January 28, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE PRE-LICENSE APPLICATION PRESIDING OFFICER BOARD

In the Matter of ) Docket No. PAPO-00 ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ) ASLBP No. 04-829-01-PAPO ) (High Level Waste Repository: ) DEN-5 Pre-Application Matters) )

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE JANUARY 17, 2008 LICENSING SUPPORT NETWORK CERTIFICATION BY THE STATE OF NEVADA

Donald P. Irwin Michael R. Shebelskie Kelly L. Faglioni HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 Telephone: (804) 788-8200 Facsimile: (804) 788-8218 Email: [email protected]

Of Counsel:

Martha S. Crosland U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of General Counsel Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 Table of Contents Page

I. Preliminary Statement...... 1

II. Facts ...... 6

A. Nevada’s Past Representations About The Size Of Its LSN Collection...... 6

B. Nevada’s Initial Production Of Documents...... 6

C. Nevada’s Limited Supplementation Of Its Initial Production ...... 11

D. Nevada’s Scant Production Of Emails...... 13

E. Documentary Material Apparently Omitted From Nevada’s LSN Collection ...... 14

F. Nevada’s Inadequate LSN Procedures...... 24

III. Argument ...... 28

A. Nevada Did Not Make A Substantial, Good Faith Production...... 28

B. Nevada’s Justification For Its Incomplete Production Is Erroneous ...... 32

IV. Conclusion ...... 35 The Department of Energy (DOE) moves to strike the January 17, 2008 certification to this Board made by the State of Nevada pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1009. Nevada has not made a substantial, good faith effort to make available on the Licensing Support Network (LSN) all its documentary material as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.1003, and its certification should be stricken.

I. Preliminary Statement

While professing that this proceeding “should be entirely transparent,”1 Nevada’s LSN production is not consistent with this objective. When Nevada certified, it made available on the

LSN less than 4,800 documents. That is less than 5% of the documents Nevada told this Board it would make available on the LSN.

Further, there is even less to Nevada’s production when the nature of the documents in

Nevada’s LSN collection is considered. A large percentage of those documents were authored by DOE or DOE contractors--which in many (if not nearly all) instances appear to be duplicates of documents available in DOE’s LSN collection and documents that Nevada did not need to reproduce on the LSN.2 Another large percentage comprises publicly available, official notice material such as transcripts of Congressional hearings, meetings of the Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board (TRB), and proceedings of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW).

A full third or more of Nevada’s LSN collection are documents of these kinds, rather than documents generated by Nevada’s personnel, experts, consultants and contractors.

By its own description, “the State of Nevada, specifically the Nevada Agency for Nuclear

Projects, has been engaged in a comprehensive program for monitoring, overseeing, and

1 The State of Nevada’s Certification of Compliance (January 17, 2008) at 1.

2 10 C.F.R. § 2.1003(a)(1) (allowing party to exclude documents that another party has already made available on LSN). 2 intervening in the federal Yucca Mountain project” for over two decades.3 The Agency has conducted “[m]ajor technical research” as part of “a sustained and concerted research effort to address key technical and scientific issues that are expected to be important to the State’s licensing intervention.”4 Nevada states that it has received $78 million from DOE for those efforts as of 2004 (to say nothing of the State funds expended).5

Nevada also says it “intensified its work since in several key areas” starting in 2004.6

That intensified effort includes “assembling data and information on key technical issues that will form the basis of Nevada’s prospective challenge to any license application DOE may submit to the NRC for Yucca Mountain and undertaking new research that may be required to support the State’s licensing contentions . . . .”7

Nevada has been specifically preparing its positions for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding since at least 2001. Nevada hired outside counsel in September, 2001, and thereafter identified a group of at least 25 experts for the proceeding.8 These attorneys and experts are said to have been “diligently” preparing over the past several years a “rigorous, substantive and

3 Report and Recommendations of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects (December 2006) [2006 Nev. Comm. Report] at 25 (relevant excerpts at Ex. A).

4 Id. at 25 & 32.

5 Affidavit of Robert R. Loux (March 14, 2004) at ¶ 11 (Ex. B).

6 2006 Nev. Comm. Report at 25 (Ex. A).

7 Id.

8 Statement of Joseph R. Egan, before the House Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization (April 5, 2005) [Egan Statement] at 1 (relevant excerpts at Ex. C); Petition by the State of Nevada under Atomic Energy Act Section 274 and 10 C.F.R. § 63.63 for Financial Assistance in the Licensing Review of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository (May 10, 2004) [Nevada Petition for Funds] at 6 (Ex. D); “Nevada’s Scientific Experts,” Attachment 1 to Nevada Petition for Funds (Ex. E). 3 effective” opposition to the license application.9 They have been “performing a thorough evaluation of the scientific and legal integrity of the work done by DOE and its contractors at

Yucca,” including a review of the documents DOE has made available on the LSN.10 Indeed,

Nevada publicly said as recently as January, 2008 that it has already prepared “a couple thousand” contentions.11 Yet, Nevada has certified that the only documentary material its personnel, experts, consultants and contractors have generated or acquired throughout this quarter-century of “[m]ajor technical research” and diligent preparation for the licensing proceeding is the small number of documents in its LSN collection. That is not credible.

The inadequacy of Nevada’s production is even more apparent when Nevada’s LSN collection is searched for documents authored by or sent to Nevada’s team of experts for the licensing proceeding. Nevada’s LSN collection contains no documents authored by or sent to most of those experts even though Nevada has stated that they have been working on Yucca

Mountain for years. For others, a handful of documents are provided, and the content of these documents reveals the existence of much more data, calculations and other LSN-relevant information that Nevada appears to have omitted.

9 2006 Nev. Comm. Report (Ex. A) at 31.

10 Egan Statement (Ex. C) at 1 & 3.

11 Testimony of Robert Loux, Executive Director of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, before the Nevada Senate Committee on Nuclear Projects (January 16, 2008). In that testimony, he said Nevada has “drafted a couple thousand contentions with many more to come” as Nevada continues its review of DOE’s LSN collection. A transcript of this testimony is not yet available, but will be available at the following address: http://leg.state.nv.us/74th/Interim/ Scheduler/committeeIndex.cfm?ID=10141. See also S. Tetreault, “Documents added to Yucca database,” Las Vegas Review Journal (May 1, 2007) (Ex. F) (quoting the executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects as saying Nevada plans to file “‘thousands’ of contentions”). 4

Moreover, there is an extraordinarily small number of emails. For all of Nevada’s many experts, consultants, and contractors over the last two and a half decades, DOE could identify only a small number of emails ( 100) in Nevada’s LSN collection. And, most of these were authored by a single Nevada consultant several years ago.

Nevada’s production of so few emails is remarkable. In 2004, Nevada declared that

“[e]mails are relevant to the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding” because “[e]-mails tell the truth a lot,”12 insisting that DOE could not make a substantial, good faith production unless it reviewed millions of emails on back-up tapes as well as the emails the Yucca Mountain Project personnel authored going forward. This Board agreed, holding: “Such e-mails are often the source of unvarnished information that can be invaluable to the parties and the decision- makers.”13 Nevada appears not to have applied that standard to its own production.

It is unclear why Nevada’s production of documents is so limited, although the following is apparent. Nevada did not issue a “call memo” for document preservation and collection until the summer of 2004.14 It then took a three-year “hiatus” in collecting documents until it issued a new call memo in the summer of 2007.15 Nevada then delayed in issuing procedures until

October, 2007, which called for training to occur thereafter.16 That approach was not calculated to promote “timely and substantial compliance” with Nevada’s LSN obligations.

12 July 24, 2004 Tr. at 181 (statement of Joseph Egan).

13 PAPO Board Order of August 31, 2004 at 27.

14 Memorandum from Joe Egan (July 29, 2004) [2004 Nevada Call Memo] (Ex. G).

15 Memorandum from Joseph R. Egan (June 5, 2007) [2007 Nevada Call Memo] (Ex. H).

16 Nevada Licensing Support Network Procedures (October 22, 2007) (Ex. I). 5

Regardless of the explanation, the end-result of Nevada’s actions is reflected in Nevada’s

LSN collection, and that end-result is deficient. Nevada has not made a substantial, good faith effort to make available its documentary material. In the totality of circumstances, Nevada’s responsible official could not have certified in good faith that all of Nevada’s extant documentary material had been identified and made available.

This is not a complaint about the absence of a few documents, or a demand for perfection. Nor does DOE maintain that Nevada must have completed all of its documentary material at this time, or that Nevada necessarily possesses as much documentary material as

DOE. Rather, Nevada has made a production that falls so far short that it suggests, at the very least, an absence of the substantial good-faith effort required by Subpart J17 and this Board.18

This motion also raises a question of fairness. The regulations setting forth the obligation to make documentary material available on the LSN apply to all potential parties.19 Those regulations require parties to establish procedures to meet those requirements, and Nevada should be required to implement such procedures in good faith and make available its documentary material. That is true not only for Nevada’s extant documentary material, but going forward as Nevada and its experts, consultants, and contractors generate and acquire new documentary material during this proceeding. Fairness necessitates that all participants, including Nevada, comply in good faith with the requirements of Subpart J.

17 10 C.F.R. § 1012(b)(1).

18 PAPO Board Aug. 31, 2004 Op. at 15-18.

19 PAPO Board Jan. 4, 2008 Op. at 14. 6

II. Facts

A. Nevada’s Past Representations About The Size Of Its LSN Collection

At a case management conference on May 4, 2005, the Board called upon the participants to provide a good faith estimate of the number of documents to be made available in their LSN collections. Nevada estimated that it would make available approximately 100,000 documents.20

Nevada has never revised that estimate.

B. Nevada’s Initial Production Of Documents

Nevada first made documents available on the LSN in November, 2006. Nevada made available at that time 3,372 documents.21 These documents were represented by the following ranges of participant accession numbers: NEV0000001 to NEV0003242 & NEV5000001 to

NEV5000129.

That limited production was self-evidently an incomplete collection of Nevada’s documentary material. That was apparent from, among other things, the paucity of contemporary documents among those Nevada made available. According to the bibliographic headers Nevada provided for those documents at the time, Nevada’s November, 2006 production included only the following small number of documents--barely 12% of the material produced-- acknowledged to have been created since Nevada’s licensing counsel was retained and its team of licensing experts identified:

Year No. of documents 2001 55 2002 71 2003 75

20 May 4, 2005 Tr. at 8 (statement of Charles Fitzpatrick).

21 March 5, 2007 Tr. at 960 (statement of Dan Graser). 7

Year No. of documents 2004 119 2005 89 2006 0 22

The absence of documents associated with Nevada’s experts further evidences the insufficiency of Nevada’s November, 2006 production. A search of the bibliographic headers for those documents reveals virtually no documents authored by or sent to most of the 25 experts

Nevada retained for the Yucca Mountain proceeding, many of whom Nevada says had already been working on Yucca Mountain for years:

Name Author Addressee Andrew J. Baker 0 0 Aaron Barkatt 34 3 John W. Bartlett 0 0 Adrian Bath 0 0 Adrian P. Butler 0 0 H. C. Clark 0 0 Victor Gilinsky 1 0 Jeffrey A. Gorman 17 0 Chih-Hsiang Ho 45 1 C. Peter Jackson 0 0 Linda Lehman 15 0 David A. Lever 0 0 Brenda J. Little 2 0 Charles E. Marks 34 0 Allen L. Messenger 0 0 Maurice E. Morgenstein 172 39 Johnathan Overpeck 0 0 Linda L. Overpeck 0 0 Jean Palutikof 0 0

22 A search of Nevada’s LSN collection now will yield different results, as Nevada’s supplemental production in January, 2008 included additional documents created in or after 2001. However, as discussed below at pages 11-13, most of that supplemental production was not work product of Nevada’s experts, consultants and contractors, but copies of DOE documents and transcripts of public proceedings. That supplemental production, therefore, does not affect the substantive point here, i.e., Nevada’s initial production in November, 2006 included little current documentary material by Nevada’s experts. 8

Name Author Addressee April L. Pulvirenti 20 0 James D. Rimstidt 24 1 Don L. Shettel 229 20 Eugene I. Smith 168 1 Roger W. Staehle 5 1 Michael C. Thorne 0 0 Howard S. Wheater 3 0 23

It also should be noted that some of the persons identified above who authored documents found in Nevada’s LSN collection co-wrote the documents with others on that list.

For example, many of the documents authored by Aaron Barkatt, Jeffrey A. Gorman, Charles E.

Marks and April L. Pulvirenti were jointly authored, making the total number of unique documents less than this chart would suggest.24

In fact, the documents that Nevada made available in November, 2006, were just a small group of test documents. According to the LSN Administrator’s reports, Nevada used the 3,372 documents in 2005 to test the connectivity of its LSN server to the LSN portal. The Nevada

LSN collection was then emptied per Nevada’s request.25

In November 2006, the State Governor wrote to the Secretary of Energy and requested

DOE to remove the access control restriction from DOE’s LSN collection. The Governor further wrote that “[i]n a demonstration of good faith, the State of Nevada has now publicly released all

23 The search results now for some of these people may vary slightly because of the small number of documents in Nevada’s supplemental production. However, the results are not materially different.

24 NEV0002746, NEV0002755, NEV0002769, NEV0002770, NEV0002788, NEV0002846, NEV0002871, NEV0002881, NEV0002882, NEV0002883, NEV0002917, NEV0002919, NEV0002920, NEV0002924, NEV0003052, NEV0003053.

25 Memorandum from Daniel J. Graser to Commissioners (January 12, 2007) [Jan. 2007 LSNA Report] at 7 (Ex. J). 9 of its documents that the state has placed on the LSN and we will continue to make new documents publicly available on an ongoing basis.”26

Because Nevada had requested the year before that its LSN collection be emptied, the

LSN Administrator contacted Nevada. As the LSN Administrator relates: “Upon reviewing the letter, the LSNA contacted representatives of the State of Nevada (Nevada) seeking clarification regarding its intentions, as the Nevada collection was emptied, per its direction, following successful connectivity testing more than a year earlier. LSN Staff subsequently worked diligently with Nevada to re-index its 3,372 documents and open its collection for searching using the LSN. The Nevada collection was available via the LSN on November 27, 2006, thus effectuating the Governor’s request.”27

Consistent with that history, Nevada subsequently acknowledged that its November, 2006 production was not all its documentary material. In particular, in the month after Nevada made that production, the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects (which oversees the Nevada

Agency for Nuclear Projects) made its bi-annual report to the Governor and State Legislature. In that report, the Nevada Commission discussed the State of Nevada’s LSN readiness.

The report does not state that Nevada’s production was complete (or nearly complete), which it presumably would have said if the documents Nevada made available the preceding month were all (or almost all) of its documentary material. The report, dated December, 2006, instead describes the fulfillment of Nevada’s document production obligation as a future event.

“The State,” the report notes, “will be required to provide NRC with all of its documents, data and other materials it plans to use in licensing in a format compatible with NRC’s licensing

26 Letter from Gov. Kenny C. Guinn to Sec. Samuel Bodman (November 20, 2006) at 2-3 (Ex. K).

27 Jan. 2007 LSNA Report at 7 (Ex. J). 10 support network.”28 That task, the report cautions, “places an extraordinary burden on the State in that it means that thousands of documents must be converted to electronic files and loaded onto the web-based system, at considerable cost and effort.”29

The report additionally observed that the staff of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear

Projects, in conjunction with Nevada’s counsel, “has been incrementally assembling documents and materials for loading onto” the LSN.30 That effort is said to be “both costly and extremely labor intensive.”31

Those statements to the Governor and the Legislature make no sense if the documents

Nevada made available on the LSN the prior month were most of Nevada’s documentary material. Had that production largely fulfilled Nevada’s obligation, the report would presumably not have totally ignored Nevada’s production to date while stating that Nevada “will be required” to make available its documentary material. Nor would the report have warned that Nevada faces an “extraordinary burden” and that “thousands” of documents “must be converted.” An accurate report instead would presumably have said that Nevada had largely converted its documents, that it already had made available most of its documentary material, and that the burden of compliance had mostly passed. In the same vein, the report would not have said that

Nevada was still “incrementally assembling” documents if the documents Nevada made available in November, 2006 constituted the bulk of its documentary material. The report would

28 2006 Nev. Comm. Report at 19 (Ex. A) (emphasis added).

29 Id. at 32, n.12 (emphasis added).

30 Id. at 32.

31 Id. 11 have concluded that the process of collecting Nevada’s documentary material was essentially complete.

C. Nevada’s Limited Supplementation Of Its Initial Production

Given the statements in the Governor’s letter and the Nevada Commission’s report, it might have been expected that Nevada would have regularly added documents to the LSN.

However, Nevada added no documents to its LSN collection in the remainder of 2006.32

Similarly, Nevada added no documents to its LSN collection during all of 2007.33 Nevada did not add any documents to its LSN collection until after the PAPO Board issued its January 4,

2008 Memorandum and Order denying Nevada’s latest motion to strike. During the weeks of

January 7 and 14, 2008, Nevada added just over 1,400 documents to its LSN collection, bringing the final count in its collection to about 4,800 documents.

The bulk of Nevada’s supplemental production is represented by the documents with participant accession numbers between NEV0003243 and NEV0004544. As discussed above, the titles in the bibliographic headers for these documents indicate that by and large, these are not documents authored by Nevada personnel, experts, consultants, or contractors, but are documents of the following kind:

32 Jan. 2007 LSNA Report (Ex. J) at 8 (showing Nevada collection still at 3,372 documents on December 31, 2006).

33 Memorandum from Daniel J. Graser to Commissioners (August 7, 2007) [Aug. LSNA Report] at 5-6 (Ex. L) (showing Nevada added no documents to its LSN collection in first six months of 2007). 12

x Transcripts of meetings of the TRB, and correspondence between the TRB and DOE.34

x Transcripts of proceedings of the ACNW.35

x Transcripts of hearings before various Senate and House committees, and related correspondence and pre-filed testimony.36

x Documents prepared by DOE or DOE contractors.37 Half or more of these documents concern industrial hygiene, and dust and silica exposure issues, in tunnels at Yucca Mountain, and are materials Nevada’s counsel obtained in connection with a personal injury lawsuit against DOE’s M&O contractor for the Yucca Mountain Project.38

x Documents prepared by federal agencies other than DOE, including responses to Freedom of Information Act requests by Nevada’s counsel.39

The nature of these documents, and their groupings on the LSN, suggest that these documents-- and therefore the bulk of Nevada’s January, 2008 supplemental production--come from the

“Egan, Fitzpatrick & Malsch Yucca document collection” referred to in Nevada’s recent LSN procedures.40

The supplemental documents that were generated by Nevada’s experts, consultants, and contractors were very few in number and are primarily represented by a special range of participant accession numbers: NEV5000124 through NEV5000244. That is, Nevada’s entire supplemental production of its “internal” work product and related information consisted of

34 E.g., NEV0003254 to NEV0003422.

35 E.g., NEV0003248 to NEV0003601.

36 E.g., NEV0003604 to NEV0003662; NEV0003718 to NEV0003724.

37 E.g., NEV0003802 to NEV0004066. While some miscellaneous documents are in this range, most are authored by DOE or a DOE contractor.

38 E.g., NEV0004155 to NEV0004544.

39 E.g., NEV0003695, NEV0003815.

40 Ex. I at 2, ¶ (C). 13 about 120 documents. Even of these, a substantial number are duplicates, so the total number of unique new documents is even less.41

This limited supplement did not cure Nevada’s earlier failure to make a meaningful production of work product by its experts, consultants and contractors. Nevada’s LSN collection still contains essentially no documents authored by or sent to most of Nevada’s experts, consultants, and contractors.

D. Nevada’s Scant Production Of Emails

A search for document type “email” in the bibliographic headers of Nevada’s LSN collection yields only 54 hits. Eight of these appear to be duplicates. So rather than 54 distinct documents of document type “email,” Nevada has made available only 46. A chart with the accession numbers and descriptions of these documents is attached hereto as Exhibit M.

Of these 46 unique emails, only 12 were authored by Nevada personnel, experts, consultants, and contractors. The remainder were authored by DOE and its contractors, or by another federal agency. Many of these are duplicates of documents in DOE’s LSN collection.

An additional search for documents with the word “email” or the phrase “electronic mail” in the title yields 6 hits, only 2 of which are emails. One of these is a 2004 email from one of

Nevada’s experts.42 The other is a compilation of fewer than 100 emails from Aaron Barkatt, a professor at Catholic University who is one of Nevada’s experts.43 (Two of the other four documents with the word “email” in their title are a compilation and an “analysis” of DOE

41 Some 65 of these documents are attributed to Michael Thorne, one of Nevada’s experts. Of these, at least 32 appear to be duplicates.

42 NEV0002872.

43 NEV5000105. 14 emails by Nevada. The other two documents are reports by DOE discussing certain emails in its

LSN collection.)

Even allowing that Nevada may have included in its LSN collection a few random emails that were not properly coded,44 it is evident that Nevada has not made a good faith production of emails. The documents Nevada has made available--as well as Nevada’s call memos that refer to emails--make obvious that Nevada and its experts, consultants, and contractors communicate frequently through email and accordingly a significant number of LSN-relevant email would be expected to have been generated. Yet, Nevada’s LSN collection contains virtually none.

E. Documentary Material Apparently Omitted From Nevada’s LSN Collection

Review of Nevada’s LSN collection confirms the widespread absence of work product and other documents that seemingly would qualify as documentary material. Nevada has not claimed privilege on any documents, so this information ought to be on the LSN.

Information concerning contentions. Nevada says it has prepared “thousands” of contentions.45 Nevada told the Board that when it certified, its LSN collection would include the contentions that it had prepared.46 Yet, Nevada’s LSN collection does not appear to contain those thousands of contentions. Many documents refer to the preparation of contentions by

44 It is conceivable that--just as with the bundled cache of emails by Professor Barkatt-- there may be more emails in the Nevada LSN collection than DOE has been able to discern to date from searches of headers and documents. DOE is not here complaining about inadequately descriptive headers as such. What is clear, delphic headers notwithstanding, is that neither header nor other contextual information discloses the existence, much less the identity, of appreciable numbers of emails, while numerous of the documents that have been produced make it clear that communication to date among Nevada’s experts on substantive issues has been replete with emails.

45 See above page 3 & n.11.

46 July 12, 2005 Tr. at 473 (statement of Charles Fitzpatrick) (DOE “won’t have to ask. They’ll [Nevada’s contentions] be on the LSN.”). 15

Nevada’s experts.47 But, only one document located so far identifies any contentions (and only

37 at that).48

Equally important, Nevada’s LSN collection appears to contain little to no discussion critical of Nevada’s contentions. It is improbable that in the seven years Nevada’s licensing counsel and experts have been preparing for the licensing proceeding--and the countless communications they have had--there have been virtually no emails, memoranda, comment sheets or other documents that have information critical of various contentions Nevada intends to make or the information which it will cite or rely.

Review of DOE work product. A significant amount of the work by Nevada’s experts, consultants, and contractors over the years has been the critique of DOE’s various reports, studies and other technical work product concerning Yucca Mountain. One of the major functions of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects is “[r]eviewing and evaluating DOE’s environmental, socioeconomic, and technical studies.”49 According to its director, the Agency

“has aggressively performed its monitoring and oversight responsibilities. Emphasis has been placed on reviewing and commenting on technical studies in the areas of hydrology, groundwater travel time, pneumatic pathways, volcanism, seismology, waste packaging, transportation routes and modes, and socioeconomic impacts . . . .”50

47 E.g., Ex. O at O-53 ¶ 1, O-55 ¶ 1, O-57 ¶ 1, O-59 ¶ 1, O-60 ¶¶ 1 & 2, O-61 ¶ 3, O-62 ¶ 2; Ex. P at P-39.

48 Ex. P at P-19 to P-24.

49 Report to the 74th Session of the Nevada State Legislature by the Legislative Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste (January 2007) at 17 (relevant excerpts at Ex. Q).

50 Id. 16

Additionally, Nevada’s experts are said to have been “combing” DOE’s LSN collection since 2004,51 and in May, 2007 reportedly divided among themselves the documents in DOE’s

LSN collection for review.52 One of Nevada’s experts described a “routine,” as suggested by the

Agency’s director of technical projects, of regularly reviewing DOE’s Analysis Model Reports.53

As a consequence, Nevada’s LSN collection ought to contain a large number of memos, comment sheets, emails or some other form of documents critiquing DOE’s reports, studies and other technical work product. Yet, the only comment sheets of that kind that appear to be in

Nevada’s LSN collection are a handful of instances from the early 1990s, principally from just one of Nevada’s experts.54 It cannot be that the only documents from this decades-long review effort that qualify as documentary material are those few early documents. There particularly ought to be extensive comments of this kind since the availability of DOE’s documents on the

LSN starting in 2004.

Work Product Missing from Nevada’s Current Experts: Nevada’s LSN collection is self- evidently missing documentary material from Nevada’s team of licensing experts. Take, for just one example, Eugene Smith, who is a volcanologist and professor of geology at the University of

Nevada, Las Vegas.55 Dr. Smith consults with Nevada through his company, Geoscience

51 Egan Statement (Ex. C) at 3.

52 Ex. F at 1.

53 E.g., Ex. O at O-54, O-56, O-58.

54 E.g., NEV0002989 (Ex. R).

55 See Ex. E at 5. 17

Consultants, and Nevada’s LSN collection contains periodic progress reports from Geoscience

Consultants from about 2001 until April, 2005. They then stop.56

Although these progress reports in Nevada’s LSN collection stop in April 2005, it is evident that Dr. Smith’s work continued. The last group of the reports available in Nevada’s

LSN collection indicate that his work was very much still in progress as of April, 2005. Those reports indicate that Dr. Smith was in the midst of developing two intricate alternate volcanic models for Nevada.57 Indeed the December, 2006 report of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear

Projects relates that Dr. Smith’s work was ongoing even then. It describes “current work” by

Dr. Smith involving “collecting more samples from areas near Yucca Mountain, such as Death

Valley, age dating the samples, and running geochemical analyses to determine if the chemical characteristics of the volcanic deposits are similar to those at Yucca Mountain and are of similar age.”58 Geoscience Consultants’ website likewise states that Dr. Smith has been working for

Nevada on Yucca Mountain projects for the last four years.59

Yet, a search of the bibliographic headers in Nevada’s LSN collection for “Smith” as author and date after April, 2005 yields only one hit from September 2005. It is a memorandum summarizing a meeting at the Texas Station Hotel.60 A search with Geoscience Consultants as

“author organization” for documents after April, 2005 identifies no documents. Likewise,

56 Copies of representative progress reports from Geoscience Consultants are collectively included as Ex. O.

57 Ex. O at O-65 to O-71.

58 Ex. A at 26.

59 Screenshot of Geoscience Consultants’ website (January 28, 2008) (Ex. S).

60 NEV5000053. 18

Nevada’s LSN collection appears to have no documents after April, 2005 authored by Dr.

Smith’s colleague at Geoscience Consultants, Deborah Keenan.

A similar situation exists with respect to another Nevada licensing expert, Maury

Morgenstein, who is a geologist.61 As with Geoscience Consultants, Nevada’s LSN collection contains periodic progress reports from Dr. Morgenstein’s company, Geosciences Management

Institute, Inc., that start in 2001 and abruptly end with the April, 2005 report.62

And also like the situation with Dr. Smith, those reports show that the work of

Dr. Morgenstein and Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. was not concluded in April, 2005.

The last reports that are available in the LSN refer to numerous long-term experiments that were still in progress and new experiments that were to be set up.63

Yet another example relates to Michael Thorne, Nevada’s expert on Total System

Performance Assessment (TSPA) issues and apparently a coordinating expert on other issues, including corrosion.64 Nevada’s production includes only 65 documents he authored, of which

32 appear to be duplicates.

This cache provides the first substantive documentation relating to Dr. Thorne’s work. It reveals that Nevada has been engaged in its own experimental work on corrosion and that some of the experimental work, apparently code-named the “cheeseball experiments,” has been conducted in China.65 It also reveals that Dr. Thorne has been following development of the

61 See Ex. E at 3.

62 Copies of representative examples of the Geoscience Management Institute, Inc.’s reports are included as Ex. P.

63 Ex. P at P-53, P-56, P-58.

64 See Ex. E at 5.

65 See NEV5000148, NEV5000153. 19

TSPA,66 criticality,67 and the EPA peak dose rule,68 among other issues, on the basis of documents provided by DOE on the LSN.

Two salient points can be derived from these documents. First, Nevada’s experts believe they are significantly better informed about the development of the License Application (LA) than they have stated in their pleadings before this Board and the Commission. With respect to the TSPA specifically, Dr. Thorne has written that the TSPA-SEIS version of the TSPA provided to the LSN by DOE in October 2007 is “very recent” and--totally consistent with what DOE argued but Nevada’s counsel disputed--“it is reasonable to suppose that it resembles closely the version that will become the TSPA-LA.”69 Dr. Thorne also stated that Nevada had met with the

NRC Staff and that the Staff had provided Nevada with a copy of the most recent version of its own TSPA evaluation tool, the Total Performance Assessment, or TPA, model.70 Dr. Thorne also agreed that the GoldSim model used to implement and run the TSPA simulation models is,

“with certain limitations, … a suitable simulation package for the implementation of radiological impact assessment models.”71 Thus, contrary to public protestation, Nevada’s experts believe themselves to be well informed about the direction of DOE’s work, due in no small part to

DOE’s exhaustive disclosures.

66 See NEV5000136, NEV5000141, NEV5000144, NEV5000172, NEV5000176, NEV5000178, NEV5000240, NEV5000241.

67 NEV5000150, NEV5000155, NEV5000156.

68 NEV5000130, NEV5000133, NEV5000135, NEV5000145, NEV5000149.

69 See Thorne, “MEETING WITH NRC STAFF ON TSPA AND TPA,” October 8, 2008 (NEV5000172) at 1.

70 Id. at 3.

71 Id. 20

The second point to be derived from the above referenced set of Nevada’s documents is that Nevada’s production to date regarding Dr. Thorne is partial at best. For example,

Dr. Thorne has prepared a variety of “External Memoranda,” that is, memoranda to the team of

Nevada’s licensing experts.72 Not all of these have been made available, and with only one exception--a single memo from Victor Gilinsky73 concerning statistical issues relating to convergence of peak dose calculations,74 responded to by Dr. Thorne in May, 200775--the responses also appear to be absent from Nevada’s LSN collection.

To give one example, Geoscience Consultants’ reports in August and September, 2004 refer to “Evaluation of Michael Thorne’s memo on volcanic probability calculations.”76

Nevada’s LSN collection, however, does not appear to contain that evaluation. Also, the referenced memo by Dr. Thorne appears to be missing. A search in Nevada’s LSN collection for documents with Thorne as author and the word “volcanic” in text yields 4 hits, none of which is the referenced memo.77

72 Ex. O at O-52 ¶ 2.

73 The document ascribed to Commissioner Gilinsky (NEV5000241) contains no identifying information--no author, title, date, recipient, etc. Its ascribed date in the LSN-- October 27, 1007--is also obviously incorrect. But it lays out 20 issues which are addressed point by point by Dr. Thorne in his May 14, 2007 memo to Gilinsky, responding to “your recent emails….”

74 NEV5000241.

75 NEV5000141.

76 Ex. O at O-60 ¶ 3 & O-61 ¶ 4.

77 NEV5000221, NEV5000134, NEV5000176, NEV5000177. 21

Further, it is clear that Dr. Thorne and his colleagues regularly communicate by email and by memoranda.78 He solicits in writing comment from his colleagues on various issues, and they respond in writing.79 However, no trace of documentation relating to these communications appears in Nevada’s LSN collection. It strains credulity that technical communications of the length, depth and subtlety of those shown here are undertaken solely orally, or that none of them would contain any material not supportive of Nevada’s position or tending in a direction on which DOE could rely, or that none of them would constitute “reports or studies.” It also appears that some material has been completed and not provided--for instance, the first phase of the “cheeseball experiments”80 and Dr. Thorne’s “White Paper” on corrosion issues.81

Missing Graphic-Oriented Documents. Subpart J provides examples of graphic-oriented information that can qualify as documentary material. In particular, § 2.1003(a)(2) states that graphic-oriented information that can qualify as documentary material includes “raw data, computer runs, computer programs and codes, field notes, laboratory notes, maps, diagrams and photographs.”82 That regulation further identifies the following additional types of qualifying graphic-oriented documentary material:

(i) Calibration procedures, logs, guidelines, data and discrepancies;

(ii) Gauge, meter and computer settings;

(iii) Probe locations;

78 See NEV5000141 at 1, NEV5000148 at 3, NEV5000177 at 1, NEV5000178 at 1.

79 E.g., NEV500177 at 1.

80 NEV5000148 at 3.

81 NEV5000134 at 4.

82 10 C.F.R. § 2.1003(a)(2). 22

(iv) Logging intervals and rates;

(v) Data logs in whatever form captured;

(vi) Text data sheets;

(vii) Equations and sampling rates;

(viii) Sensor data and procedures;

(ix) Data Descriptions;

(x) Field and laboratory notebooks;

(xi) Analog computer, meter or other device print-outs;

(xii) Digital computer print-outs;

(xiii) Photographs;

(xiv) Graphs, plots, strip charts, sketches;

(xv) Descriptive material related to the information identified in this paragraph.83

Nevada seemingly has made no organized production of this kind of graphic-oriented documentary material, particularly for work product created after the retention of Nevada’s counsel in 2001. It is apparent, though, that Nevada’s experts, consultants, and contractors have generated significant amounts of graphic-oriented documentary material with information that

Nevada intends to cite or rely on, or that potentially could be used as non-supporting information.

A review of the available progress reports from Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. and Geosciences Consultants, in Exhibits O and P, shows that this is the case. The reports are replete with references to numerous tests, experiments, calculations, data compilations, computer models, software, computer runs and the like that constitute graphic-oriented documentary

83 Id. 23 material. These reports cite to yet other types of graphic-oriented documentary material such as

DVDs and photographs, laboratory notebooks, graphs, strip charts, and so forth. Yet, Nevada’s

LSN collection contains virtually none of this type of documentary material.

Another example concerns Nevada’s analysis of TSPA-related models. The few documents by Dr. Thorne in Nevada’s LSN collection show that Nevada has performed its own simulations and computer runs of the TSPA models it received in connection with the Yucca

Mountain Site Recommendation and the Final Environmental Impact Statement.84 Yet,

Nevada’s LSN collection appears to omit those computer runs (which are graphic-oriented material) as well as reports and other documents analyzing and otherwise discussing those runs.

Missing Documentation From Consultants And Other Contractors. The work product of other consultants and contractors to Nevada and its team of experts appears to be altogether absent from Nevada’s LSN collection. To give three examples:

x Nevada engaged a couple years ago the Institute of Metal Research in Shenyang, China to perform corrosion studies.85 Nevada’s LSN collection contains no laboratory notebooks, field notes, or other internal work product by anyone associated with this facility.

x Nevada has reportedly engaged more recently personnel in China for yet other studies.86 Yet, Nevada’s LSN collection contains no work product by these persons, or other documents by or to them.

x Dr. Smith engaged Terry Plank of Boston University to assist in the analysis of DOE’s volcanic model starting in 2005.87 Nevada’s LSN collection contains no documents authored by or sent to Professor Plank.

84 Ex. V at 3 (NEV5000144); Ex. W at 1.

85 NEV0003684 at 19 (relevant excerpts at Ex. T) (acknowledging support of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects).

86 Ex. N.

87 Ex. O at O-70 ¶ 1, O-71 ¶ 1. 24

x Dr. Thorne makes reference to a Serco Assurance Limited88 and a M. Kelly89 who have assisted on TSPA analyses. However, Nevada’s LSN collection has no documents attributed to Serco Assurance Limited in their bibliographic headers. A search for Kelly as author identifies one document, which is a scientific notebook of John Kelly, a Sandia National Laboratory personnel.90

F. Nevada’s Inadequate LSN Procedures

Nevada’s LSN procedures appear to consist of two “call memos.” The first is dated July

29, 2004, and was distributed in anticipation of a potential LSN certification by Nevada in the event its motion to strike DOE’s original certification was denied.91 There then appears to have been what Nevada calls a “hiatus” in its “focus on populating the LSN database caused by the

‘decertification’ of DOE’s initial certification . . . .”92 Nevada resumed preparation for its LSN certification with issuance of a second “call memo” in June, 2007.93

These call memos appear to have laid the groundwork for a substantially incomplete production as distribution of the call memos was unduly limited. Certain of Nevada’s experts, consultants, and contractors--such as the various scientists in China and Professor Plank at

88 Ex. V at 3.

89 Ex. W at 1.

90 NEV0003945.

91 2004 Nevada Call Memo (Ex. G).

92 2007 Nevada Call Memo (Ex. H) at 1.

93 Id. DOE inquired of Nevada whether these call memos, which DOE obtained from the City of Las Vegas’s certifying official, were authentic copies. Nevada declined to answer the request. DOE additionally inquired whether there are additional procedures related to these call memos. Nevada declined to answer that request too. 25

Boston University--are not shown as distributees of either call memo.94 The call memos also omit numerous colleagues who work with Nevada’s licensing experts.95

The restrictive distribution list is problematic because the call memos do not direct the recipients to forward the memos to the recipients’ coworkers, colleagues, consultants, subcontractors, and other persons working with them. The call memos do not direct them to obtain documentary material from those persons. Nor do they direct any effort to preserve those persons’ documents. Rather, the Nevada call memos speak only of the recipients’ “individual” responsibilities and the production of their “personal” documents.

The absence of this “push down” requirement is notable considering the positions Nevada has taken in this proceeding. In 2005, DOE, the NRC Staff and Nevada submitted a joint proposed order regarding retention procedures for documentary material.96 That proposed order sought to prescribe “minimum procedures for retention of documentary material.”97 Those procedures included implementation of procedures to identify and preserve documentary material from all personnel who might “reasonably generate or receive such documents,

94 One document identifies the following principals at the Institute of Metal Research in Shenyang, China who work for Nevada: En-Hou Han; Hui Guan; Jianqiu Wang; and Junhua Dong. See Ex. T. None of these names appears on either call memo.

95 For example, other persons who work with Dr. Smith at Geoscience Consultants are Deborah Keenan (e.g., Ex. O at O-1) and Matt McKelvey (e.g., Ex. O at O-34). See also, e.g., NEV0002843, NEV0002833, NEV0002838, NEV0001349. Other persons who work with Dr. Morgenstein at Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. include Julie Daugherty, Erin Kate Redigen, Marcia Parrish-Siggelkow, Marnie Parrish-Siggelkow, John Ilg, Mary Elizabeteh Ilg, and Barbara Lee. Ex. T at 20. None of these persons are distributees of either Nevada call memo.

96 The Department of Energy’s Submission of a Joint Proposed Order Regarding Retention Procedures for Documentary Material (July 8, 2005) (Ex. U).

97 Id. at 1. 26 regardless of the location in which these persons maintain their documents . . . .”98 The order further provided that the participants shall direct “each” of its contractors, consultants, and experts to preserve and submit their documents.99 The proposed order further reads: “The director shall require that the contractor, consultant, expert, law firm and other person obtain from its subcontractors documents that may qualify as documentary material and submit such documents to the participant.”100 Nevada’s call memos fail to follow these standards.

Further, a search of Nevada’s LSN collection for documents authored by or sent to the named recipients of the call memos is revealing. In addition to the experts for whom search results were already discussed above,101 the call memos were directed to the additional persons named below. A search of Nevada’s bibliographic headers for documents authored by or sent to these persons yields the following results:

Name Author Addressee Marta A. Adams 3 0 Lindsay Audin 5 0 James David Ballard 13 0 Jimmy T. Bell 1 2 Martin Blunt 0 0 William Briggs 2 0 Jacqueline Bromfield 0 0 Vince J. Colatriano 0 0 Hank (Henry) Collins 3 1 Norma Conway 0 0 Robert J. Cynkar 2 1 Fred Dilger 24 0 Charles J. Fitzpatrick 8 26 Steve Frishman 2 2

98 Id. at 2, ¶ 2(a).

99 Id. at 3-4, ¶ 3.

100 Id at 4, ¶ 3.

101 See above pages 7-8, 16-21. 27

Name Author Addressee Jim Hall 3 0 Robert Halstead 49 5 Judy Hilton 0 0 Merril Hirsh 2 0 Hugh Horstman 0 0 Martin Kelly 0 1 Francis S. Kendorski 2 0 Paul H. Lamboley 1 0 Robert R. Loux 77 33 Susan Lynch 6 105 Martin G. Malsch 7 5 Simon Mathias 0 0 Stephan Matthai 0 0 Lou McDonald 0 0 Susan Montesi 1 0 Richard C. Moore 3 0 Roger B. Moore 2 0 Michael K. O'Mealia 0 2 Dave Owen 1 0 Jamie Pericola 0 0 Lawrence Phillips 0 0 Marvin Resnikoff 9 0 Antonio Rossmann 2 0 Joe Strolin 1 62 Steve Swanton 0 0 Judy Treichel 3 1 Tom Wigley 0 0

To note just one of the persons identified above, Steve Frishman is a geologist and is technical policy coordinator for Nevada’s nuclear projects agency, a position he has held for over a decade. He has frequently presented Nevada’s technical positions to federal agencies and congressional committees. In his capacity as a full-time consultant to or employee of the Nevada

Agency, he has represented Nevada at LSN-related meetings going back to 1988. Given his position with, and responsibilities, for the Agency, it is a certainty that Mr. Frishman has created and received hundreds of technical and scientific documents concerning Yucca Mountain in his two decades of involvement with the Nevada Agency and, indeed one of Nevada’s call memos 28 uses as an example critical review by Mr. Frishman of work product by Nevada’s licensing experts. Nevertheless, it appears that Nevada has only included in its LSN collection four of these documents --two documents authored by Mr. Frishman,102 and two documents addressed to him.103 None of these documents post-dates December 2004. Sixteen years of Mr. Frishman’s work appears to have been effectively unrepresented in Nevada’s collection.

Also, Nevada’s treatment of privileges does not appear to be internally consistent.

Nevada’s certification states it does not assert any privileges, and Nevada did not submit a privilege log. However, the call memos instruct the recipients to segregate potentially privileged documents and submit them separately to counsel for “appropriate handling in relation to the

LSN.”104

III. Argument

A. Nevada Did Not Make A Substantial, Good Faith Production

The regulatory structure that governs this motion is straightforward. Within 90 days of

DOE’s production of documentary material on the LSN and its initial certification, other potential parties, including Nevada, must make their documentary material available on the

LSN.105 Potential parties must make available by that time all “documentary material in existence (with a reasonable lag time) at the moment of certification.”106

102 NEV0003670 & NEV0003671.

103 NEV0003785 & NEV5000146.

104 Ex. H at 2.

105 10 C.F.R. § 2.1003(a).

106 January 4, 2008 PAPO Op. at 14. 29

While perfection is not required and “technical anomalies are to be expected,”107 a potential party must provide “substantial and timely compliance” with this requirement.108 This requires each potential party to make, “in good faith, every reasonable effort to make all of its documentary material available.”109

Nevada’s LSN production does not qualify as a substantial, good faith effort to make available Nevada’s documentary material. This is apparent in several respects.

First, the small number of documents Nevada has made available, standing alone, reflects an incomplete production. It is not credible that after 25 years of work on Yucca Mountain, the expenditure of several tens of millions of dollars, and a legion of experts, consultants and contractors, Nevada has generated so few documents meeting the definition of documentary material.

The incompleteness of Nevada’s production is further apparent when the small number of documents Nevada has made available is contrasted to Nevada’s representation about the expected size of its LSN collection. As noted above, Nevada estimated that its LSN collection would contain about 100,000 documents. Nevada, however, has made available less than 5% of that estimated number. When DOE’s production in 2004 contained only half of its estimated

LSN collection, Nevada said that shortcoming demonstrated a bad faith production.110 Nevada’s

LSN production is an exponentially smaller production.

107 August 31, 2004 PAPO Op. at 16.

108 10 C.F.R. § 2.1012(b)(1).

109 August 31, 2004 PAPO Op. at 16.

110 Nevada’s July 12, 2004 Motion to Strike the Department of Energy’s LSN Certification and for Related Relief (NEV-01) at 11. 30

Nor can Nevada contend that its estimate was uninformed. According to its call memos,

Nevada had performed a sweep for its documentary material in the summer of 2004, and the deadline for its certification in 2004 was only one month away when the Board issued its order striking DOE’s original certification. Nevada, therefore, presumably was nearly ready to certify in 2004 and accordingly would have had an informed basis in 2005 to estimate the number of documents that would be included in its LSN collection.

The composition of Nevada’s LSN collection further suggests that Nevada failed to comply with the applicable regulations. Nevada cannot maintain that it made a substantial, good faith production when its LSN collection is virtually devoid of materials generated by its experts, consultants, and contractors and their work product, graphic-orientated documentary material and email.

The absence of email is particularly surprising given the past importance Nevada ascribed to emails. In particular, Nevada argued to this Board that DOE should be compelled to expend millions of dollars to complete the review of its emails:

MR. EGAN: Okay. In the past 15 years, as e-mail has come to dominate commerce, it is the case that in a litigation, the very first documents you seek every time are e-mails.

The reason for that is something all of us know. E-mails tell the truth a lot. People’s guard is down. They are not filtered through the bureaucratic mechanism. And e-mails always tell the story. That’s why lawyers ask for e-mails first.

I can assure you that DOE may not rely on these e-mails. And I am sure they won’t rely on them, but we are going to rely on those e-mails because we know those e-mails are relevant to the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. That is all they are about, Your Honor.111

111 July 27, 2004 Tr. at 181 (statement of Joseph Egan); see also Ex. C at 2 (statement of Joseph Egan: “emails often offer the most candid, unvarnished assessment of the facts.”). 31

What Nevada said about DOE’s emails should apply equally to Nevada. Nevada cannot plausibly maintain that its many personnel, experts, consultants, and contractors never said anything in emails that qualify as documentary material. It is not credible that none of them ever said anything in an email that questioned, criticized, or cast doubt on any of Nevada’s intended positions. It is not credible that none of them ever sent an email that said something negative about Nevada’s technical work product, or something positive about DOE’s work product, that relate to Nevada’s intended positions.

Further, Nevada has not made a substantial good faith effort given its lack of diligence to identify its documentary material. Nevada’s call memos show the following: (i) Nevada waited until the late date of 2004 to begin to identify documentary material; (ii) it then appears to have ceased that effort for three years, until the summer of 2007; (iii) distribution of both call memos was unduly restricted; (iv) the latter call memo seemingly advised recipients to omit critical commentary about Nevada’s work product and favorable commentary about DOE’s; and (v) the training does not appear to have commenced until in or after October, 2007. That history does not appear to be consistent with a substantial good faith production in compliance with the applicable regulations.

What the record shows is that the core of Nevada’s LSN collection is the limited group of test documents that Nevada made available in November, 2006. That limited production clearly was not a substantial, good faith effort to make available Nevada’s documentary material, and

Nevada’s contemporaneous comments made clear that it was not. At this juncture, Nevada has not remedied those deficiencies by its last minute supplement on the eve of certification. Its supplement added less than 1,500 documents, of which only approximately 120 are documents 32 that Nevada’s experts generated. That does not appear to reflect a “reasonable effort to produce all documentary material.”

Nor do Nevada’s call memos appear to be consistent with the applicable regulations.

Those memos are facially inadequate as procedures because they do not purport to extend the requirements for document preservation and submittal of documentary material beyond the direct recipients, and omit the many personnel who work with them. Those memos are inadequate, therefore, to satisfy § 2.1009(a)(2) and thus cannot support a certification under § 2.1009(b).

More fundamentally, the existence of procedures on paper is not a substitute for an actual substantial, good faith production of documents. When a certifying official attests that the potential party has made available all its documentary material to the best of his or her knowledge, the certifying official must have a basis in fact sufficient to warrant the attestation of a good faith belief. That basis in fact requires a reasonable degree of due diligence by the official regarding the potential party’s production to which he or she is certifying.

B. Nevada’s Justification For Its Incomplete Production Is Erroneous

In its appeal to the Commission from this Board’s orders denying its last motion to strike,

Nevada signaled the apparent rationale for its substantially incomplete production. Nevada wrote there that even now it “cannot possibly know for the most part what it will cite or intend to rely upon.”112 Continuing, Nevada said that it can only attest to “its then-current intent” and that

Nevada will say it “cannot possibly identify what it will rely upon . . . .”113 Left unsaid, presumably, is the corollary that Nevada also cannot identify non-supporting information at this time.

112 The State of Nevada’s Notice of Appeal from the PAPO Board’s January 4, 2008 and December 12, 2007 Orders (January 15, 2008) [Nevada Appeal Brief] at 25.

113 Id. at 25 & 26. 33

Such an argument is not genuine. Nevada’s call memos--one as recently as the summer of 2007--express no difficulty in the ability of Nevada’s forces to identify the information they intend to cite or rely upon, and call for all of that information to be submitted for production on the LSN.114 Further, Nevada had no difficulty in identifying abundant information from the

1990s and earlier to include on the LSN. It seems that only since its licensing team was assembled, and particularly starting in 2005, that Nevada disclaims the ability to identify documentary material.

The record also contradicts Nevada’s post-hoc justification. Nevada has publicly pronounced that it has prepared “thousands” of contentions. Nevada’s LSN collection contains evidence of contention preparation as early as 2003. Going beyond just materials labeled

“contentions,” Nevada has undertaken extensive experiments, scientific investigations and reviews, analyses of samples, development of models, calculations, and critiques of DOE’s work product over the years. That effort continues to the present. That effort has been undertaken precisely for the purpose of enabling Nevada to identify positions to take in the licensing proceeding and the information to support those positions.

No doubt, Nevada may generate or acquire new information that gives rise to additional positions for the licensing proceeding. Nevada may even refine or modify its positions going forward. Nonetheless, Nevada has generated or acquired extensive information that is not on the

LSN but that, in any reasonable, common sense, good-faith meaning, Nevada presently intends to cite or rely on in the proceeding. By the same token, Nevada can and must consider in good faith whether all the emails, comments, and other final documents its personnel, experts,

114 See 2004 Nevada Call Memo (Ex. G) and 2007 Nevada Call Memo (Ex. H). 34 consultants, and contractors have generated could be considered non-supporting of that information.

Were Nevada’s contrary position accepted, the LSN regulations would be essentially meaningless as applied to everyone but DOE. Under Nevada’s view, the only documents it would have to make available now are final versions of reports and studies. Nevada would not have to make available its supporting and non-supporting documentary material until--or maybe even after--it files contentions. Nevada’s view appears to be that its experts, contractors, and consultants can perform experiments, analyses, calculations, computer runs and other activities that generate graphic-oriented documentary material, but that none of that material needs to be included in Nevada’s LSN collection so long as “final” reports are not prepared.

This view is not consistent with the plain meaning of the Commission’s regulations.

When the Commission promulgated the requirements for Nevada and the other potential participants to make their documentary material available 90 days after DOE’s certification, the

Commission obviously knew this would be before the LA was submitted and contentions filed.

Had the Commission believed that Nevada and others could not identify documentary material until the LA or contentions were filed, the Commission would not have required Nevada to make its documentary material available until some point after DOE filed its LA rather than 90 days after DOE’s initial certification.

Nevada (and others) must make a reasonable, good faith effort to identify their extant documentary material now. Nevada cannot evade that obligation through the expedient of saying it cannot “possibly” comply because it has not seen the LA or certain other documents DOE is preparing. As the Commission noted, while the “full scope” of supporting and non-supporting information may not be apparent until admission of contentions, that does not mean that a 35 participant is absolved from making available documentary material in the pre-license application phase. “[T]he Commission still expects all participants to make a good faith effort to have made available all of the documentary material that may eventually be designated as Class

1 and Class 2 documentary material by the date specified for initial compliance in section

2.1003(a) of the Commission’s regulations.”115

It is not good faith compliance with the regulations for a potential party to throw up its hands and say it cannot “possibly know” what information will be documentary material. Nor is there any weight to Nevada’s argument that this determination cannot be made until the LA is submitted. As the Commission described in its opinion rejecting Nevada’s motion to compel production of the draft LA, the LA is a derivative document. The LA will cite and rely on technical information, and it is that underlying technical information, and not the LA, that constitutes documentary material.116

Much of that underlying technical information has been available to Nevada, in many cases for years. That information has been available not only on the LSN starting in 2004, but has been the subject of extensive discussion in public meetings over the years with the NRC, the

TRB, the ACNW and others. Nevada has been analyzing this information for years. For Nevada to maintain against that backdrop that it “cannot possibly” begin to know what its positions will be in the licensing proceeding lacks credibility.

IV. Conclusion

While Nevada may not decide on the exact language of its contentions until after the LA is docketed, Nevada, by its own admission, has been working for many years on information to

115 69 F.R. 32836, 32843 (June 14, 2004).

116 CLI-06-05, 2006 NRC LEXIS 32, at *21. 36 support contentions and already has prepared thousands of potential contentions. Fundamental fairness requires that the documentary material (including emails and graphic-oriented materials) developed as part of these efforts by Nevada (including its contractors, consultants, experts and lawyers) be made available on the LSN on the same basis as DOE is making its documentary material available.

Nevada, however, has not made a substantial, good faith effort to make available its documentary material consistent with the applicable regulations. Accordingly, the PAPO Board should strike the State’s January 17, 2008 certification. In the alternative, the PAPO Board should call upon Nevada remedy the deficiencies of its production.

