWATERING, AND HOISTINGCAPABILITIES

* THE RANGE OF COST AND SCHEDULE IMPACTS IF GASSY MINE STANDARDSWERE TO BE IMPOSED

* THE RANGE OF COST, SCHEDULE, AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF A LARGERDIAMETER SECOND SHAFT

M~l, '. I' -I 2.f

REVIEW SCHEDULE

Ps8G- O21Iptereq K

ANALYZE DATA/PREPARE REPORTFLEXIBILITY

WATER INFLOW/METHANE

RELEASE RATE

GASSY MINEIMPACTS

SECOND SHAFTSIZE STUDY

PREPAREDESIGN

ANALYZE DATA/ INDEPENDENT, PREPARE REPORT- REVIEW

INDEPENDENT

ANALYZE DATA/PREPARE REPORT

ANALYZE DATA/PREPARE REPORT

P8G-021-Pterq 27

SAFETY PROTECTION PLAN

PS861023-Proreq 28

DESIGNCRITERIA

ZDESIGN

SOLUTION

LILY.~e

SAFETYPROTECTION

PLAN

CONSTRUCTIONAND

OPERATIONS

S

PSB 202-Prereq 29

THE SAFETY PROTECTION PLAN IDENTIFIESTHE SAFETY DOCUMENTATION WHICH ISREQUIRED FOR THE READINESS REVIEWS.

P58G-2023-Prereq30

SAFETY PROTECTION PLAN GOALS

* ANALYZE EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITIES IN TERMS OFPOTENTIAL HAZARDS

* METHODS TO MITIGATE IDENTIFIED HAZARDS

PS86I*023lefeq t

-SAFETY PROTECTION PLAN ELEMENTS

* JOB SAFETY PLAN

* HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

* SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

PS86-J02-Prelezi I2

JOB SAFETY PLAN

CONSTRU 9 TION CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY

* EVALUATES HAZARDS OF JOB ELEMENTS

* PREVENTIVE MEASURES DETERMINEDI

MPu-2023 Pleeq 33

HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

0 SAFETY-RELATED DESIGN CRITERIA AND DESIGN COMPLIANCE

* HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

* HAZARDS MITIGATION- DESIGN

- ENGINEERED HARRIER

- ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS

* HAZARDS QUANTIFICATION- PROBABILITY

- CONSEQUENCES

- RISK

P!86 2023 Pereq.34

$AFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

* SAME FEATURES AS HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION ANDEVALUATION d

* PLUS COMME NTS RELATED TO:- SITE DESCRIPTION- QUALITY ASSURANCE- OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH- ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

fl86-2023Pcrreq J5;

PREREQUISITES PLAN MASTER SCHEDULE

PREREQUISITES PLAN MASTER SCHEDULE

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

I

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

READINESS REVIEWS

DESIGN REVIEWS

CONSTRUCTIONREVIEWS

SPECIAL REVIEWS

OPERATIONS REVIEWS

SAFETY ANALYSISREVIEW AND UPDATES

ES-I DESIGN REVISED

ES-I1 DESIGN

ES-I START TO DRILL

las '/ta

tot a',

I_ I

11

lolla

"1

1 1 6/1

an I

I sa

3.11 atL41

4 a

(AS REQUIRED) 4t

(AS REQUIRED) 4/------ -…----…--- -

&I 4I lIt 2I lII 1111 41

v * T v * T - -I. w

&I

7, sa

III

. ,

£7

PS862023

ATTACHMENT 11

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTSIDENTIFICATION

THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS TREE

DATA i - INFORMATION

IDENTIFYINFORMATION

ANDDATA NEEDS

PRODUCE INFORMATION

IZZ * DIRECT OBSERVATIONS* DATA ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATIONCONDUCT TESTS

AND SITESTUDIES TO

OBTAIN DATA

.

I

* CHARACTERIZE SITE* PREPARE SITE-SPECIFIC

DESIGNS* ASSESS PERFORMANCE* RESOLVE ISSUESPERFORM ANALYSES

(MODELING, SIMULATION,ENGINEERING STUDIES)

I II I

PA850?271-7

DEFINITION OF TERMS

INFORMATION FACTS REQUIRED FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ANDSYSTEM DESIGN, TO SUPPORT THE LICENSING PROCESS,AND TO RESOLVE ISSUES. INFORMATION IS GENERATEDBY SUCH ACTIVITIES AS:

* DIRECT OBSERVATION

* DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

* ENGINEERING STUDIES

* MODELING AND SIMULATION

DATA NEEDS THE INDIVIDUAL SITE PROPERTIES, SITE-RELATED EVENTSAND ENGINEERED SYSTEM DESIGN VARIABLES WHICH MUSTBE QUANTIFIED IN ORDER TO PRODUCE INFORMATION.

IDENTIFICATION OF INFO/DATA NEEDS

MUST BE:

* INDEPENDENT OF DESIGN OR EMPLACEMENT APPROACH

* WITHOUT PREJUDGEMENT OF SENSITIVITY OR IMPORTANCE

* NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT FOR ALL APPLICATIONS

* TRACEABLE

METHOD:

* USE BASE THAT PROVIDES OBJECTIVITY

* SYSTEMATIC, DISCIPLINED. EXHAUSTIVE ANALYSIS

- A MISSION-BASED TREE -

DEFINITION OF TERMS

SYSTEM MISSION

FUNCTIONALREQUIREMENTS

THE PURPOSE OF THE SYSTEM; ie., TO PERMANENTLYISOLATE HIGH LEVEL WASTE FROM THE ACCESSIBLEENVIRONMENT

THE THINGS THE WASTE ISOLATION SYSTEM MUST DOOR PROVIDE TO SATISFY THE SYSTEM MISSION

* IDENTIFIED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEREQUIREMENTS TREE

* VALUES OR LIMITS ESTABLISHED LATER

REQUIREMENTS TREE DEVELOPMENT

AVOID:

* PRECONCEPTIONS

* PREJUDGEMENT OF SENSITIVITY OR IMPORTANCE

* DESIGN SOLUTIONS

a PROJECT FUNCTIONS AND TASKS

* PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENtS

REQUIREMENTS TREE DEVELOPMENT

CONTROLLING QUESTIONS

THE QUESTION YIELDS

WHAT MUST THE ISOLATION SYSTEM DOOR PROVIDE TO PERFORM THE MISSION)?

WHAT IS NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT TO

COMPLETELY SATISFY (THIS FUNCTIONAL

REQUIREMENT)

TOP-LEVEL FUNCTIONALREQUIREMENTS

FUNCTIONALREQUIREMENTS

WHAT IS (THIS REQUIREMENT, PROPERTY OR

PARAMETER) DEPENDENT ON?INFO/DATA NEEDS

BASALT MINED GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL SYSTEM MISSION

PERMANENTLYISOLATE HIGH-LEVEL

RADIOACTIVEWASTES FROMTHE ACCESSIBLEENVIRONMENT

7-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I 1.0 I

PROVIDE ANDOPERATE A HIGH-

LEVEL WASTEREPOSITORY

LIMITRADIONUCLIDERELEASE TO THE

ACCESSIBLEENVIRONMENT

If ~~I _ _ -I I .

I II 1 2 I 2.1 I 2.2 I. , . 2

OPERATEREPOSITORY

PROVIDE(CONSTRUCT)REPOSITORY

CONTAINRADIONUCLIDES

AND LIMIT RELEASERATE FROM THE

ENGINEEREDBARRIER SYSTEM

LIMIT MIGRATIONOF RADIONUCLIDES

FROM THEENGINEERED

BARRIER SYSTEMTO THE ACCESSIBLE

ENVIRONMENT

INITIALRADIONUCLIDE

INVENTORY

.

- I . E. F - V

I I1I

HANDLEWASTE

1 1.

PROVIDEPROCESSED

EMPLACEMENTAND CLOSURE

MATERIALS

I 12

PROVIDE GENERALPURPOSE SURFACE

FACILITIES ANDEQUIPMENt 1t

PROVIDESUBSURFACE

FACILITIES ANDEQUIPMENT

PROVIDE SURFACE-SUBSURFACE

COMMONFACILITIES AND

EQUIPMENT

.1 SUNIUAU NAITUALRACKGROUND

.1.1 SOtIOPHASERADM UGADIS

.1.2 VotAtI PHASE&ADmwtuaots

.2 SUSSUIrrAcE NIAVUALSACKGRtWODJ.t SOLIDPHASE

RADIWIUCuOES

JJ2. VOAit PASAoONUCI lIES

. fUMACUD WAfSt.3. 1 SD ASE

SAIONUCLDtiS

3. VOATI. PHASERADMNUlCDIOS

I I I I.' 1 2 4 1 2

PROVIDEOPERATIONS

SUPPORT SERVICES

CLOSE ANDDECOMMISSION

REPOSITORY

PROVIDE BULKMATERIALS

HANDLING ANDPROCESSING

fACILITIES ANDEQUIPMENT

PROVIDE WASTEHANDLING

fACILITIES ANDEQUIPMENT

.1 or a Information/Data Need PS84-2042-NWRB

July 29, 1985

PERMANENTLY ISOLATE HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FROM THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT

12.0 LIMIT RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT

1 2-2

LIMIT MIGRATION OFRADIONUCLIDES FROM

THE ENGINEEREDBARRIER SYSTEM TO THE

ACCESSIBLEENVIRONMENT

I 2.2.1

RADIONUCLIDEFLUX TO ACCESSI-

BLE ENVIRONMENTPER NUCLIDE

1 2.2

POTENTIALCHANGES IN

RADIONUCLIDEFLUX TO ACCESSt-

BLE ENVIRONMENT

_ | v~~~

I 2.2.3

RADIONUCLIDEDECAY

.1 UCUIE HAL-EffE

.2 NUCUDE DECAYPRODUCTSl 1 2.2.1.1 1 2.2.1.2 1 2.2.1.3 1 2.2.2.1 | 2.2.2.2

LIMIT RELEASE CONTROL RADIONUCUDE NATURALLY INDUCEDBATE FROM THE RAINCIE RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORTNAULYMNINUE

ENGINEERED RADIONUGIDE TRANSPORT INDUCEDCHANGES CHANGES INBARRIER SYSTEM MIGRATION THROUGH THE THROUGH THE IN RAOIONUCUDE RADIONUCIJDE(PROVIDED FOR IN SEAL SYSTEM HOST ROCK SURROUNDING FX FLUX

BRANCH 2.13) S SYSTMROCK

PS84-2042-2 .2

March 29, 1985

PERMANENTLY ISOLATE HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT

I2.0 LIMIT RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT

2.2 LIMIT MIGRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM tO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT

2.2.1 RADIONUCLIDE FLUX TO ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT PER NUCLIDE

J_ 2.2.1.1

CONTROLRADIONUCLDE

MIGRATIONTHROUGH SEAL

SYSTEM

I~

2.2.1.1.1

CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE


CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE

MIGRATIONTHROUGH

SEAVHOST ROCIINTERFACE

2.2.1.1.3 2.2.1.1.4CONTROL

RADIONUCLIDEMIGRATION LOCATIONS ANDTHROUGH ORIETATI OF

DISTURBED SEALSROCK ZONE

PS84-2042-22.1 1a

March 29, 1985


l2.0 LIMIT RADIONUCLDE RELEASE TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT

l2.2 LIMIT MIGRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT


l2.2.1.1 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH SEAL SYSTEM

2.2.1.1.1

CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE


1 2.2.1.1.t.1 | Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~.2.t 1N1.2

CONTROL CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE RAOIONUCLIDE

TRANSPORT MIlGRATIONTHROUGH SEAL BY THROUGH SEAL BYGROUNDWATER DIFFUSION

ADVECTION

PS84-2042-2 .2 .1. 1b

March 29, 1985

PERMANENTLY ISOLATE HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT£


2.2 LIMIT MIGRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT


221.1 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH SEAL SYSTEM

2.2.1.11 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH SEAL1 21

CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE

TRANSPORTTHROUGH SEAL BY

GROUNDWATERADVECTION

1 22.1.1.1.1 1

SEAL MATERIAL HCHARACTERISTICS PRE

.1 SEAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

1.1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH

1.2 CONFINEDCOMPRESSIVESTRENGTH

1.3 TENSILE STRENGTHIA SHEAR STRENGTH1. CREEP1.6 YOUNG'S MODULUS1.7 POISSON'S RATIO14 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

1.9 THERMAL EXPANSION1.16 CHEMICAL EXPANSION1.31 CURING SHRINKAGE1.12 THERMAL

DIFFUSIVITYCONDIDIlCVITY1.13 HYORAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF

THE SEAL MATEREIAL BOND (IFAPPLICABLE)

1.14 BOND STRENGTH

1 2.2.1.1.1.1.3

YDROSTATICSSURE ON SEAL

HYDROLOGICGRADIENT ACROSS

SEAL

12.2.1.1.1.1.4

RADIONUCLIDESPECIATION.

COMPLEXANTS.AND

CONCENTRATION

1 2111S.

HYDRO-CHEMISTRY

2 .2. 1.1.1. 1.6

GROUNDWATERTEMPERATURE

.1 SEAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

ItONT.)

t.IS PHASE TRANStORMATION1.16 CHEMICALALTERATION1.17 SHEAR STRENGTH-BOND1.18 SHEAR MODULUS1.19 POROSITY1.20 FRACTURE CRACK PATTERN1.21 SHRINKAGE FACTOR FOR

EARTHEN MATERIALS1.2 SWELLING PRESSURE1.23 DENSITY1.24 MOISIURE-DENSITY

RELATIONSHIP1.25 HEAT CAPACITY

.2 SEAL CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICES

2.1 DISSOLUTION.SECONDARYMINERALIZATION

1.2 CHEMICAL STABILITY

I.1 Eh

2 pH1.3 CONCENTRATIONS OF DISSOLVED EtEMENTS.

