Performance Confirmation Plan REV 05, ICN 00

TDR-PCS-SE-000001

November 2004 

CHANGE HISTORY
Revision Interim Date of 
Number Change No. Revision Description of Change 
00 09/21/1997 Initial issue of Plan issued as Report No. 
B00000000-00841-4600-00002; this version served 
as basis for Viability Assessment Report. 
01 03/20/2000 Extensive revision of plan to incorporate revised 
repository configuration and revised regulatory 
guidance; general approach and performance 
confirmation activities changed; parameter sheets 
deleted. This version is basis for Site 
Recommendation report. This revision supersedes 
prior plan, document No. B00000000-00841-4600-
00002. 
01 1 05/20/2000 Revision of the plan to address additional 
comments. Minor text changes in all chapters to 
accurately reflect current program context. 
Figure 5-1 was revised to clarify the inspection 
gantrys capabilities. Text in Tables E-5 and E-6 
were updated to reflect recent revision of the 
Monitored Geologic Repository Project Description 
Document, TDR-MGR-SE-000004. 
Table E-7 was deleted due to changing program 
requirements. Reference added to Table D-1 to 
provide source for pallet description. 
01 2 01/30/2002 Revision of the plan was initiated to address 
changes in requirements documents (including the 
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project 
Requirements Document and Monitored Geologic 
Repository Project Description Document), and to 
incorporate the issuance of the final version of 
40 CFR Part 197. These changes are reflected in 
revisions to Chapters 1, 3, and 9, and Appendix E. 
In addition, Chapter 3 was revised to reflect 
revision 4 of the Repository Safety Strategy: Plan 
to Prepare the Safety Case to Support Yucca 
Mountain Site Recommendation and Licensing 
Considerations. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 v November 2004 

CHANGE HISTORY (Continued) 
Revision Interim Date of 
Number Change No. Revision Description of Change 
01 2 01/30/2002 Revision of Appendix D and inclusion of a new 
(contd) appendix (Appendix H) were made to support 
design flexibility of the repository over a range of 
thermal operating modes, and to clarify the use of 
the higher-temperature operating mode in 
developing this version of the plan. Appendix E 
was revised to include an evaluation of the final 
version of 10 CFR 63, and indicates areas for 
update in the next revision of the plan. The 
definitions of test categories in Appendix F were 
revised to reflect the revision of the Monitored 
Geologic Repository Test and Evaluation Plan. In 
addition, minor changes were made throughout the 
document to update citations and cross-references. 
02 07/01/2003 Complete rewrite to incorporate revised 
performance confirmation program based on 
guidance in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 
Final Report and 10 CFR Part 63. Documents 
decision analysis to rescope the program. Change 
includes basing the performance confirmation 
program on the nine barriers documented for the 
site recommendation, rather than the principal 
factors documented in the Viability Assessment. 
02 01 10/16/2003 Incorporate ORD deliverable acceptance review 
comments addressing clarity and policy. 
02 02 11/21/2003 Improve consistency within the document. 
03 04/13/2004 Revised and rewritten to more closely reflect the 
scope and level of detail necessary and sufficient 
for regulatory compliance in the License 
Application. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 vi November 2004 

CHANGE HISTORY (Continued) 
Revision Interim Date of 
Number Change No. Revision Description of Change 
04 08/25/2004 Revised and rewritten to incorporate comments 
received in the Review Coordination Rejected 
Deliverable Transmittal, (Mitchell 2004, 
[DIRS 170504] Enclosure 2). Specifically this 
revision, addresses the requirements of the Yucca 
Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2004 
[DIRS 163274]), describes in more detail how the 
program will be implemented, provides a more 
detailed discussion of why the activities were 
chosen, acknowledges that the plan began during 
site characterization and describes how it will be 
transitioned to the future. Change bars are not used. 
05 0 11/22/2004 Document changed to address acceptance 
conditions identified in accordance with AP-7.5Q, 
Submittal, Review, and Acceptance of Deliverables, 
[DIRS 172197] from a review of Rev. 04. 
Specifically, changes were made to add a 
discussion of the assessment conducted to evaluate 
if the activities are consistent with the results of 
Total System Performance Assessment for the 
License Application, clarify the role and function of 
the integration group, clarify the condition limits 
and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
notification discussed in Section 4, and to correct 
minor editorial issues. Change bars in the margin 
indicate text, figures, and tables that have been 
changed. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 vii November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 viii November 2004 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The performance confirmation program has been evolving for many years. It is important to 
acknowledge the contributions of the following major contributors during the evolution of the 
performance confirmation program. Order of presentation is alphabetical, not based on effort. 
Major contributors to the initial issue of the Performance Confirmation Plan include: 
A. Brandstetter, K.M. Kersch, D.A. McAffee, J.K. McCoy, R.D. McCright, D.G. McKenzie, 
M.T. Peters, T.R. Scotese, and B.H. Thomson. Major contributors to Revision 01 include: 
S. Ballard, J.O. Duguid, J. Jessen, D.S. Kessel, E.N. Lindner, K. MacNeil, M.J. Mrugala, 
M.T. Peters, M.D. Sellers, M.B. Skorska, D. Stahl, B.H. Thomson, C.F. Vecchione, and 
R.M. Wilson. Major contributors to the preparation of Revision 02 and to the initial 
development stages of Revision 03 include: S.C. Beason, J.F. Beesley, J.A. Blink, V. Chipman, 
L. Concors, J.O. Duguid, S.W. Goodin, S. Hommel, K.E. Jenni, G.D. LeCain, W. Lin, 
R.D. McCright, A.M. Monib, T.L. Neiman, R.D. Snell, and R.A. Wagner. Authors of 
Revision 03 include: A.J. Smith, and R.D. Snell. Major contributors to this Revision 04 include: 
R.J. Henning, A.J. Smith, R.D. Snell, and D.J. Weaver. During the development of the 
Performance Confirmation Plan, DOE Technical Management has been provided by D.L. Barr, 
W.J. Boyle, E.T. Smistad, and M.C. Tynan.
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 ix November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 x November 2004 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Performance Confirmation Plan describes the U.S. Department of Energy strategy to 
collect, evaluate, and report on data used to confirm the basis for estimates of repository 
performance and preservation of the ability to retrieve spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste from the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. A repository performance 
confirmation program has been developed that is directed at evaluating the adequacy of the 
information used to demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart E (10 CFR 63.2). A description of the performance confirmation program is required in 
the Safety Analysis Report as part of the License Application (10 CFR 63.21(c)(17)). 
Regulatory requirements for the performance confirmation program are specified in 
10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. Guidance for the program is also provided in the Yucca Mountain 
Review Plan, Final Report, (NUREG-1804). The performance confirmation program began 
during site characterization and will continue until permanent closure of the repository 
(10 CFR 63.131(b)). The scope of the program consists of tests, monitoring activities, and 
analyses to evaluate the adequacy of assumptions, data, and analyses that lead to the findings that 
permitted construction of the repository and subsequent emplacement of wastes 
(10 CFR 63.102(m)). 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that the performance confirmation program 
for the repository confirm that the actual subsurface conditions encountered and changes in these 
conditions during construction and waste emplacement operations are within the limits assumed 
in the licensing review (10 CFR 63.131(a)(1)). The performance confirmation program is also 
required to indicate, where practicable, whether the natural and engineered systems and 
components designed or assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure are functioning 
as intended and anticipated (10 CFR 63.131(a)(2)). The performance confirmation program is 
designed to address uncertainties inherent in the reliance on performance assessment for 
estimating performance, and to increase confidence that performance objectives designed to 
protect public health and safety are satisfied. Direct observations and measurements during the 
preclosure period are planned to achieve these goals. 
The purpose and objectives of this Performance Confirmation Plan, as quoted in regulation 
10 CFR 63.102(m) is that: 
a performance confirmation program be conducted to evaluate the adequacy of 
assumptions, data, and analyses that led to the findings that permitted construction 
of the repository and subsequent emplacement of the wastes. Key geotechnical 
and design parameters, including any interactions between natural and engineered 
systems and components, will be monitored throughout site characterization, 
construction, emplacement, and operation to identify any significant changes in 
the conditions assumed in the license application that may affect compliance with 
the performance objectives specified at 63.113(b) and (c). 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xi November 2004 

In summary, key requirements of the regulation state that the performance confirmation program 
must: 
 Confirm that subsurface conditions, geotechnical and design parameters are as 
anticipated and that changes to these parameters are within limits assumed in the License 
Application. 
 Confirm that the waste retrieval option is preserved. 
 Evaluate information used to assess whether natural and engineered barriers function as 
intended. 
 Evaluate effectiveness of design features intended to perform a postclosure function 
during repository operation and development. 
 Monitor waste package condition. 
The repository system is composed of two natural barriers and one Engineered Barrier System 
that have been characterized and designed to work together to prevent or reduce the movement 
of water or radionuclides, or prevent the release or substantially reduce the release rate of 
radionuclides. The features and structures, systems, or components of the repository system that 
form these barriers include any feature or structure, system, or component that contributes to the 
performance of one of the three barriers and is considered to be important to waste isolation. 
The location and elevation of the repository site take advantage of the characteristics of the 
geologic setting, in general, and of the repository host rock, the Topopah Spring welded tuff 
hydrogeologic unit, in particular. These characteristics include: 
 A semiarid climate with limited precipitation. 
 A thickness of rock and soil above the repository of at least 215 meters to nearly 
365 meters. 
 Hydrogeologic and geochemical characteristics that limit radionuclide movement. 
 Geologic and geomechanical characteristics that permit the design and construction of 
an effective Engineered Barrier System. 
 Geomechanical and thermal characteristics that allow maintenance of a stable facility 
with adequate capacity for waste disposal. 
 Absence of significant faults within the disposal area. 
 Depth to groundwater below repository emplacement drifts from more than 250 to 
nearly 400 meters. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xii November 2004 

The robustness of the Yucca Mountain engineered and natural system reduces the possibility that 
uncertainties associated with any one parameter could result in conditions that would lead to 
exceeding the postclosure performance objectives for individual protection (10 CFR 63.311) and 
groundwater protection (10 CFR 63.331), or result in conditions that would preclude retrieval of 
the waste (10 CFR 63.111(e). By examining the confidence and accuracy in understanding 
subsystem components, as well as the overall system sensitivity to particular features, the 
resulting performance confirmation program is directed at confirming design and model 
parameters and consequently the bases for predictions of long-term performance and for the 
demonstration that repository conditions will not preclude preservation of the retrievability 
option. This Performance Confirmation Plan provides a description of the program designed to 
meet the above listed requirements. 
A methodical approach has been used in developing the performance confirmation program. The 
eight stages of the approach are as follows: 
1. Select performance confirmation parameters and test methods 
2. Predict performance and establish a baseline 
3. Establish bounds and tolerances for key parameters 
4. Establish test completion criteria and variance guidelines 
5. Plan activities, and construct and install the performance confirmation program 
6. Monitor, test, and collect data 
7. Analyze and evaluate data 
8. Recommend corrective action in the case of variance. 
The eight stages of performance confirmation rely on the selection of parameters based on their 
importance to performance. The phased nature of repository construction and waste 
emplacement allows progressive development of performance confirmation approaches. 
Monitoring and test methodologies for activities continuing from site characterization are more 
fully developed, construction period activities require finalization, and operational period 
activities are mostly at the conceptual stage of planning. Future revisions of this Performance 
Confirmation Plan will provide additional details and more complete discussions in the various 
stages of the approach. 
The approach to the program is risk-informed, performance-based, focusing on parameters and 
processes that are important to evaluating assumptions, data and analyses used in the licensing 
basis. Generally, parameters that are important to either system performance or barrier 
capability, and have a relatively high degree of uncertainty, would be considered a valuable 
activity to include in the performance confirmation program. The program must be linked to the 
performance assessment used for the License Application to provide the basis to evaluate 
whether the program is reasonable and complete, which means these assessments have to be 
maintained during performance confirmation, and that the Performance Confirmation Plan will 
be revised periodically based on new or revised analyses. Performance confirmation monitoring 
is designed to focus on areas important to evaluating information supporting assessments of 
repository performance relative to the regulatory postclosure objectives or where uncertainties in 
the performance assessments result in high potential risk. Therefore, this risk-informed, 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xiii November 2004 

performance-based program allocates resources to those areas that are most important for 
performance, thus providing the greatest support for future decisions. 
The approach used for selecting the set of activities (measured parameters and data acquisition 
methods) for evaluating the postclosure performance of the repository was based on three criteria 
and a decision analysis process, incorporating the definition of risk, applied to a set of 
parameters identified by subject matter experts. 
 How important is the parameter to barrier capability and system performance? 
 What is the level of confidence in the current knowledge about the parameter? 
 How accurately can information be obtained by a particular test activity? 
Performance confirmation began during the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site and will 
continue during repository construction and through operational emplacement of waste, only 
concluding when repository closure is licensed. Performance confirmation tests that will 
continue from activities that were performed as a part of site characterization, with appropriately 
modified work scopes, are as follows: 
 Precipitation monitoring (precipitation quantities and composition measured at the 
Yucca Mountain site 
 Seepage monitoring (seepage monitoring and analysis in alcoves on the repository 
intake side and in repository thermally accelerated drifts) 
 Subsurface water and rock testing (chloride mass balance and isotope chemistry analysis 
of water samples collected at selected underground locations) 
 Unsaturated zone testing (field-testing of transport and sorptive properties of unsaturated 
zone rock in an ambient seepage alcove or a drift with no waste packages emplaced) 
 Saturated zone monitoring (measurements of water level, electrochemical potential, 
hydrogen potential, and background radionuclide concentrations in saturated zone wells 
at the repository site and in Nye County) 
 Saturated zone alluvium testing (tracer testing of alluvium transport properties in the 
Alluvial Test Complex) 
 Subsurface mapping (mapping of fractures, faults, stratigraphic contacts and lithophysal 
characteristics of rock in the underground openings) 
 Seismicity monitoring (monitoring of regional seismic activity and observation of fault 
displacements following significant seismic events) 
 Construction effect monitoring (measurement of construction deformation of 
underground openings/confirmation of related rock mechanical properties) 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xiv November 2004 