DOE is not seeking to bar Nevada from participating in the upcoming licensing proceeding on the basis of a technicality. Rather, DOE is seeking to ensure that Nevada and all other parties comply with the regulations established for the licensing proceeding and thereby permit the LSN to achieve its intended purpose of minimizing the need for traditional discovery while making available all documentary material to support the making of licensing decisions in a transparent manner on the basis of sound science.117

117 Counsel for DOE conferred with counsel for the State of Nevada prior to filing this motion. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), DOE certifies that it has made a sincere effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion, but still seeks the relief discussed above. 37

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

By Original Signed by Michael R. Shebelskie

Donald P. Irwin Michael R. Shebelskie Kelly L. Faglioni HUNTON & WILLIAMS Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 Telephone: (804) 788-8200 Facsimile: (804) 788-8218 Email: [email protected]

Of Counsel:

Martha S. Crosland U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of General Counsel Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 January 28, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) Docket No. PAPO-00 ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ) ASLBP No. 04-829-01-PAPO ) (High-Level Waste Repository: ) Pre-Application Matters) )

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE JANUARY 17, 2008 LICENSING SUPPORT NETWORK CERTIFICATION BY THE STATE OF NEVADA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that copies of the foregoing the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE JANUARY 17, 2008 LICENSING SUPPORT NETWORK CERTIFICATION BY THE STATE OF NEVADA in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following persons on January 28, 2008 through the Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Daniel J. Graser Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel LSN Administrator Mail Stop - T-3 F23 E-mail: [email protected] Washington, DC 20555-0001 ASLBP HLW Adjudication Thomas S. Moore, Chair E-mail: Administrative Judge [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected] Alex S. Karlin Hearing Docket Administrative Judge E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected] Andrew L. Bates Alan S. Rosenthal E-mail: [email protected] Administrative Judge Adria T. Byrdsong E-mail: [email protected] & E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] & [email protected] Emile L. Julian, Esq. G. Paul Bollwerk, III E-mail: [email protected] Administrative Judge Evangeline S. Ngbea E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Anthony C. Eitreim, Esq. Rebecca L. Giitter Chief Counsel E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected] James M. Cutchin E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2

Office of Public Affairs Mail Stop - O-2A13 David McIntyre Lander, Churchill and Mineral County E-mail: [email protected] P. O. Box 33908 Reno, NV 89533 Andrea L. Silvia, Esq. Loreen Pitchford, LNS Administrator for E-mail: [email protected] Lander Mitzi A. Young, Esq. E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Marian L. Zobler, Esq. Talisman International, LLC E-mail: [email protected] 1000 Potomac St., NW OGCMailCenter Suite 300 E-mail: [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20007 Patricia Larimore Egan, Fitzpatrick & Malsch, PLLC E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the State of Nevada The American Center at Tysons Corner Inyo County (CA) Yucca Mtn Nuclear 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 340 Waste Vienna, VA 22182 Repository Assessment Office Joseph R. Egan, Esq. Chris Howard E-mail: [email protected] GIS/LAN Administrator Charles J. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Inyo County E-mail: [email protected] 163 May St. Laurie Borski, Esq. Bishop, CA 93514 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Martin G. Malsch, Esq. E-mail: [email protected] Nye County (NV) Regulatory/Licensing Susan Montesi Adv. E-mail: [email protected] 18160 Cottonwood Rd. #265 Sunriver, OR 97707 Nuclear Energy Institute Malachy Murphy 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 E-mail: [email protected] Washington, DC 20006-3708 Michael A. Bauser, Esq. Nuclear Waste Project Office Associate General Counsel 1761 East College Parkway, Suite 118 E-mail: [email protected] Carson City, NV 89706 Ellen C. Ginsberg, Esq. Robert Loux E-mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] Ann W. Cottingham Steve Frishman, Tech. Policy Coordinator E-mail: [email protected]. E-mail: [email protected]

White Pine County Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force City of Caliente Alamo Plaza, 4550 W. Oakley Blvd. Lincoln County Suite 111 Jason Pitts Las Vegas, NV 89102 E-mail: [email protected] Judy Treichel, Executive Director 3

E-mail: [email protected] Fredericks & Peebles, LLP Counsel to Eureka County and Lander Counsel for Timbisha Shoshone Tribe County, Nevada 1001 Second Street 1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Washington, D.C. 20036 Darcie L. Houck, Esq. Diane Curran [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] John M. Peebles [email protected] Engelbrecht von Tiesenhausen E-mail: [email protected]

Office of Administrative Services City of Las Vegas, Nevada Margaret Plaster Management Analyst Email: [email protected]

Barbara Durham Email: [email protected] Merril Hirsh Email: [email protected] Kevin Kamps Email: [email protected] Joe Kennedy Email: [email protected] Phil Klevorick Email: [email protected] Liane Lee Email: [email protected] Barry Neuman Email: [email protected] 4

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

By Original Signed by Patricia A. Slayton

Donald P. Irwin Michael R. Shebelskie Kelly L. Faglioni HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 Telephone: (804) 788-8200 Facsimile: (804) 788-8218 Email: [email protected]

Of Counsel:

Martha S. Crosland U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of General Counsel Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585

65007.000002 HW_US 13506879v7 DOE

EX. A REPORT AND FCECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR PROJECTS

Presented to The Governor and Legislature of the State of Scvada

December 2006 CHAPTER TWO COVERlRG THE BASES: CRITICAL AREAS OF POLICY, OVERSIGHT AhD LlCERiSING

"Bureaucracy dejeizds the startis quo lorzg

past the tinle when the quo has lost its starus. " Laurerlce J Peter - US educator & writer (1 919 - 1988)

For over two decades, the Statc of Nevada, specifically the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, has been engaged in a comprehensive program for monitoring, overseeing, and intervening in the federal Yucca Mountain project. Despite the weight of problems that have brought the repository program to a virtual halt, there remains significant inertia keeping the prqject afloat - or at least on life support. Consequently, during the past two years the State's efforts have been intensified in several key areas: (1) assembling data and information on key technical issues that will form the basis of Nevada's prospective challenge to any license application DOE may submit to the NRC for Yucca Mountain and undcrtaking new research that may be required to support the State's licensing contentions; (2) monitoring and helping defeat any legislation aimed at bailing out DOE'S program or otherwise "fast-tracking" Yucca Mountain or the importation of spent fuel and high-level waste to Nevada; (3j preparing legally and procedurally for the eventuality that DOE is able to submit a license application for Yucca Mountain to the NRC; and (4) addressing DOE plans for transporting waste both nationally and within Nevada and for constmcting rail access to Yucca Mountain.

The Agency has identified certain technical arcas and issues that will bc critical to the State's intervention in any NRC licensing proceeding on Yucca Mountain. Major technical research has bcen ongoing in these areas for some time, and work to complete the studies and make the data and information available in the licensing process is expected to continue for at least the next two years. At this time, three areas of importance involve the potential for future volcanism at the Yucca Mountain site, corrosion potential for waste packages that DOE assetts will last for 10,000 years or more, and major engineering constraints involved with systems within the repository tunnels that would have to operate in extreme conditions in terms of the radiological, thermal and in-situ environment.

perception oiconlidence in where we are going." Bowman went on to say that, as 3 contingency, inrerim sioivge sites should be set tip, but nu1 using the same method osed to choose Yucca Mounlain. "Xu more picking a spats and roicing it down somebody's throat." said Bowman.

Report of flte Nevada Con~nzission December 2006 orr M~clearProjects 25 The NRC bciie\~esthat volcanism is an issue that must bc addressed in any license application for Yucca hlountain, even though DOE has been stating for years that the probability of any volcanic activity affecting Yucca Mountain is below the replatory cutoff of 10-"year. NRC is still insistin%that this is a viable issue for licensing and this Agency is continuing to perform research in this area.

The Agency's primary volcanism contractor, Dr. Gene Smith of WLV, has been performing research on the probability of volcanic activity around the Yucca Mountain site since the mid-1980s. He has developed an alternative model that shows a ma-matic disruption probability for Yucca Mountain 10 times higher than the DOE number. This research has indicated that DOE has tinderestimated the size of the volcanic field that surrounds Yucca Mountain and the number of volcanoes in this field. The research also strongly indicated that the volcanic activity is cyclic in nature and that the area is c~rrrentlyin a period of quiescence hut activity will probably increase within the time frame of peak dose. DOE scientists rejected this idea for years but in the latest rendition of the expert elicitation on probabilistic volcanic hazards assessment, the experts discussed the cyclic nature of the volcanism in the area as if they had agreed all along.

Dr. Smith's current work involves collecting more samples from areas near Yucca Mountain, such as in Death Valley, age dating the samples, and rnnning geochemical analyses to dcterminc if the chemical characteristics of the volcanic deposits are similar to those at Yucca Mountain and are of similar age. If the results are as expected, this will give more credence to the belief that the probability of volcanic activity in and around Yucca Mountain is greater than DOE believes and could have a significant impact on the lieensability of Yucca Mountain as a repository.

The Agency has been fortunate that, because of funding restraints, Clark County has recently been able to fund Dr. Smith's work and is willing to do so for the near future.

Corrosioit Strrdies

The Agency began researching the corrosion resistance of the alloy C-22, the proposed material for the waste package, in 1999. Since that time, Agency researchers have discovered that C-22 is not the "miracle metal" that DOE had been touting. Originally, DOE stated that the waste package would last long past any regulatory time frame, in fact, stating times as long as 700,000 years! Because DOE believed that the waste package will last so long, they are not avorricd that the moi~nrainitself provides little, if any, performance for the repository.

Once the Agency researchers began evaluating this alloy, they quickly realized that this metal had never been used in any similar type of environment that would be found in a repository at Yucca Ivlountain. The Agency researchers took a different approach than DOE in evaluating

Report of the Kevnfln Coirln~ission December 2006 on ~VrrclearProjects 26 Department does not expect until at least 201 I, there is no need or basis for the withdrawal.

Tlie bill's provisions allowing for significant infrastmchire improvements and constn~ctionprior to NRC construction authorization are also premature and imprudent

Granting DOE fill1 access to the Nuclear Waste Fund is not only imprudent, but it would not have been the solution to the problems that the program has inflicted on itself historically and are beyond the scope of thc anticipated and potential problems that the bill seeks to sweep aside.

Throughout its history, the inability of the DOE Yucca Mountain program to implement a satisfactory quality assurance program has been chronicled by the General Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office) and the NRC, yet to date the problems persist, leaving DOE with a wholly inadequate and unreliable QA program.

The testimony concluded that none of the provisions of S. 2589 are needed by the Department of Energy to cany out the primary task at hand - to prepare a complete, high quality license application and submit it to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review and hearing. It noted that the bill gathers the powers of numerous federal and state agencies, local authorities, and Indian tribes into the hands of the Department of Energy, probably the most distrusted federal agency in the human health and environmental arena, and it boldly does this for the sole purpose of atrempting to force a faltering Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository into becoming a reality.

4 major focus of Agcncy activity during 2005 and 2006 has been assuring that the State is adequately prepared to participate effectively and successfully in any NRC Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding that may occur. As noted above, DOE has established June 2008 as its newest deadline for submitting a license application to the WRC. While there are serious impediments to achieving that milesto~ie- not the least of which is being able to complete the required licensing infomation database that is a key prerequisite for license submittal, the Agency beliex~esDOE will do everything in its power to submit the license application in 2008 bcforc the current Administration leaves office. As a result, the Agency has been working diligently to prepare the State's licensing plan and assure that all necessary work is aecomplislied in a time frame adequate to support a rigorous, substantive, and effective intervention strategy.

As noted above, the licensing process is an extremely complex one, both legally and technically. The efibrt on the part of the Agency to effectively engage in the NRC licensing

Report of the n'evada Conznzission December 2006 on .Vr~clearProjects 3 1 arena and adequately protect Nevaaa's interests is likely to be the most complcx and costly activity in which the Agency has engaged to date.

To carry o~iiits responsibilities in this regard, the Agency has assembled a first-rate tcam of legal and technical experts with experience and expertise in the highly specialized NRC legal, revlatory and adjudicatory arenas and in critical scientific and technical discipiincs directly related to key areas of sitelwaste isolatio~isystem performance and overall Yucca Mountain licensability.

During the past two ycars, the State's legal team has been heavily engaged with the NRC's Pre-Licensing Applicatioil Presiding Officer (PAPO) Board in defining the policies and procedures that u-ould goyem any actual licensing proceeding. In addition, Agency staff, assisted and guided by the legal team, has been incrementally assembling documents and materials for loading on the YRC's licensing support network information database, a task that is both costly and extremely labor intensive."

One of the most important - and frustrating - areas of the State's pre-licensing activities has bcen gaining access to current infomlation and technical materials on the Yucca Mountain repository facility and system design bcing proposcd for licensing and on DOE'S key performance models and related infonnation essential for licensing. DOE has, to dare, refused to provide information on the current repository design and models used to assess repository system performance (i.e.. waste isolation capabilities) and has rebuffed State efforts to obtain a copy of the draft license application, even tho~ighthat document has been shared with others.

The Agency has also been engaged in a sustained and concerted research efhto address key technical and scientific issues that are expected to be important to the State's licensing intervention. To that end. the Agency has engaged nationally and internationally recognized scientists and experts in fields of hydrology. geochemistry, volcanism;scismicity~and health physics. These scientists are working closely with the State licensing team, compiling data from over two decades of Agency-sponsored research on the Yucca Mountain site, carrying out new research and preparing scientific reports and papers to be published in peer-reviewed journals - work that will support the State's contentions in any licensing proceeding. They kvill also be available as expert witnesses during any future licensing proceeding.

I? Tile Stare dhevida. as z participiliil in the liccnsina process, is also i-eqiriied to hwe all nithe docnmenls and rnatenais ir will rely on in iicensins loaded into lhc KRC neb-base iniomiition system. In addition, NllC =!so requires the Svate and other ~anicianntslo inciiide in the database Aeencv materials that DOE or other licensine oanies michi be ieasonvbiv

Report of the Nevada Commission on Ni~clearProjects 32 DOE

EX. B IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT a STATE OF NEVADA, 1 1 Petitioner, 1 1 v. 1 Case No. 04-1082 1 SPENCER ABRAHAM, in his official 1 capacity as, SECRETRY OF ENERGY, and ) the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) ENERGY, 1 1 Respondents. 1

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT R. LOUX

I, ROBERT R. LOUX, do hereby swear that the following matters are true and correct

based on my personal knowledge:

1. I am the Executive Director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects a ("Agency"), the Agency vested by state law to carry out all of the duties and responsibilities

imposed on the State of Nevada ("State"), by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act ('WUIPA"), as

amended. 42 U.S.C. 10101, et seq. I have been the Executive Director of the Agency since

2. The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE) has repeatedly insisted it will submit its

application to the NRC for a construction authorization in December 2004. However in June

2004, DOE must certify to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") that the

documentary material on which its application will he based is available in an NRC-approved

electronic form in a "Licensing Support Network." ("LSN"). The LSh' database will be used as

the essential reference source for all technical documents used in DOE'S application and in the h%C proceedings. The 'N7iC contemplates that the licensing proceedings will involve few

hardcopies of documents; all the documentary evidence for the licensing proceeding will be

drawn from the LSN and used in electronic form. DOE represented to the NRC in Febmry of

this year that it will be attempting to certify to the LSN between three and four million

documents totaling bem~een27.5 and 36.5 million pages. When DOE makes this certification in

June, Nevada must be prepared to review the totality of DOE's submission in order to participate

inNRC7sreview of the completeness of DOE'S certification.

3. At the same time, Nevada must do the necessary preparation to submit its own

documents to the LSN and to certify the completeness of its submission to the hXC by

September. In essence, this means that by September Nevada will have had to marshal all the

Nevada documentary evidence on which it might rely to challenge the premises of DOE's

application and to advance its affmative case, and then convert that material-smaller than

DOE's likely submission, but still involving thousands of pages of documents-into the

0 electronic format mandated for the LSN. If Nevada fails to certify that this submission is

complete, that is, that it covers the universe of Nevada documents to be used in the licensing

proceeding, it is my understanding that Nevada may be forever foreclosed from participating as a

party in the those proceedings. By this summer, then, Nevada must make at least a preliminary

evaluation of the likely premises of DOE's as-yet-unfiled application, the flaws in DOE's

analyses, and the premises of Nevada's own affiative case.

4. When DOE files its application in December, NRC will review that submission

for completeness. Even though the application will primarily include summaries of scientific

data and analyses, it will still be over 10,000 pages long. The details will be in the scientific

references, drawn &om the tens of miIlions of pages of DOE and other documents in the LSN. Tne he^ of DOE's applicarion wtll be the so-called total. systems performance assessment

("TSPA") of how the reposirory will perform. The TSPA involves over 5,000 parameters and

7,000 mathematical models. Existing versions available to Nevada are so complicated and the

uncertainties in parameters and models are so large that each 111 calculation (a computer run or

"simulation") must be run some 300 times in order for the statistical significance of the results to

be evaluated.

5. Once the completeness determination is made, NRC will formally docket DOE'S

application and issue the notice of hearing required by the NRC's rules. I understand Nevada

will then have only 30 days to complete a detailed review of the entire application, and all of the

supporting materids, and provide NRC with a specific statement of every issue it wishes to raise

in the licensing hearing (contentions), together with specification of every source it intends to

rely upon in sufficient detail to convince h%C there is a genuine issue for a hearing. I 0 understand if a contention fails to meet hXC's extremely stringent pleading requirements, there it will be no discovery, evidentiary hearing, or adjudicatory decision on the issue. Moreover, it is

my further understanding hTC will not admit a contention conditionally, subject to discovery to

provide ali of the necessary technical support. Thus, hRC's rules impose perhaps the geatest

litigation burden on Nevada in the initial stage of the proceeding, before a single bit of discovery

is conducred and before a single witness is identified.

6. It will be impossibIe for Nevada to meet NRC's initial pleading requirements (and

complete the prerequisite detailed review of DOE'S application and scientific references) in 30

days after the notice of hearing (or, even assuming NRC takes 90 days to do its completeness

review, 120 days after DOE tenders its allegedly-complete application to NRC). Therefore,

Nevada must now continue to fund its scientific experts, retain new ones, begin its review of the LSN material and what its experts believe will be included in DOE's application, as well as initiate the process of drafting "contentions" that will satisfy NRC's rules.

7. Nevada plans contentions in the areas of climatology, infiltration, waste package corrosion, radionuclide transport, hydrology, geology, geophysics, geochemistry, seismicity, volcanism, biosphere uptake, transportation impacts. quality assurance, expert elicitation, probabilistic risk assessment, uncertainty analysis. and radionuclide sorption, to name a few.

Nevada has engaged 25 renowned experts from around the world to assist with the essential studies from which these contentions will be drawn, and it needs to be able to pay them for their work. Their work will be of vital importance to he scientists and engineers ar the NRC in their evaluation of DOE's application and representations that this repository will be safe. This work, which is essential to preserve and protect Nevada's right to participate in the hXC licensing hearing, will cost substantially in excess of the limited funds ($1 million) DOE has made available this year. The budget proposed by Nevada ($5 million) would barely be adequate tc support this work now, and substantially more funds than what will be required annually for at least four years thereafter.

8. Nevada's proposed budget includes the following, all of which are identified as key technical safety issues by the hRC:

(a) $2,000,000 for scientific evaluation of DOE's proposed engineered barrier

system, including scientific studies of corrosion of the Alloy-22 high-level radioactive

waste package and Titanium-7 drip shield which DOE currently claim will not corrode

and fail for ten-thousand years despite the presence of corrosion agents in the waste

emplacement tunnels. @) $700,000 for scientific evaluations of the probability and effects of

volcanic eruptions in Yucca Mountain.

(c) $300,000 for general scientific review of other key technical issues

including especially investigations of Yucca Mountain geology.

(d) $1,000,000 for independent scientific evaluation of DOE'S TSPA,

including especially levels of uncertaimy in the DOE mathematical models of repository

performance, the abstractions of those models used in the TSPA, and the thousands of

different parameters that serve as inputs to the calculations. Currently, TSPA

calculations produce results that can differ by as much as a factor of one million,

depending on the choice of models and parameters.

(e) $1~000;000for licensing preparation, including preparation for LSN

certification and drafting of contentions for submission to rhe mC.

9. If Nevada were forced to assume that no more than $1 million would be available

this year, its ongoing scientific research on issues (a) hughid) above would need to be

stopped or cut to the bone. For example, scientific studies of the corrosion implications of the

interaction among the Alloy-22 waste package, the Titanium-7 drip shield, and the steel mesh

tumel lining (used to prevent rock-fall) would need to be abandoned. Also; Nevada would be

unable to conduct its own drilling into aeromagnetic anomalies in the vicinity of Yucca

Mountain. This drilling enables researchers to estimate the probability of a volcanic eruption.

Drilling into anomalies not selected by DOE for its own drilling program is important because the estimated probability of an eruption may depend on which anomalies are selected for drilling

Another example of work that would need to be abandoned is drilling into to ground south of the reposito~yto obtain data needed to model flox~of radioactive waste from the unsafuraied to the samated zone. Data about flow in the alluvium iii the saturated zone would be especially useful because the data obtained by DOE so far is very limited.

10. If Nevada were forced to assume that no more than id1 million would be available this year, Nevada would need to focus almost exclusively on item (e) in paragraph 8 above to avoid being shut out of the RXC proceeding at its very outset for failure to give NRC an adequate LSN certification or file adequately supported contentions. This would be a tragedy, for scientific data from sources other than those sponsored by DOE is already scarce. Moreover,

Nevada would also be forced to limit severely its pre-application review of DOE documents, with the certain resuit thal important safety issues will never be taken up in the hearing because

Nevada was unable to meet ARC'S stringent pleading requirements.

!1. The $5 h4illion requested by Nevada this year is only about one per-cent of

DOE'S annual Yucca Momrain's budget. Since 1983, when DOE funding of Nevada began,

Nevada has received approxiniate!?; $78 Million. Thus the $5 Million currently requested is not out of proportion to historical funding levels. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

I , ROBERT R. LO

STATE OF NEVADA 5 § COUNTYOF avso- 4qy / SUBSCRIBED Ah9 SWORN to before me, a Notary Public for the State of Nevada, appeared ROBERT R. LOUX and set his hand to the above document on this / 9+& day of

March 2004.

My Commission Expires:

[/un i $00~~ DOE

EX. C Statement of Joseph R. Egan

Before the House Subcommittee On the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization

"Yucca 12.lountuin Project: Have Federal Etnployees Falsified Documents?"

April 5, 2005

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today on this important national issue. My name is Joe Egan. 1 am a nuclear engineer and an attorney specializing in nuclear safety and environmental litigation. My Tysons Comer fxm, Egan Fitzpatriek Malsch & Cynkar, PLLC,has handled a wide variety of nuclear cases over the past decade, including several involving the Department of Energy complex. I have been asked to address two specific issues related to your investigation of falsified documents at DOE'S proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. One is quality assurance, and the other involves DOE's ongoing efforts to suppress information about the misdeeds of its Yucca contractors and the geologic inadequacy of the Yucca site.

Introduction

On September 11, 2001, Nevada's Attorney General appointed me Special Deputy Attorney General to assist the Governor's Office and Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects in litigation and NRC licensing proceedings involving Yucca. I worked with those offices to assemble a small, world-cfass team of highly experienced nuclear and environmental attorneys and independent scientific experts to undertake this task. Our team has been performing a thorough evaluation of the scientific and legal integrity of the work done by DOE and its contractors at Yucca, and we have filed several lawsuits challenging that work.

One of those suits does not directly involve Nevada, though the State is closely following it. It is a class-action suit brought by private attorneys, including my firm, on behalf of the workers at Yucca who drilled five miles of tunnels into the silica-laden rock there without mandatory respiratory protection. It relies on the testimony of experienced industrial hygienists that DOE's contractors falsified air quality and health and safety records at the project to save time and money on drilling, leading to gross and dangerous overexposures to toxic dust. So document falsification is not a new issue at Yucca.

Approximately a year into our review of the technical record for the project, I opined publicly that there would never be an ounce of nuclear waste buried at Yucca Mountain. 1 strongly maintain that view today. Indeed, in light of problems now emerging at a dizzying pace, epitomized by those your subcommittee is investigating, I believe it is quite possible, if not probable, that an application for a construction permit for the Yucca project will never even be docketed by the NRC, let alone granted. The project appears poised to sink on the character and fitness of DOE to be an NRC licensee, and on the profoundly defective quality and inaccuracy of the records and scientific analyses supporting DOE's technical work. It is of vital importance to Nevadans and the nation as a whole that these records and analyses not be suppressed or hidden by DOE.

The Forced Disclosure of DOE's Emails

Last June. DOE purported to certify to NRC that all of its relevant documents concerning the Yucca project - some 2.1 million - had been made publicly available on an electronic database called the Licensing Support Network, or LSN. We challenged that certification before an NRC Licensing Board, arguing that DOE had improperly withheld at least six million documents, including roughly four million emails it had misleadingly called "archival" emails. DOE tried to create the impression in its certification that these emails were so old as to no longer be relevant to the project. On examination by the Licensing Board, however, it was learned that these emaiis were not archival at all. but extei~dcdthrough at least the year 2002 or 2003. The Licensing Board apedwith us that DOE had not shown good faith, and that emails often offer the most candid, unvarnished assessment of the facts,

On August 3 1 of last year, NRC's Licensing Board granted our request to strike DOE's document certification on three independent grounds. Among other things, the Board required DOE to produce all of its "archival" emails and perhaps millions of additional withheld records. It is only because of our motion to strike and the Board's inquiry that the emails that are the subject of this hearing came to light. The Board's order forced DOE'S ourside attomeys to have to review these emails for various privileges that might apply. I commend those attomeys, Hunton & Williams, for advising Secretary Bodman to disclose publicly that some of the emails evidenced falsified scientific data by the government's own scientists. It hears noting, however, that DOE really had no option but to disclose this information, since the emails were about to be forced into the public domain under compulsion of the Board's order.

It will be troub1in.r. to say the least: if your investigation reveals that DOE's Yucca managers knew of the falsifications for years prior to this forced disclosure, and long prior to having declared the Yucca site "suitable" and recommending it to President Bush and the Congress. The discovery of document falsification by anyone at Yucca should immediately have been brought to project superiors and been fully investigated. Such conduct should immediately have raised issues of whether DOE'S contractors may or should have been subject to debarment under federal contracting laws, whether they may or should have been liable for treble damages under the False Claims Act, whether bonuses should have been withheld, whether other civil or criminal statutes were implicated, and whether DOE itself, if indeed it tolerated such conduct, possesses the character and fitness to be an NRC licensee under NRC's regulations that will now, for the first time ever, be applicable to DOE. Additional 'Troublino Ernails

Since Secretary Bodman's disclosure, we have been combing DOE's electronic database for additional evidence of document falsification. We have already located additional emails that do evidence such falsification, as well as DOE's knowledge of gross deficiencies in the quality and accuracy of the records supporting DOE's scientific analyses of Yucca Mountain. Some ofthese cmails, which appear to be only the tip of thc iceberg: are attached as exhibits to my prepared statement. Additional emails are posted on Nevada's Nuclear Projects Off~cewebsite at htto:~iwwur.can~vin.ore/LSN!. When coupled with the emails DOE has recently released to your subcommittee, what thc documents appear to show is a project so amiss? and so tremendously adrift from what NRC's quality assurance rules require, that it is almost impossible to imagine that DOE could any longer establish the basic prerequisites to even complete its license application, let alone survive four years of NRC litigation over it.

Consider what the few e-mails available to us before DOE's recent disclosures show. They show current project management (BechteVSAIC) directing its quality assurance personnel not to use the word "violated" in their audit reports ("noncompliant," a less disturbing term, was preferred) (Exhibit 1); project perso~lneladopting the position that NRC should be given "minimum information" (Exhibit 2); project personnel afraid to call whole programs deficient because fixing them would be too expensive (Exhibit 3); secret communications that question whether critical representations to the NRC about safety priorities are correct (Exhibit 4); efforts to "keep some people in blissful ignorance" about technical problems (Exhibit 5); an assumption that the proof "that will -get us through the regulatory hoops" need not be "rigorous" (Exhibit 6); a program that carefully manipulates statistics to assure that the results are always "in the right placen(Exhibit 7); a program where scientific instruments are documented as properly calibrated beforc they are even received, much less calibrated (Exhibit 8); a project where discord and distrust are so rampant that senior officials are called "swindlers." "certifiable jerks," and worse, and the management of the principal contractor is called "craven and ignorant" (Exhibit 9). They evidence a project where dramatic and unexpected information ("Water Water Everywhere") apparently gives DOE "ulcers" but not enough discomfort to delay a scientific report to Congress so the new information can be included (Exhibit 10). To be sure, there are some good people that tried to do the right thing. For example, DOE quality assurance reviews in August of 2000 concluded that there was "evidence of major flaws in the approach taken towards implementation of an effective Quality Assurance Program," and "the wrong culture of the individuals involved (Exhibit 11). 4s one documentation manager complained, "I don't know how to fight lies and misinformation, and no one seems to care about the truth, or even making sure the right people are doing the right stuff'(Exhibit 12). But who at DOE listens'?

NRC's quality assurance rules are designed to ensure that all technical findings in a license application are supported by a proper and believable document pedigree. For example, it is not enough for DOE simply to claim that the infiltration rate of water through Yucca's rock is value X. DOE must also be able to show that the instruments used to measure the parameters necessary to calculate X were approved instruments that DOE

EX. D BEFORE THE U.S. NUCLEAR FSGULATORY COMMISSION

) Petition by the State of Nevada Under 1 Atomic Energy Act Section 274i and ) 10 C.F.R. 5 63.63 for Financial Assistance 1 Docket No. in the Licensing Review of the Yucca 1 Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository 1

I. Introduction

The hWAcontains elaborate provisions to ensure meaningful participation by Nevada

in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program and in the Nuclear Regulatory

commission ("NRC") licensing proceeding for the repository. The NWPA describes state

participation as "essential to promote public confidence" in the repository. 42 U.S.C. 0 5 1013 1(a)(6)(emphasis added). A major purpose of the NWPA is thus to "define the relationship between the Federal Government and the State" with respect to nuclear waste

disposal. 42 U.S.C. 5 1013l(b)(3). NWPA Section 117(a) prescribes participation by Nevada

not only in site characterization activities, but also in review of "development, design,

licensing, construction, operation, regulation . . . [and] decommissioning" of the repository. 42

Equally important, it was the judgment of Congress, as set out in the MA,that the

costs of nuclear waste disposal "should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of

such waste." 42 U.S.C. $ 1013I(a)(4). Congress provided that "the costs of carrying out

activities related to the disposal of such waste and spent fuel will be borne by the persons

responsible for generating such waste and spent fuel." 42 U.S.C. §10131(b)(4). NWPA

Section 116(~)(4)(A)(iii)indicates that the federal funding for Nevada provided under the I\%TL4 will end, with limited exceptions, only "[alt the end of the 2-year period beginning on @ the effective date of any /NRCJ license to receive and possess for a repository" in Ne~ada.

This clearly indicates Congress' intent that Nevada's health, safety, and environmental review

and oversight activities should be funded up to and through the duration of the NRC's licensing

proceeding.

The host State is not an "intervenor" in the Yucca licensing process, allowed in as a

party only after satisfying NRC requirements, but is statutorily entitled to "rights of

participation and consultation." 42 U.S.C. 5 10121@). h32C has already provided that "[tlhe

State may participate in license reviews" for Yucca, and that Nevada will be a party to such

reviews. 10 C.F.R. 9 63.63(a). The NWPA provides that host States "should he entitled to the

broadest possible rights and opportunities to participate in the development of the [repository]

facilities." Nevada v. Herrington, 777 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting S. Rep. No. 282, 97th

Cong., 1st Sess. 28 (1981) (final conference committee). So funding of Nevada is not fimding

of an "inten~enor."

The Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding is widely anticipated to he the most

complex, extensive, and controversial proceeding in NRC's history. DOE has recently

announced that its Yucca Mountain application will be supported by approximately three to

four million documents comprising 27.5 to 36.5 million pages. Nevada has not had an

opportunity to review over 99 percent of those documents, including the key performance

models developed by DOE to support the Yucca Mountain application and the safety of the

repository.

The Yucca hearing will last between three to four years, which will likely necessitate

NRC's convening multiple Hearing Boards in several locations to hear the various Yucca

Mountain-related contentions raised by Nevada and other parties to the proceeding, which are expected to be numerous. Moreover, because this time period is short by historical licensing standards, NRC is requiring that parties to the proceeding employ unprecedented electronic techniques to manage and make available documents. Indeed, the proceeding will be the f~st

"all-elech-onic" proceeding to occur in this country.

Under NRC's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, which will be applicable to the Yucca

Mountain licensing proceeding, Nevada may participate effectively only by submitting formal and technically competent contentions. Only if these contentions are admitted may Nevada have them considered in the licensing hearing. To be admitted for purposes of the hearing, contentions must he submitted at the outset of the proceeding and must set forth Nevada's case on each issue with particularity. Contentions must include available and relevant alleged facts, data, analyses, and expert opinion and must indicate all alleged law violations. In accordance with DOE'S putative schedule, Nevada's health, safety, and environmental contentions must be final in FY2005, and to that end, substantial resources are needed by Nevada now in order to meet its obligations.

11. Authoritv for Nevada's Application to NRC for Financial Assistance

The Atomic Energy Act ("AEA") is made applicable to the Yucca licensing proceeding by virtue of WASections 114(d) and 121@). The AEA provides, in Section 2741, broad authority for NRC to enter into assistance agreements with any State impacted by nuclear activities:

The Commission in carrying out its licensing and regulatory responsibilities under this Act [AEA] is authorized to enter into agreements with any State, or group of States, to ... provide training ... and such other assistance ... as the Commission deems uppi'opi'iute.

(emphasis added.) As is noted below, NRC issued a NLJREG report in 1979 strongly supporting the notion of assisting host States in repository licensing and has continued to maintain this expansive view of what is "appropriate" in a repository licensing proceeding

since that time. Notably, Commission authority to provide assistance under AEA Section 274i

is not limited by any language that can be found in NRC's Yucca Mountain licensing rule, 10

C.F.R. Part 63, or elsewhere in hW's regulations. Likewise, NRC does not cite AEA Section

274i as authority for promulgation of Part 63 in its notice of final rulemaking, so nothing in

Part 63 should be construed to limit application by NRC of AEA Section 2741.

Indeed, the Yucca licensing rule, at 10 C.F.R. rj 63.63, contains independent provisions

entitling Nevada to fmancial assistance. Subsection (b) provides:

[A] State ... may submit a proposal to the WC]Director to facilitate its participation in the review of the license application. The proposal may be submitted at any time and must contain a description and schedule of how the State .,. wishes to participate in the review, or what services or activities the State ... wishes the NRC to carry out, and how the services or activities proposed to be carried out by the h%C would contribute to this participation. a Section 63.63(c) commits h'RC to meet with the State to discuss any such proposal with a view to "identifjmg any modifications that may contribute to the effective participation by such

state...." Section 63.63(d) then sets out criteria to be used by NRC in evaluating a State's

funding requests. This subsection provides that, "[sjnbject to the availability of fimds," NRC

shall approve an assistance request if:

(1) The proposed activities are suitable in light of the type and magnitude of impacts that the State ... may bear; and

(2) The proposed activities-

(i) Will enhance communications between NRC and the State ...

(ii) Will make a productive and timely contribution to the review; and

(iii) Are authorized by law. Finally, 10 CFR 5 63.63 (e) provides that NRC shall advise the State of its response to the

State's request, including a statement of reasons for denial of all or any part of the request, and

that hXC shall make all proposals and responses available to the public.

From the inception of the nation's repository program and the agency's initial

repository licensing regime, NRC has recognized that any viable licensing proceeding will

require the well-funded participation by the host State. As early as 1979, in Meansfor

Improving State Participation in the Siting, Licensing, and Development ofFederal Nuclear

Waste Facilities, NRC concluded that "the informed participation of the [host] States is likely

to assist the Federal licensing process by providing valuable insights, particularly as to

environmental concerns, and by bringing factual and policy issues into sharper focus."

NCJREG-0539, March 1979, at 20. NRC thus encouraged and approved of federal funding for

host States, noting that "Federal grants may be particularly appropriate in view of the

uncertainties and technological complexities associated with geologic disposal which may be

beyond the existing review capability of most (if not all) States." Id. at 21. Given that Yucca

Mountain is the nation's first, and perhaps the only, repository ever to seek construction

authorization, these considerations appear all the more true today.

111. Whv NRC Should Assist Nevada

There are compelling practical and public policy reasons why NRC should provide

Nevada with financial assistance for its participation in the Yucca Mountain licensing

proceeding. Certainly, Nevada's request satisfies each and every prerequisite for funding set

forth in Section 63.63.

DOE has spent hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars developing its Yucca

Mountain license application, which it insists will be submitted to NRC by December 2004. In

March 2004, DOE announced it had entered into a contract with Hunton & Williams, a large Richmond, Virginia !aw firm, ~aluedat between $45 to $63 million just for the outside attorneys who will represent DOE before NRC for this proceeding. This extraordinary sum does not include the plethora of techmcal and scientific experts that DOE is separately funding.

Moreover, if NRC Staff recommends approval of the repositorp for a construction authorization, then h'RC Staff, including NRC's Staff attorneys, will likewise be arrayed in favor of the repository. Further bolstering this phalanx of attorneys and experts will likely be the staff, consultants, and attorneys for the Nuclear Energy Institute and the National

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, whch collectively plan to spend millions of dollars defending DOE's application as putative intervenors in the proceeding.

Against this unprecedented army of federal, state, and industry advocates for the repository, Nevada will be the only party separate from the NRC credibly positioned to advocate agai~~stproceeding with the project in the interests of health, safety, and the environment. Though several public interest goups intend to participate, they lack the resolxces to meaningfully penetrate DOE's technical analyses, its computer models, and its underlying basic scientific research. Indeed, without financial assistance, even Nevada may be unable to do so; and the licensing will have the public perception of a rubber stamp for DOE.

Much of DOE's license application and the work of DOE'S experts rvill be embedded in an exceedingly complex "Total System Perfomance Assessment" ("TSPA") of tbe repository.

NRC has developed its own complex model ("TPO simply to assess the viability and accuracy of DOE's model. Accordingly, to participate meaningfully, Nevada has engaged 25 outside experts and several outside nuclear regulatory attorneys to dissect DOE's and me's repository performance models and to evaluate the underlying scientific, technical, and legal foundations and inputs used to construct and implement the models. Nevada's goal, and its obligation under both its State Constitution and the NWA, is to thoroughly and independently evaluate the work of DOE and NRC Staff, so as to make a vital conmbution to the proceeding and support a credible health, safety, and environmental baseline for the project. Nevada's participation will ensure public confidence in the proceeding and will all but guarantee that importaut technical and scientific questions about and controversies concerning the adequacy of the repository do not go unanswered before the Commission on what is likely the nation's most environmentally significant project ever.

A list ofNevada's world-class experts is attached (Attachment No. I), together with a

Iis~of the attorneys assisting Pievada (Attachment No. 2). Nevada needs and expects to retain several additionai experts and attorneys for the Yucca proceeding in the months ahead.

Without financial assistance for Nevada, the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding will be seriously compromised by Nevada's inability to participate meaningfully and by the lopsided nature of the parties and their respective resources.

1. Nevada's Lawsuit Over Fundine bv DOE, and Reimbursement of ATC Funds

DOE has recently refused to fmd Nevada's participation out of the Congressionally created Nuclear Waste Fund, though it is required to do so by law. Indeed, DOE appears to have adopred a litigation straregy of anempting to stanre Nevada of critical resources so as to reduce the State's oppoltunirp for substantive study and review of DOE's work. DOE has thus opportunistically taken the position that it may not fund Nevada over and above the specific

Congressionally appropnated amount for this or any future fiscal year, though it currently funds its own lawyers ($12 million for the last 9 months of this calendar year) with funds from the general Congressional appropriation for Yucca Mountain, and though DOE's own Office of

General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer have formally determined that Nevada's grants from the Nuclear Waste Fund cannot be limited by a specifically appropriated grant. e Accordingly, Kevada filed suit March 17,2004 against DOE in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Case No. 04-1082, a copy of which is attached (Attachment No. 3). Because

time is of the essence in funding Nevada's activities, Nevada also filed a motion to expedite

consideration of its petition, a copy of which is also attached (Attachment No. 4).

In view of DOE'S stonewalling, Nevada has elected to file this petition for fmancial

assistance to hXC pursuant to Atomic Energy Act Section 274i and Section 63.63 of NRC's

rules. Nevada does not seek duplicative funding, however. Rather, Nevada seeks NRC funds

for those activities outlined below, all expenditures of which would be subject to NRC audit,

and it commits to reimburse NRC with DOE funds in the event DOE is ordered by the Court of

Appeals to fund Sevada's activities over and above the itemized appropriation for this and

future fiscal years. e V. Description of How Nevada Wishes to Participate in the Review (63.63(bu A. Document Storage and Retrieval System ("DSRS")/l;icensing Support Network ("LSX")

In order to participate competently in the licensing proceeding, Nevada will be required

to have ready access to literally millions of documents, including documents to be relied upon

by DOE, NRC, Nevada itself, and every other party and intervenor to the proceeding. NRC

regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J, provide for the use of an electronic information

management system, the "Licensing Support Network," in the licensing proceeding. The LSN

required by Subpart J has the following functions:

1. To provide full-text search and retrieval access to the relevant documents of all

parties and potential parties to the HLW repository licensing proceeding

beginning in the time period before the DOE license application ("LA") for the

repository is submitted; 2. To provide for electronic submission of filings by the parties, as well as the

orders and decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB) panel,

during the proceeding; and

3. To provide access ro an electronic version of the HLW repository licensing

proceeding docket.

NRC has published a lengthy set of LSN "guidelines" covering aspects such as

hardware and softvrare configuration; file format, search and retrieval strategies, the handling

of various categories of documents from simple to complex to outright "large," such as the

"eargantnan LA itself with supporting materials.

DOE alone has reported its intention to include 30 million pages of documents, or more,

on its LSN database. The database, its creation, and utilization are all subject to complex and

detailed regulations and demand an extremely sophisticated level of computer expertise.

By definition, the documentary material required to be incorporated in the LSN

database by each party includes every single page of material upon which that party may wish

to rely or which that party may cite in support of its position in the licensing proceeding. At the

time of the licensing hearing, Nevada's docunlentary support personnel will be required to have

the ability of almost instantaneous retrieval of documents from a universe of millions, for

immediate use by counsel in hearing at what may be more than one ASLB panel at one time, in

two or more different geographic locations. The preparation and loading of Nevada's LSN

database, and subsequent retrieval of documents thereeom (and the ability to do so from all

other parties' LSN databases), will require Nevada to engage additional staff with specialized

knowledge spending thousands of hours of time and effort. As a lead-in to its LSN database

input, Nex-ada has established a Document Storage and Retrieval System, which is already 0 accumulating documents which will eventually become part of the LSN database, and in addition; providing ihe support necessary for Nevada's world-class team of experts to accumulate reference materials prerequisite to their work ($500,000').

B. Technical and Scientific Participation:

1. Climatology

Kevada will examine the approach taken by DOE to characterizing the future climate over the Yucca Mounta~nregon over timescales ranging from 100 years to one million years after the present time.

This will include understanding DOE identification and application of:

I palaeoclimate proxies, especially the Devils Hole chronology and Owens Lake

ostracode series, both relevant to the Yucca Mountain region;

. Milankovitch cycles and orbital forcing parameters;

a Climate model simulations of past, present and future climates;

E 0bsen.ational data including the selection of analogue sites; and,

(I Experc elicitation techniques.

DOE has comlissioned a large body of research into climate change for the Yucca

Mcuntain region. Although only a small proportion of this has been used in Performance

Assessments, Kevada needs to identify and understand the full body of research. Methods to

be investigated include those used to:

e identi@ future climate states;

o characterize the climate over the Yucca Mountain region during each climate

state;

a generate future climate successions; and

1 Figures in parenthesis at the end of each area of discussion represent Nevada's estimate of the amount of assistance needed and requested from NRC for FY2005.

10 0 represent uncertainty.

An exploration will be made of spatial variability in climate over the region of interest, and whether the methods employed by DOE properly characterize this spatial variability.

Yevada's climatology team will focus on the relationship between actual variability and the potentiaI to characterize this using downscaling techniques based on model and observed data

($400,000).

2. Geology, Volcanism, and Seismicity

Nevada will study issues related to the geology of the Yucca Mountain site, volcanic hazard and consequence, and seismic hazards. Specifically, Nevada will:

* Provide alternative calculations of the probability of volcanic disruption of the

Yucca Mountain repository.

. Evaluate the importance of the buried volcanic centers to probability calculations. The reconition of the buried centers changes volcanic recurrence

rates and the overall size of the volcanic field. If recurrence rates reach 17-

20lmillion years and the numbers of centers increases to 25-30, the Yucca

Mountain area woda prove to be one of the largest ~~olcanicfields in the Basin

and Range.

0 Evaluate alternative petrogenetic models for the evolution of basalt magmas in

the Yucca Mountain that consider the deep melting concept and the presence of

a mantle melting anomaly. If these models are correct; then a new cycle of

volcanic activity is possible in the next 10,000 years.

o Consider the effects on volcanic probability calculations of extending the

compliance period to peak dose (200,000 to 1 million years). o Evaluate the effects of volcanic ash injection into the biosphere, and consider

the effects of ash on short term and long term climate, and radioactive ash

accumulating in soil and dunes in the vicinity of the repository.

Evaluate the effects of a dike or eruption occumng near the repository. This near

miss scenario includes changes in ground water flow paths, rock alteration and

thermal effects related to dike emplacement. Evaluate the mechanics and

probability of fault activation (or re-activation) by dike emplacement.

Evaluate tectonic models for the formation of Crater Flat, Bare Mountain and

Yucca Mountain.

Examine the evidence for Holocene faulting in the Yucca Mountain area.

Assess seismic hazard studies for Yucca Mountain.

Examine extremely large motion, low probability seismic events and questions

created if the compliance period is extended.

Examine smaller motion events with magnitudes up to 7 to 7.5 and their effects

on repository and surface facilities for post- and pre-closure periods.

o Determine the cumulative effects of intermediate ground motions ($500,000).

3. Design, Engineering, Pre-closure Performance, and Criticality

The DOE approach to criticality safety assessment will be carefully reviewed in respect to waste storage on site prior to emplacement, the emplacement process, the period after emplacement during which the repository remains open, and the long-term (to approximately 1 x lo6 years after present) following closure of the repository. For the long-term, particular attention will be given to the possibility of criticality events within the first 1 x lo4 years. e For the waste storage period and emplacement process, particular consideration

will be given to external events, e.g. aircraft impact, seismic shocks and drop

accidents, that have the potential to disrupt storage casks/disposal packages,

taking into account the potential for introduction of moderator either at the time

or subsequently.

For the period after emplacement when the repository remains open,

consideration will be given to external events, e.g. rock fall, and corrosive

penetration of the storage containers. Over this period, it is likely that the

emphasis will be on the potential for in-container criticality.

For the period after closure, while external events will continue to be

considered, the emphasis will be on corrosive penetration of the canisters, the

distribution of water as moderator within and around them, the differential

movement and chemical n~obilizationof neutron poisons and fissile isotopes and

the potential for both in-canister and ex-canister criticality events.

The evaluation will include, but will not be restricted to:

o The conlprehensiveness of the identified classes of criticality events;

o The techniques used to assess the likelihood or frequency of the various

classes of events, including evaluation of fault and event tree approaches,

and hydrogeochemical modeling;

o The techniques used to define geometrical and compositional

configurations of interest;

o The adequacy of the methods used to determine the kffof those

geometrical and compositional configurations; o The adequacy of the methods used to determine reactivity insertions and

the yield of both brief and protracted criticality events.

0 Nevada will evaluate the implications of criticality events for system

performance, including potential implications for repository operability and

completion during the storage, emplacement and operational phases, and

implications for radiological impact in the post-closure phase (5500,000).

4. Evolution of the Engineered System and Perturbed Near Field

Nevada will continue its in-depth evaluation of the engineered barrier system ('"BS") performance in the subsurface of the proposed repository. It will concentrate on the design of the EBS with respect to the corrosion of its components and the lifetime prediction of its performance within the anticipated in-drift service environments through the regulatory period.

Nevada's corrosion group will focus upon the assessment of the technical basis for

predicting the performance in the near-field, in-drift, and in-package environments. It will be

concerned with a wide range of issues dealing with the complexity of the dynamic. environment

and the associated behavior of the key metallic components within this system. These issues

include, but are not limited to; the metallurgy of the manmade components, heat-to-heat effects

of the materials, geometry of the EBS matenaIs with respect to corrosion, dust, rock fall, the

chemistry of the liquid and vapor phases in the near-field, in-drift, and in-package

environments, the transient temperatures in the environment, neomineralization, rock-water interaction, microbiological effects, corrosion, dissolution, and radiolysis.

Among the specific areas of investigation upon which Nevada will focus, relative to the performance of the EBS are:

8 vadose zone pore waters: variation by rock type, structural feature and

locations; microbial metabolic chemical effects on infiltrating and refluxing waters; waters of infiltration: composition (including trace elements), amount, flux, and variations with climate regime; deposition of evaporation salts in transport pathways; seepage waters: composition, amount and evolution on hot metallic surfaces; dust: amount, mineralogical composition, size distribution, and variation with time; deliquescence: use of binary salt versus ternary and higher component systems; relative humidity: variation with time, location, and temperature; corrosion of EBS: drip shield, canister (C-22 and stainless), canister supports, track, etc.; stability of welds; variations caused by non-unifo~mityof material compositions; types of corrosion for C-22 and welds and for Titanium-7 drip shield (stress corrosion cracking, general corrosion, localized corrosion, and microbially induced corrosion); evolution of evaporitic water and salts on hot metallic surfaces; role of drift wall rock and invert rock in modulating the pH of drift water; radiolysis effects: changes to in-drift water chemishy; thermal effects; composition amounts in evolution of waters entering containers; formation and circulation of acidic vapors; corrosion of internal components; o spacers. cladding, and absorbers;

alteratioddissolution of spent nuclear fuel; and

issues related to near-field, in-drift, and in-package environments if the

regulations were to be extended beyond 10,000 years (S1,800,000).

5. Hydrology, Hydrogeology, and Hydrochemistry

Nevada will focus on the analysis and modeIing of flow processes at Yucca Mountain, specifically net infiltration, unsaturated zone flow and saturated zone flow, together with the use of hydrochemistry in the interpretation of fluxes and travel times.

Net infiltration assessment will include the use of observed and modeled climate data as input to hydrological simulation tools for performance assessment.

Unsaturated zone issues will include flour processes in the natural system, and the effect of the proposed repository on unsaturated flow, including seepage into the drifts, the impacts of heating, and flow paths below the repository to groundwater.

Saturated zone issues will focus on groundwater flow processes and travel times throughout the impacted groundwater system to the biosphere (i.e. not simply the 18km boundary), including potential impacts of volcanic/seismie disturbance.

This team will need to consider effects of climate change, and the representation of uncertainty in the Total System Performance Assessment ("TSPA") and will undertake close coordination of effort and findings with the Radionuclide Transport from Wastes to Biosphere, since the representation of flow processes is central to transport assessments ($800,000).

6. Radionuclide Transport from Waste to Biosphere

Nevada's radionuclide transport group will focus on the key elements for the transport of radionuclides from waste to biosphere, namely:

The release of the radionuclides from the waste forms. o The migration of the radionuclides through the engneered system and the

disturbed zone around the vaults.

The migation of radionuelides though the unsaturated zone:

o Recognizing the close link to and the inputs from the Hydrology team.

The migration of radionuclides though the saturated zone:

o Again recognizing the close link to and the inputs from the Hydrology

team.

Retardation processes, such as sorption and diffusion into the rock matrix, and

also dispersion processes (including issues such as whether, for example,

geochemical information can build confidence in (or undermine) the travel times

of the non-sorbed radionuclides, such as 99Tc, and sorbed radionuclides, such as

237Np).

Key questions to be considered include:

Whether the data adopted by DOE are justified - including sorption data and

data on leaching from the waste. There are two separate threads to this question:

o Whether the data utilized by DOE are relevant and based on defensible

experiments.

o Whether the parameters used in the models are based on suitable data.

Whether the treatments of uncertainties and variabilities are justified.

Whether the conceptual models are justified and whether there are viable

alternative conceptual models that have not been considered.

Whether any features, events, or processes have been forgotten or neglected.

o Whether DOE'S view of system evolution is justified. 0 Whether DOE'S mathematical models can be relied upon with confidence.

0 Whether DOE'S numerical models are reasonable representations of the

mathematical models.

Whether DOE has extrapolated anything unreasonably.

Whether DOE has upscaled anything unreasonably.

Whether DOE has simplified the models reasonably in the PA.

Whether DOE'S understanding of radionuclide transport is reasonable and

correct.

It is important to an understanding of radionuclide transport to recognize that transport in the saturated zone has been studied widely in a number of contexts, whereas transport in the unsaturated zone is a far less well-understood system, particularly over the length scales relevant to Yucca Mountain ($500,000).

7. Site Description and Biosphere Modeling

The characteristics of the biosphere to be used in post-closure radiological performance assessments of the proposed radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain are strongly constrained by the rules promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and

PI'RC. Themain emphasis of the review will be on whether DOE has undertaken a comprehensive and appropriate biosphere assessment within the context of the rules and in the light of international practice in this area. This review will include, but will not be restricted to:

The comprehensiveness of the underlying FEP (Features, Events and Processes)

analysis, including consideration of whether all relevant FEPs have been

identified and characterized at a suitable level of detail, whether interactions

between FEPs have been analyzed using an appropriately structured

methodology, and whether screening of FEPs has been appropriately undertaken, both in respect of the first 1 x lo4 years after repository closure and

in the longer term, to the time of peak dose (around 2 x lo5 to 1 x lo6 years after

repository closure);

The adequacy of the conceptual model of the biosphere adopted by DOE,

including consideration of whether all relevant exposure pathways have been

included and taking potential environmental change into account;

The appropriateness of DOE'S assumptions concerning human habits and

behavior that have been adopted (bearing in mind the constraints imposed by the

EPA and NRC rules);

The adequacy of DOE'S implementation of the conceptual model as a

mathematical model;

The adequacy of the database of parameter values used in conjunction with that

model, including consideration of the degree to which those data values are

founded on comprehensive reviews of the available literature or the deployment

of expert judgment; e Whether there are deficiencies in the approach and data that could have properly

been reduced or eliminated by field or experimental studies, if those had been

undertaken in a timely manner and in cognizance of the state of the science at

the time that those studies would have to have been undertaken; and

Whether results obtained from the model have been reported in a way that is

suitable for use in radiological performance assessments, revealing clearly the

issues arising that are relevant to safety (S400,OOO). 8. Overall Performance Assessment Issues and TSPA Support

Nevada will undertake the examination of Overall Performance Assessment Issues and

TSPA Support, including:

Review of the overall scope of the post-closure radiological performance

assessment submitted by DOE in respect of Yucca Mountain to determine

whether there are deficiencies with respect to comprehensiveness and adequacy

of argument; and

Evaluation of whether the post-closure radiological performance assessment

submitted by DOE with respect to Yucca Mountain is adequate to underpin the

safety case for disposal of spent nuclear he1 and other high level radioactive

wastes.

In support of this effort, detailed top-down reviews will be undertaken of the

performance assessment documents submitted in support of the LA by DOE. In addition,

reviews will be undertaken of responses to those documents and the LA by interested parties,

including, but not limited to, the NRC.

In support of these review activities, Nevada will acquire, install, review, modify as

appropriate, run and evaluate output from the version of TSPA model used by DOE in support

of its LA. This will require familiarization both with the GoldSim simulation package in which

the TSPA model is implemented and with the TSPA model itself. In addition, Kevada's TSPA

team will acquire, install, review, modify as appropriate, run and evaluate output from the

version of the Total-System Performance Assessment ("TPA") model used by the NRC as a

support tool in evaluating submissions from DOE.

Nevada will also acquire, install, review, modify as appropriate, run and evaluate output

from other overall performance assessment models relevant to Yucca Mountain, e.g. the model developed by Eleclric Power Research Institute ("EPRI"), in so far as the use of such models is

helpful in evaluating the adequacy of DOE'S LA.

Nevada's TSPA team will advise its other specialist teams as to how their particular

areas of expertise are described in the overall performance assessment and how those areas of

expertise are represented in the various overall performance assessment models, with an

emphasis on the DOE TSPA model. In modifying the overall performance assessment models

and in selecting input data sets for variant calculations, Nevada's TSPA team will take advice

from the various specialist teams with respect to their particular areas of expertise and

interfaces between those areas of expertise. It is anticipated that these interface issues will map

closely onto the interfaces between modules in the overall performance assessment models.

Nevada's TSPA team will advise the specialist teams of priority areas for review and

modeling as determined by their significance in the overall performance assessment and a relevance to the overall safety case for the facility. It will also evaluate whether DOE has performed model abstraction on these process models in such a way that the abstracted models

are fit-for-purpose in the conrext of the overall performance assessment.

Nevada's TSPA team will keep track of any changes to the EPA and NRC rules relating

to Yucca Mountain under review and will advise the specialist teams, legal team and

representatives of Nevada of the implications of any such rule changes for performance

assessment and the overall safety case.

In all its activities, Nevada's TSPA team will have due regard to the state of the art in

post-closure radiological performance assessment internationally, both with respect to the

criteria and standards adopted, and in terms of the methodologies used.

The preparation and evaluation of such a TSPA involves an array of complicated,

highly scientific and technical issues, requiring the talents of a body of experts from diverse disciplines. The TSPA includes over 5,000 parameters, and over 7,000 mathematical models. a The TSPA is so complex, and the uncertainties so large, that a full calculation (computer run) must be repeated some 300 times in order for the statistical significance of the results to be

evaluated ($2,000,000).

9. Expert Elicitation

Nearly every aspect of DOE's site characterization and performance assessment for

Yucca Mountain involved significant uncertainties. The primary method to evaluate, and

perhaps reduce, these uncertainties should be collection of sufficient data and information

during site characterization. However, factors apparently made it necessary for DOE to

complement and supplement the data obtained during site characterization with the

interpretations and subjective judgments of technical experts. Thus, expert judgments, formally

and informally elicited, ~villbe used by DOE in its attempted demonstrations of compliance

with NRC's geologic disposal regulation.

Since 1990, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ("NWTRB) and the National

Academy of Sciences ('%ASn) have also addressed DOE's plans to use expert judgment. Both

the NWTRB and the NAS, independently, have expressed concerns with these plans and, in

particular, with how DOE addresses the potential for "bias" and "conflicts of interest" when

conducting expert elicitation.

Expert elicitation is aformal, highly structured, and well-documented process whereby

expert jud-ments, usually of multiple experts, are obtained. Formal expert elicitations usually

involve normative experts, generalists, and subject-matter experts.

hTRC has implemented a Branch Technical Position ("BTP") to: (1) provide general

guidelines on those circumstances that may warrant the use of expert elicitation; and (2) describe acceptable procedures for conducting expert elicitation when it is used to support a demonstration of compliance with h%C's geologic repository disposal regulations.

If conducted optimally, formal elicitation can reveal a wide range of scientific and technical interpretations, thereby exposing the uncertainties in estimates concerning repository siting, design, and performance attributable to limitations in the state of technical knowledge.

