FOIA/PA NO: 2014-0052

GROUP: B

RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN-PART

*U.S.NRCUnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

NUREG-XXXX, Vol. 4

Safety Evaluation ReportRelated to Disposal ofHigh-Level RadioactiveWastes in a GeologicRepository at YuccaMountain, Nevada

Volume 4: Administrative andProgrammatic Requirements

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

(AVAILABILITY PAGE)

S U.S.N R C NUREG-XXXX, Vol.United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

Safety Evaluation ReportRelated to Disposal ofHigh-Level RadioactiveWastes in a GeologicRepository at YuccaMountain, Nevada

Volume 4: Administrative andProgrammatic Requirements

Manuscript Completed: XXXX 2010Date Published: XXXX 2010

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

(Intentionally Left Blank)

NOTE TO READER: This volume is one of five volumes shown in the table below thatcomprise the Safety Evaluation Report (SER). Each volume is to be published separatelyas it is completed; however, the volume number may not be published in sequence(e.g., Volume 3 is anticipated to be published before Volume 2). The SER volume numberand section number of chapters within a volume, are based on the Yucca Mountain Review Plan(YMRP) 1 that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff used to guide its review ofthe license application. Use of SER section numbers that correspond to the YMRP sectionnumbers facilitated the NRC staffs writing of the SER, allowing the interested reader to easilyfind the applicable review methods and acceptance criteria within the YMRP. The followingtable provides the topics and SER sections for each volume. The table will help the readerlocate SER section cross-references in each volume.

Chapter I SER TitleSection

Volume I General Information1 1.1 General Description2 1.2 Proposed Schedules for Construction, Receipt, and Emplacement

of Waste3 1.3 Physical Protection Plan4 1.4 Material Control and Accounting Program5 1.5 Description of Site Characterization Work

Volume 2 Repository Safety Before Permanent Closure1 2.1.1.1 Site Description as it Pertains to Preclosure Safety Analysis2 2.1.1.2 Description of Structures, Systems, Components, Equipment, and

Operational Process Activities3 2.1.1.3 Identification of Hazards and Initiating Events4 2.1.1.4 Identification of Event Sequences5 2.1.1.5 Consequence Analyses6 2.1.1.6 Identification of Structures, Systems, and Components

Important to Safety; and Measures to Ensure Availability ofthe Safety Systems

7 2.1.1.7 Design of Structures, Systems, and Components Important toSafety and Safety Controls

8 2.1.1.8 Meeting the 10 CFR Part 20 As Low As Is ReasonablyAchievable Requirements for Normal Operations and Category 1Event Sequences

9 2.1.2 Plans for Retrieval and Alternate Storage of Radioactive Wastes10 2.1.3 Plans for Permanent Closure and Decontamination, or

Decontamination and Dismantlement of Surface FacilitiesVolume 3 Repository Safety After Permanent Closure

1 2.2.1.1 System Description and Demonstration of Multiple Barriers2 2.2.1.2.1 Scenario Analysis3 2.2.1.2.2 Identification of Events with Probabilities Greater Than 10-8

Per Year4 2.2.1.3.1 Degradation of Engineered Barriers5 2.2.1.3.2 Mechanical Disruption of Engineered Barriers6 2.2.1.3.3 Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting Engineered Barriers

and Waste Forms

1NRC. 2003. NUREG-1804, "Yucca Mountain Review Plan-Final Report." Rev. 2. Washington, DC: NRC.

Chapter SER TitleSection

Volume 3 Repository Safe After Permanent Closure (continued)7 2.2.1.3.4 Radionuclide Release Rates and Solubility Limits8 2.2.1.3.5 Climate and Infiltration9 2.2.1.3.6 Unsaturated Zone Flow

10 2.2.1.3.7 Radionuclide Transport in the Unsaturated Zone11 2.2.1.3.8 Flow Paths in the Saturated Zone12 2.2.1.3.9 Radionuclide Transport in the Saturated Zone13 2.2.1.3.10 Igneous Disruption of Waste Packages14 2.2.1.3.12 Concentration of Radionuclides in Groundwater15 2.2.1.3.13 Airborne Transportation and Redistribution of Radionuclides*16 2.2.1.3.14 Biosphere Characteristics17 2.2.1.4.1 Demonstration of Compliance with the Postclosure Individual

Protection Standard18 2.2.1.4.2 Demonstration of Compliance with the Human Intrusion Standard19 2.2.1.4.3 Demonstration of Compliance with the Separate Groundwater

Protection Standards20 2.5.4 Expert Elicitation

Volume 4 Administrative and Programmatic Requirements1 2.3 Research and Development Program to Resolve

Safety Questions2 2.4 Performance Confirmation Program3 2.5.1 Quality Assurance Program4 2.5.2 Records, Reports, Tests, and Inspections5 2.5.3.1 U.S. Department of Energy Organizational Structure as it Pertains

to Construction and Operation of Geologic RepositoryOperations Area

6 2.5.3.2 Key Positions Assigned Responsibility for Safety and Operationsof Geologic Repository Operations Area

7 2.5.3.3 Personnel Qualifications and Training Requirements8 2.5.5 Plans for Startup Activities and Testing9 2.5.6 Plans for Conduct of Normal Activities, Including Maintenance,

Surveillance, and Periodic Testing10 2.5.7 Emergency Planning11 2.5.8 Controls to Restrict Access and Regulate Land Uses12 2.5.9 Uses of Geologic Repository Operations Area for Purposes Other

Than Disposal of Radioactive WastesVolume 5 License Specifications

1 12.5.10 1 License Specifications*This SER Section combines the review of information addressed in the YMRP Sections 2.2.1.3.11 and 2.2.1.3.13.

ABSTRACT

This is Volume 4 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's "Safety EvaluationReport Related to Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository atYucca Mountain, Nevada." Volume 4 presents certain results of the NRC staffs review of theU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Safety Analysis Report, provided in its June 3, 2008, licenseapplication submittal, as updated on February 19, 2009, and information provided in response torequests for additional information. In particular, Volume 4 documents the results of the NRCstaff's evaluation to determine if DOE's proposed administrative and programmatic activities willcomply with NRC's regulations regarding the following:

• research and development program to resolve safety questions

" performance confirmation program

* quality assurance program

" records, reports, tests, and inspections

• training and certification of personnel

• plans for startup activities and testing

" plans for conduct of normal activities

* emergency planning

" controls to restrict access and regulate land uses

" uses of geologic repository operations area for purposes other than disposal ofrA;nrti, C #eae

I(b( 5v, VV)ýLu.(b)(5)

v

(Intentionally Left Blank)

CONTENTS

Section Page

A B S T R A C T ................................................................................................................................. vEXECUTIVE SUM MARY ......................................................................................................... xiiiACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... xxiINTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

C H A P T E R 1 ............................................................................................................................ 1-12.3 Research and Development Program to Resolve Safety Questions ........................ 1-1

2.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1-12.3.2 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................ 1-12.3.3 Technical Evaluation ............................................................................... 1-1

2.3.3.1 Identification and Description of Safety Questions ................ 1-12.3.3.2 Research and Development Programs Related to

Safety Questions .................................................................. 1-12.3.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 1-22.3.5 References .............................................................................................. 1-2

C H A P T E R 2 ............................................................................................................................ 2 -12.4 Performance Confirmation Program ........................................................................ 2-1

2.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 2-12.4.2 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................ 2-22.4.3 Technical Evaluation ............................................................................... 2-3

2.4.3.1 General Requirements for the PerformanceConfirmation Program .......................................................... 2-32.4.3.1.1 Objectives of the Performance

Confirmation Program ........................................ 2-42.4.3.1.1.1 Precipitation Monitoring ..................................... 2-82.4.3.1.1.2 Subsurface W ater and Rock Testing .................. 2-92.4.3.1.1.3 Unsaturated Zone Testing ................................. 2-92.4.3.1.1.4 Saturated Zone Monitoring ................................ 2-102.4.3.1.1.5 Saturated Zone Fault Hydrology Testing ........... 2-102.4.3.1.1.6 Saturated Zone Alluvium Testing ...................... 2-112.4.3.1.2 Schedule for the Performance

Confirmation Program ....................................... 2-122.4.3.1.3 Implementation of the Performance

Confirm ation Program ....................................... 2-122.4.3.1.4 Records and Reports Related to the