 Corrosion testing (laboratory samples testing of waste package, waste package pallet, 
and drip shield materials corrosion behavior in the range of expected repository 
environments) 
 Waste form testing (laboratory testing of waste form dissolution and waste package 
coupled effects including use of scale mockups of waste package). 
New activities that will begin during construction or operations phases include: 
 Saturated zone fault zone hydrology testing (hydraulic and tracer testing in fault zones). 
 Drift inspection (periodic inspection of emplacement drifts and thermally accelerated 
drifts using remote inspection and measurement techniques). 
 Thermally accelerated drift near-field monitoring (monitoring of rock mass and water 
properties in the near-field of a thermally accelerated emplacement drift). 
 Dust buildup monitoring (monitoring and laboratory evaluations of quantity and 
composition of dust on engineered barrier surfaces and samples). 
 Thermally accelerated drift environment monitoring (monitoring and laboratory 
evaluations of environmental conditions in a thermally accelerated drift including gas 
and water compositions, temperatures, film depositions, microbes, radiation and 
radiolysis effects using remote techniques). 
 Thermally accelerated drift thermal-mechanical effects monitoring (monitoring of drift 
and invert degradation in a thermally accelerated drift). 
 Seal testing (testing of effectiveness of borehole seals in the laboratory, shaft and ramp 
seals in the field, and backfill emplacement techniques). 
 Waste package monitoring (monitoring of integrity of waste packages using visual 
inspection and/or internal pressure measurement employing remote monitoring 
techniques). 
 Corrosion testing of thermally accelerated drift samples (laboratory testing of waste 
package, waste package pallet, and drip shield samples obtained from the thermally 
accelerated drift). 
Each activity selected may combine one or more parameters that relate to a specific feature of 
barrier capability, total system performance, or the regulatory requirements. The barriers include 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xv November 2004 

the Upper and Lower Natural Barriers, and Engineered Barrier System. Some activities support 
evaluation of preservation of the ability to retrieve waste, or disruptive events parameter 
confirmation. Each activity is presented using subheadings listed below: 
 Activity Description (which lists the major parameters that may be measured or tested, 
the barrier that the activity investigates, when testing and monitoring began or are 
anticipated to begin, and other programs that may support interpretations) 
 Purpose (The purpose of the test activity) 
 Selection Justification (both technical and regulatory) 
 Current Understanding (what is known about the parameters covered by this activity, 
including the baseline information) 
 Anticipated Methodology (that may be appropriate to test and monitor parameters in 
that activity, typical data evaluation, and an evaluation of potential adverse impacts as a 
result of this activity). 
The activities will be planned, using technical work plans and products known as performance 
confirmation test plans, to be developed later (as described in Sections 5 and 6). The 
performance confirmation test plans will be implemented using field work packages, technical 
procedures, scientific notebooks, and a process of work orders and test work authorization for 
field work. Schedules for implementation are described in the individual activity descriptions 
and a section on schedule. 
The performance confirmation testing and monitoring activities will be planned and 
implemented in accordance with appropriate technical, safety, environmental, and quality 
procedures in a manner comparable to that applied during the site characterization phase of the 
Yucca Mountain Project. However, there are some essential distinctions in planning and 
implementation. The planning process for performance confirmation activities will be adapted to 
be directly applicable to performance confirmation, by identifying baseline information, variance 
criteria, and the process followed if the measurements are outside the preestablished 
expectations, including the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission notification criteria. In 
addition, special emphasis will be given to instrumentation selection, maintenance, reliability, 
and calibration considering many of these tests will be in locations not easily accessible or 
conducted over long periods of time. Each activity will be evaluated to assess relevance to: 
worker safety; waste isolation impacts due to test construction, performance confirmation 
activities or both; potential interactions between independent activities; and potential interactions 
between repository construction activities and performance confirmation activities. Performance 
confirmation test plans will be the primary planning document for each test activity, being 
implemented by subordinate implementing and work control documents. 
The Performance Confirmation Plan is a planning document and as such, the levels of citation 
and reference for statements of accepted project knowledge are commensurate with planning 
document format. Each of the refinements and evaluations of the activities used a number of 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xvi November 2004 

criteria, including applying the latest technical information available. This has resulted in a 
performance confirmation program that is consistent with the licensing case. 
The performance confirmation program was initially based on the in-process understanding of 
performance and barrier capability developed prior to completing the Total System Performance 
Assessment for the License Application. Recently, an evaluation of performance confirmation 
testing relevance to the Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application was 
conducted (Watson 2004 [DIRS 172213]). This revision addresses the appropriateness of the 
proposed performance confirmation testing relative to Total System Performance Assessment for 
the License Application. 
The review by the Total System Performance Assessment group concluded that no new 
performance confirmation activities were required. Clarifications to the purpose and 
modifications to the anticipated methodology for waste form testing better confirm igneous 
scenario assumptions. These clarifications of scope of this existing activity support the technical 
basis for performance confirmation for the assessment of total system performance for the 
igneous intrusion scenario. 
The next Performance Confirmation Plan revision will perform a check against the License 
Application performance assessment using the model input database and sensitivity evaluations 
to confirm that the performance confirmation activities are appropriate. Both the nominal and 
disruptive performance assessment scenarios will be evaluated during this assessment to 
ascertain whether any additional activities should be added to the Plan. During detailed test 
planning, pretest predictions and calculations will be performed, controlled, and referenced 
within the individual performance confirmation test plans. 
The Performance Confirmation Plan provides the current description of the Yucca Mountain 
performance confirmation program. Section 1 of this document provides an introduction, 
purpose and objectives, a description of the approach used to select the parameters and test 
methods, identification of the barriers, a discussion on waste retrievability, a description of how 
the performance confirmation program fits in context with other testing and monitoring programs 
at Yucca Mountain, and a discussion of quality assurance. Section 2 provides performance 
confirmation regulatory requirements and guidance. Section 3 provides a description of planned 
performance confirmation activities, proposed test methodologies, a description of current 
understanding, schedule for implementation, and a rationale (both technical and regulatory) for 
why the listed activities are important to performance confirmation of barrier capability or total 
system performance. Section 4 provides discussions of data management, analysis, and 
reporting strategies, with details on data and trending. Section 5 provides the experimental 
design strategies, implementation of the activities including test planning and technical 
procedure usage, and a list of ongoing activities with their ties to site characterization 
implementing documents. Section 6 provides an overall schedule for the program. Section 7 
provides the references. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xvii November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xviii November 2004 

CONTENTS 
Page 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... xxv
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PERFORMANCE
CONFIRMATION PLAN AND PROGRAM ......................................................... 1-3
1.3 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION PROGRAM SCOPE AND
APPROACH............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.3.1 Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Program Approach ............................ 1-4
Evaluation of Performance Confirmation Testing Relevance to
TSPA-LA .................................................................................................... 1-5
1.3.2 Identification of Barriers ............................................................................. 1-6
1.4 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ....................... 1-10
1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach..................................................................... 1-10
1.4.2 List of Performance Confirmation Activities............................................ 1-13
1.4.3 Retrievability Activities............................................................................ 1-14
1.4.4 Performance Confirmation Activities Timing and Links to Site
Characterization ........................................................................................ 1-15
1.5 RELATIONSHIP OF PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION TESTING TO
OTHER TESTING AND MONITORING PROGRAMS...................................... 1-15
1.5.1 Project Testing and Monitoring Program.................................................. 1-15
1.5.2 Project Integration of Performance Confirmation .................................... 1-18
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION PLAN ......... 1-19
1.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE ..................................................................................... 1-21
2. REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1 REGULATORY SCOPE OF THE PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION
PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION PLAN10 CFR PART 63
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1 Performance Confirmation Requirements in 10 CFR Part 63 .................... 2-4
2.2.2 Evaluation of Performance Confirmation Guidance in the Yucca
Mountain Review Plan, Final Report........................................................ 2-10
3. DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION ACTIVITIES ....................... 3-1
3.1 ACTIVITY SELECTION ........................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE BARRIERS AND ACTIVITIES ................................. 3-1
3.3 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION ACTIVITIES............................................ 3-13
3.3.1 General Requirements Testing and Monitoring (Natural and
Engineered Barriers) ................................................................................. 3-14
3.3.1.1 Precipitation Monitoring............................................................ 3-16
3.3.1.2 Seepage Monitoring................................................................... 3-19
3.3.1.3 Subsurface Water and Rock Testing.......................................... 3-23
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xix November 2004 

CONTENTS (Continued) 
Page 
3.3.1.4 Unsaturated Zone Testing .......................................................... 3-25
3.3.1.5 Saturated Zone Monitoring........................................................ 3-28
3.3.1.6 Saturated Zone Fault Hydrology Testing................................... 3-31
3.3.1.7 Saturated Zone Alluvium Testing.............................................. 3-34
3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection .......................................................................... 3-38
3.3.1.9 Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring ................ 3-41
3.3.1.10 Dust Buildup Monitoring........................................................... 3-46
3.3.1.11 Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment Monitoring 3-50
3.3.2 Geotechnical and Design Monitoring and Testing ................................... 3-56
3.3.2.1 Subsurface Mapping .................................................................. 3-56
3.3.2.2 Seismicity Monitoring ............................................................... 3-60
3.3.2.3 Construction Effects Monitoring ............................................... 3-62
3.3.2.4 Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring 3-64
3.3.3 Design Testing (Other Than Waste Packages) ......................................... 3-67
3.3.3.1 Seal Testing................................................................................ 3-67
3.3.4 Monitoring and Testing of Waste Packages ............................................. 3-70
3.3.4.1 Waste Package Monitoring........................................................ 3-71
3.3.4.2 Corrosion Testing ...................................................................... 3-73
3.3.4.3 Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift Samples ..... 3-80
3.3.4.4 Waste Form Testing................................................................... 3-83
3.4 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION FACILITIES ............................................ 3-86
3.4.1 Surface Activities...................................................................................... 3-86
3.4.2 Activities in Emplacement Drifts and Mains Prior to Emplacement........ 3-87
3.4.3 Activities in Emplacement Drifts and Mains After Emplacement ........... 3-87
3.4.4 Laboratory Testing.................................................................................... 3-87
3.4.5 Thermally Accelerated Drift Test Bed...................................................... 3-87
4. DATA MANAGEMENT, ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING............................................ 4-1
4.1 PERFORMANCE BASELINE INFORMATION................................................... 4-7
4.1.1 Baseline....................................................................................................... 4-7
4.1.2 Data Categories........................................................................................... 4-8
4.1.3 Performance Confirmation Activities and Parameters................................ 4-8
4.2 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS................................................................................ 4-9
4.2.1 Impact on Postclosure Performance Assessments ...................................... 4-9
4.2.2 Addressing Unexpected Conditions.......................................................... 4-10
4.2.3 Data Reduction and Data Categories........................................................ 4-11
4.2.4 Comparisons of Parameter Measurements with the Performance
Assessment Prediction Baseline Information ........................................... 4-11
4.2.4.1 Direct Input Data........................................................................ 4-12
4.2.4.2 Indirect Data (Comparisons with Model Predictions) ............... 4-13
4.2.4.3 Comparisons with Model Assumptions..................................... 4-13
4.2.5 Iterative Performance Evaluation.............................................................. 4-14
4.3 TREND DETECTION, ANALYSIS, and REPORTING ...................................... 4-14
4.3.1 Notification of Conditions ........................................................................ 4-14
4.3.2 Evaluation of Conditions .......................................................................... 4-15
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xx November 2004 

CONTENTS (Continued) 
Page 
4.3.3 Evaluation of Trends................................................................................. 4-16
4.3.4 Potential Corrective Actions..................................................................... 4-17
5. TEST PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION............................................................... 5-1
5.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION
ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.1 Experiment Design for Performance Confirmation.................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Test Planning for Performance Confirmation............................................. 5-5
5.2.3 Test Procedures, Implementing Documents, and Reports .......................... 5-7
5.2.4 Performance Confirmation Tests Initiated During Site
Characterization .......................................................................................... 5-9
6. SCHEDULE....................................................................................................................... 6-1
7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 DOCUMENTS CITED ............................................................................................ 7-1
7.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES ..................... 7-11
7.3 DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER........................................... 7-13
APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY .................................................................................................... A-1
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xxi November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xxii November 2004 

FIGURES 
Page 
1-1. Schematic Diagram of the Repository ............................................................................. 1-8
1-2. Schematic of the Engineered Barrier............................................................................... 1-9
4-1. Generalized Flowchart Illustrating Performance Analysis and Trend Detection 
Process ............................................................................................................................. 4-2
4-2. Expected Range and Condition Limits............................................................................ 4-6
5-1. Planning and Procedural Document Hierarchy Relevant to Performance
Confirmation Testing Implementation............................................................................. 5-3
6-1. Temporal Breakdown of Performance Confirmation Activities...................................... 6-2
6-2. Schedule for the Performance Confirmation Program and Major Yucca Mountain
Project Milestones............................................................................................................ 6-3
6-3. Long-Term Performance Confirmation Program Schedule............................................. 6-4
TABLES 
Page 
1-1. Testing and Monitoring Activities Included in the Performance Confirmation
Program......................................................................................................................... 1-13
2-1. Provisions from Subpart F Paragraphs 10 CFR 63.131 through 10 CFR 63.134............ 2-6
2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review
Plan, Final Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and 
the Performance Confirmation Plan Sections ................................................................ 2-11
3-1. Relationship between Barriers, Models, and Performance Confirmation Activities....... 3-2
3-2. Performance Confirmation Activity Description and Relationships to
Performance Assessment Parameters, Purpose, and Section Containing Detailed
Discussion and Baseline Information .............................................................................. 3-4
3-3. Estimated Precipitation for the Modern Climate Scenarios........................................... 3-18
5-1. Current Test Plans (or Technical Work Plans) and Field Work Plans .......................... 5-10
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xxiii November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xxiv November 2004 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
DOE U.S. Department of Energy 
ECRB Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block 
Eh electrochemical potential 
ESF Exploratory Studies Facility 
Kd sorption coefficient 
MPBX multi-point borehole extensometer 
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
PC Test Plan Performance Confirmation Test Plan 
pH hydrogen potential 
SAR Safety Analysis Report 
SPBX single-point borehole extensometer 
SSCs structures, systems, and components 
TSPA total system performance assessment 
TSPA-LA Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application 
YMRP Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report 
LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC, HYDROGEOLOGIC, OR THERMAL-MECHANICAL 
UNITS 
PTn Paintbrush Tuff nonwelded hydrogeological unit 
Tptp Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor member 
Tptpll Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor lower lithophysal zone 
Tptpmn Topopah Spring Tuff middle nonlithophysal zone 
TSw Topopah Spring welded tuff hydrogeological unit 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xxv November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 xxvi November 2004 

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND 
This Performance Confirmation Plan describes the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) strategy 
to collect, evaluate, and report on data used to confirm the basis for estimates of performance and 
preservation of the ability to retrieve spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from the 
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The regulatory construct for permitting disposal of 
high-level radioactive wastes in a repository, codified in 10 CFR Part 63 Energy: Disposal of 
High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada1, 
[DIRS 156605] emphasizes a risk-informed, performance-based approach directed at the 
performance of the disposal system. Performance confirmation is designed to address 
uncertainties inherent in the reliance on performance assessment for estimating performance and, 
to the extent possible, to increase confidence that performance objectives designed to protect 
public health and safety are satisfied. Observations and measurements during the preclosure 
period will be used achieve these goals. 
Developing confidence that a repository will successfully isolate waste for the compliance period 
is challenging because of the long time frames and the inherent uncertainties that are involved. 
Therefore, the overall evaluation of repository postclosure is based on two fundamental and 
independent components: (1) a robust repository system involving multiple barriers, and (2) a 
thorough modeling of the repository that is based on multiple lines of evidence and that 
incorporates appropriate methods, models, and data. 
Evaluating a first-of-a-kind facility like the repository requires that models be used to estimate 
system performance over the compliance period because direct observation and verification of 
this performance is not possible. As the licensee, DOE will provide the technical basis for the 
models used in the performance assessment on which permitting construction and subsequent 
receipt and possession will be based. Performance confirmation will provide data to verify the 
adequacy of the information presented in the license application as the basis for these 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decisions. In total, the elements of the repository 
postclosure performance work together to provide confidence that the system itself is robust and 
that the understanding of repository performance reflected in model results is appropriate. The 
performance confirmation program supports these objectives by providing information to 
confirm that (1) subsurface conditions are as expected, and (2) the behavior of repository system 
barriers is consistent with performance assessment results. 
The supplementary information to the final rule, 10 CFR Part 63, reflects a similar view that 
performance confirmation is one element of the broad range of information the NRC will 
consider in arriving at its licensing decisions, and that performance confirmation is important to 
the consideration and treatment of uncertainties, and increasing confidence that the postclosure 
performance objectives are satisfied (66 FR 55732, [DIRS 156671] p. 55746). 
1 Because 10 CFR Part 63 is used so frequently in this document, the reference citation 10 CFR Part 63 Energy: 
Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geological Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada 
([DIRS 156605]) will only be repeated the first time it is referenced in each section. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-1 November 2004 

Performance confirmation began during the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site and will 
continue during repository construction and through operational emplacement of waste, only 
concluding when repository closure is licensed. The monitoring and testing activities (an activity 
is a combination of a test parameter and a test method), which were performed as a part of site 
characterization and which will be continued, with appropriately modified work scopes, as a part 
of performance confirmation, are as follows: 
 Precipitation monitoring 
 Seepage monitoring 
 Subsurface water and rock testing 
 Unsaturated zone testing 
 Saturated zone monitoring 
 Saturated zone alluvium testing 
 Subsurface mapping 
 Seismicity monitoring 
 Construction effect monitoring 
 Corrosion testing 
 Waste form testing. 
New activities that will begin during construction or operations phases include: 
 Saturated zone fault hydrology testing 
 Drift inspection 
 Thermally accelerated drift near-field monitoring 
 Dust buildup monitoring 
 Thermally accelerated drift environment monitoring 
 Thermally accelerated drift thermal mechanical effects monitoring 
 Seal testing 
 Waste package monitoring 
 Corrosion testing of thermally accelerated drift samples. 
During the time from initiation of construction until repository closure, performance 
confirmation activities will include in situ monitoring and testing, as well as laboratory testing, to 
evaluate the adequacy of the information and assumptions that were the basis for postclosure 
performance predictions and for supporting the retrievability option. 
During construction, activities will be directed at confirming subsurface conditions and changes 
anticipated during the excavation of the repository. With emplacement of wastes, activities will 
turn to confirming subsurface condition changes related to introduction of thermal loads, and 
evaluating assessments of the functionality of natural and engineered barriers important to waste 
isolation. Monitoring to confirm the preservation of the ability to retrieve wastes is a focus of 
performance confirmation during construction and operation. Several of the activities described 
in Section 3 (e.g., construction effects monitoring and drift inspection) confirm the preservation 
of the ability to retrieve waste. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-2 November 2004 