Nevada intends to retain an expert on the scientific method and probabilisticlstatistical analysis to review each of DOE's expert elicitations to determine whether there is a proper scientific basis for them; whether the hXC process for expert elicitation was appropriately followed, whether there is readily available read data that might have been available to modest additional cost and effort instead of rel$ng on the elicitations, whether judgments in elicitations were appropriately aggregated, whether the elicitations were made on the basis of sufficient and correct foundational data; and whether the elicitations effectively constitute junk science or are reasonable approximations of reality. ($250,000)

10. Quality Assurance

Quality assurance includes all the planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that the geologic repository will perform safely and satisfactorily in service. This is one of DOE's most important obligations, both in practice and in planning, and is a key facet of its L,4, one which Nevada will pay particular attention to evaluating.

First, DOE must establish qualification or requalification of all samples, experiments, tests, analyses, calculations, assumptions, and parameters that were originally acquired, performed, or implemented under circumstances lacking appropriate quality assurance tools, methods, and procedures. As promised by DOE correspondence of December 24,2002, from

Joseph D. Ziegler to Janet R. Scblueter (Chief. NRC's High-Level Waste Branch), "If any of the pre-LA results cannot be determined to be consistent with analyses conducted under full quality assurance ("QA") controls for the LA, a revised approach to resolution will be developed for each impacted KT1 agreement item."

Second, DOE must establish its preparedness to hlly comply with the requirements of

10 C.F.R. 63 Subpart G as follows:

DOE must establish and execute a comprehensive quality assurance program.

DOE is required by Sec. 63.21(~)(20)to include in its Safety Analysis Report a

description of the quality assurance program to be applied to all structures,

systems, and components important to safety, to design and characterization of

baniers important to waste isolation, and to related activities.

The description must indicate how the applicable quality assurance requirements

will be satisfied.

High-level waste repositories include structures, systems, and components that

prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated event sequences or that are

important to waste isolation capabilities that could cause undue risk to the health

and safety of the public. The pertinent requirements of this subpart apply to all

activities that are important to waste isolation and important to safety functions

of those structures, systems, and components. These activities include designing,

purchasing, fabricating, handling, shipping, storing, cleaning, erecting,

installing, inspecting, testing, operating, maintaining, repairing, modifymg, site

characterization, performance confumation, permanent closure,

decontamination, and dismantling of surface facilities.

DOE'S quality assurance program must be documented by written policies,

procedures, or instructions and must be canied out throughout facility life in

accordance with those policies, procedures, or instructions. e DOE must establish measures to assure that applicable regulatory requirements

and the design basis, as defined in Sec. 63.2 and as specified in the License

Application, for those structures, systems, and components to which this subpart

applies, are correctly 'anslated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and

instructions. These measures must assure that appropriate quality standards are

specified.

DOE must establish measures to assure that applicable regulatory requirements

to assure adequate quality are suitably included or referenced in the documents

for procurement of material, equipment, and services.

Activities affecting quality must be prescribed by documented instructions,

procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and must be

accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.

DOE must establish measures to control the issuance of documents, such as

instructions, procedures, and drawings, including changes to them that prescribe

all activities affecting quality.

* DOE must establish measures to assure that purchased material, equipment, and

services conform to the procurement documents.

Measures must be established for the identification and control of materials,

parts, and components.

DOE must establish measures to assure that special processes, including

welding, heat treating, and nondestructive testing, are controlled and

accomplished by qualified personnel using qualified procedures. DOE must establish and execute a program for inspection of activities affecting

quality to verify conformance with the documented instructions, procedures, and

drawings.

DOE must establish a test program to assure that all testing required to

demonstrate that structures, systems, and components important to safety will

perform satisfactorily in service is identified.

DOE must establish measures to control the handling, storage, shipping,

cleaning and preservation of material and equipment in accordance with work

and inspection instructions to prevent damage or deterioration.

DOE must establish measures to indicate the status of inspections and tests

performed on individual items of the high-level waste repository.

DOE must establish measures to control materials, parts, or components which

do not conform to requirements in order to prevent their inadvertent use or

installation.

DOE must establish measures to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such

as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and

equipment, and non-conformances are promptly identified and corrected.

DOE must maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of activities affecting

quality.

DOE must carry out a comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits to

verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program and to

determine the effectiveness of the program. -a Nevada will assess the capability and adequacy of DOE'S planning and

implementation, and its documentation, each of these responsibilities. Nevada

plans to retain a quality assurance expert to, among other things, conduct a

vertical slice review of specific performance modules used by DOE as

foundational information for its performance assessment ($250,000).

11. Aircraft Crash Analyses

Nevada will undertake an assessment of the aircraft hazards associated with the proposed repository facilities: both from the point of view of the probability and the consequences of such hazards. Nevada believes that DOE's analysis of this hazard to date is substantially flawed, with unsupportable assumptions being employed which have the effect

(and perhaps the calculated effect) of resulting in a calculation of the probability of this hazard being below the threshold necessary for DOE to assess its consequences.

By way of example only, DOE's flawed analysis assumes that aircraft will be within their designated airspace when an accident sequence initiates: no allowance is made for human error, due to which aircraft may already be well outside its designated airspace when an accident sequence initiates: and indeed, the deviation from a planned route may be the cause of a crash in mountainous terrain. In this regard, Nevada may undertake an analysis of actual civilian and military flight paths compared with planned flight paths, with an emphasis on variations that took the aircraft outside designated airspace.

In another example, the physical area which DOE uses in its calculation for the potential impact area relating to the Yucca Mountain facility was a very small one, addressing the abovegound fuel handling facilities at Yucca. But the NWPA requires DOE to have the ability to retrieve whatever amount of waste has been emplaced, for a long period of time. At a point in time where most of the waste has been emplaced, if it had to he retrieved, there would be an enormous area on the surface required for storage pads for such retrieved waste. DOE did not even consider this enormous area when assessing the possible damage caused by

aircraft crash. The actual area which should bwe been under consideration, assuming retrievability, would be many multiples of the area considered by DOE.

Yet another example is DOE's assumption that take-offs and landings from a particular

busy airport would increase by five percent a year from the current 60,000 to a total of 440,000

per year at a future date. DOE totally failed to consider the concomitant increase in likelihood

of collisions and near misses that would result from the air being so filled with aircraft (more

than a seven-fold increase in traffic, under DOE's projection).

Nevada observes that once self-targeting ordnance fails to locate its correct target, it has

the potential to travel a very considerable distance before impacting. Nevada may accordingly

assess the number of air-to-ground ordnance deployed per year and estimate the probability of

impact at different distances from the boundaries of the assumed safety footprint. Such

ordnance may be designed to penetrate reinforced targets or deep into the ground, and so, the

effects of such ordnance impacting on aboveground facilities could be severe.

DOE "screened out" from consideration, in its calculation of frequency, crashes at low

altitude and low speed, assuming these would not bring about material damage. This and other

assumptions are disputed by Kevada, which believes evidence will support contrary

assumptions and will likely discredit DOE's final "frequency" analysis to the point where a

"consequence" analysis will be necessary, one which Nevada will likewise undertake. DOE's

fmal calculation resulted in the conclusion that "by a factor of two" the probability of a crash

did not reach the threshold requiring consequence analysis. The correction of even one or a

few of DOE's multiple, "stacked," insupportable assumptions would be sufficient to result in a

"frequency" analysis mandating a concomitant "consequence" analysis. As in any aircrafr crash hazard analysis, one involving a potential repository at Yucca

Mountain would involve the accumulation and analysis by engaged experts of an enormous quantity of factual data relating to numbers and types of aircraft flying in the vicinity, potential causes of crashes, calculation of glide parhs, speeds at impact, and innumerable other details.

This u~ouldinclude hazards associated with small military aircraft, large military aircraft, DOE

aircraft; dropped objects jincluding ordtIance), and civilian aircraft. Calculations would have to

be made with respect to crash rate; impact area, plane or helicopter crashes, flight frequencies

and flight paths from military, DOE, and civilian airports within reach of Yucca, with particular

attention to aircraft hazards engendered by the highly mountainous terrain in the area of the

proposed Yucca facility. In view of the fact that DOE apparently intends to "screen out" the

eventuality of aircraft crashes from its assessment of a potential Yucca Mountain site, it

becomes essential for Nevada to undertake a realistic and competent aircraft crash hazard

fi-equency and consequence assessment ($250,000)

12. Analysis of DOE Final Environmental Impact Statement

IJnder the MA,hXC may adopt DOE'S Yucca Mountain Final Environmental

Impact Statement ("FEIS") "to the extent practicable." Nevada found numerous foundational

and substantive flaws in DOE'S FEIS, released on February 14,2002. Although Nevada filed a

lawsuit challenging these errors under the National Environmental Policy Act and closely

related provisions of the NWPA, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit may decide, based

on indications in oral argument at which hXC was present and rendered views, that Nevada's

challenge to the FEIS was mooted by Congressional passage of the joint resolution that

approved Yucca Mountain as the proposed repository site. However, the Court seemed to

believe, and secured views from the Department of Justice and &om NRC agreeing, that

Kevada remains free to challenge the substantive defects in the FEIS during NRC licensing proceedings or upon any final agency action by DOE, such as on a supplement, postdating the joint resolution. Accordingly, Nevada plans to develop numerous contentions based on the

FEIS and on DOE's transportation-related supplement and any other supplements. These will include, inter alia, contention's on DOE's flawed "no action" alternative; on DOE's refusal to consider the implications of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") on repository viability and licensing; on DOE's refusal to consider federal statutory prohibitions in

Nevada on a multiple retrievable storage system DOE plans to accompany the repository; on illegal segmentation of the project's transportation component; and on gross failures in project definition. ($250,000)

13. NEPA and Transportation

Nevada will analyze and present through factual evidence and expert testimony at the licensing proceeding proof that DOE's key transportation decisions are both irrational and insupportable. DOE has failed to plan for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high- level radioactive waste to the proposed repository site in a comprehensive and integrative fashion.

o While DOE has indicated its preference for the so-called Caliente Comdor for

transportation of waste within Nevada, neither DOE's FEIS nor any other

document contains a legally and substantively adequate analysis comparing the

various rail spur options and justiljmg the identification of Caliente as the

preferred alternative. DOE made this identification before it had adopted a

prefemed transportation mode, and before any national rail routing work had

been produced.

. DOE ought to have developed a national transportation plan describing a proposed action and alternatives, including a local Nevada state component that is consistent with the national plan and which would become the basis for a

formal NEF'A scoping process. DOE should then have prepared a draft EIS

assessing the impacts for the national system for the proposed and alternative

actions respecting the national system and the Nevada system.

Nevada will present contrary analysis and conclusions with respect to many

aspects of DOE'S FEIS as it relates to transportation, its selection of the "mostly

rail" mode, and its preference of the Caliente comdor.

Nevada will address DOE'S last-minute legally insupportable effort to change

horses in midstream by issuing a "Supplement Analysis" concluding it need not

prepare a supplemental FEIS, and yet embracing a mode of transportation (light-

truck casks on railroad cars) which was summarily rejected in its FEIS.

Nevada's transportation team will analyze realistic sabotagelterrorist threats and

the risk of criticality during transportation, all of which have been neglected by

DOE in its formulation.

Nevada will address the impact upon transportation planning of Nevada's

mountainous terrain, as well as Native American interests, ranching operations

(on November 8,2003, DOE published its strategic plan for transportation,

promising "we will conduct a thorough, open and collaborative planning process

with interested parties. . ."; to this day, ranchers in the now-designated Caliente

comdor have yet to hear so much as a word from DOE), potential severe

accidents (the risks of collision and derailment exist at every point within the

system, and especially within the rail yards of major cities), terrorism, and

sabotage.

Among the transportation planning components which Nevada will evaluate are: o Selection of transportation routes and modes,

Emergency response planning and training;

Safeguards and security;

Operational practices;

Communications and information access;

Waste packaging for transportation; and

Worker protection, training, training standards, and qualifications ($600,000).

C. Legal participation

The licensing proceeding which the NWPA requires DOE to pursue for this first-of-a- kind facility will be intensive and thorough and will involve an enormous number of adversarial contentions, discovery, motion practice, and evidentiary hearings, as well as travel expenses. Nevada must employ counsel with the specialized legal training and experience prerequisite to competently and thoroughly prepare for and conduct Nevada's participation in the licensing proceeding. As recently as March 24,2004, by way of comparison, DOE awarded a contract to the law firm of Hunton & Williams providing for a budget of over $12 million for the remainder of 2004 and a total of over $45 million over a five-year period, with option years bringing the cost of DOE'S anticipated legal services to some $63 million. (This is strictly legal fees and does not include expert witness fees). We understand that NRC is also hiring up to a dozen new attorneys to assist it with the Yucca licensing proceeding. The last three major NRC licensing proceedings, each far smaller than the licensing proceedings for the

Yucca Mountain repository, involvcd many tens of millions of dollars for legal and expert witness fees alone. Counsel will communicate and coordinate with the Nevada Attorney General and the

State's Agency for Nuclear Projects to ensure effective preparation and defense of the License

Application.

Counsel will provide legal advice and services on all aspects of the NRC

licensing process including, but not limited to, legal review and analysis of the

LA, preparation of motions, defense of motions, preparation of contentions,

identification and preparation of fact and expert witnesses, retention of testifying

and non-testifying experts, development of evidentiary case, and representation

of Nevada at NRC licensing hearings and in appeals therefrom within NRC.

Counsel will provide legal advice and assistance in the implementation and

maintenance of the LSN in accordance with NRC regulations codified at 10

C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J, and related Guidelines and policy directives of the

NRC.

Counsel will retain subcontractors or consultants, as needed and with Nevada's

concurrence, including, but not limited to, experts and local counsel

($4,750;000, a sum for one year amounting to only 31% of what DOE has

budgeted for attorneys during the same period).

VI. Conclusion, and Request for Expedited Consideration

The level of detail of the foregoing Proposal, while far from comprehensive, is sufficient to illustrate the enormous quantity of work that lies ahead for Nevada in FY2005 in order for it to meaningfully participate in and contribute significant insights to the anticipated

Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. The foregoing Proposal likewise establishes unequivocally that, as the putative host State, the activities proposed by Nevada meet the prerequisites set out in 10 C.F.R. 5 63.63(d). That is: (1) they are authorized by law; (2) they will enhar-ce communications between Nevada and the NXC; (3) they will make a productive and timely contribution to NRC's licensing review; and (4) they are suitable in light of the type and magnitude of impacts that Nevada will bear. Moreover, NRC is authorized by AEA

Section 2741 to enter into any assistance agreement with a State that it deems appropriate.

Accordingly, Nevada respectfully requests that NRC formally consider and grant this proposal.

In view of the accelerated schedule under which DOE is now proceeding with its proposed submission to NRC, and DOE'S refusal to fund Nevada beyond any specifically itemized appropriation, Kevada respectfully requests expedited consideration of this proposal.

Re ctfully submitted /Ad[2y- / Robert R. Loux, Executive Director Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects

Attachments DOE

EX. E NEVADA'SSCIENTIFIC EXPERTS e x Nevada has engaged- ... a world-class team of eminent scientists to assist the state in its challenge to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") in license proceedings. These scientists, working with Nevada's attorneys, will sponsor expert testimony and assist with the evaluation of testimony by the Department of Energy and NRC Staff.

x Nevada's experts cover the entire range of scientific disciplines necessary to demonstrate that the Yucca Mountain repository is unsafe and should not be licensed.

x Nevada expects to add additional experts in other areas important to the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding.

Dr. Johnathan Overpeck is Director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth and Professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona. He holds a Ph.D. in geosciences from Brown University and has published numerous papers and books on climate change. He is especially experienced in the climatology of the western United States.

Linda L. Lehman is a licensed professional hydrogeologist and President of the Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, Inc. She has spent years studying the hydrology of Yucca Mountain, including intensive studies of its saturated zone. She has assisted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the development of compliance criteria for the WIPP nuclear waste repository in New Mexico, and earlier in her career she was a hydrologist for the NRC. As a private consultant, she has been involved in hydrologic studies of the Energy Department's Hanford nuclear site in Washington, and has provided expert testimony in litigation concerning DOE'S Fernald, Portsmouth, and Rocky Flats sites, uranium mill tailings disposal sites, uranium processing facilities, and various Superfund sites. She has served as an advisor to the National Academy of Science and numerous other governmental bodies on hydrogeologic issues. UPDATED: May 5,2004

0 Dr. Adrian P. Butler holds a Ph.D. in Groundwater Hydrology from Imperial e College in London, where he currently teaches, and is Chairman of the British Hydrological Society (Southern Section). He has published dozens of peer- reviewed papers on the migration of contaminants through subsurface media, and has been involved in radioactive waste disposal studies for the nuclear industry. He is a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society.

Dr. Howard S. Wheater is Professor of Hydrology at Imperial College in London, and is a Fellow in the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institution of Civil Engineers. He has performed hydrologic studies for the U.K.'s high-level nuclear waste repository program, and is past president of the British Hydrological Society. He has also conducted hydrologic studies in Brazil, Spain, Yemen, Japan, China, UAE, and Botswana.

Dr. Don L. Shettel has been studying Yucca Mountain's geochemistry and mineralogy for over a decade. He holds a Ph.D. in Geochemistry and Mineralogy from Penn State, and has been a field geochemist for numerous industrial and governmental clients.

Dr. Adrian Bath is a world-renowned hydro-geochemist who holds a Ph.D. in Isotope Geochemistry from Oxford. He has been a geochemist for the British Geological Survey, and an expert advisor for the International Atomic Energy Agency and for various industry groups. He is currently a lead advisor to the Swedish government on the geochemistry and hydrogeologic issues for the Swedish high-level nuclear waste repository program, and has also worked on the German nuclear waste disposal program. He is a Fellow in the U.K Geological Society, and has authored over 160 publications.

Dr. Brenda J. Little is Senior Scientist for Marine Molecular Processes at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Stennis, Mississippi. She holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Tulane University, and is one of the world's leading experts in the field of microbial induced corrosion. She has spent several years studying the capacity of microorganisms in Yucca Mountain's "near-field" environment to induce corrosion of waste packages. UPDATED: May 5,2004

* Dr. James D. Rirnstidt is Professor of Geochemistry at Virginia Tech, where he has specialized in the study of aqueous geochemistry and geochemical 0 kinetics. He holds a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from Perm State, and has authored several books and a multitude of papers on geochemistry.

Dr. Maurice E. Morgenstein is one of the world's leading geologists with broad expertise as well in geochemistry, minerology, geophysics, corrosion studies, and archeology. He is an eminent geo-archeologist, participating in some of the most famous digs in Egypt and elsewhere, and is currently a Visiting Scholar at the Archeological Research Facility at the University of California at Berkeley. He has spent nearly 20 years studying Yucca Mountain, particularly the anticipated "near field" environment surrounding that part of the repository that will house nuclear waste. He has led a team of eight other experts that have analyzed in detail that environment's potential to induce corrosion of waste packages.

Dr. Roger \IT.Staehle is considered by many to be the leading expert in the world on corrosion, and is frequently referred to as "Mr. Corrosion." Most recently, he served as a consultant to the Columbia Investigative Board that evaluated the accident of the Space Shuttle Columbia. He holds a Ph.D. in Metallurgical Engineering from Ohio State University, and is the fonner Dean of the Institute of Technology at the University of Minnesota. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and has won numerous awards for his work on corrosion. He has published 22 books and hundreds of papers on the subject. He has consulted for the hW, the Electric Power Research Institute, dozens of nuclear utilities and nuclear research laboratories, and many national governments.

Dr. Aaron Barkatt is a leading authority on the chemistry of waste package corrosion and on radiation chemistry. Currently Director of the Oxide Chemistry Group at Catholic University of America, he has done numerous in- depth studies of waste package corrosion for such entities as Duratek Corporation, NPD Nuclear Systems, Purdue University, and the Department of Energy. He has spent years studying the near-field chemisky of the repository UPDATED. May 5,2004

zone at Yucca Mountain, and its effects on waste packages and vitrified waste a logs. a Dr. April L. Pulvirenti holds a Ph.D. in Inorganic Chemistry from Purdue. She is presently the lead laboratory researcher for Nevada's team of experts studying the corrosion of Alloy-22 and Titanium-7, materials the Energy Department intends to use for Yucca Mountain's waste packages and its "drip shields." She presently holds a post-doctoral assignment with Dr. Barkatt at Catholic University, where her experiments are being conducted. She has presented numerous peer-reviewed papers of her Yucca studies.

Dr. Jeffrey A. Gorman holds a Ph.D. in Engineering Science from CalTech. He is the leading water chemistry and corrosion expert for Reston, Virginia-based Dominion Engineering. Mr. Gorman has conducted numerous studies regarding nuclear and fossil power plants, for utilities worldwide as well as the Navy, the Department of Energy, and the Electric Power Research Institute.

Dr. Charles E. Marks is a water chemistry expert for Dominion Engineering. He holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from University of Maryland, and has performed in-depth research into the corrosive effects of nuclear steam generator deposits. Mr. Marks has done extensive field studies in thermo- mechanical modeling, chemical kinetics, corrosion, and electrochemistry.

RADIONUCLIDEMIGRATION AND TRANSPORT

r Dr. David A. Lever is an internationally recognized expert in radioactive waste disposal and transport modeling. His company, Serco Assurance, is one of the leading entities in the world in the field of radioactive waste management. Dr. Lever managed the Nirex Safety Assessment Research Program in the U.K. for many years for the British repository program. He has been as member of an international peer review team established by the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency to review the Belgian waste disposal program and various proposals submitted to the European Commission for member states. I-fe holds a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics bom Cambridge University.

Dr. C. Peter Jackson is an applied mathematician at Serco Assurance specializing in the groundwater flow and transport modeling for radioactive waste repositories and waste disposal facilities. He holds a Ph.D. in UPDATED: May 5,2004

Mathematics from Cambridge University, and played a pivotal role in assessments for the U.K.'s Nirex deep repository for intermediate-level radioactive wastes. Prior to joining Serco Assurance, he was Chief Hydrogeologist for AEA Technology, and was Senior Scientific Officer at the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority.

Dr. Andrew J. Baker is an expert in safety assessment for nuclear facilities with Serco Assurance. He has worked on national repository projects in Australia, Britain, Bulgaria, Scotland, Lithuania, Russia, Hungary, and Slovakia. Prior to working with Serco Assurance, he was a Scientist with AEA Technology in Britain, and was a Scientific Administrator for the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council. He holds a Ph.D. in Earth Sciences from Oxford University.

Dr. Michael C. Thorne is a world-recognized expert in the use of total system performance assessment in the evaluation of waste and repository sites. He holds a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from the University of Sheffield, England, and is a past Secretary of the International Commission on Radiological 0 Protection (ICRP), where he led detailed international studies on the health effects of radiation. He has done extensive consulting work in connection with the British, French, and Swedish high-level nuclear waste repository programs, and has also done studies on the effects of the Chernobyl accident for the British Government, low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities, and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate-the U.K.'s equivalent of the NRC.

Dr. Eugene I. Smith is an eminent Volcanologist at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, where he is a Professor of Geology and Chairs the Department of Geosciences. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico. He is a Fellow in the Geological Society of America, and previously worked for the U.S. Geological Survey. Dr. Smith has conducted volcanism and volcanic rock studies for the U.S. Navy, the USGS, and NASA. He has authored numerous technical papers on volcanism. UPDATED: May 5,2004

Dr. Chih-Hsiang Ho works with Dr. Smith at the University of Nevada, where he specializes in the statistical aspects of volcanism and is an expert in * statistical analysis. He holds a Ph.D. in Statistics from University of Minnesota and is a professor in the University of Nevada's Department of Mathematical Sciences.

Dr. H. C. Clark is an eminent seismologist and geologist with a Ph.D. in Geophysics from Stanford. He is professor emeritus of Geology at Rice University. His testimony on seismic risks associated with the proposed Sierra Blanca radioactive waste disposal site in South Texas was pivotal in then-Governor George Bush's decision to cancel the project. He has consulted for the U.S. Air Force, numerous petroleum companies, and a plethora of government entities. He has authored dozens of papers on geology, geophysics, and seismology.

Allen L. Messenger is a registered civil and environmental engineer who has a designed, engineered, and built facilities for the storage and disposal of low- level radioactive, mixed, hazardous, and transuranic waste: and assisted with the permitting of those facilities with the NRC, the Department of Energy, and state regulatory agencies. He holds an M.S. in Civil Engineering ftom Texas A&M, and for several years was the Head of the Disposal Facilities Unit for the Texas Department of Water Resources.

NRC AR'D DOE REPOSITORYLICENSING ISSUES

Dr. Victor Gilinsky is a former NRC Commissioner who holds a Ph.D. in Physics from CalTech. Prior to his NRC tenure, he was Head of the Physical Sciences Department and Director of Applied Science and Technology Program at the Rand Corporation. He was also Assistant Director for Policy and Program Review at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. He has conducted many consulting studies on nuclear matters as a private consultant. UPDATED: May 5,2004

0 Dr. John W. Bartlett is the fonner Head of the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain Program. He holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering * from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and was previously a scientist with Battelle's Pacific Northwest Laboratories. He has extensive background on Yucca Mountain and the high-level waste program generally. DOE

EX. F Re\:iewJournal.com - News - Documents added io Yucca database Page 1 of 3

/ --' o'br / @+ cars / @ WD~EI / *:53 Shopping I Travel j lg Weddings ,/ .?G~H / <:> Ben oi Las Y~W/ /. . hot!

----,-*,--,,---.p--., -.. ------..... ".... News RECENT EDITIONS wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue @@ iAnv8ETHIS @mEWiL THIS @& P3iNT :HIS @fiMOST Yc,F!jLbR @ a RSS

FEE3S @ POST A COMMENT May. 01, 2007 Copyright @ Las Vegas Review-lournal Documents added to Yucca database

By STEVETETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

1 I 1 / VV'ASHINGTON -- The Energy Department I announced Monday it has added 2.1 million I I I i documents to a Yucca Mountain electronic database 1 that is available to the public. I I ! i i Coupled with earlier postings, the database now 1 ore-eboui / Yucca Mountain ! contains 3.4 million DOE scientific and engineering --I documents, and other material government officials say will support their bid to establish a nuclear waste repository in Nevada.

Yucca Mountain critics said the licensing support network also is likely to contain information hinting at repository flaws, and they plan to examine the documents closely.

Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Prolects, said the documents w~llbe divided among 30 science consultants and critiqued for information that could become part of the state's case against the project, to be located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Nevada plans to file "thousands" of contentions, or objections, during formal repository licensing hearings the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to hold, Loux said.

The network Web site is www 1snnet.gov. It also contains Yucca documents posted so far by the NRC, Nye County and the state ReviewJourual.com - News - Docunlents added to Yucca database

of Nevada. Sponsored Links

The electronic library will be shared among the participants in MortgaaeeRates at.3%5% $250,000 ioan for $650/month. See New repository license hearings. DOE payment. NO SSN R~~.saveNow! spokesman Allen Benson said several hundred thousand more remain be posted. Storage Wwest-selfst~orage Storage West has locations throughout the The public disclosure appeared to Greater Las Vegas area douse one fight between the Energy Department and Nevada, which had alleged that the DOE StopDenture Suffering was hoarding documents and Denture Wearers can have Fixed-Teeth in One making it hard for the state to track Are a the project. -7 I i Another disagreement may be e NORM: Britney may face trouble in scuffle brewing. e NORM: Osmond ponders resident status i i e NORM: Ex-broadcaster takes her own life I By law the licensing database must 1 be officially certified six months NORM: Rumors swirling of Xobe~breakup before the DOE is allowed to file a repository license application with e LAS VEGAS PIONEER: Frontter's days end the NRC. DOE officials have said * Casino proper draws critbrs they plan to certify the database in December so the agency can file an JUDICIAL DISCIPLIFIE COMMISSION: Panel pends Halveison application by the end of June. 0 MySpace judgment: Gualty But Loux said the state plans to protest that key documents such as analyses of key computer models, and the Total System Performance Assessment, a inaior science

"The modelina-. reoorts are 1 foundation documents that may not be ready until sometime next year," Loux said. "We continue to think this will cause DOE a problem in trying to certify their records."

L~nkspowered by inform corn DOE

EX. G EGAN,FITZPATRICK, MALSCH& CYNIUR, PLL.C Counselors at Lam

7918 loires Brancb Drive Suite 600 ii~~~v.nucIear1a~yer.com 1777 hT.E. Loop 410 Suite 600 McLcun, Virginia 22102 San Antonio, Te.m 78217 1:(703) 9184942 Tcl: (210) 820-2657 Fax: (703) 9184943 Fa\.: (210) 820-2668

Joseph R. Egan hinrtin G. hlabch Robert J. Cy~har MEMORANDUM

'r~: Distribution

FROM: Joe Egan

DATE: July 29.2004

SUBJECT: lm~ortantInstructions for Your Compliance with LS?; Reenbations

As we discussed ill some detail at our expert summit last December and on several occasions and emails since then, Ncvada is subjcct to the Nttclear Regulatory Commission's regulations concerning the URC's licensing support network ("LSN"). As Susan Lynch has previously instructed you, thcse rcgltlations provide that all those working For the State of Nevada as experts or consultants, as well as staff of the Agency for Nuclear Projects and the Attorney General's Office, must provide Susan with all of their relevant documentary material in thcir possession concerning Yucca Mounrain and their work for the State that in any way pertains to Yucca Mountain licensing or any issucs that were or should have been part of DOE's Yucca Mountain Final Environmental impact Statement. Susan's original deadline fbr you to produce your documentary material to her has already expired and, though we have received a large amount of documents from most of you, some of you have still not complied. There is no discretion in this requirement. as it could affcci Nevada's very right to participate in rhe Yucca licensing proceeding ifwe do not comply in good Caith. Therefore, these instructions are mandatory and urgent. Please read tliein carefully.

This week, Nevada formally challenged DOE's initial certification of it? compliance with LSN regulations. Thc hearing on July 27 on our challenge went extremely ivell. We arc hopeful that the judges will reject DOE's initial certification, but we cannot presume they will. Moreover, even if we win, DOE may elcet to appeal any such rejection to the full KRC Commission. Therefore. we must assumc thal wc are reqi~iredto comply, and that our date for certitling that we have fully complied is September 30. This means that we must provide the material to KKC's LSN administrator reasonably prior to that date so it can he loaded onto the system. NRC can load approximately 30,000 documents per business day. Moreover, it means that Susan Lynch must have received your documents by now, or no later than August 6 at the vey latest. Nevada must create a specialized hcader Lbr each document, and those also must he loaded onto the system. hfF,>ZORANDL'ILl July 29.2004 Page 2

Since hevada has a small amount of documentary material among its team relative to DOE (which has milliorls of docunients), we should err an the side of over-inclusion rather than under-inclusion. The Sollowing are among the typcs ofdocuments you must provide Susan.

I. All cmails in your possession or archives related to Yucca Mountain or yoiir work for iievada, As we in.~tructedyozin Decenzher, 120 ernails related to Yucca shviiid be dixcur~ied. You should be saving all emails in a separate folder from your other emails. The same holds true for paper and electronic files and documents. No document destruction.

2. Correspondence between and among you and the Nevada team

3. Reports. workpapcrs. and notes ol'your work. as \\.ell as references yo11 have or will use in your work.

4. Note that you have to include references that are copyrighred or otherwise widely available (such as IAEA documents). You also have to include documents that you obtained from or received from DOE and NRC. or that \\,ere sent to NRC or DOE, as these documents will already have been loadcd oilto the L.SN by DOE and NRC. Finally. you do not need to send in any legal pleadings, cases, decisions, regulations, federal register notices, or other official documents. Nor do you need to send materials that relate solely to the federal court litigation Nevada has had on non-licensing-related issoes. The individual expert teams should also coordinate with their team members to try to ensure that duplicates are not sent.

5. Electronic tiles used in your work. Xote that if you have very large electronic tiles, you should notify us, as these are subject lo special instructions.

6. Photos taken in the course ofyour work.

7. You DO KOT have to submit y-contentions. 1.. When we are at the stage where we have drafts fpr general circulation (iwhlch is not yet the case). then

~ ~~ L-.-- ~. ", we must submit these to Susan also. .. ~ . ..~~..~~ ..~ 1 ,+ .. ~~ 1; As a general rule, you should presume that if it is relevant to the Yucca project or your work tbr h'evada pertaining to the prqject, il should be provided. Tf you possibly can, please send your documents in &f format to Susan at ~~$&&nu.state.~l\,.us,or, for larger collections. on a CD. Electronic submission in any format is preferable to hard copy. Flowever, if you musl send hard copies, please send them by priority mail or Federal Express.

There is a duty to supplement, so you should always retain and collect documents ibr periodic submission to Susan. Before the license proceeding begins officially, we will ask you to make another certification. %IE4ZOKANDLM Julv 29.2004 Page 5

Finally, I have attached a certiticatjon form which, if'you are a rccipicnt ofthis email, you must fill out, date, sign and send to Susan cenifying that you have provided her with all of your documenlary material upon your completion of the identification process and transmittal to her.

ffyou are going to have any problem liiltilling this extrcrncly important legal requirement, please let me kno\v immediately so ive can get you the appropriate assisrancc to enable you to do so.

Attachment (Certification Form)

DISTRIBUTION:

Adams, Maita A. Lynch, Susan Uarkatt, Aaron Malsch, Martin G. Bartlett, John W. Marks, Charles R. Bath, Adrian Messenger, Alan Butler, Adrian P. Moore, Roger 8. Clark, KC. Morgenstein, Maury Colatrinno, Vince .I. O'Mealia, Michael K. Conway, Norma Overpeck, Jonathan Cooper. Charles J. Pulvirenti. April L. Cynkar. Rohert J. Kesnikoff, blawin Fitzpatrick, Charles J Kimstidt. James Donald Frishman. Steve Rossmann, Anto~rio Gilinsky, Victor Sandoval, Brian Gorman. Jeffrey ,A. Shettel. Don L. llalstead, Robert Smith, Gene Ho, Chih-Hsiang Staehle, Roger W. Jackson, C. Peter Stroiin, Joe Lehman, Linda L. 'lhorne, Mike Lever; David. A. I'reichel, Judy Little. Brenda J. Wheater, Howard S. Lous, Ruberr R. Wigley, Tom DOE

EX. H EGAX,FITZPATRICK & MALSCH, PLLC Counsefors at Law

2001 K Srreer, N.W • Suice '00 w~w.nucleaiia~iyemm 1777 S.E. Loop 410 ' Sulx 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 San Antonio, 'Texas 782 17 'rel: (202) 662-2103 1Pi: (210) 320-2667 Fax: (202) 662-2105 Fax: (210) 820-2669

Joseph R. Egan Ciaiirn G. Maiich

To: Distribution

From: Joseph R. Egan

Date: June 5.2007

Re: Call Memo: Important Instructions for Your Com~liancewith LSN Regulations

This is an update of my July 29, 2004 Call Memo 1-cgardingLSN compliance.

-4s you are aware, Sevada is subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations concerning the NRC's licensing support network ("LSN). As Susan Lynch has previously instructed you, these regulations provide that all those working for the State of Nevada as experts or consultants, as well as staff of the Agency for Nuclear Projects and the Attorney General's Office, must provide Susan with all of their relevant Documentary Material in their possessiorl concerning Yucca Mountain and their work for the State that in any way pertains to Yucca Mountain licensing or issues relating to DOE's Yucca Mountain Final Environmental lmpacr Statement. Susan's original mid-2004 deadline for you to produce your Documentary Material to l~erresulted in delivery to her of a substantial quantity of documents, many ofwhich have been placed in Nevada's LSN collection and incorporated in the IiRCts LSN, together with documents suhtnitted by other parties. After a hiatus in our focus on populating the LSN database caused by

the "decertification" of DOE's initial LSN certification (June 30.2004).,, it is necessarv at this time to again address and assure compliance with all LSN requirements. There is no discretion in tiis requirement, as it could affect Nevada's very. right- to participate in the Yucca licensing proceeding if we do not comply in good faith. Therefore, these instructions are mandatory and urgent. Please read them carefully.

At this time, DOE has expressed its intention to recertify its revised and updated LSN collection later this year, sometime between October 1 and December 31,2007. We must assume that DOE's certification will be successful, and that would make Nevada's deadline for compliance (90 days later) as early as January 1, 2008. This means that we must provide all required material to NItC's LSN administrator reasonably prior to that date so it can be loaded onto the system. NRC can load approximately 30,000 documents per business day. Nevada must also create a specialized bibliographic header for each document, and those also must be loaded onto the sqstem, prior to the time Nevada can certify its compliance. We are providing, along with this Memo, three other documents which will explain in greater detail the subject matters and document types which need to be, or need not be, included in Nevada's I.SN collection. They are:

(1) NRC Reg. Guide 3.69 which is the formal listing of what is considered to be information relevant to the LSN (attached as Exhibit A);

(2) "Guidelines" which we have prepared in an effort to articulate three practical tests of LSN-worthiness, all three of which must apply, or else the document in question may be omitted from the LSN (attached as Exhibit B); and

(3) A collection of "LSN-Specific Examples" which illustrate the application of the three tests, with an explanation of the analysis applicable to each of the examples (attached as Exhibit C). implementation of these Guidelines, and utilization of the three tests should enable each recipient to more easily make LSN-inclusion decisions with respect to documents in their possession (not previously delivered to Susan Lynch for inclusion in the LSN). Of course, you may consult Susan or Charlie Fitzpatrick with respect to any document as to which you are uncertain.

In making judgments with respect to LSN-worthiness of documents, you (and we) should resolve any doubts in favor of inclusiveness. The following list is not intended to be comprehensive, but notes some of the kinds of documents you may encounter in the course of your work for Nevada, and therefore in the course of conducting your search for all Documentary Material in your possession which must be on the LSN. Please bear in mind that any documents you have in the following categories will only be required to be sent to Susan Lynch for inclusion on the LSN if they first pass all three of the tests we discuss in our attached "Guidelines."

1. Emails in your possession or archives related to Yucca Mountain or your work fot Nevada. As we instrztctedpreviously in our July 29, 2004 Call Memo, no enrcrils reluted to Yucca should hr rliscurded. You should be saving all Yucca-related emails in a separate folder from your other emails. The same holds true for paper and electronic files and documents. No document destruction.

2. Correspondence between and among you and anyone else on the Nevada team.

3. Reports, work papers, and notes of your work, as well as references you have or will use in your work.

4. Note that you do not have to include references that are copyrighted or otherwise widely available (such as IAEA documents). You may not have to include documents that have been published by or received from DOE or NRC, or that were sent to NRC or DOE, if these documents already have been loaded onto the LSN by DOE and NRC. Such duplication is not required. The LSN database available online now contains some 3.5 million documents. If you think it likely that a document under consideration has already been put on the LSN by DOE, NRC, or any other party, you should check for it on the LSN to make sure. You are responsible to make sure that any docu~neiltyou nay wish to cite or rely on is on the LSN. If in doubt, add it, regardless of its author. Finally, you do not need to send in any legal pleadings, cases, decisions, regulations, federal register notices, or other official documents. Nor do you need to send materials that relate solely to the federal court litigation Nevada has had on non-licensing-related issues. The individual expert teams should also coordinate with their team members to try to ensure that duplicates are not sent.

5. Electronic files used in your work. Note that if you have very large electronic files, you should notify us, as these are subject to special instructions.

6. Photos taken in the course of your work

7. You DO NOT have to submit draft contentions for LSN inclusion. Any contentions you draft now are extremely preliminary and anticipatory, since your contentions are typically to be responsive to the content of DOE'S License Application, which has yet to be filed. Any final documents and "circulated draft" documents (i.e., circulated for supervisory approval) need to be put on the LSN. Preliminary drafts do not.

8. Any documents in your possession which are LSN-worthy, but which either are privileged, or may be privileged, should be segregated and sent to Susan Lynch who, with the responsible attorneys, will determine its appropriate handling in relation to the LSN. Types of privileged documents include:

a. Documents reflecting attorney-client communications, which are confidential communications between any attorney and a client (or a person working for the client) relating to a legal matter in which the attorney is representing the client; and attorney work product, which are documents prepared by or for an attorney in connection with or in anticipation of litigation.

b. Deliberative process documents, which are predecisional interagency or intra-agency documents that reflect Nevada's decision-making process.

c. Proprietary documents containing confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information.

9. Under the NRC regulations, even documents which are not required to be included in the LSN may be subject to discovery, such as depositions in the licensing proceeding, or required to be maintained for other purposes. This type of document is described below, and should be segregated and retained in individual offices for possible collection at a later time.

a. All preliminary drafts of any documents (e.g., paper, email, electronic, etc.) that are potentially relevant to licensing-related activities.

b. All documents, drat? or final, that would not meet the LSN criteria we have discussed above, but that have marginalia potentially relevant to licensing-related activities. "Marginalia" means handwritten, printed, or other types of notations added to a document excluding underlining and highlighting.

c. All personal records, travel vouchers, and speeches that are potentially relevant to l~censing-relatedactivities.

As a general mle, you should presume that if information is relevant to the Yucca project or your work for Nevada pertaining to the project, it is a candidate for 1,SN inclusion. Again, if in doubt, consult Reg. Guide 3.69 for relevancy and apply the three-test analysis to determine LSN-worthiness. If you possibly can, please send your documents in pdf format to Susan at slvnchl76lin;ernaiI.com, or for larger collections, on a CD. Electronic submission in any format is preferable to hard copy. However, if you must send hard copies, please send them by priority mail or Federal Express.

We have a duty to supplement the LSN on a regular basis after our initial certification, so you should always retain and collect relevant, responsive documents for regular submission to Susan. Before the licensing proceeding begins officially, we will ask you to make another certification that all your relevant documents have been produced.

Finally, I have attached a Certification form (attached as Exhibit D) which, if you are a recipient of this email, you must fill out, date, sign, and send to Susan certifying that you have provided her with all of your Documentary Material upon your completion of the identification process and transmittal to her.

If you are going to have any problem fulfilling this extremely important legal requirement, please let me know immediately so we can get you the appropriate assistance to enable you to do so.

DISTRIBUTION:

Adams, Marta A. Gilinsky, Victor Audin, Lindsay Gorman, Jeffrey A. Ballard, James David Hall, Jim Barkatt, Aaron Halstead, Robert Bartlett, John W. Hilton, Judy Bath, Adrian Hirsh, Merril Bell, Jimmy T. Ho, Chih-Hsiang Blunt, Martin Horstman, Hugh Briggs, William Jackson, C. Peter Bromfield, Jacqueline Kelly, Martin Butler, Adrian P. Kendorski, Francis S. Clark, H.C. Lamboley, Paul II. Colatriano, Vince J. Lehman, Linda I>. Collins, Hank Lever, David. A. Conway, Norma Little, Brenda J. Cynkar. Robert J. Loux, Robert R. Dilger, Fred Lynch, Susan Fitzpatrick, Charles J. Malsch, Martin Ci. Frishman, Steve Marks, Charles R. 4 Mathias, Sirnon Pulvirenti, April L. Matthai, Stephan Resnikoff, Marvin McDonald, Lou Rimstidt, James Donald Messenger, Allen Rossmann, Antonio Montesi, Susan Shettel, Don L. Moore, Richard C. Smith, Eugene I. Moore, Roger B. Staehle, Roger W. Morgenstein, Maury Strolin, Joe O'Mealia, Michael K Swanton, Steve Overpeck, Jonathan Thorne, Mike Owen, Dave Treichel, Judy Pericola, Jamie Wheater, Howard S. Phillips, Lawrence Wigley, Tom Exhibit A *PR REOO U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Revision I ,."" 'ql 0- June 2004 'i 2

2 A 38%\i+,, 3. +O 8 REGULATORY GUIDE *,*c* OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH

REGULATORY GUIDE 3.69 (Draft was issued as 06-3022)

TOPICAL GOIDLINES FOR THE LICENSING SUPPORT NETWORK

A. INTRODUCTION

Subpari J, "Procedures Applicable to Proceedings for the issuance of Licenses for the Receipt of High-Level Radioactive Waste at a Geologic Repository" (10 CFR 2.1000 to 2.1027), of 10 CFR Part 2, "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and issuance of Orders," sets forth procedures for an adjudicatory proceeding on the application for a license to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository under 20 CFR Part 60, "Disposal of High-Level Radioactive \Nastes in Geologic Repositories,' or Part 63, "Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain. Nevada." Pursuant to these regulations, the Licensing Support Netwoik (LSN), an electronic information management system, is being designed and implemented to provide for the entry of and access to relevant documentary material.

The requirements in 10 CFR 63.21 for a license application and the structure and content of the Yucca blountain Review Plan (NUREG1804), were considered in developing this regulatory guide. The principal purpose of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan is to ensure the quality. uniformity, and consistency of NRC staff reviews of the license application and any amendments. This reguiatory guide defines the scope of documentary material that should be identified in or made available via the LSN. Topical guidelines were adopted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as Regulatory Guide 3.69 In September 1996. This revision to the regulatory guide updates the topical guidelines consistent with the iicense application content specified in 10 CFR 63.21 and the content and structure of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (NUREG-1804) and Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NUREG-1748), and the U.S. Department of Energy Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Yucca Mountain repository.

Document is defined in 10 CFR 2.1001 as "any written, printed, recorded, magnetic, graphic matter, or other documentary material, regardless of form or characteristic." In addition, 10 CFR 2.1001 defines documentary material as:

. . r, .r ..<., ., ir: i.',...... -..il'.i. ."...... I ...I. I...... < .. 37,. .. :-*-,, -.. . -.t. .-. . ., 8' .., .:. ' r.. I .:. , . ..< i",..:.i ... ..: ...... ,.7 ...... '< ,:.,..,..I- , ,:,?.!...... I, .... . -.. . , ' ...... 7 . : ..... 1'. .I.. ... ReSu!afo?i jiudeS a'e issued n ton bmad divisions: 1. Fwer Reacfo;s 2, Resgaich and lest Reacmis; 3, Fueir ano El'ati.rials Faullf'es; 4, tnvimnnenfal an3 S~iq5. Mafenair and FanlPro'ecta?: 6. Fioouds; 7.T.ansparation; 8, Occu~ationzlWealh: 9,Artivul! a-5 Ftnam;ll Review. and lo. Geleral, ..... ; . c. I ..:. lr ?. ., ,.> ,...: :>- -, : . ., .... ?I .. 'b .... . , . < , ....i:. :...... , >,), ,>,.( :.:...... -, ...... _I -...... I , . - - , , , , . ;-, ! :, ,

? .....:...... ,~:."... ,.'. , . I j .- ?., >., ? l.l : . , ..... ,, .... I. : -,. , 3.7, ... , .... (I)any information upon which a party, potential party, or interested governmental participant intends to rely andior to cite in support of its position in the proceeding for a iicense to receive and possess high-levet radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area pursuant to part 60 or 63 of this chapter; (2) any information that is known to, and in the possession of, or developed by the party that is relevant to, but does not support, that information or that party's position; and (3) ali reports and studies, prepared by or on behalf of the potential party, interested governmental participant, or party, including ail related 'circulated drafts,' relevant to both the license application and the issues set forth in the Topical Guidelines in Regulatory Guide 3.69, regardless of whether they will be reiied upon and/or cited by a party. The scope of documentary material shall be guided by the topical guidelines in the appiicable NRC Regulatory Guide.

The forms of these materials are listed in Appendix A to this guide, a nonexhaustive list of types of documents that may be included in the LSN.

Regulatory guides are issued to describe to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, to explain techniques used by the staff in evaiuating specaic problems or postulated accidents, and to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with regulatory guides is not required, Regulatory guides are issued in draft form for pubiic comment to involve the public in developing the regulatory positions. Draft reguiatory guides have not received complete staff review; they therefore do not represent official NRC staff positions.

The information coliections contained in this draft regulatory guide are covered by the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, which were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OLIB), approval number 3150-3011. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information coliection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently vaiid OMB control number.

B. DISCUSSION

PURPOSE OF THE REGULATORY GUIDE

The purpose of this reguiatory guide is to provide a list of the topics (in Section C) of documentary material that LSN participants should identify (by bibliographic header only) or make available (by image or searchable fuil text) via the LSN under 10 CFR 2.1003. Participants in proceedings regarding tho proposed issuance of construction authorizations and licenses for the receipt and possession of high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository include parties, potential parties, and interested governmental participants. The topical guidelines are designed to be broad enough to encompass all potential licensing issues.

This regulatory guide provides the detailed topical index for LSN documentary material. It is not to be used to establish standing in the high-level waste licensing proceeding or to define the scope of contentions that may be proffered under 10 CFR 2.1014. USE OF THE REGULATORY GUIDE

The regulatory guide is consistent with requirements for the content of a license application in 10 CFR 63.21 and with licensing information specified in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (NUREG-1804). It is also consistent with Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NUREG-1748). The actual formal of the documents submitted is not sPecified in this regulatory guide. Requirements regarding electronic formats of LSN documents are defined in 10 CFR 2.1011.

Section C of this regulatory guide lists the topics of documents to be identiiied in or made available via the LSN. Appendix A to this guide contains a nonexhaustive list of the types of documents to which the topical guidelines in Section C should be applied. Tyws of documents not included in Appendix A should also be identified in or made available via the LSN if they are relevant to a topic in Section C of this regulatory guide.

Because the topics1 guidelines of Section C have been kept broad and at a fairly high level of detail, the user should consider each topic to be inclusive rather than exclusive with regard to documents germane to that topic for the site. For example, much of the information that supports the licensing proceeding will be based on the use of methodoiogies, computer codes, and models, Such information should be made available via the LSN. The Yucca Mountain Review Plan (NUREG1804), provides guidelines on, and 10 CFR 63.21 sets the requirements for, information that should be submitted in the license application. Section C of this regulatory guide is based, in part, on these provisions.

The topical guidelines also include subcategories for the "Information for a Geologic Repository Environmental Impact Statement." This information should be made available via the LSN pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1003(b).

C. TOPICAL GUIDELINES

1. GENEWL INFORMATION 1.1 General Description 1.2 Proposed Schedules for Construction, Receipt, and Emplacement of Waste 1.3 Physical Protection Plan 1.4 Material Control and Accounting Program 1.5 Description of Site Characterization Work

2. SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 2.1 Repository Safety Before Permanent Closure 2.1 .I Preclosure Safety Analysis 2.1.1.1 Site Description as it Pertains to Preclosure Safety Analysis 2.1.1.2 Description of Structures, Systems, Components, Equipment, and Operational Process Activities 2.1 .I.3 Identification of Hazards and Initiating Events 2.1.1.4 Identification of Event Sequences 2.1.1.5 Consequence Analyses 2.1 .I .5.1 Consequence Analysis Methodology and Demonstration that the Design Meets 10 CFR Parts 20 and 63 Numerical Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal Operations and Category 1 Event Sequences 2.1 .I.5.2 Demonstration that the Design Meets 10 CFR Part 63 Numerical Radiation Protection Requirements for Category 2 Event Sequences 2.1.1.6 Identification of Structures, Systems, and Components Important to Safety; Safety Controls: and Measures to Ensure Availability of the Safety Systems 2.1.1.7 Design of Structures, Systems, and Components Important to Safety and Safety Controls 2.1.1.7.1 Design Criteria and Design Bases 2.1.1.7.2 Design Methodologies 2.1 .I.7.3 Repository Design and Design Analyses 2.1.1.8 Meeting the 10 CFR Part 20 As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable Requirements for Normal Operations and Category 1 Event Sequences 2.1.2 Plans for Retrieval and Alternative Storage of Radioactive Wastes 2.1.3 Plans for Permanent Ciosure and Decontamination, or Decontamination and Dismantlement of Surface Facilities 2.2 Repository Safety After Permanent Closure 2.2.1 Performance Assessment 2.2.1.1 System Description and Demonstration of Multiple Barriers 2.2.1.2 Scenario Analysis and Event Probability 2.2.1.2.1 Scenario Analysis 2.2.1.2.2 Identification of Events with Probabilities Greater Than lo-' Per Year 2.2.1.3 Model Abstraction 2.2.1.3.1 Degradation of Engineered Barriers 2.2.1.3.2 Mechanical Disruption of Engineered Barriers 2.2.1.3.3 Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting Waste Packages and Waste Forms 2.2.2.3.4 Radionuclide Release Rates and Solubility Limits 2.2.1.3.5 Ciimate and Infiltration 2.2.1.3.6 Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone 2.2.1.3.7 Radionuclide Transport in the Unsaturated Zone 2.2.1.3.8 Flow Paths in the Saturated Zone 2.2.1.3.9 Radionuciide Transport in the Saturated Zone 2.2.1.3.10 Volcanic Disruption of Waste Packages 2.2.1.3.1 1 Airborne Transport of Radionuclides 2.2.1.3.12 Concentration of Radionuclides in Ground Water 2.2.1.3.13 Redistributian of Radionuciides in Soil 2.2.1.3.14 Biosphere Characteristics 2.2.1.4 Demonstration of Compliance with the Postclosure Public Heaith and Environmental Standards 2.2.1.4.1 Demonstration of Compliance with the Postclosure Individual Protection Standard 2.2.1.4.2 Demonstration of Compliance with the Human Intrusion Standard 2.2.1.4.3 Analysis of Repository Performance that Demonstrates Compliance with Separate Ground-Water Protection Standards 2.3 Research and Development Program To Resolve Safety Questions 2.4 Performance Confirmation Program 2.5 Administrative and Programmatic Requirements 2.5.1 Quality Assurance Program 2.5.2 Records, Reports, Tests, and Inspections 2.5.3 Training and Certification of Personnel 2.5.3.1 US. Department of Energy Organizational Structure as it Pertains to Construction and Operation of Geologic Repository Operations Area 2.5.3.2 Key Positions Assigned Responsibility for Safety and Operations of Geologic Repository Operations Area 2.5.3.3 Personnel Qualifications and Training Requirements 2.5.4 Expert Elicitation 2.5.5 Plans for Startup Activities and Testing 2.5.6 Plans for Conduct of Normal Activities, Including Maintenance, Suweiilance, and Periodic Testing 2.5.7 Emergency Planning 2.5.8 Controls To Restrict Access and Regulate Land Uses 2.5.9 Uses of Geologic Repository Operations Area for Purposes Other Than Disposal of Radioactive Wastes 2.5.10 License Specifications

3 INFORMATION FOR A GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3.1 Purpose and Need for Proposed Agency Action 3.1 .I Potential Actions and Decisions Regarding the Proposed Repositorj 3.1.2 Radioactive Materials Considered for Disposal in a Monitored Geologic Repository 3.1.3 National Effort To Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 3.1.4 Yucca Mountain Site and Proposed Repository 3.1.5 Environmental Impact Analysis Process 3.2 Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative 3.2.1 Proposed Action 3.2.2 No-Action Alternative 3.2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eiiminated from Detaiied Study 3.2.4 Summary of Findings and Comparison of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative 3.2.5 Collection of Information and Analyses 3.2.6 Preferred Alternative 3.3 Affected Environment 3.3.1 Affected Environment at the Yucca Mountain Repository Site at the Conclusion of Site Characterization Activities 3.3.2 Affected Environment Related to Transportation 3.3.3 Affected Environment at Commercial and DOE Sites 3.4 Environmental Consequences of Repository Construction, Operation and Ivlonitoring, and C!osure 3.4.1 Short-Term Environmental Impacts of Performance Confirmation, Construction, Operation and Monitoring, and Closure of a Repository

3.69-5 3.4.2 Short-Term Environmentai Impacts from the implementation of a Retrieval Contingency or Receipt Prior to the Start of Emplacement 3.5 Environmentai Consequences of Long-Term Repository Performance 3.5.1 inventory for Performance Calculations 3.5.2 System Overview 3.5.3 Locations for Impact Estimates 3.5.4 Waterborne Radiological Consequences 3.5.5 Atmospheric Radiological Consequences 3.5.6 Consequences from Chemically Toxic blaterlals 3.5.7 Consequences from Disruptive Events 3.5.8 Nuclear Criticality 3.5.9 Consequences to Biological Resources and Soils 3.6 Environmental Impacts of Transportation 3.6.1 Summary of lrnpacts of Transportation 3.6.2 National Transportation 3.6.3 Nevada Transportation 3.7 Environmental lrnpacts of the No-Action Alternative 3.7.1 Short-Term impacts in the Yucca Mountain Vicinity 3.7.2 Commercial and DOE Sites 3.7.3 Cumu!ative impacts for the No-Action Alternative 3.8 Cumulative impacts 3.8.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 3.8.2 Cumulative Short-Term lmpacts in the Proposed Yucca Fjlountain Repository Region 3.8.3 Cumulative Long-Term impacts in the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Vicinity 3.8.4 Cumulative Transportation lmpacts 3.8.5 Cumulative Manufacturing impacts 3.9 Management Actions To Mitigate Potential Adverse Environmentai lmpacts 3.9.1 Types of Management Actions 3.9.2 Yucca Mountain Repository 3.9.3 Transportation 3.10 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity; and Irreversible and irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3.10.1 Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts 3.10.2 Reiationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 3.10.3 Irreversible or irretrievable Commitment of Resources APPENDIX A TYPES OF DOCUMENTS TO AVAILABLE VIA THE LICENSING SUPPORT NETWORK

This appendix contains examples of the types of documents that should be identified in or made available via the Licensing Support Network (LSN) by participants. See 10 CFR 2.1003 and the exclusions in 10 CFR 2.1005.

