~ Meeting Summary ~
(Transcript available here)

Issues of interest to the Board:

• Transportation and design of surface facilities at Yucca Mountain - have not advanced yet to the stage of displaying operations (safety/efficiency).
• Transportation Aging and Disposal canisters (TADs) - ensure concept makes sense long term (does it really reduce worker dose?)
• Yucca Mountain pre-closure safety
• Total waste management system - taking waste from utility, acceptance at YM, pre-closure scientific assessment/safety analysis, closure.
• Degradation of waste package
• Radionuclide transfer/seepage
• Thermal considerations (will be on winter meeting agenda)
  

Yucca Mountain Project Update
Ward Sproat, Director; Waste Management Office, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy
(PowerPoint)
DOE is entering a period of delivery - activities over the next nine months include:

• Licensing Support Network - extensive online database of 3.5 million documents related to the Yucca Mountain project.  Will be certified in 4-6 weeks. 
• Draft Supplemental EIS for Yucca Mountain and the Rail Alignment (SEIS') are at the printer - will be released in October.  Will hold hearings in Nevada, California, and D.C.  90 day public comment period.
• Engineering Independent Assessment - report due out in early October.
• Total System Life Cycle Cost Analysis - release date planned for Oct./Nov.  TSLCC analysis will show a higher cost, largely due to increased waste (also materials and staff cost increases).  Will be in constant 2000 dollars.
• Quality Assurance Independent Assessment - due late this fall.
• Fee Adequacy Determination - late this year/early next.  Will be based on latest TSLCC.  Will be an honest assessment of whether the 1 mil/kw hour is still adequate.  NWF at $20.5 billion, generating $750 million in interest per year.
• Second Repository Report due to Congress in 2010.  DOE will present the report in 2008.  Already know the answer - by 2010, 70,000 metric ton capacity limit at Yucca Mountain will be filled.
• Final SEIS' next year.
• License Application - ahead of June 2008 schedule for submittal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (now looking at March or April).

KEY ISSUES UPDATE:
FY08 Budget Request

• House approved $494.5 million
  • Amendment to kill YM  defeated 351-80
• Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $446.1 million
• Expect to be funded under a continuing resolution for a number of weeks at $444.5 million (work plans are based on this level)

License Application

• On schedule
• Independent Assessment results being incorporated (looked at 2004-2005 draft and made recommendations)

Organizational Issues

• Quality
  • Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Yucca Mountain - GAO studied DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) and reported positively on progress over the past two-three years.  It is too early to tell whether the License Application will be of high quality.
  • Independent Assessments
• Personnel - installing senior leadership team so that program will not revert to previous inaction when director leaves.  Paul Golan has left - Sproat will select a permanent principal deputy soon (Chris Kouts is a candidate).

Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) and Fee

• OCRWM has no access to the fund (collection of utility ratepayer fees for the disposal of nuclear waste).  Congress's original intent was that OCRWM not compete with other programs for annual appropriations.
• Graham Rudman Act classified receipts into the NWF as mandatory, whereas payments from the fund are labeled as discretionary.  Can pull from interest, but not from the fund balance - that would be considered deficit spending.
• A major  focus of Sproat's remaining time is explaining this complicated process to Congress members to change the way the program is funded.
• Sproat to talk on the Hill about the waste liability issue and try to drum up interest for change.  Not as certain this will change in his tenure as he is about submitting the License Application.

Q&A
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has yet to rule on the long-term exposure limits at Yucca Mountain and the NRC must adopt them into their regulations.  How will this affect the License Application?

     - The EPA decision is in its final draft - expect it to be issued shortly.  There have been ongoing discussions between the Department of Justice, Office of Management and Budget, DOE, and EPA.  The EPA decision will not have impact on the License Application.  Whatever the final figure - there is a greater than a 50 percent chance it will be litigated in court.

What are your plans for after June 2008?  What if the License Application is incomplete, and OCRWM must prepare and submit additional information?

- DOE holds technical meetings with the NRC on License Application issues, and therefore understands NRC criteria.  The submittal will be a full and complete application.

- The acceptance review period has been discussed with the NRC.  It could last up to six months - this is a first of a kind application and facility.

Won't the TSLCC depends on the final design?

- Yes, but estimates are based on current designs and have been reviewed by experts.

- Eighty percent confidence level that costs will come in at or below the estimate.

Is there a team working on the second repository report yet?

- No.  The team is already in place, but have not formed a writing group yet.  Have not begun discussing alternatives yet.  DOE has that budgeted for FY 2008.

