summary of the july 27, 1994, u. s. nuclear regulatory … · 2012-11-18 · pad and access road,...

1'U66 /a w

SUMMARY OF THE JULY 27, 1994,U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION/U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

TECHNICAL MEETING ON TEE EXPLORATORY STUDIES FACILITY

Staff from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission met with representatives of theDepartment of Energy (DOE) to discuss items of mutual concern regardingdesign, the design control process, the architectural document hierarchy andthe imminent start-up of tunnel boring at DOE's Exploratory Studies Facility(ESF) at Yucca Mountain. Representatives of the State of Nevada (NV) and the

-1qVNuclear Waste Task Force attended the meeting. The Affected Units of LocalGovernment had been notified of the meeting, but did not attend. Also inattendance were representatives of the DOE Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement System Management and Operating Contractor, and the Nuclear WasteTechnical Review Board. Attachment 1 is an attendance list. Copies ofpresenters' handouts are included as Attachment 2. A copy of the agreementsreached by the NRC staff and the representatives of DOE is Attachment 3.

Among the topics discussed at the meeting was DOE's response to theMarch 30, 1994, NRC letter on the ESF design and design control process. TheDOE response is contained in the handout (See Attachment 2) titled: "DOE-NRCTechnical Meeting on the Exploratory Studies Facility Introduction." The NRCstaff will review this information and discuss its response with DOE at thenext ESF Technical Meeting, which is scheduled for November 8, 1994.

In response to a request from the NRC staff, DOE made a presentation to stressthe distinction between design stages and design phases in the repositoryprogram. A design stage corresponds to the major stages of facility design,eg. Title I, Title II, Advanced Conceptual Design, License Application Design,Procurement and Construction Design and Title III or As-Built Design. Designphases correspond to the phased approach to ESF design that are captured insequential design packages, eg. Package 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, etc. The DOEexplained what type of information was expected to be available at each designstage. Several questions regarding the relationship of design stages to otherparts of the repository program were asked by the meeting participants. Theseincluded questions on: the completion of analyses of alternatives relative tothe design phases, the relationship of design activities to the schedules ofactivities associated with DOE's proposed program approach, and therelationship of the Title II design to development of the Environmental ImpactStatement. The participants agreed that these questions would be discussedfurther at the November ESF meeting.

The evolution of the ESF Q-List was also discussed. Of particular interest isthe fact that, as part of its commitment to worker safety, DOE is expandingthe ESF Q-List. The Q-List will now include structures, systems, andcomponents important to fire protection, physical protection, and occupationalexposure, even if they do not otherwise affect safety or waste isolation. TheNRC staff believes that this shows an appropriate understanding of theimportance of making the grading process a fully-integrated part of therepository program.

9410060314 940921PDR WASTEWM-11 PDR

During the discussion of ESF Design and Construction Progress, DOE stated thatthe tunnel boring machine was scheduled to begin operations on August 8, 1994.The NRC staff then asked some questions regarding two June 21, 1994 staffletters discussing pneumatic pathways concerns which might be impacted bytunnel boring activities. In one of the June 21, 1994, letters, the staffclosed Site Characterization Analysis comment 123 open items on the pneumatictesting issue. In the other the staff asked for further information on howthe DOE was addressing a concern raised by the State of Nevada, and hadrequested further information as to why DOE believes this was not a concern.The NRC staff believes that its questions related to hydrochemical testing andthe NV concern regarding characterization of pneumatic pathways should beaddressed before TBM start-up. DOE agreed to address these concerns in atelecon, prior to August 8, 1994, and to provide a follow up response inwriting.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the NRC project manager and a representativeof DOE agreed that three commitments had been made at this meeting andproduced and signed Attachment 3, listing those commitments.

Mark S. P troject ManagerHigh-Level Waste & Uranium Recovery

Projects BranchDivision of Waste ManagementOffice of Nuclear Material Safetyand Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Chrstian E. Einberg Regulatory IntegratidkL rmchOffice of Civilian Radi ctive

Waste ManagementU.S. Department of Energy

frr lEAjA A)CC

okc/lXE 67-�- 7=- M6- G- /XA6 Jity 0 7 % / 51/" 5

/VMW D&z-C771

to 6- t b e

~btjg ti. rYE

T O n#'r7 6 66 A -

okt1 f c#'

f6 okb/r r r'iA

4e1e A 4~e c' ,w1m ~t

'

>oe /YV~LsC;Of ieMs

z Soi/ e.

M o/7 -t

DOG

A4 /D

70O 7fi 7t)

702 q94 Iq2q

-7oj- -7?Y- S832Taz - 54- 5 39 .

3,I- 4 +,- & e/ 3

722 -7Y - 73FO

70Z/7 -7?6 g-

7--) 21 q" - 2.3 v2.c

LoL)S &- Man

70).--77L( -Iq 0t

_OIL &4 U >

Z7 C6 -3 7 L(

-N

Af, TIEr DPr

fJ A rr, Ce 4 eag* 7PP

+?e4t a Earnest

jCK Ktj >L

oie(g/V /f C-VOF<ef3

e��-7& 70 1IKI

,J/ /,? g-x,/.� &

j\1 k c/I-- Air.5

(.-Jpc-IY12 Q 0 fi

3/ --/ilS 263

3oi,,a Lll-rf- 7 2- ec-

(3& 1 -4 S-7l

Tic - (5, -6 75

U.S. DEPARTMENTOFENERGY

CR

W YUCCA

M

YUCCA MOUNTAINSITE CHARACTERIZATION

|- - --- PROJECT

DOE-NRC TECHNICAL MEETING ON THEEXPLORATORY STUDIES FACILITY

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS

PRESENTED BY:

JAMES M. REPLOGLE

JULY 27, 1994ROCKVILLE, MD

PRESENTATION PARAMETERS

* ESF design and construction progressinformation is based on projected budgets of:- FY94 = $55MM FY95 = $1 01 M- FY96 = $114M- FY97 = $119M

* ESF packages are described either byconfiguration items (where defined) orprojected scope

Preliminary Draft Information Only- ESFO&CJRI.PM4.126/2-3-94

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SRH

~10I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CALICO HILLS

Go~~ 2CALICO HIL.\ - -TOPOPAH SPRYb RAM

TOPO2AH MAI" DRIFT

N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OUTH RAMIP E 2T\ SM

\ It~ORTH RAMIP#

A N t~ Underground Facilitiesl\ ~~~~~~- 35 Alcoves In Topopah Sprlng Level loop

, ~TOPOPAH SPRING LEVEL \(average area per alcove 500 sq. f.)- -CALICO HILLS LEVEL - Main Test Area Is approx. 18.5 acres

(CALICO HILLS IS APPROX. 10 MET ERS B3ELOW TOPOPAH SPRING)ESPPCCRET"5129

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EFR3.DPSCN1w29

PACKAGE 1A:NORTH PORTAL SITE PREPARATION

Configuration items:Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), TBM starter tunnel,pad and access road, pad water drainage system;switchgear building, underground utilities on pad(electric, sewer, H20, firewater, waste water) rockand topsoil storage area, Test Alcove 1

Design Status* All items complete and accepted for

construction

Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFDbCJA2.PM4.128,7-27.94

PACKAGE 1A:NORTH PORTAL SITE PREPARATIONConstruction status:* Complete

- TBM starter tunnel- Pad and access road- Rock and topsoil storage area- Test Alcove #1- TBM Assembly

* In process- TBM Operational Readiness Review- Switchgear building- Pad water system- TBM launch chamber

Acceptance status: PendingPreliminary Draft Information Only

ESFO&CJR3.PM4.1 26/7-27-94

PACKAGE B:NORTH PORTAL SURFACE FACILITIES

AND UTILITIES

Configuration items:* Change

system,system,surface

House building, Shop building, pad sewerpad electrical system, pad waste waterpad and access road, water system,rail, finish grading and paving

Design Status* All items complete and accepted for

construction

Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFD&CJR4.PM4.1 26/7-27-94

PACKAGE B:NORTH PORTAL SURFACE FACILITIES

AND UTILITIES(CONTINUED)

Construction status:In process- Pad sewer system- Pad electrical system- Pad waste water system- Pad water systems

* Potable* Non Potable

* Complete FY95- Change House building- Shop building- Pad extension- Explosive storage area- Finish grade

Acceptance status: TBDPreliminary Draft Information Only

ESFD&CJR5.PM4.126f7-27.94

PACKAGE 1C:NORTH PORTAL SURFACE FACILITIES

AND UTILITIES

Configuration items:* Compressed air systems, standby power

Design Status* In process, complete mid-FY94

Construction Status: Complete FY95* Compressed air systems* Standby power

Acceptance Status: TBD

Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESMD8CJRO.PM4.12e67-27 94

PACKAGE D:NORTH PORTAL SURFACE FACILITIES

AND UTILITIES

Design Scope:* Muck storage area, conveyor access road & oily water containment* Integrated data/control system (IDCS) system description &

procurement specifications* Fuel storage system* Remaining site lighting* Fence grounding* Air compressor and stand-by generator foundations

Design Status* In 90% Review process, by July 94* Complete expected by Sept 94

Construction Status: Start FY95 - Complete FY96

Acceptance Status: Pending

Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFD&CJR7.PM4. 126fl27-94

PACKAGE 2A:

Configuration Items: None. Components only

Design Status: Complete

Construction Status: Procurement only,complete FY95

Acceptance Status: Complete

Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFD&CJR8.PM4.1 267-27-94

PACKAGE 2B:

Configuration items:* Mapping Gantry, locomotives, rolling stock, precast

concrete inverts, ventilation system

Design Status* 90% Design Review complete

Construction Status: Procurement only FY94

Acceptance Status: Complete

Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFO&CJR9.PM4.1 26/7-27-94

PACKAGE 2C: NORTH RAMP TOTOPOPAH SPRING LEVEL (TSL)

Configuration items:* North Ramp Excavation, linings and ground support,

subsurface electrical systems, subsurface mechanicalsystems, subsurface fire protection, subsurfacemonitoring and warning systems, subsurface conveyorsystems

Design Status

* In review process - Complete late FY9490% review held May 2,release for constructionAugust 1994

1994,expected


Acceptance Status: PendingPreliminary Draft Infornation Only

ESFD&CJR1.PM4.126/7-27-94

NORTH RAMP ALCOVE CONFIGURATION

#15

#13

D Will be constructed

m Deferred until completion11 of loop

U Under review for deferral11W #10 -

All#1#2#3#4#5

#6#7#8#9#0

cove/Primary TestStarter Tunnel (Antisotropy/lydrochtemlStry)Bow Ridge (Mech. Prop ot FaultstHydrocternfln-Sltu seals)Antisotropy/ydrocheflVPl8t loadlng/ln-shu sealsIn-situ sealsContact/Hydrochen/In-sltu sealsAnttgotrpy/lHydroCtlefniff-SU sealsContact/Hydrocherin/sltu sealsGeocem of WP envIronments/Repos Near.fetd Hydrologic propertiesIn-situ sealsOvercore stress/Heater In TSWI/Plate loading

#11 AntlsotropyMydroChefltry#12 InsItu ses

#13 HydrocheM/ln-sltu seals#14 Excavation effects#15 Hydro Prop of Major Faults/Ilydroclhernistry

Predecisional Preliminary Draft MaterialALCVFIG.126.C4 1 -29-93

PACKAGE 3A: SOUTH PORTAL SITEPREPARATION

Design Scope:* Pad and access roads, pad water and sewer

systems, pad drainage

Design Status* Start FY95 - Complete FY96



Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFD&CJRI 1 RPM4.1 261-27-94

PACKAGE 3B: SOUTH PORTALFACILITIES AND UTILITIES

Design Scope:* Fan/Airlock structure, portal control building,

shop building, warehouse building, pad utilities




Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFD&CJR12.PM4.12617.27-94

PACKAGE 4: SOUTH RAMP TO TOPOPAHSPRING LEVEL (TSL)

Design Scope:* South Ramp Excavation/breakthrough, linings and ground

support, subsurface electrical systems, subsurfacemechanical systems, subsurface fire protection, subsurfacemonitoring and warning systems, subsurface conveyorsystem


Construction Status: Start FY96 - Complete early FY97


Preliminary Draft Infomnation OnlyESFDACJR13.PM4.126/7-27-94

PACKAGE 5: NORTH RAMP TO CALICOHILLS LEVEL (CH)

Design Scope:North Ramp To Calico Hills Excavation, linings andground support, subsurface electrical systems,subsurface mechanical systems, subsurface fireprotection, subsurface monitoring and warningsystems, subsurface conveyor system



Acceptance Status: PendingPreliminary Draft Information Only

ESFDACJR14.PM4.1 26/7-27-94

PACKAGE 6: SOUTH RAMP TO CALICO HILLLEVEL (CH)

Design Scope:South Ramp To Calico Hills Excavation, liningsand ground support, subsurface electricalsystems, subsurface mechanical systems,subsurface fire protection, subsurface monitoringand warning systems, subsurface conveyorsystem



Acceptance Status: PendingPreliminary Draft Information Only

ESFD&CJR15.PM4.1267-27-94

PACKAGE 7: CALICO HILL (CH) DRIFTING

Design Scope:* Calico Hills Excavation, linings and ground support,

subsurface electrical systems, subsurface mechanicalsystems, subsurface fire protection, subsurfacemonitoring and warning systems, subsurface conveyorsystem




Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFO&CJRI6.PM4.1 26-27-94

PACKAGE 8A: TOPOPAH SPRING LEVEL(TSL) MAIN DRIFT

Design Scope:* TSL main drift excavation, linings and ground support,

subsurface electrical systems, subsurface mechanicalsystems, subsurface fire protection, subsurfacemonitoring and warning systems, subsurface conveyorsystem




Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFD&CJR17.PM4.126/7-27-94

PACKAGE 8B: TOPOPAH SPRING LEVEL(TSL) NORTH RAMP EXTENSION

Design Scope:North Ramp Extension Excavation, linings and groundsupport, subsurface electrical systems, subsurfacemechanical systems, subsurface fire protection,subsurface monitoring and warning systems,subsurface conveyor system

Design StatusStart FY95 - Complete FY96



Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFO&CJR18.PM4.12W?.27-94

PACKAGE 8C: TOPOPAH SPRING LEVEL(TSL) SOUTH RAMP EXTENSION

Design Scope:* South Ramp Extension Excavation, linings and ground

support, subsurface electrical systems, subsurfacemechanical systems, subsurface fire protection,subsurface monitoring and warning systems,subsurface conveyor system




Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFD&CJR19.PM4.1267-27-94

PACKAGE 9: TOPOPAH SPRING LEVEL(TSL) MAIN TEST AREA

Design Scope:TSL Main Test Area Excavation, linings and groundsupport, subsurface electrical systems, subsurfacemechanical systems, subsurface fire protection,subsurface monitoring and warning systems,subsurface conveyor system



AcceptanceStatus: PendingPreliminary Draft Information Only

ESFO&CJR20.PM4A.128-27-94

PACKAGE 1 0: OPTIONAL SHAFT

Design Scope:Optional shaft excavation, linings and ground support,support utilities, site and pad preparation




Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFD&CJR21.PM4.1267-27-94

Other Near-Term ESF Design Activities

* Integrated Data Control System (IDCS)- 50% Review - June 7, 1994 (complete)

90% Review - August, 1994

• Alcove design - (North Ramp test alcoves, GhostDance Drifts, Heater Test Drifts)- 50% Review - 8/1/95

* Mechanical Excavation Methods Study- Recommendation by end of FYI 994

* Calico Hills Access Alternatives Study- Early FYI 995 Start

ESFSG&G12.PM4.125.NWTRBf8-14-94

North Ramp Construction Schedule

* TBM start up, testing phases are expected to beginAugust 8, 1994

* Initial operations can be characterized as a "StartupTesting Phase followed by a Shakedown Phase"

* Advance rate will be low during this period due to:- Training of operational personnel- Startup testing of the TBM systems- Encounter with Bow Ridge Fault at approximately 1+90 meters- Negotiation of "Rainier Mesa" material from Bow Ridge to

approximately Station 2+70- Rail haulage of muck until conveyor installation in early to

mid-1995= Completion of North Ramp (to 28+00) - Early FYI 996

ESFSG&G4.PM4.125.NWTRB/B-14-94

Nlain

Ductbanks____

Port81WterVault._Raw Water Une (J13 toBooster)_ _ _ __ProcureSwltehqear Bldg Procur~e SanItary Sewer._ Subsurface Power Center .... ..... ....Subsurface Waste Watet Proeure Storm tt ainage Sys_Procure Water Tank Subcontradc_=tTraced Water Inlection S3m

Precast nerts_Stsrter Tunnel Pren .Excavate Tunnel (0O^0m to 2+59m) Mapping Gsrv U

Pri ned: JL114194 Milestone A Sunmy OIRPv 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Frd Dely

n or

ft 4~

IL Mi

Ct asd

OU

ftnw

"5S4

Q-- , -_~~m - WP - MAWIP--1 :2W

-- - -

MZ _,PA

AMR oww oomw_

_: Anlin _mmAI. _

- m -£UM PAW - - A*0 flW 2S

S I 4 aS aS am"

c::Immc==MEK=

(wAr6AwMIF*- n��PMENIAMno

mm OIN

MAPOP :3_

2-morodm,_-_F- _

~FOR

[ - _ - . Ib A

I I I I I"=A bommD am

PaI WXM m DU OILI CRM ~ ~o4c w *own

- -

- - - l E mmain salain

s -

I OA.OA AL'--=--t.1

* 1280

- ft - A

o fi 20 X 40 081,

1:790

EL 300

EL 3OM

EL 3700'

IL 300'

IL 3GG

{ _mM __w

- ,-

/m ~F661150 -

- _ - =

U m- o_-

0--zuu _____=Mr~mwamvw ,EN--- =AW --

1100 "ffj~ammmm

"Remm"cm-IMMOW

mum-'-__-

mum

Wnmw-_- ____ n ,n _

1050 -

I III I I I __ O VdCa TMU. L PEt

Mj SO'da mt Ltr1ss3*00 a 1+00 m 2*00 m * 1

21 ii I i North Romp Stations

QA:OA_. for I

SECTI0tI EW

------------- la�

or".

I- 0-

soft

S�

a0ft

ft�

&GM

&d"

SYMBOLS

m on own I

_ _ o __ so S_ ~~~, '-3.-

m~~~~~mS . XWMI RX-- OW Olr__ * S _ _~

S mA *

. - . . . . .. . . RWm ON _m Wm __60 g*9.0a n~

PLAN VEW l-

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __i---nF.:-. - -S -f

.. ~~~~~~~~~~ S -

.4,1 -r*-*~~00. wep6-l

-~ ~ ~ -S ._

I t? --

.-m sinsem

* __0 ___P

o ___w.

II 11 pAMOM,,AA W DA

II II . fl. II iI I IIa

ins IS ~ ~ -0

0 jmjlk&ewmm��

hm IrPgl ROE IOQA4A

-. .

. ._~

a~~4 tv mo _ _ e2~~~" SEM_ ADOl _- m lamao

3 _ _ _ -E m 7 -ft~wdOA OA

I .- -

CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSPICTORIALS

Preliminary Draft Information OnlyESFD&CJR22.PM4.126/7-27-94

ESF Strategy within theProposed Program Approach (PPA)

(Scenario A)

727NRC20.126.PMS(7-27-94

Exploratory Studies FacilityTopopah Spring Level

Test )

North Romp Extenslon

Start North RampExtension w/2nd TBM

Early FY 1996 A

Begin TBM Testing andShakedown - North Ramp

-@ August 1994

* TSL North RampIi

Complete North RampExcavation

Early FY 1996

- TSL Main Driftr

> Ghost Dance> Fault Drifts

COMPONENTS OFLOOP SCHEDULE

N

DURATIONCOMPONENT (DAYS)

TBM Operation 508Turnouts (2) 36Switchgear Niches (14) 140Test Alcoves (6) 47Conveyor Install. 26Sumps, Refuge, etc. 20Program Delays 85

TOTAL 862

TSL South RampESFCONTS.CDR.126/6-10-94 4

Excavation Sequence

* Complete North Ramp with 7.62 meter TBM (TBM #1)Alcoves 1 (existing), 2, 3, 4 and 5 concurrent with TBM ops.

* Acquire second TBM (lease or buy, new or used) (TBM #2)during FY 95

* Begin excavation of North Ramp Extension (NRE) with TBM#2 early FY1996

* TBM #1 proceeds with TSL Main Drift excavation in parallelwith NRE excavation

ESFSG&G18.PM4.125.NWTRBr6-14-94

Excavation Sequence(CONTINUED)

* When TBM #1 clears Ghost Dance Fault (GDF) Driftlocations, excavate GDF drifts (approximately 150-200meters each)(Alcoves 6 & 7)

* TBM #1 resumes TSL Main Drift and proceeds towarddaylight at South Portal

* TBM #2 completes NRE, goes to Calico Hills excavation (ifneeded)

* Heater Test drifting is done off the north side of the NREwhen drift sites are cleared by TBM #2

ESFSGaG19.PM4.125.NWMB(6.14-94

BACKUPCHARTS

ESFSG&G20.PM4.125.NWTRBI-14-94

Mechanical Excavation MethodsUnder Consideration

* Colorado School of Mines (CSM) Alcove Machine* Boretec CUB* Robbins Borepak* Wirth Continuous Mining Machine (CMM)* TM 60 Roadheader* USBM Radial Rock Splitter* Plasma Blaster* Sunburst System

ESFSG&G21 PM4.125.NWTRBIS-14-94

Calico Hills Access Alternative Study

The CH Access Study would consider:

* Requirements of a CH Test Program

* Ability to fulfill requirements using either access method

* Cost of Alternatives

* Schedule for execution

ESFSG&G22.PM4.125.NWrRB,6-14-94

North Ramp Construction Schedule

Schedule Variables Still to be Resolved Include:

* Schedule for acquisition & installation of muck conveyor

* Electrical equipment niches

* TBM advance rate for planning

ESFSG&G23.PM4.125.NWRB/-14-94

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OperatingContractor

TRW Environmental SafetySystems Inc.

Evolution of the MGDS Q-List

Thomas C. Geer

July 27, 1994

Prellminaey DraftI V.UflAfiAw7

B&W Fuel CoMPenDuke Englnee ing & Sevies. Inc.Fhou DNel, Inc.INTERA Inc.

JK Reserch Assocates, Inc.E. A. Johnson Associats, Inc.Logloon ADA

MWson KMudn CorpoMonTRW Emionmental Safey System Inc.Wins & SrawnWoodwad-Clyde Fedeal Services

QA Classification & the Q-List

* Classification applies only to permanentitems

* QA classifications consistent with QARD2.2.3A as per M&O QAP-2-3: QA-1 throughQA-7

* M&O recommends changes to the Q-List toDOE

* Q-List currently controlled via AP-6.17Q

* Transitioning to revised approach withacceptance of QAP-2-3

Civillan Radioactive Waste Prellminary DraftManagement SystemManagement & OperatingContractor

QA Classification

* QAP-2-3 invokes QARD 2.2.3A for permanentitems with a "QA function" in the permanentrespository

* QA-1: Important to Radiological Safety

* QA-2: Important to Waste Isolation

* QA-3: Important to Radwaste

* QA-4: Important to Fire Protection

* QA-5: Important to Potential Interaction

* QA-6: Important to Physical Protection

* QA-7: Important to Occupational Exposu reCivilian Radioactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OperatingContractor

Preflimnary Draft

LV-MD.94047 7121/94 3

Q-List

* Contains items determined by analysis,consensus, or direct inclusion to be important

* Analyses may supersede or clarify consensusor direct inclusion

* Classification via QAP-2-3 leads to proceduralrecommendation to change Q-List

* Evaluation of recommendation per AP-6.17Q

Civilian Radloactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OperatingContractor

Preliminary Draft

LVMD.94-047 7/21/94 4

Transition to QAP-2-3/Technical DocumentPreparation Plan

* Acceptance by OCRWM QA of QAP-2-3

* AP-6.17Q does not address all QARD criteria

* Transition will delete AP-6.17Q, recognize QAP-2-3 asprocedure for doing permanent item classification

* DOE review will take place via technical review of DIEs inaccordance with the Technical Document PreparationPlan (TDPP) for the Q-List

* TDPP will contain review criteria for review of DIE andassociated Document Action Request for change to Q-List


Preliminary Draft

LVMD44047 7/21/94 5

Process Flow

I M&O classifiesper QAP-2-3 I

Function currentlyfulfilled byAP-6.170I

M&O requests changesto 0-List via DAR

'4

IU* + a

DOE initiates QAP 6.2review of Q-Llst

recommendation usingreview criteria In 0-List

TDPP (QAP 3.5)

Q-List changedistributed toholders of theQ-List (DOE)

Q-List isreference forsubsequentevaluationsof items and

activities


Preliminary Draft

LV.MD94447 7/2/94 6

AGENDA

US. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION/US. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

BI-MONTHLY EXPLORATORY STUDIES FACILTY (ESF) MEETING

JULY 27,1994

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

&30 Opening Remarks DOE, NRC, State of Nevada(NV), Affect Units of LocalGovernment (LGs)

Action Item Status DOE/NRC

&45 DOE Response to NRCs 3/30/94 Leter on ESF Design andDesign Control Process DOE

9:15 Site Characterization Plan Baseline (SCPB) Relationshipto Project Documents DOE

1000 BREAK

10-1S M&O Design Process Improvement Plan Update DOE

1030 Definition of DOE Design Phases DOE

1o.k45 Evolution of ESF 0-Lst DOE

11:30 LUNCH

L00 ESF Design and Construction Progress DOE

1:20 Drilling Program Update DOE

L40 Integration of Test Data into ESF Design DOE

2.00 BREAK

2:30 NRC Comments NRC

Items of Concern to State of Nevada NV

Items of Concern to Local Governments LG's

Closing Remarks All

3:00 Adjourn

Note: TIME WILL BE ALLOTTED FOR DISCUSSION FOLLOWING EACH AGENDA TOPIC.


E"UN


Definition of

DOE Design Stages

July 27, 1994

T, C. Geer

LV41D94449 Preliminary Draft

B&W Fuel CompanyDuba Engineing & Services, Inc.Fluor Daniel, Inc.INTERA Inc.

JK Research Associates, Inc.E. R. Johnson Associates. Inc.Logicon RDA

Monison Kudsen CorporationTRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc.Winston & StrawnWoodward-Clyde Federal Services

Presentation Outline

* Purpose

* Background

* MGIS Development Approach

* Summary


Preliminary Draft

LVMO944497M294 2

Purpose

* Describe and Define the DOE Design Stages

* Identify the Relationship of these Stages with YMPDesign Activities and NRC Milestones


Preliminary Draft

LV-MD-940497122194 3

Background

* Many factors influence the progression through theDesign Stages

- Development of designs often requires developmentof portions of the design earlier than others

- Design Studies and other factors may cause thedesign to re-enter a stage which had been completed


Prellminary Draft

LVMD044497/22/94 4

ESF Timeline Background

1987 1988 1 989 1990 1991 1993

SiteCharacterizationProgram Baseline

ESFTechnicalBaseline

1994

ESFEnhanced

Layout

ConceptualDesign

* 2-12 ft. shafts* Expl. Driftingto faults

* Core Test Area


Preliminary Draft

LVMD-0497)294 5

DOE Design Stages

* What is expected of the C

- it will identify how the top level mission needscan be achieved

- it will provide a common baseline from which all

work will proceed

- it will provide a record of major design decisionsand identify design issues

- Life Cycle Cost will be developed

Civilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement SystemManagemnnt & Oporating LV-MD049 722194 6Contractor

DOE Design Stages

* What is expected of the B ymini Desig - Title I

- Refined, revised technical requirements

- Preliminary analyses, trade studies, performancepredictions, etc.