GASES. ANDCOMPtEXANTS

.4 VISCOSITY

.5 SIZE. DISTRIBUTION. AND CONCENTRATION OFPARTICULATES

.6 CHANGE IN HYDROCHEMICAL PROPERTIESPRODUCED BY SEAL MATERIALS

.7 GROUNOWATER RESIDENCE TIME IN fAt BOCY

_ 122.11-1.18 2 2 1 .I. 119 122.1.1.1110. .

SEALTEMPERATURE

GRADIENT

SEALDEFORMATION

BACKFILLCOMPACTION AND

SWELLINGPRESSURE

(IF REQUIRED)

PS84-2042-22.1 .1c

March 29, 1985



2.2 LIMIT MIGRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE ENGINEEREDBARRIER SYSTEM TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT


2.2.1.1 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH SEAL SYSTEM

2.2.1.1.1 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH SEAL

2.2.1.1 .11 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT THROUGH SEAL BY GROUNDWATER ADVECTION

2.2.1.1.1.19

SEALDEFORMATION

_

ISEAL MATERIAL

CHARACTERISTICS(PROVIDED FOR IN

2.2.1.1.1.1.1)

I 2 1 1 1 19I

STRESSES IMPOSEDON SEAL

I.E

1 111.911

MECHANICALSTRESSES IMPOSED

ON SEAL

2.2.1.1.t119.1.2

CHEMICALSTRESSES IMPOSED

ON SEAL

12.2.1.1.1.1.9.1 3

THERMAL STRESSESIMPOSED ON SEAL

.1 LOCAL DEFORMATION OF DRIFT

.2 MYDRAULIC LOAD leg., LARGEtHANGE IN SEAL POROSITY1

.3 TRANSIENT LOADS l 9,SEISMICI

4 EXPANSION DUE TOHYDRATION

.5 SRINKAGE DUE tODEHYDRATION OF SEALMATERIAL

.1 SWELtING OF CEMENTIAlOUSMATERIALSfIf REQIE)

.2 OlSSOLUTION Of SEALMATERIALS

.1 NEAT OF HYDRATION

.2 WASTE4NDUCED TlIERMAL CYCtF

3 NATURAL ROCtEMPERARE

PS84-2042-2.2. 1 ld

March 29, 1985






2.2.1.1.1 CONTROL RADIONUCUDE MIGRATION THROUGH SEAL

2 1.1 12

CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE

MIGRATIONTHROUGH SEAL BY

DIFFUSION

1 22-1-1121 1 2.2.1.1.1.2.2.


HYDRO-CHEMISTRY

2.2.1.1.1.2.3

RADIONUCLIDESPECIATION ANDCONCENTRATION

1 2.2. 112..4

RADIONUCLIDECONCENTRATION

GRADIENT

AA

12.2.1.1.1.2

SEAL POROSITY SOR6TIVITY OFSEAL MATERIALS

.5 I_ . .

2.2.1.1.1.2 6

.1 fh

.I pH4

.T CONCENTRATIONS 0 DISSOLVEDELEMENTS, GASES. ANDCOMPLEKANTS

A VISCOSITY

.5 SIZE, DISTRIBUTION. ANDCONCENTRATION OFPARTICUtATES

.6 CHANGE IN HYOROCHEMICALPROPERTIES PRODUCED BY SEALMATERIALS

.I GROUNDWATER RESIDENCE TIMEIN SEAL BODY

2.2.1 1 . 7 2.2.1.1.1.2.8- S..

SEALVOLUME AND

GEOMETRY

HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY

SEAL MATERIALSCHEMICAL

CHARACTERISTICS(PROVIDED FOR IN

ALL OF2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2)

.1 INITIAL POROSITY

.2 TIME ARIANT POROSITY

.3 SECONDARY MINERALIZATION

.4 MATERIALS tEPOSITION

PS84-2042-2.2.1 .le

March 29, 1985

PERMANENTLY ISOLATE HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENTl

2.0 LIMIT RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT1

2.2 LIMIT MIGRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENTl

2.2.1 RADIONUCLIDE FLUX TO ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT PER NUCLIDEa


1 2.2.1 1.2

CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE

MIGRATIONTHROUGH

SEAL/HOST ROCKINTERFACE(S)

| 2.2 1.1,2 1 | 2.2.1.1.2.2

CONTROL RADIO- CONTROL RADIO-NUCLIDE TRANSPORT NUCLIDE MIGRATIONTH ROUGH SA UHST THROUGH SIALHOST

GROU NDWRFATERS BY ROCK INTERFACE(S) BYADVECTION

PS84-2042-2.2.lf

March 29, 1985






2.2.1.1.2 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH SEAL/HOST ROCK INTERFACE

1 2.2.1 1.2.1

CONTROL RADIO-NUCLIDE TRANSPORTTHROUGH SEALHOSTROCK INTERFACE(S)BY

GROUNDWATERADVECTION

t

9

1 2.2.1.1t2.1.1 12 2 1 1.2 2 1 2.2.1.1.2.1.4 1 2.2.1.1.2.1.5 1 2.2.1.1.2.1.6

HYDROSTATICPRESSURE ONINTERFACE(S) I HYDRAULIC

GRADIENT ACROSSINTERFACE(S)


, _ _ .. ._ .

INTERFACETEMPERATURE

GRADIENTSINTERFA

2.2.1.1.2.1.9

RY OFCE(S)

INTERFACEMATERIALS

CHARACTERISTICS(PROVIDED FOR IN2.1.1.2.1.10.1 AND

2.2.1.1.2.1.10.2)

2.2.1.1.2.1.7

ADVERSE INTER-ACTIONS BETWEEN

INTERFACEMATERIALS. SEALMATERIALS, AND

HOST ROCK

.I fh

.J pH

.3 CONCENTRATIONS OFDISSOLVED ELEMENTS. GASES,AND COMPLEXANTS

.4 VISCOSITY

.S SIZE. DISTRIBUTION. ANDCONCENTRAIION OFPARTICULATES

.6 CHANGE IN HVDROCHIMICALPROPERTIES PRODUCED NYSEAL MATERIALS

.J GROUNDWATER RESIDENCElIME IN SEAL UDDY

2.2.1.1.2.1.8

RADIONUCUDESPECIATION.

COMPLEXANTS ANDCONCENTRATIONS

2.2.1.1.2.1.10

HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY OFSEAUHOST ROCK

INTERFACE(S)

INTERFACEMATERIAL

DEFORMATION

PS84-2042-2 2 1 19

March 29, 1985




2.2.1 RADIONUCLIDE FLUX TO ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT PER NUCLIDEI


2.2.1.1.2 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH SEAL-HOST ROCK INTERFACE

2.2.1.1.2.1 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT THROUGH SEAL-HOST ROCK INTERFACE(S) BY GROUNDWATER ADVECTION

1 22.1.1.2.1.7

ADVERSEINTERACTIONS

BETWEEN INTERFACEMATERIALS. SEALMATERIALS, AND

HOST ROCK

I2 2 1.11.2 1.7 1 1 2.2.1.1.2.1 7.2 1 2.2.1.1.2.1 7.3 22.11.2 .74 12.2.1.12.1.75

HYDROSTATICPRESSURE ONINTERFACE(S)

'A

HYDRO-CHEMISTRY


-A

INTERFACETEMPERATURE

GRADIENT

'A

RADIATION-INDUCED CHANGE S

.1 Eh.

.2 pil

.3 CONCENTRATIONS Of DISSOLVEDEfLMENTS. GASES. ANDCOMPLEXAN1S

.4 VISCOSITY

.s SIZE. DISTRIBUTION. ANDCONCENTRATION OFPARtICULATES

.6 CHANGE IN IIYDROCHEMICALPROPERTIFS PRODUCED BY SEALMAItRIALS

.7 GROUNDWATER RESIDENCE TIMEIN SEAL BODY PS84-2042-Z 2.1.1

March 29, 1985


2.0 LIMIT RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENTI

2.2 LIMIT MIGRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENTI




2.2.1.1.2.1 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT THROUGH SEAL-HOST ROCK INTERFACE(S) BY GROUNDWATER ADVECTION

1 2 2.1.1 2 10

INTERFACEMATERIAL

DEFORMATION

.~1~~~I

2.2 1.1 2.1 10 1

INTERFACEMATERIALPHYSICAL

CHARACTERISTICS

2.2.1.1 2 10.2 1 2.2.1.1.2.1.10.3

INTERFACEMATERIALCHEMICAL

CHARACTERISTICS

STRESSES IMPOSEDON INTERFACE

MATERIAL

t UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH

.2 CONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

.3 TENSILE STRENGtHA SHEAR STRENGTHA CREEP.6 YOUNG'S MODULUS.7 POISSON'S RATIO.X HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY9 THERMAL EXPANSION

.11 CHEMICAL EXPANSION

.11 CURING SHRINKAGE

.12 THERMAL DIFFUSMTYVCONDUCTIVITY

.13 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF THESEAL MATEREIAL BOND OFAPPLICABLEI

.14 BONDSTRENGtH

IS PHASE RANStORMAIION.16 CHEMICAL ALTERATION.17 SHAR SIRENGIH ROND.18 SIIEAR MODULUS

.19 POROSITY

.20 FRACTURE CRACK PATTERN

.21 SHRINKAGE FACTOR FOR EARTHENMATERIALS

.22 SWELLING PRESSURE

.13 DENSITY.24 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP.25 HEAT CAPACITY

.1 DSSOLUTION'SECONDARYMINERALIZATION

.2 CHEMICAL STABILITY

.

2.2.1.1.2.1

MECHANICALSTRESSES IMPOSED

ON INTERFACEMATERIAL

.1 LOCAL DEFORMATION OFDRI T

.2 HYDRAULIC LOAD (1.g..LARGE CHANGE IN SEALPOROSITY}

3 TRANSIENT LOADS (e.g..SEISMIC)

.4 EXPANSION DUE TOHYDRATION

.S SHRINKAGE DUE TODEIIYDRATIoN O0 SEALMATERIAL

a I.1(D.3.1 1 2.2.1.1.2.1.10 3.2 | 22 1.1.2.1

CHEMICAL THERMAL STRESSESSTRESSES IMPOSED IMPOSED ON

ON INTERFACE INTERFACEMATERIAL MATERIAL

10 3

.1 SWELLING OFCEMENTATIOUSMATERIALS I RTOUIREDI

.2 DISSOLUTION OF SEALMATERIALS

.1 HEAT OF HYDRATION

.2 WASTE-INDUCEDTHERMAL CYCLE

.3 NATURAL ROCKTEMPERATURE

PS84-2042-2.2 1 Ih

March 29, 1985







2-2.1.1.2.2

CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE

MIGRATION THROUGHTHE SEAL/HOST ROCK

INTERFACE(S) BYDIFFUSION

122.1.1.2.2-1I -122 1 1 222

GROUNDWATER HYORO-TEMPERATURE CHEMISTRY

.1 Eh

.2 pH

.3 CONCENTRATIONS OFDISSOLVED ELEMENTS, GASES.ANDCOMPLEXANTS

A VISCOSITY

.5 SIZE. DISTRI,UIION. ANDCONCENIRATION OF

PARTICULATES

.6 CHANGE IN IIYDROCIIEMICAtPROPERTIES PRODUCED BY SlAttdARIALS

.7 GROUNDWATER RESIDENCETIME IN SEAL BODY

1 2.2.1.1.2 2

RADIONUCLIDESPECIATION

COMPLEXANTS.REACTANTS ANDCONCENTRATION

3 1 2 2.1.1.2.2


GRADIENT ACROSSINTERFACE(S)

4-I 1 2.2.1.1.2.2 5

INTERFACEPOROSITY

12.2.).1.2.2.6 1 2.2.1 12 2.

SORSTIVITY OF INTERFACEINTERFACE(S) VOLUME AND

MATERIAL GEOMETRY

'A ---

I I 7

PS84 2042-2.2.1 I

March 29, 1985

PERMANENTLY ISOLATE HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENTI

2.0 LIMIT RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENTl




1 2.2.1.1.3

CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE

MIGRATIONTHROUGH THE

DISTURBED ROCKZONE

. 2.21 1 1 2.2.1.1,3 2

CONTROL CONTROL

RADIONUCLIDE RADIONUCLIDETRANSPORT THROUGH MIIGRATION THROUGHTHE DISTURBED ROCK THE DISTURBED ROCK

ZONE BY GROUND- ZONE BY DIFFUSIONWATER ADVECTION

PS84-2042-2.2 1 .lk

March 29, 1985

THE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS IS A MANAGEMENTTOOL TO:

* REVIEW DESIGN COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS

* ASSESS DESIGN ADEQUACY

Ms86-20234iereq.9


I2.0 LIMIT RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT




2.2.1.1.3

CONTROLRADIONUCLIDE

MIGRATIONTIIROUGH THE

DISTURBED ROCKZONE

_ 1 2211 1 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~22 113 2

l RlADIOUCI CbÔNROLZONEBYGROUN THE DISTURBED ROCKWONER BYV RON ZONE BY DIFFUSION

PS84-2042-2 2 1 Ak

March 29, 1985

PERMANENTLY ISOLATE HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM TIHE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT


2.2 LIMIT MIGRATION OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENTS



2.2.1.1.3 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH THE DISTURBED ROCK ZONE

1 2.2.1.1.3 .