The phased nature of repository development allows progressive development of performance 
confirmation approaches. Monitoring and test methodologies for activities continuing from site 
characterization are more thoroughly developed, while the planning for some construction period 
activities requires finalization, and operational period activities are mostly at the conceptual 
stage of planning. 
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION 
PLAN AND PROGRAM 
The purpose and objectives of this program, as stated in regulation 10 CFR 63.102(m) are that 
a performance confirmation program will be conducted to evaluate the adequacy of 
assumptions, data, and analyses that led to the findings that permitted construction of the 
repository and subsequent emplacement of the wastes. Key geotechnical and design parameters, 
including interactions between natural and engineered systems and components, will be 
monitored during site characterization, construction, emplacement, and operation to identify 
significant changes in the conditions assumed in the License Application that may affect 
compliance with the performance objectives specified at 10 CFR 63.113(b) and (c). This 
Performance Confirmation Plan provides a description of the performance confirmation 
program. 
To accomplish these objectives, the DOE has developed this Performance Confirmation Plan for 
the Yucca Mountain Repository that addresses the requirements of 10 CFR Part 63 Subpart F 
and the related acceptance criteria in Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP) 
NUREG-1804, (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). The Performance Confirmation Plan addresses 
uncertainties within the performance assessments used for estimating performance, and is 
designed to increase confidence that the performance objectives designed to protect public health 
and safety are satisfied. 
The use of this Performance Confirmation Plan is limited to activities necessary to support 
current DOE planning. Specific activities may evolve, as the performance confirmation program 
proceeds, and the Performance Confirmation Plan will be updated accordingly. 
The performance confirmation testing and monitoring activities will be planned and 
implemented in accordance with appropriate technical, safety, environmental, and quality 
procedures in a manner comparable to that applied during the site characterization phase. 
However, there are some essential distinctions in the planning and implementation as described 
herein. The planning process for performance confirmation activities will be adapted to include 
information directly applicable to performance confirmation, including, baseline information, 
variance criteria, and the process followed if the measurements are outside the preestablished 
expectations, including the NRC notification criteria. In addition, special emphasis will be given 
to instrumentation selection, maintenance, reliability, and calibration considering many of these 
tests will be in locations not easily accessible or conducted over long periods of time. Each 
activity will be evaluated to assess relevance to worker safety, waste isolation impacts due to test 
construction, performance confirmation activities or both, potential interactions between 
independent activities, and potential interactions between repository construction activities and 
performance confirmation activities. Performance confirmation test plans will be the primary 
planning document for each test activity. Subordinate implementing and work control 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-3 November 2004 

documents including field work packages, technical procedures, and work orders will be used to 
implement the activities. 
1.3 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION PROGRAM SCOPE AND APPROACH 
1.3.1 Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Program Approach 
10 CFR Part 63 requires that the repository performance confirmation program evaluate 
information used to demonstrate that system and subsystem components operate as predicted. 
To facilitate this, activities for the performance confirmation program were selected using a 
risk-informed, performance-based approach. This approach focuses activities on aspects of the 
repository system that are relatively uncertain and could potentially have a significant effect on 
system or component performance. 
An eight-stage approach has been used to develop the performance confirmation program 
(EPRI 2001 [DIRS 163435]). The eight stages of the approach are as follows: 
1. Select performance confirmation parameters and test methods 
2. Predict performance and establish a baseline 
3. Establish bounds and tolerances for key parameters 
4. Establish test completion criteria and variance guidelines 
5. Plan activities, and construct and install the performance confirmation program 
6. Monitor, test, and collect data 
7. Analyze and evaluate data 
8. Recommend corrective action in the case of variance. 
The eight stages of the performance confirmation approach rely on the selection of parameters 
subject to testing based on the sensitivity to performance. The first stage of the approach has 
been substantially completed using a risk-informed, performance-based process, subject to 
changes due to new data and analyses (e.g., Total System Performance Assessment for the 
License Application (TSPA-LA)) and/or regulatory requirements arising out of the License 
Application review. Preliminary work, consistent with currently available performance 
assessment models and data, is underway on the second and third stages of the approach and is 
discussed in Section 4 of this Plan. 
The Performance Confirmation Plan will be revised periodically based on proposed schedules 
(Section 6), comments resulting from the NRC review of the License Application, and changes 
in total system performance assessment (TSPA) evaluations. The emphasis of performance 
confirmation is on parameters related to barriers important to waste isolation. The definition of 
parameters related to barrier performance and repository performance environment rely on 
finalization of the postclosure safety evaluation supporting the License Application and the 
completion of sensitivity analyses directly related to barrier performance. The importance of the 
linkage to the final License Application postclosure barrier performance evaluation cannot be 
overemphasized. 
Each of the refinements and evaluations of the activities used a number of criteria, including 
applying the latest technical information available. This has resulted in a performance 
confirmation program that is consistent with the licensing case. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-4 November 2004 

Evaluation of Performance Confirmation Testing Relevance to TSPA-LA 
The performance confirmation program was based on the in-process understanding of 
performance and barrier capability developed prior to completing the TSPA-LA. An evaluation 
of Performance Confirmation testing relevance to TSPA-LA was conducted (Watson 2004 
[DIRS 172213]). This revision addresses the appropriateness of the proposed Performance 
Confirmation testing relative to the TSPA-LA. 
The Performance Assessment group and the Performance Confirmation group assessed the 
relationships between the TSPA-LA and the 20 activities identified in the Performance 
Confirmation Plan. The assessment activity included interviewing cognizant Performance 
Assessment staff with an understanding of the TSPA-LA model report. The assessment resulted 
in a report approved by both the Performance Assessment and Performance Confirmation 
organizations (Watson 2004 [DIRS 172213]). 
The results of the assessment affirmed that 17 of the 20 performance confirmation activities are 
the most directly relevant to the technical basis for postclosure performance assessment of the 
natural and engineered barriers ranging from medium to high importance or uncertainty to the 
TSPA-LA. The 17 performance confirmation activities that relate directly or indirectly (because 
they deal with information considered in process models) include: 
 Corrosion testing 
 Corrosion testing of thermally accelerated drift samples 
 Dust buildup monitoring 
 Precipitation monitoring 
 Saturated zone alluvium testing 
 Saturated zone fault hydrology testing 
 Saturated zone monitoring 
 Seal testing 
 Seepage monitoring 
 Seismicity monitoring 
 Subsurface water and rock testing 
 Subsurface mapping 
 Thermally accelerated drift environment monitoring 
 Thermally accelerated drift near-field monitoring 
 Unsaturated zone testing 
 Waste form testing 
 Waste package monitoring. 
The remaining three activities (Construction Effects Monitoring, Drift Inspection, and Thermally 
Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring) are related to the assessment of conditions 
that support the retrievability option and may provide information to assess the general 
framework for model development. 
The evaluation of the changes to the TSPA-LA from the previous version used for Total System 
Performance Assessment for Site Recommendation and the Risk Information To Support 
Prioritization Of Performance Assessment Models was the basis for the initial risk informed, 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-5 November 2004 

performance-based selection of the performance confirmation activities. This evaluation did 
result in a few possible enhancements or clarifications of the scope of performance confirmation 
activities that may have merit in supporting the technical basis for the current TSPA (Watson 
2004 [DIRS 172213]). 
Specifically, it was not evident, with the detail presented at this time in the Performance 
Confirmation Plan, if the igneous intrusion modeling case was addressed for the relevant 
subsystem features and processes that are important in modeling total system performance. 
These features and processes include: 
 Sorption of some radionuclides on stationary phases (attachment to non-mobile materials) 
 In-package radionuclide solubility 
 In-package diffusion characteristics. 
The review concluded that no new performance confirmation activities were required. 
Clarifications to the purpose and modifications to the anticipated methodology for waste form 
testing now better confirm igneous scenario assumptions. These clarifications of scope of this 
existing activity support the technical basis for performance confirmation for the assessment of 
total system performance for the igneous intrusion scenario. 
DOE has authorized BSC to make improvements and refinements in the technical bases that 
support the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) (Hamilton-Ray 2004 [DIRS 172321]). Part of that 
scope is to evaluate disruptive igneous consequence modeling related to waste package damage 
by an igneous intrusion and waste form pulverization by an igneous eruption and make model 
changes as warranted. Currently, the igneous intrusion scenario includes potential changes in 
water chemistry that may result from contact with basalt rather than the other rock types in 
Yucca Mountain. If the results from these improvements suggest that the testing is still 
warranted, the potential for damage to waste form resulting from these conditions may be 
confirmed by enhanced testing in the waste form testing activity. If the improvements and 
refinements in the technical bases indicate that the waste package remains intact, then no 
additional testing would be necessary in waste form testing to confirm the improved TSPA 
results. 
The next assessment will use the approved TSPA-LA model report, model input database, and 
sensitivity evaluations focused on performance confirmation to confirm that the activities 
included in the Performance Confirmation Plan are appropriate. Both the nominal and 
disruptive performance assessment scenarios will be evaluated during this assessment to 
ascertain whether any additional activities should be added to the plan. 
1.3.2 Identification of Barriers 
The repository system is composed of two natural barriers and one Engineered Barrier System 
that have been characterized and designed to work together to prevent or reduce the movement 
of water or radionuclides, or prevent the release or substantially reduce the release rate of 
radionuclides. These three barriers (with their corresponding features and structures, systems, 
and components [SSCs]) include individual natural features and Engineered Barrier System 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-6 November 2004 

components that contribute to the performance of one of the three barriers and are considered to 
be important to waste isolation. 
The three barriers (see Figure 1-1) are: 
 Upper Natural Barrier 
 Topography 
 Soils 
 Unsaturated zone of rock (which includes the repository horizon). 
 Engineered Barrier System 
 Waste forms 
 Cladding 
 Waste packages 
 Waste package pallets 
 Drip shields 
 Emplacement drift inverts 
 Emplacement drifts 
 Emplacement drift closures. 
 Lower Natural Barrier 
 Unsaturated zone rock below the drifts 
 Saturated zone (consisting of rock and alluvium). 
A detailed discussion of how the performance confirmation activities address these location 
based barriers, a discussion on thermally accelerated drifts (which involve both natural and 
engineered barrier features), and activities associated with disruptive events and the waste form 
itself are contained in Section 3.2 of this plan. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-7 November 2004 

Figure 1-1. Schematic Diagram of the Repository 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-8 November 2004 

Figure 1-2. Schematic of the Engineered Barrier 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-9 November 2004 

1.4 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 
1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
The approach for selecting the 20 activities (described in Section 3) uses risk insights to focus 
attention on issues important to public health and safety. Three primary questions (What can go 
wrong? How likely is it? and What are the consequences?) embrace the traditional 
definition of risk, that is, probability multiplied by consequences. For the repository postclosure 
system, the risk is usually expressed in terms of probability-weighted annual dose, for 
comparison to the annual dose-based individual protection standard (NRC 2004 [DIRS 170243]). 
Therefore, the approach used for selecting the set of activities (test parameters and test methods) 
to confirm postclosure performance of the repository was based on the following three criteria 
applied to a set of parameters identified by subject matter experts. 
 How sensitive is barrier capability and system performance to the parameter? 
 What is the level of confidence in the current knowledge about the parameter? 
 How accurately can information be obtained by a particular test activity? 
The first criterion above relates to the sensitivity of the total system performance and barrier 
capability to a performance confirmation parameter. The second criterion relates to confidence 
in the current representation of the parameter being measured or modeled. The less confidence 
in a particular parameter, the more important it becomes and the more it should be included in 
performance confirmation. The last of the criterion recognizes that it is not always possible to 
take direct measurements of a parameter, or that the difficulty in measuring a particular 
parameter is prohibitive so the accuracy and ease with which information can be collected is the 
third criterion to consider. To structure a program that addresses these criteria, a decision 
analysis approach was employed. 
The cost of measuring the parameter was also identified as an applicable criterion, but was 
developed separately from the three criteria above that contribute to the value of including an 
activity. Overall, cost was a minor consideration in the development of the Performance 
Confirmation Plan. Generally, the lowest life-cycle cost alternative was chosen from viable 
options. 
In contrast, an activity that would result in less accurate measurement of a parameter to which 
neither system performance nor barrier capability is sensitive, and for which there is high 
confidence in the current representation of that parameter would be considered a much lower 
utility activity to include in the performance confirmation program. For example, investigating 
solubilities of very short-lived radionuclides has a much lower utility because decay occurs so 
quickly that the radionuclides would not even incrementally impact the annual dose at the 
receptor. 
The decision analysis process was initiated by having subject matter experts identify key 
individual natural system and engineering parameters of interest to the definition of performance 
confirmation, together with methods of data acquisition. The subject matter experts identified 
over 300 activities, parameters, and data acquisition methods. Each combination of parameter 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-10 November 2004 

and data acquisition method, termed an activity, was assigned a unique numeric identifier. 
A complete listing is provided in previous revisions to this plan. The activities were then 
evaluated by technical and subject matter experts as to total system and subsystem (i.e., barrier) 
performance sensitivity to the parameter, confidence in the current representation of the 
parameter, and accuracy of the proposed activity in quantifying the parameter. Management 
value judgments were used to determine the relative importance of each technical criterion, and 
the resulting overall utility was calculated for each activity. Rough cost estimates were also 
produced for each activity. 
The decision analysis approach offered three key benefits in evaluating candidate activities. This 
approach: 
 Logically accounts for multiple objectives for the performance confirmation program 
 Incorporates information from project personnel with different areas of expertise 
relevant to the selection of activities 
 Provides a traceable and defensible logic for the performance confirmation activity 
selection. 
The approach explicitly recognizes that both technical judgments and value judgments are a 
necessary part of decision-making, and that different people may be responsible for the different 
sets of judgments (Keeney and Raiffa 1976 [DIRS 157634]). Generally: 
 Value judgments represent management decisions about what is important. In this 
analysis, value judgments included defining the objectives and criteria against which 
each of the candidate activities were to be evaluated and compared. Value judgments 
also included specifying the relative importance of each criterion. The value judgments 
in this analysis were provided by performance assessment management. 
 Technical judgments represent input about how well various options meet the criteria 
defined by management. In this analysis, technical judgments included defining the 
candidate parameters and the proposed data acquisition methods. Technical judgments 
also included evaluations of how well each candidate activity meets the criteria defined 
by the performance assessment management team. These judgments were provided by 
project technical investigators familiar with each technical area. 
 The overall utility of including a candidate activity is a function of both types of 
judgments: it depends on how well the activity meets the evaluation criteria, and the 
relative importance assigned to meeting each criterion. 
The decision analysis approach to activity selection was conducted in three phases. In the first 
phase, candidate performance confirmation activities were identified and evaluated for inclusion 
in the performance confirmation program. In the second phase, the activity evaluations were 
used in combination with some general guidelines to develop candidate sets, (complete sets of 
activities that could form the basis for the performance confirmation program). The candidate 
sets were evaluated and compared based on a number of set-level criteria. In the third phase, 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-11 November 2004 