- General arrangement drawings

- Updated Life Cycle Cost estimates

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement 'SystemManagement & OperatingContractor

Preliminary Draft

LV-MD.90497ms94 7

DOE Design Stages

* What is expected of the Deiitive De - Title 11

- Revised design requirements

- Drawings and specifications in sufficient detail topermit construction, fabrication, assembly,installation and checkout of facilities and equipment

- Updated Life Cycle Costs estimates


Preliminary Draft

LVMD1"497/M94 8

DOE Design Stages

* What is expected of the silt"Desir - Title Il

- Revised drawings and specifications to reflect

the "As Built" configuration of the physical

system

- Drawings and specifications maintained

current through the life of the system


Preliminary Draft

LV-MD944497122/94 9

DOE Design Stages Flow

Conceptual Design

* Material Flow Diagram* Conceptual Sketches,

FiguresU

to

Preliminary Design - Title I

* Detailed Material Flows* General Arrange Drawings* Preliminary Specifications,

Drawing3, Analyses

I Definitive Design - Ttle 11

Detailed Construction/Fabrication/Procurement

Drawings & SpecificationsII "As Built" Design - Title IlIl

Revised "As Built"Drawings & SpecificationsI


Preliminary Draft

LVMD-944497/22/94 10

MGDS Development Approach

The Mission Plan (DOE/RW-0005) identifies a two-phase, four-

stage approach

Phase 1 Conce t Design Phase

Stage 1. Conceptual Design for the SCP

Stage 2. Advanced Conceptual Design

Phase 2 Title I and Title II Design 6.AD)

Stage 3. License-Application Design

Stage 4. Final Procurement and Construction

Design (FP & CD)

Civillan Radloactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OperatingContractor

Prellrninary Draft

LV.M0444497M/94 11

Repository/Engineered Barrier Design StagesConceptual Design Phase

Stage 1 Conceptual Design for the SCP

- completed and documented in the SCP - CDR (SAND 24-2691)

- basis for the Site Characterization Test Program

- Produced a Total System Life Cycle Cost estimate

Stage 2 Advanced Conceptual Design

= initiated upon completion of Conceptual Design

- will identify design related licensing issues

- will explore design alternatives as required by 10 CFR 60.21

- will consider recommendations from oversight organizations

- will utilize new data from site characterization and laboratory testing

- Firmly fix the design and refine the design criteria

- will update Total System Project baseline cost estimateCivilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement SystemManagement & Operating LVMD.94049Contractor

Repository/Engineered Barrier Design Stages(Continued)

Title I and Title 11 Design Phase

Step 3 License Application Design

= will commence after completion of relevant ACD portions

- will provide for detailed resolution of design and licensing

issues

- will demonstrate compliance with design requirements and

performance objectives

detailed safety and reliability analyses will be conducted and

form the basis of the Safety Analysis Report

- will revise the Total System Life Cycle Cost

Civilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement SystemManagement & Operating LV-MD94-049

Contractor

Repository/Engineered Barrier Design Stages(Continued)

Stage 4 Final Procurement and Construction Design

- will complete the design

- detailed drawings and specifications will be preparedto support procurement, fabrication and construction

- design modifications resulting from NRC interaction

on the LAD and SAR will be implemented

- final procurement and construction bid packages willbe prepared

- final schedule and cost estimates will be preparedand issued

Civilian Radloactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement SystemManagement & Operating LVMD94-049 14Contractor

Design Phases

y p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AnnD I Anl FP. FEREPOSITOW 1 _

SION FY 1994 1995 1996 197 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008! 2009 2010

PROJECTHLF6 HLF' HLFA TSS/6 FEISO: L4UDEDL 6NEMILESTONES E 0 DEI50* C ASTE

WASTE . ,PACKAGE

TITLE !I! -- 7L77 1 StART WAtE PACKAGE FADi . * * . I: *.* ITLEIII * ' 1

* * ~~~~~~IPROTOYEFAB & TESTING

SURFACE co C *___._ ._._._*._._._.

-*I *I | *TITLE I*. , TLEI :_:_*TITLE :_

TITLE III

SUBSURFACE CD

r...[........... : TITLEI : i( :_________ _ @ TITLE II:

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TITLE 1II:

RAIL SPUR I _ _O TYPE A DEMONSTRATION(PROPOSED) - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RETRIEVABILITY(PROPOSED) .*