1. Technical reporis and analyses by all participants (including those developed by contractors). Note that this applies oniy to final technical reports and does not include preiiminary drafts (including predecisional and other internal review drafts) other than "circulated drafts;" as defined in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J (item 6 belo'w). See 10 CFR 2.1019(i)(2), which states that preiiminary drafts, although subject to derivative discover,', are excluded from enti-! in the LSN.

2. Quality assurance records

3. External correspondence

4, lnternai memoranda

5. Meeting minutesitranscripts

6. Draft documents circulated for supervisor concurrence or signature on which a nonconcurrence has been registered

7. Other documents (for 7.1 and 7.9, include references to other databases)

Draft and finai environmental evaluations or assessments Site characterization plan Site characterization study plans Site characterization progress reports issue-resolution reports License application DOE environmental report Topical reports, data, and data analyses Draft, supplemental, and final environmentai impact statements NRC preliminary comments on the sufficiency of DOE information for inclusion in a license application for a possible geologic repositoiy at Yucca Mountain. Nevada The DOE site recomrnendation to the President of the United States (e.g., transmittal letter, statutory materials supporting the recomrnendation) Publicly available information on rulemakings Public and agency comments on documents Responses to comments NRC technical positions NRC regulatory guides The DOE project-decision schedules DOE program-management documents APPENDIX B EXCLUDED AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION

In 10 CFR 2.1005, "Exclusions." the types of information excluded from the Licensing Support Network (LSN) are listed. Discovery privileges are discussed in 10 CFR 2.1006(a), (b), and (c). These sections of 10 CFR are reproduced below.

10 CFR 2.1005 Exclusions.

The following material is excluded from the requirement to provide electronic access, either pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1003, or through derivative discovery pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1019(ij

(a) Official notice materiais; (b) Reference books and text books; (c) Material pertaining exclusively to administration, such as material related !o budgets. financial rnanaqernent, personnel, office space, general distribution memoranda, or procurement, except fo; the scope of work on a procurement related to repository siting. construction, or operailon, or to the transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste; (d) Press clippings and press releases; (e) Junk mail: (f) References cited in contractor reports that are readily available: (g) Classified material subject to Subpart i of this part; (h) Readily available references, such as journal articles and proceedings, which may be subject to copyright; (i) Correspondence between a potential party, interested governmental participant, or party and the Congress of the United States.

10 CFR 2.1006 Privilege. (a) Subject to the requirements in 10 CFR 2.1003(a)(4), the traditional discovery privileges recognized in NRC adjudicarory proceedings and the exceptions from disclosure in 10 CFR 2.390 may be asserted by potential parties, interested governmental participants, and parties. In addition to Federai agencies, the deliberate process privilege may also be asserted by State and local government entities and Indian Tribes. (b) Any document for which a claim of privilege is asserted, but is denied in whole or in part by the Pre-License Appiication Presiding Officer or the Presiding Officer, must be provided in electronic form by the party, interested governmental participant, or potential party that asserted the claim to-- (1) The other participants: or (2) The Pre-License Application Presiding Officer or to the Presiding Officer, for entry into a Protective Orderfile, if the Pre-License application Presiding Officer or the Presiding Officer so directs under 10 SFR 2.1010(b) or 10 CFR 2,1018(c). (c) Notwithstanding any availability of the deliberative process privilege under paragraph (a) of this section, circulated drafts not othewise privileged shall be provided for electronic access pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1003(a). REGULATORY ANALYSIS

A separate regulatory analysis was not prepared for this regulatory guide. The regulatory analysis prepared for Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3003, "Format and Cofitent for the License Application for the High-Level Waste Repository" (November 1990), provides the regulatory basis for this regulatory guide as well. A copy of the regulatory analysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Washington, DC. The Public Document Room's mailing address is US NRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; phone (800)397-4209 or (301)415-4737: fax (301)415-3548. Exhibit I3 GUIDELINESFOR IXCLUSIOROF DOCUWIENTS13 THE LSN

A. Threshold: Certain categories of material are excluded from the universe of "Documentary Material" that must be put on the LSN. The following material is excluded from the LSN in accordance with 10 C.F.R. $2.1005:

1. Reference books and text books.

2. Material pertaining exclusively to administrative matters.

3. Press clippings and press releases.

4. Readily available references, such as journal articles and similar material

B. Tests: If a document is not excluded from the LSN under A, then it is a candidate to be considered for inclusion in the LSN. The document must be included in the LSN only if it passes all three of the following tests:

Test No. 1: Is the document or information relevant? The relevant documents that may qualify for the LSN are not limited to documents created by or for Nevada. At the same time, just because a document has something to do with Yucca Mountain does not mean that it is relevant. NRC's Regulatory Guide 3.69 sets out a list of specific subjects that effectively define the universe of what is relevant to the Yucca licensing proceeding. While we have attached the complete "Topical Guidelines" list as a reference. those fairly detailed Guidelines encompass the following primary topics:

1. General descriptions of the Yucca project, its development and construction, and its future operations, including anything related to DOE'S transportation plans or the socio-economic impacts of the repository.

2. Material related to the safety of the Yucca repository.

3. Material related to the operation of the Yucca repository.

4. Material related to any environmental impact of the repository or its operations, including anything related to DOE'S FEIS and any supplements to that FEIS.

Test No. 2: If the document is relevant under Test No. 1, is it also "Documentary Material"? Three categories of information are documentary material:

1. information that Nevada intends to cite or rely on in support of its position in the licensing proceeding (DM-1) 2. information that is relevant under Reg. Guide 3.69, but which does not support Nevada's position (DM-2)

3. all sh~diesand reports prepared by or on behalf of Nevada (whether we intend to use them or not in the licensing proceeding) (DM-:).

Test No. 3: If the document is relevant, +cJ it is documentary material, is it a "preliminary draft"? If so, the document does not need to be put on the LSN. A "preliminary draft" is any draft that is not a "circulated draft." As the name suggests, a circulated draft is a draft that has been circulated to supervisors for review to solicit their approval and at least one supervisor has not approved. Final documents and circulated drafts go on the LSN; preliminary drafts do not.

The bottom line: a document that is relevant, that is documentary material, and that is either in final form or was a "circulated" draft must he included in the LSN. 1 Exhibit C LSN: Specific Examples to Analyze LSN-Worthiness of Documentary Material

The following are ten examples of types of documents likely to be in the hands of members of the Nevada team. The purpose of the examples is to illustrate the implementation of the three tests we have discussed in order to determine whether a document is required to be included in the LSN.

A. An email from one member of Nevada's licensing team to another discussing a convenient time for a conference call.

J Test No. 1 : Not relevant

Conclusion: not for LSN.

B. Dr. Gene Smith drafts a hypothetical contention relating to volcanism

J Test No. 1: Relevant.

J Test No. 2:

o Nevada will not rely on this document in the licensing proceeding, but rather will rely on Dr. Smith's final contention or final report and his oral testimony. Therefore, not DM-I.

o There is nothing substantive in the document which does not support Nevada's position. Therefore, not DM-2.

o The document is a study or a report. Therefore, it is DM-3

J Test No. 3: Dr. Smith's hypothetical contention, drafted at a time long before DOE has even filed its License Application (to which all contentions must be addressed), is neither a final contention nor a draft contention circulated for concurrence for the purpose of finalizing it. Therefore, it fails Test No. 3.

Conclusion: not for LSN.

C. Gene Smith's preliminary draft volcanism report is circulated, and there are numerous emails sent back and forth among Nevada experts chatting about Dr. Smith's preliminary draft contention.

J Test KO. 1: The emails are relevant.

o Although the emails containing the preliminary draft contention are themselves "final" emails, they will not be relied upon or cited by Nevada in the licensing proceeding. Therefore, not DM-I. o There is nothing in the emails which is not supportive of Nevada's position or is likely to be used by DOE or another party. Therefore, not DM-2.

0 'The emails are not studies or reports. Therefore, it is not DM-3.

Conclusion: not for ISN.

D. Mike Thome is asked to give his opinion regarding the likely criticality factors involved with a nuclear waste rail cask which falls off a bridge and is submerged in the Mississippi River.

J Test No. I: Relevant.

J Test No. 2:

o Nevada w~llrely on Dr. Thome's final reports or contentions in the licensing proceeding, as well as his oral testimony, but not this document. Therefore, not DM-I .

o There 1s nothing substantive in the document which does not support Nevada's position or is likely to be used by DOE or another party. Therefore, not DM-2.

o The document is probably a "report," requested by and delivered to Dr Thome's client. ?'herefore, it is DM-3.

4 Test No. 3: Dr. Thome's report is not intended to be a draft document which is worked over and resubmitted, nor is it a preliminary draft. It is a final report or study. Therefore, it meets the third test.

Conclusion: must be included in LSN.

E. Mike Thome composes a bibliography of those documents which he referenced in what is concededly a final report (e.g., on criticality) prepared for his client, NWPO. The issue is whether the documents referenced by Dr. Thome must be placed on the LSN.

J Test No. 1: Relevant.

J Test No. 2:

o Nevada, through its testi&ing expert, may well cite and rely on the material in the licensing proceeding. Apparently, DM-I.

o There is nothing in the document which is not supportive of Nevada's position or is likely to be used by DOE or another party. Therefore, not DM-2.

o The documents relied upon by Dr. Thorne are studies or reports, but they were not prepared by or on behalf of Nevada. Therefore, not DM-3. J Test No. 3: The cited documents were presumably contained in periodicals or learned treatises and are final reports.

Conclusion: would normally be required to be placed in LSN, except for the enumeration of specific exclusions contained in 10 C.F.R. 2.1005. Those exclusions include references cited in contractor reports that are readily available; reference books and text books; and readily available references, such as journal articles and proceedings, which may be subject to copyright. This example is instructive, in that it suggests that. as part of this LSN guidance memorandum, we should probably enumerate the "exclusions" up front, because they are documents which might otherwise "pass the test" for inclusion in the LSN, but are still exempt from inclusion. There is no sense for one to put a document through several "tests" if it can be cast aside at the beginning of the analysis.

I;. Bob Loux transmits Mike Thome's criticality study to Steve Frishman, and the issue is the characterization of Bob Loux's email.

J Test No. 1: The email is relevant.

J Test No. 2:

0 There is nothing substantive in the email which Nevada intends to cite or rely on in the licensing proceeding. Therefore, not DM-1.

0 There is nothing substantive in the email which does not support Nevada's position or is likely to be used by DOE or another party. Therefore, not DM-2.

o The email is not a study or a report. Therefore, not DM-3.

Conclusion: not for LSN.

G. Bob Loux asks Steve Frishman to comment on Mike Thome's criticality report, and he does so by email. The status of Steve's email:

J Test No. 1: Relevant

J Test No. 2:

o Nevada will not rely on Steve's email in the licens~ngproceeding. Therefore, not DM- I.

0 There is likely nothing substantive in Steve's email which is not supportive of Nevada's position or is likely to be used by DOE or another party. Therefore, not DM-2.

0 Steve's comments do not rrse to the level of a study or report. Therefore, rt 1s not DM-3

Conclusion: not for 1,SN. 11. Maury Morgenstein, in 1995, submitted to NWPO the results of a six-month long experiment done at Catholic University, wherein a sample of C-22 alloy was exposed to waters similar in their chemical content to the water likely to be encountered in a Yucca Mountain storage tunnel.

J Test No. 1: Relevant.

J Test No. 2:

0 Nevada is unlikely to rely on the information in the licensing proceeding which will not commence until more then ten years after the information was supplied by Maury; accordingly, it would not be DM-I (if however, the information is such that it would likely become part of a contention attacking the viability of C-22, it may well be DM-1).

o There is nothing in the document which is not supportive of Nevada's position or is likely to be used by DOE or another party. Therefore, not DM-2.

o This document is a "study," since it was testing commissioned by Nevada and performed on behalf of Nevada. Therefore, it is DM-3.

J Test No. 3: If the document reports the results of a requested analysis, it is probably a final report and meets this test.

Conclusion: must be on LSN.

I. Nevada delivers information to DOE and NRC prior to DOE'S recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site to the President, which is geared to demonstrate the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed repository on the citizens of Nevada.

J Test No. 1: Relevant

J Test No. 2:

o Nevada is likely to rely on the information in the licensing proceeding Therefore, it is DM-I .

o The information is not information that is non-supportive of Nevada's position. Therefore, not DM-2.

0 It likely constitutes a study or report done by or on behalf of Nevada, and therefore, it is DM-3.

J Test No. 3: The document, as delivered to the Agencies, was a final document, and therefore meets Test No. 3.

Conclusion: must be on LSN.

I. Assuming that the socioeconomic studies were a composite of analyses made by different consultants in different disciplines (e.y., economists, sociologists, etc.); what is the status of those deliverables to Nevada, which later are incorporated into a composite socioeconomic report delivered to the federal agencies.

J Test No. 1 : Kelevant

4 Test No. 2:

o The information contained in these inputs is likely to be relied upon by Nevada in the licensing proceeding. Therefore, it is DM-1.

0 There is nothing in the document which is not supportive of Nevada's position or is likely to be used by DOE or another party. Therefore, not DM-2.

0 'These inputs are studies or reports done on behalf of Nevada. Therefore, DM-3.

J Test iio. 3: Even though the analyses of sociologists and economists might have been incorporated into some other document, that work, when delivered to NWPO, was intended to be the final report or study of the individual who did the work. Therefore, meets Test No. 3.

Conclusion: must be on LSN. Exhibit D CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH LSN DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS

1, ,certify that I have provided to Susan

Lynch at the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, 1761 E. College

Parkway, Suite 118, Carson City, Nevada 89706, the Documentary

Material required to be provided to her by Joseph R. Egan's

Memorandum to me dated June 5,2007, and that I have taken in good faith all reasonable efforts to identify such Material.

By:

Print Name:

Title:

Dated: DOE

EX. I Nevada Licensing Support Network Procedures October 22,2007

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulation at 10 C.F.R. 52.1009 requires that each party to the Yucca Mountain repository licensing proceeding establish procedures to implement requirements for inclusion of Documentary Material contained in 52.1003, and that each party provide training to its staff on the procedures for implementation of the responsibility to provide such Documentary Material.

Nevada has both established procedures and provided training, not only to its staff, but to its cadre of engaged expert consultants for the past several years. While $2.1009 does not mandate that the procedures be in written form, Nevada deems it appropriate to reduce its preexisting procedures to writing at this time. The Department of Energy (DOE) has certified its initial Licensing Support Network (LSN) database (on October 19, 2007), and Nevada must assume that it must complete the implementation of the procedures which it has had in place since at least 2004, in order to certify its own initial LSN database on or before January 17,2008.

Training: Written information has been provided to staff of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, to counsel, and to contract consultants on a repetitive basis. Detailed memoranda detailing LSN compliance requirements were sent by Mr. Joe Egan on July 29,2004 and June 5, 2007. "Decision tree" and "question and answer" doc~lmentswere circulated to every member of the team. Concurrent with DOE'S certification and the necessity for Nevada to plan to follow suit, an additional "Memorandum to Area Certification Managers of Nevada's Licensing Team" on the subject of Nevada LSN Training has been prepared and is being distributed concurrently with these Nevada LSN procedures. It will be the responsibility of each Area Certification Manager to further distribute the LSN Training Memorandum (attached to the Memorandum to Area Certification Managers) to the individuals for whom each has responsibility as detailed below.

Certification: Each individual member of the Nevada licensing team has the responsibility of certieing his or her own compliance with the requirements of producing all Documentary Material within his or her possession to Susan Lynch on or before December 21, 2007. Individuals who certified long in the past must recertify and provide any additional documents to Susan Lynch. Individuals who recently certified will be surveyed for the continuing completeness of their production of Documentary Material and the currency of their certifications. It is anticipated that the overall initial LSN certification for the State of Nevada will he made by Bob Loux on or before January 17,2008. Each and every individual, past and present, on the Nevada licensing team will be surveyed (regarding document delivery and certification) by the responsible Area Certification Manager (see below) within the last 30 days prior to the anticipated overall certification. Responsibilities for the overall certification and supervision of individual certifications are as follovvs:

1. Overall Cert~ficationfor the State of Nevada -- Bob Loux, Director of the Nuclear Waste Project Office

2. Area Certification Managers for Specific Individuals Comprising the Nevada Licensing Team: (a) Responsible for staff of Kuclear Waste Project Office and Nevada state government officials - Bob Loux (assisted by Susan Lynch)

(b) Responsible for experts/consultants engaged by or on behalf of Nevada -- Susan Lynch; assisted by Mike Thome with respect to expertslconsultants from abroad; assisted by Allen Messenger with respect to domestic expertsiconsultants.

(c) Responsible for counsel engaged by Nevada -- Marty Malsch; assisted by Charlie Fitzpatrick with respect to the Egan, Fitzpatrick & Malsch Yucca document collection.

(d) In addition, Susan Lynch, assisted by Marty Malsch, will be responsible for all present and past Documentary Material, if any, contained on Nevada NWPO's "What's New" website and links.

All individuals will provide their certifications either d~rectlyto Susan Lynch or indirectly to her through their Area Certification Manager (if different).

December 21 Deadline: All individuals are responsible for ensuring completion and delivery of their individual certifications to Susan Lynch - either directly or through their respective Area Certification Managers - not later than December 2 1,2007. All Area Certification Managers will assure that individual certifications of compliance have been received from all individuals who fall within their respective areas of responsibility and delivered to Susan Lynch by December 21,2007.

By December 21,2007, all Area Certification Managers will have assured that all non- privileged Documentary Material required to be placed on Nevada's LSN database has been delivered to Susan Lynch; and as of the same date, all potentially privileged Documentary Material has been delivered to Marty Malsch.

Susan Lynch will cause all Documentary Material received from individuals or Area Certification Managers to be promptly delivered to Compulit and Project Manager Chad Jones for processing and creation of appropriate headers and delivery by Compulit to the LSN Administrator Dan Graser in ample time to assure his processing of Documentary Material and headers into the overall LSN database before the January 17,2008 deadline.

Susan Lynch and Chad Jones will actively coordinate with the LSN Administrator, both before and after December 21,2007, to assure delivery of documents and headers to the LSN Administrator with ample lead time to enable Bob Loux to be able to execute the required overall certification on or before January 17,2008.

Marty Malsch and Charlie Fitzpatrick will prepare appropriate headers for privileged documel~tsin accordance with pertinent PAP0 Case Management Order reqt~irements.With respect to any relevant Documentary Material determined to be w.ithheld from full-text availability on the LSN, they will coordinate with Compulit and the LSN Administrator to ensure those privileged document headers are included in Nevada's LSN database prior to the time of initial certrtification. Marty Malsch (assisted by Charlie Fitzpatrick) will also ensure the creation of privilege logs in accordance with the pertinent PAP0 Case Management Orders and ensure their filing on the same date as Nevada's initial LSN certification.

Susan Lynch will monitor and coordinate non-privileged headers created by Compulit to ensure quality (e.g., no "UNTITLED" document headers).

Docu~nentaryMaterial will be delivered to Susan Lynch (in electronic form, if possible) as soon as possible by those providing Documentary Material, and as soon as possible by Susan Lynch to Compulit, in order to establish a regular flow of documents and avoid the creation ofa backlog.

Susan Lynch has heretofore been designated the LSN Point of Contact (POC) for the State of Nevada. Marty Malsch will take the necessary actions to ensure that he is designated the Xevada POC with respect to privileged documents.

Bob Loux will execute the overall initial LSN certification on behalf of the State of Nevada only when he has been (I) informed by each of the Area Certification Managers that the Nevada LSN procedures have been distributed and implemented, that training has been conducted of the Nevada staff and all individuals engaged by the State of Nevada in connection with the Yucca Mountain project licensing proceeding, that individual certifications have been received from each of the individuals from whom they are required, and that the certifications confirm that all Documentary Material required to be present on Nevada's LSN database at the time of its initial certification have been identified, collected, and delivered to the LSN Administrator for inclusion on the LSN; and (2) assured by Marty Malsch that privileged headers have been created for all documents withheld on the basis of privilege and provided to the LSN Administrator and that a privilege log consistent with PAP0 requirements has been prepared for filing concurrent with Nevada's LSN certification.

POLICY ISSUE (Information)

-FOR: The Commissioners m: E. Roy Hawkens Chief Administrative Judge m: Daniel J. Graser Licensing Support Network Administrator IRA1

SUBJECT: LICENSING SUPPORT NETWORK PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION - SEMIANNUAL REPORT

PURPOSE:

This is to inform the Commission, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. ij 2.1011(~)(5),of the status of the Licensing Support Network (LSN) and the activities of the LSN Administrator (LSNA) for the six-month period ending December 31, 2006.

BACKGROUND:

The Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated January 31, 1992, directed the submission of a semiannual report on the activities of the LSNA (formerly the Licensing Support System (LSS) Administrator). The scope of this semiannual report includes LSN program activities from July 1. 2006, through December 31, 2006.

DISCUSSION:

I. Activities

A. Licensing Support Network Administrator (LSNA) and Staff

LSN staff member Roy Hardin, LSN Quality Assurance Auditor, has accepted a lateral transfer to the Office of New Reactors, Division of New Reactor Licensing (NROIDNRL). This transfer, in conjunction with the vacancy created in June 2006 when another LSN employee took a

CONTACT: Daniel J. Graser, LSNAIASLBP 301-41 5-7401 The Commissioners -2- supervisory position in the Office of Information Services (OIS), SECY-06-165, at 2 (July 27, 2006), has reduced the ASLBP technical team dedicated primarily to the LSN from three individuals to one. As a consequence, there is no federal staff backup for LSN project management and technical operations in Rockville. The recently-announced hiring freeze has resulted in NRO not being able to finalize Mr. Hardin's transfer into that organization, necessitating an extension of his detail to them and delaying ASLBP's commencing, with any reasonable assurance of being allowed to complete a new hire, the process of advertising for a replacement. ASLBP has taken action to prevent a coverage gap in the quality assurance and deputy project manager duties that were encompassed in the two vacant positions. In the interim. Joseph Deucher, the Las Vegas Facility Manager and Deputy Project Manager for the Digital Data Management System (DDMS), has been assigned to act as the LSN Deputy Project Manager. The impiications of this staffing situation are discussed in Section II, Issues, iater in this report.

B. Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)-Related Activities

Dr. Andrew Bates of the Office of the Secretary (SECY) continues to serve as the Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP) Chair. On November 29, 2006, the Commission approved a slightly modified LSNARP Charter and on December 6, 2006, the Charter renewal was filed with our congressional oversight committees and the General Services Administration. The renewed charter will run for two years, expiring on December 6, 2008.

C. LSN Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP) Activities

No meetings of the LSNARP occurred during the reporting period. While no meetings are planned for the immediate future, when they are deemed necessary they will be held in conjunction with other NRC and DOE meetings to conserve on resources.

D. LSN Administrator Guidelines

No LSN Administrator Guidelines were revised, and no new Guideline was promulgated, during the reporting period. The technical bases for LSN operations, including participant organization technologies, remain stable.

E. Interactions with Other NRC Offices and Entities

1. The Commission

The previous LSNA semiannual report was submitted to the Commission in July 2006

2. Office of Information Services

In response to inquiries posed by the LSNA at the end of the previous reporting period, OIS has clarified the requirements for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPV6) compliance by applications The Commissioners -3- systems such as the LSN that are not installed on the NRC infrastructure. OIS has advised that as of this time, there are no mandates regarding applications using IPV6. With the information available, we have been advised that use-of IPV~by the LSN should not be anticipated prior to the 2010-201 1 time frame.

As part of a further attempt to identify the risk associated with IPV6 transition that might be mandated by schedules established by other federal entities over which NRC has no control, LSN staff reviewed 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J, governing LSN operations and believes that the reference in section 2.101I(b)(Z)(vi)(A) to the LSN participants maintaining HTTPI1.l network access over Transmission Control Protocol over lnternet Protocol, which requires mandatory conformance with lnternet Engineering Task Force (ITEF) Request for Comment (RFC) 791, alleviates any concern in this regard. Under these protocols, neither the LSN nor the parties to the potential Yucca Mountain high-level waste (HLW) repository licensing proceeding whose documentary material is available on the system will have to adopt approaches such as "dual stacking" or "tunneling" to permit communications between servers using IPV4 (such as the LSN) and a potential party attempting to use IPV6.' This also avoids difficulties associated with the fact there currently are no software security products for monitoring IPV6 networks or systems.

LSN staff completed the annual LSN Security Self Assessment used to comply with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). The Chief Administrative Judge signed off on the LSN Security Self Assessment on July 18, 2006. Additionally, LSN staff submitted required Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) quarterly update reports to OIS on August 15, 2006, and November 28, 2006, as accreditation.

ASLBP management was informed of the scores assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a result of its Form 3008 review of the LSN, As with all fourteen agency systems identified during this most recent OMB Form 3008 review process, the LSN was placed on the OM8 Watch List largely because it continues to function under a FISMA-associated Interim Authority to Operate (IATO). ASLBP is working with OIS to expedite the process for obtaining a full Authority to Operate (ATO) for the LSN by May 8, 2007, or sooner if consistent with the agency's response to OMB. Funds for a security certification and accreditation (C&A) support contractor have been identified, a statement of work developed, and a request for procurement action was forwarded to the Office of Administration, Division of Contracts (ADMIDC) in hopes of a January 2007 kickoff for this effort.

' A number of transition mechanisms are available to enable IPV6-only hosts to reach IPV4 services; such as the LSN, and to allow isolated IPV6 hosts and networks to reach the IPV6 lnternet over the existing IPV4 infrastructure. A network stack that supports both IPV4 and IPV6 whiie sharing most of the code is called a dual stack. Encapsulating IPV6 packets within IPV4, in effect using IPV4 as a link layer for IPV6, is called tunneling. The Commissioners -4-

3. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Interactions with the NRC staff on LSN matters dealt primarily with routine document collection maintenance issues. The staff, following procedures established by the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer (PAPO) Board, withdrew the text and images of a small number of privileged documents from the LSN in November.

Additionally, in August the LSNA provided information to the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards on the history and use of "reasonably contemporaneous" document availability as originally addressed in Subpart J, including the statements of consideration that accompanied the original rule and subsequent rule revisions.

4. Office of the Inspector General

On November 20,2006; LSNA Dan Graser and LSN Project Manager Matt Schmit met with representatives of the NRC Office of the lnspector General (OIG) to provide background information on any previous LSNARP or LSNA discussions regarding the submission of OIG documents to the LSN. This question arose because the Department of Energy's (DOE) OIG contacted NRC OIG regarding requirements to submit OIG materials to the DOE document collection, perhaps believing that NRC's OIG could provide it with the answer based upon NRC's actions in dealing with the same issue.

The LSNA referred OIG counsel Maryann Grodin to the NRC's Office of General Counsel (OGC) as the possible author of a NRC opinionldecisionidetermination that he recalled indicated Commission-level office materials generally were not to be included in the LSN (in contrast with the required submission of materials from offices reporting to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)).

5. Office of AdministrationlDivision of Contracts

The LSN operations and maintenance (O&M) contract was awarded on July 14,2006. The award was made to AT&T Government Solutions, the previous support contractor, and accordingly, there was no disruption in service.

The LSN O&M contract consists of a one-year base contract valued at $719,141, with two option-years totaling $1,499,160, for a total three-year award of $2,218,301. If both option- years are invoked, the O&M contract would expire on July 13, 2009 (which, under the current DOE schedule for submitting its HLW repository construction authorization application and the 10 C.F.R. Pail 2, Appendix D schedule for the HLW repository licensing proceeding, would be about the time of the initial prehearing conference regarding participant standing and contention admissibility).

6. Office of AdministrationlDivision of Facilities and Security

Subsequent to award of the new O&M contract, the LSN contractor has pursued establishing an enhanced development, test, and evaluation configuration at its offices in Tysons Corner, Virginia. This stand-alone configuration provides the contractors with a matching version of the The Commissioners - 5

LSN that can be used to test new software releases, thereby ensuring uninterrupted operation of the production LSN system. One aspect of this activity is that installing this test environment at the contractor facility is subject to FlSMA security requirements, which potentially includes having a facility security review performed by the Office of Administration, Division of Facilities and Security (ADMIDFS). On December 20, 2006, LSN project staff met with ADMIDFS personnel to determine what level of facility review was needed. We were advised that no physical security review of LSN contractor space was required because: (I) the LSN is a publically-available system containing information that is not protected data; (2) contractor staff are subject to the Information Technology (IT) Level I or Level I1 security approval process for access to NRC IT non-sensitive, non-classified systems; and (3) numerous NRC-sponsored organizations have reviewed the facility. Relative to the last point, the National Security Agency (NSA) conducted a review of the AT&T contractor space during LSN-instituted information assurance assessments completed and delivered in August 2002 and August 2005 in conjunction with the system's prior AT0 certification.

LSN Project Manager Matt Schmit has been overseeing the process of securing appropriate clearances for the LSN contractor staff since the award of the new O&M contract. Although contractor staff do not visit the NRC facility on a regular basis or have NRC LAN IDS, they do have access to the software code used to maintain and operate the publicly accessible LSN and the ncn-sensitive, non-classified documentary material it contains. The contractors completed the security application paperwork in November 2006. To date, one of three AT&T staff members have been approved for badging.

Similarly, LSN project staff has been coordinating with the O&M contractor staff to ensure they are obtaining the mandatory annual computer security awareness course to meet the FlSMA computer security awareness requirement. Because these courses initially were scheduled at NRC headquarters in Rockviile in the October-December timeframe before clearances had been issued to any of the LSN contractors, we were advised we would be able to use an alternative training delivery method, i.e., an OIS-developed DVD of the Dale Carnegie Institute training session.

F. Interactions with DOE'S Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management on Its Efforts and Readiness to Meet LSN Commitments

On July 19, 2006, the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) released its schedule for submitting a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain HLW repository. The schedule includes plans for DOE to certify that its LSN document collection is in compliance with the requirements of Subpart J on December 21, 2007. This event will trigger a period of intense activity for LSN staff and contractors; other participants and potential licensing adjudication participants, whose own LSN certification deadlines are pegged to the DOE certification date; and the PAP0 Board, which will be addressing any contested certifications and documentary material disputes.

In October 2006, in response to staff reassignments within OCRWM, LSN staff updated the Point of Contact (POC) page entries for DOE. The current POC is Dong Kim, who has been designated as the lead person within the OCRWM program responsible for LSN certification The Commissioners -6- and Subpart J compliance. In subsequent meetings with Mr. Kim, the LSNA was advised that DOE is on schedule for submitting its LSN certification no later than December 21, 2007. DOE's "backlog" document pipeline is empty and it now is processing "current" materials. LSN-associated activities planned by DOE between now and December 2007 include yet another round of internal reviews of the DOE collection to identify and remove Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and preparing privilege claim logs and redacted versions of all sensitive documents that are to be available roughly concurrent with its planned December 2007 document collection certification.

LSN staff continued to work with DOE during regularly-scheduled conference calls to coordinate document loading and other LSN-related administrative activities. At DOE's request, the schedule for these meetings has been changed from biweekly to monthly.

G. Interactions with Other Participants in Conjunction with Their Efforts to be Ready to Meet LSN Commitments

As of this date, the following organizations have submitted LSN certification/compliance statements to the HLW proceeding Electronic Hearing Docket (EHD): NRC, the Nevada counties of Lander, White Pine, Eureka, and Mineral, and lnyo County, California, Additionally, DOE submitted a certification, the validity of which was challenged by the State of Nevada.

The LSNA together with Joseph Deucher, the Las Vegas Hearing Facility Manager, met with technical representatives from Clark County, Nevada, and the Nevada cities of North Las Vegas and Henderson on August 22 in Las Vegas to discuss the LSN system and its operations. Additionally, a representative of the City of Las Vegas who was unable to attend the meeting due to a late-developing schedule conflict subsequently was provided with a complete set of materials used at the briefing. The meeting was very well received and resulted in a November 6, 2006 follow-up meeting.

Subsequent to the August meetings, representatives from the office of the Henderson City Attorney sent general questions regarding potential participation in the HLW repository adjudication, including how to obtain, and the obligations and privileges associated with, the different levels of participation in the proceeding (e.g., party vs. interested governmental entity). This request was forwarded by the LSNA to NRC OGC for a response.

In October 2006, the LSNA provided examples of document collection certifications from the HLW EHD to lnyo County, per its request. Thereafter, on November 15, 2006, lnyo County submitted an initial certification of compliance with Subpart J requirements. At the time of the attempted certification, however, lnyo County had not met LSN certification requirements. The LSNA thereafter provided further clarification to county representatives on the sequence of events needed for successful technical implementation. Working with lnyo County staff, the county's documents were successfully integrated into the LSN?bringing to fifteen the total number of HLW repository licensing proceeding participant or potential participant LSN document collections available via the LSN. The Commissioners -7-

Also in November 2006. following PAP0 procedures for revising an available certified collection, the NRC staff responsible for administering the NRC document collection removed a small number of documents found to contain sensitive information.

During this reporting period, LSN staff also successfully tested integrating Esmeralda County, Nevada. into the LSN. Esrneralda County, which contracted with the same technical staff that successfully integrated several other Nevada counties into the LSN, expects to post documents in the near future.

On November 21, 2006, Nevada Governor Guinn released a letter requesting that DOE open the "closed" portion of its LSN document collection. In that letter, he also stated that Nevada had opened its own document collection as a gesture of comity. Upon reviewing the letter, the LSNA contacted representatives of the State of Nevada (Nevada) seeking clarification regarding its intentions, as the Nevada collection was emptied, per its direction, following successful connectivity testing more than a year earlier. LSN staff subsequently worked diligently with Nevada to re-index its 3,372 documents and open its collection for searching using the LSN. The Nevada collection was available via the LSN on November 27, 2006, thus effectuating the Governor's request.

H. LSN Project Plan Implementation

1. Ongoing Upgrades and Expansion to the LSN

There are no upgrades or expansions of the LSN production system currently underway

2. Administration of the LSN

Regarding LSN project management performance for the fiscal year concluding September 30, 2006, the LSN project achieved ali its planned milestones for user access, participant support, and timeliness of document loading. During the fiscal year, the project team maintained system integrity and document accuracy throughout the year consistent with the LSNA Guidelines, and successfully addressed the potentially severe security event associated with placement of certain sensitive documents into its document collection (as discussed in the July 27, 2006 LSNA semiannual report, see SECY-06-165, at 9). Project performance for the fiscal year was on budget; and all funds were committed well in advance of the end of the fiscal year. A new multi-year O&M contract was competed and put in place without any interruption in system service.

In September 2006, working with ADMIDC, LSN staff completed the annual maintenance contract with GSA for maintaining the LSN.GOV domain registration. The Commissioners - 8

The following table presents cumulative performance metrics for the LSN during the reporting period:

0 0 0 0 0 0 More than Four Hours

The following table presents the net document additionsldeletions per month, by participant:

0 Nucieai Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Institute (NEI)

NRC 0 0 0 84 3 111 198

ivye Ca ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wnite Pine Ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

inyo Cc . CA 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

Total 15,686 j0.414 8,709 5,301 14,426 7,903 62,439

'LSN collection not publically available. The Commissioners -9-

3. Security Profile of the LSN

No systeni downtime was experienced during the reporting period because of hacker attacks directed against the LSN.

The LSN continues to operate under an IATO, which is valid through October 31,2007. The LSN, however, continues to be an extremely secure IT system, due in large part to its original design architecture, the web hosting infrastructure provided by AT&T, and the robust third-party security services included in the turnkey O&M contract.

On July 17, 2006, Chief Administrative Judge Hawkens, in accordance with Management Directive (MD) 12.5, "NRC Automated lnformation Security Program," appointed Joseph Deucher and Andrew Weikie as the primary and alternate LSN lnformation System Security Officers (ISSOs). respectiveiy. As neither holds database administrator responsibilities on the system, these appointments provide the appropriate separation of duties for the LSN in that separate individuals are assigned key duties such as authorizing, approving, and recording transactions; issuing or receiving assets; making payments; and reviewing or auditing so as to minimize the risk of misappropriation or loss of system assets.

I. LSN Communication Plan Implementation

LSN Communication Plan activities during the period were limited to the participant interactions noted above.

11. ISSU~S

A, Impacts of DOE License Application Schedule Uncertainty on LSN

As noted in the previous LSNA's Semiannual Report, SECY-06-165, at 12-13, three budgeffstaffing resource issues have been identified as a result of DOE HLW repository scheduiing announcements, inciuding its December 2007 LSN certification and submission of a Yucca Mountain HLW repository construction authorization application in June 2008:

The contract providing LSN O&M coverage through July 2009 will expire at the outset of the prehearing phase if a license application for a Yucca Mountain repository is docketed in mid-calendar year (CY) 2008. NRC should anticipate another multi-year LSN O&M contract will need to be put in place by mid-CY 2008. Extending the useful life of the LSN through 2018 will require at least two major technology substitution efforts in addition to routine hardware and software refresh efforts. This issue is within the control of ASLBP management and the LSNA to the extent we can plan for future reprocurement activities and include budget resources during the appropriate budget formulation process, which looks two fiscal years ahead.

Another near-term impact of such extended LSN operation is an increase in the number of FTEs allocated to LSN to accommodate these new procurement efforts, rather than maintaining (or even reducing) LSN-associated FTEs if the LSN were to remain in a steady-state for only a three-to-four year proceeding. Accordingly, besides planning for The Commissioners - 10

and conducting an additional O&M procurement for multiple years of support, LSN budget formulations for FY 2009 and beyond may reflect a significant re-analysis of the impacts of conducting extended operations subsequent to the DOE document collection certification. This issue is within ASLBP and LSNA management control insofar as we can reallocate existing ASLBP IT team members to address some workload spikes, specifically those that are of relatively short duration. As with budget resources, we also can coordinate staff resource increases as part of the budget formulation process.

A concern relative to the Affected Units of Local Government (AULGs) arises if there are additional delays in the DOE license application submission date beyond June 2008. The Commission should anticipate that some AULGs may seek to "pull the plug" on their LSN document collections until such time as a DOE document collection certification is imminent. As a practical matter, this could mean the LSN project would sustain costs equivalent to what it already has incurred relative to these existing participants by having to incorporate these "former" participants as additional "new" participants as they eventually return and request reconnection to the LSN. The LSN staff believes this issue is manageabie if participant organizations maintain some degree of institutional knowledge, which would facilitate participant LSN reconnection based on their earlier successful efforts.

B. LSN Project Staffing and Hiring Freeze Under a Continuing Resolution

ASLBP's IT support team is currently understaffed by two positions. As noted earlier in this report, as soon as the hiring freeze is lifted, we are prepared to advertise for an IT Specialist (SysadminISysanalysis) to perform duties currently assigned to the vacant LSN quality assurance and deputy project manager positions. We have been advised by the Office of Human Resources that nothing precludes us from posting the position, reviewing resumes or interviewing individuals, but that we would not be able to extend an offer until the hiring freeze is lifted and risk having to restart the process if the applicant list becomes "stale." In the interim, Joseph Deucher, the Las Vegas Facility Manager and DDMS Deputy Project Manager will act as the LSN Deputy Project Manager. This interim action is less than optimal due to the physical distance and time-zone differences between Rockville and Las Vegas, as well as the DDMS- related workload currently assigned to Mr. Deucher.

Ill. Future LSN-Related Activities

Project Manager Matt Schmit will aggressively seek full AT0 status for the LSN in accordance with FlSMA C&A procedures,

Contractor staff will complete the installation of the development, test, and evaluation facility.

Badged LSN contractor staff will take the mandatory IT security training via OIS-provided DVDs. The Commissioners

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection

Daniel J. Graser Licensing Support Network Administrator Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

Distribution: Commissioners OGC ASLBP CFO ED0 SECY DOE

EX. K STATE OF NEVADA EXECUTIVE CHAMBER One Hundred One North Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701

KEMYY C GCINN TELEPHOM Governor 775-684-5670 Far 775-6M-S683 November 20,2006

Samuel Bodman, Secretary US Department of Energy 1000 Independent Avenue S.E. Washington, DC 20585

Dear Secretary Bodrnan:

I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of continuing and growing importance to both Nevada's citizens and the nation. As you know, Edward Sproat, Director of the Department's Off~ceof Civilian Radioactive Management, has announced that June 30, 2008 will be the submission date for a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for construction of a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.

As a prerequisite to this submission, the department must certify to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that its Licensing Support Network (LSN) electronic database of relevant licensing documentary material is complete and publicly accessible. This must be accomplished at least six months prior to submission of the license application, according to NRC's licensing regulations. Mr. Sproat has scheduled the department's application for LSN certification of its documents on December 21,2007, some 13 months from now.

The purpose of the LSN is to make documentary material available electronically to parties, potential parties. and interested governmental participants to the licensing proceeding, beginning in the pre-license application phase. The department's first effort to certify its LSN, on June 30, 2004, was set aside as insufficient by the NRC's Pre-License Application Presiding Officer Board. Promptly thereafter, working to remedy the shortcomings in its LSN collection, which ultimately will include millions of documents, the department committed to the board to continue providing the LSN administrator with documents "on a rolling basis for indexing" into the LSN. Recent information indicates that as of one month ago, 2,123,265 additional documents have been turned over to the LSN administrator for processing since June 30, 2004. Mr. Sprout estimates that approximately 6.8 million more documents will be placed on the LSN at the time of certification. More than one million documents of the original certification effort are currently publicly available on the LSN Internet website maintained by the LSN administrator. Samuel Bodman, Secretary November 20,2006 Page 2

I am deeply concerned that the two million-plus documents provided since 2004, and subsequently indexed by the LSN administrator, under instruction by the department, have not been made publicly available on the LSN, and that the balance of the 6.8 million documents that the department will continue to provide to the LSN over the next 13 months will likewise not be made publicly available. The NRC's LSN regulations appear to permit such instruction by any participant in the LSN, but the regulations authors and those commenting during the rule-making did not contemplate a six-year gap between the Secretary's 2002 Site Recommendation, and Congressional designation of the Yucca Mountain potential repository site, and the department's submission of a license application. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act calls for the license application to be made six months after Congressional site designation - which obviously did not occur. Thus, we have faced a period of many years in which a large part of the department's repository plans at Yucca Mountain remain a mystery.

The department's design and operational approach, and Total System Performance Assessment for the Yucca Mountain repository license application have changed significantly since the 2002 Site Recommendation, and they continue to evolve. To date, the department has released only very limited information on these changes developed over the past three-and-a-half years. Tbus the information is critical to advance public understanding of the planned repository system, the documentation leading up to these changes has literally been "embargoed" by the department. Ironically, on the instruction of the department, the LSN administrator, literally with the flip of a switch, could make these additional two million-plus documents publicly available for pre- application review by parties (such as Nevada and the NRC staff), potential parties, and interested governmental participants. They would also then be available to NRC's important Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, as well as the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an entity created by Congress to advise federal legislators on Yucca Mountain technical issues. It is needlessly punitive and nothing short of tragic to withhold such information from the public and these important entities and parties when it can so easily be made available.

In order to meet the Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandate for a license decision to be made by the NRC within three to four years after the department's submission of the license application, participants and potential participants must have adequate opportunity during the pre-license application phase, as contemplated by the LSN regulations, to review as much of the available relevant documentary material as possible in preparation for what has been termed the largest administrative court case in U.S. history. There is no justification for withholding public access to these documents now when the task of reviewing them is so overwhelming.

I am requesting your assistance in lifting the "embargo" on both the Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management documentary material that exists now and readily can be released to the public on the LSN Internet site, and those subsequent documents that are received by the LSN administrator and indexed for public use and review. This will not only facilitate Nevada and the NRC staff in carrying out their pre-license application duties, but this transparency will greatly assist the efficiency of any license application review and hearing process. In a demonstration of good faith, the State of Nevada has now publicly released all of Samuel Bodman, Secretary November 20,2006 Page 3 its documents that the state has placed on the LSN and we will continue to make new documents publicly available on an ongoing basis.

We look forward to your favorable intervention in facilitating the release of these documents and the culmination of this repository siting and license application review process that has been of great interest and concern to the people of Nevada for more than 20 years.

Sincerely,

KENNY C. GUINN Governor

cc: Nevada Congressional Delegation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Edward Sprout Robert R. Loux Samuel Bodman, Secretary November 20,2006 Page 4

Senator Harry Reid United States Senate 528 Hart Senate Oftice Building Washington, DC 2051 0

Senator John Ensign United States Senate 364 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 205 10

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley United States House of Representatives 439 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 205 15

Congressman Jon Porter United States House of Representatives 2 18 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 205 15

Congressman Jim Gibbons United States House of Representatives 218 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Ste. 1300 Arlington, VA 22201

Edward Sprout Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management US Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S W Washington, DC 20585

Robert R. Loux, Executive Director Agency for Nuclear Projects DOE

EX. L POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION Auqust 7,2007

FOR: The Commissioners

m: E. Roy Hawkens Chief Administrative Judge

m: Daniel J. Graser Licensing Support Network Administrator

SUBJECT: LICENSING SUPPORT NETWORK PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION - SEMIANNUAL REPORT

PURPOSE:

This is to inform the Commission, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. !j 2.101 1(c)(5), of the status of the Licensing Support Network (LSN) and the activities of the LSN Administrator (LSNA) for the six-month period ending June 30, 2007.

BACKGROUND:

The Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated January 31, 1992, directed the submission of a semiannual report on the activities of the LSNA (formerly the Licensing Support System (LSS) Administrator). The scope of this semiannual report includes LSN program activities from January I,2007 through June 30, 2007.

DISCUSSION:

1. Activities

A. Licensinq Su~wortNetwork Administrator (LSNA) and Staff

LSN Quality Assurance Auditor Roy Hardin, who had been on detail to the Office of New Reactors, Division of New Reactor Licensing (NROIDNRL), accepted a lateral transfer to that office late last year. This transfer, in conjunction with the vacancy created in June 2006 when

CONTACT: Daniel J. Graser, LSNAiASLBP 301-41 5-7401 The Commissioners -2- another LSN employee took a supervisory position in the Office of Information Services (OIS), see SECY-06-165, at 2 (July 27, 2006), reduces the ASLBP technical team dedicated primarily =he LSN from three individuals to one. Unfortunately, a hiring freeze at the end of last year resulted in a delay both in NRO being able to finalize Mr. Hardin's transfer into that organization and in ASLBP's efforts to begin the process of obtaining a replacement. Mr. Hardin, at NRO's request, was detailed to NRO until his transfer became effective on March 4, 2007, but this effectively left no federal staff backup for LSN project management and technical operations in Rockville.

While completing the process for hiring a new LSN employee, ASLBP prevented a coverage gap for the LSN quality assurance and deputy project manager duties that were performed by the individuals in the two now-vacant positions by appointing Joseph Deucher, the Las Vegas Facility Manager and Deputy Project Manager for the Digital Data Management System (DDMS), to act as the LSN Deputy Project Manager. ASLBP anticipates selecting a new individual whose duties will be primarily LSN-related by early in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2007.

B. Federal Advisorv Committee Act (FACA)-Related Activities

Dr. Andrew Bates of the Office of the Secretary (SECY) continues to serve as the LSN Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP) Chair.

C. LSN Advisorv Review Panel (LSNARP) Activities

No LSNARP meetings occurred during the reporting period. ASLBP personnel did meet with staff from the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and SECY in April 2007 concerning a possible LSNARP meeting in conjunction with a planned June 2007 NRC workshop for the Affected Units of Local Government (AULG). At that time, it was decided that convening another LSNARP meeting in the near term was likely to be contingent on whether system performance problems were encountered when the second Department of Energy (DOE) LSN document collection was opened in May 2007. Ultimately, as is discussed in section I.H.2 below, there were no problems when that DOE collection was made publicly available, so no meeting was necessary.

While there are no plans for an LSNARP meeting in the immediate future, if a meeting does become necessary it likely will be held in conjunction with other NRC or DOE meetings to conserve travel resources.

D. LSN Administrator Guidelines

No LSNA Guidelines were revised, and no new Guidelines were promulgated, during the reportina period. The technical bases for LSN operations, including participant organization technologies, remain stable The Commissioners - 3 -

E. lnteractions with Other NRC Offices and Entities

1. The Commission

The previous LSNA semiannual report was submitted to the Commission in January 2007

2. Office of lnformation Services (01s) lnteractions with the OIS staff on LSN matters dealt primarily with efforts to obtain a Federal lnformation Security Management Act (FISMA) Authority to Operate (ATO) certification, which is discussed below in section I.H.3 of this report.

On June 25, 2007, the OIS network operations staff changed the Internet Protocol (IP) number for the NRC LSN server. Because the NRC uses the IP number (rather than a domain name such as "nrc.gov") as part of the URL, with this change the approximately 26,000 documents in the NRC staff's LSN collection became unavailable via the LSN. The availability of other participants' collections was not affected. At the request of the LSNA, OIS staff promptly restored access to the documents on their LSN server by restoring the original server IP number on June 27, 2007. LSN staff will work with OIS staff to avoid this problem in the future, and a followup "lessons learned meeting with OIS has been scheduled.

3. Office of Nuclear Material Safetv and Safeauards lnteractions with the NRC staff on LSN matters dealt primarily with routine document collection maintenance issues.

4. Office of the lns~ectorGeneral

There were no interactions with the Office of the Inspector General.

5. Office of AdministrationlDivision of Contracts

Routine contracting actions for acquiring annual software maintenance agreements for the LSN's AutonomyTMsearch engine software are discussed in section I.H.2 of this report.

F. lnteractions with DOE'S Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Manaaement on Its Efforts and Readiness to Meet LSN Commitments

The LSNA testified at a March 5, 2007 conference held by the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer (PAPO) Board regarding the status of loading activities by all participants over the past year. At that conference, DOE advised it intended to open up its then-unavailable DOE II collection of over 2.1 million documents within 60 days, i.e., before May 4, 2007. Public access to this collection was actually provided on April 30, 2007.

At that conference, DOE counsel also indicated the window for certifying the entire DOE LSN document collection had been narrowed to between October 1,2007, and December 21,2007. Subsequently, in a June 29, 2007 monthly report to the PAPO, DOE counsel indicated that its LSN certification could occur as early as September 21, 2007. The Commissioners -4-

During the reporting period, LSN staff worked with DOE representatives and contractors on DOE's effort to correct erroneous or missing information from bibliographic information posted on both the DOE I and DOE ll document collections. This effort was ongoing throughout the late spring and early summer and is eventually expected lo result in 1.5 million DOE bibliographic records being revised. Also during this period, the LSNA routinely coordinated with and monitored DOE's compliance with PAP0 Board orders regarding the timely removal of text and image materials (but not the associated bibliographic entries) for documents found to contain privileged, Privacy Act, or other sensitive information. These transactions resulted from DOE efforts during the reporting period to perform relevancy and privilege reviews of documents previously loaded on either the DOE I or DOE II document collections.

G. Interactions with Other Participants in Coniunction with Their Efforts to be Readv to Meet LSN Commitments

As of this date, the following organizations have submitted LSN certification/compliance statements to the high-level waste (HLW) repository licensing proceeding Electronic Hearing Docket (EHD): NRC Staff; the Nevada counties of Lincoln, Churchill, Lander, White Pine, Eureka, and Mineral; and lnyo County, California. Additionally, DOE submitted a certification in June 2004, the validity of which was challenged by the State of Nevada.

On May 23, 2007, LSN staff provided LSN training in the Panel's Rockville hearing room to State of Nevada representatives from the Washington, D.C. area.

On June 18, 2007, the LSNA met with two individuals from the Clark County, Nevada Comprehensive Planning Department, both of whom will be taking over responsibility for Clark County's LSN efforts, to provide them with background on the LSN program.

The LSNA participated in a June 19-20 workshop for the AULGs conducted in Las Vegas, Nevada bv representatives from NMSS and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). The LSNA an overview of the LSN and its role in the automation efforts &socisted with NRC's preparation for potential HLW repository licensing proceeding. As a result of the session, the LSNA received requests for additional training from Clark County and the Cities of Las Vegas and Henderson, Nevada. Additionally, the LSNA was notified by a Nye County, Nevada representative that a substantial number of documents will be added to the LSN by Nye County sometime after August 2007.

H. LSN Proiect Plan lm~lementation

1. Onaoinq Upqrades and Expansion to the LSN

There are no upgrades to or expansions of the LSN production system currently underway. In February 2007 LSN staff completed a test system upgrade, which allows LSN staff to more effectively install upgrades and fixes (u,Microsoft program and security patches).

2. Administration of the LSN

Project management performance by the LSN staff continues to achieve planned system milestones for user access, participant support, and document loading timeliness. Project The Commissioners - 5 - spending for FY 2007 continues to be slightly under budget, and all budgeted funds are on schedule to be committed well in advance of the end of the fiscal year.

AutonomyTMis the text search and retrieval software used in the LSN. During May 2007, a request for proposals (RFP) for annual AutonomyTMsoftware maintenance was issued, and bids were received by the Division of Contracts and forwarded for LSN staff evaluation. Subsequently, the new software maintenance contract was competed, awarded, and put in place without any interruption in software maintenance.

DOE opened a second collection of materials comprised of 2,730,340 documents (roughly 20 million pages) on April 30, 2007. As previously requested by DOE, that collection had not been available to potential parties or the public for searching to permit DOE staff to complete document QA activities. This second DOE document collection was successfully opened for search and retrieval without significant incident. On the first day this DOE II collection became publicly available, one search feature was found to be inoperative. The AT&T contractor staff providing LSN operations and maintenance (O&M) support were able to identify the problem and test and deploy a solution onto the operating system within six hours after the problem was reported. Throughout the process of opening the second DOE collection, usage statistics were closely monitored to ensure that all user response times remained satisfactory, and no adjustments to either the LSN hardware or software were required.

The following table presents cumulative performance metrics for the LSN during the reporting period:

Number of Days with Outage 0 0 0 0 0 0 More than Four Hours

The following table presents the net document additionsldeletions per month, by participant:

Licensing Support Network Documents Added by Participant

Total Added Added Added Added Added Added Added 1107 January February March April May June Through 6130107

Churchill Co. 0 0 7 0 0 0 7

City oiLas Vegas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Clark Co. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The Commissioners -6-

Licensing Support Network Documents Added by Participant

Total Added Added Added Added Added Added Added 1107 January February March April May June Through 6130107

DOE I (18,986) 0 (1,132) 0 (1) 2 (20,117)

DOE il^ 8,469 (16,699) (17,356) ($60) 36.981 23.996 35,231

Esrneralda Co. .. 13 0 0 0 0 13

*DOE II - LSN collection not publically available January - April 2007. ** Nye Co. - LSN collection not publically available throughout reporting period.

3. Securitv Profile of the LSN

No system downtime was experienced during the reporting period because of hacker attacks directed against the LSN.

In January 2007, the LSN project team began the process of obtaining FISMA certification and accreditation (C&A) for the LSN. ASLBP committed to working with OIS to try to complete the C&A process for the LSN by March 2007 as part of the agency's effort to demonstrate progress in its overall information technology (IT) security program. On February 7, ASLBP was advised by the OIS project manager that MAR, Inc., the contractor supporting the agency's C&A efforts, had submitted a proposal that would escalate the cost of LSN C&A by 25 percent (an increase of approximately $37K from an initial estimate of $161.5K). Additionally, initial C&A efforts revealed that the LSN O&M contract with AT&T required a task modification and contract ceiling funding increase to add additional IT security specialist labor hours to obtain required information from the AT&T web hosting facility in Ashburn, Virginia. On March 9, based on Senior Information Technology Security Officer (SITS0)-identified C&4 information requirements, the LSN staff submitted a statement of work and independent government cost The Commissioners -7-

estimate for a $300k contract modification to allow the AT&T LSN contractors to assist in completing and maintaining the system's C&A. As a consequence, LSN C&A activities were put on hold as of the end of March. To facilitate contractor availability to work on this effort, the OIS Director and the SITSO recommended that the Office of Administration waive the Management Directive 12.3 requirement that AT&T contractor staff have an approved IT-I or IT-2 security clearance before they can bill to this C&A contract. While contract arrangements were being made to facilitate AT&T support, an additional $200k was provided to the OIS MAR, Inc. contractors developing the LSN C&A products.