Project management and senior advisors reviewed the candidate sets, selected a base set, and 
directed modifications to increase the robustness of that set. 
Following the third phase, an additional series of refinement and evaluations through 
management and key technical representative reviews were conducted to bring activities listed in 
previous revisions of the Plan into closer alignment with plans for the License Application. This 
iterative process, beginning in the fall of 2003, reevaluated the list of activities based on the 
following criteria: 
 Does the importance of the feature still merit consideration for the performance 
confirmation program? 
 Can the activity be more appropriately classified as a technical specification? 
 Can the activity be more appropriately classified as a model improvement? 
 Has additional technical information from technical organizations become available that 
may impact a previous decision? 
 Does the benefit of the activity justify its cost? 
 Has the NRC or the DOE provided any alternative regulatory interpretations that make 
an activity irrelevant? 
 Can the activity be more logically combined with any other activity based on the 
similarity in the data being gathered? 
 Is the objective of the activity covered by another activity? 
 Can the activity be reduced in scope and still obtain necessary information? 
These evaluations later culminated in a series of meetings where Project management and key 
technical representatives reviewed the refinements, drawing a distinction among activities that 
were more commonly recognized as technical or design specifications, activities that were 
necessary for licensing defense, and activities that were required to confirm predictions of 
long-term performance (see Section 1.6 for a description of other project testing and monitoring 
programs). 
The management and key technical representative evaluations resulted in related activities being 
consolidated where appropriate. Activities that did not strongly support regulatory compliance 
or the assessment of repository performance were deleted from the program (although they may 
be considered for other testing areas within the DOE further described in Section 1.6), while a 
few activities were added to reinforce regulatory compliance. The result of these is the current 
list of 20 test activities (including consolidated activities). These activities are described in 
detail, with explicit discussion on regulatory and technical selection criteria, in Section 3 
(description of activities) of this plan. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-12 November 2004 

1.4.2 List of Performance Confirmation Activities 
Table 1-1 provides a listing of the 20 activities included in the performance confirmation 
program. The activities are grouped into the four acceptance criteria categories identified in the 
Section 2.4.3 of YMRP NUREG-1804, (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) and are listed below under 
the sections that they principally support. A brief description of each activity, and the barrier 
which each activity addresses, is provided. More detailed activity descriptions are given in the 
individual activity description in Section 3. 
Table 1-1. Testing and Monitoring Activities Included in the Performance Confirmation Program 
ACTIVITY TITLE ID # ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 
BARRIER or 
PROCESS 
1. YMRP GENERAL REQUIREMENTS TESTING AND MONITORING (NATURAL AND ENGINEERED BARRIERS) 
Precipitation monitoring 84 Monitoring of precipitation and composition analysis. Upper Natural Barrier 
Seepage monitoring 133 Seepage monitoring and laboratory analysis of water 
samples (from bulkheaded alcoves on the intake side 
of the repository and in thermally accelerated drifts). 
Upper Natural Barrier 
Subsurface water and rock 
testing 
119 Laboratory analysis of chloride mass balance and 
isotope chemistry based on samples taken at selected 
locations of the underground facility. 
Upper and Lower 
Natural Barriers 
Unsaturated zone testing 137 Testing of transport properties and field sorptive 
properties of the crystal-poor member of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff, in an ambient seepage alcove or a drift. 
Upper and Lower 
Natural Barriers 
Saturated zone monitoring 150 Monitoring of water level and hydrochemical sampling 
of the saturated zone upgradient, beneath and 
downgradient of Yucca Mountain. 
Lower Natural Barrier 
Saturated zone fault 
hydrology testing 
159 Hydraulic and tracer testing of fault zone hydrologic 
characteristics, including anisotropy, in the saturated 
zone. 
Lower Natural Barrier 
Saturated zone alluvium 
testing 
225 Tracer testing at the Alluvial Test Complex using 
multiple boreholes measuring parameters in the 
alluvium. 
Lower Natural Barrier 
Drift inspection 59 Regular inspection of nonemplacement drifts and 
periodic inspection of emplacement drifts, thermally 
accelerated drifts, and other underground openings 
using remote measurement techniques, as 
appropriate. 
Engineered Barrier 
System, Retrievability 
Thermally accelerated drift 
near-field monitoring 
125 Monitoring of near-field coupled processes (thermalhydrologic-
mechanical-chemical) properties and 
parameters associated with the thermally accelerated 
drifts. 
Upper and Lower 
Natural Barriers 
Dust buildup monitoring 52 Monitoring and laboratory testing of quantity and 
composition of dust on engineered barrier surfaces. 
Engineered Barrier 
System 
Thermally accelerated drift 
in-drift environment 
monitoring 
54 Monitoring and laboratory testing of gas composition; 
water quantities, composition, and ionic characteristics 
(including thin films); microbial types and amounts; 
and radiation and radiolysis within a thermally 
accelerated drift. 
Engineered Barrier 
System 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-13 November 2004 

Table 1-1. Testing and Monitoring Activities Included in the Performance Confirmation Program 
(Continued) 
ACTIVITY TITLE ID # ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 
BARRIER or 
PROCESS 
2. GEOTECHNICAL AND DESIGN MONITORING AND TESTING 
Subsurface mapping 105 Mapping of fractures, faults, stratigraphic contacts, 
and lithophysal characteristics. 
Upper and Lower 
Natural Barriers 
BARRIER or 
ACTIVITY TITLE ID # ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PROCESS 
Seismicity monitoring 167 Monitoring regional seismic activity. Observation of 
subsurface and surface (large magnitude) fault 
Disruptive Event, 
Retrievability 
displacement after significant local or regional seismic 
events. 
Construction effects 
monitoring 
224 Monitoring construction deformation to confirm 
mechanical properties. 
Upper Natural Barrier, 
Retrievability 
Thermally accelerated drift 
thermal-mechanical 
monitoring 
60 Monitoring drift and invert shape and integrity in a 
thermally accelerated drift. 
Engineered Barrier 
System, Retrievability 
3. DESIGN TESTING (OTHER THAN WASTE PACKAGES) 
Seal testing 200 Laboratory testing of effectiveness of borehole seals 
followed by field-testing of effectiveness of ramp and 
shaft seals. Testing, as appropriate, to evaluate the 
Engineered Barrier 
System, 
Upper Natural Barrier 
effectiveness of backfill placement. 
4. MONITORING AND TESTING OF WASTE PACKAGES 
Waste package monitoring 83 Remote monitoring for evidence of external corrosion 
of the waste package. 
Engineered Barrier 
System 
Corrosion testing 222 Corrosion testing in the laboratory of waste package 
and drip shield samples in the range of representative 
repository thermal and chemical environments. 
Includes laboratory testing of general corrosion, phase 
transformations of Alloy 22; and localized corrosion. 
Engineered Barrier 
System 
Corrosion testing of 
thermally accelerated drift 
samples 
223 Corrosion testing in the laboratory of waste package 
and drip shield samples exposed to conditions in the 
thermally accelerated drifts. Includes corrosion model 
Engineered Barrier 
System 
applicability and laboratory testing of general 
corrosion, phase transformations of Alloy 22; and 
localized corrosion. 
Waste form testing 226 Waste form testing (including waste package coupled Engineered Barrier 
effects) in the laboratory under internal waste package System 
conditions. 
NOTE: U = uranium; Sr - strontium; O = oxygen; Cl = chlorine; H = hydrogen; C = carbon; Tc = technetium; I = iodine. 
1.4.3 Retrievability Activities 
Specific requirements for waste retrievability are described in 10 CFR 63.111(e)(1) as: 
The geologic repository operations area must be designed to preserve the option 
of waste retrieval throughout the period during which wastes are being emplaced 
and thereafter, until the completion of a performance confirmation program and 
Commission review of the information obtained from such a program. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-14 November 2004 

Activities in the performance confirmation program are not expected to adversely impact 
retrievability, while some activities are intended to provide information to confirm the adequacy 
of the design, assumptions, and analyses supporting the option to retrieve waste. In situ drift 
stability will be confirmed, primarily by monitoring rockfall in the underground facility using 
regular inspection of non-emplacement and periodic inspection of emplacement drifts (Drift 
Inspection). The mechanical condition of thermally accelerated emplacement drifts will be 
monitored to detect significant physical changes in the drifts (Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring). 
Mechanical and deformational response of the emplacement and main drift excavation will be 
monitored prior to emplacement (Construction Effects Monitoring). These activities support 
monitoring to ensure that the option to retrieve waste is preserved. Section 3.3.1.8 contains a 
discussion of the drift inspection activities and the relationship to the retrieval requirement. 
1.4.4 Performance Confirmation Activities Timing and Links to Site Characterization 
Performance confirmation was started during site characterization and many of the selected 
performance confirmation program activities are extensions of site characterization tests. The 
scope, methods, and detailed procedures for these tests were not identical to those planned for 
performance confirmation and they will be reviewed and modified as necessary to satisfy 
performance confirmation requirements. 
Section 5 describes the process by which the plans for tests that were initiated during site 
characterization will be revised. Section 5.2.4 provides a discussion of the continuation of these 
tests. Section 6 shows the planned timing for these activities. Detailed discussions of the 
planned activities are provided in Section 3. 
1.5 RELATIONSHIP OF PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION TESTING TO OTHER 
TESTING AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 
1.5.1 Project Testing and Monitoring Program 
The overall Yucca Mountain testing and monitoring program is flexible and will evolve with 
time related to the stage of repository development (e.g., construction or operations), regulatory 
requirements, and the continuing refinement of the understanding of the repository system. In 
addition, as technology advances, needs change, or tests are completed and no longer add value; 
the programs will change to accommodate the new information. 
There are many categories of testing and monitoring programs required to design, construct, 
operate, and close the repository. These include: performance confirmation testing and 
monitoring; design construction and operations testing; licensing specification testing; security, 
safeguards, and emergency testing; regulatory directed research and development testing; natural 
and engineered systems testing and evaluation; science and technology program; and health and 
safety effluents monitoring. The documented results of many of these programs will be required 
to satisfy the regulatory requirements for the repository. The criteria by which activities will be 
evaluated for inclusion into a given category of the testing and monitoring program, the 
functions each category addresses, and the current list of activities in each category will be 
developed at the appropriate times. Performance confirmation is just one of eight currently 
identified categories of the testing and monitoring program (discussed below), and is specifically 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-15 November 2004 

identified as the set of monitoring and testing necessary to satisfy the requirements of 
10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. It should be recognized that like the repository design, test planning 
for many of the categories would be at a preliminary stage of development at the License 
Application for Construction Authorization. A high-level categorization of the future Yucca 
Mountain testing and monitoring programs (eight categories) is presented here. A letter 
(Mitchell J.T. 2004 [DIRS 170294]) describes the eight-category outline for the plan to provide 
definition and interfaces for the testing and monitoring program. The Project is currently 
developing a more comprehensive description of the testing and monitoring program that will be 
available as a Project document. This document will more thoroughly describe how future 
testing will be managed and evaluated and expand upon the criteria for evaluation listed below. 
1. Performance Confirmation Testing and MonitoringThe purpose and objectives of 
this program, as stated in regulation 10 CFR 63.102(m) are that a performance 
confirmation program will be conducted to evaluate the adequacy of assumptions, 
data, and analyses that led to the findings that permitted construction of the repository 
and subsequent emplacement of the wastes. Key geotechnical and design parameters, 
including any interactions between natural and engineered systems and components, 
will be monitored throughout site characterization, construction, emplacement, and 
operation to identify any significant changes in the conditions assumed in the License 
Application that may affect compliance with the performance objectives specified at 
10 CFR 63.113(b) and (c). Although the primary focus of the performance 
confirmation program is on postclosure performance of the repository, the program 
also includes activities to address the preservation of the ability to retrieve waste. 
2. Design Construction and Operations TestingTesting that is used to verify 
conformance of an item to specified requirements, or to demonstrate satisfactory 
performance for service. Examples of these types of tests include: 
Prototype Evaluation TestingPrototyping evaluations and testing of complex 
first-of-a-kind items (e.g., waste package, waste package closure, waste package 
emplacement gantry) to confirm fabrication methods, welding techniques and 
equipment, and effectiveness of nondestructive examination methods. Testing 
data are used to confirm or modify equipment design, fabrication and/or 
inspection. 
Design/Construction and Startup TestingTesting of natural systems 
(geotechnical information) to confirm data used as input to the preclosure design. 
Testing of construction materials (e.g., concrete) to confirm materials properties 
used in the design. Testing conducted during construction, startup and 
preoperational periods on components, subsystems and systems to confirm their 
functional and operational performance. Testing data are used to confirm design 
analytical bases and operational readiness. 
Operations and Maintenance TestingPlanned operations and maintenance 
testing of equipment, operating systems and safety systems to confirm operating 
performance of systems, safety system availability, and to confirm the 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-16 November 2004 

maintenance program is adequate. Testing data are used to confirm that systems 
perform as intended, and to meet NRC inspection needs. 
3. License Specifications TestingTesting and monitoring to comply with NRC 
licensing specifications issued as a part of the License Application for the facility to 
ensure analyzed safety bases are met. Testing data are used to allow for operations 
within the confines of the license and for evaluation and compliance reporting to the 
NRC for the preclosure period. 
4. Security, Safeguards, and Emergency TestingTesting to confirm functional 
performance of the security, safeguards, and emergency systems. Testing data are 
used to document systems adequacy and required NRC regulatory reporting for the 
preclosure period. 
5. Regulatory Directed Testing ProgramsNRC may require that additional testing be 
conducted as part of the license. These tests may include: 
NRC Required Research and Development Safety TestingResearch and 
development programs are established by NRC mandated conditions of the 
License Application to resolve safety questions. Testing data are used for 
reporting NRC resolution of conditions of the license when directed by NRC. 
NRC 10 CFR 63.74(a) Requested TestingPerformance of tests specified by 
NRC under 10 CFR 63.74(a). Testing data are used to respond to NRC specified 
tests. 
6. Natural and Engineered Systems Testing and EvaluationDOE may elect to 
conduct testing that relates to needs identified both internally and externally to refine 
models and reduce uncertainties. Examples include: 
DOE Elective Testing in Response to NRC QuestionsDOE elective 
testing/monitoring resulting from NRC review of the License Application. 
Testing data may be used to respond to NRC Request for Additional Information. 
An example of such an activity is the aeromagnetic survey conducted and the 
associated planned drilling program to advance the understanding of the number 
and age of basaltic volcanic centers in the site vicinity. 
DOE Elective TestingDOE elective testing and monitoring activities selected to 
evaluate current model uncertainties and/or conservatism. The testing data 
collected are used to consider modification of a TSPA input abstraction, process 
model or data use in order to strengthen technical arguments or evaluate margin. 
Testing will occur as DOE determines need for additional information. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-17 November 2004 

7. Health, Safety and Effluents MonitoringTesting and monitoring that relate to the 
needs identified by regulatory programs aimed at environmental and worker protection 
during preclosure, including: 
Environmental Safety and Health Compliance MonitoringEnvironmental, 
safety and health testing and monitoring to confirm public and worker health and 
safety and to demonstrate compliance with permits. Testing data are used for 
monitoring and reporting to the permitting agencies (Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration and DOE for the preclosure period). 
Site Effluent TestingMonitoring and testing to show compliance with effluent 
release requirements. Testing data are used for monitoring and reporting to the 
State of Nevada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and NRC for the 
preclosure period. 
8. Science and Technology ProgramResearch and development testing that relates to 
advances in science and technology intended to lead to development of new models, 
expectations, or theories of behavior for the natural system, waste form, or waste 
package materials, including: 
Natural Systems Science and Technology Testing for Long-Term Barrier 
PerformanceResearch and development tests to develop long-term Barrier 
performance enhancements. Testing data are used in the future in TSPA for 
modified performance predictions. 
Engineered Systems Science and Technology for Long-Term Engineered 
Systems Operations PerformanceResearch and development tests to develop 
long-term facility operational and/or TSPA performance improvements. Testing 
data are used for future facility and/or operational design modifications. 
1.5.2 Project Integration of Performance Confirmation 
Performance confirmation at a first-of-its-kind geologic repository that relies on two natural 
barriers and the Engineered Barrier System is neither intuitive nor simple. Reliance on rote 
methodologies will not be adequate, especially since the activities are focused on confirming 
information used to project postclosure performance thousands of years beyond the performance 
confirmation period. A Performance Confirmation Integration group is planned to review 
performance confirmation data and evaluate the overall status of the program. Also, the 
Performance Confirmation Integration group will be designed to ensure continuity and 
integration with other testing and monitoring programs, as described in Section 1.5.1, through 
participants that are cognizant of other project testing activities and through interface with 
investigators in other programs. 
The group would evaluate whether the incremental results within performance confirmation are 
interrelated, technically adequate, properly documented, and properly evaluated. This evaluation 
will ensure that barrier and system performance is assessed in the context of all relevant 
performance confirmation information. Reporting to NRC is planned consistent with overall 
reporting requirements for performance confirmation. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-18 November 2004 