- TITLE I ITITLE 11l

~~~ - . -. - - I - - a S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TIL i


Preliminary Draft

LV-MD-940497M294 15

Summary

* Provided Answers to:

1. To NRC request for definition of DOEDesign Stages

2. The relationship of YMP design activitiesto DOE Design Stages and NRCmilestones


Preliminary Draft

LV-MD940497/22194 16



M&O MGDS Design ControlImprovement Plan (DCIP)

Thomas C. Geer

July 27, 1994

LVMD9W51 Prelifnary Draft

B&W Fuel CompanDuke Engfnearing & Services, Inc.Fluor Daniel, Inc.INTERA Inc.

JK Research Associates, Inc.E. R. Johnson Associates, Inc.Logocon RDA

Morrison Knudsen CorporationTRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc.Winston & StrawnWoodward-Clyde Federal Services

M&O MGDS Design Control Improvement Plan (DCIP)

* MGDS DCIP closed out May 20, 1994* Four Action Items Which Are Ongoing

- All Series-3 procedures re-written to be moreuser friendly

- Implementation and classroom training on allrevised Series-3 procedures completed

- Incorporate relevant RSN BFD sections forPackage 1A into M&O BFD; prepare baselinechange for combined BFD (FY95)

- Revise RSN drawings, specifications,calculations for new traceability; adopt fully asM&O products (FY95)

Civilian Radioactive Waste Prellmlnary DraftManagement System LVMW"S1 7/21194 2

Management & OperatingContractor

M&O MGDS Design Control Improvement Plan (DCIP)

* Three procedures have not been completed

- QAP-3-6 "Cis and Cl Identifiers"

- QAP-3-12 "Transmittal of Design Input"

- QAP-3-13 "Document Identifiers"

* Implementation and classroom training arecompleted on all procedures that are complete

* The last two items will not be closed out untilFY95

Civillan Radloactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OperatingContractor

Prelninary Draft

LV.MD-94-051 7/21/94 3

M&O Design Control Improvement Program (DCIP)

Purpose - Identify improvements to M&O designcontrol process and provide uniform understandingof policy, objectives, responsibilities, procedures andrequirements of the process.

* Objectives

- Identify issues impeding effectiveness of designactivities

- Ensure accurate understanding of M&O designcontrol process

Ensure effective internal training programs are inplace to educate personnel

Civilian Radloactive Waste Prefiminaty DraftManagement System LV-UD-M1 7121/94 4

Management & OperatingContractor

M&O Design COntrol Improvement Program (DCIP)

* Revision 0 of the M&O DCIP was issued inMarch 1994

* Revision 1 is being prepared to provideenhancements and to include appropriateconsiderations from the recent DOE auditof the M&O QA Program

* Revision 1 is expected to be completed inAugust 1994


Preliminsmy Draft

LV41D494-51 7121/94 5



SCPB Relationship to Project

Documents

July 27, 1994

Thomas C. Geer

LVMD>4448 Preliminary Draft

B&W Fuel CofwryOuks Enheering & Srloes. Inc.Fuor DnnoW, Inc.INTERA Inc.

JK Research Associates, Inc.E. R. Johnson Assocl, Inc.Logicon RDA

Moffbon Knudsen CorporationTRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc.Winston A StrnwnWoodwadClydw Federal Seros

Presentation Outline

* Purpose

* Background

* SCPB Relationship to ProjectDocumentation

* Summary


Preliminary Draft

712 194 2LV.MD-94048

Purpose

* Describe the relationship of the SCPB to the YuccaMountain Project Technical Hierarchy Documents andDesign Products (Drawings and Specifications)

* Respond to and close Action Item #1 2 from the priorESF Technical Exchange


Preliminary Draft

LV.MD.94-0487/21/94 3

Background


Preliminary Draft

LV-MD.940487/21/94 4

MGDS Governing Documents

* There are three categories of documents thatare directly relevant to the MGDS design

1. Project Plans

2. Technical Requirements Documents

3. Architecture Documents

* Top level documents for categories 1 and 2are pictured in the OCRWM Document

Hierarchy

Civilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement System 712194 5

Management & Operating LVMD-94048Contractor

OCRWM DOCUMENT HIERARCHY

fmphmendblonPane

|Proii Mansgeoment|I Sm Manude|

t~rgtamWB| Pmroq m COwtand Schedule

Ba[Ouity AacRequirements and

Description!ornmtm

.

CRWM Rrments I

aystems Enslei[1 M Ient PlaL �j�e

pR0GRAM

rest and Evfuatlon Matr Plan

_ "s"l Guldtm"eDcnt Pln

-l~weine Manaenmnt Planj

WasteAcceptance rnottln MS MG DS tefesystem "OM 1tem Requirements Speelfication(s)

equ irmns R"Mrmnents Requirements She Characterization

I I I stam Requltrements

-I----MRS 1a

ProGet Plan & wt _ Yucca MotntalnSt CharcterlzatIon

1precbt Ptan & Ca

PR0GRAM

| Slte Sultability I|Evaluation CriterlaI

mmmummum.u.ul m m m m m m m m a m ----- w m m " w wa M m 4 m * - - _ _ _ _ _ _l mm mm _ m m m am m a ma a a

_1rl-n I.

s

PR0JECT

lAdvNce Acquisition PlanL p_

.M2 faset Ian ahP_n=tl Safety and ehPlm

IVest and Evaluation Plan|

shedute| Basefina II~ouet I

I II I I Rlceptancel 5 ; I; MRS; ; Repositor Sit Design Engineered 0

sb Desigtn I1 Design I I Design j1 and Test DBarrierDesign JjlequlJem [tt| |R~qbemenW ||R~alrements j RequirementRequirements E

T-- bvWmm Enw-"reew "

Plan

1 6-j| ESF || SBTFaenlty |I Deslgnf l1Dgn

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS TECHNICAL CONTROLS

CvIllan Radloactive WasteManagemsent SystemManagement & OperatingContractor

Preliminary Draft

LV-MD-944487121194 6

Roles of the DocumentsPlans

The purpose of the plans is to provide a contract betweenDOE management and the engineering contractor withrespect to "how" the design will be performed

Technical Reauirements

The requirements documents establish the design basis forthe system to direct the engineer on "what" the systemmust do

Architecture

The architecture documents capture the physical aspect ofwhat the configuration items (Structures, Systems, andComponents (SSCs) "look like"

Civilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftMnagement System 7/21194 7

=MPn 70rnnt & Operating LVMD-048Conractor

What Document "Tells" the MGDSDesigner What His Design Must Do?

* The YMP DRDs identify the technical performancerequirements and regulatory constraints that apply toeach MGDS Segment (Repository, Engineered Barrier,ESF, etc.)

* The DRDs includes those 1 0 CFR 60 requirements thatare applicable to the particular MGDS Segment

* The designer translates the requirements into moredetailed design criteria from which drawings andspecifications can be prepared

Civilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement SystemManagement & Operating LV-MD.94-048 712194 8Contractor

SCPB Relationship to ProjectDocumentation


Preliminary Draft

LV.MD4-048 7/21194 9

The Current SCPB* Currently the SCPB contains

- Site Program Test Objectives

- Performance Allocation Tables

- 6 Repository/ESF interface drawings

- Descriptive text for Surface/Subsurface TestingProgram

a The SCPB is being revised (this FY) to- correct editorial errors

- update interface drawings

- remove performance allocation Tables (will remainCCB controlled) and Test Objectives (currently in theSite Design & Test Requirements document)

Civilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement System 71/94 to

Management & Operating LV-MD.94048Contractor

SCPB Fy 95 Revision

SCPB will be reformatted to include

- Concept of operations (the Repository/EBS Concept of

Operations will evolve to address FCRG Chap 7

requirements)

- Kigh level facility descriptions (general arrangements, etc.)

- Overview of Site Characterization Testing

- Interfaces between Repository/Engineered Barrier System,

Exploratory Studies Facility, Surface Based Testing

Facilities, & Site Characterization Testing Program

- Trace to Design Requirements Documents and participant

baselines based on Configuration Items

Civilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement SystemManagement & Operating LVMD4448Contractor

New SCPB Role

* it will no longer be advertised as the location where all changes

(changes are reported in Semi Annual Progress Report) to the

SCP are captured

* it will be used by YMSCO to describe and control (CCB level 11)

the ESF, SBTF, Repository and Engineered Barrier System

concepts and interfaces

* it will be used to describe how the ESF and SBTF are to be

incorporated into the potential GROA

* it will be the source of high level MGDS descriptive information

available to oversight organizations (NRC, NVTRB, etc.)

* it will be traceable to the Technical Requirements Hierarchy and

the more detailed A&E designs based on Configuration Items

Civilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement SystemManagement & Operating LVMD-94040Contractor

How the SCPB Will Be Used toControl A&E Designs

* The SCPB will identify the general configuration of allMGDS Segments (Repository, ESF, etc.)

* The MGDS designer is required to "fit" his design intothe general configuration controlled in the SCPB

* The A&E Design Baselines will capturedetail based on the results of the Title Idesign and Title II (Detailed) design

greater level of(Preliminary)


Preliminary Draft

LV.MW40467121/94 13

CRWMS Requirements |

I MGDS Requirements

."^",~~- - - - - - - - - - - - -............

Program

.. m ... mm....

��iRepository

DesignRequirements

(RDR)

I Design* IiSite Design

&.Tes. Requirements

SD&TRD)

ISite Charac Test*.~~~~~~~~~

EngineeredBarrier DesignRequirements

(EBDR)

Design*. , .~~ I

. . - .. " . . . . .

Explor atoryStudies Facility_

Design Requirements(ESFDR)

| Design

DesignBFD

| Design"

U

Surface BasedTesting Faclltles

Requirements(SBTFRD)

I Design*-m... - - - ' ' ' ' __m_._..... _.. & m.M

Y

RepositoryDesign

BFD

Project

*1SBT Facility

DesignBFD

EBSDesign

BFD

_

Participant

UDesign**

a 0

Design** Design**-M

RepositoryAs-Bult

Documentation

ESFAs-Built

Documentation

SBT FacilityAs-Built

Documentation

EBSAs-Built

Documentation

* CAPTURED IN THE SCPB, CCB CONTROLLED IN THE PROJECT BASEUNE (PROPOSED)* CAPTURED IN THE PARTICIPANT CCB CONTROLLED BASELINE (PROPOSED)


Preliminary Draft

LV-MD-94-087/21/94 14

Summary


Preliminary Draft

LVMD-94-0487121/94 15

Summary

* Provided Answers to:

1. Relationship of the SCPB to the Project Documents

- Requirements: RDR, EBDR, SD&TRD, ESFDR,

and SBTFRD

- Architecture: Participant Design (e. ESFTechnical Baseline) drawings and specification

2. Purpose of SCPB document

- Provide YMSCO control (at an appropriate levelof detail) of MGDS Designs and Interfaces

- Provide YMSCO a communication tool to keepoversight organizations informed of projectprogress

Civilian Radioactive Waste Preliminary DraftManagement SystemManagement & Operating LVMD-94-048Contractor

DOE-NRC TECHNICAL MEETINGEXPLORATORY STUDIES FACILITY

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION UPDATE

* Opening Remarks

- Welcome

- Agenda for this meeting

- Status of action items from previous meetings

- Response to letter from Mr. Joseph J. Holonichto Mr. D. Shelor dated March 30, 1994

ESFINTROl .PM4.126M4-8-94

DOE-NRC TECHNICAL MEETING DRAFT AGENDAEXPLORATORY SflJDIES FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION UPDATE

July 27.1994 Rockville, Maryland

8:30 Opening Remarks DOE, NRC, State, Counties.Action Item Status Affected Parties

8:45 Response to NRC's 3/30/94 Letter DOE (Replogle-YMSCO)

9:15 SCPB Relationship to Project Documents DOE (Geer-M&O)(Action Item # 12)

10:00 BREAK

10:15 M&O Design Process Improvement Plan Update DOE (Geer-M&O)

10:30 Definition of DOE Design Phases DOE (Geer-M&O))

10:45 Evolution of ESF Q-List DOE (Geer-M&O)(Action Item #14)

11:30 LUNCH

1:00 ESF Design and Construction Progress DOE (Replogle-YMSCO)

1:20 Drilling Program Update DOE (Boyle-YMSCO)

1:40 Integration of Test Data into ESF Design DOE (Pye-M&O)(Action Item #6)

2:00 BREAK

2:30 NRC Comments NRC

Items of Concern to State of Nevada NV

Items of Concern to Local Governments LG

Closing Remarks All

3:00 Adjourn

Note: TIME WILL BE ALLOTTED FOR DISCUSSION FOLLOWING EACH AGENDA TOPIC.

TOPICS DATES ACTION ITEMS STATUS OFDISCUSSED DISCUSSED ACTION ITEMS

(1) Management of the Project Baseline 10/93, 12/93, 2/94 Yes #(2) #(2) Open

(2) Scientific Investigation Control Process 10/93, 12/93 No l

(3) Design / Construction Process 10/93, 12/93, 2/94, No4/94.

(4) Design / Control Improvement Plan 10/93, 12/93, 2/94, No4/94 l

(5) ESF Design Strategy 10/93, 12/93 No

(6) Phased Approach to ESF Design and Construction 10/93, 12/93 No

(7) Deternination of Importance Evaluations 10/93, 12/93, 4/94 Yes #(3), #(5) & #(14) #(3) Closed Out#(5) Closed Out#(14) Closed Out

(8) Document Hierarchy 10/93, 12/93, 2/94, Yes #(1), #(12) & #(13) #(I) Closed Out4/94 #(12) Closed Out

#(13) Closed Out

(9) Proposed ESF Design Changes 10/93, 12/93, 2/94 Yes #(4) & #(9) #(4) Closed Out#(9) Closed Out

(10) ESF Seismic Design Basis 10/93, 2/94 Yes #(7) & #(8) #(7) Open_______________________________________________ ________________ #(8) Closed O ut

(11) Consideration of Fault Displacement Hazards in 2/94 NoGeologic Repository Design

(12) ESF Venilation Impact on Testing 10/93 No

(13) Fire Suppression 10/93 No

TOPICS DATES ACTION ITEMS STATUS OFDISCUSSED DISCUSSED ACTION ITEMS

(14) Impact of Underground Diesel Emissions in ESF 10/93 No

(15) Roof Bolts & Ground Control Options 10/93 No

(16) Process for DOE Acceptance of ESF 12/93, 4/94 No

(17) Interfaces Between Waste Package, Repository 10/93 NoDesigns and ESF

(18) Strategy of the Drilling Program 2/94, 4/94 Yes #(6) #(6) Closed Out

(19) New Topic Request (Test Alcoves) 2/94 Yes #(10) #(10) Closed Out

(20) New Topic Request (Trade-Off Studies) 2/94 Yes #(1 1) #(I 1) Closed Out

(21) Surface Based / Underground Based Test 10/93 NoInterfaces

(22) Tunnelling Past Bow Ridge Fault 4/94 No

(23) Reportable Geologic Conditions 4/94 No

From these topics that have been discussed at the TechnicalExchange on October 4-5, 1993 and the ESF Technical Meetings onDecember 6, 1993,February 3, 1994 and April 19,1994 the followingadditional information was requested:

(1) It would assist the NRC staff in better understanding theESF design process if DOE could indicate all DOE and M&Odocuments (e.g., implementing procedures, instructions,drawings) in a schematic or flowdown chart accompanied by abrief explanation of what each document is intended toaccomplish. - 10/4-5/93 (Closed Out - Presentation ESFTechnical Baseline given by Bob Sandifer at the April 19,1994 meeting.)

Representatives of NRC, State of Nevada, and Clark and NyeCounties agreed that additional discussion of DOE's documenthierarchy for the ESF was needed. The discussion shouldprovide insight into how the different documents in thehierarchy are used and are related to each other. It wasalso suggested that DOE provide examples by followingrequirements through the entire design control process toillustrate how a requirement is incorporated into the designand provide an example of a design change and how thatchange would be dealt with in the design process. - 2/8/93(Closed Out - Presentation ESF Technical Baseline" given byBob Sandifer at the April 19, 1994 meeting.)

(2) The NRC staff noted that the Site Characterization ProgramBaseline document, that contains the objectives anddescriptions of the site characterization program, containseditorial inconsistencies and should be revised. - 12/8/93(Open - SCPB revision #11 is in progress.)

(3) A copy of the current Q-list was requested by the NRC staff.- 12/8/93 (Closed Out - Letter with enclosures from Mr.Dwight E. Shelor of the DOE to Mr. C. William Reamer of theNRC, dated January 12, 1994)

(4) The State of Nevada representative asked for a futurebriefing on the decision process for the enhanced design, toinclude information on the rationale for, and documentationof, design decisions and who was involved in thosedecisions. - 12/8/93 (Closed Out - Presentation "TheEnhanced ESF Layout - Rationale and Process" given by DanMcKenzie at the 2/3/94 meeting.)

(5) The State of Nevada representative requested thatexplanations of the Determination of Importance Evaluation(DIE) and how DIEs are integrated with the design areneeded. - 2/3/94 (Closed Out - Presentation ESF TechnicalBaseline" given by Bob Sandifer at the April 19, 1994meeting.)

(6) The NRC staff agreed with the Nye County representative'scomment that there appears to be no formal mechanism forintegrating technical data into the design and requestedadditional discussion on this topic at future meetings. -2/3/94 (Closed Out - Presentation "Integration of Test Datainto the SF Design" given by John Pye at the July 27, 1994meeting.)

The Nye County representative expressed concerns about thepotential impact of striking water at UZ-14 and SD-12 on theESF design and test interference evaluations. Theintegration of test data into the ESF design process andtest plans should be addressed at a.future ESF meeting. -4/19/94 (Closed Out - Presentation Integration of TestData into the ESF Design" given by John Pye at the July 27,1994 meeting.)

(7) The NRC staff stated that it does not understand therationale for the seismic design values presented forunderground permanent items. DOE agreed to provide astatement of the rationale. - 2/3/94 (Open)

(8) The NRC staff requested a copy of DOE STD 1021-92, "NaturalPhenomena Hazards Performance Categorization Criteria forStructures, Systems and Components". - 2/3/94 (Closed Out -

Letter with enclosures from Mr. Dwight E. Shelor of the DOEto Mr. Joseph J. Holonich of the NRC, dated May 4, 1994.)

(9) The NRC staff requested a copy of the description andrationale for the enhanced ESF design. - 2/3/94 (Closed Out- Letter with enclosures from Mr. Dwight E. Shelor of theDOE to Mr. Joseph J. Holonich of the NRC, dated May 4,1994.)

(10) The State of Nevada representative requested that DOEexplain how decisions related to test alcove locations andexcavation are integrated with technical test requirements.- 2/3/94 (Closed Out - Presentation ESF Test Alcoves" givenby William Boyle at the 4/19/94 meeting.)

(11) The Clark County representative requested that DOE providesome examples of trade-off studies that were conducted. -2/3/94 (Closed Out - A list of trade-off studies werepresented at the April 19, 1994 meeting.)

(12) The NRC staff requested that the graphical presentation ofthe document hierarchy be simplified and illustrate how theSCPB links with the other documents. - 4/19/94 (Closed Out -Presentation "SCPB Relationship to Project Documents" givenby Tom Geer at the July 27, 1994 meeting.)

(13) The NRC staff and Nye County representative requested a copyof the Managed Document List". - 4/19/94 (Closed Out -Letter with enclosures from Mr. Dwight E. Shelor of the DOEto Mr. Joseph J. olonich of the NRC, dated June 13, 1994.)

(14) The NRC staff requested that the process of how items areplaced on the Q-list should be addressed at the nextmeeting. - 4/19/94 (Closed Out - Presentation Evolution ofESF Q-List given by Peter Hastings at the July 29, 1994meeting.)

(15) The NRC staff would like to see a "Scenario A timeline" forsite suitability and licensing processes. - 4/19/94 (Open)

It is DOE's understanding that the above represents theoutstanding items. This does not preclude additional questionsif the need arises.

Response To Letter From B.J. Youngblood ToD. Shelor Dated March 30 1994

- Page 1NRC Issue

* NRC wishes to continue surveillance of the design process,and if necessary conduct their own audits to verify theeffectiveness of corrective actions- DOE encourages the NRC to continue surveillance of the design

process through the design review process, and the list of scheduledaudits and surveillance given to them. Our design is done under aQA program

NRC Issue

* NRC feels there is no formal process in place to integrate SCdrilling technical data into the design process- Technical data from the drilling program are transmitted to the DOE

by interchange meetings, correspondence, reports and the YMSCOTechnical Data Mangement System

727NRC1 .1 26.PMS(7-27-94

Response To Letter From B.J. Youngblood ToD. Shelor Dated March 30, 1994

Page 2

* Some examples of how this data was transmitted forthe 2C Package are:- ESF North Ramp Geology Design Analysis- TS North Ramp Stability Analysis- TS North Ramp Rock Mass Classification- TS North Ramp Ground Scoping- North Ramp Layout Calculation

* These Documents were included in the 2C DesignPackage

* 727NRC2.126.PM5f7-27.94


Page 3

NRC issue

* DOE should provide a detailed action plan providingfor M&O design deficiencies, root cause analysis,and verification of effectiveness of corrective actionsto the plan

