Frank Hansen

8/3/2019 Frank Hansen

1/21

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation,a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department of Energys

National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

Frank Hansen

Sandia National Laboratories

May 25 - 28, 2010

Monitoring and Performance Confirmation

US-German Salt WorkshopJackson, Mississippi, USA


2/21

May 2010 2

Introduction

Long-term Science and Monitoring programs supportthe Post-closure Safety Case

Purpose of Long-Term Science and Monitoring

Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) Analog for Process

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Analog forImplementation

Components of Long-Term Science and Monitoringo Regulatory Requirements for Performance Confirmation

o Influence of International Programs

o Evolution of Technical Basis


3/21

May 2010 3

Components of Long-Term Science

Regulations10 CFR Part 63

Evolution ofTechnical Basis World

PerformanceConfirmation

63.131-134

Research andDevelopment

63.21

Update to SAR63.2463.4463.45

Specific Tests for Process Models

Updated Performance AssessmentNeeds

Reduce Important Uncertainty

Evolve Scientific Basis

Inform Performance Confirmation

Explore Mechanistic Processes

Science and

Technology

Other Monitoring

Programs

General Literature

International

Programs

SAR - Safety Analysis Report


4/21

May 2010 4

Performance Confirmation Process

Regulatory requirements (Boundary Conditions) forLong-term Science and Monitoring, which includesPerformance Confirmation

Strategic Choices

Requirements

- Long-term Science and Monitoring includeselective activities

- Performance Confirmation is driven by regulation- Required for License Application


5/21

May 2010 5

Belgium/US Process Analog

UNITEDSTATES

Yucca Mountain

Program

ONDRAF/NIRASGeologicDisposalProgram

BOUNDARYCONDITIONS

RegulatoryRequirements(10 CFR 63)

and guidance

(NUREG-1804)

Performance

ConfirmationPlan

FEPs TSPA

Performance

ConfirmationTest Plans

REQUIREMENTS

STRATEGICCHOICES

Examples: Boom Clay Ypresian clay Waste types Concept of

Operations Monitoring

NWPA1982/1987

Examples: Yucca

Mountain

Waste types Concept of

Operations Monitoring Test Procedures, Implementing

Documents, and Reporting

AssessmentBasisSafety and Feasibility Statements

PNSDB

FEPs Features, Events, and ProcessesTSPA Total System Performance Assessment

PNSDB Post-closure Nuclear Safety Design Basis

NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act


6/21

May 2010 6

Expectations

Public confidence

Continuous assessment of evolving science

and technology- State of knowledge

- Emerging technologies

- International perspective

- Research and development

Annual reporting


7/21

May 2010 7

Implementation

Management Planning

Project Control

- Test plans- Reporting requirements- Developed jointly- Integrated- Quality Assurance


8/21May 2010 8

YMP Example


9/21May 2010 9

Assessment Process

RepositoryManagement

PrincipalInvestigator

PerformanceConfirmation

Test Plan

DataReview

Review andEvaluation

Report To RegulatorIncludes Data Collected

Versus Expected Bounds,Subjective Reviews,

Trends

Test Plan Needs(Resolution

Frequency Type)

Parameter

Ranges andSensitivities

Implementation

Details

Test DataRecordsField Work Package and

Associated WorkControl Documents

Records

TestCoordination

Office

Literature Review

University Industry DataReview

SensitivityAssumptions

Process Models


10/21May 2010 10

Summary

Governed by boundary conditions (regulations) Long-term science and monitoring has less defined regulatory

drivers

Sequential, staged, flexible process

Long-term science and monitoring demonstrates due

diligence Continuously refined, consistent with staged repository

program

Testing and monitoring program

Change and flexibility facilitated


11/21May 2010 11

WIPP Compliance Monitoring Example

WIPP Compliance Monitoring Program is based on an analysis ofthe performance assessment (PA) parameters and is required bythe regulations

Monitoring parameters must be assessed and reported to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) annually

The EPA compliance monitoring requirements do not deal withoperational releases; this compliance monitoring programaddresses post-closure repository performance

Each Compliance Monitoring Parameter (COMP) is assessedagainst PA expectations

Impacts on PA conceptual model assumptions, data ranges orexpectations of the modelers

Alert the project of conditions not accounted for or expected

Concept uses Trigger Values


12/21May 2010 12

Regulatory Requirements

40 CFR 194.42 (a) The Department shall conduct ananalysis of the effects of disposal system parameterson the containment of waste in the disposal systemand shall include the results of such analysis in anycompliance application. The results of the analysisshall be used in developing plans for pre-closure andpost-closure monitoring required pursuant toparagraphs (c) and (d) of this section.


13/21May 2010 13

Performance Confirmation

EPA Monitoring requirements constitute performanceconfirmation

Determine list of parameters

Determine method to assess significance of each parameterusing the WIPP PA

Analyze the parameters

Determine criteria using the analysis results to determinemonitoring parameters

The DOEs analysis that addressed the EPA pre-closure

monitoring requirements was included in the original EPAcompliance application (i.e., licensing application)


14/21May 2010 14

Monitored Parameters

Drilling Rate

Probability of Encountering a Castile Brine Reservoir

Waste Activity

Subsidence

Changes in Culebra Groundwater Flow

Change in Culebra Groundwater Composition

Creep Closure

Extent of Deformation Initiation of Brittle Deformation

Displacement of Deformation Features


15/21May 2010 15

Results of the Screening


16/21May 2010 16

Results of the Screening (continued)


17/21May 2010 17

Results of the Screening (continued)


18/21May 2010 18

Trigger Values

Monitoring results are used to indicate conditionsthat are not within the PA data ranges, conceptualmodel assumptions or expectations of the modelers

and to alert the project of conditions not accountedfor or expected

Values and ranges were developed such thatexceedance of identified values, referred to as

trigger values (TV), indicate a condition that ispotentially outside PA expectations


19/21May 2010 19

Conclusion

WIPP Compliance Monitoring Program is based on EPA-required analysis of PA parameters (40 CFR 194.42)

Parameters must be assessed and reported to EPA annually

Each monitored parameter is assessed against PAexpectations:

Impacts on PA conceptual model assumptions, data ranges

or expectations of the modelers

Alert the project of conditions not accounted for or expected

Program uses Trigger Values to alert project of unexpectedconditions


20/21May 2010 20

Collaboration

Sandia is active partner on MoDeRn(http://www.modern-fp7.eu/)

WIPP has successful confirmation monitoringprogram

YMP brought comprehensive rigor to performanceconfirmation

Is there a need for a joint over-arching long-termtesting and monitoring strategy?


21/21

1. Introduction: Describe Performance Confirmation Program Goals and Objectives:

a) Program Goals

1. Regulatory Needs

2. Performance Assessment Needs3. Barrier Capability

b) Objectives

1. Model Validation and Confirmation

2. Increase Confidence

3. Public Acceptance

2. Outline Performance Confirmation Program

a) Framework

1. Evaluation Methodology

2. Activity Selection

3. Measurable Parameters

b) Documentation

1. Overarching Plan Strategy

2. Specific Implementing Test Plans

c) Periodic Evaluations

1. Ongoing ScienceInternal and External2. IntegrationLong-Term Testing and Monitoring Programs

3. Examples of PC Programs

a) Yucca Mountain

b) WIPP

c) International Programs Belgium, MoDeRn

4. Concluding Remarks

5. References

Performance Confirmation SAND Report Outline