Because observation durations can be short (e.g., geologic mapping only during active 
construction of the repository) compared to the expected period of performance of the barrier 
after permanent closure, this group would consider whether analyses considering very low 
probability events (such as major seismic or volcanic events) should be revisited based on a 
better understanding of subsurface conditions and reduction in uncertainty on probability of rare 
unexpected or unusual events. 
The integration group would address issues common to performance confirmation. The selection 
of members would include those knowledgeable of other testing and monitoring programs noted 
in Section 1.5.1 such that shared use of data and data management systems could be achieved. 
Reporting from the group is planned and could support notifications to the NRC if deviations 
from the expected ranges occur. 
Formalized periodic meetings would provide a structured forum where professionals and subject 
matter experts interact about performance confirmation results, and other program areas, as 
applicable. In this way, different experts with different job functions and areas of expertise can 
review performance confirmation data in addition to results from other related programs. These 
evaluations will help determine whether new information could potentially impact performance 
confirmation activities or other testing areas of responsibility, thereby possibly changing 
representations of the integrity of the geologic repository. 
In addition, considerable advances in technology can be expected to occur over the next several 
decades. A successful performance confirmation program is flexible, and includes a process to 
reevaluate, reexamine, and modify performance confirmation activities as the state of 
understanding changes. New tests may be needed, or may become possible with new 
technology, and tests that are not providing useful information should be discontinued. Some 
parameters are difficult to measure but nonetheless may be important to evaluating information 
used in the licensing basis. An integration group and workshop approach facilitates developing 
and correlating new data, to the extent feasible, to build a body of evidence that will improve the 
performance knowledge base. 
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION PLAN 
Section 1 of this Performance Confirmation Plan explains the purpose, objectives, scope, and 
quality assurance provisions applicable to implementation of the performance confirmation 
program. It contains a subsection that outlines the risk-informed, performance-based process 
used to select the current list of 20 activities. The section provides a Table 1-1 that lists those 
activities and groups the activities into the four principal YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274]) acceptance criteria categories. The section provides an overview of the three 
barriers important to waste isolation and some preliminary discussion (more detail in Section 3) 
at how the activities address each barrier. It also provides Figures 1-1 and 1-2 that illustrate 
natural features and engineered components of the barriers. In addition, the section provides the 
discussion of other Project testing and monitoring programs and the criteria for segregating 
testing programs into each. Within the discussion of the other testing and monitoring programs, 
the plans for a testing programs working group are described. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-19 November 2004 

Section 2 provides high-level traceability to the 10 CFR Part 63 regulatory requirements and 
other for the Performance Confirmation Plan. Two crosswalk tables, (in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2) 
are provided to demonstrate where the specific provisions are addressed. The table in 
Section 2.2.1 covers the 10 CFR Part 63 requirements and the table in Section 2.2 covers the 
YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) Acceptance Criteria, relating activities and 
sections within the document where the criteria and requirements are addressed. 
Section 3 describes the planned performance confirmation test activities for the performance 
confirmation program. The section begins with a discussion that describes the interrelationships 
of the three barriers to the performance confirmation activities supporting the barrier analysis. 
The section then lists each of the 20 activities, grouped according to the four acceptance criteria 
categories (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). For each activity, the section provides a title, 
description, selection justification (both technical and regulatory), a description of the current 
understanding of each activity, and the anticipated methodology for fielding the test. The 
descriptions also provide, where available, the citations to the documents in which the baseline 
will be found. The activity descriptions also identify whether the activity includes in situ 
monitoring, laboratory, or field methods and states the reason why the activity is not expected to 
adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives. 
Section 4 discusses the approach to, and the preliminary development of, the performance 
confirmation program baseline data. The performance confirmation program baseline data will 
be updated, when required, to incorporate repository performance analysis and design as they 
evolve. Section 4 also addresses trend detection, analysis, internal and external (e.g., NRC) 
reporting, and action ranges. 
Sections 5 and 6 describe the development of Performance Confirmation Test Plans and 
procedures, and the performance confirmation schedule, respectively. Experiment design and 
test planning for performance confirmation activities are included, specifically describing 
PC Test Plans. The use and roles of laboratory and field implementation procedures, documents, 
and reports are described, including the use of field work packages, technical procedures, 
scientific notebooks, work orders, and implementation records. A table is provided in Section 5 
that identifies the 11 activities initiated or conducted during site characterization and a listing of 
their current test plan and field work package. Section 6 places these 11 activities, and the 
other 9 that have not yet begun, in timeline with other Project milestones and activities. 
Section 7 provides a list of references used in the Performance Confirmation Plan. 
Appendix A provides a glossary of terms. 
ConventionsA number of conventions are used in this report relating to the use of performance 
confirmation and performance assessment to reduce confusion. The Performance Confirmation 
Plan describes the performance confirmation program that includes tests, experiments, and 
analyses to evaluate the accuracy and adequacy of the information used to demonstrate 
compliance with the postclosure performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart E. The PC 
Test Plans, the next level of plan below the Performance Confirmation Plan, provide details at 
the activity or test level. Performance assessment includes analyses of the behavior of a system 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-20 November 2004 

or system component under a given set of conditions. TSPA-LA is the highest level of many 
assessments that are used to evaluate barrier capability. 
1.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE 
The performance confirmation program will be conducted in compliance with 10 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart F, including 10 CFR 63.142. The Performance Confirmation Plan was prepared in 
accordance with implementing procedure LP-3.11Q-BSC, Technical Reports ([DIRS 171737]) 
and is subject to the Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (DOE 2004 
[DIRS 171386]). 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-21 November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 1-22 November 2004 

2. REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE
This section describes NRCs regulatory requirements and guidance applicable to the DOE 
performance confirmation program. The regulatory definition for performance confirmation is 
provided and specific requirements in 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]) are identified. 
A crosswalk between individual performance confirmation activities described in this plan and 
the 10 CFR Part 63 requirements is included. A similar crosswalk relating to the acceptance 
criteria from the YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) is also provided. 
2.1 REGULATORY SCOPE OF THE PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION 
PROGRAM 
The performance confirmation program developed for the Yucca Mountain repository is directed 
at evaluating the adequacy of the information used to demonstrate compliance with the 
performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 63. Regulatory requirements exclusively applicable to 
the performance confirmation program are specified in 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. 
A description of the performance confirmation program is required in the SAR as part of the 
License Application (10 CFR 63.21(c)(17)). Guidance for NRC staff review of the description 
of the program is provided in the YMRP NUREG-1804, (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). 
As defined at 10 CFR 63.2, performance confirmation is: 
The program of tests, experiments, and analyses that is conducted to evaluate the 
adequacy of the information used to demonstrate compliance with the 
performance objectives in subpart E. 
10 CFR Part 63, Subpart E includes both preclosure and postclosure performance objectives and 
further defines the performance confirmation concept at 10 CFR 63.102(m): 
A performance confirmation program will be conducted to evaluate the adequacy 
of assumptions, data, and analyses that led to the findings that permitted 
construction of the repository and subsequent emplacement of the wastes. Key 
geotechnical and design parameters, including any interactions between natural 
and engineered systems and components, will be monitored throughout site 
characterization, construction, emplacement, and operation to identify any 
significant changes in the conditions assumed in the license application that may 
affect compliance with the performance objectives specified at  63.113(b) 
and (c). 
The phrase findings that permitted construction of the repository and subsequent emplacement 
of the wastes refers to the safety determinations required of NRC at 10 CFR 63.31(a)(1) to 
authorize construction: 
(1) That there is reasonable assurance that the types and amounts of radioactive 
materials described in the application can be received and possessed in a geologic 
repository operations area of the design proposed without unreasonable risk to the 
health and safety of the public; and 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-1 November 2004 

(2) That there is reasonable expectation that the materials can be disposed of 
without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public. 
These findings respectively relate to preclosure and postclosure aspects of repository operation 
and performance. 
The Supplementary Information for 66 FR 55732 ([DIRS 156671]) explains that: 
Although the primary focus of the performance confirmation program is on 
postclosure performance, it is important that the general requirements also include 
consideration of operations aspects of repository performance, for example, the 
ability to retrieve waste as required by 63.111(e). [66 FR 55732, [DIRS 1566771] 
p. 55744]
Furthermore, the YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003, [DIRS 163274]) Section 2.4.1 provides 
elaboration: 
The broad reference to the performance objectives under subpart E in the 
performance confirmation definition reflects the need to consider retrievability 
when monitoring subsurface conditions, and that preserving the retrieval option is 
a preclosure performance requirement. The general requirements for the 
performance confirmation program do not require testing and monitoring to 
confirm preclosure performance in other contexts. 
Thus, the scope of the performance confirmation program is directed at evaluating information 
supporting compliance arguments for the postclosure performance objectives for individual 
protection (10 CFR 63.113(b)) and groundwater protection (10 CFR 63.113(c)), and the 
preclosure performance objective for retrievability (10 CFR 63.111(e)). 
Consistent with the regulatory approach for 10 CFR Part 63 the activities in the performance 
confirmation program should be risk-informed and performance-based. They need not go 
beyond what is practicable (10 CFR 63.131(a)) and necessary to meet the requirements of 
10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. Performance confirmation includes activities such as in situ 
monitoring and testing, laboratory and field-testing, surveillance and measurement, and 
monitoring of conditions. The performance confirmation program is focused on those activities 
necessary to identify and evaluate significant changes in the conditions assumed in the License 
Application that may affect compliance with the specified performance objectives for 
retrievability, individual protection, and groundwater protection. Monitoring subsurface 
conditions and testing to confirm geotechnical and design assumptions addresses compliance 
with the preclosure aspect of performance confirmation to ensure the preservation of the 
retrievability option. 
The capabilities of barriers identified as important to waste isolation are key to demonstrating 
compliance with the postclosure performance objectives for individual and groundwater 
protection. Barrier functions prevent or substantially reduce the rate of movement of water or 
radionuclides from the repository to the accessible environment, or prevent the release or 
substantially reduce the release rate of radionuclides from the waste. Definition of the barriers 
important to waste isolation and of the processes and conditions that may significantly affect the 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-2 November 2004 

capabilities of these barriers provides a risk-informed, performance-based basis for determining 
the scope of the postclosure aspects of the performance confirmation program. 
The performance confirmation requirements in 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F emphasize making 
physical observations or measurements in the underground environment available during 
construction and through waste emplacement operations. Several broad divisions of interest are 
apparent. One is the confirmation that actual subsurface conditions, including changes in those 
conditions attendant to construction and waste emplacement, are as expected. A second is the 
evaluation of barrier functionality, which is integral to the safety analyses. Another is the testing 
of the engineered system and components used in the design and not intended for installation 
until late in repository development. 
In summary, the performance confirmation program must: 
 Confirm that subsurface conditions, geotechnical and design parameters are as 
anticipated and that changes to these parameters are within limits assumed in the License 
Application 
 Confirm that the waste retrieval option is preserved (see Section 1.6 and Section 3) 
 Evaluate information used to assess whether natural and engineered barriers function as 
intended 
 Evaluate effectiveness of design features intended to perform a postclosure function 
during repository operation and development 
 Monitor waste package condition. 
The performance confirmation program began during site characterization and will continue until 
permanent closure of the repository (10 CFR 63.131(b)). Relevant site characterization 
information is incorporated into the baseline for implementation of performance confirmation 
during repository construction and operation (Section 4). Section 1.1 listed the activities that 
began during site characterization and those that will begin at later stages in the repository 
development. A variety of testing and monitoring is anticipated as part of repository 
development and operation. As described in Section 1.5, the performance confirmation 
constitutes only one aspect of testing to be conducted in support of repository development. 
An update of the performance assessment of the repository is required in the license amendment 
for permanent closure (10 CFR 63.51(a)(1)). The updated assessment must include any 
parameter measurements collected under the program required by 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F and 
pertinent to compliance with the postclosure performance objectives in 10 CFR 63.113. As a 
result, one of the objectives of performance confirmation is to support the analytical bases for the 
evaluations of the individual and groundwater postclosure performance objectives that will be 
relied upon by the NRC in its decision to permit permanent closure of the repository. 
Although the primary focus of the performance confirmation program is on postclosure 
performance of the repository, the program also includes activities to address the preservation of 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-3 November 2004 

the ability to retrieve waste. Assurance that operational and administrative controls of processes 
like materials qualification, waste acceptance, waste package testing and handling is addressed 
outside the context of performance confirmation. 
2.2 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION PLAN10 CFR PART 63 REGULATORY 
REQUIREMENTS 
This section identifies performance confirmation requirements and explains relationships 
between the requirements, and the Performance Confirmation Plan activities to demonstrate 
regulatory compliance for the performance confirmation program. 
2.2.1 Performance Confirmation Requirements in 10 CFR Part 63 
Performance confirmation is specifically addressed in 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. Other 
regulatory provisions related to performance confirmation are contained in 10 CFR Part 63, 
Subparts A, B, D, E, and G. Subpart A (10 CFR 63.2) defines the term performance 
confirmation to mean the program of tests, experiments, and analyses that is conducted to 
evaluate the adequacy of the information used to demonstrate compliance with the performance 
objectives in Subpart E of this part. 
Subpart B (10 CFR 63.21(c)(17)) requires that a description of the performance confirmation 
program be included in the License Application SAR. Subpart B (10 CFR 63.51(a)(1)) also 
requires that parameter measurements obtained during construction and operations under the 
program required by Subpart F and pertinent to compliance with 10 CFR 63.113 (postclosure 
performance objectives) be included in the application for a license amendment for permanent 
closure. 
Subpart D (10 CFR 63.74) identifies the performance confirmation program as one particular 
category of tests the Commission considers necessary to administer its regulation. 
Subpart E includes several references to performance confirmation. Two occurrences elaborate 
on the concept. The duration of the performance confirmation program is described in the 
context of the stages of the licensing process as beginning during site characterization and 
extending until permanent closure (10 CFR 63.102(c)). Refinement of the definition of 
performance confirmation at 10 CFR 63.2 is provided in Subpart E (10 CFR 63.102(m)). 
Two additional references to performance confirmation in Subpart E are provided at 
10 CFR 63.111. These references do not provide direction relative to performance confirmation. 
One constrains design activities to assure that a performance confirmation program that meets 
the requirements of Subpart F can be implemented (10 CFR 63.111(d)). The other conditions the 
requirement to maintain the option of waste retrieval until completion of the performance 
confirmation program and NRC review of the information obtained from that program 
(10 CFR 63.111(e)). 
Subpart F stipulates the specific requirements for the performance confirmation program. These 
provisions detail expectations for the performance confirmation program using both technical 
requirements and administrative directives that generally apply to the implementation of the 
performance confirmation program. In evaluating Subpart F provisions it is important to keep in 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-4 November 2004 

mind that the principal interest is directed at changes that might impact compliance with the 
postclosure performance objectives for individual and groundwater protection. Collection of 
information to evaluate the bases for repository design, including those relied upon to preserve 
the retrieval option, is also required. 
While the regulation may specify parameters in some places, this plan uses a term activity 
which is the combination of test parameters and test methods (the combination is referred to as a 
test or monitoring activity). It should be understood that test parameters are at a lower level than 
activities and will be detailed and described in the PC Test Plans. Section 3.2 provides a list of 
the parameters and purpose for each activity. 
Table 2-1 relates 10 CFR Part 63 requirements to individual activities in this plan. In the 
individual activity descriptions in Section 3, a more detailed, consolidated listing of which 
requirements each activity addresses is provided. 
The general requirements of Subpart F (10 CFR 63.131) set the emphasis for subsequent specific 
direction. The performance confirmation program is to be designed such that observations and 
measurements in the repository subsurface can evaluate conditions described in the 
License Application, and identify significant differences from expected conditions 
(10 CFR 63.131(a)(1)). Similarly, the program needs to include tests to identify changes that 
may result from excavating the drifts or emplacement of waste packages and the resulting 
thermal effects. Paragraph 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2) directs performance confirmation to evaluate 
the functionality of barriers important to waste isolation. Paragraphs 10 CFR 63.131(b) through 
10 CFR 63.131(d)(3) provides administrative direction that applies to overall implementation of 
the performance confirmation program. 
10 CFR 63.132 elaborates on the general requirement specified at 10 CFR 63.131(a)(1). 
It emphasizes mapping and measurement of geotechnical conditions and the design parameters 
necessary to evaluate the need for construction method or design changes either because of 
subsurface conditions encountered (10 CFR 63.132(a)), or impacts on performance 
(10 CFR 63.132(d) and (e)). Subparagraph (b) and (c) of this section require specific 
identification of what is to be measured and an evaluation of observations and results obtained 
against design assumptions used in the SAR. 
10 CFR 63.133 requires testing of engineered systems and components included in the design. 
10 CFR 63.134 requires monitoring and testing of waste packages and elaborates on the general 
requirement at 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2), the waste package being identified as a barrier important to 
waste isolation. 
Subpart G (10 CFR 63.142(a)) includes performance confirmation activities within the activities 
related to barrier design and characterization important to waste isolation, and thereby subject to 
the quality assurance program. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-5 November 2004 

