PREFACEThis report is the second in a series from the Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel. The Panel considers each successive report as an integral part of a series Issues that have been covered previously will not be repeated unless new information or concerns arise.In preparing this report. the Panel has directed its primary attention to the methods, data, and assumptions that have been developed or identified for the Total System Performance Assessment to be used in the Viability Assessment. The Panel's goals have been to note weaknesses that can be ameliorated through the use of more appropriate models and data. to seek clarification of the bases for certain of the analytical approaches and assumptions that have been used, and to evaluate the sensitivity analyses of alternative models and parameters and their associated uncertainties. The design of the engineering features of the repository has evolved in several respects since the Panel began its review For example, initially the inner corrosion resistant material for the waste canisters was specified as Alloy 825 During the first phase of our review, this was changed to Alloy 625 Although this is the current material specified in the reference design, an expanded program on waste package materials is underway. and a change in the reference design to the use of a C-22 alloy for the corrosion resistant material appears to be reasonably likely, based on discussions with project staff
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSince the Panel's first report was completed, more data have become available on specific 36 radionuclides, CI in particular, in groundwater at the site. These data and related information have not yet been fblly reconciled with the models of water flow in the unsaturated zone. In addition, the transport via groundwater of plutonium-bearing colloids has been identified and measured at the nearby Nevada Test Site. The interpretation of the significance of these measurements by the Project team has not yet been published.During the past several months, the Panel has been able to review the current status of the Project staffs analyses of several issues not included in our initial report As an outgrowth of these efforts, we have included in this second report more detailed comments on external evenrs, such as volcanism, seismic events, and human intrusion We have also included comments regarding the assessment of the performance of waste glass, a topic not previously addressedIn our first report, the Panel commented on how the TSPA-VA results could be made more transparent and accessible. In Section I1 of this report, we have included more extensive comments on the TSPA methodology, and addressed the limitations and uncertainties inherent in such an analysis. The Panel has also provided recommendations for improving the defensability of the TSPA-VA. These include recognizing ( I ) that the goal of the TSPA is not to predict the performance of the proposed repository, but rather to provide reasonable assurance on which to judge whether the standard...