CONTROL RADIO-NUCLIDE MIGRATION

THROUGH THEDISTURBED ROCK

ZONE BY GROUND-WATER ADVECTION

| 2.2.1.1.3.1.1

DISTURBED ROCKZONE BULK ROCK

PROPERTIES

| 2.2.1.1.3.1.6

| 2.2.1.1.3.1.2 1 22.1.1.3.1.3

HYDROSTATICPRESSURE ON THEDISTURBED ROCK

ZONE

HYDRAULICGRADIENT ACROSS

SEAL REGION OFTHE DISTURBED

ROCK ZONE

1 2.2.1.1.3.1.8

1 2.2.1.1.3.1

RADIONUCLIDESPECIATION,

COMPLEXANTS.AND RF ACTANTS

.4 2.2.1 1.3.1 5

--- I 2 2 1 3 1722.1.1.3.1.9, _ . . _,


DISTURBED ROCKZONE

TEMPERATUREGRADIENT

DEFORMATION OFTHE DISTURBED

ROCK ZONE

BACKFILLCOMPACTION AND

SWELLINGPRESSURE

HYDRO-CHEMISTRY

.2 poo

.3 CONCENTRATIONS (IFOISSOLVW ELEMENIS.GASES. AND COMPLEXANtS

.4 VISCOSITY

.5 SIZEtSTNIMUTION.ANDCONCENTRATION OfPARTICULATES

.6 CHANGE IN IIYDROCIIEMICALPROPERTIES PRODUCED 3YSEAL MATERIALS

.1 GROUNDWATER RESIDFNCETIME IN SEAL BODY

| 2.2.1.1.3.1.10

SEAL PRESSURE ONTHE DISTURBED

ROCK ZONE

HYORCONDUC,

THE DISROCK

.1 SEISMIC EVENt

2.2.1.1.3.1.11 .2 CREEPOFOPENINGS

.3 BRITTLE FAILURE OF

AULIC ~HOST ROCK

TIVITY OF INCREASE IN PORE

: VTE PRESSURETURNED .ROCK SUPPORT

ZONE ~~FAILURE

| _ ._ ........ _ .2.2.1.1.3.' .12

DRZ EFFECTIVEPOROSITY

.1 SEAL EXPANSION DUE TO HYDRATION

.2 SHRINKAGE DUE TO DEHYDRATION OF SEALMATERIAL

.3 SWELLING OF CEMENTATIOUS MATERIALS (IFREQUIREDI

.4 THERMAL EXPANSION OF SEAL MATERIAL

.1 INITIAL POROSITY

.2 TIME VARIANT POROSITY

.3 SECONDARYMINERALIZATION

4 MATERIAL DEPOSITION P584-2042-2 2 1 11

March 29, 1985





2.2.1.1 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH SEAL SYSTEMS

2.2.1.1.3 CONTROL RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH THE DISTURBED ROCK ZONE

1 2.2 1.1.3.2

CONTROL RADIO-NUCLIDE MIGRATION

THROUGH THEDISTURBED ROCK

ZONE BY DIFFUSION

_ ~~~~~~~~II - -

1 2.2i1.1.3.2.1


1 2.2.1.1 3.2.2

HYDRO-CHEMISTRY

.2.2.1.1.3.2.3

RADIONUCLIDESPECIATION ANDCONCENTRATION

_ 2.2.1.1.3.; 2 2.21.1.3.2.5


GRADIENT

'A

.4

DISTURBED ROCKZONE POROSITY

.1 Eh

.2 pi

.3 CONCENTRATIONS OF DISSOtVEDEtEMENTS. GASES. ANDCOMPtEANTS

.4 VISCOSITY

.5 SIZE. DISTRIBUTION. ANDCONCENIRATION OFPARTICULATES

.1 CHANGE IN HYDROCHEMICALPROPERTIES PRODUCED BY SEALMATERIALS

.7 GROUNDWATER RESIDENCE TIMEIN SEAL BODY

2.2.1.1.3.2

SORSTIVITY OFHOST ROCK

6 j2.2.1.1.3.2

HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY OFDISTURBED ROCK

ZONE

.7 2.2.1.1.3.28

HOST ROCKCHEMICAL

PROPERTIES

A.1 NITIAL POROSITY

.2 TIME VARIANT POROSITY

.3 SECONDARY MINERALIZATION

.4 MATERIAL DEPOSITION

PS84-2042-2.2.1 m

March 29, 1985

DISPOSAL SYSTEMMISSION

PROJECTMISSION

1---------------REGULATORY

REQUIREMENTS __sssS

COMPILE EXISTINGKNOWLEDGE ND

CONCEPTUAL IODELS

DEFINE DISPOSALSYSTEM FUNCTIONAL

REQUIREMENTS

COMPILE EXISTINGKNOWLEDGE AND

CONCEPTUAL MODELS

DEFINE BWIPISSUES AND CONCERNS

IDENTIFY ISSUE-_________ RELATED DATA

NEEDS

IDENTIFYDATA

NEEDSmm. CONSOLIDATE .4

DATA NEEDS

DEFINE DATAACQUISITION AND

ANALYSIS STRATEGIES

PRIORITIZE DATAAND ASSOCIATED

WORK

4 Lm~ at,9 .

L W

DEVELOP SCIENCEAND ENGINEERING

PLANS

I

-w~~~~~~ L

NO NO

PERFORMADREGULAOYWORK ~REQUIREMENTS

MET

| YES

Y - MISSION &

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I_ ISS~nUS /'v'

armf u ~ \

YES

COt1PLET0

BWIP PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT APPROACH

ATTACHMENT 12

BASALT WASTE ISOLATIONPROJECT PERFORMANCEASSESSMENT OVERVIEW

A. J. KNEPP, ENGINEER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - RICHLAND

EXPLORATORY SHAFTCONSTRUCTION CONCERNS

* DOES CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT AFFECTTHE ABILITY TO CHARACTERIZE THE SITE?

* DOES CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT AFFECTTHE ABILITY TO ISOLATE WASTE?

* WHAT ARE THE MITIGATING MEASURES?

P... .. .: -fi-.. ".

SITE CHARACTERIZATION

DISCIPLINES

GEOLOGY

GEOHYDROLOGY

GEOCHEMISTRY

GEOMECHANICS

DATA ACQUISITIONPROGRAMS DATABASE

I _ I

.

__

DATA INTERPRETATION

* IMPACTS ON SITECHARACTERIZATION

* IMPACTS ON WASTEISOLATION

POTENTIAL IMPACTS MATRIX OF ES CONSTRUCTION ON SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND WASTE ISOLATION.

DATABASEMAJORINTERPRETATIONS

SITE CHARACTERIZATION IMPACTS ISOLATION IMPACTS_

NEAR FIELD FAR FIELD ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT

GEOLOGYBOREHOLEGEOPHYSICSREMOTE SENSINGOUTCROPS

STRAT IGRAPHYSTRUCTURE I NO I NOFRACTURE DENSITY I NO NO

NO

POTENTIAL 2,3,4,5

MINERAL ASSEMBLAGES POTENTIAL NO

SEISIICITY MICRO-SEISMICITY POTENTIAL NO

REGIONAL SEISIMICITY NO NO

QUIESIONS THAT1-5 |-MAY REQUIRE

MmGATION

TECTONICS STRUCTURALDEFORMATION

POTENTIAL No

VOLCANIC POTENTIAL NO NO

EROSION POTENTIAL NO NO

GEO-HYDROI OGY

GROUNDWATERLEVELS

GROUNDWATERCHEMISTRY

FLOW DIRECTION &GRADIENTS

POTENTIALFT

POTENTIAL

.......................................... ..... ....... . - --RECHARGE/DISCHARGE NO NORELATIONSHI PS NO

.......................................... _

GROUND WATERTRAVEL TIME

POTENTIALFr NO

- 4 4HYDRAULICPROPERTIES

hYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY POTENTIAL POTENTIALrij

STORATIVITYIPOTE TI1L P07ENTIAL T

EFFECTIVE POROSITY POTENTIAL NOI t I- i --

GEO-CHEMISTRY

CHEMICALREACTI VITY

RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT POTENTIAL

GEO- PHYSICAL EXTENr OF DRZNO NO POTENTIAL 2,3,4,5MIECIIANICS PROPERTIES ROCK STRENGTH NO NO NO

OPENING STABILITY NO NO NO

IN SITU STRESS NO NO NO

DEFORIIAT10t1 NO NO TBD

QUESTIONS REQPERFORMANCE

UIRING MITIGATION ANDASSESSMENT ANALYSIS

* WILL SHAFT SINKING NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE DETERMINATIONOF SITE HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS?

* HOW DOES CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFTAFFECT POSTCLOSURE SEALING CAPABILITY?

* HOW DOES TESTING IN THE EXPLORATORY SHAFTAFFECT POSTCLOSURE SEALING CAPABILITY?

FACILITY

* WHAT EFFECTS WILL EXPLORATORY SHAFT CONSTRUCTIONHAVE ON THE ISOLATION PERFORMANCE OF THE TOTALSYSTEM?

V WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL THAT THE SHAFTS WOULD BEPREFERENTIAL PATHWAYS TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT?

PSu 20.U J-Mv.: 4

ES TESTINGWORKSHOP

* ISSUES RESOLUTION

* RATIONALE FOR TESTING

* TESTING CATEGORY

* TEST DESCRIPTIONS

* TESTING SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA

* TESTING SCHEDULE

* TESTING SCALE LOGIC ;

* TESTING DATA ANALYSES

* PERFORMANCE ALLOCATION

4 COUPLED EFFECTS TESTING

ATTACHMENT 13

EFFECTS ON HYDROLOGYCHARACTERIZATIONR. M. CRAIG, STAFF ENGINEER

SITE ANALYSIS GROUP

ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATION'S

IMPACT OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT ON SITEGEOHYDROLOGY

CHARACTERIZATION

* WILL CHANGE HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS

X COULD AFFECT INTERPRETATIONS- FLOW DIRECTIONS AND GRADIENTS (FACILITY AND SITE)- GROUNDWATER TRAVEL TIME (FACILITY)

- HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (FACILITY AND SITE)

- STORATIVITY (FACILITY AND SITE)

- EFFECTIVE POROSITY (FACILITY)

* IMPACT MITIGATED BY:- CONTROLLED DRILLING

- MONITORING PERTURBATION AND RECOVERY

ISOLATION

E MIGHT PROVIDE PREFERENTIAL PATHWAY FOR GROUNDWATERFLOW-

E MITIGATED BY SEALS DESIGN

PSel. ), . .V

ISSUE

WILL SHAFT SINKING NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE DETERMINATION OFSITE HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS?

RESPONSE

NOT ANTICIPATED BECAUSE BWIP IS FOLLOWING A PROGRAM TOMINIMIZE THE DISTURBANCES CAUSED BY SHAFT DRILLING

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTION'S

Q. WILL DRILLING MUD AFFECT HYDROLOGIC TEST RESULTS?

A. YES, BWIP RECOGNIZE THE INVASION OF DRILLING FLUID CANIMPACT HYDROLOGIC TESTING. A PROGRAM TO MINIMIZETHESE IMPACTS WILL BE INSTITUTED DURING DRILLING OF THESHAFT.

Q. WILL HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS IN NEARBY DRILL HOLES BEMEASURED DURING SHAFT CONSTRUCTION?

A. YES, WATER LEVELS WILL BE MONITORED WITHIN AND NEARTHE REFERENCE REPOSITORY LOCATION. THIS MONITORING ISPART OF THE OVERALL SITE CHARACTERIZATION.

ATTACHMENT 14

BWIP POSTCLOSUREPERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

B. SAGAR - " -C.,

R. R. SEITZ

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT


,.".. W.. , . I

PRELIMINARY POSTCLOSURE PERFORMANCEASSESSMENT OF SHAFTS

PRIMARY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CONCERNS

i WHAT EFFECT WILL THE EXPLORATORY SHAFTS HAVE ONTHE ISOLATION PERFORMANCE OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM?- WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL THAT THE SHAFTS WOULD BE PREFERENTIAL

PATHWAYS TO THE ACCESSIBLE ENVIRONMENT?

rGu-J bog Vss 2

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF POSTCLOSUREPERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

* PRESENCE OF SHAFTS APPEAR TO AFFECT THEGROUNDWATER FLOW PATTERNS ONLY LOCALLY IN THEIMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE SHAFTS

v BUOYANCY DRIVING FORCE IS MUCH HIGHER IN THEREPOSITORY AREA THAN IN THE SHAFT REGION

0 RADIONUCLIDE MASS TRANSPORTED THROUGH THESHAFT APPEARS TO BE A SMALL FRACTION OF THE TOTALRELEASE (MASS PRIMARILY TRANSPORTED THROUGH THESITE).

THEREFORE

* BACKFILLED SHAFTS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BEPREFERENTIAL PATHWAY

* ISOLATION PERFORMANCE OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM ISEXPECTED TO BE AFFECTED ONLY MARGINALLY BY THESHAFTS

zo1n. M.b I ', S f

TECHNICAL APPROACH

COMPUTER SIMULATION (PORFLO COMPUTER CODE)

POSTCLOSURE PERFORMANCE IS DEPENDENT ON THREECOUPLED PROCESSES:

* GROUNDWATER FLOW

* HEATTRANSFER AND BUOYANCY EFFECTS

* RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION

ALL THREE PROCESSES ARE INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTERSIMULATION

Psuc M13 s.1 S

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS FOR COMPUTERSIMULATION (CONT.)

2. MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

* MODEL REPRESENTS VERTICAL CROSS SECTION THROUGH ACCESSDRIFT AND A TYPICAL SHAFT

* MODEL BOUNDARY AT WHICH VERTICAL RADIONUCLIDE FLUX ISCOMPUTED IS ARBITRARILY CHOSEN TO BE VANTAGE INTERBED(820 METERS BELOW SURFACE, 150 METERS FROM REPOSITORYHORIZON)

a MODEL BOUNDARY AT WHICH HORIZONTAL RADIONUCLIDE FLUX ISCOMPUTER IS ARBITRARILY LOCATED AT 165 METERS FROM THE EDGEOF THE REPOSITORY

a RELEASE BEGINS AT 6,000* YEARS. THE ENTIRE RADIONUCLIDEINVENTORY DISSOLVES INSTANTANEOUSLY IN THE WATERCONTAINED IN THE EMPLACEMENT- ROOMS AND DRIFT AND ATYPICAL SHAFT

*MEAN CONTAINER LIFETIME ESTIMATED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTANALYSIS (P-6-224) AND DOCUMENTED IN SAGAR, ETAL. (1984),SD-BWI-TA-01 2.