$444.5 million is a lot of money for FY 2008 while NRC is reviewing the License Application.  What will you be doing while the application is in the review process?  Why are there concerns about layoffs?

- Money is going toward the License Application (people's salaries), not upkeep of the tunnel.  Scientific analysis goes on.  Will need to ramp up funding in FY 2009 for defense of the application with scientific/technical expertise.  A lot of design required as well - Yucca Mountain, rail line, TADs.

Until the license is approved, OCRWM can not begin construction anyway, so shouldn't need access to the Nuclear Waste Fund yet.  Isn't it good that the money is being reinvested.

- Don't agree that no construction can be done now.  Need to pre-plan, build roads and electricity infrastructure.  OCRWM is not going to wait for the License Application to be approved to start building infrastructure.

What are the risks driving uncertainty with the project?

- Sproat is not the person to ask for details; his concerns with the Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) were whether their models handled uncertainty appropriately and were consistent across models.  Sandia National Laboratory reported to him that they were.

Could you speak a little about acceptance of different canisters at Yucca Mountain, burn up credit, and seismic designs?

- Can't answer the third.  Someone from OCRWM will speak to that later.

- Think we have a path forward on burn up credit.  Not versed in details of it, so will need to refer you to an expert at OCRWM.

- Multi-Purpose Canisters - DOE will accept these older model canisters from contract holder if the are willing to comply.  Will look at safety and economics before deciding how to move forward with fuel handling.

Draft National Transportation Plan withdrawn?

- Not withdrawn.  Believe the public comment period is still open.

Transportation, Aging, and Disposal (TAD) Canister Update - DOE
Chris Kouts, Acting Deputy Director; DOE-OCRWM
(PowerPoint)

There will be about 17,000 metric tons of waste in dry storage at utility sites by 2017, so the number of TADs at sites around the country by that date will need to support that amount.

One significant change since the initial TAD designs is that the canister length is now flexible; can be shorter to fit with utility site needs.

TADs are loaded vertically, similar to how dry cask storage is done today.  The canister is then placed into an overpack before being transported.

Summary

• Final TAD Specification can be found on the OCRWM website: www.ocrwm.doe.gov/receiving/wat.shtml
• Procurement
  • Solicitation issued and proposals received.
  • Proposals currently being evaluated.

Q&A
Is there any new transfer equipment required for TADs?

- No.  The process is similar to how utilities now handle spent fuel.

Did DOE determine specifications for the design?

- Yes, but are relying on venders to design, license, and deploy.  DOE will confirm that vendor designs are consistent with specifications.

Is there competition among vendors?

- Competition is good; we will see how many vendors fit the project needs.

What kind of storage are you asking utility sites to consider?

- DOE will show up with a TAD and an overpack when they are ready to pick up fuel and transport it to Yucca Mountain.  If utilities store spent fuel in TADs themselves, they will receive a credit equal to the amount of avoided costs to the government.
- Most fuel will be taken from pools and put directly into TADs.

What will be the turn around time for TADs?

- Will determine the lead time based on industry perspectives.

Are both vertical or horizontal storage acceptable?

- Yes; the safety analysis on both is very conservative.

What would motivate utilities to use TADs for storage when their capacity is less than what can fit in current packages?

- DOE is not required to accept waste in any other storage containers.

TADs will require rail access to Yucca Mountain.  Is this an Achilles heal for the project?  What if the rail line is delayed or never constructed?

- Some utilities will not be able to load TADs, so that fuel will be transferred into TADs at the surface facility at Yucca Mountain.  That can be transported by truck.

- If rail is not available, will need to reconsider options at that point.

- The EIS will consider this, not the License Application (which is based on primary rail decision).

TAD Update - Industry
Rod McCullum, Director, Yucca Mountain Project; Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
David Blee, Executive Director; U.S. Transport Council (USTC)
(PowerPoint)

The concept of transporting, aging, and disposing of spent fuel all in one canister is seen as an effective waste management integration tool by industry; industry supports DOE's TAD initiative. 

DOE has delivered on the TAD schedule it originally represented to industry.  Industry hopes to see this continue and believes it is critical that DOE get the TAD procurements out to vendors in the coming weeks (especially if they still plan to deliver these canisters to utility sites by 2012).

It is incredibly important that the TAD process continues to occur in a competitive marketplace; industry wants choices.