Table 2-1. Provisions from Subpart F Paragraphs 10 CFR 63.131 through 10 CFR 63.134 
10 CFR Part 63 Section Performance Confirmation Activities 
Subpart F Performance Confirmation Program 
 63.131 General requirements Regulatory Compliance Activities 
(a) The performance confirmation program must provide 
data that indicate, where practicable, whether: 
(1) Actual subsurface conditions encountered and changes 
in those conditions during construction and waste 
emplacement operations are within the limits assumed in the 
licensing review; and 
Seepage Monitoring (3.3.1.2) 
Drift Inspection (3.3.1.8) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring (3.3.1.9) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment Monitoring 
(3.3.1.11) 
Subsurface Mapping (3.3.2.1) 
Seismicity Monitoring (3.3.2.2.) 
Construction Effects Monitoring (3.3.2.3) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring 
(3.3.2.4) 
Surface Water and Rock Testing (3.3.1.3) 
(2) Natural and engineered systems and components 
required for repository operation, and that are designed or 
assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure, are 
functioning as intended and anticipated. 
Precipitation Monitoring (3.3.1.1) 
Seepage Monitoring (3.3.1.2) 
Subsurface Water and Rock Testing (3.3.1.3) 
Unsaturated Zone Testing (3.3.1.4) 
Saturated Zone Monitoring (3.3.1.5) 
Saturated Zone Fault Hydrology Testing (3.3.1.6) 
Saturated Zone Alluvium Testing (3.3.1.7) 
Drift Inspection (3.3.1.8) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring (3.3.1.9) 
Dust Buildup Monitoring (3.3.1.10) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment (3.3.1.11) 
Subsurface Mapping (3.3.2.1) 
Seismicity Monitoring (3.3.2.2) 
Construction Effects Monitoring (3.3.2.3) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring 
(3.3.2.4) 
Seal Testing (3.3.3.1) 
Waste Package Monitoring (3.3.4.1) 
Corrosion Testing (3.3.4.2) 
Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift Samples 
(3.3.4.3) 
Waste Form Testing (3.3.4.4.) 
(b) The program must have been started during site 
characterization, and it will continue until permanent closure. 
Performance Confirmation Program Implementation 
(6.0 Schedule) 
(c) The program must include in situ monitoring, laboratory 
and field-testing, and in situ experiments, as may be 
appropriate to provide the data required by paragraph (a) of 
this section. 
Performance Confirmation Program Implementation 
(3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation Activities) 
(d) The program must be implemented so that: 
(1) It does not adversely affect the ability of the geologic and 
engineered elements of the geologic repository to meet the 
performance objectives. 
Performance Confirmation Program Implementation 
(1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Performance 
Confirmation Plan and Program) 
2) It provides baseline information and analysis of that 
information on those parameters and natural processes 
pertaining to the geologic setting that may be changed by 
site characterization, construction, and operational activities. 
Performance Confirmation Program Implementation 
(4.0 Data Management, Analyses, and Reporting) 
(3) It monitors and analyzes changes from the baseline 
condition of parameters that could affect the performance of 
a geologic repository. 
Performance Confirmation Program Implementation 
(4.0 Data Management, Analyses, and Reporting) 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-6 November 2004 

Table 2-1. Provisions from Subpart F Paragraphs 10 CFR 63.131 through 10 CFR 63.134 (Continued) 
10 CFR Part 63 Section Performance Confirmation Activities 
Subpart F Performance Confirmation Program 
 63.132 Confirmation of geotechnical and 
design parameters Regulatory Compliance Activities 
(a) During repository construction and operation, a 
continuing program of surveillance, measurement, testing, 
and geologic mapping must be conducted to ensure that 
geotechnical and design parameters are confirmed and to 
ensure that appropriate action is taken to inform the 
Commission of design changes needed to accommodate 
actual field conditions encountered. 
Seepage Monitoring (3.3.1.2) 
Drift Inspection (3.3.1.8) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring (3.3.1.9) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment (3.3.1.11) 
Subsurface Mapping (3.3.2.1) 
Seismicity Monitoring (3.3.2.2) 
Construction Effects Monitoring (3.3.2.3) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring 
(3.3.2.4) 
(b) Subsurface conditions must be monitored and evaluated 
against design assumptions. 
Seepage Monitoring (3.3.1.2) 
Drift Inspection (3.3.1.8) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring (3.3.1.9) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment (3.3.1.11) 
Subsurface Mapping (3.3.2.1) 
Construction Effects Monitoring (3.3.2.3) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring 
(3.3.2.4) 
(c) Specific geotechnical and design parameters to be 
measured or observed, including any interactions between 
natural and engineered systems and components, must be 
identified in the performance confirmation plan. 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring (3.3.1.9) 
Subsurface Mapping (3.3.2.1) 
Construction Effects Monitoring (3.3.2.3) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical 
Monitoring)(3.3.2.4) 
(d) These measurements and observations must be 
compared with the original design bases and assumptions. 
If significant differences exist between the measurements 
and observations and the original design bases and 
assumptions, the need for modifications to the design or in 
construction methods must be determined and these 
differences, their significance to repository performance, and 
the recommended changes reported to the Commission. 
Performance Confirmation Program Implementation 
(4.0 Data Management, Analyses, and Reporting) 
(e) In situ monitoring of the thermomechanical response of 
the underground facility must be conducted until permanent 
closure, to ensure that the performance of the geologic and 
engineering features is within design limits. 
Drift Inspection (3.3.1.8) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring (3.3.1.9) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring 
(3.3.2.4) 
 63.133 Design testing Regulatory Compliance Activities 
(a) During the early or developmental stages of construction, 
a program for testing of engineered systems and 
components used in the design, such as, for example, 
borehole and shaft seals, backfill, and drip shields, as well 
as the thermal interaction effects of the waste packages, 
backfill, drip shields, rock, and unsaturated zone and 
saturated zone water, must be conducted. 
Seepage Monitoring (3.3.1.2) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring (3.3.1.9) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment (3.3.1.11) 
Construction Effects Monitoring (3.3.2.3) 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring 
(3.3.2.4) 
Seal Testing (3.3.3.1) 
(b) The testing must be initiated as early as practicable. Performance Confirmation Program Implementation 
(6.0 Schedule) 
(c) If backfill is included in the repository design, a test must 
be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of backfill 
placement and compaction procedures against design 
requirements before permanent backfill placement is begun. 
Seal Testing (3.3.3.1) 
(d) Tests must be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of 
borehole, shaft, and ramp seals before full-scale operation 
proceeds to seal boreholes, shafts, and ramps. 
Seal Testing (3.3.3.1) 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-7 November 2004 

Table 2-1. Provisions from Subpart F Paragraphs 10 CFR 63.131 through 10 CFR 63.134 (Continued) 
10 CFR Part 63 Section Performance Confirmation Activities 
Subpart F Performance Confirmation Program 
 63.134 Monitoring and testing waste packages Regulatory Compliance Activities 
(a) A program must be established at the geologic repository 
operations area for monitoring the condition of the waste 
packages. Waste packages chosen for the program must 
be representative of those to be emplaced in the 
underground facility. 
Drift Inspection (3.3.1.8) 
Dust Buildup Monitoring (3.3.1.10) 
Waste Package Monitoring (3.3.4.1) 
(b) Consistent with safe operation at the geologic repository 
operations area, the environment of the waste packages 
selected for the waste package monitoring program must be 
representative of the environment in which the wastes are to 
be emplaced. 
Performance Confirmation Program Implementation 
(3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation Activities) 
(c) The waste package monitoring program must include 
laboratory experiments that focus on the internal condition of 
the waste packages. To the extent practical, the 
environment experienced by the emplaced waste packages 
within the underground facility during the waste package 
monitoring program must be duplicated in the laboratory 
experiments. 
Dust Buildup Monitoring (3.3.1.10) 
Corrosion Testing (3.3.4.2) 
Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift Samples 
(3.3.4.3) 
Waste Form Testing (3.3.4.4) 
(d) The waste package monitoring program must continue 
as long as practical up to the time of permanent closure. 
Performance Confirmation Program Implementation 
(6.0 Schedule) 
Several sections of 10 CFR Part 63 that are not specifically identified as applicable to 
performance confirmation may be important considerations in execution of the program. Certain 
provisions related to records and reports (10 CFR 63.71) and construction records 
(10 CFR 63.72) clearly apply to performance confirmation. Also, depending on the 
circumstances, provisions related to changes, tests, and experiments (10 CFR 63.44) and reports 
of deficiencies (10 CFR 63.73) are applicable to performance confirmation. 
Technical provisions of 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F are addressed by applying a process designed 
to satisfy the technical approach implicit in the regulation. The activities described in Section 3 
incorporate such an approach using the following basic steps: 
 Identify physical characteristic(s) or parameter(s) important to the evaluation 
 Establish the value or range of values for characteristics or parameters that will be 
measured 
 Identify the type and expected magnitude of changes that may occur in the baseline 
 Monitor or test identified parameters to evaluate assumed values for changes 
 Analyze the outcomes of the monitoring or test activity by comparing results to the 
established baseline or design assumptions 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-8 November 2004 

 Decide if the outcome is such that changes in construction, design, or performance 
assessment approaches may be necessary 
 Report the impact to NRC if an appropriate threshold is met. 
Compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F is accomplished (refer to 
Table 2-1) by evaluating: 
 The subsurface conditions encountered during construction (10 CFR 63.131(a)(1)). This 
also includes the surveillance and mapping provisions of 10 CFR 63.132(a) 
 Changes in the subsurface conditions resulting from construction and waste 
emplacement (10 CFR 63.131(a)(1)) and thermal-mechanical response (10 CFR 63.132) 
 Natural systems and components assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure 
emplacement (10 CFR 63.131(a)(2)) 
 Engineered systems and components assumed to operate as barriers after permanent 
closure emplacement (10 CFR 63.131(a)(2)), including waste package monitoring and 
testing (10 CFR 63.134) 
 Testing engineered systems and components used in the design (10 CFR 63.133). 
The administrative elements of 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F are addressed (refer to Table 2-1) by 
their incorporation into the implementation architecture of the performance confirmation 
program plan in Section 5. Compliance with the following provisions is accomplished directly 
through program planning and execution: 
 Initiating performance confirmation during site characterization and maintaining the 
program until repository closure (10 CFR 63.131(b)) 
 Including appropriate in situ monitoring, laboratory and field-testing, and in situ 
experiments in the program (10 CFR 63.131(c)) 
 Implementing the program so as to not adversely affect the ability of the geologic and 
engineered elements of the geologic repository to meet the performance objectives 
(10 CFR 63.131(d)(1)) 
 Conducting in situ monitoring of thermal-mechanical response of the underground 
facility until permanent closure (10 CFR 63.132(e)) 
 Initiating design testing as early as practicable during construction (10 CFR 63.133(b)) 
 Conducting design testing during the early or developmental stages of construction for 
components such as boreholes, shafts, and ramps (10 CFR 63.133(a)) 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-9 November 2004 