DOE considers this issue closed since they presented theimproved design plan. DOE, however, agrees that additionalsurveillance and verification of the plan's Implementationshould be an on going Issue

727NRC3.1 26.PM5/7-27-94


Page 4

NRC issue

* Staff requested a formal submittal date of a controlledbaseline ESF design integrated with a conceptual GROAdesign

- NRC further divided the request into subsections:* NRC noted that 2 of the 9 referenced documents cited by DOE

"that would provide an understanding of ESF design & integrationwith GROA conceptual design" had not been transmitted to theNRC. Therefore, "a detailed evaluation could not be performed"

* How are these Documents integrated?* What is the control mechanism in place to assure design

documents are integrated with study plans, etc., that discussplans to gather information needed as input to design

* How are the ESF construction sequenced and schedulesintegrated with other schedules for gathering of informationneeded for ESF design and testing

727NRC4.1 26.PM517-27-94


Page 5* DOE response

- At the time of DOE's Nov 18, 1993 response, all documentsbut 2 have been transmitted. The two documents weresubsequently transmitted on Jan 12, 1994, as "Not ReadilyReferences".

-The documents integration will be discussed with theagenda item "SCPB relation to Project Documents"

-The control process of how design documents areintegrated were presented during the December 8, 1993DOE-NRC meeting

-SBT data needs are scheduled by the drilling program,once collected a technical data information form is usedto transmit this data to the participants

727NRCS.126.PMS/7-27-94


Page 6

NRC issue - No detailed information is provided on how theintegration [of ESF/GROA design documents] has beendone and cites this example . .a "DOE has indicated in itsresponse that the YM SCPB is a critical document in theidentification of interrelationships between the ESF andthe potential repository. However, its status can not bedetermined in the document hierarchy". The NRCalso wants to see a clear demonstration of how the SCPB,or its replacement, is integrated with other documents inthe OCRWM hierarchy

* DOE response - ESF and repository groups work togetherto ensure continuity. ESF design is concurrent withrepository ACD, the current North Ramp design in Package2C is consistent with repository ACD

727NRC6.126.PM5/7-27-94


Page 7

* DOE response (continued)

* When approved changes to ESF and/or repository arepromoted by data obtained from site characterizationactivities, changes are incorporated into the SCPB- Example

A change request has been approved to incorporatethe results of "Description and rationale forenhancement to baseline ESF configuration" intothe SCPB

- This document has been transmitted to the NRC- The ESF/GROA interface drawings were submitted to

the NRC for analysis

727NRC7.1 26.PM5/7-27-94


Page 8

* A presentation to clarify the relation of the SCPB toother program and project documents will follow asan item on the agenda of this meeting

* NRC issue

A cursory verification was performed and numerousdiscrepancies were found during a spot check ofthe SCPB- DOE response

DOE agrees, and has initiated an editorial review of the SCPBto correct inconsistencies

727NRC8.126.PM5727-94


Page 9NRC issue

DOE provided a Generic Scientific Investigation ControlProcess (GSICP) package that discussed the changecontrol and QA process for test planning, implementation,and evaluation. NRC feels the "GSICP does not show howthe control process ensures that the existing study plansare modified to account for the changes in the ESFconfiguration and design requirements"- DOE response

At the time the NRC letter was written the NRC had study plan"Excavation investigation" which contained outdated Informationon ESF configuration and testing

s The NRC March 30, 1994 letter states DOE "needs to demonstrateby example how the control process has been Implemented"

727NRC9.126.PM517-27-94


Page 10DOE response (continued)

- The "excavation investigations" study plan provides a good exampleon how the control process works (although slowly)

- July 15, 1992 baseline change in ESF configuration- August 1992, revisions of impacted study plans initiated- May 5, 1994 updated version transmitted to NRC

From a September 16, 1993, question on the QA proceduralsystem to provide design changes and effects to Pls for SP anddata collection evaluation, DOE had stated that QAP 6.2, AP3.3Qand AP3.5Q would be used to integrate the ESF design change &SP revisions

NRC also notes that "DOE may need to revise theGSICP to reflect this stated control process".- The third view graph presented during the GSICP presentation

showed how the test planning process and the QA proceduresgovern and control this process

727NRC1 0.126.PM5/7-27-94


Page 11

This view graph also made it clear that the baseline designrequirements feed to study plan preparation and AP6.2Q,3.3Q and 3.5Q are implemented when a change to the ESFbaseline configuration has an impact on the specific study

NRC issue

* NRC staff questioned how ESF design documents areintegrated with study plans and plans for gatheringinformation needed as input to design (performanceassessment). NRC staff has also determined thatevaluation of this process "can not be performed withthe information presented by DOE "and expects thatfurther evaluation will be necessary through audits anddesign package reviews",

727NRC1 1.126.PM5/7-27-94


Page 12

DOE responseM Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Plan (SCP) includes the basis

for 22 Studies, outlining 42 associated test activities, which requiresome level of underground field implementation in the ESF

- Each requires development, approval, and NRC review of a formalStudy Plan

- Defined objectives are included in the SCPB which provides acontrolled, documented basis for all ESF testing activities

- Each ESF test identified in the SCPB is addressed in the ESFDRAppendix B; providing test descriptions, locations, and high-levelfunctional requirements, performance criteria, and test-relatedconstraints on ESF facility design

- A formal, procedural process of requesting, developing, transmittingand incorporating detailed supplemental design information andrequirements Is iteratively implemented between the ESF designorganization and the ESF Test Coordination Office (TCO)

727NRC12.126.PM517-27-94


Page 13

DOE response(CONTINUED)

- This supplemental design information provides detailed, lower-leveltesting requirements necessary to ensure the ESF can support allconstruction-phase and deferred testing activities

- Each ESF design package is procedurally reviewed for test programcompatibility prior to final design package approval and release forconstruction

- ESF design process is closely integrated with proceduraldevelopment of formal test planning packages, job packages, anddetailed work plans

- Test planning utilizes same requirements/constraints basisdeveloped for facility design, and identifies any design or fieldchanges necessary

727NRC1 3. 126.PMSf7-27-94


Page 14

DOE response(CONTINUED)

W All required reviews include criteria to check against pertinent SCPStudy Plan(s) for consistency

W If inconsistencies or newly defined concepts related to the design orimplementation of test activities are identified, a formal revision ofthe Study Plan is initiated

- Required study plan revisions must be complete prior to initiation offield activities

- All ESF-related Study Plans and other revisions are reviewed by theTCO for design and test planning consistency

- This carefully integrated and controlled process ensures that theSCP program of underground testing is fully and efficiently fieldedin a manner consistent with NRC-reviewed Study Plans

'727NRC14.126.PM517-27-94

Response To Letter From B.J. Youngblood ToD. Shelor Dated March 30 1994

Page 15

• NRC issueNRC concern relates to integration of long range ESFconstruction sequences and schedules with otherschedules of ESF gathering of information needed for ESFdesign and testing- DOE response

This issue should be discussed at bimonthly DOE-NRCmeetings and since this issue is closely tied tofunding, long range plans would not provide NRCuseful information

* NRC issueNRC feels that DOE did not directly answer how theintegration process works and will continue to observe theintegration of testing and ESF construction schedules

727NRC1 5.1 26.PM517-27-94


Page 16DOE response

* The ESF must interface with several different programareas. They include:- Repository design program- ESF testing program- Surface based testing program- Environmental program

* Repository design - 10CFR 60.15 requires design andconstruction of the ESF to be closely linked to GROAplanning activities in order to limit adverse effects of theESF on the ability of the site to isolate waste

* Title 11 design of the ESF and ACD of the GROA arescheduled to proceed concurrently

* The two design teams interact on a daily basis727NRC1 6. 126.PM5f7-27-94


Page 17

- Official Interaction occurs during design reviews and technicalreports

- Members of both teams serve as reviewers of productsdeveloped by either of these teams

ESF testing program- Communication between the testing program and the ESF

occur on a daily basis- LANL serves as the test coordinator and provides linkage

between ESF and P's (USGS, SNL, LLNL, and LANL) who haveresponsibility for various ESF test programs

- The process by which information flows from P's to ESF, orfrom ESF to Pi is as follows:1)ESFDR Appendix B for test community requirements2)TCO in design reviews of ESF3) Detailed "specs" for test planning & Job Package4) Integrated Schedule

727NRC1 7.126.PM5f7-27-94


Page 18

In addition day to day coordination occurs by:* Meeting held between the TCO and ESF* TCO then Interacts with Pi's or ESF and acquires needed

information* Project letters document the actions and results under the

appropriate TPO signature to close out the interactions betweenparticipants

* This letter also serves as a record of the events for the project

* Surface based testing (SBT) program

- The SBT program is a significant source of design inputdata for ESF and GROA design efforts, frequent interactionis required to request and transmit information

- Certain aspects of the SBT are closely linked to the ESFand GROA. They are:

7Z7NRC1 8. 126.PM5/7-27-94


Page 19* Deep drilling programs* The unsaturated zone (UZ) program* Systematic drilling (SD) program* North/south ramp geology (NRG-SRG) soils and rock

properties programs* Data from certain trenching activities

= Design Organizations present their needs to the SBT groupin letter form under authority of TPO signature

- Work conducted under Study Plan, Test Planning Package,and Job Packages

- Response to needs and data requested are transmitted tothe requester in letter form under the signature of theappropriate TPO

- These letters form a project record of the action andinformation that has been exchanged

727NRC1 9.126.PM517-27-94


Page 20SBT and ESF schedules are linked in areas of mutualinterest including design data acquisition and pneumaticpathways program

* Environmental program

- "Scheduled "land access and environmental compliance"application" are made to the environmental group via projectprocedure YAP-30.2

- The application contains information such as location,size, nature of planned disturbance and schedule forconstruction

- Pre-activity surveys are scheduled and conductedwhich include:* RAD survey* Cultural resources survey* Biological survey for endangered species (plants and animal)

-727NRC20.126.PM5/7-27.94


Page 21- If a finding is made ESF group is informed and facilities

are rerouted or replanned

* NRC issue 4

- DOE responseNo issues were identified which require response

* NRC issue 5

NRC staff expressed concern with the process used toresolve NRC staff concerns identified during QA audits andsurveillances in addition to design reviews. DOE's November18, 1993 response was satisfactory with the NRC staff

- DOE responseAs observers the NRC staff is invited to comment on allpackages and discuss these comments and potentialresolutions throughout the design meeting

727NRC21.126.PM517-27-94


Page 22

M DOE makes a conscientious effort to respond toall observer comments

- Beginning with design Package 2C DOENMSCO will meetwith NRC on site representatives for discussion ofresponses to NRC comments and will transmit thesecomment response packages to the NRC staff requestingNRC acknowledgments and evaluation of responses forfeedback

- DOE responses for design package 2B were informallytransmitted to NRC site rep on March 29, 1994; howeverthe NRC has not acknowledged receipt of theseresponses to provide feedback to DOE

727NRC22.126.PM5/7-27-94

Civilian Radloactive WastManagement SystemMangyeen & OperatingContacor


DOE/NRC Technical Meeting On TheExploratory Studies Facility

July 27, 1994

INTEGRATION OF TEST DATA INTO ESF DESIGN

John H. PyeJuly 27, 1994

B&W Fuel CompanyDuke EngIneering & Senvices, Inc.Fluor Danal, Inc.INTERA Inc.

JK Research Associates, Inc.E. R. Johnson Associates, Inc.Logecon RDA

Morrhon Knudsen CorporstonTRW Envronmental Safety Systems Inc.Winston & StrawnWoodward.-Clyde Federal ServIces


Integration Of Test Data Into ESF Design

Site Data Used in the Following Design &Geotechnical Areas:

- Geological Models

- Empirical Estimates Rock Mass Properties

- Laboratory Testing of Core Specimens

- Empirical Design Methods

- Modeling & Analysis

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OeratnContrator

LV.ESS JP.7194. 7M294 2

I-- - - 2 2. . % 9

.. ... ... ...

... . . . .. . .

......... . a UE25WT-18.. .. ... ...... .

i- usw'-l GIC AL

-tx SCALE IN .TE$S

.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

/UESW

u;2S

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........... .... ----- -t........ .........

m.-6*. .I UE2A-7UE2 S 4 j

\\E25A-

USI,-,. . ,.i /~~~~~~.1: '. I:WG-

4-. - .j .

N 23S0'. N

NRC-

I- ~~~~~~~~I4 4

12-4 -4 *

uz-5~~~~~~~~~~~~.

R~~~~~~~ _NRG-2 7 NIRC-2C

20\77vNPRG-28

AT I~~~~~~~I

* . 6* -

* * 6@@

* *S * h

* *4 -w*v@

----- 7Z..

..... ....

0

c

1.

: : 4.

1.

: : I

I1.1.

. I

F4#C4PC ;/- I

a

- E25A-1

UE258-1

Os 2330, S.

.J -7- -m

.

� 1310C0., I

- - lbwI v Ir -

I I I



* Geological Modeling (LYNX System)

- Volume Model of ESF Site & ESF Tunnel Alignments

- Produce Profiles & Sections of Site Geology ESFTunnels

- Display Lithostratigraphic or Thermo-MechanicalUnits

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OperingContractor

LViSSS.JW.7194-T3 7tM4 3



0 Geological Modeling (LYNX System) (continued)

Used to Determine Line & Grade of North Ramp

Used to Locate Test Alcoves

Define Physical Extent of the Thermo-MechanicalUnits on TS North Ramp Alignment

Cifflan Radloactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OperatingContraco

LV.ESSlHP.7194-73 ?7WM4 5



* Geological Modeling (LYNX System) (continued)

- Engineering Data

~> 3D Coordinate System

o' Database - Geotechnical

)) Geostatistical Information

Used to Develop 10 Key Cross-Sections

Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement SystemManagement & OperatfngContador

LV.ESSJP.714- 7rm"4 4

l w s -* ~w -

a - .| t * | | i | s f

sow a m a

..... . . ............ ........... ........... ............ ...... .... ,

m m .........." ... ". ........

sum rmmtmw - 0 -_ _

C" ago cmawomm"AWN

gMWAwWM-IW Allow lawOn

I ,_ *- *Iz.s. -

/ m

C:r-r _,_ PA

C3--_,

en~ ,

-mO -

__ _O

_~~~~~ _- - _I -

-_a - mm ow -_

-XM6M-_ .

I II :2m='WU" uf. = _ a

vl10X _ Me mm"AnlW.s _

ESF NORTH RAMP CROSS SECTIONLYNX THERMAL/MECHANICAL MODEL

ENHANCED ROCK UALITY DESIGNATION(G.N1. M.Nl)

(Erqd) - mm - 10%

0 too%

SCALEROD

UO-A

UO-A 110- L

TSw2

CHn

IMBRICATE FAULTS

Table 2. Deailed Distances and Volumes for ThermaVMechanicalUnits Encountered Along the ESF North Ramp Tunnel

FAULT THERMALMECHANICA START CALC. SBLOCK** UNIT OR STRUCTURE STA. (m) TUN'NEL VOLUME1 j DIST. (In)

____ 1(m)A TCw 0136.58

Bow Ridge Fauk- B UO-N (nonlithifed) 1+97 S2.99 2416.5

UO-L (lithified) 2+50 91.94 4,193.0TCw 3+42 107.88 4.919.5Imbricate fault

C TCW 4+49 67.36 ,072.0Imnbcate fault

D TCw 5+17 56.80 2,595.3Imbricate fauk

E TCw 5+74 71.87 - 3 .SImbricate fauk

w 6i45 130.SS S,93.5Imbricate fault

G TCW 7+76- 30.29- 1,381 .SImbricate fault

H TCw 9+06 75.88 3,460.5PTA 8+82 128.84 5,875.5Imbricate fault

I P4n 10+11 P TSw1 10+58 47.78 2,179.0Imbricate fault

-J7~~~~~ PT *11406 0.00 3.0TSwl 1106 996.11 45,426.5Drill Hole Wash Structure

K TSwI 21+02 465.57 21.231.5TSw2 25+67 229.81 10,480.0End of tonh Ramp Design Pkg 2C 28+00.182 62.83

TOTAL VOLUpME (') 124,833.0

Notes: * At station 11+06 m. unit P7W occtns only in te crown of the excavation.00 Fault blocks a idenfied In Figure 4.

-WMMMM�� U~

7Tle: TS North Ramp Stability AnalysisDocument No: BABEABOOO-01717-0200-00004 REV OA

WBS: 12.6Page: 10of328

ILEI1

Rock and Joint Properties Used In 1 North Ramp Stability Analysis

PROPERTY .TCw PTO TSwI TSw2

Uniaxial 122.63 Ma 7.79 MPa 58.79 MP 161.50 MPaCompressiveStrength

Tensile Strength 10.39 MP 1.27 M 6.21 MP 10.15 MPa

Poisson's Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.20

Mcxulu Of 28.40 GP 3.2 GPa 22.27 GP 30.01 GP&

Density 2115 Km' 1268 Kgzn 2207 KWm 2257 Kgfm'

Intact Rock 1.7 MPa OA MP 1.3 MPa 2.1 MP&

Intact Rock 54 I 440 4VAngle of InternalFriction ,

Joint Cohesion 7.3 Ma 2A MP 13 MPa 73 )fa

Joint Angle of 46' 36 36' 4'riction*

Joint Tensile 3.65 MP 1.2 MP 0.65 MP 3.65 MPaStrength _

* lbe joint properties we from Table D-7. Reference 8.10.* One hf of joint cobesiom is used for joint tensile strnth in the analysis.

. . &A * & a.Gb & . a a a.

,. *� .

*1��

�-IqLLa� .-* -- *g

* .�:. � '-..4��s N '�L �

� 'j��--.'S *�*

- I S--�-�m..Z � a 'S.

*. -I. 1 * 5'

I. .p S *J�.St

L '5

�. �

-S S �*j� �Ili. S

Lt. .� �* �-*�S�5I5

�%S' V? 1 �Pld� I"

f v� I

. -d . 14 i j ,4 .f i

I I!w 'A

:,. e-.il- ol -1

I

'a

paa

IS I

I I1tkjIIj

I

III

I a

I i

8

a

:1a.In36

I

aNo el



Empirical Design Methods

- Rock Mass Quality "Q" (NGI)

- Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

Used to Determine Range of AnticipatedTunneling Conditions

- Rock Support Recommendations

- Develop Site Specific Ground Support Categories

Civillan Radioactive WasteManagement System LV.ESS8JHP.19410 1=794 8

Management & OperaiContractor

YUCCA MTN., USW NRO-7nA GEOLOGY AND ROCK STRUCTURE LOG

if.'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4'4; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~'R

vi - the- i

- 1- 1 up

1X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t hi0E is|1t u1&=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g - reif_ li. smu.E

a _-4. -H24eolOvis=s -"J-77m -= _im-

I 1 1 -= s _ * = = = _ 2 I I

= _" e- =_ 2 .I

1 - -~ . 1:

! q 4 4| a-~7

YUCCA FM AN SUTE CHARACI7AfACN PRO]ECTC Hdb sbxd Dsa Sumy -

HakUSWNRO7/7Ab3d-300 A. PTa UA

f, t -;- ., M, . :5 & CA# . ' . .

,0

* M mwa d pbaoftbmw d m M. flown f" O9ea. o _ -- O i I Me t & o *_ a a w 0 0 smft pox bI -

~ iD'" Offaw W iid NR iM Et -. 0 b OW Or n ON" 1

FLgure(2) Example of Rock Structure Sumnary toug.. . a

*12I - II - .

I . .-

Fft D /X9WBS 1.23.2.62

QAQARevW=m YUCCAWKJFAM SrMCHARACTERIZAION PROJE=

EbwWRo Mm Qinlky m Dind cm ComLo DmHelmUSW NRO.7/7Abftd-4vrn Usk 3060 A

* *1�

-- I -- I a- aa I nfl w. . I ..

mw

inrAuwtp)AECHAMAL

I.M.1

aid% %PAw,&TAwux I

0690 IAO IOAD Wam- - �- -Jr I is I jw UF I C I jmv I EUFJC I CUO

@0 L.C. Bad vm~ re at 5.00 1.07 1.67 1.00 1.00 11.60 0.60 1.00 0.06100 T.c. bmltmdo Pro jg, 2.0 4.0 .3.0 .00 1.00 25.00 6.60 1.00 20.77110 Bodind mT 81 5.0 300 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.00 0.60 1.00 142120 Y.A Apw Prs 30 6.0 zoo 1. 1.00 1.00 160 6.60 1.00 12.00130 Y.M.Adkkw nou 14 9.00 1.25 2.60 1.00 1.00 .75 6.60 1.00 1.06140 Fro 48 7.00 2.eo 1.40 1.00 1.00 12.24 6.60 1.00 18.e150 V.A ;wlsw Fro 0 9.00 3.00 1.37 1.00 1.00 2.4) 6.60 1.00 0.3160 YXd Ashbflw PTM 0 9.0 300 1.37 1.00 1.00 2. .60 1.00 0.34170 allnd Pro___25 6.00 4.00 4.0 1.00 1.00 '20.00 6.60 1.00 15.38

lw P.C. A*0suw -r. 48 6.00 2.82 1.00 .1.00 100 LO- 6.6 .1.00 20.62160 P.C. Aab;6*w r. 01 0.00 .60 1.00 *'14.0 1. ',16.0$ 6.60 1.00 23.46-( PC Ado PT -4 -.0 -0 10 0 - - -0 -~1 - -0 -40

220 Am-o Pro ,jj 7.00 3.0 1.0 I 1I1.00 '1.3 6.60 1.00 24J2L.. M do PT. se, 7. 300 1.00 I.1.00 I1.00 so.0 06 1.00 .01.6

240 P.C. A&4Osw flu 9) 7.00 2.27 1.00 1.00 11.00 .173 6.0 1.0 186230 P.C. A~.0sw Fro 66 700 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.29 6.60 1.00 30.4