Performance Confirmation Program .................. 2-142.4.3.1.5 Findings on General Requirements for the

Performance Confirmation Program .................. 2-152.4.3.2 Confirmation of Geotechnical and Design Parameters ........ 2-16

2.4.3.2.1 Program for Measuring, Testing, andGeologic Mapping ............................................. 2-16

2.4.3.2.1.1 Parameter Selection ......................................... 2-172.4.3.2.1.2 Seepage Monitoring .......................................... 2-182.4.3.2.1.3 Drift Inspection .................................................. 2-192.4.3.2.1.4 Thermally Accelerated Drift

Near-Field Monitoring ....................................... 2-19

vii

CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

2.4.3.2.1.5 Thermally Accelerated Drift In-DriftEnvironment Monitoring .................................... 2-20

2.4.3.2.1.6 Subsurface Mapping ......................................... 2-212.4.3.2.1.7 Seismicity Monitoring ........................................ 2-212.4.3.2.1.8 Construction Effects Monitoring ........................ 2-222.4.3.2.1.9 Summary of the NRC Staff s Evaluation of

Program for Measuring, Testing, andGeologic Mapping ............................................. 2-23

2.4.3.2.2 Thermomechanical Response Monitoring ......... 2-232.4.3.2.3 Surveillance Program to Evaluate Subsurface

Conditions Against Design Assumptions ........... 2-242.4.3.2.4 Findings on Confirmation of Geotechnical and

Design Parameters ........................................... 2-262.4.3.3 Design Testing .................................................................... 2-26

2.4.3.3.1 Design Testing and Effectiveness of BackfillPlacement and Compaction .............................. 2-27

2.4.3.3.2 Design Testing on Borehole, Shaft, andRamp Seals ...................................................... 2-28

2.4.3.3.3 Findings on Performance ConfirmationProgram for Design Testing .............................. 2-29

2.4.3.4 Monitoring and Testing W aste Packages ............................. 2-302.4.3.4.1 Program for Monitoring and Testing the

Condition of W aste Packages ........................... 2-302.4.3.4.1.1 Dust Buildup Monitoring .................................... 2-312.4.3.4.1.2 Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift

Environmental Monitoring ................................. 2-322.4.3.4.1.3 W aste Package Monitoring ............................... 2-322.4.3.4.1.4 Corrosion Testing ............................................. 2-332.4.3.4.1.5 Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated

Drift Samples .................................................... 2-342.4.3.4.1.6 Findings on Program for Monitoring and Testing

the Condition of W aste Packages ..................... 2-352.4.3.4.2 Program of Laboratory Experiments That Focus

on the Internal Condition of Waste Packages ...2-362.4.3.4.3 Schedule for the Waste Package Program ....... 2-372.4.3.4.4 Findings on Monitoring and Testing

W aste Packages ............................................... 2-372.4.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................ 2-382.4.5 References ............................................................................................ 2-38

C H A P T E R 3 ............................................................................................................................ 3 -12.5.1 Quality Assurance Program .................................................................................... 3-1

2 .5.1.1 Intro d uctio n ............................................................................................. 3 -12.5.1.2 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................ 3-12.5.1.3 Technical Evaluation ............................................................................... 3-12.5.1.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................ 3-42 .5 .1 .5 R efe re n ce s .............................................................................................. 3-4

viii

CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

C H A P T E R 4 ............................................................................................................................ 4 -12.5.2 Records, Reports, Tests, and Inspections ............................................................... 4-1

2.5.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 4-22.5.2.2 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................ 4-12.5.2.3 Technical Evaluation ............................................................................... 4-12.5.2.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 4-22.5.2.5 References .............................................................................................. 4-2

CHAPTER 5 ............ ..................................... ......... 5-12.5.3.1 U.S. Department of Energy Organizational Structure as it Pertains to Construction

and Operation of Geologic Repository Operations Area .......................................... 5-12.5.3.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 5-12.5.3.1.2 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................ 5-12.5.3.1.3 Technical Evaluation ............................................................................... 5-12.5.3.1.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................ 5-22.5.3.1.5 References .............................................................. e ............................... 5-2

C H A P T E R 6 ............................................................................................................................ 6 -12.5.3.2 Key Positions Assigned Responsibility for Safety and Operations of Geologic

Repository Operations Area .................................................................................... 6-12.5.3.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 6-12.5.3.2.2 Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................... 6-12.5.3.2.3 Technical Evaluation ............................................................................... 6-12.5.3.2.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 6-12.5.3.2.5 References .............................................................................................. 6-2

C H A P T E R 7 ............................................................................................................................ 7 -12.5.3.3 Personnel Qualifications and Training Requirements .............................................. 7-1

2.5.3.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 7-12.5.3.3.2 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................ 7-12.5.3.3.3 Technical Evaluation ............................................................................... 7-12.5.3.3.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 7-22.5.3.3.5 References .............................................................................................. 7-2

C H A P T E R 8 ............................................................................................................................ 8 -12.5.5 Plans for Startup Activities and Testing ................................................................... 8-1

2.5.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 8-12.5.5.2 Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................... 8-12.5.5.3 Technical Evaluation ............................................................................... 8-12.5.5.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 8-32.5.5.5 References .............................................................................................. 8-3

C H A P T E R 9 ............................................................................................................................ 9 -12.5.6 Plans for Conduct of Normal Activities, Including Maintenance, Surveillance, and

Periodic Testing ...................................................................................................... 9-12.5.6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 9-1

ix

CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

2.5.6.2 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................ 9-12.5.6.3 Technical Evaluation ............................................................................... 9-12.5.6.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................. 9-22.5.6.5 References .............................................................................................. 9-2

CHAPTER 10 ......................................................................................................................... 10-12.5.7 Em ergency Planning .............................................................................................. 10-1

2.5.7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 10-12.5.7.2 Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................... 10-12.5.7.3 Technical Evaluation .............................................................................. 10-1

2.5.7.3.1 Facility Description ......................................................... 10-22.5.7.3.2 Types of Accidents .............................................................. 10-22.5.7.3.3 Classification of Accidents ................................................... 10-32.5.7.3.4 Detection of Accidents ......................................................... 10-32.5.7.3.5 M itigation of Consequences ................................................ 10-42.5.7.3.6 Assessm ent of Releases ..................................................... 10-42.5.7.3.7 Roles and Responsibilities for Repository Personnel During

an Em ergency ..................................................................... 10-52.5.7.3.8 Notification and Coordination of Offsite Groups ................... 10-52.5.7.3.9 Inform ation To Be Com m unicated ....................................... 10-62.5.7.3.10 Training ............................................................................... 10-62.5.7.3.11 Restoration of Repository Operations to a

Safe Condition ..................................................................... 10-72.5.7.3.12 Exercises, Com m unication Checks, and Drills ..................... 10-72.5.7.3.13 Hazardous Materials ............................................................ 10-82.5.7.3.14 Com m ents on the Em ergency Plan ..................................... 10-82.5.7.3.15 Offsite Assistance ................................................................ 10-92.5.7.3.16 Public Information ................................................................ 10-9

2.5.7.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 10-102.5.7.5 References ........................................................................................... 10-10

CHAPTER 11 ......................................................................................................................... 11-12.5.8 Controls to Restrict Access and Regulate Land Uses ............................................ 11-1

2.5.8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 11-12.5.8.2 Regulatory Requirem ents ....................................................................... 11-12.5.8.3 Technical Evaluation .............................................................................. 11-1

2.5.8.3.1 Ownership of Land .............................................................. 11-22.5.8.3.2 Additional Controls Through Permanent Closure ................. 11-32.5.8.3.3 Additional Controls for Perm anent Closure .......................... 11-42.5.8.3.4 W ater Rights ........................................................................ 11-52.5.8.3.5 Conceptual Design of Monum ents ....................................... 11-6

2.5.8.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................ 11-72.5.8.5 References ............................................................................................. 11-7

CHAPTER 12 ......................................................................................................................... 12-12.5.9 Uses of Geologic Repository Operations Area for Purposes Other Than Disposal

of Radioactive W astes ............................................................................................ 12-1

x

CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

2.5.9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 12-12.5.9.2 Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................... 12-12.5.9.3 Technical Evaluation .............................................................................. 12-1

2.5.9.3.1 Proposed Uses for Purposes Other Than Waste Disposal andEffects on Performance ....................................................... 12-1