Work on achieving an LSN AT0 resumed on April 26. Because the LSNA and the LSN staff take very seriously complying with IT security requirements so as to achieve a full AT0 as part of the LSN's annual Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 300B submission, we are working to obtain an LSN AT0 by September 30, 2007. Nonetheless, the LSN, which is currently operating under an Interim AT0 (IATO) that is valid through October 31, 2007, continues to be an extremely secure IT system, due in large part to its original design architecture, the web hosting infrastructure provided by AT&T, and the robust third-party security services included in the turnkey AT&T O&M contract.

On March 27, during a routine weekly technical discussion with DOE contractors, a potential safeguards information (SGI) spill was identified by the LSNA. The matter was referred to an OIS ITsecurity specialist, who determined that a DOE employee appeared to have mis-spoken in the conference call by using the wrong term to describe sensitive files residing on the NRC LSN server. Because the three documents at issue are not sensitive material and were part of a batch of non-sensitive files that were removed from the LSN server for administrative reasons, this incident was closed out.

During February 2007, badged LSN contractor staff successfully completed mandatory IT security training via OIS-provided DVDs.

1. LSN Communication Plan lrnolementation

LSN Communication Plan activities during the period were those associated with the participant interactions noted in section 1.G above.

11. Issues

A. LSN lm~actof DOE Document Collection Certification Under a Continuing Resolution

DOE has indicated it intends to certify its LSN document collection sometime between September 21 and December 21, 2007. This certification will trigger a number of activities, some planned and others that can be anticipated, that will result in an increased tempo of sustained activity for the LSN project staff. The activities we will support during the next reporting period include: The Commissioners -8-

Submission of sensitive Protective Order File (POF) materials concurrent with each participant's certification. These will be delivered to the LSNA for subsequent processing into the DDMS.

Submission of Employee Concerns Program (ECP) materials. These will be delivered to the LSNA for subsequent specialized handling as directed by the PAPO Board.

Certification of LSN document collections by other potential parties. We expect significant last-minute pre-certification efforts by potential parties, in particular ye County and the State of Nevada, to load large numbers of additional materials and must be prepared to support them in resolving any problems encountered.

Requests for additional LSN user training sessions for many of the potential parties.

Potential challenges to certifications and disputes over the release of POF and ECP materials. We must be prepared to support the PAPO Board in any hearings conducted to resolve certification or access issues.

The above noted activities could occur during a period when the agency is operating under a continuing resolution (CR). In the past, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has required offices to submit estimates of monthly budget requirements covering the first quarter of the fiscal year, and funds for contract activities such as the LSN O&M contract are typically made available on a monthly or even bi-weekly basis. This funding management practice, if applied to the LSN operations during this period of intense activity, potentially will seriously interfere with our ability to provide focused support to the adjudicatory activities that will be under way.

In response to an LSNA recommendation, ASLBP management intends to engage OCFO to explore the possibility that, in the event of a CR, the entire block (or a substantial portion) of contractor support funding for ASLBP HLW-related IT systems -- both the LSN and the DDMS - - for the first half of FY 2008 be made available so as to minimize the number and frequency of financial activities needed to provide ongoing and uninterrupted contract funds.

Ill. Future LSN-Related Activities

LSN Project Manager Matt Schmit will aggressively seek full AT0 status for the LSN in accordance with FlSMA C&A procedures.

Prepare and submit the LSN 300% report to OMB.

Exercise the first of two option years for the LSN O&M contract

Provide LSN training to NRC on-site representatives in Las Vegas on August 2, 2007, per their request. The Commissioners -9-

Provide LSN training to representatives of Clark County and the Cities of Las Vegas and Henderson on August 3, 2007, per their request.

Provide LSN training to AULG representatives in RenoICarson City, Nevada, in late September 2007.

Provide LSN training to Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis (CNWRA) and NMSS staff in multiple sessions currently being scheduled throughout October 2007.

Meet with Nye County technical representatives to coordinate the loading of a substantial number of its documents sometime after mid-August 2007.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection

Daniel J. Graser Licensing Support Network Administrator Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel The Commissioners - 9 -

Provide LSN training to representatives of Clark County and the Cities of Las Vegas and Henderson on August 3, 2007, per their request.

Provide LSN training to AULG representatives in RenolCarson City, Nevada, in late September 2007.

Provide LSN training to Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis (CNWRA) and NMSS staff in multiple sessions currently being scheduled throughout October 2007.

Meet with Nye County technical representatives to coordinate the loading of a substantial number of its documents sometime after mid-August 2007.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection.

Daniel J. Graser Licensing Support Network Administrator Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

Distribution: Commissioners OGC ASLBP CFO ED0 SECY OPA OCA

ADAMS: ML071930440 *See Previous Concurrence ASLBP ASLBPlEditor I ASLBPIOD OGC SECY 'D. Graser:DG 'P. Bollwerk:GPB 'E. Hawkens:ERH *M.Zoblerfor A.Vietti-Cook K. Cyr

07112107 0711 2107 07112107 07124107 071 107 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOE

EX. M 1. NEV0002872 is an email containing text, but no addressing information, from Dr. Roger Staehle to Guan Hui.

2. NEV0002779, NEV0002940, NEV0002938, and NEV0002942 are emails from "[email protected]"' to Susan Lynch, technical programs administrator for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.

3. NEV0002764, is from "[email protected] to Susan Lynch.

4. NEV0002858, is from Aaron Barkatt ([email protected] University) to George Danko ([email protected] of Nevada at Reno).

5. NEV5000191, dated 10/31/2007, concerns "Disposition of Spent Fuel" and is from [email protected] to Aaron Barkatt. NEV5000166 is a duplicate of NEV5000191.

6. NEV0003967, dated 07/12/2007, was printed by Patricia Flowers, concerns Review Of White Paper Response To YMP Comments On NNPP PSA, and is from John Huyett to Mark Madonia. NEV0004049 is a duplicate of NEV0003967. DOE document ALA.20070925.0067 is a duplicate of this document.

7. NEV0004021, dated 08/22/2007, concerns DDI Inputs From The Drift Degradation Analysis, and is from Dwayne Kicker to Thomas Pfeifle and Ed Gaffney, all apparently associated with DOE. NEV0003933 is a duplicate of NEV0004201. DOE document ALA.20070928.2499 is a duplicate of this document.

8. NEV0003891, dated 10/26/2007, appears to be an attachment to an email by Mike Shebelskie to Fitzpatrick and Malsch concerning LSN matters. NEV0003999 is a duplicate of NEV000389 1.

9. NEV0004547, dated 02/21/2006, concerns an audit by Bechtel of Lawrence Livermore and is from Fitzpatrick to Loux, Egan, Malsch, Gilinsky, and others.

10. NEV0004328, dated 01/26/1996, concerns IH Air Quality Sampling and is from Charles Parker to Joseph Heitcamp, probably associated with DOE.

11. NEV0004262, dated 04/03/2002, concerns personal notifications sent to LBNL employees in connection with industrial hygiene and is from Robert Brounstein to Michael Taylor, both apparently associated with DOE.

' The email address "nevada.edu" is not affiliated with a particular university, but instead appears to be associated with the Nevada System of Higher Education. 2 The email address "dnai.comX is not affiliated with a particular organization, but is instead associated with RCN, an internet access provider. 12. NEV0004303, dated 04/23/1997, appears to concern industrial hygiene in the ESF and is from Charles Parker to Susan Dallon, both apparently associated with DOE.

13. NEV0004473, dated 10/15/1997, appears to concern industrial hygiene in the ESF and is from Michael Taylor to Thomas McManus, both apparently associated with DOE.

14. NEV0004416, dated 08/13/1997, concerns an Erionite Status Report and is from Thomas McManus to Russ Baumeister and Mark van der Puy, all apparently associated with DOE. DOE document MOL.20040727.037 I is a duplicate of this document.

15. NEV0003940, dated 07/26/2007, concerns Drilling Discussions For Human Intrusion FEP and is from Carl Axness to Peter Swift, both of Sandia. NEV0004026 is a duplicate of NEV0003940. DOE document ALA.20070829.325 I is a duplicate of this document.

16. NEV0003925, dated 07/14/2007, concerns aging pad capacity and was forwarded by Len Skoblar from his AOL account to his yrnp.gov account, evidently for further transmission to "Don." Skoblar is apparently associated with DOE. DOE document ALA.20070907.2023 is a duplicate of this document.

17. NEV0004447, dated 02/24/2004, concerns Industrial Hygiene Measurements For 02/23/04 and is from Robert Brounstein to Michael Taylor, both apparently associated with DOE. DOE document ALE.20040621.3098 is a duplicate of this document.

18. NEV0004448, dated 03/27/1996, concerns Kiewit Experts A Kemper Company Lab, NAILSCO (industrial hygiene in the ESF) and is from Joseph Heitcamp to Ralph Dresel, Tommy Touchstone, and Charles Parker, all apparently associated with DOE. DOE document ALE.20050302.2774 is a duplicate of this document.

19. NEV0004270, dated 02/18/2004, concerns Announcement Of Silicosis Screening Program and is from Mark Tynan, apparently associated with DOE, to Robert Yasek at an rl.gov address. NEV0004155 and NEV0004269 are duplicates of NEV0004270. DOE document ALA.20040621.9528 is a duplicate of this document.

20. NEV0004304, dated 04/21/1997, concerns EPC-97-03 as it relates to the ESF and is from Tommy Touchstone to Susan Dalton, both probably associated with DOE. NEV0004308 is a duplicate of NEV0004304. DOE document ALD.20050214.8731 is a duplicate of this document.

21. NEV0004446, dated 10/11/2004, concerns industrial hygiene in the ESF and is from Robert Brounstein to Scott Wade et al., all apparently associated with DOE. DOE document ALB.20050323.6536 is a duplicate of this document.

22. NEV0004273, dated 02/19/1996, concerns Alpine Miner Operations and is from Charles Parker to Toby Wightman and Robert Sandifer, all apparently associated with DOE.

23. NEV0004542, dated 05/08/2001, concerns Report On May 3rd Visit To The ESF and is from Fred Kissell of the CDC to Jeff Broom et al., all recipients apparently associated with DOE. DOE document ALA.20040228.5140 is a duplicate of this document. 24. NEV0004309, dated 04/23/1997, concerns EPC-97-03 as it relates to the ESF and is from Tommy Touchstone to Susan Dalton, both probably associated with DOE. Though part of the same string, this is not a duplicate of NEV0004304 and NEV0004308.

25. NEV0004331, dated 08/25/1995, concerns Current Thoughts on the ESF vent measurement schedule and is from Mike Pochowski to Barry McNeill, probably associated with DOE.

26. NEV0004396, dated 03/30/2001, concerns Dust Sampling And Analysis and is from Ze1l Peterman to Norman Kramer et al., all apparently associated with DOE. DOE document MOL.20011217.0353 is a duplicate of this document.

27. NEV0004522, dated 05/02/1996, concerns Notification Of Respirator Fit Testing At Hillshire Building and is from William Burke to Hillshire Building Personnel, all apparently associated with DOE. NEV0004287 is a duplicate of NEV0004522.

28. NEV0003947, dated 07/19/2007, concerns Impact Analyses For TSPA And The SAR and is from Ernest Hardin to Kathryn Knowles, both apparently associated with DOE. DOE document ALA.20070907.2230 is a duplicate of this document.

29. NEV0003942, dated 06/19/2007, concerns DOE comments on a revised NRC "Yucca Mountain Package" and is from Timothy McCartin of the NRC to Robert Johansson of the OMB.

30. NEV0003969. dated 07/25/2007, concerns Operations FEPS and is from Stephen Goodin, apparently associated with DOE, to Carl Axness of Sandia. DOE document ALA.20070829.3468 is a duplicate of this document.

31. NEV0003785, dated 04/27/2006, concerns Visit To Drift Scale Heater Test Alcove and is from Susan Lynch of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects to Loux et al., all associated with the State of Nevada.

32. NEV0003887, dated 08/09/2007, concerns a simplified approach to post-closure criticality, was printed by Patricia Flowers, and is from James Follin to Robert Gisch. DOE document ALA.20070927.0065 is a duplicate of this document.

33. NEV0004499, dated 12/13/1995, concerns a trip report to the ESF and is from Mike Pochowski to Charles Parker, probably associated with DOE.

34. NEV0004485, dated 11/19/1996, concerns DATARAM readings, evidently for the ESF, and is from Rick Munzer to Dick McDonald and Tommy Touchstone, probably associated with DOE.

35. NEV0004295, dated 09/10/1997, concerns Ventilation Performance And Design Issues in the ECRB and is from Thomas McManus to Ralph Dresel, both apparently associated with DOE. 36. NEV0003843, dated 07/30/1998, concerns Critically Potential Curve Draft Report and is from Alan Wells to Ralph Best, apparently associated with DOE. DOE document MOL.2006073 1.0303 is a duplicate of this document.

37. NEV0004371, dated 01/07/1998, concerns Airline Respirator Equipment For The Alpine Miner and is from Thomas McManus to Mike Pochowski et al., all apparently associated with DOE. DOE document MOL.19990506.0117 is a duplicate of this document.

38. NEV0004445, dated 06/01/2004, concerns Quarterly IOH Report and is from Robert Brounstein to Michael Taylor, both apparently associated with DOE. DOE document ALA.20040831.0171 is a duplicate of this document.

39. NEV0004249, dated 06/21/2000, concerns Silica Control and is from Alan Mitchell to Charles Reaux, both apparently associated with DOE. DOE document ALD.20040618.9406 is a duplicate of this document.

40. NEV0004307, dated 05/08/1997, concerns Dry Drilling Of Core Holes In Main ESF Drift and is from Charles Parker to Robert Sandifer and Larry Hayes, all apparently associated with DOE.

41. NEV0004237, dated 1010211997, concerns Silica & Dust At WI-34 & HAZVAC Operations and is from Richard Kovach to Alan Mitchell, apparently associated with DOE. DOE document ALG.20040617.5994 is a duplicate of this document.

42. NEV0003787, dated 06/13/2006, concerns Homeland Security Sector Specific Plan and is from Fitzpatrick to Loux and Egan, all associated with the State of Nevada. DOE

EX. N MIKETHORNE AND ASSOCIATESLIMITED (D~rectorDr M C Thorne, Company No 41 55738, Registered in England and Wales)

Abbotsleigh Kebroyd Mount Ripponden Halifax West Yorkshire HX6 3JA Telephone and Fax: 01422 825890 e-mail: [email protected]

Date: 27 March 2007 From: M C Thome To: C Fitzpatrick Copies: .I Egan Subject: Experiments on Corrosion

Charlie

The correspondence that I have seen concerning the forward experimental program gives me some cause for concern. The first point to make is that we do not yet seem to have a well-specified program for the work to be undertaken in China. None of the material that you have sent me defines the experimental materials to be used, the conditions under which the experiments are to be undertaken or the duration of those experiments. Secondly, there is some evidence in the e-mails that the staff who undertook the first phase experiments were not entirely satisfacto~y. Alternative staff members are being offered and they are being recommended as suitable, hut we do not seem to have their CVs. I think that we need to see their track records, as exemplified in their lists of publications.

My next concern is a matter that I mentioned at our meeting in February. In other areas our position is that we criticize the DOE for not having done adequate theoretical or experimental work to evaluate an issue. This places the obligation on the DOE either to undertake additional work or to explain more adequately why what they have undertaken is sufficient. However, in this area, we are undertaking our own work which gives rise to the possibility that the DOE will criticize it as inadequate, leading to the identification of further studies that have to be undertaken. This should not be taken to imply that we should not undertake the work, hut we have to be clear that we are undertaking specific illustrative or demonstrative experiments to show clearly that there are issues that the DOE has not addressed. Such experiments need to be relevant to the situation at Yucca Mountain, lead to unequivocal results, and should be well characterized. Ideally, they Chanctcriration of Corrosion Experiments should be supported by theoretical arguments to explain why the observed deleterious effects occur

In undertaking the experiments, three broad classes of materials are under consideration These are C-22, pore waters and evaporates derlved fiom pore waters, and tuff

The C-22 samples are reasonably well characterized. However, we should bear in mind that the coupons and foils used do not represent a wide range of batches of the material. The coupons were all taken from a single sheet of C-22 from one manufacturer, whereas the foil samples were taken from a single order (and therefore a single batch) from a second manufacturer. I am not clear to what extent the properties of C-22 are determined by its thermal and mechanical working history, but I note that these are not fully specified and I am not clear whether C-22 as used by DOE would have been subject to corresponding treatment. It seems to me that, as a minimum, we need to have a full metallurgical understanding of our samples, e.g in terns of their grain structure, distribution of alloy phases, and distribution of impurities. The bottom line is 'Are these samples representative of C-22 as it would be manufactured for DOE at least to the extent that the properties fall within the range that would be expected in normal manufacture?' I expect that the answer to this question is 'Yes', but we need to be able to show that these are not a couple of anomalous sheets and foils.

Pore waters and evaporates are reasonably well characterized. These evaporates are made by taking waters and evaporating them. The waters used are either groundwater samples that can be characterized before evaporation or artificial waters that are characterized in preparation. The solids obtained by evaporation will have internal structure, but that structure is effectively controlled by a well-defined protocol for their preparation.

Thus, experiments in which only C-22 and evaporates are used are well characterized and are potentially susceptible to theoretical interpretation. To a large degree, evaporates are characterized by their chemical composition. However, they do have some structure. Also, their mode of corrosive action has not been fully investigated. As April Pulvirenti points out, they were not able to solve the mystery of the corrosive species directly by analyzing the post-test solids, mainly because the corrosive species are acid gases released from the solids and result from hydrolysis reactions involving various forms of hydrated magnesium.

In my view, if we can demonstrate significant conosion in C-22levaporate experiments, we are in a strong position to challenge DOE assumptions. However, in the case of experiments involving tuff the situation is more complex. The first set of material is the 1 D Rimstidt tuty This has been used in the cheeseball experiments and the indications are that it enhances corrosion. This tuff appears to be a surface sample of ill-defined provenance and inadequate chain of custody. There may be some further information available on this sample, but it seems unreasonable to rely on it for quantitative evidence. Perhaps the most important point is that it has ~ivenrise to the suggestion from Maury Morgenstein that weathered tuff may not exhibit the usual capacity of igneous rocks to Chalactcrizaticn of Ccnosion Esperiments neutralize chemical reactions. He suggests that, in the presence of evaporative ground surface salts, the tuff can become aggressive-corrosive. However, I am not clear as to how the relatively inert weathered tuff would enhance the action of the evaporative salts. As this conclusion appears to be based on experiment K169b only, which has run for 80 days and has so far resulted in only spotty brown corrosion spots in the buried part of the metal, I do not feel that we should put too much weight on it.

Apart from the poor provenance of this sample, there appears to he only 10 g remaining. Thus, it would not be appropriate to consider using it for further experiments. Indeed, it seems doubtfbl whether sufficient remains to perform a fbll suite of chemical and mineralogical analyses. Hence, the key issue is whether alternative types of tuff should be included in the experiments. Following Maury's suggestion, if such tuff is to be included, both weathered surface samples and unweathered subsurface samples from repository horizons might be included in the program.

If it had proved impossible to generate a significant degree of corrosion in experiments using evaporates only, but that there was good evidence that the addition of tuff to the mixture would substantially enhance the degree of corrosion, there would be a strong argument for incorporating tuff in the next phase of experiments, possibly using the existing cheeseball approach. The Cheeseball 1 experiments showed corrosion with and without the presence of tuff It is recognized that these experiments were conducted with aggressive solids at high temperatures. No corrosion has been seen in Cheeseball 2, under milder and more realistic environments, except in experiment K169b mentioned above, which is the only one of these experiments to include tuff. The immersion experiments gave extensive corrosion, but required additions of the aggressive ions F- or ~0~'-at 5000 ppm. Pitting was observed in experiment J21a in which tuff was added, but not in J22a and J22b in which tuff was also added, but only tarnishing was observed. I have not found any evidence from the material provided that unweathered tuff has been demonstrated to enhance corrosion rates.

Notwithstanding the above, there is an increasing emphasis in the e-mail correspondence of the need to include tuff in the next phase of experiments. If this is accepted, it necessarily implies that the tuff used should have a well-defined and relevant provenance, should exhibit a clear chain of custody and should be well characterised chemically, mineralogically and structurally. Maury Morgenstein has substantial samples that seem to have an appropriate history, having been derived from Alcove 5 However, I do note that these have been contacted by rock bolts or wire mesh in the context of a heater experiment. This may make them more characteristic of tuff adjacent to drift walls than unaltered material. However, it also suggests that they may not be representative of unmodified material.

Overall, my views on our requirements prior to authorizing the experimental program are as follows: A statement of what can be achieved in the next phase of experiments using evaporates alone; Charncteriration of Corrosion Experiments

A statement of what added value would be achieved by incorporating tuff in the experiments; A detailed experimental program, showing the specific experiments to be conducted, their duration and phasing, anticipated results and contingency plans in the event of unexpected results: An account of what theoretical approaches will be adopted in interpreting the experimental results; Full details of the experience and competence of both the principal and supporting Chinese investigators, as expressed through comprehensive CVs; If tuffs are to be included, a full statement of the characterization studies to be undertaken on the material; A statement of how the experimental and theoretical analyses could be used to argue against the adequacy ofthe position adopted by the DOE.

I hope that the above commentary is helpful

Regards

Mike Thorne DOE

EX. 0 Sep 27 02 03:14p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith 17021796-6226

Geoscience Cansultants 543 British CT Henderson, NV 89014

Eugene I. aith Deborah L. Keenan

September 30.2002

TO. Swan Lynch Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress report for September 2002

Smith and Keenan began to prepare a presentation for the Geological Society of America National Meeting in Denver. Several important problems were addressed by doing library research and conferring with professional colleagues. These questions deal with the amount of water in Crater Flat magmas and the volatile content of their mantle source. Our work suggests that:

I, The average water content of Cmter Flat alkali basalt is in the range of 2 to 5 wt. %. 2. The presence of amphibole phenocrysts in Crater Flat basalts (especially at Red Cone) indicates a water content of about 2.5 wt. %during crystallization. X The water content ofthe mantle source is difficult if not impossible to determine by examination of the alkali basalt maw,because crystallization probably occurred at the crust-mantle boundary or higher in the crust. Assimilation of volatile rich country rock may have occurred during ascent through the lithosphere. Therefore, the mineral assemblage indicates the volatile content during crystallization, but not the volatile content of the source. 4. The rare occurrence of amphibole in Crater Flat basalts and the lack of amphibole at Lathrop Wells. suggests that the occurrence of amphibole is due to a local event (assimilation for example) and is not indicative of a large pool of volatile rich source rock in the mantle. 5. The water contents of Crater Flat magmas are not that different from those erupted on ocean islands (OIB basalts). Therefore mantle melting models developed in the oceanic environment are probably valid for continental examples. This is important because this conclusion indicates that mantle melting models developed by Wang et al. (2002) and used in Smith et al. (2002) are valid. - Smith attended the "Igneous Consequences Peer Review Interim Report Meeting'' in Las Vegas on September 3 2002. Smith and Keenan wrote a summary report based on the meeting that was submitted to the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. Sep 27 02 03:14p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith (702)796-6226

* Mike Nicholis, a Ph.D. student at Brown University, contacted Smith. Nicholis is working on the phase equilibria for the Crater Flat alkali basalt. He is investigating amphibole breakdown in order to determine magma ascent rates. Nicholis is using volatile contents of 1.25 to 3.5 wt, % in his experiments. He stated that these voiatiie contents were measured, but he did not state how the measurements were done.

Summary of work done by Chih-Hsiang Ho and Elizabeth Freeman

Al. Short-term Gvals

At this stage of research, we plan to achieve the following goals:

a. To analyze and display the properties of time series data; b. To compute and display the properties of time series model; c. To check that the properties of the fitted model match those of the data in a suitable sense; d. Having found an appropriate model, we can then use it in conjunction with the data to forecast future values of the series.

A2. Getting Started

There are numerous statistical computer packages, many of which include software for time series data analysis. A couple of our YM volcanic data sets were tested bv using- several uackazes- for modeling.- The performance of each ttme senes sdftware packagc'was then evaluated based on-the pilot data analyscs At this ~reliminarv- stage. - we concluded that the packape 11 SM2000. lncluded in one of our research project libraries, "lntroducti& to Time Series and Forecasting" was much more sophisticated. We are quite happy with this user- friendly computing software, which has been designed speciiicatly for time series modeling. Sep 27 02 03: 14p Deb Keenanl Gene Smith (7021796-6226

A3. A Fuli Scale Modeling Using ITSM2000

Running YM data using ITSM is in progress

A4. Model Development Continues

In order to achieve the goal listed in Al, the development of model theories goes hand-in-hand with our data analysis. Consequently, model development continues to be one of our major research activities. For instance, our current research endeavor is devoted to the following areas.

a Transformations are applied in order to produce data that can be successfuily modeled as "stationary time series." These modifications are used to eliminate trend and cyclic components and to achieve approximate constancy of level and variability with time. Seasonality and classical decomposition and differencing are the two methods provided in ITSM for the elimination of trend. We have decided to apply both methods to the YM volcanic data to determine which transformation is more accurate.

b. A variety of models will be explored using the preliminary estimation algorithms, with a view to finding the most likely model. Oct 25 02 01: 26p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smlth 17021796-6226 p.2

Geosciene Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, NV 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keemn

October 3 1,2002

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants KE: Progress report for October 2002

Smith and Keenan prepared a presentation for the Geological Society of America National Meeting in Denver. The talk will be presented in the special session entitled, "Tectonic modeling applied to the characterization and evaluation of Yucca Mountain as a national Nuclear Waste Repository Site: concepts, methods and hazard analyses at local and regional scales." Our presentation follows another talk on volcanic risk assessment by Frank Perry and Robert Youngs.

Specifically, this month our work focused on developing a new model to explain the isotopic differences betwten the northern and southern parts of the Crater Flat-Lunar Crater belt. Traditional models indicate that there are two distinct sources, a deep asthenospheric source for the Lunar Crater-Reveille basatts and a shallow lithospheric mantle source for basalt near Yucca Mountain.

A new model proposed in Smith et al. (2M)2), counters this traditional view and suggests that thc source of magma along the entire belt from Lunar Crater to Crater Flat is deep within hot asthenosphere. If this model is correct, then how can isotopic diffsences between the northern and southern parts ofthe belt be explained. Basalt near Yucca Mountain has low EN^, and high S7~r/%3rwhereas basalt in the Lunar Crater area is characterized by higher END and lower "~r/86~r.Along with Terry Plank at Boston University, we developed a model that explains these differences by lithospheric contamination of Yucca Mountain magmas (magmas in the northern pan of the belt would lack this contamination).

In detail, the model suggests that melting beneath Crater Flat originally occurred deep in the made and that the resulting liquid is similar in composition to Lunar Crater magma. This magma adiabatically rose into the lower lithospheric mantle inducing partial melting (1%) of the fusible companents of mantle peridotite (the peridotite is harzburgite with 4.6 ppm Nd and END of -20). The addition of 8% of this magma to the rising asthenospheric melt produced a liquid with the Nd and zpi~characteristics of Crater Plat basalt. This liquid then rose to the surface and erupted to produce thc Crater Flat and Lathrop Well basalt centers. The model is in its infancy; it must be tested using major and trace Oct 25 02 01:26p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith (702)736-6226

cbments as well as Sr isotopes In add~tion,reasonable mantle sources must be identified.

The point of this exercise is to show that the traditional model of generating low END magma in the lithospheric mantle is non-unique. Other models such as the one described above may be just as valid.

Monthly Activities Report by Chih-Hsiang Ho and Elizabeth Freeman

Al. American Statistical Association Career Day: Poster Contest

Elizabeth was strongly encouraged by several faculty members in the Math Department to participate in the American Statistical Association Career Day poster contest. The meeting took place in the Memorial Student Union on Saturday, October 5,2002. Faculty from several big-name universities joined local statisticians and graduate students, which made it a big event for UNLV in October. We decided to present our preliminary results of time series modeling based on the Yucca Mountain data to our friends and guests. The first week of October was devoted to the preparation of the poster exhibited in the contest.

A2. Presentation and Discussion of the YM Research Project

The responses from the audienee were overwhelming. Elizabeth did her best to inform the fans' questions such as:

(a) Where are the data from? (b) Who collected the data? (c) What are time series models? (d) What do the graphs represent? (e) How important is the choice of the time step? ( Is this your Ph.D. dissertation?

A3. The Big Moment

Elizabeth won the trophy for first place (Statisticians mentioned above were the judges).

A4. ARIMA Time Series ,Modeling

Information of time series model sensitivities were collected based on Yucca Mountain and three well-known volcanoes: Ngauruhoe, White Island, and Ruapehu. The modeling of trend and seasonality is in progress. PAGE 2/5 MOV-30-01 12 59 FROM GEOSCIENCE UNLV

Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, NV 89014

&gene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

November 30,2002

TOSusan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM:Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoseience Consultans RE: Progress report for November 2002

Smith and Keenan gave a fiReen minute talk entided "DEEP h<ING OF HOT MAATL Er IMPUC~"ZONSFOR YOLC$NICHA22m STUDIES AT THE PROPOSED NUCLEARWAS= XEPOSITORYATrucu MOW^. NEVADA" at ~eol~pical Society of America Nationai Meeting in Denver. The talk \aspresarted in the special session entitled, 'Tectonic modeling applied to the cmonand evaluarion of Yucca Mountain as a nationat Nuclear Wastc Repository Site: conceptsFmethods and hazard analyses at local and +anal scales." Our prffcntaton followed another taik on vdcauic nsk assessment by Frank Perry adRoben Y-.

Smith and Keenan did field work ovember 7-9) in the Reveille Range. Four samples of alkali basalt were wllected for P~ri-~r dating.

Smith was comacted by Frank Peny (LANL). We will help hun plan a field mp to view the dikes south of Fortifrcaiion W, Arizona Perry will take the Igr~eousConsequences Peer Review panel to this locality on December 11,2002.

Srnrth contacted Britt HiII (SWRI) about "NCEWD hole UPwhich hit basalt from 1300'-1340'. According to Hill. the hole TD is 1340 due to atwist-off on the bit and some hole &lapse. G&hysi& logs only go to about 800: Sampiiog was 5' inttxvais. RrilI Hole 23P is located at geographic coordinates 36O 41' 05.137" No&, 1 16O 23' 50.412" West, with a Legal Descrip2ion of Township 15s Range 50E Section 6 NW 114 NW 114. Elevation: 868.58m AMSL (2800.45 ft +/-) GPS. This correspands to lJTM coordinates 4059870 No- 553845 easing, for Zone I 1, MAD27 spheroid"

Hill has examined "the cuaings and agrees that this is a vesicular basaltic lava, not a boulder or ktwsion Theis a kamount of clay altera+-ionin most chips, with plag generally wholly altered in appeamm and FeMg phenos reduced to limonite. Some chips are fesaltered, though, and wdd likely yield a decent ArAr date on n holocrystalline(?) groundmass separate." PAGE 3/5 NOV-30-G32 13~08FR0M:GEOSCIENCE UNLV

We will obtain samples of thxs basait and attempt to date it using the *~ri~~~rtechnique in the Nevada Isotope Geochemistry Laboratory WGL) at WV.

Monthly Activities Report by Chih-Hsiang Ho and Elizabeth Freeman

Al. %me Series Forecasting Further evaluation and implementation of various fdngmethods Preliminary selection of best forecasting results and &pis of their muracy by one third method

A3. Integration of New Data: 19 Wried Anomalies Discussion with Dr. Smith regarding data tre&nent Literature review Data wnvers10n and age selection

A4. lUGS 2003 Abstracts hopamtion Preliminary online registration Review of abstract guideha and submission procedures r Composing2 abstiwts: = Topic selection Research subject sea for precise definition of terms = Abstract drafbng (in progress) Jan 31 03 08:55p Deb enan/ Gene Smith 1702 1796-6226 P. 4

Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, NV 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

January 31,2003

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress report for January 2003

Smith and Keenan submitted an abstract to the lntemational Union of Geological Sciences meeting to be held in Sapporo, Japan. The text ofthe abstract is provided below. We also began planning a drilling program to sample buried basalt in the Yucca Mountain area.

VOLCANIC HAZARD STUDIES AT THE PROPOSED NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA USA

Eugene I. ~rnith'.', Deborah L. ~eenad,C.-H. EIo3 and Elizabeth ree em an'

'~e~artmentof Geoscience, University of Nevada {UNLV), Las Vegas, NV 89154 USA 'Geoscience Consultants, Henderson, NV 89014 USA 3~epartmentof Mathematical Sciences, University of Nevada (UNLV), Las Vebw, NV 89154 USA

Determining the risk of future basaltic volcanism is one of many scientitic studies required to evaluate the suitability of the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada. These studies are of particular interest, because basaltic volcanism has occurred since 10.5 Ma in the Yucca Mountain area, and eight Quaternary alkali basalt volcanoes ranging in age from 1.0 Ma to 80 ka have erupted within 50 km of the proposed repository site. ALkati basalt volcanoes near Yucca Mountain are part of a zone of basaitic volcanism that stretches from Death Valley, California to the Lunar Crater field in central Nevada. In this zone, volcanism is episodic with three peaks of volcanism since 9.5 Ma. A camon driving force for magmatism is suggested by coeval volcanism along the length of the zone. Smith et al. (2002, GSA Today, v. 12, no. 4, p. 4-1 1) proposed that hot mantle related to a mantle plume exists beneath the zone and provides the impetus for volcanic activity. If volcanic fields in the Yucca Mountain area and Lunar Crater are linked by a common area of hot mantle then Lunar Crater recurrence rates (1 1-15 eventdmy) may be applicable to the Yucca Mountain area and the probability of magmatic disruption of the repository may be significantly higher than previous estimates. Supporting higher recurrence rates is the Jan 31 03 08:56p Deb enany Gene Smith (7021796-6226 P-5

recent discovery by aeromagnetic surveys of more than 20 buried voicanoes in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. Taking into account the buried centers and recurrence 2tes of I I to >I5 eventslmy, the estimated probability of repository disruption is 4.4 x 10 to S.0x 10' eventslyear. The estimated probability of site disruption, therefore, may be 4.4 to more than 8 times as likely as the minimum probability of magmatic disruption of the Yucca Mountain site allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency standard of 10.' eventstyear.

Monthly Activities Report By Chih-Rsiang Ho and Elizabeth Freeman

A]. Developed a software template for YM data to compute recurrence rate This template has produced approximately 400 recurence rates to be modeled Incorporation of future data will be easily facilitated

A2. Created an efficient networking between different statistical software packages r As the demand of power of the statistical software escalated, in conjunction with the ITSM 2000 previously mentioned, S-Plus is our new favorite for data management software

A3. Organization of computer output Visual examination of the time trend among the hundreds of data sets was possible by carefully clustering the data and using well-organized plots

A4. Conference presentation The quality of our graphic work is designeditargeted for the general audience of rUGG 2003 and is constantly being upgraded

AS. Time series modeling In progress Mar 28 03 09:22p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith (7021736-6226

Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, NV 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah 2,. Keenan

March 27,2003

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress report for March 2003

r Smith and Keenan collected samples of basalt from the Lunar Crater and Reveille Range for 40Af/39~rdating. r To determine the span of activity at an individual volcanic cone, three samples were also collected from Red Cone in Crater Flat. Each sample will be dated by the '%l3'~r technique using groundmass feldspars. A summary of the Igneous Consequences Peer Review meeting was prepared and sent to the Agency for Nuclear Projects. Work continued to locate drill holes that intersected basalt in Crater Flat and surrounding areas. A summary of this work is provided below.

Repon on Drill Cores in the Nevada Test Site Containing Basalt

1. USW VH-1 (pg 161-184) Nevada State Coordinates: N 743,356 feet, E 533,625 feet

This core contains basalt and basalt cinders from 29 to 53 meters and a basalt dike at 353 meters. These are likely to be Crater Flat basalts as are exposed in the valley, ages 3.75 and 1.1 my. The drill hole is not located directly over any of the aeromagnetic anomalies from O'Leary, 2002, but is most near anomaltes A, P, and T, as well as the Black Cone Anomaly. The drill hole is located within a supposed caldera wall, part of which is bounded by high-angle fault.

Can; W.J., 1982, Volcano-tectonic history of Crater Flat, southwestern Nevada, as suggested by new evidence from dnll hole USW-VH-I and vicinity; USGS Open File Report 82-457

2. USW VH-2 (pg 119-160) Nevada State Coordinates: N 748,320 feet, E 526,264 feet Mar 28 03 09:22p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith 17021796-6226 P.4

Ths core contains basalt and minor scoria along with some basalt breccia from 360 to 390 feet. Like VH-1, this core is located in close proximity to the Black Cone anomaly, between Black Cone and Red Cone. A sample has been dated at I 1.3 +/- 0.4 my, though this date may be too old (see Carr 30). Slickensides are noted in this unit.

Carr, W.J. and Parrish, L.D., 1985, Geology of drill hole USW VH-2, and structure of Crater Flat, southwestern Nevada; USGS OFR 85-475

3a. Felderhoff Federal 25-1 (pg 105-1 18) Lat: 36:37.l' N Long: 116:24.5' W

From a wildcat oil and gas exploration hole

This core is directly in anomaly B and has at least two basaltic intervals. The first is at 340-490 feet, and may extend to 520 feet. The second basalt interval is 1,840-1,990 feet, and seems to be altered. This second interval seems similar to the interval 300-500 in FF 5-1 (discussed below). This drill hole lies along a northerly trending fault zone, which is located on the east side of a major rift (Kawich-Greenwater Rift). There is evidence of a west-dipping listric fault running through this well, with over 1,000 feet of displacement

3b. Felderhoff Federal 5-1 (pg 105-1 18) Lat: 36:35.6' Long: 116:23.1'

From a wildcat oil and gas exploration hole.

'This core is just on the eastern side of anomaly B and has one interval containing basaltic breccia (270-300 ft) and one interval containing basaft (300-330 ft). From 330 to 505 feet, there were no samples, but the well logs indicate it was also basalt. This well is also located along the same fault zone as FF 25-1

Could not locate where these cores are being stored. They are not at the Mercury CLDC.

Cart, W.J., Keller, S.M., Grow, J.A., Lithologic and Geophysical Logs of Drill holes Felderhoff Federal 5-1 and 25-1, Arnargosa Desert, Nye County, Nevada.

Monthly Acrivities Report by Chih-Hsiang Ho and Eiizaubetiz Freeman

A1 . Assessment of the quality and accuracy of the preliminary forecasting results Checking accuracy of preliminary forecasting on a variety of different volcanoes and time series data A2. Further model fitting and forecasting r Integrating the results and Gndings of many other volcanic databases using ITSM 2000 to enhame our modeling techniques Mar 28 03 39:22p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith f7021796-6226

Further investigation of other supplemental graphs and statistics provided by each statistical software package that might extend our results Giving special attention to time series plots that are more sporadic and irregular to accurately understand the nature of the data Fine tuning the values of the modeling parameters for more accuracy Testing different methods that result in a stationary graph and evaluating which method is the most accurate and reliable A3. Pattern recognition using other volcanoes The eruptive history of Vesuvius now joins the group of Aso, Etna, St. Helens, Kitauea, and Yake-Dake as our training data A4. Yucca Mountain data modeling Ideas learned Gom training volcanoes is being applied to a selected subset of the Yucca Mountain data A5. Technical \m.ting Manuscript for a journal article of our modeling rationale and techniques is under preparation Table 1: XRD Results Summary Table 2: Method Parameters

Parameter --Value Target Cu Voltage 40kV Current 3OmA Divergence Slit lo Scatter Slit lo Receiving Slit 0.3mm Range 10"-110" Speed 3"Imin Step 0.050

DEI 8408 4-3-2003 Table 3: Summary of Compounds Found

1. ICDD Database 2. Kirk-Othrner Concise Encyclopedia 3. Merck Index ......

4......

......

...... -......

-, ...... -.....""5- ...... -,......

...

Way 31 03 09:Olp Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith (702)796-6226 P. 3

Geoscknce CoasuItauts 543 British CT Henderson, SV 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

May 3 1,2003

TO:Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: frogress report for May 2003

Activities for the momb of Febrwiy included:

1. 40Ar/39~~dating of basalt samples from beille Range 2. Continued adysis of the dcpth of melting ofbasalts &om the soulhem Reveille Range 3. Work on mantle melting models to produce basatis from asthewspheric maotle source 4. Limature search and compilation of chemical data for Lower cmsral xenoliths 5. Collection of reports on drilling achvities near Yucca Mountain Especially interest is in wells thatiotersectedbasalt 6. PreDaration of Reveille besam~fes for 40ArP9~rdahx. 7. PI& for next -ling &l&g trip to Reveille andiunar Crdter mnges 8 ~~fl-10Dr Ho and Ehz;ibe~11Fwman on thcu Raxucal twQllng task 9 Meet \nth Slate lawyer w cbscuss xsues and answer ques~mabout volcan~cbard work nay 31 03 08:01p Deb Keenanl Gene Smith (7021796-6226

Statistical Analysis of Episodic Patterns of Volcanism: Implications for Volcanic Ekard Assessment at Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Monthly Activities Report May 2003

Chih-Hsiang Ho and Eliibetb Freeman Department &Mathematical Sciences University of Nevada, Las Vegas

We searched ibe UMVLibrary for textsltutoriaWersmpleu on time series fomsstisg using SAS aud ather softwve pmgmma AM, we have explored Mher UNLV tibray services to farilitpte our rese;uch.

AZ Adnncing Power Peimt Prcseutation Skills

Oar hinorical practice of sumuariring uur raearrb malts via email athchments sod printer hdrd cooira noiota lo m exmaive and iMia1method of conductinp: meareb. Tbercforc, Power Point

Pameten of sensitivity analysis for model comparisons are e~pandingbqond Lag, AICC statistic, time step, and origirt of the obrervatlooal period.

Evm tbwglr it is unfortunate $bat we will a, longer be trrveling to the IUCG Conference in Japan this summer. we a~ verv &ated as a nesait of our ~Rviourulaus, and have Wedto comuletc a poblicatiou to tbe the&i commreity &ead lun 30 03 10:32a Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith l7Cl23 796-6226

Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Ctenderson, NV 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

June 30,2003

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress report for June 2003

Activities for the month of February included:

1. 40Ar/3gArdating of basalt samples from Reveille Range. Dates received from the UNLV Nevada Isotope Geochronobgy lab (NIGL) had unacceptable errors. Apparently phenocrysts contain excess Ar in glass inclusions and are unsuitable for dating. We will attempt to date gmundmass plagioclase. 2. Field work was started by Matt McKefvey in the southern Reveille Range. Man mapped the rim of a suspected caldera and determine the struchlral control of Pliocene basalt centers. Matt also collected samples of basalt for m~r?9.~dating and geochemistry. 3. Analysis of aeromagnetic survey of the area about Yucca Mountain to plan for future drilling activity. 4. Discussion of techniques to test the reaction of canister alloy against voicanic gases and magma. 5. Continued analysis of the depth of melting of basalts from the southern Reveille Range 6. Work on mantle melting models to produce basalts from asthenospheric mantle source 7. Literature search and compilation of chemical data for lower crustal xenoliths 8. Collection of repom on drilling activities near Yucca Mountain. Especially interest is in wells that intersected badt 9. Preparation of Reveille Range samples for 40~r/39~dating. 10. Planning for next sampling collecting trip to Reveille and Lunar Crater ranges. 11. Support to Dr. Ho and Elizabeth Freeman on their statistical modeling task A paper is being prepared and will be ready tbr submittal on August 1,2003. Al. ManuscriptiAMual Report Technical Typing

Activity Report &om Dr. C.H. Ho and Elizabeth Freeman

We accomplished one of the major tasks of mathematical typing for the ARIMA models. The existing software that we have used indicated that we might move to a more sophisticated program for our manuscript. We have obtained a hid version of Scientific Jun 30 03 10:32a Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith ('7021796-6226

WorlcPlace which makes writing, publishing, and doing complicated mathematical typing easier than we ever imagined possible.

AZ. Consuuction of Tables for Our Manuscript

Table 1 illustrates the volcanism at Yucca Mountain after incorporating 19 anomalies, which are assigned to 1, 3.7, and 11.2 Ma with distribution (n,,%,n,), where q +?$t n-~119. The estimated annual recurrence rates using the Poisson and Power- Law process will be summarized in Table 2.

A3. Design of Figures

The figures depict the basic techniques of ANMA modeling using sample data. Stepby- step we have shown, through our figures, the process of data transformation, differencing, automatic model identification, forecasting, and the model diagnostic checking. So f%c, we have completed 5 figures for the manuscript and there are more to come.

A4. Creation of Quasi-Pseudo Data

Modeling the episodic volcanism will be demonstrated through this quasi-pseudo data generated from the Yucca Mountain data. The modeling is in progtess.

AS. Manuscript Preparation

The nunuscript will be ready for submittal by August I, 2003. JU~30 03 10: 32a Deb Keenan/ Gene 3it.h (702)796-6226 p.5

Table 1. Volwnsm at Yucca Mountain Incorporating 18 Anomalies Assigned lo 1, 3.7, and 11.2 with distribution (n,,n2.n,),where n,+n,+n, s19 --- s.C 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 VOLCANO AGE (19, 0.01' (0, 1'3.0) (0, 0. 19) (6, 7, 7) (2. 7, 10) (9, 0.0) LO. 9. 0) (0.0. 9) (3.3.31 (1.4. 5)

Latnrco Welk 0.m t 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 OW 0.08 0.08 0.08~ .- Om... Northern Cone 1.2 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 04 0.4 0.4 0.4 04 04 0.4 Black Cone 1.0 Red Cone 1.o Little Cones (2) 0.9 0.9 Pzocene Crate

6eo~imce~Wmts 543 British CT Henderson. M 89014

Eugene I. Smitb Deborah L. Keenan

July 31, 2003

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE. Pragreu report for Juiy 22003

Activities for the month of July include& 1. Attended a DOEWRC technical exchange on volcanism on July I, 2003. A rejmrt was prepared and submttted to NANP. 2. Preparation of an abstract submitted for the Gwlogical Society of America National Meeting in Seatile, Washington. The title of the abstract is "'Bwird Yofcanoesnear Yuoca ,Wounroin: i~icuIiomforvolcanic r~skussasmenr, models for mugmarism in the contra[ Great Bu.Fln and rhe neorectonics r,/ southern Nevadu. " 3. Field work wntinued by Matt McKelvey in the southern Reveille Range Matr mapped the rim of a suspected caldera and determine the shuctural control of Plioccne basalt centers. Matt also collected samples of batfor 'OA~/'~A~dating and geochemistry. 4. Analysis of aemmagnetic survey ofthe area about Yucca Moumdtn to plan for future drjlting activity. 5. Discussion of techniques to rest the reaction of canister alloy against volcanic gases and magma 6 Caicuiation of depth of melting models for the Lunar Crater volcanic field. 7. Work on mantle melting models to produce basalts froin asthenospheric mantle source. 8. Literature search and compilation of chemical data for lower nstal xenoliths 9 Collection of repor& on drilling activities near Yucca Mountain. Espec~atfy interest is in wells that int-led basalt. 10. Preparation of Reveille Range samples for "~r/"l~rdating I 1. Planning for next sampling collecting trip to Reveille and Lunar Crater ranges. i2. Support to Dr. Ho and Elizabeth Freeman on their statistical modeling task A paper is being prepared and will be mdy for submiiia! on August 1,2003. Jul-28-03 IO:59A GMII/GeoData Systam s 7022943065 P. 06 Jul 25 03 06~26~. Deb Keenan! Gene Smith (702)796-6226 p. 4 -. .--- -

Acti* Report from Dr. C.H. Ho and EiizPbdh Freema Activity 1.

1 $ecidsd to u+k 5n ~ziclefo: .l~fa7:h~rnticaICieoIog~ kd 3x1 mdts w&dWfrom phzse I of the project: linw time gxies analysis. ntue were two tab& sa3 six figwcs, crmtal frum commdnztisicd scEefFmrP, to be presented in thc article. Ibcrefbre, .4ctiuity 1 was to reformat all the tables snd figures acwxd~ngto thcpdtcqunemarts.

liiand 1 created a draft of &ematid layous fw the Poisson proems, Power-law process, and timc saias from piousmmthly reports end formar published anicies m Je. My activiry 2. thenfore, was to wise all the quations using the latesr vesion of PAufh Xjp downloaded from the internet.

What followed were rntensrve booWjourna) artiole rwdmgand manuscript wnhnp. So far, 1 hare frnidKd the firw draR ofthe following sections for the paper.

INTRODUCTION

POtSSON PROCESS

ARARIMA MODELING Pbts of me Empirical Recumire Rahes LWMrncing The Suaplc ACF and PACT Ee- a Model AIC ond BIC Sh- Medcl DkgoosDirs Fomsscing

DISCUSSION Subjectivity of * CCiPssipl~UemOd% Checking (he Fintd Model Uniqpmcrs snd the Pur- of Maldlng Au-tie Mod- Methods

PlGUWE CAPTlONS

Thcre are morc computer program to be developed for various time origins and time steps for Yucca Mountain data sets. I switched to some programming and data management when 1was bored with ~.C~RJW~writing. Sep 01 03 01:45p Deb Keenand Gene Smith 17021 796-6226

Geoscience Consultants 543 B~itishCT Henderson, NV 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

August 3 1.2003

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoxience Consultants RE: Progress report for August 2003

Activities for the month of August included: 1. Prepared summary of "Alternative Igneous Source Term Model for the Yucca Mountain Repository." By Richard Cordell (NRC) for Susan Lynch. 2. Work on the Crater Flat-Lunar Crater deep melting model. The mcdel now incorporates the concept of the mantle "roll." Mantle rolls are similar to the wakes produced by boats-they are caused by the lithosphere plowing through the asthenosphere producing mantle eddies (rolls) that move with the lithosphere. Mantle rolls usually occur at major lithospheric boundaries. The central part of the Great Basin corresponding to the Death Valley-Crater Flat- Lunar Crater belt lies along the western boundary of the Precambrian craton. In other words, no Precambrian rocks occur to the west of this boundary. It also parallels a belt of lithospheric thickening related to the Sonoman, Antler and Sevier orogenies. The Precambrian bomdary dong with the thicker lithosphere may produce a lithospheric keel that produces eddies of hot mantle as the lithosphere moves over the asthenosphere. These eddies result in the melting anomaly that caused volcanism at Crater Flat and Lunar Crater. 3. Our abstract was accepted for presentation for the Geological Society of America National Meeting in Seattle, Washington. The title of the abstract is "Buried Voiccmoes near Yucca Mountain: Implications far volcanic risk assessment, modelsfor magmatism in the central Great Basin and the neofectonics ofsourhern Nevudu. " 4. Field work continued by Matt McKelvey in the southern Reveille Range. Matt mapped the rim of a suspected caldera and determine the structural control of Pliocene basalt centers. Matt also collected samples of basalt for 40~ri)~~r dating and geochemistry. 5. Calculation of depth of melting models for the Lunar Crater volcanic field. 6. Work on mantle melting models to pnxiuce basalts from asthenospheric mantle source. 7. Preparation of Reveille Range samples for "~r/~?~rdating. 8. Support to IX. Ho and Elizabeth Freeman on their statistical modeling task. A paper is being prepared and will be ready for submittal in September 2003. Sep 01 03 01:45p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith I7021 736-6226

Activity Report from Dr. C.H. Ho and Elizabeth Freeman

Manuscript technical writing continued with major activities:

Activity 1. Revision

Revised sections of (1) the series based on the empirical recurrence rates which includes subheadings: ERR-plot and rationale; (2) ARIMA model - basic theory which also includes two subsections: Nonseasonal models and seasonal models.

Activity 2. Draft for new sections

A draft of the following new sections has been completed:

ABSTRACT WTRODUCTION DATA ANOMALY EFFECTS On Recurrence Rates On Probability Modeis CONCLUSIONS

Activity 3. Work in progress

Local improvements of the manuscript will be done in two weeks, which serves as an annual repart for the project. The manuscript will be submitted to Mathematical Geology for the possibility of publication by the end of next month. Oct 01 03 01:lOp Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith- ...... (702j796-6226 p.3

Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, NV 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

September 30,2003

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress report for September 2003

Activities for the month of August included:

Preparation of a presentation for the Geological Society of America National Meeting in Seattle. This presentation includes the new conceut of a mantle roll or eddy beneath the Crater ~lat-lunarCrater volcanic belt. ~hdtitle of the abstract is "Buried Yolcunoes near Yucca ildounfain:Implicarions for volcanic risk assessment, modeis for magmatism rn the central Greai Basin and the neofecfonicsof southern Nevada." Field work continued by Matt McKelvey in the southern Reveille Range. Matt mapped the rim of a suspected caldera and determine the structural control of Pliocene basalt centers. Man also collected samples of basalt for "Ar/"~r dating and geochemistry. Calculation of depth of melting models for the Lunar Crater volcanic field. Work on mantle melting models to produce basalts from asthenospheric mantle source. Preparation of Reveille Range samples for 40Ar!3'~r dating. Support to Dr. Ho on his statistical modeling task. A paper was submitted for publication in the journal "Mathematical Geology.'' Oct 01 03 01:lOp Deb KeenanC Gene Smith 17021796-6226

Activity Report from Dr. C.H. Ho and Elizabeth Freeman

Activity 1. Local improvements of the manuscript

During the fist week of September 2003, the refinement of the manuscript was the only activity that I planned which was successfully completed.

Activity 2. Additional Refinement

The first draft was too long for the targeted journal, Mc1thematrcal Geology. Thus, it had to be properly trimmed The revised copy, suitable for journal submission, was sent to Dr. Smith for comments. The approval for submission came in one week. Finally, the acknowledgement from the journal editor was forwarded to all the co-authors on September 22,2003. This concluded the Phase 1 work.

Activity 3. Plan for Future Work

In the remaining September days, 1did a lot of literature search and background reading for furtherladvanced time-series mode1 titling and diagnostic techniques. Tentative research topics for Yucca Mountain volcanism include:

a. Pattern classification; b. Goodness-of-tit test; c. Non-linear time-series models. Nov 01 03 02:49p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith I7021 796-6226

Geoscience Consultants 543 a~itishCT Henderson. NV 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Kecnan

October 31,2003

'1'0: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants Kt: Progress report for October ZUU3

Act~vitiesfor the month of October included:

Construction of a poster presentation for the Cieologicai Society of America Ni?ional meeting in Seattle. Development of the mantle roll model and integation in the previously published deepmelting model. 'I'he title of the &tract is "Rrrried Trolcnnoes near Yz;ccn ?,.fmintnin:Implicationsfor vc)!canic risk assessment, modelsfor magmulism in the central Great Busin and the neotectcnics ofsoi{thern hrei,ni?n. " Field work continued by Matt McKetvey in the southern Reveille Kange. Man mapped the rim of a suspected caldera and determine the structural control of Pliocene basalt centers. Man also collected samples ofbasalt for "~r/"~rdating ai~dgeoc1~einistry. Calculation of dcpth of melting models for the Lunar Crater volcanic field Work on friaiitleit~elting models to produce bzsdts from asi11enospl1eric mai:~ie source. - Prtpdaratiun of Reveilie Kange w~plzsfor 'O~ri'sAr &dating. Support to Dr. Ho on his statistical modeling task. A paper was submitted for publication in the journal '-Mathematical Geology." Nov 01 03 02:50p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith 17021796-6226

Activity Report from Dr. C.K. Ro

Activity 1. Checking Poissonian Volcanoes

If the "mean-corrected" EMtime series is a white noise process, the volcano would be classified as a "simple Poissonian volcano" or a ";vhite noise volc,anomMost of the DOE Yucca Mountain volcanic models stay at this level. l'he developments of portmanteau tests for checking Poissionian models me demonstntcd via simulated Poisson procesr-es (or equivalently Exponential r.v.). 'I'he methods are then applied to the YM data to cha!!enge DOE models.