- ~~~~~~ - - -~~~~~F -10 - - -- -240 P.C. A*Pftw "a 1 0.0 26 1.00 1..00 00 10.7 6.60 1.00 280

260 P.C.A 0owp"a 56 .00 3.00 1.0 100 10 2.00 6. 1.00 25.6200 TP . Nm.0sw PTs 76 70 .0 .0 1.0 10 22.7 66 10 80

Ti. 11 N~~~Idnd PT. 4 3.00 3~.00 I . .. L. .6 I.0 .38200 TA U. o d PTO ~ W 7 2.67 1.0 1 0.0000 '22.10 ___ 10

tlato*

'm

Ift

is'

iaw-

as

we'USW

�� . i,

WW

I

arm% TrU II U. M .1 Fr. 9* A M' I a a& Im - III a 2~v nf . 7 A I A~ An .mft.a IA Af. -. -. .----- .. . . - � ,� � £ � � a � I � a � I � A .� L � I . I __________Sm~~~ar -~~~ udmmgussr~~~~~~mi ~~MaC .V. A

- . Ito,

I

I

UIOD ho. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . h~~sy- ftm ft" mr

I1 ~ 2. m-MAuSs1A

Ai ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~

o". Kt -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~..*

i

hi .. '9 C,T

i WN.

Ns l PtD 3n04

WDS 1".2.62Q: QA

Y~ccA mouJNAD sITm cHARAcTRmIA11M PROEr 0 ~wb

IlAk USW NRO-WfAbowd-MP NS, 10-0ft

.~ _. -. _ 1 r . *_ h ~P A _ A a U� YMAJK5FlED

DI.1IMM

zECWtufrr

PLK %jdurnavegos

-� p .u� I.ILL�', �, -=J04i N Jw I KM�C _OD M jw I RAM

so~ T.C BOW 1 u Pr 1 1 12 120 Is 40100 TC.a nW u dT. 2 13 1 s- 1 L0-no bed" 7 I _ 1_ _. 9 2j 1 a 0

120 YX A~4.w PTO I - j a 23.0 15 MA

130 YX Aft- TO 3 8 _12- 1 " "

1 Y40Asb.w pro 2 1 .9 23. I 1 . "

150 YXi. A&sw fTro __ I 3 .Jt 2 1 1L a $1._

T0 r T 1 3 S 27.1 1S .5*46 0

j1 r ' I Ij j a ao.0 is 02.0

ISO P.C Adm rr e II I _ 27.0 1S a

190 P.C A I 1 3 & 24.0 _1 019 0-

200 ' 'C.sw C .I I3 j 2 l e

210 PCAihdw fro I i 1s. 15 aI.A

220 P.C. AshO.. Fr. 2 13 a 22.2 15 00.2230 P.CQAAfw Pra I I 8 a 2.S 1 "

240 PCf I 13 8 25.8 16 02.5280 P.C At4w I I3 a 28.6 I15 05.5

260 P.C tA& 1 .828. Is - - - .

270 TA. U. d 7 - 1J _ - 12. 18 _ _

280 T.Sujanwdo _ i * 27.1 Is 54.i-5 - - - - - -r0 tf

290 T.S. U.suifroV IS j 27.0 .16 6 4.0

KM YAL 9u

so *de m

IN

O'U

I'I

to

"Itare

Do

M9

no

-A

TW s._ rl- is lw.r @Z.rAVIp I S~ wl- . - II. . 4 I . -

i -r ,,)O. SRI' wvhdqM Wby ?& w b a.

W RQDbbhsm~ 0 I mdw hi l10 ad kSM~kWd QQ~ pw 3vm~maL (3914)tp- b0, im" 3 aI wmbmdQ

RUR.. .

. C- $& him*I. rim__h

_ -. -'Mpe Wm

1w_ a I himS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M .i9& 3 9 2 6 ( 3 ,-~a 9 4piubmi5 LT. n T wm miCudGMw M Re* 2Uhgb Apfl P N d61~ inC m em Ra* a . ( I I4S '-'C6v> t%'~l 2-ALAS (A,-A. Rb _ tMt mM-C*RQN-X-)C-JW

1% III

Vrigu.(6) X -e of V.b _U* VatUW (M) ClasalfIeation Bystem

1.2

1.0 uINCREASING YIELD ROCK8URSTS

0.8

0.6 INTERLOCKING INTERLOCKING

0 A ty X ~~~~~~~~~~~STABLE0.4

MASSIVE, STABLE

0.2STRUCURALLY 'iXCONTROLLED \

0.0 *0d O CAVING RAVELING BLOCK FALLS '.

TENSILE SPLITTING

-0.2 I0 20 40 60 80 100

MODWFIED ROD (ROD-F)

PROJECTED FAILURE MODES FOR TSw1

TUNNELING QUALT INDEX 0

(I

co

iiIII

23

a

a

ILU

I

0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 4 10.0 40 100

ROCK MASS QUALM 0

PROJECTED CATEGORIES OF GROUND SUPPORT FOR TSw1

400 1000

TUNNELING QUALITY INDEX 0

I

co

a

C

z

20

a'U

100

50

C.U 20

10

5

2

I

0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 4 10.0

ROCK MASS QUALY a

PROJECTED RANGE OF GROUND SUPPORT FOR TSwl

40 100 400 1000

Title: TS Noh Ramp Rock Mass Classification AnalysisDocument No: BABEABOOO017174200 0000S REV OC

Page: IS of 28

z

0o ,e o! NO SUPPORT

REQUIRED

STAND-UP TIME. hr

FIGURE 3 Geomechanics Classification of Rock Masses;Output for Tunneling and Mining. The SymbolsIndicate Case Histories.

.