2.5.9.3.2 Procedures for Proposed Activities Other ThanW aste Disposal ................................................................... 12-3

2.5.9.4 Evaluation Findings ................................................................................ 12-32.5.9.5 References ............................................................................................. 12-3

CHAPTER 13 ......................................................................................................................... 13-1C o n c lu s io n s ........................................................................................................................ 13 -1

C H A P T E R 14 ......................................................................................................................... 14 -1G lo s s a ry .............................................................................................................................. 14 -1

APPENDIX - Com mitments ................................................................................................... 1

xi

(Intentionally Left Blank)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 3, 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a license application to theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seeking authorization to begin construction of ageologic repository for high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal at Yucca Mountain,Nevada.' The license application consists of general information and a Safety Analysis Report(SAR). This document, the NRC staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Volume 4, presentscertain results of the NRC staff's review of DOE's SAR provided in its June 3, 2008, licenseapplication, as updated on February 19, 2009. The NRC staff also reviewed informationprovided in response to NRC staff's requests for additional information, and other informationthat DOE provided related to the SAR. As appropriate, the SER provides specific citations tothese additional information sources in the context of the NRC staffs review. In conducting itsreview, the NRC staff was guided by the review methods and acceptance criteria outlined in theYucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP).3

Other portions of the NRC staff's safety review have been, or will be, documented in othervolumes of NUREG-1949.4 SER Volume 1 contains the staff's evaluation of DOE'sgeneral information. SER Volume 2 will contain the staffs evaluation of DOE's compliancewith preclosure safety objectives and requirements; SER Volume 3 will contain the staff'sevaluation of DOE's compliance with postclosure safety objectives and requirements; and SERVolume 5 will document the staff's evaluation of DOE's proposed subjects for licensespecifications and will document DOE's commitments, licensing specifications, and conditions.NRC will be able to determine if DOE has satisfied the requirements for a constructionauthorization for a geologic repository for high-level waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,only after completion of all volumes of the SER. A decision on whether to authorizeconstruction will be effective only after a full public hearing has been conducted and theCommission has completed its review under 10 CFR 2.1023.

(b)(5)

IDOE provided the following in its SAR;

* an identification of those structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of the geologicrepository, both surface and subsurface, that require research and development toconfirm the adequacy of design

* a description of the performance confirmation program

a description of the quality assurance program to be applied to the SSCs important tosafety and to the engineered and natural barriers important to waste isolation

* a description of the program to be used to maintain the records

1DOE. 2008. DOE/RW-0573, "Yucca Mountain Repository License Application." Rev. 0. ML081560400.Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.2DOE. 2009. DOE/RW-0573, "Yucca Mountain Repository License Application." Rev. 1. ML090700817.Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.3 NRC. 2003. NUREG-1804, "Yucca Mountain Review Plan-Final Report." Rev. 2. Washington, DC: NRC.4NRC. 2010. NUREG-1949, "Safety Evaluation Report Related to Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in aGeologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Volume 1: General Information." Washington, DC: NRC.

xiii

the organizational structure of DOE as it pertains to construction and operation of theGROA, including a description of any delegations of authority and assignments ofresponsibilities, whether in the form of regulations, administrative directives, contractprovisions, or otherwiseidentification of key positions that are assigned responsibility for safety at and operation

of the GROA

* personnel qualifications and training requirements

* plans for startup activities and startup testing

plans for conduct of normal activities, including maintenance, surveillance, and periodictesting of structures, systems, and components of the GROA

a description of the plan for responding to, and recovering from, radiologicalemergencies that may occur at any time before permanent closure and decontaminationor decontamination and dismantlement of surface facilities

a description of the controls that DOE will apply to restrict access and to regulate landuse at the Yucca Mountain site and adjacent areas, including a conceptual design ofmonuments that would be used to identify the site after permanent closure

plans for any uses of the GROA at the Yucca Mountain site for purposes other thandisposal of radioactive wastes, with an analysis of the effects, if any, that such uses mayhave on the operation of the SSCs important to safety and the engineered and naturalbarriers important to waste isolation. A summary of the review of these twelverequirements is provided below

Research and Development Program to Resolve Safety Questions

NRC requires DOE to identify those SSCs of the geologic repository, both surface andsubsurface, that require research and development to confirm the adequacy of design. ForSSCs important to safety and for engineered and natural barriers important to waste isolation,DOE is required to provide a detailed description of the programs designed to resolve safetyquestions, including a schedule indicating when these questions would be resolved. DOE didnot identify any safety questions, and therefore, did not describe a specific research anddevelopment program to address safety questions. However, DOE described how a researchand development program, separate and distinct from the performance confirmation program,would be developed and implemented should a safety question be identified in the future.

On the basis of the NRC staff's review of the SAR andother.information-ssubmitted insupport ofthe license application,1

(b)(5)

Performance Confirmation Program

NRC requires that DOE describe a performance confirmation program that meets therequirements listed in 10 CFR 63, Subpart F. The purpose of a performance confirmation

xiv

program is to evaluate the adequacy of assumptions, data, and analyses that led to the findingsthat permitted construction of the repository and subsequent emplacement of the wastes. DOEdescribed that key geotechnical and design parameters, including any interactions betweennatural and engineered systems and components, will be monitored and changes will beanalyzed throughout site characterization, construction, emplacement, and operation to identifyany significant changes in the conditions assumed in the license application that may affectcompliance with the performance objectives specified at 10 CFR 63.113(b) and 63.113(c). DOEdescribed its performance confirmation activities and committed, documented in the Appendix ofthis SER volume, to provided future performance confirmation test plans outlined in SAR toNRC at first issuance prior to test implementation.

On the basis of the NRC staff's review of the SAR and other information wbmitted in support ofthe licepne annlicatinn- and DOE's rnmmitm.nt-

(b)(5)

Quality Assurance Program

NRC requires that DOE provide a description of the quality assurance program to be applied tothe SSCs important to safety, and to the engineered and natural barriers important to wasteisolation. The description must include a discussion of how the applicable requirements of10 CFR 63.142 will be satisfied. DOE's quality assurance program is described in the QualityAssurance Requirements and Description (QARD)5 , which was incorporated into the licenseapplication by reference. DOE described that applicable requirements will be satisfied primarilythrough commitments to Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Plants, NQA-1-1983,6and other relevant documents. NRC staff evaluated any exceptions taken to the commitmenLt.,dnmIjmEnits nd rlarifiration n made hv 171017(b)(5)

DOE committed, documented in the Appendix of this SER volume, to update the QARD toresolve internal consistencies associated with use of a graded approach with respect toimportant to safety and important to waste isolation SSCs and related activities and on whetherpersonnel performing tests shall be trained, qualified, and certified. DOE committed,documented in the Appendix of this SER volume, to update the QARD to clarify portions of theQARD associated with

0 documentation of root causes of significant conditions adverse to quality and correctiveactions taken to prevent recurrence

0 cross referencing sections of the QARD

0 characterization measurements of commercial and DOE spent nuclear fuel

0 deviations

5DOE. 2008. DOE/RW-0333P, "Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (QARD)." Rev. 20.ML0801450334. Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.6American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1983. ANSI/ASME NQA-1-1983, "Quality Assurance ProgramRequirements for Nuclear Facilities." New York City, New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

xv

procurement documents

whether DOE retains total responsibility for assuring that entities (e.g., waste custodiansand their contractors, and NRC licensees/certificate holders and their contractors) whichperform quality-affecting work comply with the applicable requirements of the QARD

On the basis of the NRC staffs review of the SAR and other information submitted in support ofthe license application_ and DOE's commitments I(b)(5)

Records, Reports, Tests and Inspections

NRC requires that DOE describe the program to be used to maintain the records describedin 10 CFR 63.71 and 10 CFR 63.72. Although not required by 10 CFR 63.21 to beincluded in the SAR, DOE provided program descriptions for reporting deficiencies tothe NRC (10 CFR 63.73), performing tests for the NRC or allowing the NRC to perform tests(10 CFR 63.74), and allowing the NRC to inspect the GROA and adjacent areas to which DOEhas rights of access (10 CFR 63.75).