RESULTS OF COMPUTER SIMULATION

1. GROUNDWATER FLOW

d,"6 ,01 I....

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF REPOSITORY SEALS SUBSYSTEM

?SHAFT REGION AND DAMAGED ROCK ZONE

8

-COMPOSITE LAYER. . . . az vTz.zAax Za* e s a xasZ ~ ZnX ~r V NA EITR E

_ --- --------------.------ - --- -- ------------ -- - - ---------------- - -GR I FLOW MoPu} , _, __ _,, _._ ....................... ... _ .__ _ _._ .-- -. -_ .GR I IENSE INTERIOR

r- ------------ ---- ----------- ---- ~- ------ ~- .----------. ~~'-~~~~~~'~~'~~~~ '-- ---. GR2 FLOW TOP

o-..-----..... - ------------------------- GR2 DENSE INTERIOR-o--* _--- 'L GR3 FLOW TOP

-E a24ESGR3 DENSE INTERIOR0 : U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GR3 FLOW--COASET TO O

.-- I----------------t--…E_ .COHASSETT_ 4 DENSE INTERIORIJ _ - _ VESICULAR ZONE

z . __--------- -t- - ..............RZ 4COHASSETT

E E L-- .. I- - - r= _ _ -- -* -DENSE INTERIORUA ~--IREPOSITORY HORIZON)La ' -'-'-' -'--'' --------------------C,, _,

' ACCESSORIFT GRS FLOW TOP, - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - -,, - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -…...... ....-.

.n . .

: :

'COMPOSITE LAYER

: ,.

* ' .- * . .C--I~-2.500 -2.000 -1,600 -1, 00 500 500 1,000 ' .500 2.000 2.500

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE ml

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF REPOSITORY SEALS SUBSYSTEM

5 SHAFT REGION AND DAMAGED ROCK ZONE.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ..... . . . . . ......... . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . ......... . . . . . . . ...........

. * ,.. * , -COMPOSITE LAYER

_~~~~~~~~~~ .

2~. . .S . ..& .s. .. .. a s .. ::l.. : . .: .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... _VANTAGE INTERI3ED_ -- ----------- -- - --------------*--- --- *------- ---- GRI FLCIW TOP

'_ ----------------- -- ,GRI DENSE INTERIOR---- * -GR 2fLOW TOP

---.- ^' GR3 DENSE INTERIOR

z , ------**---*-- ----- '--- -- - -- - - - '----'-'--' ------ ' '--'-'----'-- sCOHASSETT FLOW TOPtii * t * . ' CO~~~~~~~~~~~~_~ hASSET

_ * _ +CENSE INTERIOR- - - -- --------------- * -__, - - _ _ , - - S ZNtE

-I-- : COHASSETT--.- c-&-.. -.-- --. 1 ;TjDENSE INTERIOR

--- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------------ I4~hSE

- - - - . ... . . _ _ . .. . . . _; . ~' ~ ' ~~ '~ ' ~~~ ' REPOSITORY H10HZON)

>~~~~- - - , _ ___ ... __..... __._ _.._.... . ..----~------------------------- -...-...----------------------------..................... _ _. : ACCESS DlFT GR5 FLOW TOP

C-

-- : - -- - -- 4DNEITR

C14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o . o ' .. S

- ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4COMPOSITE LAYEflo . . S

o

_ 2500 -2,000 -1,500 -1,000 .500 0 500 1,.000 1.500 2,000 2.50(0

tiGHIZONTAL DISTANCE m)

VELOCITIES AT DRIFT - SHAFT DRZ INTERFACE

AT 6,000 YEARS

SCALED VELOCITIES. TRUE DIRECTIONS

W'

'.4

a,

9rU--

.

a

"i

STRESSINDUCED STRES-INDUCEDZONE SHA T ZONE

, ~ ~ A

-@* 0 * , * 1* a

a a a I I a ** .a *

. a . .a

A I I10-2 mlyr

\I A

,,,10-5 n/yra I a aa

Ci

I-iw

A A I i

0

U).'.4

al 1I oi 4 A

, ,a 4 a AI.. . . .. .............. . I i

A I a A

I a I

4 * - . I. . . ti~ a a^'J- --

A t i .1. . I...-------.----''1'-

COHASSETTDENSE INTERIOR

DAMAGEDROCK ZONE

REPOSITORY-LEVEL4ACCESS DRIFT)

a .

A £ I It I I ofa . Io- m/yr... 1 ... I... -- ~...... .

o4 - . . , . . _ i

.- _............

.

1%1'

ql.

'.

a & l I I I I I a A a A 4 4 v,' DAMAGED

> s I. LI a K b I * *EI # # V { - ' ,ROCK ZONE

.................. --- ------ --------'-..a a

a , _4_ COHASSETT, a DENSE INTERIOR

.1..I. .............. .. 4 A ... t - 1. . A l !.!.30 -25'

2 - 1 -I - a - 1 I 2 30.20 .15 .10 *51 0 5 10 15 20 25' 30

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE m)

a

in

P.4

0

urn

>0

Sn

.

S!

IC-

0.K*

COMPUTED PATHLINES2 SEPARATE LINES

.~

i:-===:=:-====:====-=:==-------- = 4= -= == ===- == - --= = -- ~-=- , -- VANTAGE INTERBED

: .. . __.____ ___._____-_------_ -- -- -- ------- __---------------------

: a

: It -GR3 FLOW TOP

…-- a_ _ _ _-- - ----.--------__---- - GR4 FLOW TOP-:---~-----~VANTAGE INTERBED --------------

. . ~~~~~~~~~~~STARlTING POINT

…~~~~~~--------……F. - .---- -. …i .- i …- ..

--------------- - -------------------------- , ,,____,_______STARTING POINT _"

L.. .. ..... ...... ... .... ...... ......... .... ...... .......... .................... .. ....... ........... ......... .. .... ....................... ......... ..... .......

_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~G3LWO

'-2.500 -2,000 1,500 -1.0 * -500 * 0 500 1,000

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE im)

1,500 2,000 2,500

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ONGROUNDWATER FLOW

* GROUNDWATER RELEASE PATTERNS APPEAR TO BEAFFECTED ONLY LOCALLY IN THE VICINITY OF THE SHAFT

* PREFERRED FLOW PATH FOR WATER PARTICLES LOCATEDIN THE ACCESS DRIFT IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE THROUGHTHE SHAFTS

* PREFERRED FLOW PATH FOR WATER PARTICLES LOCATEDAT THE BASE OF THE SHAFT (ABOVE THE DRIFT) ISEXPECTED TO BE THROUGH THE SHAFT UNTIL A FLOWTOP IS INTERCEPTED

I it -&2U..


2. BUOYANCY GRADIENTS

Pas 221 51 8

PEAK TEMPERATURES OC

APPROXIMATELY 50 YEARS

ID

in.

'SHAFT REGIO1q.. . . . . . . . . . . . ................................. 1 3 . . . . . . ................................................ .

: :. _

. _ _ _ ___ -- - -- -- --…--- ---- -- 55

---------.-.---------. ~------------

* /I 60 +\ * /t >\ 6

in9-,

LaUz

I-La0

I-

w

2

La(.4

a

Sn

0La-

-

. - - - - - - - - -

R- 120-'II - -- - - -- - - -- .

,z - - -- - - - - -- - -- -

10_-_______-___-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i

IIi

IIIIII

II

IIII

-VANTAGE INTERSED

a

0

'REPOSITORYHORIZON

2,500

I yl .-

. _

I............................................. …. .. …. . ............ ............. ….….….….….. ...

-2,000 1,500 -1000 -500 0 s6o 1,000 1.600 2.000

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE im)

PEAK BUOYANCY GRADIENTS

APPROXIMATELY 50 YEARS0

in9-

0In

in

8

US

- ..au=z

n

J; n

0

_" O

,.

... ........ w. ..... ..... . ......... .... ..... ... .... ... ... ... .... ... .... ... ... . ......... ............... .. ..... ...... .... .... .. ...... ......... .IE SHAFT REGION

. ad. '.

_ =====z _ == = =x _ == = ==== =_zz _ =- a _ ==::=_=4-: == _: :_ == ===== ==z === === ;;= -:4-------------- --- -- -- ---------- ------- :

- t --- - ---

; ------ .~~ -----b.-02-o~~~~~~ ; --- - ------ ail ----

…JI----- --- … -- ----- \ :---.

------------------- ----- - - -------- JJ1----------a

--------L---A ------- _----- -- 1

.-- .040 -- -f . _.

N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .._. .. .. ... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .. ..................

i.....-

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

* 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.. 4 .. .............. ... .... ....... ... ._....... .._..

-VANTAGE INTERBED

REPOSITORY HORIZON

EMPLACED WASTE

I I I I I I I I I I I I* i a i * I I B

2.000 1.500 -1.000 0 500 1,000 ,500 2.000 2,500

HORIZ)NIAL DISTANCE m)

NOTE: NATURAL VERTICAL GRADIENT 2 x 10-3 rn/

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON BUOYANCY

* MAXIMUM BUOYANCY GRADIENT IN THE SHAFT ISAPPROXIMATELY ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE GREATERTHAN THE NATURAL VERTICAL GRADIENT

* PEAK BUOYANCY GRADIENT IN THE REPOSITORY REGIONARE MORE THAN IN THE SHAFT REGION WHICH INDUCESVERTICAL FLOW IN THE REPOSITORY REGION

* BUOYANCY GRADIENTS ARE CLOSE TO AMBIENT AT TIMEOF CONTAINMENT RELEASE

PS86;-2023-S 9


3. TRANSPORT OF RADIONUCLIDES

PM,>. ZOMMS;% 10

1291 CONCENTRATIONS (Kg/m 3 )6,100 YEARS

511AFT REGION

COMPOSITE LAYER

t5.-_=:=:=-=-=Z=.__:======S::--=:___:== =:__:_:---_=_======_=:-.== =:-_:_=::VAN AGE TIERaED.._____-_____.__- _________-___-___ -------- h~ ---------- ~--------- -----. .GR1 ILOWT;-----------------_-----___-_______ _.____ _-._ _ _ ____________________________. ___- OENSE INFERIOR

, __ __________________ ------------------------------ - -,GR2 FLOWTOP

2

ci

.

u 0

a usz

-< in(2 c

ps>.c

-- Ia

III _____________________-___________--___- - -_ -__ - - -_ - __ - - _ - __ __ - - - - - - - _ _ - - - -_

- GR2 DENSE INTERIOR_R 3 FLOW TOP7 -:-- - - - - - - - - - - - -

GR3 DENSE INTERIOR

_---COHASSETT FLOW TOP

-rO T, _ COHASSETT_-.-._ -_-_________- ---- . ,___,_,DENSE INTERIOR

-_---------_-_,,,,_- - -- . . VESICULAR ZONE

COHASSETT________________ _ __ :_ _- DENSE INTERIOR

* - -_' (REPOSITORY HORIZON)

i

; - - _ 1 rs - _ .

in

0

on,

0,

, _N - - - - - - -; - -- ------ ._ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - -__ - -___ _ _ _ _ .

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ':-Gf5 FLOW TOP

T COMPOSITE LAYER

I........................................................................................................................................ .. .. . . ........ ........ .. ... .... ........

-2.000 .1,500 *1,000 *',00 0 600 1,000 1.600 2.ouu 2.500

HOhIIZONTAL DISTANCE (m)

IODINE 129 RELEASES FROM A REPOSITORYIN BASALT INITIAL INVENTORY=14,800 Kg

*-w0-

400

I2,378 Kg

I

I -

I -

V.,

//

/

-

C.,C

z

/146 Kg

/tlII

I * /

1/

8 t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.4 Kg

BOUNDARIES

1l ~~~~~~~~SHAFTS AND ORZCONTRIBUTION AT VANTAGEINTERBED

SITE CONTRIBUTION AT

a

0a

IIIII

VANTAGE INTERBED

SITE CONTRIBUTION/ . HORIZONTALLY AT

BOUNDARY 165 METERSDOWNSTREAM FROMREPOSITORY

- d

0

II I I I II I I I I I I I I

6.000 6.500 7,000 7,500 8.000 B.500TIME (yrsl

9.000 9.500 10,000

IODINE-129 RELEASES AT 10,000 YEARS

INTEGRATEDRELEASE (Kg)

PERCENT OFTOTAL RELEASE

REPOSITORY SEALS SUBSYSTEMSHAFTS AND DRZa 1 .4b

SITE SUBSYSTEM 2,524.0

0.05%

99.95%

5.78%94.17%

UPPER BOUNDARYaRIGHT-HAND BOUNDARYC

146.02,378.0

TOTAL RELEASES 2,525.4

aMEASURED AT VANTAGE INTERBED - APPROXIMATELY 150 METERS FROMREPOSITORY HORIZON -

bASSUMES RELEASE FROM NINE IDENTICAL SHAFTS(MEASURED AT BOUNDARY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 165 METERS

DOWNSTREAM FROM REPOSITORY

i-%bt .01-sy. ,,

IODINE 129 RELEASES FROM A REPOSITORYIN BASALT INITIAL INVENTORY=14,800 Kg

_ _, 2, 378 K9I*

_ _ I

0-1~~~~~

I

I //

/

x

0U

I-z

/ 146 Kg

_ /K* I _ JI

* ~I

I

I I

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 1. Kg

I ~~~~~~~~SHAFTS ANO O RZ_ I / _ ~~~~~CONTRIBUTION AT VANTAGE

INTERNED

SITE CONTRIBUTION AT_ I / ~~~~~~~VANTAGE INTERRED

/ ~~~~~~~~SITE CONTRIBUTION; |.HORIZONTALLY AT

BOUNDARY 165 METERSDOWNSTREAM FROMREPOSITORY

a

d

ac

6.000 6.500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8.500 9,0 9,50 10,000TIME (yrsl