Activity 2. Developments of Advanced Computing Methods

'l'he long-lasting popularity of AKMA models convincingly justities the usefulness of linear models f~ranalyzing time series dm. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that any statistical model is an approximation to the real world, a linear model is merely a first step in representing an i~~knowndynamic relati~nshipin terms of a mathematical formula. Therefore, it is not surprising that there exists an abundance of empirical evidence indicating the limitation of the linear .RIMA family. To model a ncnber of nonlinear features such as dependence beyond linear correlation, we need to appeal to nonlinear models. Fuithermore, with increasing compcting power in recent years, i: has become common place to assess and to attempt to analyze time series data of ~mprecedentedsize and complexity. .4!1 of these factors lead us to the development of compuiationally intensive nonlinear models in Phase I1 that are designed to interpret volcanoes with complicated data sh~chuesas that of YM with anomalies. Jan 01 04 11: OOa Deb KeenanC Gene Smith (702)796-6226 P.3

Geoscience Cansuttants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

December 3 1,2003

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Kmnan, Gcoscicnce Consultants RE: Progress Report for December 2003

Activities for the month of November included:

1. Presentation on volcanic risk assessment at the State of Nevada, Expert Panel Meeting in McLean, Virginia on December 10".

2. Participation in the group tefephone call of experts on December 2nd.

3. Support to Dr. Ho on his statistical modeling task.

4. Continued research on the role of a mantle keel in producing volcanism in the Yucca Mountain area

5. Continued work on preparing samples for Ar dating of Reveille Range samples

Summary of Work by Dr. C.N.Ho

Activity 1. Yucca Mountain Experts Telephone Call

Participated in the December 2,2003 experts telephone call.

Activity 2. YowerPomt Preparation

Prepared twenty-two PowerPoint slides for the December 10-12 Yucca Mountain technical experts meeting at Washington D. C.

Activity 3. Technical Experts Meeting

a. Presented the latest developments of volcanism at Yucca Mountain in the December 10-12 Yucca Mountain technical experts meeting at Washington D. C. b. Provided statistical and probabilistic insights for the Yucca Mountain Total System Performance Assessments during the round table discussion. Jan 01 04 1l:OOa Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith 17021796-6226

Activity 4. Generalization of Volcanic Event

In progress: dike length will be factored into the characteristics of an eruption.

Activity 5. Development of Basic Casualty Area

In progress

Table I. Annualized probability of repository sitc disruption (in 103. Calculations are based on basic casualty area with rdomeruptions on the defined volcanic region ',on Yucca Mounlain, Nevada USA. Lenglh orvent Alipnmml Observation Period Mod!!_- 2h 8 kn~ 16h

Quntcmar) (S 1.6 Ma) Sirnplr Poissrrt~ (5.0,16.9) (24.3. X2.1) (725245.0)

Pliwccnc and ?.Mmgcr (5 5.3 Ma) Simple Poim (3.2.6.8) (15.6, 33.0) (46.6.98.5)

Post- IZMa Simplc Poim 4.3 21.0 62.8

AKlMA Modd (3.9,4.7) (18.7.22.7) (5.5.8.67.0) (cyclical vulcanism)

Checklist

A. Licensing for commercial space launch and reentry mission

The following key points cited &om the document (Item a below) are the building biocks for most of the hazard/risk models:

a. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No. 43 1.35- 1

b. The expected casualties = E, S 30x 10 ' = an acceptable threshold.

c. If there is more than one possible event, total risk (probability x consequence) is the sum over all possible events of the products of the probability of each event and its associated consequence. That is Jan 01 04 1l:OOa Deb Keenan/.-- Gene Srnlth f702)736-6226 P-5

d. Different possible failure modes at the same time with separate possibilities of occurrence, each resulting in different debris characteristics.

e. Debris may be created by planned stage jettison operations, vehicle breakup due to aerodynamic overload, in flight explosion or other failure modes. The characteristics of debris at any given time in flight may also depend on the failure mode. Maior factors in assessing debris hazards include: the number, weight and size of the fragments, where they will land, each impacting fragment's energy and velocity vector; whether the fragment is inert or explosive.

f. Simply by assuming the worst debris characteristic would result in a conservative estimate of Ec . For instance, originally, basic casualty area was multiplied by 1.5 in order to account for bounce, skip and splatter. Currently used calculation methods give effective casualty areas that range from 3.0 to 7.0 times greater than the basic casualty area Therefore, a simple and conse~ativeapproach in the calculation is to apply a factor of 7.0 to the basic casualty area.

g. Effects of sheltering will reduceEc. However, assumption of this natuE requires considerably more analysis and supporting document in order to demonstrate that the treatment is appropriate.

B. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Studies

a. Anaiogously, a totd or collective ris!ubazard should be evaluated by combining all possible failure modes, which include: vol~ism,seismicity, terrorism, flooding, corrosion, and transportation. etc.

b. Uncertainties in scientific methodologies could be simplified by using the most conservative estimates. For instance, the following statements represent typical geclogicaI data which are valuable but with certain degrees of uncertainty that require additional treatments: (1) ?'he Pliocene Crater Flat vents form a north trending alignment of 6-8 vents, erupted -3.8 Ma (Fleck et al., 1996). (2) The geology and geophysical mapping indicate that the Quaternary Crater Flat alignment is up to 16 km in length and may have been reactivated through time. Our models are designed to capture the most up-dated scientific evidence and deliver the best products possible.

c. The inclusion of casualty areas is a new approach in our modeling processes and may have provided a solution to decade old questions such as: f I) What is the definition of a single volcanic event? (2) How many events should he counted? (3)What are the ages of the events? The answers are much simpler now: it doesn't matter. Any way you like as long as the size of the defmed event is recorded accordiligly. The limitations of the dating technique have forced us ro generalize a single event to 'k vent alignment" to resolve the many issues rose Jan 01 04 1l:Ola Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith f7023736-6226 P-6

above. Fortunately, the length of the vent alignments can be accurately factored into our equations for the casualty areas to offset the imprecision of other variables.

d. Although the volcanism studies at Yucca Mountain are unique in both the scale and complexity, the basic principles addressed in the FAA advisory circular apply to the YM repository licensing as well. The lower/upper bounds summarized in our preliminary site disruption probability calculations (TabIe I), however, reflect only the uncertainties in model or age distribution of the anomalies. The uncertainties in modifying the basic casualty area used in the calculation to a more conservative (by a factor I) effective casualty area are yet to be dctemined to account for all the other non-vertical volcanic hazards contributing to a site disruption. Jan 23 04 12:39p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith I7021 796-6226

Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

January 3 1,2004

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progms Report for January 2004

Activities for the month of January included:

1. Preparation of GVS (Geology, Volcanology, Seismicity) team focus report.

2, Participation in the group telephone calf. of experts on January 26,2004

3. Support to Dr. Ho on his statistical modeling task

4. Continued research on the role of a mantle keel in producing volcanism in the Yucca Mountain area.

5. Continued work on preparing samples for Ar dating of ReveiIIe Range samples.

6. Provide advise and support for tam member H.C Clark.

Focus of the Geology, Volcanology and Seismicity Team

Issues relating to the geology of the Yucca Mountain site, volcanic hazard and consequence and seismic hazards are the focus of the GVS team. In detail the team will:

1. Provide alternative calculations of the probability of volcanic disruption of the Yucca Mountain repository. 2. Evaluate the importance of the buried volcanic centers to probability calculations. The recognition ofthe buried centers changes volcanic recurrence rates and the overall size of the volcanic field. If recurrence rates reach 17-20/million years and the numbers of centers increases to 25-30, the Yucca Mountain area becomes one of the largest volcanic fieids in the Basin and Range. 3. Evaluate alternative petrogenetic models for the evolution of basalt magmas in the Yucca Mountain that consider the deep melting concept and the presence of a mantle melting anomaly. If these models are correct, then anew cycle of volcanic activity is possible in the next 10,000 years. 4. Consider the effects on volcanic probability calculations of extending the compliance period to peak dose (300,000 to 1 million years. Jan 23 04 12:33p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith (7021736-6226

5. Evaluate the effects of volcanic ash injection into the biosphere. There are several factors including the effects of ash on short tenn and long term climate, and radioactive ash accumulating in soil and dunes in the vicinity of the repository. 6. Evaluate the effects of a dike or eruption occuning near the repository. This near miss scenario includes changes in ground water flow paths, mck alteration and thermal effects related to dike emplacement. 7. Evaluate tectonic models for the formation of Crater Flat, Bare Mountain and Yucca Mountain. 8. Examine the evidence for Holocene faulting in the Yucca Mountain area. 9. Assess seismic hazard studies for Yucca Mountain. 2/?8/2904 7:CO PI4 FROM: Sen? SVth teoscLence Cons~ltants TO: 15105276962 ?AGE: 002 DF 063

Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

February 27,2004

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for February 2004

Activities for the month of January included:

1. Gather informat~onon the effects of volcanic eruption on long term and short term climate. We are interested in the size and composition of the pyroclasts produced by a Strombolian and/or sub-Plinian eruption.

2. Participation in the ~ouptelephone call of team leaders on February 26,2004.

3. Support to Dr. Ho on his Mistical modeling task.

4. Gathered information on the composition ofthe lower crust in the southern part of the Great Basin.

5. Continued work on preparing samples for Ar dating of Reveille Range samples

6. Proride advice and support for team member H.C. Clark.

Activities Relating to the Focus of Geology, Volcanism, and Seismicity Team by C. W. He:

1. Extended TieRange

Assessment of extending prediction time range on hazards up to the peak dose (200,000 to 1 million years) related to the recent litigation by the state.

2. Focus and Issues Review

Review of "focus and issues statement for the GVS team," sent by E.I. Smith. 2/28/2004 7:30 PM FROM: Gene Smlth Geasclence Consultants TO: 15105276962 PAGE: 003 OF 003

Activities Relating to the Focus of Overall Performance Assessment Issues and TSPA Support Team:

1. Browsing the Analysis Model Reports on DOE'S vjebsite as suggested by Susan Lynch

2. Review of "Scope ofthe Overall PA and TSTA Support Team," sent by Mike Thome.

3. Review of NWTRB trip repozt on Natural Systems and Engineered Systems on Seismic Issues wnt by Michael O'MeaIia.

4. Browsing the summary notelappendices sent by Howard Wheater. TO: 815105276962

Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

March 3 1,2004

TO: Susan Lynch, Ncvada Agency fix Nuclear Projwts FROM Eugcnc Smith and Debonh Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: PropsReport for March 2004

Activities for the month of March included:

I Prepare refkence ht as a first step i11 developing contentions. 2. Downloiding of pdf files on the reference list 3. Coordination of Geology, Volcanism. Seismicity I'mand integration of references from team members into a single Excel file. 4. Recognition of a method of converting a Word reference list into an Excel Spreadsheet. 5. Cathcr infonnation on the eReas of volcanic eruption on long term and short term climate. We arc interested in the sizc and composition of the pyroclasts produced by a Strombolian and/or sub-Plinian cruptlon. 6. Support to Dr. Ho on his statistical modeling (ask. 7. Gathered information on the composition ofthe lower crust in the southern put of the Crcat Basin. 8. Continued work on preparing samples for Ar dating of Reveille Range samples.

Adivitirs Relating to tbe Focus of Geology, Volcanism, sod Sewmicity Team by C. H. Ho:

Produced and submitted GVS contentions to 'Dr. Smith

2. References for Conhntiuns

Produced and submitted references and contentions to Dr. Smith.

3. Manuscript Rwision

Kcvision ofthe article rejected by geology. An ARIMA-Model-Based Approach to Volcanism: Application to the Yucca Mountain Region, Nevada, USA Areas thut need major improvement are: I. Are all the 19 anomalies buried volcanoes; 2. What are the approximate dates ofthe buried volcanoes; 3. The stru~*ureddm do not npresent new findings of YM volcanism unless questions 1 and 2 arc answmd. 4. 4. Manuscript in Prcprrration

Modeling and preparation of a manuscript titled below is in pmgrcss: Hazard Area and Probability of Volcanic Disruption or the Purposed High-level Radioactive Waste Repository af Yuccs Mountriin

Activities Relating to the Focus of Overall Performance Assessmcot Issuru: and TSPA Support Tenm:

1. Browsing thc Analysis Model Repaon DOE'S website as sugges2ed by Susan Lynch becomes a routine activity. Geas~ien~eGansuItantS 543 British CT Henderson, Mv&a 89014

Eugene I. Smith Cxhmh L. Kcem

TO Susan Lynch, Nevada Agttncy for Nuclear Projects FROM Eugene Srmth and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE Progress Report for April 2004

Activities for the month of April included:

1. Prepare contentions for Geology, Votcandogy and Se'ismdogy group. 2. DownWting of pdf fiks on the reference list. 3. Gather information on the effects of volcanic eruption on long term and short term climate. We are interested in the size and composition of the pyroclasts prbduced by a StioniboliBn adlor sub-PliniBn eruption. 4. Support to Dr. Ro on his st&istical modelinl: task. 5. Gah~edinfomation on the compositbr~ofthe lower cmt in the southem part of the Great Basin. 6. Continmi work on preparing samples for Ar dating af Reveilie Range samples.

Activities Relating ta the Facus af Geology,V&auhm, and Seismicity Team by C. a. Eo:

Produced and subm~tkdGVS contgntlons to Dr Sm~th

2. Refereaces far Cantentiees

Produced and submitted references and contenQms to Dr Smth

3. Manuscript Revision

Revision of the article rejected by mathematical geology: An ARIMA-Model-Based Approach to Volcanism: Application to the Yucca Mountain Region, Nevada, USA. ~r&sthat need ma@ improvement are: 1. Are all the 19 anomalies buried volcanoes; 2. What are the approximate dates of the buried volcanoes; 3. The smtcwred data do not represent new fiaciings of YM vobanism wless questions 1 and 2 are answered. Madding and prepahon af a ~tanuscripttltied below is in progress Hazard Area and Probabihty of Vol~cDisruphon of the Purposed H~gh-tevel Radzotlctive Waste Repository at Yuem Mountain

Activities Relating to the Focus of Overall Performance Assessment Issues and TSPA Seppa Teant:

1. Browslng the Analysls Model Reports on DOE'S websiie as suggested by Susan Lynch becomes a routine activity May 26 04 12:34p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith 17021736-6226

Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

May 31: 2004

10: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Debonh Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for May 2004

Activities for the month of April included:

I. Prepare a contention related to the affects of basaltic ash on human health for Geology, Volcanology and Seismology group. We are specifically gathering information on the effects of volcanic eruption on long term and short term climate. We are interested in the size and composition of the pyroclasts produced by a Strornbolian andlor sub-Plinian eruption. 2. Downloading of pdf files on the reference list. 3. Support to Dr. F-fo on his statistical modeling task. 4. Gathered information on the composition of the lower crust in the southern part of the Great Basin. 5. Continued work on preparing samples for Ar dating of Reveille Range samples.

Activities Relating to the Focus of Geology, Volcanism, and Seismicity Team by C. Ii. Ho:

1. Contentions

Produced and submitted GVS contentions to Dr. Smith.

2. References for Contentions

Produced and submitted references and contentions to Dr. Smith.

3. Manuscript Revision

Revision of the article rejected by mathematical geology: An ARIMA-Model-Based Approach to Volcanism: Application to the Yucca Mountain Region, Nevada, USA. Areas that need major improvement are: I. Are all the 19 anomalies buried volcanoes; 2. What are the approximate dates of the buried volcanoes; Hay 26 04 12: 34p Deb Keenan/ Gene Smith 17021796-6226

3. The structured data do not represent new findings of YM volcanism-unless questions 1 and 2 are answered.

4. Manuscript in Preparation

Modeling and preparation of a manuscript titled below is in progress: Hazard Area and Probability of Volcanic Disruption of the Purposed High-level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain

Activities Relating to the Focus of Overall Performance Assessment Issues and TSPA Support Team:

1. Browsing the Analysis Model Reports on DOE'S website as suggested by Susan Lynch becomes a routine activity. Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

June 30,2004

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for June 2004

Activities for the month of June included:

1. Prepare a contention related to the affects of basaltic ash on hmhealth for Geology, Volcanology and Seismology group. We are specificaIIy gathering information on the effects of volcanic eruNon on long term and short term climate. We are interested in the size and composition of the pyroclasts produced by a Strombolian andlor sub-Plinian eruption. 2. Downloading of pdf files on the reference list. 3. Support to Dr. Ho on his statistical modeling task. 4. Gathered information on the composition of the lower crust in the southern part of the Great Basin. 5. 40~d39~rdates for Reveille and Lunar Crater basalt were obtained from UNLV Nevada Isotope Geochronology Laboratory. The six dates are of excellent quality and will help in determining patterns of volcanism. 6. Attended a team leader meeting in Las Vegas on June 28". Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

August 3 1,2004

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progrws Report for August 2004

Activities for the month of August included:

1. Preparation of revised version of contentions designed for the non-geologist. 2. Preparation of new contentions dealing with the effects of volcanic eruption on short and long term climate. 3. Evaluation of Michael Thorne's memo on volcanic probability calculations. 4. Gathered information on the composition of the lower crust in the southern part of the Great Basin. 5. Calculated model Pb age of 2.7 Ga for the source of Crater Flat basalts. Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

September 30,2004

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for September 2004

Activities for the month of September included:

I. Attend meeting on the results of the new aerornagnetic survey at Yucca Mountain on September 2 1". 2. Attend ACNW meeting on volcanism September 22nd. 3. Preparation of new contentions dealing with the effects of volcanic eruption on short and long term climate. 4. Evaluation of Michael Thorne's memo on volcanic probability calculations. 5. Gathered information on the composition of the lower crust in the southern part of the Great Basin. Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

October 3 1,2004

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for October 2004

Activities for the month of September included:

1. Evaluate and record new 40~r/39~rdates for the Reveille Range. 2. Preuaration of contentions dealing- with the effects of volcanic eruption on short and long term climate. 3. Continue to develop a model for the contamination of asthenospheric basalt by lithospheric mantle. 4. Gathered information on the composition of the lower crust in the southern part of the Great Basin. 5. Evaluate a melting model that considers the dedensification of the mantle to produce mantle uplift and melting. Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014 RECEF!!ED

Eugene I. Smith DEC 1. 5 2004 Deborah L. Keenan

November 30,2004

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for November 2004

Activities for the month of November included:

Task C I:AIternative Melting Model

Our efforts were directed toward two models:

1. Our studies focused on the dedensification melting model by varying the composition of the source peridotite. Olivine peridotite containing 2% spinel produces the most acceptable models. In order to select a suitable source composition, we did a literature search for the chemistry and composition of mantie xenoliths associated with &ali basalt volcanoes in the southwestern USA. Our search indicates that spinel peridotite is common as a xenolith and that both orthopyroxene and clinopyroxene as well as olivine are common crystalline phases. Many of the xenoliths also contain an iron oxide phase like magnetite or ilmenite. We will refine our models by using published xenolith compositions. Unfortunately, isotopic data for xenoliths are rare. Collection and analysis of selected xenolith localities may be necessary to collect this data.

2. We began testing a single step model for the evolution of Crater Flat basalt involving the contamination of asthenospheric melts by lithospheric mantle. The first models using trace elements appear to nicely model the compovition of Crater Flat basalt. However, the model isotopic composition (epsilon Nd) is too high. A successful model would require either the addition of continental crust or a very low-epsilon Nd source. Continental crust may not be a suitable contaminant because its addition will raise the silica content of the magma. The only know low epsilon Nd source is Archean (>2.7 billion years old) lithosphere. We are investigated each of these options in more detail.

Task C 2: Alternative Recurrence Model

Our efforts on this task focused on improving and refining ''Ar/?'~r dates for Reveille arid Crater Flat basalt. We also tabulated age and location data for volcanoes in the Yucca Mountain area from WV,DOE and NRC publications. This data was compiled in our geocbronology database. We plan on modifying our age vs. volcanic event plot based on the new dates once all of the laboratory work is fished. Th~splot is fie basis for the alternative recurrence model.

Task C3: Alternative Volcanic Field Description

No work was done on this task. We are still waiting for DOE to release the data for the new aeromagnetic map of the Yucca Mountain area. This data will be the basis for our alternative volcanic field description. Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

December 3 1.2004

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for December 2004

Activities for the month of December included:

Task C I:Alternative Melthg Model

1. Recent articles by C. Lee et al. (2001j and Rudnick and Lee (2002) indicate that the southern Basin and Range is underlain by Archean-aged (>2.7 billion years old) lithospheric mantle. This observation; based on the Osmium isotope analysis of mantle xenoliths, is extremely important for developing melting models for basalt magmas in the Yucca Mountain area. Previously lithospheric mantle in this area was thought to be Proterozoic in age (1.7 billion years old). The occurrence of older mantle implies that isotopic systems had a longer time to evolve; therefore magmas rising from the asthenosphere would interact with old highly evolved lithospheric mantle rather than younger less isotopically evolved mantle. Proterozoic mafic mantle evolves kom original end values of +6 to -10 in 1.7 billion years. Archean mantle, however, would change from E& of +6 to perhaps as low as -30 in 2.7 billion years. The important point is that contamination models that involve Proterozoic mantle are unreasonable because they require as much as 90% mixing, but adding Archean mantle produces reasonable models that require as little as 5% mixing.

We tested this Archean mixing model by assuming that the original composition was equivalent to basalt in the Lunar Crater field. The model used Archean mafic dikes and arnphibolite from the Snake River Plain area as potential contaminants. Assuming a small amount of olivine and perhaps pyroxene fractional crystallization (no more than 5%), our model produces the composition of Yucca Mountain basalt magmas with no more that 5% assimilation of Archean lithospheric mantle.

Rudnick and Lee (2002) suggest that Archean mantle only exists in the southern Basin and Range. Younger Proterozoic mantle is found beneath the central Basin and Range and Colorado Plateau. We suggest that the chemical differences between basalts in the Yucca Mountain area and Lunar Crater are do to differences in the age of the lithosphere beneatb these two areas. In summary, our model suggests that along the entire length of the Crater Fiat-Lunar Crater belt basalt magma is originally produced by deep melting (120-140 km). In the south near Yucca Mountain, basalt interacts with old Archean lithospheric mantle, but to the north in the Reveille and Lunar Crater areas the basalt interacts with younger Proterozoic mantle. The differences in the age of the lithospheric mantle control the chemical differences of basalt between these two areas.

References:

Lee, C., Yin, Q.-Z., Rudnick, R. I,., Jacobsen, S. B., 2001, Preservation of ancient and fertile lithospheric mantle beneath the southwestern United States: Nature, v. 41 1: p. 69-73.

Rudnick, R.L. and Lee, C.T., 2002, Osmium isotope constraints on tectonic evolution of the lithosphere in the southwestern United States: International Geology Review, v. 44, p. 501-51 1.

Task C 2: Afternative Recurrence Model

We obtained three more 40~r/39~rdates for basalt in the Reveille and Lunar Crater areas. In addition we re-plotted age data from the Yucca Mountain area to include basalts as old as 11 million years old. Our new plot shows:

1. basaltic volcanic activity in the Yucca Mountain area has been nearly continuous for the last 1 1 million years (Ma) except for a 2 Ma period between 5-6 Ma. 2. basaltic activity in the Yucca Mountain area is episodic with peaks at 7-10 Ma, 3.7 Ma and 1.0 Ma. 3. the present time is a period of moderate activity with three eruptions occurring in the last 500,000 years. 4. basalts in the Reveille Range erupted from 6 to 3 Ma with two peaks at 6 and 4 Ma. 5. basalts in the Lunar Crater field erupted from 4.5 Ma to tbe present. 6. a major drop in the level of activity in the Yucca Mountain area between 7 and 6 Ma occurred at the same time as the initiation of volcanism in the Reveille Range. 7. the initial stages of volcanism in the Lunar Crater area occurred at the same time as the last activity in the Reveille Range. 8. In the last 2 Ma, activity peaked both in the Lunar Crater and Yucca Mountain areas. 9. The pattern of volcanism in the Crater Flat-Lunar Crater belt is: a. Yucca Mountain basalt (1 1-7 Ma) b. Reveille Range (6=3 Ma). c. Yucca Mountain at 3.7 Ma. d. Yucca Mountain and Lunar Crater (2-0 Ma). 10. Periods of low activity last for as long as 2 million years but have always been followed by peaks of activity. 1 1. When comparing the northern and southern parts of the Crater Flat-Lunar Crater belt, there is a strong linkage of activity between north and south. Periods of low and intense activity in general occur at the same time.

Task C3: Alternative Volcanic Field Description

No work was done on this task. We are still waiting for DOE to release the data for the new aeromagnetic map of the Yucca Mountain area. This data will be the basis for our alternative volcanic field description. Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

January 3 1,2005

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for January 2005

Activities for the month of January included:

Alternative Melting Model

No work was done on this task during the month of January Alternative Recurrence Model

1. We obtained three more 40Ar/39~rdates for basalt flows in the Reveille Range. This data was added to our event vs. time plot which will serve as the basis for a new probability model. 2. A comprehensive literature survey of basalt volcanism in the Death Valley area was initiated. As far as we can tell, little work has been done on these basalt flows in the last 15 years. We contacted Yemane Asmerom at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Asmerom published a paper on basalt flows in the Death Valley area in 1994 and agreed to supply us with his data. Unfortunately, most of the dates were done by the relatively unreliable WAI technique. We will evaluate the quality of the dates once we receive the data and decide whether we need to re- date these basalt flows by the more reliable 40~r139~rtechnique. Basalt flows occur mainly in the Black Mountains in the southeastern part of Death Valley National Park. Several flows and a basalt diealso crop out on the east side of Tucki Mountain (just west of the visitors center), The basalt flows range in age from about 11 million to less than 100,000 years old. This basalt field lies just to the south (no more than 50 lan) of the Yucca Mountain area, but has been neglected by all previous volcanic hazard assessment studies. Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

February 28,2005

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for February 2005

Activities for the month of February included:

Alternative Melting Model

1. We spent considerable time determining ways that the depth of melting calculations could be accomulished if it is assumed that the mantle contains up to 0.5 wt. % water. One way this can be done is to assume that a certain percen&ge of the FeO in basalt is Fe2O3. Unfortunately modem analytical techniques do not analyze both for FeO and Fe2O3, therefore the FeOI Fez03 must be estimated. The Fe in the +3 state is usually enhanced by the presence of water. Our literature survey and calculations show that up to 15% of FeO is Fez03 in mantle derived basalts. Using this "iron correction" reduces the depth of melting by up to 20%. This calculation is important because it is unlikely the mantle is dry as specified in our original depth of melting calculations. Alternative Recurrence Model

2. We attended the PVHA-U meeting held at the Alexis Hotel in Las Vegas. The PVHA panel consisted of 10 volcanologists; 8 of the 10 were on the original PVHA panel. The new members are Chuck Connor of the University of South Florida (formerly of the NRC Southwest Research Center) and Frank Spera of the University of California Santa Barbara Spera was a member of the Igneous Consequences panel. Because work on the repository is in a license application phase, NRC and the State of Nevada did not make presentations at the meeting. In fact most of the presentations were made by the panelists themselves. We will follow the deliberations of the panel as closely as possible in the future. 3. Planning continued for our sampling trip to the Black and Greenwater Mountains in Death Valley. Very few detailed geologic maps exist for these areas; therefore it is difficult to locate specific sampling sites. Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

March 3 1,2005

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for March 2005

Activities for the month of March included:

Alternative Melting Model

1. Frank Spera of the PVHA expert panel calculated the depth of melting of Crater Flat Basalts at about 65 km. He assumed that the source was peridotitc containing about 0.5 wt. % water. This conclusion conflicts with our model that indicates deep melting (about 100 km) of relatively dry peridotite. We are working with Teny Plank at Boston University to evaluate Spera's depth of melting calculation. Spera used the MELTS program to do the calculation. We feel, however, that this program is not well calibrated for depth of melting calculations. An evaluation of Spera's techniques and reliability of the IvfELTS program is now underway. Teny Plank plans to open a dialog with Spera to discuss depth of melting calculations. Another important point is that our model uses FeO content to calculate the bottom of the melting column. The FeO content of magma is determined by its compatibility in clinopyroxene and olivine and not water content. Therefore, we strongly feel that our model based on major element concentrations is independent of source water content and is more reliable than models produced by MELTS. Alternative Recurrence Model

2. We visited Death Valley to identify outcrops for collection of samples of basalt for 40~r/39~rdating. Unfortunately, most of the rocks were much too highly weathered and altered for collection. Also, many of the critical outcrops were on roads closed because of recent floods. These roads will be open later this spring. Our reconnaissance indicated that most of the outcrops that contained basalt fresh enough for collection are located within Death Valley National Park. This requires that we apply for a collection permit from the National Park Service. A full proposal with a collection plan is required. The proposal is reviewed by two experts. Obtaining this permit may delay our work in Death Valley by a month. Geoscience Consultants 543 British CT Henderson, Nevada 89014

Eugene I. Smith Deborah L. Keenan

April 30,2005

TO: Susan Lynch, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects FROM: Eugene Smith and Deborah Keenan, Geoscience Consultants RE: Progress Report for April 2005

Activities for the month of April included:

Alternative Melting Model

1. Terry Plank at Boston University doing melting calculations using the software MIXTS. Models using 0.1,0.5 and 1 wt. % water are being tested. Also, the evaluation of the depth calibration of the MELTS software is underway. Depth of melting calculated by MELTS will be compared to melting depths previously determined by geophysical methods. 2. The Re-0s technique may be a more reliable way of determining the age of source rock than the more traditional Sm-Nd system. We are evaluating the use of Re-0s to date xenoliths from the Lunar Crater volcanic field. These results may determine whether the age of the lithosphere at Lunar Crater is different than lithospheric age at Crater Flat. The purpose is to find a reason for the different isotopic signatures in different parts of the Crater Flat-Lunar Crater belt of basaltic volcanism. Alternative Recurrence Model

3. We are invited to submit the feature article to a future issue of EOS (the Transactions of the American Geophysical Union). The article will cover new results by our group as well as news related information regarding the new PVHA panel. EOS has a worldwide circulation and is distributed to scientists in a wide variety of fields. This article, hopefully, will introduce scientists to some of the problems related to placing a waste repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE

EX. P Geoscienees Management Insmufe, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ioc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 April 8,2003

Progress Report - March 2003 (Agreement Number: 99/00.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, PhD. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Page I Geoscienees Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 ~MontereyAv., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

1. Conferences and presentations:

1. April gave two talks at the NACE conference in Sam Diego, titled: "Corrosion Behavior of Alloy 22 Under Conditions of Dynamic Groundwater Composition" and "Fluoride Corrosion of Ti-Grade-7: Effects of Other Ions."

2. April, Ronnie, Roger, Maury and Don attended the ACNW meeting at NRC headquarters on the 25 and 26 of March. Both Maury and Don had presentations.

3. The entire team attended the Environments meeting at CUA. Issues discussed included: the importance of realism in laboratory experiments, possible mechanisms for C-22 corrosion as relates to environments, and the relevance of environments tested by the DOE compared to actual environments likely to be present at Yucca Mountain. Several new experiments were designed. Lawyers representing Nevada were given a tour of the labs.

4. Papers submitted for the Devils Hole Workshop: "An Assessment of Radionuclide Retardation by Diffusion During Vadose Zone Fluid Transport in Topopah Spriogs Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada" by Maury Morgenstein and Don Shettel 2. "Hydrogeochemistry of groundwater in the northern Amargosa Valley and Fortymile Wash, Nye County, Nevada": by D. Shettel and R. Howley

11. Ongoing testing CUA:

1. All long-term tests, including C-22 and Ti in solutions of 5-13 and Pore water with and without the presence of NO, and SO, inhibitors, Ti U-bends in solutions of pore water with less and less added fluoride and chloride, and Ti samples in solutions of various of C1' : F, are still in progress and are being inspected monthly. So far, no drastic damage to samples has been observed.

2. Tuff experiments:

A small matrix of pore water and tuff is currently in the oven, just to test if tuff dust alters the composition and pH of pore water. Chuck performed experiments on chunks of tuff rock and pore water. Pore water was forced into the pores of samples of tuff rocks, allowed to equilibrate, and then forced out by gas pressure. It was found that the resulting pore water was richer

Page 2 Geoseiences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GM, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

in magnesium, aluminum, and acid. Specific results have been sent to Don Shettel.

3. Distillations :

One distillation was performed on 1xPore water. At the end of the experiment, the residual solution was found to have a pH of 1, indicating that even unconcentrated solutions of pore water can yield acidic residual paste solutions, in addition to mildly acidic distillates. The new pore water composition UZ-N2 was distilled, and the corrosion of C-22 was tested in the distillates. Only mild corrosion, on the order of 1-10 plrniyear, was observed. Residual solids from the distillations have been collected. Chuck has compiled results from XRD analysis. (Attached)

Ill. DVD filming

1. A schedule for filming experiments was finalized, and various experiments intended to run for several days or weeks were set up thtoughout the month. Sometimes, more than one setup of the same experiment was prepared so that filming could capture the experiment at different stages. 2. Filming took place on March 30, March 31, and April I. A short list of experiments follows: a) Pore water and J-13 were evaporated to dryness and the corrosivity of the resulting solids was tested on samples of C-22. Under our conditions, no major corrosion was observed. More experiments were prepared, with higher water content. b) A smali bias (4-866 mV vs. AgC1, based on previous DOE experiments) was applied to a C-22lacrylic crevice and the pH was monitored over time. Experiments in solutions were filmed, and it was shown that indeed, the pH of the crevice fell to pH 1 in a solution of 1xPore water. C)A typical distillation of 62xPore water was filmed in all its stages of set-up, collection of distillates, and testing of C-22 in the distillate. In the experiment, a pH of -0.4 was recorded. A C-22 disk place in the solution for two weeks at 130' lost 3% of its weight. d) Solutions of 1243xPore water, 62xPore water, and solutions of Mg(NO,), were heated to 100'. Pieces of C-22 foil were placed in the solutions, and the liquid was boiled to near dryness in an Erlenmeyer flask. Two days after the boiling, the C-22 foil was bright green, indicating loss of the Cr- rich oxide layer. These results have been reproduced.

Page 3 Geoseiences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstem* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, tnc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

e) Concentrated (1243~)Pore water was evaporated at 120" C. At that temperature, precipitates tended to segregate into an upper crust and a lower pasty layer. We have collected segregated samples and are currently running X-ray analysis. f)U-bends were subjected to pore water solutions, which were allowed to dry out. In each case, pitting under the Teflon spacer was observed. g) A realistic scenario experiment was set up. A small piece of C-22 foil was placed in a jar covered with residue from pore water. A small bottle of water was placed in the jar to provide humidity, and the jar brought to 70 OC. The experiment was repeated with 5-13 water. h) A11 stages of a full distillation of 1243xPore water, including changing of the condenser, soxhlet turnover and generation of NO, and NOCl gases, were filmed. In one experiment we immersed a slab of C-22 in the soxhlet liquid and suspended a piece of C-22 foil in the vapor region. Within 3 hours, the gas had reached the samples and corroded both immensely. The C-22 foil was especially damaged. Other samples were immersed in the flask. A U-bend exhibited a 7% weight loss and small slabs showed considerable tarnishing. i) Most samples were filmed, cleaned, and filmed again. Several were analyzed by SEM. We will be completing the analysis in the coming weeks.

Page 4 Geoseienees Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* loo0 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voiee: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voiee: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 August 6,2003

Progress Report - July 2003 (Agreement Number: 99100.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, Ph.D. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Bouider City, Nevada 89005

Page 1 Ceoscienres \lanagenlent Institute, lnc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Hichnal. Suitp 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, ~zvada"89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

I. CUA Evaluation of Waste Package Materials

A. CUA Distillation and distillationlreflux experiments

One additional pore water composition was selected for an 800 mL distillation. Composition PTnUZ-1, from the Peterman USGS presentation, was selected both because its analysis was reliable and complete, and because the water has a relatively high C1 : HCO, ratio of 1.69. The original pH of the solution was 7.48. At the point of 25% volume distilled, the pH of the condensate was approximately 4. At the end of the distillation, both condensate and residual liquid were pH 3.5.

One large 12L distillation/reflux experiment is still in progress. The surface of the C-22 slab in the soaet cup is pitted over its entire surface, and shows several deeper pits on the end faces. This result is identical to our other 12L distillation experiments. We have found that we can induce rapid corrosion by increasing the heat. Within two hours of turning up the dial on the heating mantle, a green solution of dissolved nickel chloride appears in the SoXhlet cup.

B. Long term C-22 experiments:

We have stopped an older and very long-term experiment on two C-22 U-bends immersed in 1000xJ13 with lead added. Results are summarized below:

Base Lead pH- Time " C Corrosion Observations solution content Rate 52 1000xJ13 10000 0.5 740 200-250* 837 pdyr visible thinning, PPm days apex pitting 54 1000xJ13 1OOOO 0.5 740 200-233 844pdyr visible thinning, ppm days crevice corrosion * 17 months at 250°C. then 7 months at 210°C.

This confirms that lead is a corrosion accelerator, especially in crevice environments.

In May 2002, several long-term extrapolation experiments at lower temperatures and acidic pH's were started. The disks and the solutions were observed at over a year:

Page 2 Geoseienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgensteinf SO00 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 327-6962

Base Aggressive pH Days 'C Disk Solution solution observations observations 5153 1000xJ13 none 1.5 408 130 Green deposit Green solution

J154 1000x113 none 3.5 408 130 Pale green Green solution deposit 51.55 1Wl3 none 1.5 408 110 Green deposit Green solution

J156 1000x113 none 3.5 408 110 Thin pale blue Pale green deposit solution 5157 1000x113 none 5.0 408 110 No change Colorless solution 5158 1W13 none 1.5 408 85 No change Pale green solution J159 1OOOxPore none 1.5 405 130 No change Colorless solution 5160 1OOOxPore none 3.5 405 130 Nochange Colorless solution

The appearance of green solution or deposit is indication of general corrosion. It is not surprising that acidified concentrate 5-13 water is corrosive while modified acidified pore water is not. Acidified concentrated 5-13 contains corrosive aqueous HF. Aqueous pore water must first evaporate its bulk water and hydrolyze, resulting in the release of corrosive gases from the solids. Next month we (CUA) will stop these experiments and calculate the corrosion rates for C-22.

C. Mid-length tests on C-22 in moist tachyhydrite:

Strips of foil were buried in moist tachyhydrite solids in the following matrix:

Sample Solids Temp 82 days observation K94a C-22 foil, Tachyhydrite 110 No change Ti-7 foil alone

K94b C-22 foil, Tachyhydrite + 110 No change Ti-7 foil NaNO,

K95a C-22 foil, Tachyhydrite 160 Green liquids, local penetrations and Ti-7 foil alone chunks missing from the foil.

Page 3 Geoscienees Management Institute, Ine. &ury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voiee: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

K95b C-22 foil, Tachyhydrite + 160 Tarnishing, possible thinning Ti-7 foil NaNO,

None of the titanium samples showed signs of corrosion.

D. Erlenmeyer flask experiments on evaporative solids:

Tests on strips of C-22 foil in the presence of evaporative solids of various salts were conducted on the hot plate. The results are as follows:

Solids Max. Time Corrosion rate Observations temp (days) P~IY~ F10 Tachyhydrite 149 6 0.66 Small area of local corrosion F12 66%Tachy 157 5 13.58 Dark streaks &d tarnish 33% Mg(N4)Z -- F13 Mg(NO,), 144 3.7 270.29 Tarnish -- F14 lxPore 116 7.7 0.26 No change .. F15 1243xPore 150 4.7 698.76 Pitted, thinned, broken .. . F16 Tachy +O, 147 5 0.40 Local thinning F17 Tachy + H,02 140 3.1 49.95 Pitting penetrations, especially at interface F18 90%Tachy 145 14.72 Local thinning in aqueous 10% phase Mg(NO& F19 50% Tachy 129 14.17 Heavy tarnish and deposit at the 50% interface MMNOA- . ---- F20 82% MgCl, 142 34.3 1 -20 pit penetrations, brown 10% MgSO, tarnish and deposit 8% KNO3 F21 1243xPore 122 In Local green corrosion at 2 days, progress again at 6 days

Corrosion rates are reported on the basis of weight loss. Solution analysis has revealed an important difference in corrosion mechanism: in cases where corrosion is rapid and characterized by the appearance of green spots, the ion that leaches into solution is almost entirely nickel. This occurs only in cases where chloride is present in the solids. Corrosion also tends to occur primarily on the air-exposed portion of the C-22 foil. On the other hand, where chloride is absent, such as Mg(NO,), solids, the leached ions are Page 4 Ceosciences Management InslitUte, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey AT., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 5264765 Fax: (510) 527-6%2 almost entirely molybdenum and chromium, and corrosion is characterized by brown tarnish primarily on the C-22 foil portion exposed to aqueous solution.

We have also observed that the presence of "spectator" salts can accelerate either the decomposition of solids or release of corrosive gases. For example, 1243xPore water solids contain salts that are presumably not involved in the release of corrosive gases. For example, in Sample F21, 1243xPore water solids showed corrosion at a temperature of 122"C, although with a longer induction period.

Fmm the data is it clear tbat tbe decomposition of solids and subsequent corrosion of C-22 can take place by multiple processes (i.e. the production of different corrosive wet gases or liquids). Depending on the composition of the solids and the temperature, there may be several mechanisms acting simultaneously. Because multiple steps, each with a potentially different activation energy or induction period, could be involved for each mechanism, it is diicult to determine which process, or set of processes, are occumng at any one time, and whether the process is responsible for corrosion.

We are currently in the process of developing a test method (a preliminary plan was given in the June report) and matrix, which can separate some of the processes reproducibly in order to determine under which set of conditions corrosion will occur. This is fairly critical, since we need to understand the mechanisms of corrosion to report on its occurrence and fully investigate the conditions of C-22 failure, including its temperature dependence.

II. Other Activities

1. GMI finished rock sampling in the ESF and ECRB. We obtained 100 rock samples and 12 dust samples. 2. Digital photographs of the sample locations were processed and color prints were produced for a report. 3. We started photographing individual specimens in anticipation of coring out samples for experiments at DEI. 4. The Sampling Report was started. 5. Shettel procured a coring bit with water adapter and floor standing drill press for coring (sub-sampling our field samples to send to CUA for analysis). 6. Shettel reviewed the transcript and handouts for the Spring NWTRB meeting (transcript just came out in early July due to illness of transcriber). Shettel is working on a discussion of literature on aqueous fluid flow in heated fractures, problems with geochemical modeling in near field (these were expounded upon in memo), and possible model for aqueous liquid flow in heated fractures.

Page 5 Geoseiences \lanagement Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Ilighaav. Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, ~&a&89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Lhrkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

7. Morgenstein has been working with CUA to focus on the temperature dependence of the various reactions regarding C-22 failure with respect to "Cold Vs. Hot" repository conditions. 8. We are working on getting Brenda samples for biotic transfer tests regarding vadose water chemistry. 9. Roger Staehle continues to work on putting it all together. 10. Don Rimstidt has been able to support the CUA experiments with drip tests.

Page 6 Ceoseienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morpnsteia* 1000 Nevada Hfghway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Wder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 Deeem ber 4,2003 Pucrefi& Progress Report --%ie@er 2003 (Agreement Number: 99/00.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Oflice 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Manry Morgenstein, PhD. Gwsciences Management Institnte, Inc. 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder Ciq, Nevada 89005

Page 1 Geoseienees Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voiee: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

I. Meetings and papers

The NACE paper "Multiphase Corrosion of Engineered Barrier Materials" has been accepted by the reviewers with small formatting changes. We will address the comments from Chuck and Jeff and send the paper to NACE ASAP.

11. New water composition for study: PTn UZ-l

EnUZ- 1 is an established water composition reported by Peterman and Marshall. (2. E. Peterman and B. D. Marshall, 2002 GSA meeting, Paper No. 137-2). The source of PTn-UZ-I is the Paintbrush hydrostratographic unit in the unsaturated zone above the repository horizon, the same hydrogeologic unit for which the UZ pore water composition was adopted (N. D. Rosenberg, G. E. Gdowski and K. G. Knauss, Appl. Geochem., 16 (2001)1231-1240). However, unlike the UZ composition, which is a model composition, the composition of FTn UZ-1 is based on actual analysis of a pore water sample, subject to the procedural requirements of the U.S. Geological Sunrey. PTn UZ-1 is internally consistent, giving an ionic balance within 2.4%, the most consistent of the reported compositions.

To test this water for potential corrosivity of the residual evaporites, standard tests were conducted: . Bulk evaporation: Simulated FTn UZ-l water was concentrated at a maximum temperature of 85'C, the temperature previously used in the UZ Pore evaporation experiments reported by Rosenberg, Gdowski and Knauss. Three evaporation experiments were conducted on F'TnUZ-1 water, resulting in concentration factors of 170,259, and 223. In each of the three evaporation experiments, the concentrations of Na', MgZ+,C1- and NO; increased by similar factors. KC, present as an impurity, increased similarly. In contrast, CaZ+,SO: and dissolved SiO, were observed to precipitate during evaporation. A recipe for simulated 170xPTnUZ-l water, for further experiments, was formulated. . Distillation: Distillation of simulated 170xPTn UZ-l produced a condensate pH of 0.97 when 97.1% of the initial volume was distilled away. At 99.7% volume, the condensate pH reached -0.26. . Flask eva~oration~corrosion:Simulated 170KPTn UZ-1 was evaporated in the presence of a strip of C-22 foil. When -90% of the initial volume had evaporated, acidic fumes could be detected. After less than two days at low water content (c ImL), the wet residual solids exhibited the green color characteristic of the corrosion in the C-22 foil. This experiment is still in progress. - Soxhlet extraction experiments with 17OxF'Tn UZ1 are currently underway.

Page 2 Geoscienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury ~Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 2943065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Both PTn UZ-l and UZ pore water produce acidic condensates and corrode C-22 metal. The fact that PTn UZ-l can produce low pH and C-22 corrosion just as UZ Pore water shows that production of acidic residual solution and acid gases can be a general phenomenon for UZ waters, and not limited to a single water composition.

The production of acid is also significant in that the PTn UZ-1 composition contains more bicarbonate than UZ Pore water. (82 ppm bicarbonate compared to 20.3 ppm). It is hypothesized that high bicarbonate content of waters such as 5-13 prevents acidification during evaporation by buffering the solution. Therefore, we believe that the acid- producing potential of PTn UZ-1 is due to its high initial calcium content, which serves to precipitate bicarbonate from the solution during evaporation. High-carbonate water compositions were frequently reported in USGS studies (e.g., C. Yang, G. W. Rattray and P. Yu, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4058,1996). To determine if calcium does indeed prevent the buffering of the evaporite solids, we are currently performing a distillation of a solution of 100OK113 that has been enriched in calcium. In addition, we will begin to analyze the bicarbonate content of the solutions by means of a carbon dioxide ion-selective electrode.

Ill. Erlenmeyer flask experiments on evaporated solutions:

The Erlenmeyer flask procedure has been standardized, and we have begun experiments to generate data for a procedural note on the application of the Erlenmeyer flask test to various water compositions.

In the meantime, more scoping Erlenmeyer flask tests have been completed. Results of the most recent tests are summarized below:

Experiment Foil Medium Temperature, Corrosion rate

F43 C22 Starting materials for 1243x 145 112.19 Pore water F44 C22 170xPTn UZ-1 In progress Green color at two days

Page 3 Goosciences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgeustein* 1OOO Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

In previous reports it was hypothesized that the corrosion of C-22 by heated evaporite solids involves a multi-step process. Of these steps the most complex is the production of acid liquid as gas from the evaporites. Therefore, the focus of the scoping Erlenmeyer tests has shifted from producing corrosion to studying the acid-production step. By using strips of C-22 as a detector, components of known aggressive solutions are being tested separately. It may be possible to identifying which components of solution that actually produce acid gases, which components do not produce acid, but still assist in acid production (for example, the hypothesis that calcium will precipitate bicarbonate buffer), and which components act entirely as spectators. From the data we hope to develop a method where, given a certain temperature, time and water content, one may predict the potential corrosivity of evaporites solely on the composition of the initial solution.

IV. Crevice Experiments:

Further experiments testing the effect of evaporite solids on C-22 crevices are currently underway. We are testing both U-bend samples, and flat samples.

Experiments in which a small amount of C-22 metal comes in contact with a large amount of evaporate solids are also underway.

V. Erlenmeyer flask experiments at 9S0 C:

Erlenmeyer flask experiments in a low-temperature oil bath are still in progress. Periodically, the pH of the droplets inside the flask has been recorded. Updated results are summarized in the following table. No corrosion has been yet observed.

15 20 24 31 35 54 64* 82 Alpha 48b 1243xPore water 6 15 -20 Page 4 Geoseiences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgensteinf 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

82 0 Experiment Solids from Time (days) pH Alpha 4& 62xPore water 6 3.5 15 3.5 20 2.0 24 2 3 1 1 35 1.5 53 1.5 64" 1.9 82 0 Alpha 48d 62xPore water 6 3 .O 15 3.5 20 3.5 24 3 31 3 35 2.7 53 1.5 64* 0.7 82 0 Alpha 49 lx Pore water 8 6.0 13 6.0 17 4.5 22 5 27 4.5 45 4.5 56* 4 75 1.3

*During these experiments the hygroscopic solids slowly accumulated water. After pH measurements on 10121103, the condensers on the flasks were removed for 1 hour to allow the solids to dry. In all cases, notably the lx Pore water experiment, subsequent flask condensates were observed to drop in pH. It is believed that the removal of bulk water accelerated the hydrolysis of the solids to produce acids.

VI .Water Rock Experiments Matrix:

Page 5 Geoseiences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-30Q4 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (7M)294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Our laboratory work on extracting pore water from rock samples taken on the ESF at Yucca Mountain follows the following matrix:

Page 6

P-16 Geoseienees Management Institute, he. Maury Morgenstein* loo0 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av, Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Pore water

Pore water I NA 1

Pore water

Dl

Pore water

Pore water

Pore water

Dl

Pore water

Dl

Pore water

Pore water

NA 1 Dl - ~~ ~ ESF 34 - ! €SF 34 /54+44 TS 54+44 Tptpmn iSPC01019466 Pore water €SF 35 - ESF 35 53+29 TS 53+29 Tptpmn SPCO1019469 Dl ESF 36 - 36 52+63 TS 52+63 Tptpmn SPC01019470 Pore water ESF 37 - €SF 37 !51+69 ITS 51+69 Tptpmn SPCO1019471 i Dl ESF 36 - ESF 38 50+47 TS 50+47 Tptpmn SPC01019472 ,. Pore water ESF 39 - ,ESF39 49+75 TS 49+75 'Tptpmn SPCO1019473 - Dl I 'ESF40 - €SF 40 49+09 TS 49+09 lptpmn SPC01019474 Pore water €SF 41a - 1 ESF41a ,46+29 TS 48+29 ,Tptpmn SPC01019475 Dl

Page 7 Geoseiences Management Institute, lac. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 laQS Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 2943064 LXerkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

dust = 8 Dl = 26 Pore Water- 34 total - 68

VII. CONTENTIONS: GMll and Dr. RW. Staehle are submitting the following contentious:n

Page 8 Ceoseiences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein' 1000 iVevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Vniee: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6%2

1. DOE has failed to consider the penetic mutations of microbioloeicd orrranisms by radiation in the near-field environment outside of the zone of radiation-induced sterility. This zone of sterility is relatively large at first, but decreases as waste radionuclides decay over time. The radiation field will likely allow specific species to metabolize that might not thrive in less aggressive environmer~ts.[Brenda Little is providing some literature on this, especially from Three Mile Island.] Changes in the microbiological community due to near field environmental conditions may contribute to MIC reactions and may contribute to abnormal hvdroeeochemis~.

2. DOEhas failed to consider the effect of microbiological orrranisms on the modification of vadose zone waters in the near-field environmmt and stratima~hicallvabove the near field environment. First, there is the zone of opttmal growth of these organisms, which is enhanced by the heat from the waste canisters, and second, the effect of genetic mutations induced by radiation. These hydrogeochemical effects might change the concentrations of key ionic components in the vadose water.

3. Geochemical modeling as used by the DOE on the Yucca Mountain project is non- conservative and unrealistic for the following reasons:

a. DOE'Sgeochemical modeling programs (EQ316 primarily) contain almost entirely natural phases (minerals) and species, which may be important over relatively long time scales (geologic). However, when relatively concentrated solutions react quickly on hot metallic surfaces, other solid phases (mostly not natural) may form or precipitate. Perturbed service environment neomineralization

b. EQ316 geochemical modeling program cannot predict the dry out sequence of 5-13 water and UZ pore water as published in the Rosenberg et al. (2001, Applied Geochemistly)paper. E0316 does not work for the general corrosion problem

c. The thermodynamic database used by the model does not contain all possible phases and gases that might result from interaction of concentrated solutions contacting a hot metal surface. These may include tachyhydrite, hydrous Mg- nitrates (solids), and nitrosal chloride (NOCI, a gas). The Pitzer equations, which portray concentrated solutions, have a very limited number of solid phases in the model (less than a hundred, maybe even less than 50), are only useful at fixed temperatures, and only deal with major dissolved species. Thermodvnamic database mosslv incomplete

d. The models have been developed totally in-house (at LLNL) primarily to model the transport of radionuclides in dilute solutions. To my knowledge, EQ316 software modeling packages have not been compared nor contrasted with outside modeling packages (commercial, or otherwise), such as the

Page 9 Geosciences Management Institute, lnc. lWaury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Bnutder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Menterey AT, Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Environmental Simulation Program (by OLI Systems, Inc.). The reason for mentioning the ESP is that it contains many more solid phases, especially non- mineralic ones, that could be more important for the interaction of UZ pore waters, and modifications thereof, on hot metallic surfaces. E0316 needs to be used with other models for auality control.

4. Matrix of rock must saturate in order for vadose zone water to move in fractures. This is a model assumption and is non-conservative, and probably wrong.

5. Dual permeability of welded tuffs describes the flow path conditions is a concept that is almost certainly wrong. The welded tuff flow paths are almost certainly with in a fracturemicrofracture continuum network, whose geometries are considerably different than a dual permeability system. This has bearing on flow conditions, dead end space, hydrogeochemical variability's, and inter tuff bed flow characteristics. Only the nonwelded tuffs have dual permeability characteristics.

6. The drift shadow will be dw, but the DOE cannot predict which fractures of over 1 billion fractures water will flow in. The drift shadow and other proposed flow characteristics associated with emplacement drifts are based upon a dual permeability welded tuff concept, which has no in situ data foundation.

7. DoE's current testing- of EBS materials (s~ecificallv. allov C-22) under submerged- and sub-boiling conditions in ground water (5-13) is non-conservative and unrealistic. choice of environmental conditions used for C-22 testing.

8. DoE's assumption that no liquid solutions will penetrate the so-called "vaporization when the wall rock is above 95°C (boiling point of pure water) is the least conservative assumption possible and is unrealistic. As solutions concentrate, the boiling point increases (elevates).

9. DOE assumes that no concentrated aqueous solutions (relative to UZ pore water) will form in the boiling portion of the refluxing zone. This is an unrealistic, non-conservative assumption because as solutions boil, dissolved constituents concentrate until solid phases precipitate.

10, DOEbelieves that there will be no mrosity and uermeability changes in the near-field environment due to heating under the high temperature-operating mode. This is another non-conservative assumption.

11. DoE's deliauescence models are apvarentlv based on binarv salt pairs. This is non- conservative as the use of ternary (such as Ca-Mg-C1 and Mg-CI-NO3), and even quaternary salt mixtures (such as Ca-Mg-C1-NO3) would be more realistic. They should have researched these, or performed the experiments.

Page 10 Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1WO Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fam: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

12. Near-field hydrogeochemical variability is likely based upon specific rock type, characteristics of flow geometries and interconnectivity of micro- and mega-fractures, fault distribution, and previous salt precipitation due to the evaporation of natural vadose water. The DOE concept of near-field hydrogeochemistry is based upon perceived flow characteristics around the emplacement drift using chloride as a tracer. This is almost certainly wrong.

13. Saturated zone flow path conditions are probably best determined by hydrogeochemical data sets, which are grossly incomplete. It is likely that flow pathways are not determinable at the present due to the lack of data. Modeling uncertainties are underestimated. Matrix diffusion in the saturated zone, from fracture flow into the rock matrix, as modeled by the DOE is not representative. DOE and their subcontractors (mainly LBNL) assume a dual-porosity, permeability model based on a fractured sandstone where the grains of the sandstone are relatively homogeneous, and pore sizes are also relatively uniform. There are porosity and permeability variations in the matrix, especially near fractures versus the interior of rock matrix blocks. The matrix diffusion modeled is therefore non-conservative.

14. Diswrsion credit taken bv the DOE is Iikelv to be wrong because hydrogeochemical data acquired in the Nye County drilling program has shown discrete flow path lines are the rule and not the exception.