Title: TS North Ramp Rock Mass Classification AnalysisDocument No: BABEABOOO-01717420000005 REV OC

Page: 26of28

TABLE S Estimates of Q and RMR Values for TCw Unit

TCw UNIT ROCK MASS QUALITY CATEGORY

________ ~ ~I j 2 3 4 5

Q 0.25 j 0.72 2.1 5.6 I 13.23

AVERAGE RMR 41 48 56 63 70

TABLE Estimates of Q and RMR Value for PTw U

PTa UNIT ROCK MASS QUALITY CATEGORY

I 2 3_ 4_ _ _

Q 3.33 5.71 9__ 27 50.29AVERAGE RMR 50 57 63 |0

TAILE 7 Estimates of Q and RMR Values for TSwl Unit

T'Swl UNIT ROCK MASS QUALITY CATEGORY

1 1 2 3 4J5

Q 0.29 1.06 3.5 8 14.09

AVERAGE RMR 38 S0 57 64_70

_ 'V Ia a i S t 4 a1 * , a I 2 , I I

-'__S__ , La J.rcI?* 'i'i - 7 TY .i';i it

iJ ^ -_

.* 0 46 . 46 . .b . "I s t , , I I I

H..~~~~~~~ ,, ,0. -,a> t- I= = 0

-- -- -- - -2 v L &, , ~M 7 _~

- % u,7- - -------- - - ------- --

rIrT L -rT Lt. I 1r

M"",

IESF TS NMIN RAW M1n sinOT culfwiL lusI--- -- -- -- - - - -

I

IW Egl CR MA, iAG S T caltemngu

: ________ _ _,x M. -m.."-.v-_

I' ' w~~~~~0

t~. ..m

,1 , ;U * _W I= _.

11~~~~~ B~Obu £..."._J

l ^2 ~ ci ... X. .. m~3 _ .Nb _;rmem

01

~~ urn~.sw Z-. . M a m 0 -- - .

] a~~~~~~~~~ t ""sw .-w. a Pa. oww

<~~~~~~~kM M~a _ Moel

cMtMATC 2. AOO S TACfl~gO StMT T i'RI, I.,,

M__m~I

rI,I

M4'

. ."_~~~~~~~~~~~~~b. C

'.sso_ C I It =

- - - -T-a I = 1-IMOMM S. us mu _ - 44

1.4MPI~~~~~44...-

WE-la -

1.

MCAtteGOR 4.CRWESUPOI 01.9'"MAT

SATE6M1 3. *!MN SPPORTR MC -- l

s -._^_ I~~oft I 41 . . -m8.08

Mr- -

"M." -I|w._ _

IS ORT" RAMPOROUNa SUPPORT ASTEA

LELATION 820 SCTIGsb

- _- Z

, N " 6 141 E:=- Ijrf -. . L - -- I L'7 1;l . I. - l I

JOB TITLE: TS NORTH RAMP MOHR-COULOMB MODEL STATION 18+00 M (H=1) GROUND SUPPORT CIO")

FLAC (Version 3.22)

LEGEND

510211994 14:34step 4100-1.000E+01 x 1.000E+01-1.000E+01 cy< 1.000E+01

aOm

Boundary plotI I I I I I. . . . . .

0 5E 0

Axial Force onStnicture Max. ValueCable # 1 -7.351E+02Cable # 2 -3.126E+02Cable # 3 -2.748E+02Cable # 4 -1.629E+02Cable #5 *7.522E+02Cable # 6 3.051E+02Cable # 7 -2.567E+02Cable # 8 -2.191E+02

CRWMS M & O

.100

.. .I(*

-.500

.-.700

I I * I * I * I 'I I . * * -T rrr

.900 -.700 .6 *a0o -.s0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r io m )

I I . . . ..I

.tZ0 -lio W6 .. -. _6

_

. -

JOB TITLE: TS NORTH RAMP STATION 18+00 M (WI) SEISMIC ANALYSIS C1 0 )

FLAC (Veriton 3.22)

LEGEND

5/021994 14:40step 10100

-1.000E+01 x< 1.OOOE+01-1.000E+01 cy< 1.000E+01

Boundaty plotI I I I I

0 5E 0

Axial Force cStnitureCable # 1Cable # 2Cable # 3Cable # 4Cable # 5Cable # Cable # 7Cable #

Max. Value-1.426E+03-1.308E+05-2.303E+04-2.340E+03-1.423E+03-1.523E+05-2.925E+04-3294E+03

-.?00

CRWMS M & O' I' �

I I I -.900 .70 -.SW %-w -100Nto)

I * I

.too 300 I

.700 JOO9~

I

LEGEND

5 /1994 14:53o 8000

tom 1 ME+0 sec

bock pt

CRWMS M & O. a .-

-.300 -.100 .100( 1G1)

LEGEND

5/02/1994 14:57cycle 6000time 1.280E+00 see

block plotprlncapl stresses

minimum = 1.135E+07maximum - 5.845E+05

I I I

0 5E 7

CRWMS M & O

-

JOB TITLE: TS Norfth Ramp Stability Analysis Station 18+00 m - Excavated & Unsupported. .

UDEC (Version 200)

LEGEND

5/02/1994 14:58cye 6000

time 1 280E+00 aec

boundary plotdisplacement vectors

maximum = 1.519E-03

I I I '

'~~, \

s \\N~~~~'

.- v s -s

- - _ 'a

_- _ / _ ' ' /

, - - t /S /

' p ,o ' ' I ,~~ ' t

p

p ' ,

- 1 - .

0 5E-3

I~ ~~ J I

f I /~ I

ji ,

1 9

~~I -

_

--

/ I

}~~~~~~~~ " ' -

'A - ' -i

4/9 .

(11)

.700

300

.10

-.700

(I'II ,

tI

If:

I

p 1

,

I tCRWMS M & O- __ - . . . . I J�T 5 * I * I

. .00 .A0 , ._�o -.I&0M0o'1)

.V:6w - § '1 I '0 I

2w0 S50 .00 m0

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

I --- ,

JOB TITLE: TS North Ramp Stability Analysis Station 18+00 m* Excavated & Unsupported IIiI

(1110^111 IiI

UDEC (Vesion 2.00)I , I

.700 1

t..

LEGEND

5/0211994 14:58cyce 000time 1280E+00 sec

boundary plotshear displacements on jointsmax shear disp = 3.61 1E-04each line thick = 7.222E-05

CRWMS M &

I

Ii

ii

- .100

I

-.sWe

r I.7 00 I l

I-

- -.9,

* I I

.900 '.700 -.500 %300 -.10r001)

.100 400;

MO0 .700 .900

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

YUCCA MOUNTAINSITE CHARACTERIZATION

YUCCA | _ _ROJECTMOINTAI PROJECT

DOE-NRC TECHNICAL MEETINGON THE EXPLORATORY

STUDIES FACILITY

DRILLING, SAMPLING, AND TESTINGPROGRAM UPDATE

PRESENTED BY

WILLIAM J. BOYLE

JULY 27, 1994ROCKVILLE, MD

WCOETCOW.NW

Borehole And Trench Locations*

NRG-3 *

NRG-4

C-WELLS

*

TS SouthRamp

UZ-16 *

N T-1Whaleback Ridge

e- Trench SRG-30

NRG-5 ( NRG-6

'VI*

- - - - - ~

/ T-4Split Wash

Trench -UZ-7a

CD0en

SD-12

. SD-7

/UZ-14

Potential NRepository Boundary _%

.0 noI

/I

/I/

/_ _ / _

ft ffo - -a O

- -A - z

LYOTRD7.CDR.124/12-10-93

DrillinglSamplinglTestingProgram

April - June 1994UZ-14

SD-9

SD-12UZ-16

NRG 6 and 7ESF Alcove I

Large Block Test

Trench NRT-1

Ghost Dance Fault

C-Wells

Cored from 1616' to 2223'Depth of Water = 1885

Cored to 1430'. Trickle at-1350'. Standing water at-1480' depth.

Cored 320' to 1065'Gas Testing & Air

PermeabilityGas TestingAir Permeability &

Hydrochemistry TestingFinished Sawing - Continued

Excavating & SamplingPlate Load Tests and In SituPermeability

Trenches Excavated at SplitWash & Whaleback Ridgefor Dating of FaultDisplacements

Pipeline to Spreading BasinConstructed - SpreadingBasin Under Construction

Borehole GeophysicalLogging

Completed April 1 - June 30, 1994

* Prototype Nuclear MagneticResonance logging at UE-25 UZ-16.

* Slimhole, Gyro and Video logging atUSW NRG-717A and UE-25 NRG-2a,2b, 2c & 2d.

* Conventional logging at USW NRG-717a.

* Spectral Gamma Ray logging at UE-25 NRG-2a & 2b.

Drilling\Sampling\TestingProgram

July - October 1994SD-7

SD-9SD-12UZ-7ANRG-7/7A and NRG-6

ESF Alcove 1

Large Block Test

Ghost Dance Fault

C-Wells

Stagecoach Road Fault

Regional Seismic Line

Pad Construction &Drilling

Drilling & SamplingDrilling & SamplingDrilling & SamplingAir Permeability &

MonitoringHydrochemistry & Air KTests

Continue Excavating &Test Preparation

Map Split Wash & Whale-back Ridge Trenches

Complete SpreadingBasin, Test Equipment,Begin Test

Drill & Sample 2 Bore-holes in the HangingWall to Determine SlipRates

Twenty 200' Shotholes

Borehole GeophysicalLogging

Planned July 1 - November 1, 1994

* Conventional,logging at theboreholes:

- USWSD-9- USWSD-12- USW UZ-14- USW UZ-7- USW SD-7

Gyro andfollowing

Video

* Tool characterization toimplement use of latest availabletechnology.

oIwls

x -

o-

49-

m

U=

hoped Skak- kNdha slUR

2 1 0 1 2 H2 1 0 1 2

~=- lm

YUCA MOAINSITi MA ION PlOJICT

1IOOSID SEISUIC WUICTION LINES

coulau Wma IN n*13.CouInuhIu�aIhNhI !IU*21L�

iSlolIftSHllO

,'� '..- I-

� - *. L,.- �. -

I

'4., '.

nrINus* !zisin* hilW* lne

musI * * U

mouNui

N

YUCCA MOUNTAINSITE CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT

TwsA. Clctplul triattee hilt loudlri1. Itst aid Wastt Isolation lalufie Zloe I

Aeoca YMP 93-023.1

Seismic ActivityApril - June 1994

July 1, 199417:57 GMT

Near Epicenter of 1992 LittleSkull Mountain Earthquake

Magnitude 3.9

Depth - km

-a- -

- �-.-- -a,

-� -a-- -a- -�**a.a p* -

-a--

a.--.--a-

a---

a.-.--

-a -a.-a,-"--a.--.-

-a-. a.--.

a.-....-a-.--

-a.- a-.--- a----a.----

-- a.a--.--

-a----a.a --

-- a--.

a--.

a--.a-a.a.--.

a---.a----.-a---.

a-.

*OLP - fly4 #!�..

ACTIVITY EARLY EARLY FYq4 FYSI FT FYq7DESCRIPTION START FINISH JUL I O I DEC I JAN I FE I KsR I AR I Y I JUN I JUL I AUG I i DEC I JAN I FEB I P ° I M I JU i Jul I DCI I I V ID

NORTH RP PCKAGE 2C

ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION - PACA IGUOG4 Oiss TV NTuTIN -PCKG AM XNORt qRpu PACt.E C CONStRUC IUG4 3IOCT45---ITH be x CYNsTOITI

NRG-6RC- WOVER I o rmove stuc 21JUN 4 6B IRNOVE I O Ftt t .',

ING-b GEffNTICAI LOGGING 6JUO4i 1IJUL44 *R4 OEMYSICA LOWGINGNG- AIR PE r TESTING qaJt4 20SEP44 hUS £4 AIN RM TESTINGNRG-6AIRPERI TESTING seco 7SEP44 20SEP44 U ION,44RrERN TESTING iTurdfhfif

NRG-6 KLLNEAD EIF INSTaLLATIO 22SEPq4 20SEP44 11lG4 ELLNEAU M0x INSTfILLTITNNRG-6 E-N INSTRUMENT INS 24SEP44 7OCT44 a4 INE-IN INSTIWOT INSTNLNLTIUFRG-t INSTRUIINT TESTING & WIR TOOCTI 140CT44 8WM- ISII TESTINGS IRINGNRG-6 GROUTIG I E-UT 17OCTq4 1NOV44 -IN UTI% MVE-MT pWRG-6 LONG TERM tOITORING 2NOV44 2Pq 1- LNTEMSIT .Fi-llXIFC _ _ _ '-

NRG-7aFRG-7a AIR PERN TESTING T4JUN4A 0atit4 f I-7. Nil F TEsTING

NRG-7a ELLHEAD BOx INSTALEATI TIJG94 4auHG44 *'0-th IELLHEAD SX INSTALLTION

FRG-a m11-l I IN5TURPNT 1 25AUGq4 2SEP44 15WRG-7a t-IN0 1ISTIET INSTALLATIONN-7r NSTRUnENT TESTING I I 6SEP44 12EP44 7 hG-ia INSTRUMET TESTING WININGFR-h GTlING 1 -SP44 2VAR4 MOM"-h4 ROUTING p

NRC-/7h LONG TERN MNITORING 2SEP44 25AUGq G-7/7 LONG ENtF _ -_

SD-9 DRILLING PE 1 Ito 1200 IqrMAt4t 14JUL44 -4 RILLING MISE I Ita 12Si 5O-4 DRILING PSE I Second 23Yq44 14JUL44 09-4 DRILLING N"AS I ISE Shft,50-4 GEOPIYSICAL LOGGING (a 12 ISJULq4 20JUL4 ID- GEOPPYSA4L LOWGING IN ' I50-4 DRILLING PASE 2 to 2175 12DEC44 31JAN45 DO SD-A DNILLING ISE 2 It. 217 I

50-4 DRILLING PASE 2 to 2175 12DEC44 31JANf JR3-4 DIlLLING PWE 2 to 2175- -s .d s$ t I50-4 PH101 2 GEOPHYISICAL LOGGCI TFEIIS T4TE045 glt-N Put 2 GEPHYTSICAL LOGGING IN Tolal Pelbi Ip