IODINE-129 RELEASES. AT 10,000 YEARS

INTEGRATEDRELEASE (Kg)

PERCENT OFTOTAL RELEASE

REPOSITORY SEALS SUBSYSTEMSHAFTS AND DRZa 1.4b

SITE SUBSYSTEM 2,524.0

0.05%

99.95%

5.78%94.17%

UPPER BOUNDARYaRIGHT-HAND BOUNDARYc

146.02,378.0

TOTAL RELEASES 2,525.4

aMEASURED AT VANTAGE INTERBED - APPROXIMATELY 150 METERS FROMREPOSITORY HORIZON

bASSUMES RELEASE FROM NINE IDENTICAL SHAFTSMEASURED AT BOUNDARY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 165 METERS

DOWNSTREAM FROM REPOSITORY

i, .;c.U IS' II

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON RADIONUCLIDETRAN SPORT

* RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE THROUGH THE SHAFTS ISEXPECTED TO BE A SMALL FRACTION OF THE RELEASETHROUGH THE SITE

* THE EFFECT OF THE SHAFTS ON THE POSTCLOSUREPERFORMANCE OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM IS EXPECTED TO BESMALL

PSsMi-Ol-sys 12

PROGRAM STRATEGY

* ESTABLISH A POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE BASELINE FOR SITECHARACTERIZATION PRIOR TO ANY LARGE-SCALE HYDRAULICSTRESS TESTING OR SHAFT DRILLING

* NO LARGE-SCALE HYDRAULIC STRESS TESTING WILL BECONDUCTED WHILE SHAFT SINKING IS BEING CONDUCTED INTHE GRANDE RONDE

* MUD LOSS WILL MINIMIZED FOR TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICREASONS

* TIME DURATION OF PRESSURE BUILD-UP IS SAME AS DURATIONOF PRESSURE DECLINE (RETURN TO PRE-DISTURBANCECONDITION)

* MONITOR PRESSURE AND WATER LEVEL RESPONSE IN LARGE-SCALE HYDRAULIC STRESS MONITORING FACILITIES DURINGDRILLING TO REMOVE THE TRANSIENT EFFECT OF DRILLINGFROM THE BASELINE

PSS6-2023-Visc.2

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS FOR COMPUTERSIMULATION

1. DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

* PLACEMENT ROOMS AND ACCESS DRIFTS ARE FILLED WITH CRUSHEDBASALT (HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY - 3 x 10-5 M/S POROSITY = 25%

* LINER AND GROUT ARE REMOVED FROM THE SHAFTS

* SHAFTS ARE BACKFILLED WITH CRUSHED BASALT-BENTONITEMIXTURE (HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY = 10-12 TO 10-10 M/S)

* HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC GRADIENT IS ASSUMED TO BE ALIGNEDWITH THE LAYOUT OF THE DRIFTS

* THERE ARE NINE IDENTICAL SHAFTS

PS862023-Syi.5

ATTACHMENT 15

POSTCLOSURE SEALING OF THEEXPLORATORY SHAFT TEST

FACILITYE. A. FREDENBURG, MANAGER

REPOSITORY SEALS DEVELOPMENT GROUP


Ie. .':l J I 1 a-,I 1 I

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

DESCRIPTION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTCLOSUREREPOSITORY SEALS

SEALING ISSUES RELATED TO THE EXPLORATORYSHAFT FACILITY

DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR SHAFT SEALING

f8stib201 i Aep 4

PREPARATION OF TECHNICAL PROCEDURES FORCONSTRUCTION

* WORK PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR EXPLORATORY SHAFTCONSTRUCTION PHASE I - SD-BWI-AR-011- PROVIDES DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES

* LIST AND STATUS INCLUDED IN PRESENTATION PACKAGE

"afi. 7J0 I(. WI

I

DESCRIPTION AND REQUIREMENTS FORPOSTCLOSURE REPOSITORY SEALS

P"6-iO)}J-Hop

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SHAFT AND BOREHOLESEALS (10 CFR 60.134)

A) GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIONSEALS FOR SHAFTS AND BOREHOLES SHALL BE DESIGNED SO THAT FOLLOWINGPERMANENT CLOSURE THEY DO NOT BECOME PATHWAYS THAT COMPROMISETHE GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY'S ABILITY TO MEETTHE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVESFOR THE PERIOD FOLLOWING PERMANENT CLOSURE.

B) SELECTION OF MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT METHODSMATERIALS AND PLACEMENT METHODS SHALL BE SELECTED TO REDUCE, TO THEEXTENT PRACTICABLE:(i) THE POTENTIAL FOR CREATING A PREFERENTIAL PATHWAY FOR

GROUNDWATER TO CONTACT THE WASTE PACKAGES, OR(2) FOR RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION THROUGH EXISTING PATHWAYS

Ps(.J-21 -kep 4

- -

LAYOUT OF PHASE 1 REPOSITORY RELATIVE TO ES FACILITY

--- , m-.-rr- amAO8mlu Of S146111 S

88 p 6 *J4' LIe D

t *S. wo. 88

* 5 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ! "Of.5g* ,

W.**~S 51 .9

... .. - - - - - -- -U --- .… 4W -1. 6-6~~

... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VIRIGot4.. 4-G4

= oom.~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8

41 le's fill..4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~flI

IL11ILLI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l IALLA L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 88I

to ;, . sofooJo, S .l 0"6g55 S.0 a *1 Atl 981401* *8. :: :-to IP I j

" ! 11~ % ~ .. *sea .4 8. S 8ws.I S.$& o 5-88 . U5 S .s*I, . *4.....,.q.to~f 4515loe.

or : iiiIs

FUNCTIONS OF REPOSITORY SEAL SYSTEMCOMPONENTS

TUNNEL SEALS* TO RESTRICT RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION TOWARDS THE SHAFTS

SHAFT AND BOREHOLE SEALS* TO RESTRICT RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION TOWARDS AQUIFERS AND FLOW

TOPS

11'Wt, 1 Rep

SEALING ISSUES RELATED TO THEEXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY

P!Jib.,. VV I t. ..

-

EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY SEALING ISSUES

* HOW DOES CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFTAFFECT POSTCLOSURE SEALING CAPABILITY?

* HOW DOES TESTING IN THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT AFFECTPOSTCLOSURE SEALING CAPABILITY?

F",KL..dl SC I - /

EFFECTS OF SHAFT CONSTRUCTION

* CREATION OFEXCAVATION

A DAMAGED ROCK ZONE RESULTING FROM THEPROCESS

* CREATION OF A STRESS-INDUCED ZONE DUE TOREDISTRIBUTION OF IN SITU STRESS

PS56 101 I ut-p 8

PRELIMINARY DAMAGED ROCK ZONJE AND STRESS-

INDUCED ZONE PERMEABILITY MODEL (NWI-411,

D'APPOLOrIIA CONSULTING E'IGINEERS, INC.)

1000 o

- 1 ~~~EXCAVATIOlI WALL

.1 | PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OFW Y AOOITIONAL AMAGE RESULTING

Ll FROM CONTROLL E LASTI NG

Y.

-j

x

100 K

10 K0

\.IKo PERMEABILITY OF

UNDISTURBED ROCK

EFFECTS UE TO REDISTRIBUTIONOF STRESSES

PREDICTED AXIAL PERMEABILITY(ELASTO- PLASTIC ANALYSIS,

/Z iOOO m DEPTH)

0 3 6 9 12

RADIAL DISTANCE FROM SHAFT 'ALL (nm)Is

PRELIMINARY DAMAGED ROCK ZONE AND STRESS-

INDUCED ZONE PERMEABILITY MODEL (LAWRENCE

BERKELEY LABORATORY, SD-BWI-TI-128)

1000 Ko0

~-

N

C,

00W.0

C)C;

.

-e

C,

a

E,.-o

Le

100 Ko

l Ko

Radius r/a

EXPECTED EFFECTS OF DRILLINGCOMPARED TO BLASTING

* NO CHANGE IN THE STRESS-INDUCED ZONE

* SMALLER RADIAL EXTENT OF DAMAGED ROCK, DUE TO LESSENERGY ABSORPTION, AND CONSEQUENTLY LESS FRACTURING

rsof. n;01 .W 9

COMPATIBILITY OF PRECLOSURE ANDPOSTCLOSURE SHAFT SEALS

* SHAFT LINER AND GROUT WILL BE REMOVED IN AREASDESIGNATED FOR POSTCLOSURE SEALING

f.X. otG X CI,) Ili

PN4-pTirc TOL

/lAA C4

REMNOVAL OF GROurO C EE-RE IND S T E L IE

CONCLUSIONS ON EFFECTS OF SHAFTCONSTRUCTION ON POSTCLOSURE SEALING

* PRELIMINARY DAMAGED AND STRESS-INDUCED ZONE MODELSARE CURRENTLY USED IN PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

* EXISTING MODELS WILL BE REFINED BASED ON RESULTS OFEXAMINATION OF IN SITU HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES IN THEDAMAGED AND STRESS-INDUCED ZONES DURING THEEXPLORATORY SHAFT TEST PROGRAM

* BLIND BORING FOR SHAFT CONSTRUCTION IS EXPECTED TORESULT IN A SMALLER DAMAGED ROCK ZONE THAN BLASTING

* SHAFT LINER AND GROUT MATERIALS, AND EMPLACEMENTTECHNIQUES DO NOT IMPACT POSTCLOSURE SEALINGCAPABILITY

PSLS G o 1 fi nt 1 l

-- -

COMPATIBILITY OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT TESTINGWITH POSTCLOSURE SEALING CAPABILITY

* EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY DRIFTS AND TEST BOREHOLESARE CONTAINED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE COHASSETT FLOW

* BOREHOLES IN THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY WILL BESEALED, AS REQUIRED, TO MEET SYSTEM PERFORMANCEREQUIREMENTS

CONCLUSION ON THE EFFECT OF EXPLORATORYSHAFT TESTING ON POSTCLOSURE SEALING

* TESTING IN THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY WILL NOTCOMPROMISE THE WASTE ISOLATION CAPABILITY OF THEREPOSITORY

I>HhUdSO .S Rsp IS

DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR SHAFT SEALING

I M' Pto It.- .,. .,

SHAFT SEALING CONCEPT

DAMAGED ROCK ZONE

WF'I S1-al

ILLUSTRATION OF DRILLED CUTOFF METHOD FOR

SEALING THE DAMAGED ROCK ZOIIE

GROUTED BOREHOLES

CYST~~~~~~~ (IS LEVEL)damaged N

/ :-.LX \ \ 80~~~~~BREHOLESI e::::: @ an ~~~~~~~ISECOND AND THIRO LEVEL)

-K " ...... .... S BEFORE GROU TING DRILLEDTO OVERLAP FIRST-LEM!~

\ 2 X 1, .l ~~~~~HOLE

NOmh EACH HOLE IS GROUTED PROR TOPLAN VIEW ORILLING AOJACENT HOLES

ORIU PATTERN

VERTICAL SECTIONAT SHAFT

SECTION A.A'

VERTICAL SECTION6 m 120 FT) FROM SHAFT

SECTION 8-8'

NOTE NOT TO SCALE

ILLUSTRATION OF KERF METHOD FOR SCALINGBACK THE DAMAGED ROCK ZONE

SHAFT UNER

UMITOf damagedROCK ZONE

HOST ROC

SCALEDACX AREA

CROSS SECTIONVIEW OF SHAFT

NOTE NOTTO SCALE

SUMMARY

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT, ANDTESTING TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT FACILITY,ARE COMPATIBLE WITH POSTCLOSURE SEALING REQUIREMENTS

* DAMAGED ROCK ZONE AND STRESS-INDUCED ZONE MODELS ACCOUNT FORTHE EFFECTS OF SHAFT CONSTRUCTION

* PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE SHAFT SEAL INDICATES THAT SHAFT WOULDNOT BE A PREFERENTIAL PATHWAY

* PRECLOSURE SEALS ARE NOT INCORPORATED IN POSTCLOSURE SEAL DESIGN

* TEST BOREHOLES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THE COHASSETT FLOW, ANDWOULD BE SEALED, AS REQUIRED, AT THE TIME OF DECOMMISSIONING

* THE DAMAGED ROCK ZONE AROUND THE SHAFT COULD BE SEALED, IFNECESSARY, TO MEET PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

N1. i It. ,. ,

ATTACHMENT 16

BASALT VASTE ISOLATIONPROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE

OVERVIEWPIERRE SAGET, QUALITY ASSURANCE

BRANCH CHIEF

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - RICH LAND


APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY QUALITYASSURANCE PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS

DOCUMENTS

* DOE ORDER 5700.6A, "QUALITY ASSURANCE"

* DOE-RL ORDER 5700.1 A, "QUALITY ASSURANCE"

• OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT"tQUALITY MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS"

* OFFICE OF GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES "QUALITY ASSURANCEPLAN FOR SITING AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION," OGR/B-3

* BASALT QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT(BQARD), DRAFT

1.- ma. ! ' .I I . , l

DOE SAFETY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMU.S. DOE ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, HEALTH, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

SERETARY

I _ _ _ _ _,

IASSISTANT SECRETARY

PROGRAMS

* PROGRAM POLICY

* PROGRAM MISSION

* PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION

- I 1

4- -

-I

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POLICY,SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENT

* STANDARDS AND POLICY

* OVERVIEW

* MATRIX SUPPORT

III- -- - - - - -aOPERATIONS

OFFICE MANAGER |4-----

I …r- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a

I PROGRAM

DIVISION 4_-

. .