The U.S. Transport Council (USTC) has been working with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) over the past 16 months on TADs, and supports DOE's TAD initiative as well.  This initiative should not be confused with the previous "multipurpose canister" failure - it is instead open, customer-focused, responsive, transparent, and handled in an urgent manner.  USTC represents the vendors that will be designing and building the TADs, and believes as NEI does that it is critical for DOE to get the procurements out soon to stay on schedule.

A new third requirement from DOE - that canisters do not tip at 3Gs (earthquake standards)
- was not in the original plan, but vendors are looking at how to meet this standard.

NEI, USTC, and DOE have made more progress together in the last 16 months than ever before.

Q&A
Aren't the dual purpose canisters now being used at utilities more economical?

- Negotiations are underway on this.  DOE has received bids from vendor teams that include interest from utilities.

This Board is concerned about the Yucca Mountain project moving forward in a practical way, but would like industry resources to be tapped appropriately.  What has been the most important end result with collaboration in terms of making the public feel safer with the final design product.

- Industry experience is unique and extensive, and has helped inform DOE decisions.

- There was very little interaction with industry when DOE began work on surface facility designs, which would have been useful.

- Sweden and Finland rely exclusively on industry - their storage facilities are privately run.

Thermal loading has not been mentioned.

- TADs must meet transportation requirements, then they will sit on an aging pad before being emplaced in Yucca Mountain.

Will there be changes to onsite storage based on TADs?

- Don't see substantive changes other than loading more canisters.  Won't substantially change the way utilities do business today.

Is it economically realistic that TADs will be as cost effective as bigger canisters?

- No, they won't be.  That is why industry is negotiating with DOE.

What percentage of reactor sites have signed onto TAD storage?

- 50-80 percent of utilities were at the table, but we can't speak to individual negotiations.  NEI policy is official policy of the industry - requires a majority.

Would utilities unload waste from existing canisters into TADs onsite?

- Probably not; will happen at Yucca Mountain.  Loading into TADs will only happen directly from pools.

What seismic level (other than 3G) would not be a challenge to meet?

- Problems with meeting this level really only come into play with the aging overpack.  Industry will work to meet them though.  Designs will become more advanced overtime.

What is the most critical issue for industry now?

- That DOE complete procurement on schedule.
- Keep information moving between DOE and industry (must continue to give assurances with Part 63 space).
- Vendors will need funding through 2012, and will need customers.
- Another key player here deserving consideration is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Interim storage will require money and may distract from Yucca Mountain.  Where does NEI stand on this?

- NEI sees the two moving together hand in hand.
- Interim storage will require the backdrop of a final disposal facility at Yucca Mountain.

But DOE has limited funds, so one must displace the other.

- NEI disagrees if the Nuclear Waste Fund is made available.

Surface Facilities Design and Operations
Main issues of Board:

- Flexibility, sizing of wet handling facility to cover future scenarios (no rail line, TADs not ready, etc.)
- Licensing of surface facilities

Robert Slovic; Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC (BSC)
(PowerPoint)
Surface facility designs are based on planned receipt of 90 percent of fuel in TADs and 10 percent "uncanistered" fuel in casks or duel purpose canisters to be transferred into TADs at Yucca Mountain (in the wet handling facility).

The container receipt and closure facility (CRCF) is designed with four-inch thick concrete walls and ventilation for safety and security.  Shielding will allow workers access to certain rooms within the CRCF.  The avoidance of corrosion in the welding system must be proven before closure of Yucca Mountain is permitted.

Plan to incorporate equipment currently used at commercial spent fuel handling facilities at Yucca Mountain where possible.

Q&A
Do the designs change continuously?

- Decision changes require design changes.  Decisions are based on the pre-closure safety analysis and license application.

How much of the design is complete?

- Plan to have about 30-40 percent of the design done by time the License Application is submitted.

Are the designs just conceptual at this point?

- No; they are preliminary designs.  Preparing design reports for the new pieces of equipment and will have them done at the time of the License Application submittal.

How much contact do you have with the national labs/industry?

- Have a contract with Idaho National Laboratory and relationships with commercial designers.

What happens to throughput if an accident occurs like a canister tipping over?

- This is not likely, but we are planning for recovery actions.

How many canisters will be handled each year?

- Round number - about 500 casks per year (3,000 metric ton requirement) will be handled at Yucca Mountain.  200 TADs to be put in the mountain each year.  For every five commercial casks, will emplace two DOE or other casks.

Will need a significant aging pad to hold the casks not being emplaced then.

- Will eventually have three CRCFs when at full activity.
- Fuel needs to age for a period anyway.