15. Diffusion in the vadose zone as calculated by the DOE is based upon a dual permeability system in the welded tuffs, upon porous flow characteristics of the matrix using a sand aquifer model, and is not site specific. It is wrong. Radionuclide retardation, as a function of diffusion, has been calculated by the State of Nevada to be orders of magnitude less than calculated by the DOE.

16. Somtion credit (if taken) in the fracture systems in the vadose zone can be taken for very specific fracture-types and can therefore only he taken if there has been accurate characterization of the flow path from a microfracture point of view. Sorption credit can be taken in the non-welded tuffs, but in order to do so a site-specific pathway must be chosen for characterization. Flow in the non-welded tuffs requires dual permeability, which for some untold reason is not considered when discussing sorption - pore flow is only considered under these terms. Fracture flow and fault flow dominate transport in the non-welded tuffs because: a) There is fracture continuity from the welded tuffs to the non-welded tuffs - thus, flow in fracture systems is maintained along active pathways. b) Fault wall rock is clogged with authigenic minerals, therefore flow is restricted into the pore matrix from the fault-fracture zone. c) Sorption by CEC in zeolites is dependent upon the crystal face orientation of the zeolite in the flow path. Crushed tuff experiments do not yield accurate

Page 1 I Geoscienees Management Institute, he. Msnry Morgenstein* loo0 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av, Voice: (7M)294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702)294-3065 Voiee: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

sorption coeff~cients.The DOE experimental data is not site specific. Sorption experiments using crushed rock (both static and dynamic, i.e. column ones) are not conservative, especially for the volcanic rocks, of which the surface area is not representative and fresh surfaces have been created in the process of crushing. Rock cores should have been used.

17. The pathwav flow connection in the saturated zone from the tuffs into unlithified sediments is not at all studied and remains only guess work. The pathway has not been accurately characterized.

18. Vadose water chemistry has been uncharacterized at Yucca Mountain. There is no mass balance information available. There is no knowledge of the chemistry of the rainwater as it drops on exposed rock surfaces, on sediment surfaces, and no knowledge about the chemistry as it passes through the soil system. There is insufficient data about trace elements in vadose chemistries. There is no understanding about sediment-rock- vadose water interactions. There is no understanding about the effects of the environment on the variability of vadose geochemistry. Only the State of Nevada program regarding vadose water chemistry comes close to attempting to provide a base of characterization for the site.

19. Infiltration into the tuffs from the ground surface, from under the sediment pile, from within washes, on slopes, as associated with fault zones, during snowmelt, and during major storm events are not known or understood.

20. The DOE has no program in site characterization to look at the composition of rainwater or snowrnelt at Yucca Mountain. The input hydrogeological signal is unknown.

21. The chemistry of anv hot fluid that might be driven into the repositow near-field from a volcanic event - that may never break the ground surface - is unknown, but likely to be aggressive if that water were to enter the repository emplacement drifts. The DOE has not investigated this scenario even though its probability is much greater than other volcanic scenarios that have been investigated. They have not recognized that aqueous chemistry could affect the stability and performance of the EBS. This critical failing suggests that the characterization program as undertaken by the DOE has been poorly focused, is grossly incomplete, and has ignored likely mechanisms of performance failure. There is likely evidence in several DOEtest borings that such events have taken place in the past.

22. The inventorv of manmade materials that has gone into the Yucca Mountain tunnels has not been geochemically characterized. Thus, it is totally unknown, from a geochemical viewpoint, what the starting conditions are for the proposed repository. This is a very bad and dangerous attitude for the DOE to have taken; it is also the wrong attitude. An example of just how wrong, can he derived when one looks at the present

Page 12 Geosciences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voiee: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voiee: (510) 526-W65 Fax: (510) 327-6962 day distribution of anthropogenic lead and mercury in the system with the knowledge that these elements if they come into contact with C-22 can attribute to stress corrosion cracking. Fluorescent light bulbs used to illuminate the tunnels may contain mercury.

23. There are hi& lead values in manganese oxvhvdroxide minerals loaded in fractures in Yucca Mountain, The potential effects of the release of lead under acid conditions are unstudied. Bacterial action may affect lead stability in the aqueous system.

24. Fractures that have been filled by authigenic mineralization in the past show evidence of being reactivated. Active flow paths are delineated by autbieenic mineralization. The DOE has not put a characterization effort into this line of reasoning and thus, has not developed a model of flow based upon past and common rock conhtions.

25. Pore water from Yucca Mountain when boiled down to the salt fraction produces some salts that are hydroscopic, that create very low pH conditions resulting in acid liquids and vapors. These liquids and vapors can pit via general corrosion, C-22 and Ti-7 EBS components, and create EBS failure in very short periods of time and under a very wide range of temperature conditions.

26. Stress corrosion cracking can occur in C-22 under aggressive conditions with trace elements in the system.

27. The roles of failed EBS materials, such as steel sets and rock bolts, have not been studied with respect to retardation and transport of radionuclides. The role of colloid production has not been addressed on the basis of EBS material corrosion weathering.

28. Colloidal transwrt of radionuclides out of the presumably contained vadose and saturated zone systems has not been adequately addressed with respect to the source term, the geochemical effects of drip shield and canister failure.

29. Drip shield failure will allow rock dust and titanium particles to build up on the C-22 canister surface. The role of this dust in the transient heating of the surface and the formation of micro-chemical environments is unknown.

30. DOWUSGS re~ionalhvdrogeolo~ic model assumes that the geology is much more "layer cake" than it is actually. Therefore, regional and especially local flow paths may be misrepresented.

31. Measured Eh's of saturated zone waters are non-representative because they may represent an average or mixed state or only the dominant redox couple. This arises due to the diluteness of the solutions and for kinetic reasons.

Page 13 Gewiences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Montemy Av., Voice: (702)294-3864 Berkeley, CA 947M Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510)527-6962

32. DOE'S TSPA fails to consider changes that occur to porosity and permeability in the vadose zone during the high temperature operating-mode (HTOM). These changes include devitrification of glass, dissolution of cristobalite and tridymite to more stable forms of silica, and possible dehydration of hydrous minerals such as zeolites.

33. Pre-closure ventilation of repository drifts filled with waste canisters will not be as effective as modeled by the DOEin removal of waste heat and moisture in Yucca Mountain because air traosport pathways will become clogged in a few years due to the precipitation of minerals from the evaporation of the water at the liquid-vapor phase change locations. This implies that DOE'Scurrent models for the waste beat and moisture removal processes during ventilation are non-conservative and unrealistic.

34. The geomechanical strength of the lower lithophysal member of the Topopah Spring tuff has been overestimated. Since Sandia Nat. Lab. could not obtain long enough 12- inch cores for geomechanical strength testing, they took smaller cores (6 inches) between the lithophysae, which means that the cores tested had very few if any lithophysae of meaningful sizes. Therefore, the testing of solid cores as compared with the testing of cores with representative lithophysae, implies that the geomechanical strength of this member has been overestimated and is therefore non-conservative and unrealistic.

35. To obtain data for the USGS to model fractures using the computer software FRACMAN, the U.S. BuRec mapped two-dimensional 1 by 2 meter panels of the tunnel's wall surfaces (mostly in the ECRB). Fractures were mapped, marked, and counted that were longer than a certain minimum length. High-resolution digital photographs were taken of these mapped panels. These panels were digitized and features counted and statistics compiled. The number of fractures per panel was then used as the maximum number per this two-dimensional area. The FRACMAN model with these maximum numbers of fractures was then used to compute the numbers of fractures per unit volume of rock. The point is, the measured number of fractures in the panels should have been averages instead of maximums for the model, and thus the numbers of fractures modeled will be computed low compared to the measurements. This is non-conservative and unrealistic.

36. The DOEhas failed to consider the chemical aollution to the groundwater from the dissolution of heavy metals in the waste canisters (Cr, Ni, Mo, W) and the spent nuclear fuel (uranium). This would be a violation of EPA groundwater regulations.

37. Overview of Corrosion Considerations, by Roger W. Staehle:

There are four factors that together affect the corrosion of containers; without any one of these, there is no corrosion:

1. Chemistry of mountain above the container,

Page 14 Geoseiences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294.3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-= Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

2. Water in the mountain moves with heat from containers. 3. Hot surface on the container increases as increasingly covered with drift deposits. 4. Corrosion process that do not require stress.

The evidence now from CUA work shows that the existing chemistry of the mountain, when dissolved in the mountain water and concentrated by the beat on the hot surface, will corrode the C-22 at a rapid rate exceeding 3 m per year.

While a precise process by which the water accumulates and evaporates on the surface has not been established, it is unlikely even that a precise process(es) can be established; rather, if the water is in the mountain and it moves, it must be assumed that it will accumulate. The structure of such an assertion needs to he developed.

Approaching a model that leads to corrosion will have to be based on bounding conditions. Such bounding conditions have yet to be established

In addition to establishing a discipline of bounding conditions, other intellectual structures need to be established: design objectives (e.g. maximum and minimum surface temperatures); assumptions for analysis (existence of ventilation); model for corrosion penetration (autocatalytic penetration).

With respect to predicting complex processes of corrosion on hot and sequestered (deposits), this has never been successful even under the best of conditions as with the well-bounded conditions in heat transfer crevices in PWR steam generators. To think that such an objective can he surrounded by some deterministic construction is nonsensical for a case, which is much less bounded. A good simple example is the corrosive properties of the boric acid (nominally dry) that accumulated on the top of the Davis Besse pressure vessel head and led to corrosion rates of the steel of about 2-3 cm per year.

The dimensions of the corrosion events need to be clarified. A stress corrosion crack produces widths that are less than 10 microns and would provide only a narrow path for species to move. While the early work of Pigford showed that virtually any perforation would be a "defect," practically such a defect may not be significant especially as corrosion products accumulate and block flow. The penetrations produced by acidification of the type identified at CUA provide more opportunities for larger diameter perforations. The extent of such perforations needs to be assessed. Also, the extent to which such defects are autocatalytic needs to be established.

Page 15 Geosciences Management Institute, he. Maury iMorgenstein* 1000 Nevada Hlghway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294.3062 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 January 5,2004

Progress Report - December 2003 (Agreement Number: 99100.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Ofice 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, Ph.D. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder C~ty,Nevada 89005

Page 1 Geoseiences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, lnc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

I. Meetings

April Pnlvirenti, Ronnie Barkatt, Roger Staehle, Don Shettel, Brenda Little, and Maury Morgenstein attended the Expert Meeting on Yucca Mountain in McLean, VA, December 10.12. Ckristin Engstrom attended the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, in wbich over twenty posters or presentations were devoted to Yucca Mountain (see the attached abstracts).

11. CUA Testing of additional water compositions: Data

Our research program has recently concentrated on the evolution of groundwater composition upon thermal concentration and distillation. From preliminary experiments, we have speculated that the acid-producing ability of a ground water depends primarily on the content of calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate. We ran several directed tests to explore this theory.

Evaporations: Additional evaporation experiments, using a procedure similar to that outlined in the Rosenberg and Gdowski paper, were conducted on several water composition:

Final conc. CzHCO, pH Initial Water Reference Factor (Molar) lx Conc sol

111113- Rosenberga 157* ,084 8.07 10.18 1x313 Rosenberg 1W ,084 8.07 lxPore Rosenberg 62* 4.522 7.55 7.65 lxPore Rosenberg 1243* 4.522 7.55 6.25 1xPTn-UZ1 Peterman 170 **1.23 7.55 6.33 IxNRG-1 yang 210 3.6 6.4 5.22 lxUZN2 Yang 170 ,298 7.7 10.19 *previously by Rosenberg and Gdowski **bicarbonate content calculated from ionic balance

From the data it can be seen that almost all cases, an excess of calcium will encourage acid production during evaporation. To explore the effect of calcium further, we preformed several other experiments:

Page 2 Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgens+ein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Kevada 89003 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Distillations: 22.2 millimolar Mg(N03),: 0% distilled: pH 6.05 50% distilled: pH 3.92 98% distilled: pH 3.13 Wodistilled: pH 0.01 last drops: pH -0.56 - 22.6 millimolar Mg(N03), + 90.5 millimolar NaHCO, 0% distilled: pH 8.72 90.3% distilled: pH 6.12 99.7% distilled: pH 7.33 last drops: pH 4.75

The next logical distillation in this series, Mg(NO,), + NaHC03 + Ca, will be run in January.

Waiting period, foIlowed by Distillation: lxUZ pore water was stirred in a closed vessel for 9 days at 8S°C. During this time, calcium precipitated with bicarbonate to form calcium carbonate. The solution was divided in half. In one half, calcium carbonate salts were removed. The other half was left unfiltered, leaving solid calcium carbonate suspended in solution. The separate solutions were then distilled:

lxUZ pore 9 days 85°C then filtered: 0% volume distilled: pH 7.11 96.0% volume distilled: pH 4.25 97.6% volume distilled: pH 2.72 98.3% volume distilled: pH 2.27 99.2% volume distiiled: pH 1.58 99.6% volume distilled: pH 1.33 lxUZ pore 9 days 85°C unfiltered: 0% volume distilled: pH 7.1 1 98.4 % volume distilled: pH 5.0

Pressure Vessel Experiment (closed system, no decrease in volame)

12 mL of simulated 1243xUZ was placed in a Teflon-lined pressure vessel and heated at a temperature of 144'C for 21 days.

o Trial 1: pH dropped from 6.34 + 3.63 o Trial 2: pH dropped from 6.73 + 3.56 o No other significant changes in the composition of the solution were observed.

Page 3 Geoxiences Management Institute, fnc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 hlonterey Av., Voice: (702j 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Ill. Testing of additional water compositions: Hypotheses

These data has allowed us to formulate factors that influence the pH behavior during distillation or evaporation of groundwaters, and therefore we are closer to being able to predict the acid-producing potential of a groundwater based on its composition and conditions of the experiment.

IV. General Acid-production Mechanism

Magnesium nitrate (or other magnesium salts) alone: Acid is produced entirely by the hydrolysis of magnesium ions. The hydrolysis occurs in two stages:

1. Free magnesium ions in bulk solution hydrolyze to produce protons along with magnesium hydroxides and basic salts, resulting in a solution pH of about 3. 2. As 97%-99%of bulk solution evaporates, magnesium ion is converted to hydrated magnesium salts. These hydrated salts, magnesium nitrate mono- or di-hydrate in particular, will react with their own hydrate water (thermal decomposition, or "self-hydrolysis") to efficiently form magnesium hydroxides and basic salts, while releasing acid condensates of very low pH.

As shown by the closed system experiments, a pH of less than 3 will not be achieved in bulk solution because only bulk hydrolysis, and not self-hydrolysis, occurs.

V. Effect of bicarbonate:

Bicarbonate in solution will buffer acid that is produced by magnesium hydrolysis. Only near-neutral or moderately low pH is observed, even after evaporation of bulk solution.

VI. Effect of calcium:

Calcium will hydrolyze, but not as readily as magnesium. Calcium ions in solution are more likely to affect the solution pH by interaction with bicarbonate buffer, preventing bicarbonate interference with the acid production from magnesium hydrolysis and magnesium salt self-hydrolysis. Possible scenarios are listed below: 1) Excess of bicarbonate over dissolved Ca and Mg: Ca precipitates bicarbonate, but excess bicarbonate is available to buffer acid produced by magnesium hydrolysis. No acidity is expected to develop.

Page 4 Geoscienees Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgensteiu* 1000 Nevada Iligh"a), Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder Cit!.". Nevada 8'9005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3061 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

2) Excess of dissolved Ca over bicarbonate: Calcium will precipitate bicarbonate as calcium carbonate. However, the formation of calcium carbonate may be slow compared to the duration of a distillation, and may required several hours to fully form, even at boiling temperatures. Therefore, time of reaction becomes important, and several additional mechanisms become available:

a) Immediate distillation: A portion (not all) of the calcium may precipitate bicarbonate from solution as CaCO,. A mild drop in pH is expected, depending on initial Ca : HCO, ratio. The higher the initial ratio, the more precipitation is expected and the greater the expected pH drop.

b) Distillation after a waiting period: During the waiting time, calcium carbonate will form and precipitate. i) ifcalcium carbonate solids are notjiltered (removed) from solution prior to distillation: Acid generated by magnesium hydrolysis and magnesium self-hydrolysis is buffered by solid CaCO,, which remains in contact with solution acid. This is the well-known lime reaction. Lime, a solid, is not as efficient a buffer as dissolved bicarbonate. Therefore, a relatively mild drop in pH is observed. ii) ifcalcium carbonate sotids arefiltered from solution prior to distillation: In this case, both the calcium and bicarbonate are removed entirely from system, leaving only a solution of magnesium salts, which hydrolyzes as described above. If there is excess calcium after all the bicarbonate has been consumed, calcium ions will also hydrolyze, although to a lesser extent.

W.Effect of experiment geometrg:

We have noticed that our distillation and distillationlSoxhlet experiments are somewhat more likely to produce very low acidity than our Erlenmeyer flask experiments. We hypothesize that the concave geometry of a round-bottom flask provides a surface on which to precipitate calcium carbonate, which will adhere to the glass as the solution level falls during evaporation. This effectively removes calcium and bicarbonate from system, similar to filtration of calcium carbonate solids. However, concave geometry is not necessary to produce acid; low pH is observed in the slightly convex Erlenmeyer flask. Instead, geometry will only intensify the effect, and is expected to be more significant in groundwater compositions with high initial calcium and bicarbonate levels.

Page 5 Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* lo00 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fan: (510) 327-6962

Dm. Barkatt and Pulvirenti are very confident in these hypotheses, and also believe that variations of these factors account for almost all variations in our previous distillation experiments. We intend to repeat the experiments in the full QA program as the basis for a paper on the acid-producing abilities of ground water as a function of initial composition. However, it should be noted that our data clarify only the changes in pH primarily due to production of nitric acid.

Our model so far cannot explain or predict dramatic corrosion of C-22 metal. Although mild corrosion of the metal is observed in nitric acid, dramatic (green) corrosion requires the simultaneous production of hydrochloric acid to produce the corrosive nitrosyl chloride in the aqua regia reaction. Therefore, the overall corrosion model is not complete. Our next task is to plan and conduct experiments to explore the multi-step processes which results in the release of HCI and HN03 gases, and how other components in the system, such as spectator ions or salts, hydration of magnesium salts promote or hinder that process. However, it is clear that a water composition that promotes acid production (that is, one containing both high magnesium content and excess calcium over bicarbonate) is a candidate to promote corrosion when evaporated, as seen in the last experiment:

VIII. Flask Evaporation Experiment on NKG-1 water

Simulated 210xNRG-61158 (Yang, et.ul.) was prepared (see Table above). Upon evaporation, the pH of the solution exhibited a sharp drop at the time that 90% of the solution had evaporated away. When 5-7% of the original volume remained, the flask was equipped with a condenser to prevent further loss of water. A C-22 foil that had been introduced into the flask at the beginning of the experiment exhibited severe tarnishing within 15 hours after the installation of the condenser, and the surrounding deposits turned a bright green. The foil is currently undergoing analysis for weight loss and corrosion rate.

This is the third unsaturated zone water composition; in addition to UZ pore water and PTn-UZ-1, to show corrosion in our Erlenmeyer flask experiments.

IX. Other Activities

GMI worked on the preparation of two rock samples for CUA: one sample was on the order of two pounds, and the other sample was collected carefully from the interior of an ESF sample. Second, one was only 10s of grams and Ronnie wanted it for trace constituent analyses (P04, N03, F, etc.).

Page 6 Geosciences Management Institnte, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 F'resident, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89M)5 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702)294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (5i0)536-0765 Fax: (510)127-6962

Prior to meeting in Virginia, the Hele-Shaw cell was videotaped and photographed. These were used at the meeting. After the meeting one sheet of the borofloat glass cracked completely across, two replacement sheets were ordered before the holidays.

Shettel has initiated a review of some of the Technical Basis Documents, specifically "Near Field Drift Chemistry.''

GMI is continuing to update our Yucca Mt. literature database and sane DOE/NRC presentations have been scanned into PDF files for distribution to the corrosion team.

GMI is presently working an an abstract - paper on heat ponding. It is only in a draft stage but is moving forward (see attached draft).

Page 7 Geosciences Management Institute, Im. ~MauryMorgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 104% Monterey Av., Voiee: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voiee: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 March 5,2004

Progress Report - February 2004 (Agreement Number: 99i00.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Ofice 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury bforgenstein, PbD. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder City, Nevada 89005

RECEMED MAR 0 9 2004 Page l MlbURW\SIEwaWRa Geoseiences .Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* loo0 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voiee: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 5264765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Manuscripts

A manuscript titled "Acid Generation upon Thermal Concentration of Natural Water: The Critical Water Content and the Effects of Ionic Composition" was thoroughly revised in response to Don Shettel's comments and an internal CUAlDEI review. The manuscript was amplified to include new findings supporting the author's hypotheses regarding the roles of Mf, HCO; and Ca2+during the acid generation reaction. The revised paper is currently in review at Geochimica er Cosmochimica Acta.

Two short manuscripts describing our findings concerning the corrosion of Alloy 22 (one focusing on multi-phase corrosion, the other on crevice corrosion) are in preliminary preparation.

Final characterization is underway for a short paper concerning the effect of F-: C- ratio on the localized corrosion of Ti-7.

Initiated Experiments

Allov C-22 in contact with lead: A new series of experiments involving long-term exposure of Alloy C-22 to solutions containing lead have been initiated. Unlike previous experiments which were limited to solutions based on 5-13, the new experiments use UZ- Pore water as their base chemistry.

More focus on magnesium salts: When heated slowly in the presence of water, hydrated magnesium nitrate and magnesium chloride will hydrolyze and decompose to form acid. However, when heated rapidly, water is expelled before decomposition can take place, forming anhydrous salt. Once the anhydrous salt is formed, water can then be added in known and controlled amounts, facilitating the study of the decomposition as a function of water content. In our experiments, anhydrous magnesium nitrate and anhydrous magnesium chloride were formed through rapid heating of their respective hydrated forms. Under conditions of controlled temperature and water content, strips of Alloy C- 22 were added to the wetted salts. The strips are periodically obsemed for corrosion.

Experimental Results

Evavoration and Distillation of UZ-based waters: A thorough parametric study is underway to repeat the evaporations and distillations performed for the Geochimica paper, along with a adding a few more results to complete the data set. This repeat study is being performed under full QA.

Distillations to examine the effect of tuff powder on water composition and acid generation. In our previous distillations involving tuff, any influence of tuff on the

Page 2 Ceoseiences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgeustein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av, Voice: (702) 294-3Q64 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526M65 Fax: (510) 527-6962 resulting distillate pH was masked by the effect of other components in the solution. In 5-13 based solutions, high bicarbonate content buffered all solutions. In UZ-pore based solutions, the high calcium to bicarbonate ratio removes the buffering effect so that acid is produced. In both cases, the effects are strong enough to overwhelm any influence tuff may have on the solution pH. Therefore, a new water composition, UZ14-1277, was chosen for a distillation with and without tuff. UZ14-1277 (Yang et al, 19%) has an initial pH of about 8, and a calcium to bicarbonate ratio of slightly below 1, showing that bicarbonate buffering is minimal.

Distillation of UZ14-1277 alone produced condensates of pH 5, which dropped to a pH of 3 over the course of the distillation, while the pH of the residual solution rose to a pH of 8.5. This mild drop in pH is expected in light of the calcium content. On the other hand, when nonlithophysal tuff was added, the pH of the initial solution was 4.5. Distillation produced condensates which decreased from 6.5 to less than 4, then rose to above 7. The pH of the residual solution was as low as 25. In light of the inconsistent results, the experiments are currently being repeated.

Crevice corrosion under drvout conditions: As described in the January 2004 progress report, a crevice was created in flat rectangular coupons of Alloy C22 with the following shape:

The samples were exposed to 6 -7 cycles of evaporation of the test solution. Test conditions are shown below. After seven weeks exposure, the samples were disassembled and examined for corrosion.

Page 3 Ceoseiences Management Institute, Inc. Manry Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GM1, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av, Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-6765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Label Initial Solution Temp- Replenishment Observations solotion (7 weeks) Klll 30 mL 62xPore water 130 30 mL 62x Pore Slight corrosion on two crevice

. . surfaces K112 30 mL 62xPore water 110 30 mL. 62x Pore Pits on all four crevice surfaces ------. ------. -- - -- K113 30mLof 130 30 mL initial solution Extensive corrosion on two ., - of the four 0.086 M NaCl surfaces ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ K114 30 mLof 110 30 mL initial solution No corrosion 0.0047 M Mg(NO,), seen 0.076 M MsCl,

0.086 M NaCI ~ ~ K115 30 mL 62x Pore + 0.1 130 15 rnL 62xPore + 0.1 g Extensive gram tuff tnff corrosion on 4 crevice surfaces -.---.--.-.-.--.--..--...... --.p...- ~ --

General observations: o Corrosion was observed on four out of five samples. o There appears to be little difference in corrosion between experiments run at 130" or 110" C. o Equal corrosion was seen on the crevice exposed to the submerged solution and the crevice exposed only to the vapor phase. o The full 62Xpore water solution appears more aggressive than a solution consisting only of it magnesium, nitrate, and chloride components. o The presence of tuff appears to aggravate corrosion. o Corrosion appears in the form of shallow pits about 1-2 mm wide by 4 - 5 mm long, as shown below for sample K115:

Page 4 Geosciences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* IOOONevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 52613765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

These results, along with previous similar crevice corrosion experiments performed on U- bends, will form the basis for the short crevice-corrosion paper. Similar wet-dry cycling experiments at lower temperature and for longer term are planned.

Other Activities

1. We finally figured out the Center's (CNWRAin San Antonio, TX) picture of a Hele- Shaw cell. The wires coming off of strips attached to the backside of the cell were interpreted as heating strips; these ran all the way up the cell, but were separated by non- heated areas. Thns, we ordered more heating tapes, and with two heating tapes on the backside of our cell (4 heated strips) we were able to get a bigger dry out zone with longer fingering of the water down into the hot zone. We also had to build a third cell as the second had too much of a gap; third one has small gap similar to our first one.

2. Shettel calculated obsidian hydration heating with different data than Dr. Barkatt's original preliminary memo, but got results similar to one of his numbers (see memo). This seems to confirm that hydrolysis of glass will generate heat (exothermic reaction), but nearby zeolites absorb heat when dehydrating. We have begun to compile data to calculate heat adsorbed by zeolites, and to quantify amount and position of glasses and zeolites within the repository footprint. We will then construct a more realistic model of possible heat generatedladsorbed below the repository level. Bish's latest paper only discusses the adsorption of heat below the repository level and ignores the possible exothermic effects of hydrating glass. These geochemical reactions are most likely not considered in the thermal models of the repository.

3. Shettel calculated potential moisture removal capabilities of the ventilation system in the ESF and the final proposed repository. There is vast excess drying capacity in the proposed ventilation system, which suggests that the system is designed primarily for heat removal (see memo).

4. Shettel is working on a white paper on Np solubility and sorption during release from waste forms and transport in vadose and saturated zones at Yucca Mountain.

5. A variety of attachments are part of this monthly report.

Page 5 Geoscienees Management Institute, Inc. Manry- Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 2943065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 May 9,2004

Progress Report -April 2004 (Agreement Number: 99/00.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, Ph.D. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Page 1 Geoseiences Management Institute, Inc. ~MauryMnrgenstein* 1000 Nevada High~ay,Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc Boulder City, Nevada 89m5 1048 Munterey Av., Vuice: (702)294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702)294-3065 Voice: (510)526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

GMI Activities

Maury Morgenstein, Celeste Henrickson and Roger Staehle traveled to China to the Institute or Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 72 Wenhua Road, Shenyang, Liaoning, China to meet with Professor En-Hou Han, deputy director of the institute. We reviewed our experimental program, and Maury ran a QA review of the laboratory efforts. Roger, Maury and Dr. Junhua Dong (IMR physical chemibt-electrochemistry) spent 14-days working on the chemical reactions concerning the stability-mstabitity of C-22.

y Morgenstein and Roger Staehle IMR

laboratory

April Pulvirenti and Ronnie Barkatt reviewed the draft contention by the Panel on Evolution of Engineered Barrier System and Perturbed Near-Field Environments and sent commcnts to Don Shcttel. GMI is producing a variety of contentions that will become avaikable in late-May.

Page 2 Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. Manry Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Roger and Don are working on the presentations for the TRB in Mid-May.

April Pulvirenti assisted Christin Engstrom in the preparation of the upcoming corrosion DVD. The DVD team has been moving ahead with the first partial product due in mid-May.

CUA Manuscripts

A manuscript, provisionally titled "Corrosion Behavior of Alloy 22 in Multiphase Environments" is in preparation. This manuscript is intended to summarize the data gathered in our varied evaporation techniques and to provide conclusive proof that corrosion of Alloy 22 under exposure to (listed items below) can be much more severe than corrosion taking place upon total immersion in the parent solutions.

Wet-dry cycling Concentrated aqueous environments in crevices Under-deposit conditions

CUA Experimentation in Pore water

Evaporative concentration experiments have been performed on an intermediate pore water composition (UZ14-1277) in the presence as well as in the absence of tuff. The resulting solutions are being analyzed.

Evaporative concentrations (using the procedure reported by Gdowski) have been performed on lxUZ Pore water, PTnUZ-1 water, lxNRG 61158, and lxUZN2, to concentration factors of -150. The resulting concentrated solutions have been analyzed for major anions. The data will be used to develop recipes for simulated solutions of unsaturated zone waters thermally concentrated to intermediate concentrations.

Repeats of the distillation experiments are underway,

Final analysis of the experiments in which small strips of C-22 foil were buried in pore water solids (reported in last month's progress report) has been conducted. Although the strips exhibited green corroded spots and several foil pieces broke, both weight loss and solution analysis showed that the uniform corrosion rate was minimal: a maximum of 21 pmlyear. General corrosion rates are misleading when corrosion takes place over localized areas.

Long-Term Low-temperature Erlenmeyer flask experiments: Strips of foil are exposed long-term to pore water solids in an oil bath at 95"C, corresponding to an in- flask air temperature of 85°C. We have been reporting the pH of droplets in these flasks.

Page 3 (;enscirnrrs Xlanayement ln~tilute,its. Maury Morgenstein* IIHH) Ne\adn flighwa?. Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder Cit*. Sevadit WOO5 1048 Monterey Av., voice: (702j294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

After 265-days the samples were removed and washed for observation. One sample of foil exposed to 1243xPore water solids exhibited -25 small possible blemishes on the foil surface. Another foil sample, exposed to 62xPore water solids, exhibited 3-4 possible blemishes on the foil surface. The remaining three samples were placed back in the oil bath for further testing. The two blemished foil strips are undergoing microscopy to determine if the spots are actually pits orjust deposits.

Experimentation in Chloride-only environments.

Two experiments were performed on foil strips of Type 304 stainless steel in evaporating seawater with and without the addition of nitrate. Severe pitting and significant weight loss were observed on both samples, especially in the experiment done in the absence of nitrate. Two more experiments were carried out under similar conditions on foil strips of Alloy 22 instead of Type 304 stainless steel. Surprisingly, a weight loss of 0.3% and hundreds of small pits on both sides of the foil were observed within 7 days on the C-22 sample exposed to plain seawater, although the temperature remained within the range of 110 - 125°C throughout the experiment. The C-22 sample exposed to seawater with the addition of nitrate exhibited a smaller weight loss and tarnishing under similar conditions.

A flask evaporation experiment was performed on a C-22 foil strip in dissolved tachyhydrite. When the contents of the flask became dry, droplets of de-ionized water were added from a burette to establish conditions of cyclical wet-dry cycling. The temperature of the deposits was maintained between 135 and 150°C. At the end of 4.2 days, with a total addition of 100 mL of de-ionized water, both weight loss of the C-22 sample and localized damage were observed. The results of this experiment are similar to the corrosion of (2-22 buried in tachyhydrite solids in a closed-system bomb experiment reported earlier.

To study possible effects of the dissolution of rock bolts and steel sets, and to provide comparison between the effects of magnesium solutions and iron solutions, experiments on the behavior C-22 foil strips in Feel, solutions under boiling conditions (1 15°C) and under sub-boiling conditions (50°C) were initiated.

The significance of the seawater and tachyhydrite experiments is that nitrate is not necessarily needed to produce corrosion as was previously thought. So long as the sample is exposed to wet-dry cycling of solids, corrosion is possible in chloride-only environments, in which the corrosive solution is likely wet HCI gas or wet CI2 gas. This further emphasizes that experiments conducted under aqueous immersion conditions may not be appropriate for cycling wet-dry environments.

Page 4 Geoseiences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1OOONevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Bwlder City, Ne~ada89005 1048 Monterey Av, Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 June 11,2004

Progress Report - May 2004 (Agreement Number: 99100.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, Ph.D. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Page 1 Gerseiences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgeustein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Iuc. Boulder City, Nevada 8900.5 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 2943065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

CUA Meetings and Presentations

Dr. Pulvirenti, Dr. Barkatt, and Dr. Marks attended the May NWTRB meeting in Washington DC on May 17-18.

Dr. Pulvirenti assisted Dr. Roger Staehle in the preparation of his presentation at the NWTRB meeting.

Dr. Pulvirenti performed a demonstration of corrosion in concentrated pore water environments at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on May 12. The following number of hours was spent on this task: Dr. Barkatt: 16 hours (preparation); Dr. Pulvirenti: 2+3 hours (practice + demonstration.) Total: 21 hours.

CUA Manuscripts

The manuscript titled "Acid Generation upon Thermal Concentration of Natural Water: The Critical Water Content and the Effects of Ionic Composition" was rejected by Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. The paper is undergoing revision for resubmission to Applied Geochemistry.

CUA Experimentation on EPRl Dust

Dr. Barkatt performed one experiment on the dust composition cited by Fraser King presentation "Analysis of NWTRB's Scenario Regarding Localized Corrosion by Formation of High Temperature Deliquescent Brines" at the NWTRB meeting in Washington. A standard Erlenmeyer flask experiment was performed, using a solution containing calcium, nitrate, sulfate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and chloride ions in the ratios cited in the King presentation. Intentionally, neither calcium nor magnesium were introduced in chloride form, thereby eliminating the possibility of adding from the reagent bottle those salts which EPlU and DOE cite as corrosive. A sample of Alloy 22 foil was inserted into the solution. When the evaporating solution reached a temperature of 122" C, the paste was nearly dry and a noticeable odor of HCI gas was detected. 2 mL of water was added to the paste. Three days later, visible corrosion was observed on the air-exposed portion of the Alloy 22 foil. The air temperature of inside the flask is 166°C. Therefore, the corrosive salts must have formed during the evaporation.

This is a preliminary experiment, but it supports our earlier assertion that the source of the water, or whether the water is a generic composition or specific composition, or is modeled as deliquescent salts or dust, has no bearing on whether the evaporites from the water will be potentially corrosive. The only important factor is whether there is sufficient magnesium, calcium, nitrate, and chloride content to produce acid when heated to near dryness.

Page 2 Gecsciences Management Institnte, Inc. Maury Morgensteinf 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc Bnulder City, Nevada 8900.5 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 2943065 Voice: (510) 5264765 Fax: (510) 527-6%2 CUA Experimentation on Pore water

Evaporative concentration experiments have been performed on UZ14-1277 1xUZ Pore water, PTnUZ-1 water, lxNRG 61158, and 1xUZN2, to concentration factors of -150. The resulting concentrated solutions have been analyzed for major ions, and we are currently preparing recipes for simulated concentrated solutions.

We have begun repeat experiments of the Erlenmeyer flask experiments under more controlled conditions.

Long-Term Low-temperature Erlenmeyer Bask experiments: It was reported last month that two foil strips exposed to low-temperature (90°C) environments exhibited possible corrosion. Optical microscopy revealed what appears to be several pits on the surface of the foils. The strips will be sent to Roger Staehle for SEM analysis.

X-ray andysis of pore water solids. Simulated solutions of lxUZ pore water and 1243xUZ pore water were heated to 8S°C with an attached reflux condenser, then evaporated to near dryness at 85 "C. The residual solids were characterized by X-ray diffractometry. o High concentrations of NaC1, anhydrous CaSO,, and hydrated CaSO, were found. o No magnesium silicates were found; that is, no sepiolite [M&Si,0,,(OH),.6H20], no karpinskite &f&Si,0,,(OH),.2H20], no carlosuranite [Mg,Si,,O,(OH),,], and no stevensite-15AIsaponite [Ca,,Mg2 ,Si,O,,(0Hf2~4H,O. Therefore, no evidence of Mg removal as solid magnesium silicates was obtained.

CUA Experimentation in Chloride-only environments.

Alloy 22 exposed to chloride environments:

Exposure to FeCl,(aq): A strip of Alloy 22 foil was half-submerged in a solution of FeC13. Three experiments were performed:

Corrosion Experiment Temperature Time Observation rate A 117°C 3.9 days 2.5 mmiyear Foil strip dissolved completely Lost -213 of its weight. 128°C 6.1 days 1.1 mmlyear Corrosion at edges.- In Possible corrosion along top C 55°C progress edge after 16 days

Two important phenomena were observed in these FeCI, experiments:

Page 3 Geascienees Management Institute, lne. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Iuc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

1. There appears to be an induction period where no visible corrosion takes place. However, after this induction period, the sample corrodes rapidly, often within a few hours. Therefore, if extrapolation are based on short-term corrosion times (such as in electrochemical experiments) and do not take this induction period into account, a calculated corrosion rate could be grossly underestimated. It is recommended that corrosion rate be measured over long periods of time. 2. Corrosion of the Alloy 22 foil in FeCl, does not proceed uniformly. Rather, corrosion appears to initiate at the edges and work inwards. On Sample B, the two ends of the sample were dissolved completely while the middle third remained intact. In addition, the metal edge appeared visibly rough (saw teeth) along its top edge. We speculate that the corrosion initiates along sample edges that were sensitized when they were cut with scissors.

Exposure to TiC1,: 50 mL TiCI, was mixed with 135 mL water. The resulting reaction produced a suspension of TiO, in HCl(aq). A foil strip of Alloy 22 was completely submerged in this suspension for 5.0 days at 120°C. After that time, the Alloy 22 had dissolved completely, corresponding to a corrosion rate of 1.8 mmlyear. A similar experiment at a lower temperature is in progress.

Exposure to concentrated HCI:

According to the Haynes technical literature, in boiling 10%HCI, Alloy 22 corrodes at a rate of 10 millimeterslyear. To test this rate, two experiments exposing Alloy 22 foil to concentrated HCI were performed. In one experiment, the foil was totally submerged in concentrated HCl. In the other, --the volume of HCl was used, so that the foil was half- in and half out of solution.

Experiment Complete submersion in HCl Half-in half-out of HCl

Temperature 103°C 98°C

Page 4 Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgeustein* 1WO Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, fne. Boulder City, Ne~ada89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702)294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) SUi-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Total Time 43.2 hous 43.2 hours

2.2 mmiyear 4.4 mmlyear Corrosion rate (42% weight loss) (90% weight loss) Some thinning of sample, Top half of sample gone, Observations corrosion is uniform significant thinning.

The corrosion rates we observed are on the order of the Haynes reported rate of 10 mrnlyear.

From these experiments it is apparent that rapid corrosion can take place in acidic chloride media in the absence of nitrate. It is also apparent that wet acid vapors are far more aggressive than acid solutions.

GMI Activities

1. Don and April participated in a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the 12th. He demonstrated fingering of liquid solutions through a dry out zone, that was above boiling, by the use of a Hele-Shaw cell.

2. Don and Roger attended and gave a presentations at the spring NWTRB meeting in Washington, D.C., on the 18th and 19th. Maury gave the State of Nevada overview of the DOE presentations.

3. Dr. Brenda Little visited the GMII office in Boulder City and selected several samples for experimental work in connection with CUA.

4. Other activities including preparing for these meetings and continued work on contentions. Part of May Roger and Maury were in China working with Laboratory personnel there on electro chemistry issues with respect to CUA experiments.

5. Robyn Howley sampled the Washburn well in Fortymile wash as part of a week of sampling selected wells in Nye County as provided by the Nye County Nuclear Waste

Page 5 Geoseieuces Management Institute, Inc Maury Morgensteiu* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 890D5 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 537-6962

Repository Project Office. She only sampled one well, part of one day. Groundwater samples have been sent out for analyses.

Page 6 Geoseieuces Management Institute, Inc. Manry Mwgensteiu* 1OOO Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc Bonlder City, Nevada tMO5 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294- Bwkeky, CA 94707 Fax: (W2) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6%2 July 05,2004

Progress Report - June 2004 (Agreement Number: 99f00.0008) RECEWEB

Submitted To: JUL 0 7 2004 Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office NUaURW\STEPRaeCTORIEE 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, Ph.D. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Page 1 Geasciences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* lo00 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GAII, Ine. Boulder CLty, Nevada 89005 1048 Montereg Av., Voice: (702) B4-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3063- Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

A. CUA Evaluation of Waste Package Materials for a Geologic Repository:

1. The lab has been fully updated in terms of the DEI Quality Assurance program.

2. A parametric study of C-22 corrosion in evaporites of pore waters is underway. In an early experiment, corrosion of C-22 in evaporites of unconcentrated pore water at 130°C was observed within 2 days.

3. Several more experiments investigating the behavior of C-22 crevices under dryout conditions have been initiated.

4. Samples of (2-22 foil exposed to low temperature (90°C) evaporites of pore water have been analyzed by SEM. The surface of the sample exposed to 1243x pore water was dotted with pits ranging from 100 to 500 microns wide. In general, pits were characterized by penetration 5 micron in diameter, similar to the corrosion presented by Roger Staehle.

5. Observation of pH in the remaining low temperature (90°C) Erlenmeyer experiments is continuing. Droplets in the experiment containing evaporites of nnconcentrated pore water exhibited a pH of 1.9.

6. The manuscript rejected by Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta is undergoing major revision to make it more attractive to Applied Geochemistry. Specifically, we will include selected corrosion data as it applies to distillations. The majority of the corrosion data will be documented in a manuscript now in preparation.

7. A creviced sample of C-22 was exposed to dryout conditions. Corrosion was observed in the creviced areas. SEM analysis of a cross-section of the crevices shows that pits are about 20 microns deep. The iuner surface appears to be heavily oxidized. The pitting pattern in crevices appears to be different from pitting observed in the Erlenmeyer foil experieuts:

Page 2

Gwsriencs Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 2945065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

8. We will be terminating the bulk of our QA laboratory work at the end of July. Papers and raw data are being assembled for submittal to the State's website.

9. Dr. Barkatt attended the ACNW meeting on Transport at the NRC headquarters on June 24.

£3. Shettel attended various meetings such as the ACNW, where he sat on the panel and gave a presentation, and a kgd meeting in Vegas. Items of importance are attached relative to these meetings. L' UsLN 5 C. Morgenstein has been working of the dust characterization, both in and out of the laboratory. Each dust sample that was collected by Shettel was studied by SEMIEDX analysis for 1,000-point counts per sample. There were twelve samples studied. Chemical data and grain size data were collected for each of the 12,000 dust particles studied. These data are being worked up in a final report, which should be ready by early September 2004. These data form a base of understanding for the dust environment that presently exists in the tunnels.

Page 3 Ctvscieuces Management Institute, Iuc. Maury Morgensteiuf 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GM1, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 119005 1048 Mmterey Av., voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 January 22,2005

Progress Report - November-December 2004 CC Program (Agreement Number: 99100.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, Ph.D. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Page 1 Geoscienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury Margenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GM, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702)2943065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6%2

1. Continuing work at CUA:

At Catholic University we are currently keeping about thirty of our older experiments in the oven. We have set up about twenty more long-term experiments, and will also set up another ten within a few days. We have completed gathering data for a paper about the Erlenmeyer flask experiments. CUA is preparing a rough draft paper. April Pulvirenti has completed the charts and half of the rough draft of the distillation paper. Ronnie Barkatt has fmished a rough draf? of a paper addressing the TDS glasses. Based on leach curves and SEM images, we feel we have some insight into the mechanism of TDS glass corrosion in aqueous salt environments. Preliminary observations of several of the long-term experiments suggest that the presence of Yucca Mountain tuff powder contributes to the corrosion of C-22. April Pulvirenti is scheduled to take more observations in a month. We feel we have beat the groundwaters to death, and so we would like to focus on the tuff in a few small- scale experiments in the immediate future.

2. GMI Dust studies:

GMI dust studies are still progressing and an example of the sample dara for only part of one sample (without photographs) is provided. Dust work on evaporitic salts and dissolved dust chemistry that was completed by Chuck Marks was reviewed and determined to be admit to experimental redesign.

3. Oxyhydroxide Reactions, carbonate and sulfates:

Transition metal reactions to form authigenic minerals in the drift have become a serious concern after a review of the potential oxyhydroxide formation reactions that we anticipate in the tunnels. Most of these reactions have the capability to form coiloidal products. We are looking into carbonate (Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba) mineral stability at elevated temperatures, and sulfate (Ba, Ca, Sr, water of hydration) mineral stability at elevated temperatures.

4. Hydrogeochemistry:

Don has finished initial draft of "Another visualization of Unsaturated Zone Pore Water Geochemistry at Yucca Mountain, Nevada", which graphically and statistically compares 3 types of unsaturated zone pore water (helow, at, and above repository level) with saturated zone ground water. Statistical differences were found between the four different groups for different elements, and for silica between extracted by compression techniques and ultra-centrifugation methods for pore waters below the repository level. In summary, the saturated zone groundwater is similar to unsaturated zone pore located below the repository level, and both of these are

Page 2 Geoseienw Management Institute, Ine. Maufy Rlorgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Iuc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

different from UZPW located at and above the repository level (which are similar to each other).

Don bas refined Mafhematica program that calculates Piper diagrams: added internal lines, more symbols.

Don has finished initial draR of "Comparison of Unsaturated Zone Pore Waters extracted by different techniques", which compared graphically and statistically unsaturated zone pore waters (UZPW) extracted bv comuression techniques with those extracted by ha-centrifuiation techniques. ~iatistickl~significant differences were found for certain dissolved species (Si02(aq), Na, S04, F, and N03) which may be attributed to pressure solution (~i02(aq)and ~a),bit it is less clear why the others are different.

He has reviewed the paper by Danko and Bahrami, which suggested that moisture may condense in the emplacement drifts during the dry-out period. There are a number of short comings with the modeling, but the condensation results are significant.

Don has refined Mathematrca program that calculates Piper diagrams: added internal lines, more symbols. He is refining Piper diagram program for use in future reports (dust leachates, rock-water experiment interpretation). Major improvement was addition of legends on the left and right hand side of diagram, which now has capability of displaying maybe 50 symbols with labels. Designed and implemented more than 50 symbols, which are scaled to the total ionic sum of each solution plotted.

Page 3 Gecscienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* lo00 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada @OW 1048 Mwterey Av., Voke: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

March 1,2005

Progress Report -February 2005 CC Program (Agreement Number: 99100.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State ofNevada, Nuclear Waste Prosect Office 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, Ph.D. Gwsciences Management Institute, Inc. 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Page 1 Geesciences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Mwgenstein* IWO Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Montwey Av., Voice: (702) 2943064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 5265765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

CUA

Work is proceeding on the long-term experiments and we have completed the work on waste glass with respect to the affects of iron and alkali. A publication has been generated and submitted to Journal of Chemistv and Physics of Glms. A copy is enclosed in this report.

HYDROGEOCHEMISTRY

Shettel has various memorandum inputs, which are attached to this report. Work is on going with respect to dust and the affects of salt precipitates on dust particles. We are now convinced that there will be an evaporite mineral sequence formed each time the dust is wetted, and that this sequence will follow normal solubility relationships at the given temperatures present. On this basis we feel that nitrate-salts will be concentrating on the outer surface of the dust particles as they will be re-dissolved and re-precipitated during each wetting period with the end result that the nitrates will increase in concentration each time new liquid and solute is added to the particle. There should be cyclic mineralogy banding for the less soluble salts. We are moving now to design experiments to assess this issue. Source(s) of the water vaporldrip are critical to the composition of the end product salt loaded dust particles formed. We do not anticipate one simple answer to this issue.

LONG-TERM REACTIONS

As a consequence of the changes in regulatory time of performance we have begun to assess the long-term conditions of concern for radionuclide release. These now include nearly-100% of waste glass dissolution, with a variety of different rate structures depending upon the changing repository environmental conditions, formation of authigenic colloidal particles, bacterial activity controlling the hydrogeochemical near- field water compositions, and of course engineered banier instability. Our activities here are mostly focused on assessing critical paths of failure based upon time and predictions for environmental conditions. DOE has established scenarios for timeienvironmental conditions but they have done so without reference to either laboratory-based data or even field-based data. For the most part, their predictions are based upon conceptual beliefs that the repository has to stay very, very dry though out the thermal period. By kicking the temperature back up to even higher conditions they may think that they will create an extended period of time for dry conditions. This belief system is not only wrong it is driven as a mechanism to falsely show that the repository can perform its designed role. Thus, our focus will be to accurately and fairly assess the volumes and fluxes of water that can enter the waste emplacement tunnels from preclosure to a one million year time in the future.

Page 2 Gwsciences ,Management Institute, Inc Maury Mwgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Mooterey Av., Voice: (702) 294.3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 April 9,2005

Progress Report - March 2005 CC Program (Agreement Number: 99100.0008)

Submitted To: Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, Ph.D. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder City, Nevada 89005

RECEIVED APR 1 1 2005

Page 1 M)aW-LwASIEhlw1 WNGE Geoseienees Management Institute, Inc. Manry Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Bonlder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av, Voice: (702) 2943064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

I. CUA

We are reporting results from preliminary observations from a few long-term experiments. The report is divided into two parts: observations on our long-term evaporatiodcrevice experiments, and a complete list of all of the experiments currently mtuling.

Long-term evaporationlcrevice experiments

Procedure: 30 mL of the test solution is added to a Teflon vessel. The test solutions used in these experiments are

1. 30 mL deionized water

2. 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water

3. 30 mL EPW salt dust, a mixture of salts according to the ionic composition reported by EPRI in their presentation at the NWTRB Board meeting, May 2004 1.0095 g Ca(NO,), .4H,O 0.5553 g CaSO, . 2H,O 0.3205 g Mg(N03), . 6H,O 0.1456 g Na2S04 0.7013 g NaCl 0.0373 g KC1 Dissolved in 30 mL deionized water

4. 30 mL Dust PM, a tunnel dust composition derived from Carl I. Steefel's DOE presentation at the NWTRB Board meeting, May 2W 0.7877 g CaCO, 0.7410 g Ca(NO,), . 4H20 0.3278 g CaSO, .2H20 0.1 183 g N%S04 0.1723 g K,SO, 0.1197 g CaCI, .2H,O 0.0299 g Mg(NO,), . 6 H,O Dissolved in 30 mL deionized water

5. In addition, lxUZ Pore water was used as a replenishment solution.

Page 2 Ceaseieuces Mmagement Institute, Inc. Maury Mwgenstein* lo00 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, toe. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Mouterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Each metal samples consists of a C-22 coupon with a hole drilled on either end. The holes are fit with Teflon shoulder spacer washers and bolted to create a tight crevice around the edges of the holes. The metal sample is placed upright in a Teflon vessel so that one crevice is immersed in the solution while the other is above and outside the solution. A simple schematic of the experiment is as follows:

In some cases, tuff powder was added to the vessel along with the metal sample. Therefore, the solids on the bottom can be evaporated solids, tuff powder, or both. The lid of the vessel is fit with a silicone septum, and a needle is pierced through the septum so that the water in the solution eventually evaporates. Please note that in experiments containing tuff powder, the bottom corner of tbe sample will be buried in tuff powder even if the solution has not evaporated to form solids. The vessel is placed in the oven at the desired temperature. Every 3-6 months, the sample is inspected for corrosion.

Ten long-term crevice corrosion experiments were started on July 2,2004. Sample K164 and K179 were started later. At the 3-mouth mask, the ten samples were inspected but not disassembled, and the solutions were replenished. At the six-month mark (186 days), the solutions were replenished, and the samples were dissembled and inspected for signs of crevice corrosion. In some cases the solution had evaporated completely, in other cases only small amounts of the solution evaporated. Unless othenvise stated in the table, the solution bad not dried out completely.

Page 3 Geoseiences Managemat Institute, tne. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, CMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Mnnterey AT., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Lon?-term evaporationicrevice experiments:

Replenishment 6 month observation Initial Solution Temp solution No obvious pitting corrosion K138 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 80°C 30 mL lx Pore ------. .--.-- 30 mL Di water Brown tarnish on the comer K140 EPRI salts 80°C 2 mL DiH,O that sat in the tuff solids

. 2.5 grams tuff powder Solution evaporated. Shallow K142 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 95°C 30 mL lx Pore pitting under the Teflon washer ...... Brown tarnish on the corner 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 950C that sat in the hiif solids; small Kt44 30 mL Ix Pore 2.5 grams tuff powder pit under washer; small pitting ...... -. alas-_ one -9.-edoe 30 mL Di water Tarnish under washer 95°C 2mLdiKO ..- K146....--....- EPRI salts.. - ...... ----- .. Brown tarnish on the corner 30 mL Di water that sat in the tuff solids; Small K148 EPRI salts 95"C mL diH20 pits all over the back face and 2.5 grams tuff powder ------edge. Solution has evaporated - two K1.50 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 110°C 30 rnL 1x Pore wet-dry cycles. ------.-- --.-.-. -. ------Largepits-- - - under the washers.- -. Solution has evaporated - two wet-dry cycles. 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 110°C 30 mL 1x Pore Large pits under washers and K152 2.5 grams tuff powder one large pit on the corner that ...... -.. sat in.. the &ffEowder -...... solids.-- ...... Solution has evaporated - two 30 mL Di water 110°C 2 mL diH20 wet-dry cycles. EPRI salts ...... -.. ..- LQht. tarnish ...... Solution evaporated - one wet- 30 mL Di water dry cycle. K156 EPRI salts looC mL diH20 Tarnish on the comer that sat in 2.5 grams tuff powder the solids_pits2 on ed~ 30 mL Di water ... W7 110°C 2 mL diH20 ...... K164 DOE -...... dust ---- ...... -- ...... Geoscienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

.. - . .. . .--..--- .-- . - --- - 30 mL Di water ..- K179 95" 2 mL diH,O 1.5 g tuff powder only

Some pictures from both the 3-month and 6-month observations:

Po- lder,

Page 5 Geaseiences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMl, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Mooterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3061 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

- (there are small pits over the face of the sample)

Page 6 Geaxienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury Magenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 2943065 Voice: (5101. , 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527.6%2

In general, it is difficult to compare corrosion between samples because the localized nature of the corrosion is not easily quantified. However, a few trends were observed:

Page 7 Gecscienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury Mwgenstein* 1000 \e%ada ~ighka).Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder Citv. Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702jk4-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702)294-3065 Voice: (510)526-0765 Fax: (510)527-6962

1. More corrosion was seen at 110' than at 95" or at 80°C. However, the experiments at 110°C dry out more quickly and therefore have undergone at least one complete wet-dry cycle, while lower-temperature experiments have not. In other words, corrosion could he caused by the dryout of the solution at the higher temperature, not the high temperature itself. Therefore, it is difficult to compare samples at different temperatures until several more wet-dry cycles are completed.

2. Of all the solutions, 62xUZ Pore water causes the most severe corrosion under the Teflon spacer washer. We have seen this in earlier crevice corrosion experiments. The solution formed by dissolving EPRI salts is corrosive, but not so much as 62xUZPore. The EPRI salt solution contains less magnesium nitrate and less chloride than that pore water. No corrosion has been observed yet in DOE PO7 salts, but those have started more recently.

3. When tuff powder is added to the experiment, we observe three different trends:

o In past experiments, corrosion was not seen until the solution evaporated almost completely. This is in agreement with the distillation and Erlenmeyer experiments. In experiments containing tuff powder, brown tarnish appears on the bottom comer, which is in contact with the solids, and small corrosion pits are observed before the solution evaporates. The tarnish is observed within three months of starting the experiment. K140 and K148 are examples of comer tarnish.

o Corrosion is slightly more severe in experiments containing tuff. For example, after 6 months the K146 sample (EPRI salt solution only) showed only a light tarnish, while K148, which contains tuff, shows small pits over the face of the sample.

o Most interestingly, the addition of tuff powder to the experiment causes pitting to occur over the bold face of the metal sample, not only in the crevice area. This pitting on the face is not the same as accelerating pitting in the creviced area. For example, 62xUZ Pore water (K150) causes large pits to appear in the creviced area. The analogous tuff- containing experiment (K152) also has pits in the crevice area, but they are no larger or deeper than what is seen in the absence of tuff. However, the experiments containing tuff show additional pits on the bold face.