ES&H AND QA ICONTRACTOR

CHIEF EXECUTIVE ]I

II

PROGRAM lCONTROL l

I

IIIIIOPERATION

LEGEND:LINE MANAGEMENT -OVERVIEW- _ _ t -- - - - - -t -

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENTFIELD OFFICE AND CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE

OFFICE OF GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECTS

DIRECTOROFFICE OF CIVILIAN

RADIOACTIVE WASTEMANAGEMENT

111OFFICE OF GEOLOGIC

REPOSITORIES(HEADQUARTERS)

I

I IBASALT SITE

RICHLANDOPERATIONS OFFICE

(BWIP)

SALT SITES CHICAGOOPERATIONS OFFICE

(SRPO)

TUFF SITE NEVADAOPERATIONS OFFICE

(NNWSI)

ICRYSTALLINE ROCK

SITES CHICAGOOPERATIONS OFFICE

(CRPO)

III

BATTELLEMEMORIALINSTITUTE

.~~~~~~~

I~~~~~~~

I ' I

MULTIPLEPARTICIPATING

ORGANIZATIONS

ROCKWELLINTERNATIONAL

BATTELLEMEMORIALINSTITUTE

PROGRAMIPROJECT MANAGEMENT MAJOR CONTRACTOR SUPPORTRESPONSIBILITY - - - M J R C N R C O U P R

OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENTFIELD OFFICE AND CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE

OFFICE OF GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECTS

DIRECTOROFFICE OF CIVILIAN

RADIOACTIVE WASTEMANAGEMENT

I

OFFICE OF GEOLOGICREPOSITORIES

(HEADQUARTERS)

BASALT SITERICHLAND

OPERATIONS OFFICE(BWIP)

{{

{{

* IMPLEMENT NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT. P.L. 97-425* PROVIDE POLICY GUIDANCE. DIRECTION, AND CONTROL* ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE OCRWM PROGRAM-WIDE

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM

* MANAGE AND DIRECT DOE'S PROGRAM TO DEVELOP MINED GEOLOGICREPOSITORIES

* ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT THE HEADQUARTERS QUALITY ASSURANCEPROGRAM

* QUALITY ASSURANCE DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE TO FIELDORGANIZATION AND VERIFICATION OF EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION

* MANAGE AND DIRECT THE BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT* ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE

PROGRAM* TECHNICAL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE TO

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL* VERIFICATION OF OVERALL BWIP QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM

* DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF BWIP TECHNICALAND ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS

* ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT A ROCKWELL QUALITY ASSURANCEPROGRAM FOR BWIP

* TECHNICAL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE TOPARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

* ASSURE COORDINATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND VERIFICATION OFQUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM BY ALL PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IIi

ROCKWELLINTERNATIONAL

.

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYRICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE

* ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FORALL FIELD OFFICE ACTIVITIES

* MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE QUALITYASSURANCE IN COMPLIANCEWITH REQUIREMENTS

* MANAGER DELEGATES DAY-TO-DAYMANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATIONOF FIELD OFFICE RESPONSIBILITIESTHROUGH THE ASSISTANT MANAGERS

I I I

ASSISTANT MANAGERFOR ADMINISTRATION

ASSISTANT MANAGERFOR COMMERCIALNUCLEAR WASTE

li

ASSISTANT MANAGERFOR SAFETY

ENVIRONMENT ANDSECURITY

"IIZZEZIIPROCUREMENT |

DIVISIONBASALT WASTE

ISOLATION DIVISIONENVIRONMENT

SAFETY. AND HEALTHDIVISION

* MANAGE AND IMPLEMENTTHE PROCUREMENTPROCESS

* OBTAIN REQUIRED TECHNI-CAL AND QA REVIEWS ANDAPPROVALS

* PROVIDE OVERALL MANAGE-MENT AND DIRECTION OF THEBWIP

* ESTABLISH, IMPLEMENT. ANDMAINTAIN THE OVERALL 6WIPQA PROGRAM

* RETAIN RESPONSIBILITY ANDACCOUNTABILITY FOR BWIP QAPROGRAM

* TECHNICAL AND QA DIRECTIONAND GUIDANCE TO ROCKWELLINTERNATIONAL

* PERFORM REQUIRED PROCURE-MENT REVIEWS AND APPROVALS

* MANAGE AND DIRECTHANFORD SITE-WIDE QAPROGRAM

* PROVIDE INDEPENDENTVERIFICATION AND ASSESS-MENT OF BASALT WASTEISOLATION DIVISIONQUALITY ASSURANCEPROGRAM

.. .. .. ,

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT

ORGANIZATION

I… BASALT WASTEISOLATION DIVISION

ENVIRONMENT,SAFETY, AND

HEALTH DIVISION

TECHNICAL TECHNICAL AND QAOVERSIGHT AND DIRECTION

QA VERIFICATION I

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECTQUALITY ASSURANCE PHILOSOPHY

* QUALITY PERFORMANCE - DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

* PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND QUALITY ASSURANCEARE INSEPARABLE

* THE BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT IS DEVELOPINGDISCIPLINED PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROLS

• THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AREMINIMUMS

* LINE RESPONSIBILITY FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE- ACCOUNTABILITY RESTS WITH PROJECT OFFICE- INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY SEPARATE QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION

* THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EXPERIENCE

I"F 1 8'* - Il

DOE SAFETY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMQUALITY PERFORMANCE

* PLAN WHAT YOU DO* DO WHAT YOU PLAN* DOCUMENT WHAT YOU DID* EVALUATE YOUR PERFORMANCE* IMPROVE YOUR PLANS AND PERFORMANCE

1'S8df.2G02tsvl 16

I

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECTQUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

PROJECT OFFICE

* QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTPROGRESS HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALREVISED QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN BEING ISSUED TO HEADQUARTERS FORREVIEW AND APPROVALREQUIRED IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIEDOUTSTANDING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR RESOLUTION

* QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATIONPREPARATION OF IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES INITIATED AND SCHEDULE FORCOMPLETION ESTABLISHEDCHALLENGES AHEAD TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM PRIOR TOSUBMISSION OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLANVERIFICATION EFFORTS INTENSIFIED, RESULTING IN IDENTIFICATION OF AREASFOR IMPROVEMENT

s'. i .. , . r V..

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECTQUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

(CONT.)

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

* QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ANDIMPLEMENTATIONPROGRAM REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED TO PARTICIPANTSROCKWELL DEVELOPING ACTION PLANS TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE PRIOR TOISSUANCE OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN

as V.* '" I II 1

AREAS INCLUDED IN QUALITY ASSURANCEPROGRAM APPLICATION TO EXPLORATORYSHAFT

* SITE SPECIFIC* DESIGN* PROCUREMENT (ITEMS AND SERVICES)* FABRICATION* HANDLING, SHIPPING, STORING

COMPONENTS* INSTALLING COMPONENTS* HARDWARE ACCEPTANCE TESTING* SITE CHARACTERIZATION DATA

COLLECTION* SITE CHARACTERIZATION DATA ANALYSIS* FACILITY OPERATIONS

OWIP PROJECT DOCUMENT HIERARCHY

* DEFINESAPPLICABLE QA _REQUIREMENTS

* EQUIVALENT TOCHAPTER 8.6 OF p PROJECT

PROJECT LEVEL

PARTICIPANT LEVEL* DOE * MK g* RHO * RKE/PB PARTI4* PNL * WHC QA PR(

MAN

kRD lo PMPISEMP =1-* ESTABLISHESPROJECT POLICY

* RESPONDS (INGENERAL TERMS)TO QA REQUIRE-MENTS IN BQARD

* REFERENCESPROJECT QA PLANWHEREAPPLICABLE

* COLLECTION OF ALLPROJECT LEVEL WORKCONTROLLINGPROCEDURES

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

QA PLAN

,-

m

I

IL

_______________________________________ _____ ------ _______.--

I PARTICIPANIPANT MANAGEMENTGRAM _ -… -- - - _ PLANS (PROJECT - _JALS MANUALS) I

l~~~ r

* IMPLEMENTS QAPOLICY

* ASSIGNSRESPONSIBILITIES

* PRESCRIBES METHODSFOR COMPLIANCEWITH QAREQUIREMENTS

* ADDRESSES BWIP.SPECIFIC QAACTIVITIES

* DESCRIBES OVERALLMANAGEMENTCONTROLS ANDMETHODS OF WORKPERFORMANCE

.

I

Ifv

'EST AND ENGINEEITIGATIVE ACTIVITY lANS

l r_~~~~~~~--

QA DEPARTMENTALADMINISTRATIVE

ANDIMPLEMENTING

PROCEDURES

-A--- ffiDEPARTMENTAL

ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURES

DEPARTMENTALTECHNICAL

IMPLEMENTINGPROCEDURES

I


KEY MANAGEMENT CONTROL DOCUMENTS

* QUALITY ASSURANCE PLANS* RECORDS MANAGEMENT PLAN* CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT PLAN* PROCUREMENT PLAN

Wi.db03 i Ver. 5

I

BWIP HIERARCHY OF VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES

PARTICIPANTCONTRACTORS QAORGANIZATIONS(HOME OFFICE)

ROCKWELL HANFORDOPERATIONS QA

FUNCTION

PARTICIPANTCONTRACTORS

PROJECTORGANIZATIONS

ICONTRACTOR QA|ORGANIZATIONS

AUDITS/SURVEILLANCES OFSUBCONTRACTORS

PA85112'6-2

I

VERIFICATION EFFORTS FOR EXPLORATORY SHAFTPREREQUISITES PROGRAM

A. QUALITY ASSURANCE VERIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES

B. QUALITY ASSURANCE PARTICIPATES IN READINESS REVIEW

PsB. 202 I S V ?

A. QUALITY ASSURANCE VERIFICATION OFACTIVITIES

1. REVERIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY COMPLETEDPROCUREMENTS TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALLREQUIREMENTS

2. REVIEW AND APPROVAUCONCURRENCE OF DESIGN ANDDOCU M ENTS

3. PROCUREMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

4. SURVEILLANCE OF ARCHITECT-ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONMANAGER, AND FIELD ACTIVITIES

5. AUDITS OF ARCHITECT-ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONMANAGER, ROCKWELL, AND OTHERS

,... IlI ., I, S; ,.#- I

I

B. READINESS REVIEW ACTIVITY* QUALITY ASSURANCE IS STARTUP TEAM MEMBER

PERFORMING:

1. QUALITY ASSURANCE ITEMS FOR ACTION LIST

2. QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH PHASE

3. VERIFY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVAL FORCONSTRUCTION MANAGER, ARCHITECT-ENGINEER,ROCKWELL, AND OTHERS

4. EXPLORATORY SHAFT-I AND 11 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCEPLANS

5. LESSONS LEARNED FROM EACH PHASE IN EXPLORATORYSHAFT-I INTEGRATED INTO RELATED PHASE EXPLORATORYSHAFT-Il

6. REVIEW OF RECORD PACKAGES

I..,q, . ' d. St*

PREPARATION OF TECHNICAL PROCEDURES FORCONSTRUCTION

¢ WORK PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR EXPLORATORY SHAFTCONSTRUCTION PHASE I - SD-BWI-AR-01 1- PROVIDES DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES

S LIST AND STATUS INCLUDED IN PRESENTATION PACKAGE

MPsli-0}17 1 . t-r I

ATTACHMENT 17

QmLIST

KARL HADLEY, MANAGER

REPOSITORY LICENSING GROUP


r5u6 1023 I

Q-LIST

* STATUS OF Q-LIST METHODOLOGY

* Q-LIST CRITERIA

* TYPES OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES, ANDCOMPONENTS

* CLASSIFICATION OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT SYSTEMS,STRUCTURES, AND COMPONENTS

STATUS OF Q-LIST METHODOLOGY

* NRC/DOE MEETING IN JULY 1985

* REDRAFT IN PROGRESS

* NRC/DOE MEETING IN EARLY 1986

'58t. 10) i I

Q-LIST CRITERIA

USING ENGINEERING JUDGMENT AT THE SITE CHARACTERIZATIONPLAN STAGE AND ANALYSIS AT THE LICENSE APPLICATION STAGE,A SYSTEM, STRUCTURE, OR COMPONENT IS DETERMINED TO BE AQ-LIST ITEM IF IT IS:

* IMPORTANT TO SAFETY

OR

* IMPORTANT TO ISOLATION

i"8 n? I I

IMPORTANT TO SAFETY

o PRECLOSURE PERIOD

* ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES, AND COMPONENTS

* ESSENTIAL TO PREVENTION OR MITIGATION OF AN ACCIDENT

* RADIATION EXPOSURE (0.5 rem) IN THE UNRESTRICTED AREA

I

IMPORTANT TO ISOLATION

• POSTCLOSURE PERIOD

* OVERALL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE- ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM AND SHAFT/BOREHOLE SEALS- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARDS

* PARTICULAR BARRIERS' PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES- WASTE PACKAGE CONTAINMENT- ENGINEERED BARRIER SYSTEM CONTROLLED RELEASE- PREEMPLACEMENT GROUNDWATER TRAVEL TIME

TYPES OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT SYSTEMS

* TEMPORARY ENGINEERED SYSTEMS- NOT FOR USE DURING REPOSITORY OPERATION

.-. a~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ( to ,} .4 I , , . %e

> to . l i I

* SEMIPERMANENT ENGINEERED SYSTEMS- REMAIN IN PLACE DURING REPOSITOKY OPERATION

* PERMANENT NATURAL SYSTEMS- PORTION OF SITE PERFORMING ISOLATION FUNCTION

* T I V\ C \ \ i. I i . >, y -. -ft. 8 . N.C \, i. /, - .s,,

j'i t...l. I' ' '

tL , . , X 3l~

P, Ad. .P7!