JUL I I SEP I OCT I NOV I EC AI N I FEB I PR I R I rY I JUN I JUL I UG I SEP OCT I OY I DEC I JAN I FEB I R RPR I T JUN t Jl I AUG I P OCt I Of DEC

-- , IES p-I tqYI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RAYHEN ERVlCES NEVADA -W 1 - _ -_-

_*f*. I . _ | YrP~~~~~~~~~~~~ S CTIVII1Y SHEDULE FYV344Y%5_ -z" I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~NRT RP PCKAGtE 2cDk ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P I iE Of CLOSESTIll Tt~ TO 11DRENOE .__

ACTIVITY EARLY EARLYFESPIPTION START FINISH

SOS DESIGN REVIEW - PHAE BA 26SEP14qO DESIGI REVIEW - POCAIE A IFEB45"AIN DRIFT PACA mB CONSTUE NOV MM lf

I AUG I SPMAIN DRIFT PACKAGE A

050 ESIGN REVIE -RKaGE P

Os DEll REVIEW -PAKAGE S

_- - MIN DRF IsDIIIIIE ctwetIUtRION IRw.-(a------

VW-?. AIR WON ¶TFlTNf. IA 11"iftA "frun

NQG-7a ELLHEAD OX INSTALLATI 1IAUG44 24AUG14NQG-7a MN-ON 6 NTWEIT IN 25AU1G4 2SEP4NRG-7a ITRUYEWT TESTING WI 6SEP14 (2S4NRG-7a OWTING 12SEP44 285P4

,co w7 all PEAK ESYII-7o WEL u MI INTLLArION

4-7a NM-IN I INSTLIEIT ISTLLAOlN

bING-h INsTrWKNr TESTIGU 9 WINGCMG-7a GyOTN p

NRG-7/7o ONGTERN MONITORING 2SEP14 2 G1 7/7 LONG ERM NO

SD-i?- -

50-12 DRILLING PSE 2 (to vat 6JUL44 5OCT14D-12 GEMYSICAL LOGGING (Wat 6OCT14 I1OCT14SD-12 DRILLING PHASE 2 to TD 12OCT14 1MV4SD-12 GEOPYSICAL LOGING T HOVII4 2)10114SD-12 GAS PHASE TESTING el 20110v14 24J145D-12 AIR PER, TESTING 25JN15 22HfARS

SD-12 AS PHASE ESTING '2 23m10(15 RtqYf-5D-12 ILLLHEMI Ot INSTALLATIO 4q1ffi S 1904

S-12 mVE-N t INSTRUP"T INS 16MTIS 1JUN45SD-12 GRWTING I mRE OUT 2JUN4S 3JUL45

I- MILLIN RIME 2 (to itr tale 14M 3IN -12 nfRSlhIA LOGGING I NW ?Tele a ItqO I

0 6=-12 DRILLING Fa 2 Ito 1 23D)35D-12 (HYSICA OGINGIN o Total epth

0Ma9OM-2 GAS I- Rl SII of! Et1 50 PIIIS-12 I N sESTING

E0029-12 GA RImE TESING 2P55-12 ELHEA 1X 1*5161A ION

flD-12 MM-1N INSILET INSTALLATONretai-12 aTIN A MoW Wt p

SD-12 LONG E 1RlttG SJlMN -A- S L-O 5D-1 N1 G l-RW I 12,11mtl# = _ p

5D-4 DRILLING PHASE I (to 1200 IWqTq44 14JUL14 S-4I MILLING PHMME lto '1SD-4 DRILLING PHASE 1 Socrd 2341Y4 14JULq4 9-4 DRILLING Rf I Il Sht,1I5D-4 GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING co 2 15JUt4 20JUL44 T5D-4 ENYSICAL LOGGING . 120 iSID-4 DRILLItG PHAS 2 2 t2175_ t2DE-Cq4 31 JAlf i MSi-4 DILLING PASE 2 to 21h7550-4 DRILLING PHASE 2 to 2175 12DEC44 31JaN95 -0005 1-4 DILLING PM% 2 It 2175' - -oS A, Itl50-4 PHA5E 2 GEOPIY5ICAL LOGGI 1FEB45 14FEB15 1G9-4 IRIE 2 GIPICMA LOGGING C. total Depth3 P

S-7 PM 015TRUCTION 23JUN14 14JULq4 S-7 Pt CONSTRUCTIONSD-7 DRILLING PHASE I Ito 114D ISJUL44 2SEPq4 PetIO in-7 DILLING MM IIt. hIq' I50-7 DRILLING PHASE I Seod 5JULq 2SEPq4 2V03 5D-7 DILLING Ha IgSo.~ Sh it I5D-7 PHASE I GEOPHYSICAL LOGGl 65EPq4 qP14 Es-7 RI& I CEPISICAt LOGGING l I I5D-7 DRILLING PHASE 2 (to Watt 12SEP44 21OCT14 CC= C -7 MRILLING 14A 2 to at TIle a 20 I5-7 DRILLING PHASE 2 (Water I 6OCt94 21OCT14 im S-7 MILLING IMS 2 1 i Tale - S 50 t 50-7 GEMPYS1ICAL LOGGING Iwate 24OC14 27UCT14 310-7 151tCAt LOGGING IVW Tale . 2tXr']5D-7 DRILLING PHASE 2 to D 29OCT14 5DEC44 COD'-7 MILLING, P`1 2 Ito tOe 2a S'15D-7 DRILLING PHASE 2 TO - Se 2EC4q4 5Cq4 i D -7 DILLING PNSE 2 IDt -Saw -,lt I5D-7 GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING i To 6DEC14 3JAqS 9 -7 GEWSCIN. LOGGING o rtal Owth)5D-7 GS PHASE TEStING 4JAN45 2f1MfG5 50-7CM TEO- lIStING5-7 AIR PERI TESTING 31VOS 27A05 50-7 AR KMII tSINGS0-7 AELLYEAD 6O0 INSTALATION 27JUN45 3JUL15 717 IELLIED BX INSTALLATIPS-7 VE-N1 IS ECTM T I JUrff 2DJUlff iID-7 'E-N t INSiBTiNI INSTMLArIOI50-7 GUUTING t MOVE OUT 21 JUL45 2MMIG5 t15 -7 GRUTING £ Ht Ot pSD-7 LONG TERM SHORING 22AUG5 22m D-? lOiG til 0iT4G

UZ-7o P CtRUCTION 1WGW4 30SEP4Ol-7a DRILLING Ito 110 2DEC4 I4UNUZ-7a GE4tSIC41. LOGGING 20JUN415 3JUL150Z-7& GAS PHASE TESTING l 5JUL45 (5AUG45UZ-79 AIR PENN, TESTING 16UG45 IIOCT1UZ-Ta GAS PHASE TESTING *2 12OCT4S 22tt145SU2-7a ELLEAD 0 ISTALLATIU 2)10145 2400145UZ-7. NOE-1N ISTRUPOT INS off5 150EC45UZ-7 GTING MOE OUT I 8DECI 16JA16UZ-78 LONG TERN tN1NTORING 7JUN16 2JUN94

ED JIh-78 Pe - -I-S-I--TIIN

-18 MILLING I 110' tZ-?' GEPITSICAL LOGGING

UZ-78 CM IAGE TESTIUG el

AZ-I RM T EStING*01M Z-h GS PB TING 2

fxZ-h LLHES MR INHTNLIIION1UZ-7 SWE-IN ISINET ISTALLAtION

Otta!-7 GTING I UTPZ-7. LPG TN HNITOPIH

i1

p

en,- O . .an~- .-

--- |~~-, IRAYTHON SERVICES EVAA

1eP S1 CTIVIITY SCHEDULE F3Ft451FAI DRIFT PACKE b

a, -as -:sa~aa- -

a l-

se -adsA.

aa�_0 _I .

ACTIVITY EARLY EARLY -DESCRIPTION START FINISH Qu

SOUSOS DESIGN REVIEW - ACK 4 19tsqOM DESIm REVIEW - PA 4 3JULqS

TO RPI PACKAGE 4I JAN I FE I MA I MY I JUN I JUL I UG I P I U I

05M DESIGN REVIEW -PA9*AGE 4On ESIG OMEN -rc 4

SOUTH P PUREa 4 rnITRCT 2nrr& InrM7 9NATH O PC 4 CSTRUO 0

iD-7SD-7 PC* COINSTUCtIION 23JUtt44 14JUL44 ts-7 PRD CNSTUCTIO

50-7 DRILLIN PHASE I (to 110 'SJUL44 2EP44 EOC= SD-7 DRILLING MM ItO 1IV IS-7 DRILLING PSE I (S ecoWj ISJUL94 2SEPq4 CX0TW -' DRILLING N I SKed D t I5D-7 PSE I GEOPHYSICAL LOGI 6SEP44 9SEP94 t? New SIICA LGGING I IIV5D-7 DRILLING P5E 2 (to Veto 12SEPq4 210C194 tt %-7 (AILLItG N h 2 I Id Tale *203A5D-7 ORPL4 t PSF 2 (ter 6OCT94 21OCT44 9-? MlifUfU 2 ( T tle -S St 9-7 GEOPHYSICAL LGGING I ate 240tT44 271q4 3-7t 0MPICLu LOGGING (Nt t able. 2030'I5D-7 DRILLING PSE 2 (to T0* 28 OT44 SDEC94 IXSe-7 DLLING C 2 Ito T a e I

5D-7 DI LLING PHASE 2 TD - Se 28OCT94 SEC44 OW -7 DRILLING PRSE 2 TD -%wy ,1 150-7 GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING (a o 6DEC4 3Jt5 5ID-7 G6EP4SICNL LGGING lotal D0I)5D-7 GAS PHASE TESlING 4JAN95 21w Rqs D SO-7 GS 94*5 TESTING5D-7 AIR PEil TESTING MitPf 27APMf NEg X SD-7 IR PEl IGTINGSD-7 WELHEAD ox INSALLATION 27JUN95 3JUL9 55SD-7 ILLNEAS UtO INsOtLLAtIiDO-7 tlVE-i INSIRUMENT IST 5JUL9f 20JUL95 | -SD7 no-IN ISTMEN INS1tLNLTINSD-7 GRIUTING H MOVE OUT 24JUL95 21AUG95 flg -7 GRuT t NM OT p5D-7 LONG TEAtt 183 ITORING 22UGqS 22JUN49 5G 7 UG EPt TUNINItG _ m , v

5RG-3 PP CSTtrJCTION (6AUGq4 27SEP44 W -sM 3 P i CSTNACIMSAG-3 DRILLING to 65 1 4OCT44 11N0V4 68 £0 3 DRILLING t 50')SP-3 GEO 4TCAL LOGGING 2MMOV94 1DEC94 313-3 6EWNTSIL LOGGINGSAG-3 AIR PEAR TESTING 2DEC94 30JRS AIR PER tESTING5Pt-3 ELLHEAD BOX INSILATID 1I9 214ff5 Mt-3 ELLIEM 1K INSTAATIN5- 6-3 VE iN INSTRUPIENT INS ?24W9R 30AR05 AZSw MM is A INSIRu ITLHTrIUSO-3 INSTAUtGENT ESTING t WIR 31 MM 6APR5 5NSC3 I51U391 TESING WIRING5RG-3 GROUTING liOVE UT 7APR 24cPR5 053G-3 G9111 4 MME W15RG-3 CING TEAM PiN17ORING 2wm 25FEB q SllG-3 LUG TEO MONITONG _

SRG-2St-2 P CtiSTRUCttII 7OCT94 11NOV94 n 0 5G-2 P CSTRUCTIONSOC-a DRILLING Ito 4001 5DEC94 17J95 DO1G-2 DRILLitC t

G-? GEPHSICAL LOGGING is I I0JM9 23JAs MW2 I GPS GltIC& LGGINGis( Totl Depth ISAG-I

SRG- P COINSTRUCTIiN 1NOV94 17JAN95 I ISG -t PAm CTSTTINTINSK-l DRILLING Ito 150' 30JAN45 VFEBS CElIA- ILLIG I to 'S' ISRG-Tl EOPHYSICAL LOGGING I I WEB4S 14FE895 NW-I t(PWTSICAL LOGGIG Total Dth i

AU I E I TIROYIDE 03 JA 1E3IMPIAP A JUNI JUL I AGISP OCT N OV DEC I0A3 FlIM APR IlMAT JUNIJU I G SEP OCT H NV DCIqT4 1Y5F~

OX~~~~~~~mn 00110(03~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ATHO SERVICES NEVADA Week n i esn_rr-_^n. | _^, iTP 5 ACTIVIOTY SCHEDULE Flq3-fY9 _

SOUTH RMP PCKACE4 7 il -_P(ATE0 FLIET -01WRM I M

AGREEMENTS REACHED AT THE NRC/DOE ESF MEETING

JULY 27, 1994

1. DOE Response to March 30, 1994 Youngblood/Shelor Letter.

DOE provided responses to items in letter at ESF Meeting and will notformally transmit those responses via letter.

NRC staff agreed to review those responses and provide feedback at theNovember 8, 1994 ESF Meeting.

2. Relationship of PPA to Design Phases.

DOE agreed to further investigate and discuss at the next ESF Meeting.

3. Several questions related to the June 22, 1994 letters on issuesassociated with pneumatic pathways relate to TBM startup.

DOE agrees to investigate status of responses and provide update viatelephone prior to August 8th TBM startup.

Mark S. Delligati Project ManagedDivision of Waste Management

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Cistian E. Einberg~7Regulatory Integrat

DivisionUS Department of Energy

�67-/q