During each observation, the pH of the solution was measured. All initial solutions were a pH of -5.5. After six months, only sample K146 changed pH: from 5.5 to 4.5. Only

Page 8 Ceoseiences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, CMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89D0.5 1048 Monterey Av.. Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 2943065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 5276962

tarnishing was observed in this experiment. Therefore, decreasing pH of the bulk solution is not the cause of pitting of C-22.

Tuff powder contains 1% iron oxide. In fact, if we insert a magnetic stir bar into an experiment containing tuff, the stir bar immediately becomes coated with black particles, likely magnetite. It is our hypothesis that the presence of tuff lowers the local pH at the metal surface to cause pitting corrosion even at sub-boiling temperatures. The initiation of lowering of the pH by iron is slow due to the low solubility of iron oxides in neutral solutions. However, in the presence of magnesium-containing solutions, magnesium will lower the pH to a level at which iron oxide is more soluble, in effect jump-starting the corrosion caused by iron.

We intend to run all these experiments as long as necessary. However, at the present time, we would like to direct our research program away from individual waters and salts. The hydrochemical component of the repository environment, as presented by the DOE, has shifted si,&ficantly over the years, and the reported repository conditions continue to change more frequently than we can adequately test. Instead, we would like to focus on the nature and effect of the Yucca Mountain tuff powder. The composition of the powder has been well characterized and is not as subject to change as the hydrocbemistry. The experiments that we have started recently are therefore intended to characterize the effects of the presence of tuff under conditions which are conservative even by DOE standards.

The tuff sample we have been using is a small sample (-100 g) of unofficial non- lithophysal tuff from Yucca Mountain, 4.15 mm, obtained from J. Donald Rimstidt and date 11-801. We would like to continue our experiments with Yucca Mountain tuff with more official pedigree and correct paperwork.

Complete list of current long-term experiments

A11 of these experiments are running currently. Many of the older experiments listed here are leftover experiments from larger matrices, where other experiments in the group were terminated earlier. For example, in some cases the matrix included experiments rnn in both UZ-pore waters and J13 based waters. The J-13-based experiments have been terminated, while the UZ-pore water experiments remain for the long term. In other cases, other experiments in the original matrix were terminated because the samples cracked or showed other signs of corrosion. Page 9 Geoseienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgeasteinf 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

The most recent experiments (those started after July 2004) are plamed to be long-term. The Start Date is the date for which the experiment was put into the oven. For tests requiring a pre-evaporation of a solution to yield a solid, the Start Date refers to the date on which the metal sample was introduced into the experiment

Experiments on C-22: bne term immersion tests on C-22 U-bends. These experiments test whether elevated fluoride content will offset the buffering action of 1000x1-13. They are being conducted in sealed Parr bombs.

Base Chem PH Additive Temp Date started 5144 1000x113 1.5 5000ppm F 130 5/22/02 5145 1000x513 3.5 MOOppm F 130 5/22/02 5146 1000xJ13 3.5 MOO ppm F 110 5/22/02 5147 1000x113 1.5 5000 ppm FQ: 130 5/22/02 5148 IOOOxUZPore 3.5 5000 ppm F 110 5/22/02

Lone. term immersion tests on C-22 disks: These experiments test the effect of elevated fluoride on C-22 in unbuffered pore water, and take place in sealed Parr bombs. The pH has been artificially lowered to stimulate corrosion by weak HF.

Base Chem pH Additive Temp Date Started 5159 1OOOxUZPore 1.5 --- 130 5120102

5160 1OOOxUZPore 3.5 ... 130 5/20/02 J195 lOOOxUZPore 1.5 5000 F- 130 7/12/02 51% 1OOOxUZPore 3.5 MOO F- 130 7/12/02

Lonp-term immersion tests on C-22 disks in an altered solution of concentrated 1000x113, where the anion content has been varied. We know from our electrochemical studies that sulfate and nitrate do provide an inhibitive effect on the corrosion Ti-7 in neutral solutions. These tests investigate if removing the inhibitive ions from concentrated 5-13 will stimulate corrosion in C-22. They are conducted in Parr bombs.

Page 10 Geesciences Management Institute, inc. Maury Nlorgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Mwterey Av., Vdce: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Base chem. AddedF pH Temp Date Started IOOOxJ-13 K3 Use SO, instead of NO, --- 4 1SO 12/13/02 1000x1-13 K32 Use NO, instead of SO, 1000x1-13 K33 Use all CI and F, no SO, or NO, --- 1000xJ-13 K34 Use all CI- and F, no SO, or NO, ppm 130 12/13/02 ~35 1x.J-13 unaltered iOOOppm 4 130 12/13/02

Long- term tests on C-22 U-bends in evaporating solutions of UZ pore water. These experiments take place in Teflon vessels which are open to the air by means of a needle through a septum in the lid, resulting in wet-dry cycling of an initial infusion of pore water solids. The experiments test the effect of wet-dry cycling on C-22.

Date Initial Solution Additive Temp After Initial Dryout Started Add 5 mL 1x Pore K55 30 mL SxUZ Pore --- lo and re-dry 2/3/03 Add 5 mL lx Pore K.56 30 mL 1243xUZ Pore --- 11° and re-dry 2/3/03 Add 5 mL lx Pore K57 30 mL 62xUZ Pore --- 11° and re-dry 2/3/03 Add 5 mL 1x Pore K58 30 mL 62xUZ Pore 1000 ppm F- 110 and re-dry 2/3\03

Lone. term tests on C-22 and Ti-7 foil buried in Tach~hydrite:This is a more conceptual experiment to determine if the corrosion in C-22 and Ti-7 seen in evaporated pore water

Page I1 Geoseiences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Mwgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, fnc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey .4v., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

can be produced by pure tachyhydrite. These experiments are conducted in Parr bombs. The samples in the high temperature (160°C) version of these experiments have already corroded through the portion of C-22 foil buried in the solids. We believe this was due mainly to the fast decomposition of MgC1, to produce and trap HCl(gf in the solids. We expect the low temperature version to do the same, although after a much longer duration.

Samples Solids Temp Date started K94a C-22 foil, Ti-7 foil Tachyhydrite 110 4/25/03 K94b C-22 foil, Ti-7 foil Tachyhydrite + NaNO, 110 4125103

Long-term tests on C-22 foil in different geometric shaoes. These tests investigate if different vessel geometries affect the corrosion of C-22 metal. They are open to the air and have dried out.

Vessel Starting solution Metal Temp Date Started config. Alpha 44a 1L 62x UZ Pore water C-22 strip Convex 30 Alpha 44b 1L 62x UZ Pore water C-22 strip Pear 30 Alpha 41c 1L 62x UZ Pore water C-22 strip Flat 30 Alpha 45a 1L 62x UZ Pore water C-22 strip Convex 87 Alpha 45b 1L 62x UZ Pore water C-22 strip Pear 87 Alpha 4% 1L 62x UZ Pore water C-22 strip Flat 87 Alpha 46a 1L 62x UZ Pore water C-22 strip Convex 110 Alpha 46b 1L 62x UZ Pore water C-22 strip Pear 110 Alpha 46c 1L 62x UZ Pore water C-22 strip Flat 110

Page 12 Gwseieuees Mauagement Institute. Iue. Maury Moi-gensteiu* 1OOO Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1W Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

The following long-term C-22 tests have been started very recently. Observations for the creviee tests have been reported above.

Lonp Term tests on (2-22 creviced two-hole s~ecimens.These experiments take place in Teflon bombs vented through a needle. They are similar to the dryout experiment listed above (K55-K58). The initial solids are based on recently reported EPRI and DOE salt dust compositions.

Replenishment Date started Initial Solution Temp OC solution K138 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 80 30 mL lx Pore 7/2/04 ..,,.. .- -.-- - .. 30 mL Di water K140 EPRI salts 80 2 mL DiH,O 71204 .. .. 2.5- grams tuff powder- -.-- -- K142 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 95 30 mL lx Pore 7/2/04 -.---, .-- .. ------. 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 95 30 mL 1x Pore 7/2/04 K144 2.5 grams tufbowder 30 mL Di water 95 2 mL diH,O 7/2/04 K146 EPRI salts ------30 mL Di water K148 EPRI salts 95 2 mL diH,O 7/2/04 - 2.5 gams tuff powder K150 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 110 30 mL lx Pore 7/2/04 ...... - --.------.- .. -.- . 30 mL 62xUZ Pore water 110 30 mL lx Pore 7/2/04 - K152 2.5 gams tuff-- powder--- . 30 mL Di water 110 2 mL diH,O 7/2/04 K154 EPRI- salts. - .------30 mL Di water K156 EPRI salts 110 2 mL diH,O 71204 - 2.5xrams-.- tufffiwder -- - .-. ------30 mL Di water 110 2 mL diH,O 7/2/04 K164. .- . DOE PO7 dust -- 30 mL Di water K179 95" 2 mL diH,O 7/2/04 1.5 g tuff powder only

Page 13 Geareienees Management Institute, Inc. Maury Mwgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048Mwterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Faw: (702) 2943065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 5276962

Long term tests of C-22 covered bv evanorated solids or DOE salt dusts. These tests look like this:

and take place in sealed Teflon vessels. When these experiments are conducted at high temperature and in concentrated pore waters, corrosion is seen in a matter of weeks. These experiments are conducted under milder conditions: viz. unconcentrated pore waters or DOE salt dusts, and lower temperatures.

Grams Grams Initial Solution solids Temp Date stasted C-22 K166a lxNRG -7 3 80 12/8/04

K167a lxUZ Pore -7 3 80 1218104 1xUZ Pore + K167h Tuff powder "7

K168a PO7 Dust -7 3 80 12/8/04 K168b PI0 Dust -7 3 80 12/8/04 K169a P14 dust -7 3 80 1218104 PO7 Dust + K169b Tuff powder "7

Page 14 Geesciences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Mnrgenstein* loo0 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voiee: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 5276%2

Low-temp Long term Flask evaporation: Erlenmeyer flask tests at higher temperatures or using concentrated pore waters as the starting solutions have shown reliable corrosion. The current tests are conducted under extremely mild conditions.

Metal Solution Temperature Date started Alpha 48a C-22 foil 1243x UZ Pore water 95 oil bath 8/8/03 Alpha 48c C-22 foil 62x UZPore water 95 oil bath &/st03 Alpha 49 C-22 foil lx UZ pore water 95 oil bath 811 5/03 K171 C-22 foil lxNRG 80 2/21/05 K172 C-22 foil lxUZN2 80 2/21/05 Kl73 C-22 foil IxPore 80 2/21/05 K174 C-22 foil Tuff + Dust PO7 80 2/21/05 K175 C-22 foil Tuff + Dust PI0 80 2/21/05 K176 C-22 foil Tuff + Dust PI4 80 2/21/05 K177 C-22 foil Dust PO7 alone 80 2/21/05 K178 C-22 foil Tuff alone 80 2121105

DistillationlSoxhlet: These are the same as distillatiodSoxhlet experiments conducted in the past, except under milder conditions. The "10xPore water" is simply the composition of Ix UZ Pore water multiplied by 10. For higher concentrations, such as 62x UZ Pore or 1243xUZ Pore water, simply multiplying the water composition by the composition is inaccurate because it does not take into account precipitating solids. However, we conducted evaporation experiments to a concentration factor of 10, and no solids precipitated. Therefore, we can simply multiply the composition by 10 to anive at 10xUZ Pore water. We are using 1OxPore water to increase the amount of solids in the flask.

Page 15 (feoseiences Management Institute, Ine. Maury Morgenstein* 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GM1, Inc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av., Voice: (702) 234-3064 Berkeley, CA 947M Fax: (702)W43065 Voice: (510)526-0765 Fax: (510)527-6962

Solution Metal Solution Volume Date started temp K181 C-22 and Ti-7 62x UZ Pore 4 L 95 Distilling K185 C-22 andTi-7 10x UZPore 10 L 95 Distilling

Experiments on Ti-7:

Lone term Ti-7 immersion tests. This test investigates the effect of fluoride/chloride mixtures in a dilute base chemistry. This test is conducted in a sealed Parr Bomb.

Solution Additive PH Temp Date started

Ti U-Bend FIC1- ion? term extra~olationtests: These are stress tests on Ti-7 U-bends. They are conducted in dilute solutions of 5-13 with progressively lower amounts of added fluoride and chloride. Samples 566 and 567, missing from this matrix, were Ti-7 U-bends exposed to solutions which had been exposed to higher fluoride and chloride content added, 1895 ppm F15940 ppm CT, and 11% ppm Fl36DO ppm Cl-, respectively. Both 566 and 567 cracked after 60 days and 335 days, respectively. These tests are conducted in sealed bombs.

Solution pH Temp Date started

563 40 mL lx Ei-13 As is (-6.5) 110 1227101 ...... --...... - 564 40mL150xE.-13 As is (-6.5) 110 12/27/01 565 40mL15OxEi-13 As is (-6.5) 110 1212710 1 ...... 40 mL 1 x E1-13 with 568 230 ppm F added As is (-6.5) 110 1U27/01 @ -. -- 720---- CI- added ...... -...-...-.-- 40 mL 1 x E1-13 with 569 46 DD~F added As is (-6.5) 110 1212710 1 14pprn Cl- added

Page 16 Gexciences Management Institute, Inc. Manry Morgeustein* 1OOO Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, fnc. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Mooterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962

Long term Ti U-bend immersion ex~eriments: These are largely control experiments, conducted in sealed Parr bombs.

Solution PH Temp Date started J125 40 mL 1x Pore water 4.5 110 4/1/02 3126 40 mL 62x Pore water 4.5 110 4/1/02 J127 40 mL 1OOOx Pore water -6.5 110 4/1/02

Long-term- immersion tests on Ti-7 disks. These experiments test the inhibitive properties of nitrate and sulfate in the presence of corrosive fluoride and chloride. All experiments are rnnning at 110°C and are conducted in sealed Pan bombs.

Solution Added F- Added CI- Added NO, Added SO; Date started

11. Rock Chip Experiments

Final data report for the rock chip experiment is attached.

Page 17 Geexieuees Management Institnte, Inc. Maury Morgenstein* loo0 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMf, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Av, Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) 527-6962 May 6,2005

Progress Report - April 2005 CC Program (Agreement Number: 99/00.0008)

Submitted To: RfCFFrSD Susan Lynch State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office MAY 1 0 2005 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 HX;LURw\snmwtcr om Carson City, Nevada 8970 1

Submitted By: Maury Morgenstein, Ph.D. Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Page I Geoseiences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgenstein 1000 Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Inc. Buulder City, Nevada 89005 1048 Monterey Ave. Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 voice: (510) 526-076s Fax: (510) 5274962

April 30,2005

Progress Report for April Nitrate salt Dust Studies

I am presently working on identifying the various primary and secondary aqueous sources within the -In-Drift, their ranges in potential chemical composition, and the composition of evolved evaporated aqueous compositions. In addition, we are looking at the salt minerals formed and their spatial orientation on drift walls, metal surfaces, and as dust particles.

It is clear from our studies so far, that the most soluble components (nitrates) stay in solution during the evaporation process until the very end of the sequence of salt precipitation.

I am also looking at:

"An Expert Chemical Model for Determining the Environmental Conditions Needed to Prevent Salt Damage in Porous Materials", Protection and Conservation of the European Cultural Heritage, Edited by C. Price (Project ENV4-CT95-0135 Finals Report, Research Report No.11, Directorate-General Science, Research and Development 2000, which has a program of environmental conditions and salt precipitation. The interest in this document is that it provides data for complex salts at temperatures of 0 to about 50 degrees C and relative humidity of about 50 to loo%., although one can vary these considerably. Of course the publication and program was designed to protect cultural materials that are housed under controlled museum conditions, but interestingly it allows us to play with ternary systems using the Pitzer model of mixed electrolyte solutions for most of the important salts. Shettel is using a different program for similar calculations.

M. Morgenstein Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. Maury Morgeostein* lW Nevada Highway, Suite 106 President, GMI, Ine. Boulder City, Nevada S!NlX 1048 lMonterey Av., Voice: (702) 294-3064 Berkeley, CA 94707 Fax: (702) 294-3065 Voice: (510) 526-0765 Fax: (510) snd%z

General Summary

Roger Staehle has completed the Laborato~yreport for our electro-chemical work. This will be hand carried to the State offices ASAP. The field vadose water-sampling program has started, and we have been successful in acquiring good vadose samples. A report wilt be forthcoming when the fieldwork has been compIeted. Our dust and salt mineralogy work continues focused on chloride and nitxate complex salts. It turns out that the dust particles when fully wetted and then evaporated produce outer-active salt precipitates that are gravity and thin film spatially controlled. There is much importance to this spatial salt geometry because when the active hydroscopic salts form the outer surface and then settle on a metallic object they transfer the active solution to the metal surface.

Page 2 DOE

EX. Q Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste

January 2007 in 2005. The DOE's most current estimate is that the license application will be submitted at the end of June 2008.

If, after a lengthy review process, the NRC approves the DOE's license application, facility construction will begin. The DOE will then have to apply for and obtain a separate operating license from the NRC before any nuclear waste can be received. The DOE has stated that shipments of nuclear waste will not be received at Yucca Mountain before 2017.

B. State Historical Perspective

The NWPA, as amended: authorizes the Nevada State Legislature and the Governor to carry out oversight on all aspects of the High-Level Radioactive Waste Project. State legislative oversight began in 1983 with the adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 52 (File No. 135, Statures of Nevada 1983), which directed the Legislative Commission to appoint an interim committee to observe and participate in the federal smdy. The Committee's major objectives were to: . Become familiar with the federal program for study of potential locations of a repository; and . Establish a structure within the State of Nevada to analyze and address the issues associated with the possibility of locating a repository in the state.

The interim committee recommended to the 1985 Legislature that: . The Legislature continue to be actively involved in the State's program by creating a permanent legislative committee to perform oversight functions and formulate recommendations concerning the high-level radioactive waste repository issue; and e An executive branch advisory conunission and agency be created by statute.

I. Creatioiz of Permanent Legislative Oversight Committee

The Nevada State Legislature's Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste was created in 1985 by Senate Bill 55 (Chapter 211, Statures of Nevada). This permanent committee was charged with legislative oversighr responsibilities as outlined on page 1 of this report.

The Committee is not authorized to undertake technical studies or duplicate efforts of ANP

2. Creation of Commission and State Agency

Pursuant to the NWPA, Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects (ANP) was established in early 1983 by Executive Order of the Governor and ptaced within the Department of Minerals. In December 1983, the ANP was transferred to the Governor's Office. In 1985, Senate Bill 56 (Chapter 680. Siaitiies of Nevada) created the Commission on Nuclear Projects and the responsibilities of the ANP.

Major functions of the ANP include:

0 Identifying health. safety, and environmental issties of concern to Nevada;

e Reviewing and evaluating the DOE'S environmental, socioeconomic, and technical studies: and

Performing selective independent studies of critical issues in order to confirm or negate DOE analyses

According to Robert R. Loux. Executive Director. ANP, the agency has aggressively performed its monitoring and oversight responsibilities. Emphasis has been placed on reviewing and commenting on technical studies in the areas of hydrology, groundwater travel time, pneumatic pathways, volcanism. seismology, waste packaging. transportation routes and modes, and socioeconon~ic impacts, as well as on providirig information to the public about the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Program.

Details of the ANP's oversight activities can be obtained by contacting the office at 1761 East College Parkway: Suite 118, Carson City; Nevada 89706; telephone: 7751687-3744; or by visiting the ANP's Web site at: http:;/w~vw.state.nv.us/nucwaste. Copies of ANP reports and studies are available at most public libraries in Nevada.

3. ASJected Units of Local Government

The NWPA provides that units of local government that might be affected by a repository may conduct certain types or independent oversight of the High-Level Radioactive Waste Program.

The Affected Units of Local Government (AI:L.G) have been identified as the county in which the proposed repository site is being studied and the counties which surround it. The AULG for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project are Churchill, Clark, Esmeralda, Eureka. Lander, Lincoln. hfineral, Nye, and White Pine Counties in Nevada, and inyo County in California.

The oversight activities of the AULG include: o Reviewing studies and materials for the purpose of determining any potenrial economic, social. public health and safely, and environmental impacts of a repository; e Developing requests for impact assistance: DOE

EX. R . . - NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENT DOCUMENT TITLE: Retardation Sensitivity Analysis.

AUTHOR(S): Los Alamos Nalional Laboratory REFERENCE: July 1992

COMMENT #: 1 CHAPTER I SECTION: 1.0 Purpose and Objectives

SUBSECTION, PAGE #, PARAGRAPH(S)#, COMMENT: LINE($) #, PLATE #, FIGURE #, TABLE #. GRAPH #, MAP #. P. 8 Under specific objectives of this study, one objective is to develop computa- tional models of radionuclide transport and retardation which will later guide geochemical characterization of the site and experiments. There would appear to be some danger of circular reasoning here, in that if the conceptual models are not totally correct one only finds what is expected and not what is unexpected. This could bias results of site characterization efforts regarding geochemisay.

Reviewer: Don L. Shettel, Jr. Organization: Geosciences Management & L&A institute, lnc. Signature Date: 27 April 1993 Page 1 GM11930427a r' NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE 1 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENT DOCUMENT TITLE: Retardation Sensitivity Analysis.

AUTHOR@): Los Alamos National Laboratory REFERENCE: DOE Study Plan 8.3.1.3.7.1 Rev 0 July 1992 /COMMENT#: 2 /CHAPTER/ SECTION: Table 1 I SUBSECTION, I PAGE #, 1 PARAGRAPH@) #. COMMENT: LINE@) #, PLATE #, FIGURE #, TABLE #, GRAPH #, MAP #. 1 D. I1 / I do not understand the significance- of "NA [not applicable]- - in all columns dealing with the "significance of alternate hypothesis." Does this mean that alternate hypotheses, such as rapid flow along fractures, is not significant and therefore no attempt will be made to reduce uncertainty associated with this scenario?

t Reviewer: Don L. Shettel, Jr. l~r~anization:Geoscienees Management Institute, Inc.

Signature Date: 27 April 1993 Page 2 GM11930427a , , NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENT DOCUMENT TITLE: Retardation Sensitivity Analysis. J AUTHOR(S): Los Alarnos National Laboratory REFERENCE: DOE Study Plan 8.3.1.3.7.1 Rev 0 July 1992

COMMENT #: 3 CHAPTER / SECTION: 2.2.3 Transport Models and Related ...... I SUBSECTION. 1 PAGE #, PARAGRAPH(S) #, COMMENT: LINEK) #. PLATE #, FIGURE#, TABLE #. GRAPH #, MAP #. p. 21 Tme validation can only be achieved (if at all) after the regulatory period of 10,000 years by comparing the modeling predictions with the reality of what actually happened. Peer review cannot "validate" a model; the process should b~ called "history matching." Petroleum engineers are practical and recognize this. If DOE wants to avoid further credibility loss they should avoid using the mis- leading term "validation" and use the more realistic and practical term "history matching."

Reviewer: Don L. Shettel, Jr. !organization: Geosciences Management Institute, Inc. Signature Date: 27 April 1993 Page 3 GM11930427a NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENT 1 DOCUMENT TITLE: Retardation Sensitivity Analysis. I AUTHOR(S): Los Alamos National Laboratory REFERENCE: DOE Study Plan 8.3.1.3.7.1 Rev 0 July 1992 I I /COMMENT#: 4 CHAPTER I SECTION: 3.1.2 Analysis of PhysicaUChemical ...... I SUBSECTION, PAGE #, PARAGRAPH(S)#, COMMENT: I LINEtS, a. PI ATE a. FIGURE a . TABLE---, p i GRAPH #, MAP k 1 It is difficult to ascertain how modeling is supposed to guide geochemical aspects of site characterization when there is great uncertainty when fracture flow can occur in the unsaturated (vadose) zone. ~dherenceinthe conceptual and computational models to the composite porosity model of Peters and Klavetter (1988) may not be justified and much additional work is needed in this area.

Reviewer: Don L. Shettel, Jr. Organization: Geosciences Management Institute, lnc. Signature Date: 27 April 1993 Page 4 GM11930427a NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENT DOCUMENT TITLE: Retardation Sensitivity Analysis.

AUTHOR(S): Los Alamos National Laboratory REFERENCE: DOE Study Plan 8.3.1.3.7.1 Rev 0 July 1992

/COMMENT#: 5 /CHAPTER 1 SECTION: 3.2.2.1 Colloid Transport 1 I SUBSECTION, PAGE #, PARAGW\PH(S)#, COMMENT: LINE(S) #. PLATE #. FIGURE #, TABLE #. GRAPH #, MAP #. p. 32 This paragraph's discussion of population balance equations regarding colloidal (2nd paragraph transport and all the assumptions involved yield little confidence in this colloidal from bottom) modeling scheme. Emphasis should be place on colloid data collected during site characterization and on experiments conducted specifically for colloid analyses of radionuclides, such as plutonium and americium, under various but anticipated

IReviewer: Don L. Shenel. Jr. loroanization:- Geosciences Management I Institute, lnc. Signature Date: 27 April 1993 Page 5 GM11930427a NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENT I DOCUMENT TITLE: Retardation Sensitivity Analysis. I AUTHOR(S): Los Alamos National Laboratory REFERENCE: DOE Study Plan 8.3.1.3.7.1 Rev 0 July 1992

I COMMENT #: 6 CHAPTER 1 SECTION: Summary comments.

SUBSECTION. PAGE #. IPARAGRAPH(S) it, I COMMENT: LINE(S1 a, PLATE It, FIGURE a, TABLE a GRAPH #,'MAP #. . P. [rial References appear to be complete and applicable for this study except for an apparent lack of references to geothermal modeling (especially success of history matching) and boiliug/refluxing modeling (coupled hydrological and geocherni- call in the vadose zone.

There is a chance that the activities proposed in this study plan will achieve its objectives, but there is a greater chance that these activities will not because there are considerable obstacles to overcome, even in the almost 10 year duration of this proposed plan. These obstacles include

(1) circular reasoning involved in guiding geochemical site characterization witk perhaps inappropriate conceptual and computational models, (2) use of inappropriate and perhaps unjustified models for coupling mamx and fracture flow in the vadose zone, (3) "validation" [history matching] problems, (4) perceived use of too many assumptions in modeling colloidal transport, (5)modeling and importance of diffusion in mamx flow [study plan for in-situ determination of diffusion appeared most likely doomed to failure of all the stud: plans that I have reviewed], and (6) pre-emplacement geochemical and hydrogeological site characterization results may suggest effects arising after emplacement, but only modeling, extensiveheater tests, and study of geothermal areas may fully elucidate these effects.

Item 6 above is most important because depending on which thermal loading plan is implemented (standard SCP design, extended dry-out design, or some other design) the effects of boiling and refluxing in the vadose zone could be very significant; boiling and refluxin- in the vadose zone near-field environment Reviewer: Don L. Shenel, Jr. l~r~anization:Geoscienees Management Institute, Inc. Signature Date: 27 April 1993 1 Page 6 GM11930427a * NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENT DOCUMENT TITLE: Retardation Sensitivity Analysis.

AUTHOR(S): Los Alarnos National Laboratory REFERENCE: DOE Study Plan 8.3.1.3.7.1 Rev 0 July 1992

I COMMENT #: 6 I CHAPTER 1 SECTION: Summary comments (continued). I I SUBSECTION, PAGE #. PARAGRAPH($) #, COMMENT: LINE(S) #, PLATE #, FiGURE #, TABLE #. GRAPH #, MAP #. P- [rial around the waste canisters may result in modification of hydrological properties (porosity and permeability) from geochemical processes (dissolution and precipi tation) and &us alteration of flow fields and paths. Steam pressures could build up resulting in hydrofracturing of a cemented cap and the resultant influx of relatively cooler water held above the repository may cause a phreatic steam eruption. The extent and effects of any steam explosions depends on many factors. One of the models proposed for use in &is study plan has been used for geothermal areas, but no mention has been made of boiling and refluxing sce-

Reviewer: Don L. Shettei, Jr. Organization: Geosciences Management &ded Institute, Inc. Signature Date: 27 April 1993 Page 7 GM11930427a DOE

EX. S Geosciencc Consultants - Yucca Mo~~ntainvolcanism Page 1 of 1

Home About Us Yuccti M~ainvolcanisin Sloan CanyYo_nnNC3 Pubicatims and Reports News

Geoscience Consultants

Yucca Mountain Geology

Geoscience Consultants, and the Center for Volcanic and Tectonic Studies at UNLV have been doing volcanic hazard studies for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada since 1986. Our work is s~tpportedby the Nevada~&ency for Nuclear Projects and the C1:drkCounty Nuclear Wast.e Office.

Over the past four years we have developed an alternative model to describe basaltic volcanism near Yucca Mountain. This model has been described in a series of papers and abstracts including Wangand

p~others~~~ ~ (2002), Smith andothers 12002) and S&han&na (2005)-The model has direct implications for volcanic hazard assessment because it requires a magmatic disruption probability for Yucca Mountain 10 times higher than the number calculated by the Department of Energy (DOE). We also developed new techniques for calculating disruption probabilities; the first phase of this research will be described in an article in the Bulletin of Volcanology oth~rs~001,

In order to better develop, refine and test our model, we have divided it into five parts, each of which can be studied separately.

I. Depth of melting calculations to determine the location within the earth's interior where the basaltic magmas were originally produced. For those who are interested, here are links to an exercise that explains the technique, spreadsheets that calculate olivine compositions in with the mantle source, depth ~f~n~eltingand sample data from the Smu; Canyon and NVvajo Lake volcanic fields. Note that the program IgPet for Windows 2000 is required to plot the data.

2. Demonstrating that the basaltic volcanism near Yucca Mountain is part of a larger volcanic field that extends frorn Lunar Crater on the north to Death Valley to the south (the Crater Flat-Lunar Crater belt or CFLC).

3. Showing that the melting of the earth's shallow mantle (continental lithospheric mantle or CLM) will not produce basaltic luagma with the composition of Yucca Mountain basalts. Note that DOE'S model requires the melting of CLM to produce Yucca Mountain basalts.

4. Identifying the factors that control the location of volcanism in the CFLC. This requires the modeling of mantle circulation and the contribution of edge effects, mantle delamination and mantle keels on the location of volcanism.

5. Developing techniques to calculate the probability of disruption of the repository by volcanic activity

Created with 1&1 WebsiteBuilder DOE

EX. T Effects of Concentrated Hydrochlaric and Nitric Acids and NaF on the Corrosion of C-22 Alloy at 25 and 90°C; a Model for Rapid Penetration of C-22

Roger W. Staehle', En-Hou an', Hui ~uan',Jianqiu Wang2, Junhua Dong2

1. Adjunct Professor, University of Minnesota 2. Institute of Metal Research, Shenyang, China

Work Supported by the State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects

Dr. Roger W. Staehle 22 Red Fox Road North Oaks, Minnesota 55127 3. The SPP is capable of perforating C-22 in times as short as ten years or less assuming that environment of concentrated mixed HCI-HNO, can be accumulated.

4. The SPP occurs over a broad range of compositions of the mixed acid, HCI and HNO, where these concentrations exceed several molar in concentration.

5. The activation energy for the SPP process indicates that it can occur over a range of temperatures including room temperature.

6. Attention should be given both to a terrace-ledge-kink process that occurs in concentrated HCI. This process can produce high rates. Rapid propagation of IG corrosion also occurs but this process has not been quantified as has the SPP.

7. There is no evidence that the NO; anion is functioning as an inhibitor.

8. Additional experimental work should be undertaken to establish the applicability of the SPP mechanism as well as IG corrosion and possible TLK to C-22 containers. The data, which have been developed here, provide a credible foundation for early perforation of the C-22; and this credibility should be enhanced by a program as outlined in Section 4.10.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the support of the State of Nevada, Agency of Nuclear Programs, and Ms. Susan Lynch, Administrator of Technical Programs. Her vision and persistence have enabled this work and others to produce critical and deep understandings of the possible modes of degradation of containers for radioactive waste.

It is also a pleasure to acknowledge Dr. Maury Morgenstein of the Geosciences Management Institute who is the project manager of this work, His encouragements and insightful comments have been important to this and other work. Also of GMI I have appreciated the important research of Dr. Don Shettel and his enlightened approach to thinking about the chemical environment to which radioactive waste is exposed.

Much of the experimental work, which incited the need for the modeling herein, was conducted by Dr. April Pulvirenti and Prof. Aaron Barkatt both of Catholic University. Their work has provided major insights into the processes by which and through which corrosion can occur when pore waters are evaporated on hot surfaces.

I continue to appreciate the work of Dr. Jeff Gorman and Dr. Chuck Marks who provided intellectual support for the present work.

We also appreciate the many colleagues at IMR who provided assistance:

Wang Zhiying for AES; Yang Lihong, Zhang Rongfa, Chen Xinhua, Rao Guangbin, Wang Haitao for electrochemistry work; Li Shengxi, Li Baojun, Zhang Zhaoen, for preparing samples; and William Staehle who assisted in preparing samples, solutions and electrochemistry work.

We also appreciate the great inspiration of Professor Ke Wei of IMR who has encouraged several generations of corrosion scientists in China and throughout the world to excel and persist.

Finally, I appreciate the great efforts of my office colleagues who have assisted in preparing this report and who continue to support my work. This work has been highly professional and totally committed to maintaining a high standard of quality. On this project Ms. Julie Daugherty, Ms. Erin Kate Rediger, Ms. Marcia Parish-Siggelkow, Ms. Marnie Parrish-Siggelkow, and John Ilg have been especially helpful. Of course my colleagues Ms. Mary Elizabeth Ilg and Ms. Barbara Lea have managed and maintained the office so that the work could be completed. DOE

EX. U July 8,2005 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOK

BEFORE THE PRE-LICENSE APPIdCATION PRESIDING OFFICER BOARD

In the Matter of ) Docket Nu. PAPO-00 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ) ASLBP No. 04-829-01-PAP0 ) (High Level Waste Repository: ) Pre-Application Nlatters) 1

As directed in the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer Board's May 23, 2005

Order, the Department of Energy (DOE), Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC Staff), and the State of Nevada (State) conducted a public meeting on June 15, 2005, at the Washington,

D.C. offices of Ilunton & Williams regarding the creation of uniform standards for the retention of ernails and other documentary material. Lists of the persons who participated in the meeting, either in person or by phone, are attached.

Following the meeting, on June 29, 2005, DOE* the NRC Staff and the State distributed a draft proposed order to the attendees at the public meeting for comment throngh July 5, 2005.

DOE, the NRC Staff and the State additionally made the draft order available on their respective web sites. D.L. English Consulting, Inc., Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Naval Sea Systems

Command, and Joy Reese, all of whom participated in the public meeting, provided comments on the draft.

DOE, the NRC Staff and the State thereafter conferred and developed the accompanying

Joint Proposed Order Rcgarding Retention of Documentary Material. DOE_the NRC Staff and the State agree on all provisions of the proposed order with one exception. The exception concerns ¶ 8 of the proposed order. As noted in the submittal, DOE considers 8 appropriate and believes it should he included in the order. The NRC Staff and the State consider 9[ 8 to be outside the scope of the May 23, 2005 Order and that the paragraph should thus be omitted.

Otherwise, there are no disagreements with regard to the proposed order.

Respectfully submitted,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Donald P. Irwin Michael R. Shehelskie Kelly L. Faglioni HUNTON & WILLLAMS LLP Riverfront Plaza. East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 Telephone: (804) 788-8200 Facsimile: (804) 788-8218 Email: dirwin @ hunton.com

Of Counsel:

Martha S. Crosland U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of General Connsel Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 PROPOSED JOINT ORDER REGARDING RETENTION PROCEDURES FOR DOCUMENTARY MATERLAL

Background

In compliance with this Board's May 23, 2005 Order, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC Staff), and the State of Nevada (State) coordinated a public meeting held on June 15, 2005 to discuss minimum acceptable procedures for retention of documentary material that parties, potential parties, and interested governmental participants must implement in connection with this proceeding. Based on comments received at that June 15 public meeting and subsequent discussions, DOE, the NRC Staff and the State submitted on July 8, 2005 a proposed order specifying minimum procedures for retention of documentary material. DOE, the NRC Staff and the State agreed on those procedures except for one provision on which they submitted alternative proposals. [IDENTIFY ANY

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY OTHERS] In cons id era ti or^ of the submissions, the Board orders the following procedures that parties, potential parties, and interested governmental participants shall implement.

Definitions

1. As used in this Order, the term "participant" means a party, potential party or interested governmental participant.

2. As used in this 01-der,the term "document" has the same meaning as "document" in 10 C.F.R. 3 2.1001. All documents in a participant's possession, regardless of who wrote the document or from whom the participant received the document, are subject to the requirements of this Order.

3. As used in this Order, the term "documentary material" has the same meaning as

"documentary material" in 10 C.F.R. 8 2.1001. Requirements

1. Unless it already has done so, each participant shall implement good faith, reasonable procedures to preserve all documents that may qualify as documentary material as well as good faith, reasonable procedures to review periodically those documents to make available on the Licensing Support Network (LSN) those that are documentary material during the pendency of the pre-license application phase proceeding or such other time ordered by another NRC adjudicatory tribunal.

2. A participant's procedures to preserve documents shall include the following minimum requirements:

a. Each participant shall implement procedures reasonably designed to

identify and preserve the documents that may qualify as documentary

material in the possession of its officers, employees and other personnel

who might reasonably generate or receive such documents, regardless of

the location in which these persons maintain their documents (e.g., in file

cabinets, on hard-drives, on other electronic storage devices). Each

participant shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with these

requirements for additional documents its officers, employees and other

personnel receive that may qualify as documentary material.

b. Each participant shall implement procedures reasonably designed to

identify and preserve those documents that may qualify as documentary

material that the participant maintains in any physical or electronic storage

location (e.g., warehouses, electronic document management systems) that

might reasonably contain such documents. Each participant shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with these requirements for additional

documents added to those storage locations that may qualify as

documentary material.

c. Each participant shall implement procedures reasonably designed to

identify and preserve emails, and attachments to emails, on its email

systems that may constitute documentary material for those systems that

reasonably might contain such emails and attachments to emaiis. Each

participant shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with these

requirements for additional emails, and attachments to emails, that are sent

from or received on such email systems.

d. If a participant possesses a hack-up tape for an email system that primarily

contains emails related to the Yucca Mountain project, the participant

shall implement procedures reasonably designed to identify and preserve

emails, and attachments to emails, on that back-up tape that may qualify as

documentary material. A participant shall not be required to review such a

back-up tape if the participant had implenlented the procedures specified

in subsection c above for the entire time period covered by the hack-up

tape.

e. Each participant shall suspend its document retention policies, practices

and procedures that likely would result in the destruction of non-

duplicative documents that need to he preserved under this Order.

3. Unless it already has done so, each participant shall direct each of its contractors, consultants, experts, law firms, and other persons it has hired who reasonably might generate or receive docurnents, including emails, that may qualify as documentary material in the course of their work for that participant to submit to the participant copies of such documents for production on the LSN as appropriate. The direction shall require that the contractor, consultant, expert, law firm or other person obtain from its subcontractors documents that may qualify as documentary material and submit such documents to the participant. Each such contractor, consultant, expert, law firm, and other person also shall be directed to suspend all document retention policies, practices and procedures that likely would result in the destruction of non- duplicative documents that need to be preserved under this Order. Each such contractor, consultant, expert, law firm and other person shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with these requirements for all additional documents that it generates or receives in the course of work for the participant.

4. A participant must comply with this Order even if it intends merely to rely on or cite another participant's documents in support of its positions, in order to preserve documents in its possession, if any, that may qualify as non-supporting information or repolts and studies within the definition of documentary material. A participant who, after implementing reasonable procedures to identify documentary material, has determined that it has no documentary material in its possession, must still so certify in accordance with the schedule prescribed in 10 C.F.R.

5 2.1003, and will have a duty to supplement its certification sho~lldit later come into possession of documentary material not already made available on the LSN by the participant that authored it.

5. A participant is not required to preserve a document that it has determined another participant has already niade available on the LSN. For these purposes, a participant cannot assume that a document authored by another participant will necessarily be made available on

the LSN by that other participant.

6. A participant shall provide reasonable training and guidance on the requirements

of this Order to its officers, employees and other personnel who reasonably might generate or

receive documents that need to be preserved under this Order, as well as to its contractors,

consuliants, experts, law firms and other persons it has hired who reasonably might generate or

receive documents that may qualify as documentary material in the course of their work for the

participant.

7. Each participant shall implement the procedures and other requirements specified

in this Order within 30 days of its publication in the Federal Register, absent good cause shown.

However, notwithstanding the foregoing 30-day period, a participant may not deliberately

destroy non-duplicative documents that the participant knows, or reasonably should know, may

constitute documentary material (although destruction of documents during the 30-day period

due to a pre-existing, automated document deletion process prior to implementation of the

procedures and other requirements specified in this Order will not be considered the deliberate

destruction of documents).

8. DOE PROPOSAL: This Order does not address, and shall not be construed

to address, whether or not a participant should have previously implemented procedures to preserve documents before entry of this Order.

STAFFBTATE PROPOSAL: [OMlT q( 8 AS BEING OUTSIDE THE

SCOPE OF THE BOARD'S MAY 23,2005 ORDER]

9. This Order does not supersede, preempt or otherwise diminish any obligation that a participant may have under any federal, state, local or other law, order, statute, regulation, or order either to preserve additional documents or to undertake additional measures with respect to documents that are the subject of this Order. List of Attendees (In Person) for 6/15/05 Yucca Mountain Public Meeting

Organization

I Michael Shebelskie 1 Hunton & WilliamsiDOE Kelly Faglioni Hunton & / DOE Mike Hutsell / Talisman Mitzi Young NRC Harry Wedewer / NRC I Kevin Kamas I NIRS / En~elbrechtvon Tiesenhausen / Clark County 1 Melissa Kemp / Mmv Walsch / EFM&C/Nevada

Cathenne Birdwell I Eli Roth Julie R. Enszer - Dave English English Consulting Michael A. Bauser , Nuclear Energy Institute Ellen Ginsberg / N~iclearEnergy Institute Craiz Kemmerer / Navy OGC/NavaI Reactors

99999.M)0301 RICHMOND 1158332~2 List of Attendees (By Phone) for 6/15/05 Public Meeting in Washington, DC

17. Don Irwin- ' DOE/H&W ~--~ 18. Julia Bowman NO& -- 19. Kate Merrick None 20. Deborah Wilson None 21. Tom Garrctt None -. 22. KeHy Nadal None -. -. 23. Kevin Curtis None St. Louis Times 25. Geoffrey Fettus NRDC DOE

EX. V Scrutiny of the TSPA

MIKE THORNE AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED (Director: Dr M C Thorne; Company No. 4155738; Registered in England and WaIes)

Abbotsleigh Kebroyd Mount Ripponden Halifax West Yorkshire HX6 3 JA Telephone and Fax: 01422 825890 e-mail: [email protected]

Date: 1 I May, 2007 From: Dr. M. C. Thorne To: R. R. Loux, Executive Director, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Project Subject: Department of Energy's Total System Performance Assessment

Thank you for providing me with a copy of the letter from Michael F. Weber, NRC, dated May 7, 2007 and responding to your letters dated March 29, 2007 and April 10, 2007 to NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein. In my view, that response does not address a major issue raised in your letters that was originally identified by scrutiny of information relating to the DOE Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) by technical experts acting for the State of Nevada.

The response from Michael F. Weber identifies that the NRC review of DOE'S performance assessment wiH focus on confirming that: Adequate scenarios were evaluated in the TSPA; Models and data credibly represent repository performance; Resulting dose estimates are statistically stable and consistent.

He hrther states that the NRC will support this review with in-depth evaluation of the scientific and engineering information used in the TSPA model abstractions.

All of these are suitable review activities, but they do not address the question of whether the TSPA has been properly implemented. The review of scenarios should cover the issue of whether appropriate cases have been defined to address the various relevant safety related issues. I would not expect it to address the issue of whether the consequences of those scenarios have been computed correctly. A wide variety of models and data are used within and outside the TSPA to address various aspects of repository behavior. Those models and data can be scrutinized by reviewing reports describing their characteristics, but this does not address whether they have been implemented correctly. Correct implementation of models is checked in a variety of ways, e.g., by comparison of results against analytic solutions, where such solutions exist. Scrutiny of the TSPA

Other methods of checking include benchmark comparisons against other implementations of the same model or implementations of other models, e.g., in model inter-comparison studies. In such comparisons, limitations, deficiencies and errors in model formulation and implementation are brought to light. Although some of the models that are used to provide input to the TSPA are widely used, and the GoldSim system in which the TSPA is implemented has a wide variety of applications both within and outside the field of solid radioactive waste management, it should be recognized that the TSPA is a unique, extremely complex, computer model that has been developed and used only by the DOE and its contractors. Indeed, it is so tailored to the specific context of proposed radioactive waste disposal at Yucca Mountain that it would be of little interest to organizations studying radioactive waste disposal in any other context. Finally, the review of whether resulting dose estimates are statistically stable and consistent addresses evaluation of the output from the TSPA and not its internal workings. If the models included in the TSPA were inappropriate or were implemented incorrectly, it would still be perfectly possible to obtain statistically stable and internally consistent results. It is just that those results would be wrong.

I believe that it is because of considerations such as those outlined above that the NRC St& has developed its own Total-system Performance Assessment (TPA) model. As Michael F. Weber comments, the role of this model is as a review tool developed to assist the Staff in pre-licensing activities and the review of a potential license application. I take this to mean that the Staff will run their TPA model to investigate matters such as the sensitivity of the system to particular process assumptions or parameter value combinations, so that appropriate questions can be formulated to DOE requesting clarification of how it has addressed these matters. However, this does not constitute effective scrutiny of the performance of the TSPA model. In principle, the TSPA and TPA models could be run on the same problem and results compared. This would be a limited code inter-comparison exercise of the type mentioned above. However, given the complexities of the models, there will undoubtedly be differences in the results obtained. Without detailed examination of the internal coding of the TSPA model, it would be difficult to determine whether those differences arose, for example, from a different, more appropriate process representation in the TSPA or from a less appropriate process representation or a coding error in the TSPA.

In considering the level of scrutiny that should be accorded to the TSPA, it should be kept in mind that it constitutes a unique computer model of a unique physical system. Thus, the novelty of the concept that is being assessed is compounded by the novelty of the tool that is being used for the assessment. In turn, this means that many of the underpinning mathematical models and their mathematical implementations have been moved almost directly from the research laboratory to the safety assessment context. It should also be kept in mind that large software implementations, be they operating systems or real-world simulators, are typically released with errors. These are then corrected in updated versions, through bug fixes and patches. In the case of the TSPA, it is understood that model development and implementation is ongoing at the present time. Therefore, the TSPA will be used in support of DOE'S License Application without an extended period of prior use by the DOE and its contractors. Furthermore, any Scrutiny of the TSPA calculations undertaken are likely to be highly focused on generating results for use in the License Application. It seems unlikely that there will be a concerted effort to error-test the TSPA by running calculations designed to identify inadequacies and errors.

A fbrther reason for giving particular attention to the issue of whether the TSPA is pe#orming as intended is that it constitutes the sole instrument by which compliance with key regulatory criteria will be evaluated. Those criteria are expressed in terms of some measure of central tendency (mean or median) of the results from the TSPA. Thus, notwithstanding all the other important aspects of the review process, the evaluation of compliance is ultimately determined by the output from a set of TSPA calculations

Whereas the NRC Staff can gain some insight into the performance of the TSPA by running calculations with their own TPA model, this is not the situation for other parties, such as the State of Nevada. Those parties would gain little by examining the TPA, since that is not the tool used to demonstrate compliance. Rather, it is both appropriate and necessary for Nevada to examine the TSPA directly to determine whether it is fit-for- purpose. This examination can be conducted at two different levels, as was done for TSPA-SR cases that were provided to me and to Serco Assurance Limited for evaluation. At the first level, the TSPA is loaded using an appropriate version of GoldSim and the structure of the model is examined. This is a time-consuming process, as all the various elements of the model have to be examined down to the level of the specific equations used and the parameter values adopted. Our experience was that the TSPA-SR was extremely difficult to scrutinize by this procedure, as apparently identical elements implemented subtly different equations and not all the data used were readily accessible or traceable.

Although evaluation at the first level is usefbl, in a complex model it is unlikely to be comprehensive. At the second level of examination, the model is run and various outputs are examined. It is emphasized that such runs do not attempt to reproduce compliance calculations. Rather they are used to generate outputs that are diagnostic of correct performance. Specifically, it may be more useful to undertake a set of deterministic calculations, rather than to perform a probabilistic simulation, and to examine intermediate outputs rather than overall dose estimates.

It is with these considerations in mind that I have substantial doubts as to the appropriateness of the TSPA implementation proposed by the DOE for the License Application. It is not clear that any party other than the DOE will have effective access to the coding of the TSPA within GoldSim. It is surprising that the NRC Staff would not demand &I1 and complete access to the TSPA. Furthermore, given the complexity of the TSPA, its on-going development, and the time pressure involved in producing results in support of the License Application, it seems likely that the version used in support of the License Application will contain a variety of coding and numerical errors. Only by effective scrutiny at a detailed level, by NRC Staff and other interested parties, such as the technical experts retained by the State of Nevada, is there a reasonable likelihood of such errors being identified and resolved. DOE

EX. W NRC Presentation on TSPA

MIKE THORNEAND ASSOCIATES LIMITED (Director: Dr M C Thorne; Company No. 4155738; Registered in England and Wales)

Abbotsleigh Kebroyd Mount Ripponden Halifax West Yorkshire HX6 3 JA Telephone and Fax: 0 1422 825890 e-mail: [email protected]

Date: 8 October 2007 From: M C Thorne To: R Loux Copies: J Egan, C Fitzpatrick, V Gilinsky, M Malsch, S Frishman, M Kelly Subject: Meeting with NRC Staff on TSPA and TPA

Bob

On Friday, 5 October 2007, M Malsch, M Kelly, S Frishman and I attended a presentation by NRC Staff relating to the approach that will be taken to scrutinizing the TSPA that will be submitted by the DOE in support of the License Application for Yucca Mountain (henceforth referred to as the TSP-4-LA). The meeting was very helpful in understanding the approach that the Staff intends to take to scrutinizing the TSPA-LA, but still leaves a number of questions unanswered.

In order to scrutinize versions of the TSPA that have been available to date, the Staff has been using a copy of GoldSim. We were shown this operating on a single stand-alone PC and we also were shown a ten processor PC-array that is being used by NRC Staff. Although we did not determine whether GoldSim has been implemented on this array, I think that there is little question that it could be so implemented, as the standard commercial version of GoldSim is configured for such operation. However, I note that this array of ten identical processors is a very different hardware configuration from the complex distributed system of processors being used by the DOE and on which I have commented previously (see also the extended discussion below).

The Staff is scrutinizing the most recent versions af the TSPA that are available to them. These are the versions developed for the Site Recommendation and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (TSPA-SR and TSPA-FEIS, respectively). These versions date from 2001/2002 and have also been examined by M Kelly and me on behalf of the State of Nevada. Although there were some errors in the versions of these models provided to us, notably a failure to provide well-defined initial conditions for some NRC Presentation on TSPA

variables, we were able both to scrutinize the results provided and to re-run individual realizations on a single PC. Furthermore, our time per realization (40 to 60 minutes) is in good agreement with that obtained by NRC Staff.

However, the TSPA-SR and TSP A-FEIS were substantially simpler models than the TSPA-LA. These earlier models comprised some 7,000 elements, whereas the most recent information available to us indicates that the TSPA-LA will comprise approximately 25,000 elements. Furthermore, the DOE has publicly stated that it will run the TSPA-LA on a "TSPA-wulf" configuration. TSPA-wulf is a reference to the "Beowulf Project" developed at NASA's Goddard Space Center, after which this type of computer cluster configuration is named (i.e., a "Beowulf Computer Cluster"). This cluster comprises:

e A Windows 2000 File Server (Dell PowerEdge 6600);

30 Windows 2000 or 2003 Master Servers (Dell PowerEdge 4600s/2650s~2850si2950s),described as job distribution servers and connected via a Terminal Services Client to unspecified PCs for off-site development;

e 752 Processors, comprising:

o 240 Windows Server 2003 Processors (60 Dell PowerEdge 2950s); o 440 Windows 2000 Processors (220 Dell PowerEdge 2650si2850s); o 36 Windows 2000 Processors (9 Dell PowerEdge 6450s); o 36 Windows NT 4.0 Processors (9 Dell PowerEdge 6350s).

It will be noted that the TSPA-wulf configuration does not comprise a simple set of replicate, identical processors, so questions remain as to the software environment within which GoldSim is being used to implement the TSPA-LA.

Therefore, while I am in full agreement with the NRC Staff that earlier versions of the TSPA can be scrutinized and run on a single PC or on a simple distributed processor system, I would suggest that it has yet to be determined whether the TSPA-LA can be scrutinized or run on either a single PC or simple distributed processor system. However, I believe that there is now the possibility of exploring this matter further. On 5 October 2007, the DOE released its Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Yucca Ivfountain. Appendix F of the SEIS describes the evaluation made by DOE of the environmental impacts of post-closure repository performance. That evaluation is underpinned by multi-realization simulations made using a new version of the TSPA (TSPA-SEIS). Examination of the references cited in support of this new model (e.g. all those on pages F-67 and F-68 plus the first three of those on page F-69 of Appendix F of the SEIS) shows that they have been generated by Sandia National Laboratories during 2007. This makes it clear that the TSPA-SEIS is a very recent version of the TSPA and it is reasonable to suppose that it resembles closely the version that will become the TSPA- LA. NRC Presentation on TSPA

In view of these considerations, I think that it would be highly advantageous for both the State of Nevada and NRC Staff to obtain copies of the TSPA-SEIS. This would allow us to determine whether this new model can be scrutinized and run on single-PC systems, and also to undertake timing tests that would allow us to determine the time per realization. From this we would be able to determine the extent to which we shall be able to explore uncertainties in the DOE TSPA-LA calculations through single- or multi- realization studies, so as to inform requests for clarification by DOE or to specie additional, more extensive studies to be undertaken by DOE. Furthermore, it would enable us to make an initial evaluation of the number of TSPA-LA realizations that will be required to achieve adequate convergence of relevant measures of central tendency, such as the arithmetic means of doses over realizations at selected times.

Turning to the presentation of GoldSim at the meeting, I note that this related mainly to the capabiIities of GoldSim to interrogate the structure and content of models created within it. In this context, I should make it clear that, with certain limitations, I consider GoldSim to be a suitable simulation package for the implementation of radiological impact assessment models It is widely used internationally for this purpose, and M Kelly and I have both used it to implement models for organizations such as the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (FDA) and the European Union (EU). However, the technique used to solve ordinary differential equations (ODES) within GoldSim is not particularly fast and the scrutability of models implemented within GoldSim depends strongly upon the size of the model and also upon the strategy adopted by the developer in respect to model structuring. Our experience with earlier versions of the TSPA has been that detailed verification is time-consuming and that it is difficult to achieve a comprehensive evaluation. Thus, again, it would be extremely usehl to obtain access to the TSPA-SEIS, with a view to developing advice on the resources required for adequate verification of the TSPA-LA by the State of Nevada, as it would not be appropriate to accept the results obtained at their face value until such a verification had been undertaken. In this context, I should emphasise that verification comprises only the process of determining that the model undertakes the specified calculations. A wider aspect of the review process will be to determine whether the underlying conceptual and mathematical models are appropriate and fit-for-purpose. From the presentation by NRC Staff, it was clear that a detailed examination of both the structure of the TSPA-LA and of intermediate results generated by it is to be undertaken by the NRC, so the issue of the resources required to achieve such an examination is as relevant to the Commission as it is to the State of Nevada.

Finally, we were pleased to receive from NRC Staff a copy of the latest version of their own Total Performance Assessment model (TPA 5. la). It is understood that this release is the one that will be used by the NRC Staff to inform their review of the TSPA-LA. I have now installed this model and have performed a first test calculation of one realization using the input data set provided. While we await delivery of the TSPA-LA, M Kelly and I will take the opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the capabilities of the model, so that we can have a constsuctive dialog with the staff concerning ways in which it can usefblly be employed to evaluate the adequacy of the conceptual and mathematical models implemented in the TSPA-LA. However, we appreciate that TPA NRC Presentation on TSPA

5.la is properly used only as a diagnostic or evaluation tool, and that it is only intermediate and bottom-line results from the TSPA-LA, after determination of its fitness-for-purpose, that can properly be used for comparison with the regulatory criteria that will be promulgated in the final versions of the EPA and NRC Rules relating to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.

Regards

Mike Thorne