I

EXAMPLES OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT SYSTEMS

a TEMPORARY ENGINEERED SYSTEMS- HOISTS- VENTILATION- DEWATERING- LIGHTING- COMMUNICATION- FIRE PROTECTION- ELECTRICAL POWER AND RELATED INSTRUMENTATION AND

COMMUNICATIONS

X SEMIPERMANENT ENGINEERED SYSTEMS- SHAFT LINER, GROUT, AND OPERATING SEALS- ROOF SUPPORTS

D PERMANENT ENGINEERED SYSTEMS- LONG-TERM SHAFT AND BOREHOLE SEALS

* PERMANENT NATURAL SYSTEMS- UNDERGROUND FACILITY OPEMINGS- DAMAGED ROCK ZONE- DISTURBED ROCK ZONE- UNDISTURBED ROCK ZONE

CLASSIFICATION OFEXPLORATORY SHAFT SYSTEMS

* NO ENGINEERED ITEMS PERFORM AN IMPORTANT-TO-SAFETYFUNCTION DURING EXPLORATORY SHAFT OPERATIONBECAUSE:- NO HIGH-LEVEL WASTE WILL BE PLACED IN THE EXPLORATORY SHAFT

* NO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS PERFORM AN IMPORTANT-TO-SAFETY FUNCTION DURING REPOSITORY OPERATION BECAUSE:- REPOSITORY SYSTEMS WILL REPLACE "TEMPORARY" EXPLORATORY SHAFT

SYSTEMS- FAILURE OF SEMIPERMANENT EXPLORATORY SHAFT SYSTEMS DURING

REPOSITORY OPERATION SHOULD NOT CAUSE ACCIDENTS WITHRADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

- PERMANENT SYSTEMS ARE INSTALLED AT END OF PRECLOSURE PERIOD

* NO TEMPORARY OR SEMIPERMANENT ENGINEERED SYSTEMSPERFORM AN IMPORTANT-TO-ISOLATION FUNCTION

,.. ,,,, Fa ..

EXPLORATORY SHAFT Q-LIST

* LONG-TERM SHAFT AND BOREHOLE SEALS- TO BE INSTALLED UPON CLOSURE OF REPOSITORY IN SAME MANNER AS FOR

REPOSITORY SHAFTS AND BOREHOLES

* NATURAL SYSTEMS- MINIMIZE, DOCUMENT, AND CHARACTERIZE EXTENT OF EXPLORATORY SHAFT

DAMAGED ROCK ZONE

ATTACHMENT 18

GRADED QUALITY ASSURANCEDON HANLEN, STAFF ENGINEER

BASALT WASTE ISOLATION PROJECT ENGINEERINGDESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~q.ti

QUALITY ASSURANCE LEVELS

QUALITY ASSURANCE LEVEL I

* CONTROLS THOSE STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS, ANDACTIVITIES THAT ARE:1. DETERMINED TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY

WITHIN RESTRICTED AREA, WORKER INDUSTRIAL SAFETY, PROJECT SCHEDULECOST, SECURITY, OR FIRE PROTECTION

2. DETERMINED TO MEETTHE DEFINITIONS OF EITHER IMPORTANTTO SAFETYOR TO WASTE ISOLATION

* REQUIRES IMPLEMENTATION OF EACH APPLICABLEREQUIREMENT OF ALL APPLICABLE CRITERION OF BQARD

e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .Btp

QUALITY ASSURANCE LEVELS (CONT.)

QUALITY ASSURANCE LEVEL II

o CONTROLS THOSE STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS, ANDACTIVITIES THAT IMPACT RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY WITHINRESTRICTED AREA, WORKER INDUSTRIAL SAFETY, PROJECTSCHEDULE, OR COST

o REQUIRES A GRADED IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICABLENQA-1 -1 983 BASIC AND SELECT NONMANDATORYREQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA

, - -S5,, t}.,~1' ~

QUALITY ASSURANCE LEVELS (CONT.)

QUALITY ASSURANCE LEVEL III

* CONTROLS THOSE STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS, ANDACTIVITIES THAT HAVE NO IMPACT ON RADIOLOGICAL SAFETYWITHIN RESTRICTED BOUNDARY AND MINIMAL IMPACT ONWORKER INDUSTRIAL SAFETY, PROJECT SCHEDULE, OR COST

* REQUIRES A GRADED IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICABLENQA-1-1983 BASIC AND SELECT SUPPLEMENTARYREQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA, OR APPROVED EQUAL

, sn XV OAl .1

QUALITY LEVEL CATEGORIZATION

PLACE ITEMON Q LIST

SELECT

DOCUMENT APPLICABLE D QA RATIONALE FOR _ CRITERIA AND DEPARTMENT

CATEGiORIZATION DOCUMENT REVIEW ANDRATIONALE FOR ENCONCURRENCENONSELECTION

I DOCUMENT APPLICABLE DETERMINE QAYES b RATIONALE FOR CRITERIA AND DEGREE OF EACH DEPARTMENT

CATEGORIZATION DOCUMENT CRITERION REVIEWANDRATIONALE FOR IMPLEMENTATION CONCURRENCE

SELECTION

DOCUMENT APPLIABLEDETERMINE QARATIONAL FOR -- _ CRITERIA AND _DEGREE O EACH DEPARTMENT

10CATEGORIZATION DOCUMENT _ CRITERION REVIEW AND_ RATIONALE FOR IMPLEMENTATION CONCURRENCE

SELtCTIONF-

I

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE LEVEL

LEVEL I LEVEL 11 LEVEL III

A. WILL CREDIBLE FAILURE OR WILL CREDIBLE FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION THERE IS NO CREDIBLE RADIO-MALFUNCTION OF ITEM TYPICALLY OF ITEM TYPICALLY RESULT IN A RADIO- LOGICAL RISK.RESULT IN A RADIOLOGICAL DOSE TO LOGICAL DOSE TO ANY INDIVIDUAL INANY INDIVIDUAL IN EXCESS OF EXCESS OF 300 mrem?1.25 rem?

B. WILL CREDIBLE FAILURE OR WILL CREDIBLE FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION THERE IS NO ANTICIPATED WORKERMALFUNCTION OF ITEM TYPICALLY OF ITEM TYPICALLY RESULT IN AN MSHA OR INDUSTRIAL HAZARD.RESULT IN A FATAL ACCIDENT? OSHA REPORTABLE ACCIDENT?

C. WILL CREDIBLE FAILURE OR WILL CREDIBLE FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION THE COST IMPACT OF CREDIBLEMALFUNCTION OF AN ITEM, OR OF ITEM, OR REJECTION OF THE ITEM OR FAILURE IS <500K DOLLARS.REJECTION OF THE ITEM OR ACTIVITY ACTIVITY TYPICALLY INCREASE THETYPICALLY INCREASE THE PROJECT PROJECT BY > 500K 1.000K?COST BY > 1,000K DOLLARS?

D. WILL CREDIBLE FAILURE OR WILL CREDIBLE FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION THE PROGRAMMATIC IMPACT OFMALFUNCTION OF AN ITEM, OR OF ITEM, OR REJECTION OF THE ITEM OR CREDIBLE FAILURE IS <THREEREJECTION OF TIIE ITEM OR ACTIVITY ACTIVITY TYPICALLY RESULT IN A MONTHS.TYPICALLY RESULT IN A PROGRAM- PROGRAMMATIC IMPACT OF MORE THANMATIC IMPACT OF > SIX MONTHS? THREE MONTHIS?

CAN THE ACTIVITY PLACE AT RISK CAN THE ACTIVITY PLACE AT RISK THERE IS NO REGULATORY IMPACT.COMPLIANCE WITH A REGULATORY COMPLIANCE WITII.A REGULATORYREQUIREMENT WITH ITS OR ITWI REQUIREMENT OTHER THAN ONE WITH ITSCONSEQUENCES? OR ITWI CONSEQUENCES?

EXPLORATORY SHAFT SYSTEMS

A *B C D E F G

* SHAFT SYSTEM- STARTER HOLE EXCAVATION 3 2 3 3 - - -

- STARTER HOLE LINER 3 3 3 3 _ _ _

- STARTER HOLE GROUT 3 3 3 3 _ _ _

- UPPER SHAFT BOREHOLE (144") 3 3 3 3 - - -

- UPPER SHAFT LINER (112') 3 3 2 2 - - -

- UPPER SHAFT LINER STIFFENERS 3 3 2 2 - - -

- UPPERSHAFTGROUTTUBES 3 3 3 3 - - -

- UPPER SHAFT GROUTING 3 3 2 2 - - -

- UPPER SHAFT GROUT 3 3 3 3 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT BOREHOLE (I IO-) 3 3 2 2 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT LINER (72') 3 3 1 1 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT STIFFENERS 3 3 2 3 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT CENTRALIZERS 3 3 3 3 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT GROUT GUIDES 3 3 3 3 - _ _

- MAIN SHAFT EXTERNAL UTILITY CASING 3 3 3 3 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT PUMP CASINGS 3 3 3 3 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT EQUIPMENT AIR CASING 3 3 3 3 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT GROUTING 3 3 1 1 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT RING BEAMS 3 3 3 3 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT OTHER SHAFT INTERNALS 3 3 3 3 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT AS VENTILATION RETURN 2 3 3 3 - 0 -

- MAIN SHAFT CHEMICAL SEAL RINGS 3 3 3 3 - - -

- MAIN SHAFT PORTHOLES 3 3 3 3 - - _

- MAIN SHAFT INTERNAL VENTILATION LINE 3 3 3 3 - - -

PORTHOLEHYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST (Sheet 1 of 3)

A B C D E F G

* WORK DECK POSITIONED ANDLOCKED IN PLACE BY C-M LABOR 3 3 3 3--_- ENTER WORK DECK FROM CAGE, CHECK

POSITIONING AND SET UP 3 3 3 3- POSITION DRILL 3 3 3 3 _ _- REMOVE FOUR-INCH PLUG FROM

PORTHOLE 3 3 3 3 - - -

- ATTACH DIVERTER ASSEMBLY TOPORTHOLE 3 3 3 3 - - -

- ALIGN DRILL AND SECURE TO DIVERTERASSEMBLY 3 3 3 3 - - -

- GO THROUGH DRILL STARTUP CHECKLIST 3 3 3 3 - _ _

* REMOVE TWO-INCH PLUG FROMPORTHOLE WITH DRILL 3 2 3 3 - - -

- SETUPDRILLFORCORING 3 2 3 3 - - -

- CORE iWO TO FIVE FEET DEPENDING ONCONDITIONS 3 2 3 3 - - -

* WATCH FOR: 3 2 3 3 - - -

- WATER INFLOW _ _ _ _

- GEOLOGIC FEATURES INDICATINGPOTENTIAL WATER INFLOW - - - - - _ _

- GEOLOGIC FEATURES INDICATINGCHANGE IN CONDITIONS - - - - - -

- GEOMECHANICAL FEATURES - - - - - _ _

I

PORTHOLE `/F t L'yN\, o-1rHYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST (Sheet 2 of 3)

A B C D E F G

* IF NECESSARY, PERFORM REMEDIALGROUTING 3 2 3 3 - - -

* DRILL AHEAD, TEST AS NECESSARY 3 2 3 3 - - 2

- IF NON-CORED, CONTINUOUSLYMONITOR DRILL PERFORMANCE TOEVALUATE IF HOLE IS PENETRATING LESSCOMPETENT ROCK, ANOMALOUSFEATURES AND/OR FLOW TOP 3 2 3 3 - - 3

- IF CORED, CONTINUOUSLY MONITORDRILL PERFORMANCE AND EXAMINECORE TO EVALUATE IF HOLE ISPENETRATING LESS COMPETENT ROCK,ANOMALOUS FEATURES AND/OR FLOWTOP 3 2 3 3 - - 3

- MONITOR DRILL FEED PRESSURE ANDIN SITU WATER PRESSURE 3 3 3 3 - - 3

- REMOVE DRILL TOOLS FROM HOLE ATCOMPLETION 3 2 3 3 - - 3

* REMOVE PORTHOLE BUSHING WITHDRILL 3 2 3 3 - - 3- REAM CASING INTO HOLE 3 2 3 3 - - 3

- GROUTCASINGINPLACE 3 2 3 3 - - 3

* REPLACE PORTHOLE BUSHING WITHDRILL 3 2 3 3 - - 3

PORTHOLEHYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST (Sheet 3 of 3)

A B C D E F G

* SELECT TEST LOCATION FROM CORE 3 3 3 3 0 - 1

- PACK OFF TEST LOCATION 3 2 3 3 - - 3

- ASSEMBLE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITYTEST EQUIPMENT 3 2 3 3 - - 3

- DETERMINE EQUILIBRIUM PRESSURESAND ESTABLISH PRIMARY TRENDS 3 3 3 3 - - 1

- CONDUCT CONSTANT HEAD INJECTIONTESTS 3 3 3 3 - - 1

- ANALYZE INDUCED RESPONSE ANDRECOVERY 3 3 3 3 - - 1

* SET UP FOR LONG-TERMMONITORING

- INSTALL DIFFERENTIAL AND ABSOLUTEPRESSURE TRANSDUCERS 3 3 3 3 - - 1

* CONNECT INSTRUMENTATION TODATA LOGGER AND MONITORRESULTS 3 3 3 3 - - 1

- OBTAIN REPRESENTATIVE WATERSAMPLES 3 3 3 3 3

- MONITOR HYDRAULIC HEADS 3 3 3 3 - - 1

- IF RESPONSES ARE WITHIN PREDICTEDRANGE. PROCEED TO NEXT HOLE 3 2 3 3 - - 3

I . ...