DOE described the recordkeeping and reporting programs for receipt, handling, and dispositionof radioactive waste to provide a complete history of the movement of the waste from theshipper through all phases of storage and disposal. DOE described a program to maintainrecords of construction of the geologic repository operations area in a manner that ensures theirusability for future generations. DOE described its program for reporting deficiencies to theNRC. DOE described a program to perform, or permit NRC to perform, tests that NRCconsiders appropriate or necessary to administer 10 CFR Part 63 regulations, and DOE'stesting program will include implementing the performance confirmation program. DOE statedthat it will provide immediate and unfettered access for NRC personnel to the GROA andadjacent areas, and adequately described a program for allowing the NRC to inspect the GROApremises and for making records available for inspection..

On the basis of the NRC staff's review of the SAR and otherinfogrra.iarm.submitted in suoiordRothe license applicaltr(b)(5)

DOE Organizational Structure as it Pertains to Construction and Operation of GeologicRepository Operations Area

NRC requires DOE to provide the organizational structure pertaining to construction andoperation of the GROA at the Yucca Mountain site, and a description of any delegations ofauthority and assignments of responsibilities. DOE described the organizational structureanticipated at the time of repository construction and operations for the GROA at the YuccaMountain site, including a description of a procedure for delegation of authority. DOE described

xvi

the responsibilities of the director, management functions and responsibilities, reportingrelationships, and principal lines of communication. DOE committed, documented in theAppendix of this SER volume, to update the organizational structure to ensure that the nuclearcriticality safety program is administratively independent of operations.

On the basis of the NRC staff's review of the SAR-and .oth, r.infQrmation submitted in supPo ofthe license application, and DOE's commitme fb) 5

Key Positions Assigned Responsibility for Safety and Operations of Geologic RepositoryOperations Area

NRC requires DOE to identify the key positions that are assigned responsibility for safety at, andoperation of, the GROA. DOE described key positions, their responsibilities, and qualifications,and identified qualified alternates to act in the absence of DOE staff assigned to the keypositions. DOE committed, documented in the Appendix of this SER volume, to provide arevised description of the responsibilities for the Radiation Protection Manager that incorporatedthe responsibilities and qualifications for the Criticality Safety Manager.

On the basis of the NRC staff's review of the SAR and other information submitted in support ofthe license application, and DOE's commitment (b) 5)

Personnel Qualifications and Training Requirements

NRC requires DOE to provide the personnel qualifications and training requirements concerningactivities at the GROA. DOE's personnel qualifications and training requirements must addressthe general requirements, the training and certification program, and the physical requirementsrequired by 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart H, Training and Certification of Personnel.

DOE described the management of the training function, identification of functional areasrequiring training, objectives for training, organization training guides, and evaluation of traineelearning. DOE also described on-the-job training, personnel qualification and certification,performance evaluations, physical condition of operational personnel, and quality assuranceaudits to determine training program effectiveness.

On the basis of the NRC stas review of the SAR and io ' " s.r_th lig s a li ton(b)(5)

xvii

Plans for Startup Activities and Testing

NRC requires DOE to provide the plans for startup activities and startup testing for activities atthe GROA. DOE described

* the compatibility of testing programs with applicable regulatory guidance

* use of experience from similar activities

" test procedure development, approval by authorized personnel, and evaluation oftest results

" format and content of test procedures

" component testing

* systems functional testing

" cold integrated systems testing

* operational readiness review

" protection of workers and the public

" hot testing, which includes initial startup operations

* the schedules for startup activities and testing

* testing and evaluating functional adequacy of new or untested systems, structures,and components

On the basis of the NRC staffsreview of the SAR and .therinformation submittedAin sUppOrt of_bae-Ucense-applicatio (b)(5)

(b)(5)

Plans for Conduct of Normal Activities, including Maintenance, Surveillance, andPeriodic Testing

NRC requires DOE to provide plans for conduct of normal activities, including maintenance,surveillance, and periodic testing of SSCs of the GROA. DOE described its plan and proceduredevelopment, testing, and approval by authorized personnel; management systems foroperation of the repository, including administrative and procedural safety controls; and thespecific types of plans and procedures to be developed for normal operations, maintenance,and periodic surveillance testing. DOE also identified experience from other, similar DOEfacilities as guidance for developing plans and procedures for conduct of normal activities. DOEcommitted, documented in the Appendix of this SER volume, to revise the description of theexperience and competency required for the independent reviewers of procedures.

On the basis of the NRC staff's review of the SAR and oth.r information suhmittPH in eminnort nthe license application, and DOE's commitment, (b)(5)

xviii

Emergency Planning

NRC requires that DOE provide a description of the plan for responding to, and recovering from,radiological emergencies that may occur any time before permanent closure anddecontamination or decontamination and dismantlement of surface facilities, as required by10 CFR 63.161. The emergency plan must be based on the 16 criteria of 10 CFR 72.32(b).

DOE described its plan and committed, documented in the Appendix of this SER volume,to provide its Emergency Plan, fully compliant with 10 CFR 72.32(b), to the NRC no laterthan 6 months prior to the submittal of the updated application for a license to receive andpossess spent nuclear fuel and HLW. DOE also committed, documented in the Appendix ofthis SER volume, to update the license application to clarify portions of the description of theEmergency Plan on (i) nonradiological, hazardous material release events, (ii) shutdown ofsystems or facility(s), (iii) emergency preparedness training, and (iv) meeting with offsiteresponse organizations.

On the basis of the NRC staff's review of the SAR and other information submitted in gunnor ofthe license aolfficatian- and DOE's commitme~nts I(b)(5)

Controls to Restrict Access and Regulate Land Uses

NRC requires that DOE describe the controls to restrict access and to regulate land uses at theYucca Mountain site and adjacent areas, including a conceptual design of monuments thatwould be used to identify the site after permanent closure. DOE described the steps it hadtaken to establish effective jurisdiction and control and acquisition or withdrawal of land area ofthe GROA. DOE identified the preclosure controlled area and described that access control andflight restrictions would be applied. DOE committed, documented in the Appendix of this SERvolume, to update the license application to clarify landownership boundaries, the proposedland withdrawal boundary, and the boundary for the preclosure controlled area. DOE identifiedthe postclosure controlled area and described its approach for postclosure controls. DOEdescribed its approach for water rights. DOE described that (i) monuments and markers identifythe GROA, postclosure controlled area, and preclosure controlled area;(ii) the conceptualdesign includes monument design, fabrication, and emplacement considerations to ensuremonuments are as permanent as practicable; and (iii) the monuments will communicateinformation and warnings.

On the basis of the NRC staff's review of the SAR and other information submitted in suppo2si.Lth.e Iicense-application,.ardMdD.QEýtsj(b)(5 .

xix

Uses of the Geologic Repository Operations Area for Purposes other than Disposal ofRadioactive Wastes

NRC requires that DOE include plans for any uses of the GROA for purposes other thanradioactive waste disposal, with an analysis of the effects, if any, that such uses may haveon the operation of the SSCs important to safety and the engineered and natural barriersimportant to waste isolation. DOE described potential other uses of the GROA and analyzedthe effects that such uses may have on the operation of the SSCs important to safety and theengineered and natural barriers important to waste isolation. DOE described its procedures tomanage the two ongoing (protection of cultural resources and protection of flora and fauna)other uses of the GROA.

On the basis of the NRQ. staff's rpyvi.w of the SAR and other inforrnationsubmitted in surmort ofthp lirn-_np •nnnior.in I(b)(5)

(b)(5)

Conclusions(b)(5)

xx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

American National Standards Institute/American SocietyANSI/ASME of Mechanical Engineers

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EALs emergency action levels

EBS engineered barrier system

GROA geologic repository operations area

HLW high-level radioactive waste

HLWRS High-Level Waste Repository Safety

ISG interim staff guidance

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OCRWM Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

PCSA preclosure safety analysis

QARD quality assurance requirements and description

RAI request for additional information

SAR Safety Analysis Report

SSCs structures, systems, and components

SER Safety Evaluation Report

TSPA total system performance assessment

YMRP Yucca Mountain Review Plan

xxi

(Intentionally Left Blank)

INTRODUCTION

On June 3, 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a license application to theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seeking an authorization to construct a geologicrepository for high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.1 OnFebruary 19, 2009, DOE submitted its first update to the application. 2 The license applicationconsists of general information and a Safety Analysis Report (SAR). In accordance withrequirements in 10 CFR Part 63, "Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a GeologicRepository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada," the license application consists of general informationand a Safety Analysis Report (SAR).