 Monitoring representative waste packages at the geologic repository operations area 
(10 CFR 63.134(a)), in an environment representative of waste emplacement 
(10 CFR 63.134(b)), and continuing that monitoring as long as practical up to permanent 
closure (10 CFR 63.134(d)) 
 Conducting laboratory experiments that, to the extent practical, duplicate the 
environment experienced by the waste packages in the underground facility 
(10 CFR 63.134(c)). 
The performance confirmation activities designed to comply with the requirements of 
10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F are described in Section 3. Table 2-1 correlates the activities with 
specific provision in 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. 
Implementation of the test and monitoring program described in Section 3, in conjunction with 
the approaches outlined in Sections 4 and 5, satisfies the requirements for performance 
confirmation in 10 CFR Part 63 because: 
 It is designed to evaluate the adequacy of assumptions, data, and analyses that lead to the 
findings that permit construction of the repository and subsequent emplacement of 
wastes. 
 It addresses each of the technical provisions specified in 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. 
 Each of the administrative provisions in 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F is incorporated in its 
implementation. 
2.2.2 Evaluation of Performance Confirmation Guidance in the Yucca Mountain Review 
Plan, Final Report 
Staff guidance for NRC review of information related to performance confirmation in a License 
Application submitted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 63 is presented in Section 2.4 of YMRP 
NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). The structure of YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274]) Section 2.4 and the acceptance criteria in Section 2.4.3 parallel the structure of 
10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F. 
The acceptance criteria from Section 2.4.3 of the YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274]) are listed in Table 2-2. The section of this plan that addresses each of the 
technical and administrative provisions of Section 2.4.3 of YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274]) is also identified in Table 2-2. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-10 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
Acceptance Criterion 1 The Performance Confirmation 
Program Meets the General Requirements Established 
for Such a Program. 
1 (1) The objectives of the performance confirmation 1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Performance 
program are consistent with the general requirements in Confirmation Plan and Program 
that the program will provide data to indicate whether: 
1 (1)(i) actual subsurface conditions encountered and 
changes in those conditions during construction and waste 
emplacement operations are within the limits assumed in 
the licensing review; and 
3.3 Performance Confirmation Activities 
3.3.1.2 Seepage Monitoring 
3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection 
3.3.1.9 Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field 
Monitoring 
3.3.1.11 Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment 
Monitoring 
3.3.2.1 Subsurface Mapping 
3.3.2.2 Seismicity Monitoring 
3.3.2.3 Construction Effects Monitoring 
3.3.2.4 Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical 
Monitoring 
1 (1)(ii) natural and engineered systems and components 
that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after 
permanent closure are functioning as intended and 
expected. 
3.3 Performance Confirmation Activities 
3.3.1.1 Precipitation Monitoring 
3.3.1.2 Seepage Monitoring 
3.3.1.3 Subsurface Water and Rock Testing 
3.3.1.4 Unsaturated Zone Testing 
3.3.1.5 Saturated Zone Monitoring 
3.3.1.6 Saturated Zone Fault Hydrology Testing 
3.3.1.7 Saturated Zone Alluvium Hydrology 
3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection 
3.3.1.9 Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field 
Monitoring 
3.3.1.10 Dust Buildup Monitoring 
3.3.1.11 Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment 
Monitoring 
3.3.2.1 Subsurface Mapping 
3.3.2.2 Seismicity Monitoring 
3.3.2.3 Construction Effects Monitoring 
3.3.2.4 Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical 
Monitoring 
3.3.3.1 Seal Testing 
3.3.4.1 Waste Package Monitoring 
3.3.4.2 Corrosion Testing 
3.3.4.3 Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift 
Samples 
3.3.4.4 Waste Form Testing 
1 (1) The performance confirmation plan provides 
sufficient technical information and plans for in situ 
monitoring, laboratory and field-testing, and in situ 
experiments to carry out the objectives in that: 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-11 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections (Continued) 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
1 (1)(a) It identifies the natural and engineered systems 3.2 Relationship of the Barriers and Activities 
and components that are designed or assumed to operate 
as barriers after permanent closure, including their specific 
functions, the U.S. Department of Energy selected to 
monitor and test, to ensure they are functioning as 
intended and expected; 
1 (1)(b) It includes the method used to select the natural 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
and engineered systems and components, which are 
designed or assumed to operate as barriers after 
3.2 Relationship of the Barriers and Activities 
permanent closure, the U.S. Department of Energy will 
monitor and test, to ensure they are functioning as 
intended and expected; 
1 (1)(c) It identifies specific geotechnical and design 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
parameters, pertaining to natural systems and 
components that are assumed to operate as barriers after 
3.2 Relationship of the Barriers and Activities 
permanent closure including natural processes and any 
interactions between natural and engineered systems and 
components, the U.S. Department of Energy selected to 
be measured or observed; 
1 (1)(d) It includes the method used to select the 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
geotechnical and design parameters including any 
interactions between natural and engineered systems and 
components, the U.S. Department of Energy will measure 
or observe; 
1 (1)(e) It includes specific in situ monitoring, laboratory 3.3 Performance Confirmation Activities 
and field-testing, and in situ experiments to acquire 
needed data; 
1 (1)(f) It specifies which in situ monitoring, laboratory and 3.3 Performance Confirmation Activities 
field-testing, or in situ experimental methods the 
U.S. Department of Energy will apply to the selected: 
(i) geotechnical and design parameters, including natural 
processes, pertaining to natural systems and components 
that are assumed to operate as barriers after permanent 
closure; (ii) engineered systems and components that are 
designed or assumed to operate as barriers after 
permanent closure; and (iii) interactions between natural 
and engineered systems and components; 
1 (1)(g) It includes the expected changes (i.e., design 3.3 Performance Confirmation Activities 
bases and assumptions) from baseline for the selected 
geotechnical and design parameters, including natural 
4.0 Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting 
processes, pertaining to natural systems and components 
that are assumed to operate as barriers after permanent 
closure that will result from construction and waste 
emplacement operations; and 
1 (1)(h) It includes the intended and expected design 
bases for the selected natural and engineered systems 
and components, which are designed or assumed to 
operate as barriers after permanent closure. 
1.4.1 
3.3 
4.0 
5.0 
Activity Selection Approach 
Performance Confirmation Activities 
Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting 
Test Planning and Implementation 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-12 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections (Continued) 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
1 (2) The schedule for the performance confirmation 6.0 Schedule 
program is consistent with the general requirements. The 
program started during site characterization and will 
continue until permanent closure. 
1 (3) The U.S. Department of Energy will implement the 
performance confirmation program in a manner consistent 
with the general requirements in that: 
1 (3)(a) Procedures require the U.S. Department of 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
Energy to consider adverse effects on the ability of the 
natural and engineered elements of the geologic 
repository to meet the performance objectives before 
initiating any in situ monitoring, tests, or experiments to 
acquire data; 
1 (3)(b) It provides baseline information and analysis of 
that information on those parameters and natural 
processes pertaining to pertaining to natural systems and 
components that are assumed to operate as barriers after 
permanent closure that may be changed by site 
characterization, construction, and operations; 
3.3 
4.0 
5.0 
Performance Confirmation Activities 
Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting 
Test Planning and Implementation 
1 (3)(c) It commits to monitoring and analyzing changes 4.0 Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting 
from the baseline condition for those parameters and 
natural processes that could affect health and safety. 
Exceptions from this commitment for any particular 
parameter are identified and technically justified (refer to 
Acceptance Criterion 2 of this section); 
1 (3)(d) It commits to monitoring engineered systems and 1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Performance 
components that are designed or assumed to operate as Confirmation Plan and Program 
barriers after permanent closure to indicate whether they 3.3 Performance Confirmation Activities 
are functioning as intended and expected. Exceptions 
from this commitment for any particular system or 
component are identified and technically justified (refer to 
Acceptance Criterion 2 of this section); and 
1 (3)(e) It provides terms for periodic assessment and 1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Performance 
update of the performance confirmation plan. Confirmation Plan and Program 
4.3 Trend Detection, Analysis, Reporting and Action 
Ranges 
1 (4) The performance confirmation plan includes or cites 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
procedures to meet the requirements for records and 
reports, specified at 10 CFR 63.71 
Acceptance Criterion 2 The Performance Confirmation 
Program to Confirm Geotechnical and Design 
Parameters Meets the Requirements Established for 
Such a Program. 
2 (1) The performance confirmation plan establishes a 
program for measuring, testing, and geologic mapping to 
confirm geotechnical and design parameters, including 
natural processes, pertaining to natural systems and 
components that are assumed to operate as barriers after 
permanent closure. 
3.0 
3.3.2.1 
3.3.2.2 
3.3.2.3 
3.3.2.4 
Description of Performance Confirmation 
Activities 
Subsurface Mapping 
Seismicity Monitoring 
Construction Effects Monitoring 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical 
Monitoring 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-13 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections (Continued) 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
2 (1) The U.S. Department of Energy will implement the 6.0 Schedule 
program during repository construction and operation. 
The program is consistent with the requirements in that: 
2 (1)(a) Geotechnical and design parameters the 
U.S. Department of Energy will monitor and analyze are 
selected using a performance-based method that focuses 
on those parameters that could affect health and safety. 
1.4.1 
3.3 
Activity Selection Approach 
Performance Confirmation Activities 
2 (1)(a) The U.S. Department of Energy also considered 1.0 Introduction 
the need to preserve the retrieval option; 3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection 
2 (1)(b) Results of performance assessments confirm the 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
list of selected geotechnical and design parameters is 
reasonable and complete. The U.S. Department of 
Energy has justified excluding any geotechnical and 
design parameter that is important to waste isolation. 
Acceptable justification factors include the certainty 
provided by existing baseline information and the low 
likelihood of changes in that parameter as a result of 
construction, waste emplacement operations, or 
interactions between natural and engineered systems; 
2 (1)(c) The baseline of selected geotechnical and design 1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Performance 
parameters was determined using analytical or statistical Confirmation Plan and Program 
methods appropriate for the particular parameter; 4.0 Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting 
2 (1)(d) The baseline of selected geotechnical and design 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
parameters considered all data available at the time of the 
submittal; 
2 (1)(e) The effects of construction, waste emplacement 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
operations, and interactions between natural and 
engineered systems are considered in the original design 
5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
bases and assumptions for the geotechnical and design 
parameters; and 
2 (1)(f) Monitoring, testing, and experimental methods are 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
suitable for the nature of individual parameters in terms of 
time, space, resolution, and technique. Instrumentation 
reliability and replacement requirements are considered; 
2 (2) The program includes adequate plans to monitor, 3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
in situ, the thermomechanical response of the Activities 
underground facility until permanent closure. The program 
is consistent with the requirements in that: 
3.3.1.8 
3.3.1.9 
Drift Inspection 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field 
Monitoring 
3.3.2.3 Construction Effects Monitoring 
3.3.2.4 Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical 
Monitoring 
2 (2)(a) In situ thermomechanical response parameters 
that the U.S. Department of Energy will monitor and 
analyze are selected using a performance-based method 
that focuses on those parameters that could affect health 
and safety. The U.S. Department of Energy also 
considered the need to preserve the retrieval option; 
1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-14 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections (Continued) 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
2 (2)(b) Results of performance assessments confirm that 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
the list of selected in situ thermomechanical response 
parameters is reasonable and complete. The 
U.S. Department of Energy has justified excluding any 
in situ thermomechanical response parameter that is 
important to waste isolation. Acceptable justification 
factors include the certainty provided by existing baseline 
information and the low likelihood of changes in that 
parameter as a result of construction, waste emplacement 
operations, or interactions between natural and 
engineered systems; 
2 (2)(c) The baseline of selected in situ thermomechanical 4.0 Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting 
response parameters was determined using analytical or 
statistical methods appropriate for the particular 
parameter; 
2 (2)(d) The baseline of selected in situ thermomechanical 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
response parameters considered all data available at the 
time of the submittal; 
2 (2)(e) The effects of construction, waste emplacement 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
operations, and interactions between natural and 
engineered systems are considered in the original design 
5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
bases and assumptions for the in situ thermomechanical 
response parameters; and 
2 (2)(f) Monitoring, testing, and experimental methods are 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
suitable for the nature of individual parameters in terms of 
time, space, resolution, and technique. Instrumentation 
reliability and replacement requirements are considered. 
2 (3) The performance confirmation plan sets up a 
surveillance program to evaluate subsurface conditions 
against design assumptions. The program is consistent 
with the requirements in that: 
3.0 
3.3.2.1 
3.3.2.2 
3.3.2.3 
3.3.2.4 
Description of Performance Confirmation 
Activities 
Subsurface Mapping 
Seismicity Monitoring 
Construction Effects Monitoring 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical 
Monitoring 
2 (3)(a) It includes provisions for comparing 
measurements and observations with original design 
bases and assumptions. Comparisons are done routinely 
and in a timely manner to ensure that if any significant 
differences exist between the measurements and 
observations and the original design bases and 
assumptions, their significance to health and safety, and 
the need for design changes can be determined quickly 
and efficiently; 
4.3 Trend Detection, Analysis, Reporting, and Action 
Ranges 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-15 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections (Continued) 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
2 (3)(b) It includes provisions for determining the need for 4.3 Trend Detection, Analysis, Reporting, and Action 
modifications to the design or construction methods if Ranges 
significant differences exist between measurements and 
observations and original design bases and assumptions. 
Acceptable variations in the design bases and 
assumptions the design would accommodate without an 
adverse impact on health and safety have been provided. 
If construction methods or design needs to be modified to 
address changed conditions, the U.S. Department of 
Energy design control process used in the design phase 
may be used; and 
2 (3)(c) It includes provisions for reporting significant 4.3 Trend Detection, Analysis, Reporting, and Action 
differences between measurements and observations and Ranges 
the original design bases and assumptions, their 
significance to health and safety and recommended 
changes to the Commission. These provisions meet the 
requirements for reports of deficiencies specified at 
10 CFR 63.73. 
Acceptance criterion 3 The performance confirmation 
program for design testing meets the requirements 
established for such a program. 
3 (1) The performance confirmation plan establishes a 3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
program for design testing. The program is consistent Activities 
with the requirements in that: 
3 (1)(a) Engineered systems and components the 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
U.S. Department of Energy will test are selected using a 
performance-based method that focuses on those 
systems and components important to waste isolation; 
3 (1)(b) Results of performance assessments confirm that 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
the list of selected engineered systems and components is 
reasonable and complete. The U.S. Department of 
Energy has justified excluding any engineered system or 
component that is important to waste isolation from this 
program. An acceptable justification factor is the certainty 
that the system or component can perform its intended 
function; 
3 (1)(c) Testing methods are suitable for the particular 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
engineered system or component being tested in terms of 
time, space, resolution, and technique. Testing methods 
are selected, in part, by considering the data needed to 
design the engineered systems and components. Test 
locations are selected considering compatibility with the 
environment in which the components or systems are to 
function. Instrumentation reliability and replacement 
requirements have been considered; and 
3 (1)(d) The effects of waste emplacement operations and 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
interactions between natural and engineered systems are 
considered in estimates of the intended and expected 
5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
design bases. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-16 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections (Continued) 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
3 (2) Thermal interaction effects of waste packages, rock, 
unsaturated zone and saturated zone water, and other 
engineered systems and components used in the design 
are included in the design testing program. The program 
is consistent with the requirements in that: 
3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
Activities 
3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection 
3.3.1.9 Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field 
Monitoring 
3.3.1.10 Dust Buildup Monitoring 
3.3.1.11 Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment 
Monitoring 
3 (2)(a) Thermal interaction effects of waste packages, 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
rock, unsaturated zone and saturated zone water, and 
other engineered systems and components the 
U.S. Department of Energy will test are selected using a 
performance-based method that focuses on those 
systems and components important to health and safety; 
3 (2)(b) Results of performance assessments confirm that 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
the list of selected thermal interaction effects of waste 
packages, rock, unsaturated zone and saturated zone 
water, and other engineered systems and components is 
reasonable and complete. The U.S. Department of 
Energy has justified excluding any thermal interaction 
effects of waste packages, rock, unsaturated zone and 
saturated zone water, and other engineered systems and 
components that are important to waste isolation from this 
program. An acceptable justification factor is the certainty 
that the system or component can perform its intended 
function; 
3 (2)(c) Testing methods are suitable for the particular 3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
thermal interaction effects of waste packages, rock, Activities 
unsaturated zone and saturated zone water, and other 
engineered systems and components being tested in 
5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
terms of time, space, resolution, and technique. Testing 
methods are selected, in part, by considering the data 
needed to design the thermal interaction effects of waste 
packages, rock, unsaturated zone and saturated zone 
water, and other engineered systems and components. 
Test locations are selected considering compatibility with 
the environment in which the components or systems are 
to function. Instrumentation reliability and replacement 
requirements have been considered; and 
3 (2)(d) The effects of waste emplacement operations and 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
interactions between natural and engineered systems are 
considered in estimates of the intended and anticipated 
5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
performance limits (that is, design assumptions). 
3 (3) The design testing program requires that the 
effectiveness of backfill placement and compaction 
procedures against design requirements be demonstrated 
in an in situ test if backfill is included in the design. The 
importance of the contribution of the backfill to the 
long-term health and safety is considered in specifying 
testing requirements such as backfill material, gradation, 
and placement density, which are an indication of the 
water tightness or permeability of the backfill. Specifically: 
3.3.3.1 Seal Testing 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-17 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections (Continued) 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
3 (3)(a) Backfill placement and compaction procedures the 3.3.3.1 Seal Testing 
U.S. Department of Energy will test are selected using a 
performance-based method that focuses on those 
systems and components important to waste isolation; 
3 (3)(b) Results of performance assessments confirm that 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
the list of selected backfill placement and compaction 
procedures is reasonable and complete. The 
U.S. Department of Energy has justified excluding any 
backfill placement and compaction procedures that are 
important to waste isolation from this program. An 
acceptable justification factor is the experience base in 
implementing placement and compaction procedures and 
the certainty of achieving the design bases for placement 
and compaction; 
3 (3)(c) Testing methods are suitable for the particular 
backfill placement and compaction procedures being 
tested in terms of time, space, resolution and technique. 
Testing methods are selected, in part, by considering the 
data needed to design the backfill placement and 
compaction procedures. Test locations are selected 
considering compatibility with the environment in which the 
components or systems are to function. Instrumentation 
reliability and replacement requirements have been 
considered; and 
5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
3 (3)(d) The effects of waste emplacement operations and 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
backfill placement and compaction procedure interactions 
between natural and engineered systems are considered 
in estimates of the intended and anticipated design bases. 
3 (4) The design testing program requires that the 3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
effectiveness of borehole, shaft, and ramp seals be Activities 
demonstrated in a test before full-scale sealing. The 
importance of seals to the long-term performance of the 
3.3.3.1 Seal Testing 
repository is considered in planning the seal test program. 
Specifically: 
3 (4)(a) The program of tests to evaluate the effectiveness 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
of borehole, shaft, and ramp seals before full-scale sealing 
was selected, using a performance-based method that 
focuses on those systems and components important to 
waste isolation; 
3 (4)(b) Results of performance assessments confirm that 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
the program of tests to evaluate the effectiveness of 
borehole, shaft, and ramps seals, before full-scale sealing, 
is reasonable and complete. The U.S. Department of 
Energy has justified excluding any tests to evaluate the 
effectiveness of borehole, shaft, and ramp seals, before 
full-scale sealing, that are important to waste isolation, 
from this program. An acceptable justification factor is the 
certainty that the seals can perform their intended function 
considering the available experience base related to seals 
and the likelihood of achieving the design bases for seals; 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-18 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections (Continued) 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
3 (4)(c) Testing methods are suitable for the particular 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
program of tests to evaluate the effectiveness of borehole, 
shaft, and ramps seals before full-scale sealing, in terms 
of time, space, resolution and technique. Testing methods 
are selected, in part, by considering the data needed to 
design the program of tests to evaluate the effectiveness 
of borehole, shaft, and ramp seals before full-scale 
sealing. Test locations are selected considering 
compatibility with the environment in which the 
components or systems are to function. Instrumentation 
reliability and replacement requirements have been 
considered; and 
3 (4)(d) The effects of waste emplacement operations, and 1.4.1 Activity Selection Approach 
the program of tests to evaluate the effectiveness of 
borehole, shaft, and ramp seals, before full-scale sealing, 
5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
on interactions between natural and engineered systems, 
are considered in estimates of the intended and 
anticipated design bases. 
Acceptance criterion 4 The performance confirmation 
program for monitoring and testing waste packages 
meets the requirements established for such a 
program. 
4 (1) The performance confirmation plan establishes a 
program for monitoring and testing the condition of waste 
packages at the geologic repository operations area. 
Further, the program is adequate because: 
3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
Activities 
3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection 
3.3.4.1 Waste Package Monitoring 
3.3.4.3 Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift 
Samples 
4 (1)(a) The waste packages the U.S. Department of 
Energy will monitor and test are representative of those to 
be emplaced in terms of materials, design, structure, 
fabrication, and inspection methods; 
3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
Activities 
3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection 
3.3.4.1 Waste Package Monitoring 
3.3.4.3 Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift 
Samples 
4 (1)(b) The environment of the waste packages the 3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
U.S. Department of Energy will monitor and test is Activities 
representative of the emplacement environment, and is 
consistent with safe operations; 
3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection 
3.3.4.1 Waste Package Monitoring 
3.3.4.3 Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift 
Samples 
4 (1)(c) The environmental conditions the U.S. Department 
of Energy will monitor and evaluate include, but are not 
limited to, those describing water chemistry; 
3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
Activities 
3.3.1.2 Seepage Monitoring 
3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection 
3.3.1.9 Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring 
3.3.1.10 Dust Buildup Monitoring 
3.3.1.11 Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment 
Monitoring 
4 (1)(d) Monitoring and testing include evaluation of 3.3.4 Monitoring and Testing of Waste Packages 
closure welds, fabrication defects, and post-fabrication 
damage, in particular damage that may occur during 
handling operations; and 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-19 November 2004 