CONSOLIDATIONEXPLORATORY SHAFT SYSTEMS

2 EXCAVATIONS - STARTER HOLE/UNDERGROUND FACILITIES

3 STARTER HOLE - LINER/GROUT

2 UPPER SHAFT - BORING/LINER/STIFFENERS/GROUT GUIDES/GROUTING/GROUT/LINER RUN-IN

1 MAIN SHAFT- BORING/LINER/STIFFENERS/CHEMICAL SEALS/GROUTING/PORTHOLES/LINER RUN-IN

3 MAIN SHAFT - RINGBEAMS/CENTRALIZERS/EXTERNAL CASINGS/GROUT GUIDES/GROUT

3 MAIN SHAFT - SHAFT INTERNALS (ELECTRICAL/COMMUNICATIONSNENTILATION LINE/CONDUIT)

2 DEWATERING SYSTEM - SURFACE DISCHARGE

3 DEWATERING SYSTEM - PUMPS/POWER/CONTROLS

3 VENTILATION SYSTEM - COMPRESSORS/CHILLERS/SILENCERS/DUCT/CONTROLS/FILTER/STACK

2 HOIST SYSTEM - ROPE/SHEAVE/CONVEYANCE/GUIDESIHEADFRAME

3 HOIST SYSTEM - DRIVE/CONTROLS/SIGNAL

3 STANDBY SYSTEM - VENTILATION/HOIST

2 COMMUNICATIONS - EVENT DETECTION/ALARMS/SUPERVISORY

3 COMMUNICATIONS - TELEPHONE/SOUNDPOWER/INTERCOM/RADIO

2 ELECTRIC POWER - 5 MVA TRANSFORMER/SWITCHGEAR

3 ELECTRIC POWER - 13.8 kV OVERHEAD/MCC/LIGHTING/STANDBY GENERATOR/GROUNDING

2 WATER SUPPLY - FIRE PROTECTION

3 WATER SUPPLY - PROCESS/POTABLE

3 SANITARY SYSTEM - SEPTIC TANKS/DRAIN FIELDS

3 FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS - PAD/COLLAR

2 SECURITY AND SAFEGUARDS

0 SECOND ORDER MONUMENTS

3 CONDUITS AND CABLEWAYS

3 DRILLING MUD

3 MUDPITS

3 TESTING, SETUP

2 TESTING, PENETRATIONS

1 TESTING, DATA

I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 X X X X X X

xX X X

K X

x x

K K

K X

K X X K K K K

K

K X X K K X K K

X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

I

X K K X X K K K K

x K K K X K K K K

K K K K X K X K X

x

K K X K K K K X

K K K K K X K X

K X K K K X K X

K

K

K

2 EXCAVATIONS

STARTER HOLE

2 UPPER SHAFT (112)*

1 MAIN SHAFT

2 MAIN SHAFT- OTHER*

MAIN SHAFT - INTERNALS

2 DEWATER DISCHARGE

DEWATERING, OTHER

VENTILATION SYSTEM

2 HOIST SYSTEM

HOIST SYSTEM, OTHER

STANDBY SYSTEM

2 COMMUNICATIONS

COMMUNICATIONS, OTHER

2 ELECTRIC POWER

ELECTRIC POWER. OTHER

2 WATER SUPPLY

WATER SUPPLY, OTHER

SANITARY SYSTEM

FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS

2 SECURITY AND SAFEGUARDS*

Q SECOND ORDER MONUMENTS*

DRILLING MUD

MUDPITS

TESTING, SET UP

2 TESTING. PENETRATIONS

CONDUITS AND CABLEWAYS

1 TESTING DATA*

X X X X X X X X X

K K K K X K K X K K K X K K

K K K K K K X K K K K K K K*TO BE DETERMINED.

I

ATTACEIIENT 19

MEETING REPORT

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY/NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WORKSHOPEXPLORATORY SHAFT DESIGN

Date/Location of Meeting

December 3-4, 1986, Richland, Washington

Attendees/Organizational Affiliation

See Attachment 1.

Background/Facts

The agenda for the meeting, indicating the items discussed, is provided inAttachment 2.

The material reviewed, exchanged, and discussed is provided in Attachment 3 (copiesof the viewgraphs utilized and additional handouts).

Observations

1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

( Background material presented described the basis for selection of the\ Reference Repository Location, the selection of the Exploratory Shaft (ES)

location, and selection of the repository host rock.

Information was provided to answer specific Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)S questions regarding selection of the ES location and selection of the reposi-

tory horizon, including flow top variability and vertical flexibility.

The NRC did not object with the view that representativeness of the ES locationcould only be evaluated on the basis of data during the overall site character-ization plan.

2. Department of Energy

-t The Basalt Waste Isolation Project (BWIP) advised NRC of an ES design criteriatask force to reexamine the rationale and bases for selected ES Facility designcriteria. For example, water inflow, methane, system capacity margin to handlefuture programmatic needs, etc. The NRC did not object to this approach.

The NRC also asked if a determination of the adequacy of the piezometricbaseline will be made prior to beginning the drilling of the ESs. The BWIP hasadopted a strategy with prior concurrence from NRC of ascertaining a consensusbaseline for purposes of hydrologic testing prior to the start of drilling.The Department of Energy (DOE) will consult with NRC with respect to ground-water level baseline conditions at a planned meeting on Monday, December 9.1985.

The NRC recognized that in situ stress was not used in determining ES location.

A preliminary shaft sealing concept was presented which incorporates use of acrushed rock/bentonite clay backfill material between the shaft bottom and theVantage interbed, except at flow tops where the liner and grout would remain,if necessary, to limit groundwater inflow during construction of the seals.The NRC expressed concerns that those portions of the preclosure operationalseals that will be left in place were being used to serve a postclosure sealingfunction, and were not accounted for in the performance analysis of postclosureseals. The DOE stated that (1) no credit would be taken for remaining portionsof preclosure seals, (2) the potential efforts of preclosure sealing materialson postclosure seal design would be evaluated and accounted for, and (3) if thepreclosure seals had been explicity accounted for in the performance assess-ment, presented results and conclusions would not be significantly differentsince such zones are of limited extent. The NRC was satisfied with thisexplanation. No reservations were expressed with the concept of leaving groutand liner in place above the Vantage interbed, and with reliance on a singlematerial, i.e., crushed rock/bentonite clay backfill, for postclosure sealingof shafts and drifts.

The NRC strongly advocated that performance analysis should be closely tied torepository seals design, including establishment of design criteria. Amethodology and resulting numerical criteria was presented providing designrequirements for seals components, based on the functions of those components.The resulting criteria for drift seals is to limit the contaminated flow frac-tion entering the shafts to 1% or less. The criteria for the shaft seals is tolimit groundwater travel time to the Vantage interbed to 1,000 years or longer.These criteria are consistent with criteria previously established inSD-BWI-CR-15, and were accepted as reasonable and conservative.

The NRC concurred with the DOE approach of requiring all systems associatedwith importance to safety and waste isolation be controlled under Quality LevelI and BWIP's provision for applying Quality Level I to selected non Q-Listeditems.

Concerns were expressed that measures which might be taken to remove thedamaged rock zone would result in a further enlargement of the damaged rockzone. The NRC and DOE agree that such an effect must be considered in finalseals design, and should be avoided if it can be conclusively demonstrated thatrepository release requirements can be met without resort to such measures.

The NRC expressed general concurrence with the BWIP performance assessmentmodeling approach of using probabilistic analyses to address uncertainty wherepossible and sensitivity analyses with deterministic models otherwise.

The NRC expressed support for the concept of preliminary performance assessmentof the seal subsystem, as presented during the workshop and encouragedadditional analysis to test parameter sensitivity and to evaluate otherscenarios.

The NRC concurred that water inflow (into the ES Facility) calculations are notimportant to radiological safety or waste isolation.

Most of NRC's comments concerning hydrologic testing are more appropriatesubjects of the forthcoming Hydrology Workshop.

-Il

;/ II l

i;

3a. State of Washington

None.

3b. State of Oregon

None.

3c. Yakima Indian-Nation

The representative expressed appreciation for the invitation and opportunity toparticipate.

I'%' 3d. Representatives from the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of\\ Umatilla Indian Reservation did not attend.

\ Agreements

. \.The NRC indicated an interest in participating in the major ES readiness reviews.

\ Open Items

\ A question as to whether BWIP is planning to place a tracer(s) in the drillingfluid to monitor its migration during drilling of the ESs was raised by NRC. Atpresent, BWIP has no plans to do this, but will consider this for inclusion withinthe hydrology Site Characterization Program.

= OBSERVATIONS

I. It is encouraging to note that DOE has used Performance Assessment as aczol in support of Exploratory Shaft Design. However, ES-1 and E-2 design,couments provided to NRC reflect a omplete absence of such analyses.

_. The aroach presented by DOE for assessing post-closure performance of the-:ploratory Shaft System appears reasonable. As recognized by both DOE andNR, a systems analysis addressing a range of significant processes and eventsneeds to be employed to support the ES design.

-. DE recognizes that ES construction may perturb the pre-waste emplacement:_diticns of the natural system (e.g., hydraulic gradients and properties).O-jweierq no analyses were presented to asess the ignificance of these_erturbations which could preclude adequate characterization of the system.

En -hould present analyses to demonstrate that ES construction does not:raclude de-ensiblecharacterization of the natural system.

7. COE stated that the Cohassett lot- is the only flow under consideration fornoating th repository. Additionally, DOE considers that it is possible to

''.-u witiin the v__icular zone. Howaver, the analyses supporting thi s.- e. ied D'E position were not provided. No determination on the cceptability.tF _iacing waste pack:ages in the vesicular zone was made by DE.

_. __tate-d that testing in the Eploratory Shaft Facilities will not_.moi. the aste iolation apability of the repository. However, no

_Lt =Z C r-- -_ analyses wer-e p-ovided. Such analyses , be provided by DOE in

_" -'~ _lra-ims that eineering measures beyond reasonable availabie technolog,- -t eu ncessary to conitr uct the exploratory saft within a high stress

nas ' -C nvJironmrient associ ated with the borehole spalling and coredii;i.,g observed in the RRL, and particularly at the ES shaft location.H.os-sever, no contingency plans have been presented to address tight holeconditions caused by roc: bursts, rock falls, and high in-situ tresses.

? . -lthough DOE's approach to estimate groundwater inflow appears reasonable,")_ should present documentation of the analyses and selection of ssufMed_eobogic features and associated hydrologic parameter values to support theseS-ti mates.

hat ES construction would not affect isolation capability ofthe site. RC does not agree that this has been adequately demonstrated.The-refore, in view of the preliminary nature of the analyses conducted todats, it is prudent to apply Quality Assurance procedures consistent withlOFr:50 Appendix B requirements to _ activities related to ES design andconstruction that may affect radiological safety or isolation,.until such timeas performance analyses demonstrate insignificant effect.

-14 <YL7r-c, e°. The level of documentation of design ac ivities was discuss fd.An examplWwas the level of documentation needed for Functional nalyses.YNRC noted therationale for potential engineering data needs produced during Funct onalmnalyses is an example of an area where a ditional documentation is desirable.Sel.-ed to this cbservation NRC oncludes a procedUre or a A policy which.ddrese5 reqUirements for documenta.tion of all design a-ctivities related tosafty or i .ation is needed to assure the degree o dcumentation in allwork is co-siEstent with NRC A requirements arid to provide Ct ehicle for-urther staff review.

10. The NRC agrees with the use of pre-requiste plansv incorporating readinessreviews and hold points Lo provide rmanagement oversight to define, assess andschedule activities that are necessary precursors to key site activities, suchas ES cnstruction. Such pre-requiste plans should not only look at discreteactivities but also consider the interface between activities in varioustechnical areas.

1i. DOE presented various viewgraphs concerning Quality Assurance plans forfuture application as well as current activities. Because of the constraintDf time there was no discussion of the presentation to fully understand theDOE presentations. Hence NRC will further review the DOE viewgraphs andprovide comments to DOE on their current activies and their planning viaseparate orrespcndence.

1. In gneral, DOE needs to provide performance analyses to support:Csi tions being tk'n. NRC i nt able t provide maningful cmments on Eposi tions without riewing the rat ionale supporting the position. Tl-e NRCrealizes that for preliminary psi!Lons this may only involve nominal or_ensitivity Studies.

NRC empressed concerns that t rationale behind porthole orientation in:' same lartical plane would only prcvid a -Dimensional haract-rization.

7-i _,=hou1 d a addr-essed ir, thi ETP n-eting.

14. DOE iBho~ld ____ ____ the physical and chemicalcharactisticz of the short termAseals since they may affect integrity of longt--rm i1ation.

IZJ, ?rr to initiation of ES constrLuctcn, DE suld deternine hct:draulic baseline is adequate for determination o pre-waste emplacment--rsundwater ti-avel time.

Pi SEEMENTS C'Pi17o v

1. The NRC that priority should be given to set up a meeting on

EWIP systems and performance assessment methodology. Such a meeting is needed

to ma:imize the effectiveness of meetings on specific technical topics.

2. DOE will provide NRC with the following: Barton Report, 185 Revision; SD

'JWI TI 112; SD ER 0b; SD TA 15; and Study 1.

N:C wil provide DOE with a copy of the report by Aimerican Colloid indicating

that Zement/tentonite mi> tures are more permeable than either cement or

) ;tcOit alone.

23E Sill present in the up coming STF meeting their rationale for the

przpmtsed testing and an analysis of the effect

o- testing on long term isolation and site characterization No documented

analyses of the effect of such testing have been provided to date to NRC.

rAO4 /(S+. DOE Ad provide NRC with a document outlining their list and 0 level

methodolouies to further support presentations given at this meeting.

ja f2 _~ / IU < >2 , z~h

SOURCE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMCRITERIA

10 CFR 60, SUBPART G

10CFR 50, APPENDIX B

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION REVIEW PLAN FORSITE CHARACTERIZATION

ANSI/ASME NQA-1

Ir-n~ --

p{ .... ' " I,,,,...

Date post:	23-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times