Disposal of HLW in a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is governed by therules in 10 CFR Part 63. NRC's regulation at 10 CFR Part 63 prescribes the requirementsgoverning the licensing (including issuance of a construction authorization) of the DOE toreceive and possess source, special nuclear, and byproduct material at a geologic repositoryoperations area (GROA) sited, constructed, or operated at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Accordingto 10 CFR Part 63 there are several stages in the licensing process. The site characterizationstage, when the performance confirmation program is started, begins before submission of alicense application. The construction stage would follow after the issuance of a constructionauthorization. A period of operations follows the Commission's issuance of a license to receiveand possess source, special nuclear, and byproduct material. The period of operations includesthe time during which emplacement of wastes occurs; any subsequent period before permanentclosure during which the emplaced wastes are retrievable; and permanent closure, whichincludes sealing openings to the repository. Permanent closure represents the end of theperformance confirmation program; final backfilling of the underground facility, if appropriate;and the sealing of shafts, ramps, and boreholes and follows the Commission's issuance of alicense amendment for permanent closure.

In summary, the multi-staged licensing approach comprises four major decisions by theCommission: (i) construction authorization; (ii) license to receive and emplace waste;(iii) license amendment for permanent closure; and (iv) termination of the license. Themulti-staged licensing process affords the Commission the flexibility to make decisions in alogical time sequence that accounts for DOE collecting and analyzing additional informationover the construction and operational phases of the repository. At each stage, DOE mustprovide sufficient information to support that stage. Thus, as described at 10 CFR 63.21(a),the application must be as complete as possible in the light of information that is reasonablyavailable at the time of docketing.

The NRC staff documents its review and evaluation of DOE's license application in a SafetyEvaluation Report (SER). This SER evaluates the DOE's request for a constructionauthorization pursuant to 10 CFR 63.31. As noted in a July 2009 Atomic Safety LicensingBoard order,3 the NRC staff plans to issue its SER in five volumes. SER Volume 14 presentsthe results of the NRC staff's review of the general information DOE provided in its license

1DOE. 2008. DOE/RW-0573, "Yucca Mountain Repository License Application.' Rev. 0. ML081560400.Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.2DOE. 2009. DOE/RW-0573, "Yucca Mountain Repository License Application." Rev. 1. ML0907008117.Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.3 NRC. 2009. "July 21, 2009 Board Order Concerning Serial Case Management." ML092020323.Washington, DC: NRC.4 NRC. 2010. NUREG-1949, "Safety Evaluation Report Related to Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in aGeologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Volume 1: General Information." Washington, DC: NRC.

I

application. In SER Volumes 2-5, the NRC staff plans to present the results of its safety reviewof the DOE SAR. Any NRC decision on whether to authorize construction of a geologicrepository for high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, will bemade only after the NRC staff has completed all volumes of the SER. A decision to issue aconstruction authorization will not be effective until after the Commission has completed itsreview under 10 CFR 2.1023. In conducting its review, the NRC staff was guided by the reviewmethods and acceptance criteria contained in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan. 5 Whenrequested by the NRC staff, DOE provided additional information to clarify or supplement thelicense application.

This volume evaluates the research and development program for resolving safety questionsthat applies to systems, structures, and components (SSCs) important to safety, andengineered and natural barriers important to waste isolation, the performance confirmationprogram, and administrative and programmatic requirements. 10 CFR Part 63 is risk-informedand performance-based, because risk of health effects to the reasonably maximally exposedindividual is the basis for its performance objectives. The program for resolving safetyquestions identifies, describes, and discusses safety features or components that require furtherinformation to confirm the adequacy of design. The NRC staff evaluation is risk-informedbecause it focuses on those items most important to safety or waste isolation. The performanceconfirmation program examines the program of tests, experiments, and analyses DOE willconduct to evaluate the adequacy of the information used to demonstrate compliance with theperformance objectives in 10 CFR Part 63. A performance confirmation program addressesuncertainties in estimating repository performance over thousands of years. The NRC staffevaluation is risk-informed and performance-based because it focuses on parameters andengineered and natural barriers important to health and safety. 10 CFR Part 63 provides noperformance objectives for the administrative and programmatic requirements.

Administrative and programmatic requirements are addressed through management systemsthat control activities to ensure that the repository is designed, constructed, operated, andclosed so that HLW or spent nuclear fuel are handled and emplaced while protecting the healthand safety of workers and the public, and protecting the environment. The preclosure safetyanalysis (reviewed by NRC staff in SER Volume 2) determines which SSCs are important tosafety. Management systems are used throughout the life of the repository to control activitiesand integrate programs to provide assurance that the repository will be constructed andoperated within analyzed conditions and that the validity of the design and analytical bases ismaintained as modifications occur. The total system performance assessment (reviewed byNRC staff in SER Volume 3) provides an analytical basis for evaluating repository performancefollowing closure. An analysis of the repository's natural and engineered barriers providesinformation on barrier features that are important to waste isolation. Management systemsensure that sufficient data exist to confirm total system performance assessment bases aresatisfied and that the Performance Confirmation Program provides appropriate confirmatorybases as part of making the determination to permanently close the repository. Procedural andadministrative safety controls are used for important to safety and important to waste isolationSSCs to ensure they are maintained and operated within analyzed conditions, and are capableof performing their intended functions. Management systems implement these administrativeand procedural safety controls and provide additional requirements for activities affectingimportant to safety and important to waste isolation SSCs by providing the administrative andprogrammatic framework for:

5NRC. 2003. NUREG-1804, "Yucca Mountain Review Plan-Final Report." Rev. 2. Washington, DC: NRC.

2

* quality assurance* records, reports, tests, and inspection* training and certification of personnel* startup activities and testing* conduct of normal activities, including maintenance, surveillance, and periodic testing* emergency planning* controls to restrict access and regulate land use* using the GROA for purpose other than disposal of radioactive waste.

The management systems in each of these programs are implemented through proceduresgoverning work processes in accordance with the quality assurance program.

NRC has the responsibility for both licensing and overseeing licensee operations and facilities toensure that licensees comply with safety requirements. A licensing review is not intended to bea detailed evaluation of all aspects of facility operations. Specific information aboutimplementation of the program outlined in an application is obtained through the NRC review ofprocedures and operations done as part of the inspection function. Thus, the administrative andprogrammatic requirements addressed in SER Volume 4 form a fundamental basis for NRC'sinspection program.

The following requirements in 10 CFR 63.21(c) are specific to Volume 4:

1. An identification of those structures, systems, and components of the geologicrepository, both surface and subsurface, that require research and development toconfirm the adequacy of design. For SSCs important to safety and for the engineeredand natural barriers important to waste isolation, DOE shall provide a detaileddescription of the programs designed to resolve safety questions, including a scheduleindicating when these questions would be resolved. [10 CFR 63.21(c)(16)]

2. A description of the performance confirmation program that meets the requirements ofsubpart F of this part. [10 CFR 63.21(c)(17)]

3. A description of the quality assurance program to be applied to the structures, systems,and components important to safety and to the engineered and natural barriersimportant to waste isolation. The description of the quality assurance program mustinclude a discussion of how the applicable requirements of Section 63.142 will besatisfied. [10 CFR 63.21(c)(20)]

4. A description of the plan for responding to, and recovering from, radiologicalemergencies that may occur at any time before permanent closure anddecontamination or decontamination and dismantlement of surface facilities, asrequired by Section 63.161. [10 CFR 63.21(c)(21)]

5. The following information concerning activities at the GROA. [10 CFR 63.21(c)(22)]:

The organizational structure of DOE as it pertains to construction and operationof the GROA, including a description of any delegations of authority andassignments of responsibilities, whether in the form of regulations, administrativedirectives, contract provisions, or otherwise

3

0 Identification of key positions that are assigned responsibility for safety at andoperation of the GROA

0 Personnel qualifications and training requirements.

a Plans for startup activities and startup testing

0 Plans for conduct of normal activities, including maintenance, surveillance, andperiodic testing of structures, systems, and components of the GROA

0 Plans for any uses of the GROA at the Yucca Mountain site for purposes otherthan disposal of radioactive wastes, with an analysis of the effects, if any, thatsuch uses may have on the operation of the SSCs important to safety and theengineered and natural barriers important to waste isolation

6. A description of the program to be used to maintain the records described in10 CFR 63.71 and 10 CFR 63.72. [10 CFR 63.21(c)(23)]