So significant amount of onsite storage required.  Pre-closure safety analysis should take into account throughput disturbances.

Board viewed robotic welding of canisters at Idaho National Laboratory.  Is helium backfill really necessary?

- Reviewing this now.

Aging pad has capacity of 2,500 TADs?  How many pads will you have?

- 2 pads will hold 2,500 total.  Will build the pads in stages.

Pre-closure Safety Analysis
Board:  The problem with analysis is that there are so many different evaluation models, it is difficult to establish consistent policy for criteria with different models.  Probabilistic models seem the most realistic, rather than models such as "worst case scenario" that do not reflect a significant factor for risk.

Even within one agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for example, approaches vary between probabilistic models, integrated safety approach, etc.

Michael Frank, Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC (BSC)
(PowerPoint)
The Pre-closure Safety Analysis (PCSA) uses probabilistic risk assessment technology.  It is risk-triplet based: What can go wrong?, How likely is it?, What are the consequences?

Analysis is geared toward regulatory compliance.

Q&A
Overall approach is sensible, but the hard part is how you populate the model.  What is your scope of analysis?  Does it start as waste is received at Yucca Mountain, and not include handling at utility sites and in transport?

- True.  Initiating events only include those that might occur within the boundaries of the Yucca Mountain project.

If the analysis is to truly be integrated, it should consider risk from the time of site pick up.

How do we know whether your initiating events are comprehensive?

- Work back from hazardous end state to all potential initiating events.

This seems like a lengthy process.  Is this analysis going to be part of the License Application?

- Yes.  Have a large team (60-75 people) working on a compressed schedule.

Why don't you pinpoint realistic events versus every possible event?

- We put more emphasis on realistic events.

Design is proceeding in advance of analysis.  Do they all come together in the License Application?

- Doing continuous analysis and feeding design team along the way.  February 2008 is the BSC deadline for providing the final analysis to DOE for the License Application.

Excess material at Yucca Mountain waiting for final disposal are covered in your analysis, but what if there is an accident halting throughput - this could impact trains en-route as well, which are not considered in your analysis.  That's not integrated.

- True.

DOE comment: Integration considered in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Would be useful to compare pre- and post-closure dose risks.  One board member believes pre- will result in higher doses, but uncertainties will be greater in post closure.  NRC has interim staff guidance on seismic events.  Are you going to consider that as well, even though it is not a rule?

- Yes.  Similar to what is done at nuclear power plants.

Has DOE finished its safety margins analysis related to the TSPA that Ward Sproat had mentioned in the past?

- DOE is working on a margins analysis to pull out conservative estimates.  BSC efforts are not related.

BSC comment: Buildings only designed to a 2,000 year return period earthquake (about .5G).  The aging overpack is a 500,000 year return period earthquake of 3G.

What are the two or three top contributors to risk that you have suggested design changes around?

- Two examples (don't know if they're major):

• Limit drop heights
• Transport vehicle for emplacement acts as shielding, so including inside locks on doors to avoid their opening and dose harming workers.

- A major risk is cask handling.  Have designed to eliminate lifts and height of lifts.

If there are a couple of hundred event sequences, and each has to go through step by step analysis, what will the final package look like in February 2008?

- It will look like a typical risk assessment submittal for a nuclear power plant.  Hundreds of pages with details of calculations.

Public Comments
Judy Treichel; Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
Sense of urgency is not a good thing - although industry seems to be happy with it.  Trying to rush a million year project is a mistake.  In 2004, we were also at this stage.

Some of those who oppose Yucca Mountain include reactor site communities.

DOE seems to be designing things to work for licensing, not for actual waste disposal.

Chris Kouts mentioned assuming utilities will want DOE to take spent fuel straight from the pools, but this is the hottest fuel.  Will require monitored retrievable storage at Yucca Mountain.

Everything is propped up against a rail line that isn't there and may never be.

Ward Sproat and others seem to be trying to outrun opposition.

Question for Treichel:  Why aren't more Nevadans interested in participating in these meetings?

- Can't get days off
- Acronyms are intimidating
- Feel Yucca Mountain is already a forgone conclusion
- Nevadans do comment on EISs

Steve Frishman, State of Nevada
Part 63 (safety analysis) licensing for Yucca Mountain is not the same as it is for licensing a reactor.  DOE tries to make them look alike.  The License Application will therefore be incomplete.  This Board should concern themselves with the technical completion of the License Application, because the NRC certainly will.