7. A description of the controls that DOE will apply to restrict access and to regulateland use at the Yucca Mountain site and adjacent areas, including a conceptualdesign of monuments that would be used to identify the site after permanent closure.[10 CFR 63.21(c)(24)]

The subsequent chapters in SER Volume 4 document the results of the NRC staffs review ofthe SAR in the DOE license application. The NRC staff also reviewed information DOEprovided in response to NRC staff's requests for additional information. As appropriate, theSER provides specific citations to these additional information sources in the context of the NRCstaff's review. Chapter 1 evaluates DOE's description of a research and development programto resolve safety questions. Chapter 2 evaluates DOE's performance confirmationprogram. Chapter 3 evaluates DOE's description of its quality assurance program. Chapter 4evaluates DOE's description of the program to maintain records, report deficiencies, performtests and allow inspections. Chapter 5 evaluates DOE's organizational structure duringconstruction. Chapter 6 evaluates DOE's plans for key positions for safety and operations atthe geologic repository operations area. Chapter 7 evaluates DOE's qualification and trainingprograms. Chapter 8 evaluates DOE's plans for startup activities and testing. Chapter 9evaluates DOE's plans for conduct of normal activities. Chapter 10 evaluates DOE's descriptionof the plans for to respond to, and recovering from radiological emergencies that may occur atthe geologic repository. Chapter 11 evaluates DOE's description of controls to restrict accessand regulate land uses. Chapter 12 evaluates DOE's plans for uses of the geologic repositoryoperations area for other purposes. Chapter 13 provides a glossary of some terms used in theSER. Appendix A to SER Volume 4 provides DOE's commitments related to the constructionand operation of the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.

4

CHAPTER 1

2.3 Research and Development Program to Resolve Safety Questions

2.3.1 Introduction

This chapter of the Safety Evaluation Report provides the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) staffs review of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) research and developmentprogram to resolve safety questions. This review considers information provided in DOE'sSafety Analysis Report (SAR) Chapter 3 (DOE, 2008ab). This chapter was unchanged inDOE's license application update, submitted to NRC in February 2009 (DOE, 2009av).

Safety questions related to either the adequacy of the design of structures, systems, andcomponents (SSCs) of the geologic repository important to safety, both surface and subsurface,or related to natural and engineered barriers important to waste isolation may be identified byDOE in the SAR or by the NRC staff as a result of its SAR review. If safety questions areidentified, DOE will implement a research and development program to resolve them. Such aprogram would be separate and distinct from DOE's performance confirmation programdescribed in SAR Chapter 4.

2.3.2 Regulatory Requirements

The requirement for research and development programs to resolve safety questions isspecified in 10 CFR 63.21(cX16). DOE is required to identify those SSCs of the geologicrepository, both surface and subsurface, that require research and development to confirm theadequacy of design. For SSCs important to safety and for engineered and natural barriersimportant to waste isolation, DOE shall provide a detailed description of the programsdesigned to resolve safety questions, including a schedule indicating when these questionswould be resolved.

Staff guidance for review of this topic is provided in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP)Section 2.3 (NRC, 2003aa).

2.3.3 Technical Evaluation

2.3.3.1 Identification and Description of Safety Questions

DOE did not identify any safety questions with respect to (i) SSCs important to safety or(ii) engineered and natural barriers important to waste isolation (SAR Section 3.1).

(b)(5)

2.3.3.2 Research and Development Programs Related to Safety Questions

A specific research and development program would be developed if safety issues wereidentified and would be separate and distinct from DOE's performance confirmation programdescribed in SAR Chapter 4. The results of the research and development program(s),including periodic progress updates, would be provided to NRC (SAR Chapter 3.2). In addition,

1-1

DOE stated the research and development program would meet the requirements of10 CFR 63.21(c)(16). Specifically, DOE would

* Identify and describe safety questions

* Identify and describe the research and development that will be conducted to resolvesafety questions

* Provide a schedule for completing the activities relative to the projected start-up date ofrepository operations

* Provide design alternatives or operational restrictions available if the results of programactivities do not acceptably resolve the safety questions

2.3.4 Evaluation Findings

The NRC staff has reviewed the SA.a•nLthe.,other formatigngiubmitted in supDort of thelicense application, (b)(5)

2.3.5 References

DOE. 2009av. DOE/RW-0573, "Yucca Mountain Repository License Application." Rev. 1.ML090700817. Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

DOE. 2008ab. DOE/RW-0573, "Yucca Mountain Repository License Application." Rev. 0.ML081560400. Las Vegas, Nevada: DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

NRC. 2003aa. NUREG-1804, "Yucca Mountain Review Plan-Final Report." Rev. 2.Washington, DC: NRC.

1-2

CHAPTER 2

2.4 Performance Confirmation Program

2.4.1 Introduction

This chapter of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) evaluates the description of theperformance confirmation program provided in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) SafetyAnalysis Report (SAR) Chapter 4 (DOE, 2009av). This chapter was changed in DOE's licenseapplication update, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inFebruary 2009. DOE provided more information on this topic in its response to the NRC staff'srequests for additional information (DOE, 2009an,gm, 201 Oap).

10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F provides the requirements for the performance confirmationprogram. 10 CFR 63.2 defines performance confirmation as the program of tests, experiments,and analyses that is conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the information used todemonstrate compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart E. Theneed for a performance confirmation program is unique to high-level radioactive waste disposal.As stated in 10 CFR 63.102(m), a performance confirmation program will be conducted toevaluate the adequacy of assumptions, data, and analyses that led to the findings that permittedconstruction of the repository and subsequent emplacement of the wastes. Key geotechnicaland design parameters, including any interactions between natural and engineered systems andcomponents, will be monitored throughout site characterization, construction, emplacement, andoperation to identify any significant changes in the conditions assumed in the license applicationthat may affect compliance with the performance objectives specified in 10 CFR 63.113(b) and63.113(c). This reflects the uncertainties in estimating geologic repository performance overthousands of years.

At permanent closure, 10 CFR 63.51(a)(1) requires DOE to present an update of thepostclosure performance assessment. The updated assessment includes any collectedperformance confirmation data that are pertinent to compliance with 10 CFR 63.113. NRC willthen decide whether DOE's comprehensive program of testing, monitoring, and confirmationsuggests the repository will work as planned. Unless DOE designs the repository to preservethe option to retrieve the waste before permanent closure, an action reserved to NRC could beforeclosed and an unsafe condition could be transmitted to future generations. Therefore, thebroad reference to the performance objectives under 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart E in theperformance confirmation definition reflects the need to consider retrievability when monitoringsubsurface conditions and that preserving the retrieval option is a preclosure performancerequirement. The general requirements for the performance confirmation program do notrequire testing and monitoring to confirm preclosure performance in other contexts (i.e., testingand monitoring structures, systems, and components important to safety). The generalrequirements at 10 CFR 63.131 focus on subsurface conditions, as well as the natural andengineered systems and components required for repository operation and that are designed orassumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure. The bases for the acceptance criteriain the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP) Section 2.4 (NRC, 2003aa) are the requirementsfor performance cornfirmation, in 10 CFR Part 63, that are performance based. Where suitable,the acceptance criteria are also risk-informed, because performance confirmation focuses onth~ose parameters and natural and engineered barriers important to waste isolation.

2-1

2.4.2 Regulatory Requirements

10 CFR 63.21 (c)(17) requires that the SAR must include a description of the performanceconfirmation program that meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. 10 CFR 63.74contains the requirements for tests the Commission considers appropriate or necessary for theadministration of the regulations in 10 CFR 63. 10 CFR 63.74(b) specifies that tests requiredunder 10 CFR 63.73 must include a performance confirmation program carried out inaccordance with 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F.

10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F specifies requirements in four areas: (i) general requirements(10 CFR 63.131), (ii) confirmation of geotechnical and design parameters (10 CFR 63.132),(iii) design testing (10 CFR 63.133), and (iv) monitoring and testing waste packages(10 CFR 63.134).

The general requirements are specified in 10 CFR 63.131(a)-(d). 10 CFR 63.131(a) requiresthat the performance confirmation program must provide data that indicate, where practicable,whether (i) actual subsurface conditions encountered and changes in those conditions duringconstruction and waste emplacement operations are within limits assumed in the licensingreview and (ii) natural and engineered systems and components required for repositoryoperation, and that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure,are functioning as intended and anticipated. 10 CFR 63.131(b) requires that the programmust have been started during site characterization, and it will continue until permanentclosure. 10 CFR 63.131(c) requires that the program must include in-situ monitoring, laboratoryand field testing, and in-situ experiments, as may be appropriate to provide the data required by10 CFR 63.131(a). 10 CFR 63.131(d) requires that the program must be implemented so that(i) it does not adversely affect the ability of the geologic and engineered elements of thegeologic repository to meet the performance objectives; (ii) it provides baseline information andanalysis of that information on those parameters and natural processes pertaining to thegeologic setting that may be changed by site characterization, construction, and operationalactivities; and (iii) it monitors and analyzes changes from the baseline condition of parametersthat could affect the performance of a geologic repository.

The requirements for confirmation of geotechnical and design parameters are specified in10 CFR 63.132(a)-(e). 10 CFR 63.132(a) requires that during repository construction andoperation, a continuing program of surveillance, measurement, testing, and geologic mappingmust be conducted to ensure that geotechnical and design parameters are confirmed and toensure that appropriate action is taken to inform the Commission of design changes needed toaccommodate actual field conditions encountered. 10 CFR 63.132(b) requires that subsurfaceconditions must be monitored and evaluated against design assumptions. 10 CFR 63.132(c)requires that specific geotechnical and design parameters to be measured or observed,including any interactions between natural and engineered systems and components, must beidentified in the performance confirmation plan. 10 CFR 53.132(d) requires that thesemeasurements and observations must be compared with the original design bases andassumptions. If significant differences exist between the measurements and observations andthe original design bases and assumptions, the need for modifications to the design or inconstruction methods must be determined and these differences, their significance to repositoryperformance, and the recommended changes reported to the Commission. 10 CFR 63.132(e)requires that in-situ monitoring of the thermomechanical response of the underground facilitymust be conducted until permanent closure, to ensure that the performance of the geologic andengineering features is within design limits.

2-2

The requirements for design testing are specified in 10 CFR 63.133(aHd). 10 CFR 63.133(a)requires that during the early or developmental stages of construction, a program for testing ofengineered systems and components used in the design (e.g., borehole and shaft seals,backfill, and drip shields), as well as the thermal interaction effects of the waste packages,backfill, drip shields, rock, and unsaturated zone and saturated zone water, must beconducted. 10 CFR 63.133(b) requires that the testing must be initiated as early as practicable.10 CFR 63.133(c) requires that if backfill is included in the repository design, a test must beconducted to evaluate the effectiveness of backfill placement and compaction proceduresagainst design requirements before permanent backfill placement is begun. 10 CFR 63.133(d)requires that tests must be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of borehole, shaft, and rampseals before full-scale operation proceeds to seal boreholes, shafts, and ramps.

The requirements for monitoring and testing waste packages are specified in10 CFR 63.134(aHd). 10 CFR 63.134(a) requires that a program must be establishedat the geologic repository operations area (GROA) for monitoring the condition of the wastepackages. Waste packages chosen for the program must be representative of those to beemplaced in the underground facility. 10 CFR 63.134(b) requires that consistent with safeoperation at the GROA, the environment of the waste packages selected for the waste packagemonitoring program must be representative of the environment in which the wastes are to beemplaced. 10 CFR 63.134(c) requires that the waste package monitoring program must includelaboratory experiments that focus on the internal condition of the waste packages. To theextent practical, the environment experienced by the emplaced waste packages within theunderground facility during the waste package monitoring program must be duplicated in thelaboratory experiments. 10 CFR 63.134(d) requires that the waste package monitoring programmust continue as long as practical up to the time of permanent closure.

Consistent with 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F, the NRC staff evaluated the description of theperformance confirmation program with respect to regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 63.131,132, 133, and 134. The NRC staff evaluated DOE's description of its performance confirmationprogram, using guidance in YMRP Section 2.4.

2.4.3 Technical Evaluation

The NRC staff evaluates the description of the performance confirmation program, and asnecessary, additional information describing the performance confirmation program in thePerformance Confirmation Plan (SNL, 2008aq). The review is organized in the context of therequirements of 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F, consistent with the review methods and acceptancecriteria in the YMRP. In the following subsections, the numbered items under the YMRPacceptance criteria are denoted by bracketed alphanumeric designations (e.g., AcceptanceCriterion 1[3(e)] refers to the item e under number 1 under Acceptance Criterion 1).

2.4.3.1 General Requirements for the Performance Confirmation Program

DOE addressed compliance with 10 CFR 63.131 in five sections: (i) objectives of theperformance confirmation program (SER Section 2.4.3.1.1), (ii) schedule for the performanceconfirmation program (SER Section 2.4.3.1.2), (iii) implementation of the performanceconfirmation program (SER Section 2.4.3.1.3), (iv) records and reports related to theperformance confirmation program, and (v) findings on general requirements for theperformance confirmation program (SER Section 2.4.3.1.5).

2-3

2.4.3.1.1 Objectives of the Performance Confirmation Program

YMRP Acceptance Criterion 1 [1] provides guidance for NRC staff's review of the objectives.DOE described the objectives of the performance confirmation program in SAR Section 4.1and stated it is responsive to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. Specifically,the program is designed to confirm the adequacy of assumptions, data, and analyses thatsupport the findings used to permit construction of the repository and waste emplacement.The program will evaluate the information supporting compliance demonstrations of thepostclosure performance objectives for individual protection [10 CFR 63.113(b)] andgroundwater protection [10 CFR 63.113(c)], as well as consideration of preclosure aspects ofrepository performance such as retrievability [10 CFR 63.11 1(e)].

DOE identified two specific objectives. First, the program is to provide information, wherepracticable, to confirm subsurface conditions encountered and changes in those conditionsduring construction and waste emplacement operations are within the expectations of thelicense application. This includes monitoring subsurface conditions and tests to confirmgeotechnical and design assumptions that are the basis of compliance with the preclosureperformance objective for retrievability (NRC staff's review of retrievability is documented inSER Section 2.1.2). Second, the program is to provide information to confirm that the naturaland engineered barriers are functioning as described in SAR Chapter 2f(b)(5)

To evaluate whether the performance confirmation program meets the general requirements theNRC staff's reviews, consistent with YMRP Acceptance Criteria 1[1-4], whether DOE (i)identified the natural and engineered systems and components selected to be monitored andtested to ensure that they are functioning as intended and identified the specific geotechnicaland design parameters selected to be measured or observed; (ii) included the methodologyused to select the natural and engineered systems and components and specific geotechnicaland design parameters that will be monitored and tested or measured and observed; (iii)specified the in-situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing, and in-situ experiments to acquireneeded data and that they will apply to the selected geotechnical and design parameters and tothe selected natural and engineered systems and components; and (iv) included expectedchanges from the baseline for the selected geotechnical and design parameters and includedthe intended and expected design bases for the selected natural and engineered components.

YMRP Acceptance Criterion 1 [1(a)] provides guidance for NRC staffs review of theidentification of (i) the natural and engineered systems and components selected to bemonitored and tested to ensure that they are functioning as intended and (ii) the specificgeotechnical and design parameters selected to be measured or observed. The NRC staffevaluates whether DOE's identification of barriers with respect to the performance confirmationprogram is acceptable and then assesses whether DOE identified (i) the natural and engineeredsystems and components selected to be monitored and tested to ensure that they arefunctioning as intended and (ii) the specific geotechnical and design parameters selected to bemeasured or observed. DOE identified the natural and engineered barriers that are important towaste isolation (i.e., those that prevent or substantially reduce the rate of movement of water orradionuclides from the repository to the accessible environment or that prevent the release orsubstantially reduce the release rate of radionuclides from the waste) in SAR Table 4-1 andrelated them to the performance confirmation activities. In addition, DOE provided more detailwith respect to the relevant (i) barrier; (ii) feature, event, or process; (iii) effect on barrier

2-4

capability; and (iv) core parameter characteristic for each performance confirmation activity in itsPerformance Confirmation Plan, addendum to Revision 5, Table A-2[a]. I(b)(5)(b)(5)

YMRP Acceptance Criterion 1 [1(c)] provides guidance for NRC staffs review of the identificationof specific geotechnical and design parameters that DOE selected to be measured or observed.As described in SAR Section 4.1, the Performance Confirmation Plan identifies 20 activities forperformance confirmation. In SAR Table 4-1, DOE provided for each type of monitoring ortesting (e.g., general requirements testing and monitoring); the candidate activities, including adescription and purpose; the candidate parameters for each candidate activity; and the relatedbarrier or event. For example, for the seepage monitoring candidate activity, DOE identifiedthat (i) the activity description is seepage monitoring and laboratory analysis of water samples;(ii) the candidate parameters include seepage rate, locations, and quantity and chemicalcomposition; (iii) the purpose is to evaluate results from the seepage model; and (iv) the relatedbarrier is the upper natural barrier.

In SAR Table 4-2, DOE identified the eight performance confirmation activities which address10 CFR 63.131(a)(1) and that it plans to conduct to confirm subsurface conditions andchanges in subsurface conditions during construction and waste emplacement operations.Also in SAR Table 4-2, DOE identified the 19 performance confirmation activities whichaddress 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2) and that it plans to conduct to confirm that the natural and

naineered harriers are functionina as described On SAR Chaoter 256)(b5)(b)(5)

As identified in SAR Table 4-2, each performance confirmation activity may be directed ataccomplishing more than one objective or more than one regulatory requirement forperformance confirmation [e.g., the seepage monitoring activity addresses both objectivesand the regulatory requirements at 10 CFR 63.131(a)(1)-(2), 10 CFR 63.132(a)-(b), and10 CFR 63.133(a)]. The NRC staff's evaluation of the individual performance confirmationactivities that were identified as related to 10 CFR 63.132-134 are found in SER Sections2.4.3.2, 2.4.3.3, and 2.4.3.4, respectively. Those individual performance confirmation activitiesidentified as only being related to 10 CFR 63.131 (i.e., precipitation monitoring, subsurfacewater and rock testing, unsaturated zone testing, saturated zone monitoring, saturated zonefault hydrology testing, and saturated zone alluvium testing) are reviewed in this section (SERSections 2.4.3.1.1.1-2.4.3.1.1.6, respectively).

YMRP Acceptance Criteria 1[1(b)] and 1 [1(d)] provide guidance for NRC staff's review of themethodology used to select the natural and engineered systems and components, and thegeotechnical and design parameters, that DOE will monitor and test to ensure they arefunctioning as intended and expected. In SAR Section 4.1.1, DOE described eight principles(e.g., one principle is to confirm the bases relied upon for retrieval of waste) that it applies to the

2-5

administration of its performance confirmation program and summarized its methodology forselecting performance confirmation activities. DOE stated that the performance confirmationactivities were selected using a risk-informed, performance-based methodology and that thedetails on the decision analysis are in the Performance Confirmation Program, Section 1.4.1.DOE used a methodological approach (multi-attribute utility analysis) to identify relevantgeotechnical and design parameters and determine appropriate testing activities. The decisionanalysis was based on the understanding of the performance assessment and barrier capabilityexisting prior to completing the total system performance assessment (TSPA) (SNL, 2008ag)presented in the SAR. This approach consisted of using subject matter experts to identifyrelevant geotechnical and design parameters and determining appropriate testing activities onthe basis of the application of the following three criteria:

* Sensitivity of barrier capability and system performance to the parameter* Level of confidence in the current knowledge about the parameter• Accuracy of information obtained by a particular testb)(5)

DOE stated the performance confirmation emphasized parameters related to barriers importantto waste isolation. Because the models used to develop the TSPA have been updated sincethe multi-attribute utility analysis was used to identify the performance confirmation activities,DOE conducted an additional completeness review comparing the planned activities to therepresentation of key features and processes in the final TSPA models as described in thePerformance Confirmation Plan addendum, Appendix A[a]. DOE compared the final TSPApresented in the SAR, the postclosure nuclear safety design bases (SNL, 2008ad), and thePerformance Confirmation Plan. No new performance confirmation activities were identified asa result of this additional review, and comparison to TSPA sensitivity information shows themost risk-significant TSPA parameters are addressed by performance confirmation activities.

b )(5 )_. . ' , ,,

YMRP Acceptance Criteria 1 [1(e)] and 1 [1(f)] provide guidance for NRC staff's review of thespecification of in-situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing, and in-situ experiments to acquireneeded data and the specification of in-situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing, and in-situexperiments applied to geotechnical and design parameters. As described previously, DOEprovided information in SAR Table 4-1 on the in-situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing, andin-situ experiments it will use to acquire needed data and that it will apply to the selectedgeotechnical and design parameters and to the selected natural and engineered systems andcomponents. In SAR Section 4.2, DOE provided the purpose, description of currentunderstanding, and methodology for each of the candidate performance confirmation activities.

(I

2-6

For example, for the seepage monitoring candidate activity, DOE specified that seepagemonitoring and sampling will include in-situ monitoring occurrences and quantities, as wellas conducting laboratory analyses of seepage fluids. DOE described that its monitoring willbe conducted at appropriate locations in the subsurface, and specific tests (field tests) will beconducted in unventilated alcoves or boreholes and in a thermally accelerated test drift(an in-situ experiment). The Performance Confirmation Plan provides a more in-depthdiscussion of these performance confirmation activities, including the purpose, description ofcurrent understanding, and candidate geotechnical and design parameters, including plannedtesting and monitoring methods and techniques.

The NRC staff reviewed DOE's description of the performance confirmation program in SARSection 4.2 and the Performance Confirmation .n.(b)(5)

(b)(5)

M'VMRP Acceptance Criteria 1 [1(g)] and 1[1(h)] provide guidance for NRC staff's review of DOE'sapproach for expected changes (i.e., design bases and assumptions) from baseline for theselected geotechnical and design parameters. In SAR Section 4.1.3, DOE addressedevaluation of results and reporting and described how design basis information and baselinevalues are used in the performance confirmation program. DOE stated that for geotechnicaland design parameters, the baseline values will be derived from reference design basisdocumentation. For initial performance confirmation evaluations, the baseline data will bederived from analysis and model reports and performance assessment input parameters;baseline values will be used to define objectives for performance confirmation investigations,which are described in appropriate performance confirmation test plans. DOE described thatsources for baseline values for selected parameters, test completion criteria, and variancecriteria will be identified in performance confirmation test plans. Finally, DOE described how itintends to address performance confirmation results that exceed condition limits (indicatingsignificant differences from baseline information used for compliance demonstrations)established in the performance confirmation test plans.

(b)(5)

2-7

(b)(5)

In SER Sections 2.4.3.1.1.1-2.4.3.1.1.6, the NRC staff reviews the individual performanceconfirmation activities that DOE identified address compliance only with 10 CFR 63.131. TheNRC staff's review of the precipitation monitoring, subsurface water and rock testing,unsaturated zone testing, saturated zone monitoring, saturated zone fault hydrology testing, andsaturated zone alluvium testing activities focused on the selected parameters (either candidateor final) and is presented in SER Sections 2.4.3.1.1.1-2.4.3.1.1.6, respectively. 1(b)(5)(b)(5)

2.4.3.1.1.1 Precipitation Monitoring

DOE described precipitation monitoring in SAR Section 4.2.1.1, DOE (2009gm), PerformanceConfirmation Plan Section 3.3.1.1, and SNL (2007bp). The purpose of precipitation monitoringis to confirm the adequacy of information used in conceptual and numerical models of thehydrologic conditions described in SAR Section 2.3.1. Precipitation represents the predominantinput of water into the upper natural barrier, and the information collected for this activity willconfirm and extend the precipitation record for the site and be used for comparison withseepage observations. The performance of the upper natural barrier may be supported bycomparing the precipitation inputs with observed fluxes at depth. Precipitation monitoring beganduring site characterization and will continue through closure using six existing monitoringstations, which were used to support development of the infiltration model. The methodologyincludes instrumentation of the six sites with two precipitation gauges, one for precipitation rateand one for precipitation quantity.

Although DOE identified precipitation rate, quantity, and chemical composition as candidateparameters in SAR Table 4-1 and Performance Confirmation Plan Table 3-2, DOE (2009gm)clarified that test plans specify parameters that will meet the objectives of the activity and thatthe precipitation monitoring test plan (SNL, 2007bp) is complete; thus, _POE's monitorin~g..-parameters are precipitation, rate and.precipit..ation gu__antity. (b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

2-8

(b)(5)