Table 2-2. Correlation of the Provisions from Section 2.4.3 of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report, Performance Confirmation Program-Acceptance Criteria, and the Performance 
Confirmation Plan Sections (Continued) 
YMRP Acceptance Criterion Performance Confirmation Plan Section 
4 (1)(e) The program is technically feasible, taking into 5.0 Test Planning and Implementation 
consideration that the methods proposed are suitable and 
practicable and the sensors and devices to be used are 
either able to sustain the prevailing environmental 
conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, radiation) during 
the required period of repository operation, or are 
replaceable. 
4 (2) The performance confirmation plan establishes a 
program of laboratory experiments that focuses on the 
internal condition of the waste packages. The 
environment experienced by the emplaced waste 
packages is duplicated in the laboratory experiments to 
the extent practicable. The laboratory experiments are 
adequate because: 
3.0 
3.3.4.2 
3.3.4.3 
3.3.4.4 
Description of Performance Confirmation 
Activities 
Corrosion Testing 
Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift 
Samples 
Waste Form Testing 
4 (2)(a) They provide data needed to design the waste 3.3.4 Monitoring and Testing of Waste Packages 
package and confirm performance assessment models 
and assumptions; and 
4 (2)(b) Corrosion monitoring and testing include, but are 
not limited to, the use of corrosion coupons. 
3.0 Description of Performance Confirmation 
Activities 
3.3.4.2 Corrosion Testing 
3.3.4.3 Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift 
Samples 
3.3.4.4 Waste Form Testing 
4 (3) The schedule for the waste package program 6.0 Schedule 
requires monitoring and testing to begin as soon as 
practicable. Monitoring and testing will continue as long 
as practical up to the time of permanent closure. 
Source: NRC 2003 (DIRS 163274) 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 2-20 November 2004 

3. DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION ACTIVITIES 
To complement the previous section, which described the NRC regulatory requirements and 
guidance applicable to this performance confirmation program, this section provides a detailed 
discussion of activities that meet those requirements. This section begins with a discussion that 
describes the relationships of the three barriers to the performance confirmation activities 
supporting the barrier analysis. The section then lists the 20 activities, grouped according to the 
four acceptance criteria categories cited in YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). 
For each activity, the section provides a title, description, purpose, selection justification (both 
technical and regulatory), a current understanding of each activity, and the anticipated 
methodology for the test. The descriptions also provide, where available, citations to the 
documents containing reference data. The activity descriptions also identify whether the activity 
includes in situ monitoring, laboratory, or field methods and states the reason why the activity 
will not adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives. Also, 
Section 4 provides complementary discussion including the approach to the development and 
handling of the performance confirmation program baseline information (preliminary baseline), 
including parameter measurements analysis and evaluation, and the reporting and 
recommendations (where appropriate) for corrective actions. 
3.1 ACTIVITY SELECTION 
The approach used for selecting the set of activities (measured parameters and data acquisition 
methods) important to evaluating the postclosure performance of the repository was based on 
three criteria and a decision analysis process described in Section 1.4.1. Table 1-1 provides the 
current list of the 20 activities selected for the performance confirmation program. 
Many performance confirmation activities and tests described in this section were preceded by 
tests conducted during site characterization (see Sections 5 and 6). Site characterization testing 
developed information that was used in subsurface design, Engineered Barrier System design, 
and development of the process models used to support assessments of repository performance. 
Selected site characterization data along with the performance assessment provides the reference 
base for performance confirmation comparisons (Section 4.2). Testing begun during site 
characterization is only discussed to the extent that it is being continued as part of the current 
performance confirmation program. 
The test methods included in the following test activity descriptions are intended to reflect the 
general approach and demonstrate one or more possible methods for attaining the purpose of 
each test. The descriptions will be modified as needed to support eventual implementation. 
3.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE BARRIERS AND ACTIVITIES 
The repository system utilizes two natural barriers and one Engineered Barrier System (refer to 
Section 1.3.2) that have been characterized and designed to work together to prevent or reduce 
the movement of water, or prevent the release or substantially reduce the release rate of 
radionuclides. The repository system that forms these barriers includes features or structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) that contribute to the performance of one of the three barriers 
and is considered to be relevant to waste isolation. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-1 November 2004 

Table 3-1 summarizes the relationship between barriers, and models that are used to analyze 
performance of those barriers, and performance confirmation activities. 
Table 3-1. Relationship between Barriers, Models, and Performance Confirmation Activities 
Barrier Models Performance Confirmation Activities 
Upper Natural Barrier Infiltration model Precipitation monitoring 
Unsaturated zone flow Precipitation monitoring, subsurface water and 
rock testing, and unsaturated zone testing 
Ambient seepage Seepage monitoring 
Thermal seepage Seepage monitoring and thermally accelerated 
drift in-drift environment monitoring, and near-field 
environment monitoring 
Engineered Barrier Drift degradation and rockfall Drift inspection, construction effects monitoring, 
System and thermally accelerated drift thermal-mechanical 
monitoring 
Thermal-hydrologic-chemical Thermally accelerated drift near-field environment 
monitoring 
Thermal-hydrologic l Thermally accelerated drift near-field environment 
monitoring 
In-drift physical and chemical Thermally accelerated drift in-drift environment 
environment monitoring 
Drip shield degradation Corrosion testing and corrosion testing of 
thermally accelerated drift samples 
Waste package degradation Corrosion testing, dust buildup monitoring, 
corrosion testing of thermally accelerated drift 
samples, and waste package monitoring 
In-package water chemistry Waste form testing 
Cladding degradation Waste form testing 
Commercial spent nuclear fuel Waste form testing 
degradation 
Defense spent nuclear fuel Waste form testing 
degradation 
High-level radioactive waste glass Waste form testing 
degradation 
Dissolved concentration limits Waste form testing 
Colloid transport Waste form testing and unsaturated zone testing 
Engineered Barrier System flow and 
transport 
Waste form testing, dust buildup monitoring, 
thermally accelerated drift in-drift environment 
monitoring 
Lower Natural Barrier Unsaturated zone flow Subsurface water and rock sampling, unsaturated 
zone testing 
Radionuclides transport in the Subsurface water and rock sampling, unsaturated 
unsaturated zone zone testing 
Saturated zone flow Saturated zone monitoring, saturated zone fault 
hydrology testing, saturated zone alluvium testing 
Saturated zone transport Saturated zone monitoring, saturated zone fault 
hydrology testing, saturated zone alluvium testing 
NOTE: Three performance confirmation activities do not directly relate to models, therefore are not included in this 
table. These activities are subsurface mapping, seismicity monitoring, and seal testing. 
Table 3-2 provides a crosswalk to the proposed parameters and activities. The activities are 
grouped into the four acceptance criteria categories identified in the Section 2.4.3 of YMRP 
NUREG-1804, (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) and are listed below under the sections that they 
principally support. For each activity the table gives a brief activity description and a summary 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-2 November 2004 

of the candidate parameter(s) to be measured. The next column of the table defines the purpose 
of the activity in terms of how the data are to be used in the categories mentioned above. The 
last column of the table lists a reference to Section 3 where preliminary baseline information 
sources are provided for each activity. 
The repository site (location and elevation) take advantage of the natural attributes of the 
geologic setting in general, and of the repository host rock, the Topopah Spring welded tuff 
hydrogeological unit (TSw), in particular. These attributes include: 
 A semiarid climate with limited precipitation 
 A thickness of rock and soil above the repository of approximately 215 to 450 meters 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 166183]) 
 Hydrogeologic and geochemical characteristics that limit radionuclide movement 
 Geologic and geomechanical characteristics that permit the design and construction of 
effective engineered barriers 
 Geomechanical and thermal characteristics that allow maintenance of a stable facility 
with adequate capacity for waste disposal 
 Absence of significant faults within the disposal area 
 Depth to groundwater below repository emplacement drifts from more than 215 meters 
to nearly 365 meters (BSC, 2003 [DIRS 165802]). 
The repository system includes three distinct barriers to the movement of water and the 
mobilization and movement of radionuclides. Some of these barriers are mutually reinforcing, 
such that if a barrier does not perform as expected, the performance of the other barriers can 
provide adequate safety. For example, if the Engineered Barrier System (drip shield, waste 
package, and cladding) is degraded or disrupted, the Upper Natural Barrier will continue to limit 
water contact, and the Lower Natural Barrier will continue to limit radionuclide mobilization and 
movement. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-3 November 2004 

TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-4 November 2004 
Table 3-2. 
Performance Confirmation Activity Description and Relationships to Performance Assessment Parameters, Purpose, and Section 
Containing Detailed Discussion and Baseline Information 
DISCUSSION / 
BASELINE 
ACTIVITY 
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 
CANDIDATE PARAMETERS 
PURPOSE 
INFORMATION 
General Requirements Testing and Monitoring (Natural and Engineered Barriers) 
Precipitation Monitoring of precipitation and composition Precipitation rate, quantity, and chemical To evaluate the Section 3.3.1.1 
monitoring analysis. composition. precipitation input 
parameter that relates to 
seepage modeling. 
Seepage Seepage monitoring and laboratory analysis Seepage rate, locations, quantity and To evaluate results from Section 3.3.1.2 
monitoring of water samples (from bulkheaded alcoves chemical composition, ventilation air the seepage model. 
on the intake side of the repository and in barometric pressure, ventilation air 
thermally accelerated drifts). temperature, ventilation air relative humidity. 
Subsurface water 
and rock testing 
Laboratory analysis of chloride mass 
balance and isotope chemistry based on 
Chloride mass balance; isotopic composition 
for U, Sr, O, 3H, 36Cl/Cl 99Tc and 129I/127I. 
To evaluate assumptions 
for fast paths used in 
Section 3.3.1.3 
samples taken at selected locations of the unsaturated zone model. 
underground facility. 
Unsaturated zone Testing of transport properties and field Sorption parameters, van Genuchten To evaluate sorption Section 3.3.1.4 
testing sorptive properties of the crystal-poor parameters describing fractures and matrix, coefficients used in the 
member of the Topopah Spring Tuff, in an colloid/colloid facilitated transport unsaturated zone model. 
ambient seepage alcove or a drift. parameters, fracture density, apertures, 
coatings, air permeability, seepage, alcove 
temperature and relative humidity. 
Saturated zone Monitoring of water level and hydrochemical Water level and hydrochemical indicators To evaluate hydrologic and Section 3.3.1.5 
monitoring sampling of the saturated zone upgradient, (Eh, pH, radionuclide concentrations, colloid chemical parameters used 
beneath and downgradient of Yucca characteristics). with the saturated zone 
Mountain. flow model. 
Saturated zone Hydraulic and tracer testing of fault zone Transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, water To evaluate fault parameter Section 3.3.1.6 
fault hydrology hydrologic characteristics, including flux and specific discharge, effective flow assumptions in the 
testing anisotropy, in the saturated zone. porosity, longitudinal dispersivity, sorption saturated zone flow and 
parameters, parameters describing diffusion transport models. 
between flowing and stagnant water, and 
colloid or colloid-facilitated transport 
parameters. Eh, pH, natural colloid 
concentrations, including anisotropy. 

TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-5 November 2004 
Table 3-2. Performance Confirmation Activity Description and Relationships to Performance Assessment Parameters, Purpose, and Section 
Containing Detailed Discussion and Baseline Information (Continued) 
DISCUSSION / 
BASELINE 
ACTIVITY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION CANDIDATE PARAMETERS PURPOSE INFORMATION 
Saturated zone Tracer testing at the Alluvial Test Complex Transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, water To evaluate inputs and Section 3.3.1.7 
alluvium testing using multiple boreholes measuring flux and specific discharge, effective flow assumptions for the 
parameters in the alluvium. porosity, longitudinal dispersivity, sorption saturated zone flow and 
parameters, parameters describing diffusion transport models. 
between flowing and stagnant water, and 
colloid or colloid-facilitated transport 
parameters. Eh, pH, natural colloid 
concentrations. 
Drift inspection Regular inspection of nonemplacement drifts Temperature (as a surrogate indicator of To evaluate drift stability Section 3.3.1.8 
and periodic inspection of emplacement evaporating seepage), seepage, rockfall assumptions, both within 
drifts, thermally accelerated drifts, and other size and frequency monitoring, ground emplacement drifts and 
underground openings using remote support conditions, engineered barrier nonemplacement drifts, 
measurement techniques, as appropriate. component positions, drift continuity. and rockfall size or 
probability distributions. 
Also supports confirmation 
of retrievability. 
Thermally Monitoring of near-field coupled processes Rock-mass moisture content, temperatures, To evaluate coupled Section 3.3.1.9 
accelerated drift (thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical) air permeability (fracture permeability), process results from the 
near-field properties and parameters associated with mechanical deformation, mechanical thermal-hydrologicmonitoring 
the thermally accelerated drifts. properties, water chemistry. chemical-mechanical 
models. 
Dust buildup 
monitoring 
Monitoring and laboratory testing of quantity 
and composition of dust on engineered 
barrier surfaces. 
Quantity, physical properties, and chemical 
composition of dust deposited on waste 
package, drip shield, rail, and ground 
To evaluate assumptions of 
dust buildup and potential 
chemical effects. 
Section 3.3.1.10 
support surfaces. 
Thermally Monitoring and laboratory testing of gas Temperature, relative humidity, gas To evaluate assumptions Section 3.3.1.11 
accelerated drift composition; water quantities, composition, composition, radionuclides, pressure, and used in in-drift physical and 
in-drift and ionic characteristics (including thin radiolysis, thin films evaluation, chemical environment 
environment films); microbial types and amounts; and condensation water quantities and models. 
monitoring radiation and radiolysis within a thermally composition or ionic characteristics including 
accelerated drift. microbial effects. 

TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-6 November 2004 
Table 3-2. Performance Confirmation Activity Description and Relationships to Performance Assessment Parameters, Purpose, and Section 
Containing Detailed Discussion and Baseline Information (Continued) 
ACTIVITY 
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 
Geotechnical and Design Monitoring and Testing 
Subsurface 
mapping 
Seismicity 
monitoring 
Construction 
effects monitoring 
Thermally 
accelerated drift 
thermal-
mechanical 
monitoring 
Mapping of fractures, faults, stratigraphic 
contacts, and lithophysal characteristics. 
Monitoring regional seismic activity. 
Observation of subsurface and surface 
(large magnitude) fault displacement after 
significant local or regional seismic events. 
Monitoring construction deformation and 
measurement of mechanical properties. 
Monitoring drift and invert shape and 
integrity in a thermally accelerated drift. 
Design Testing (Other Than Waste Packages) 
Seal testing 
Laboratory testing of effectiveness of 
borehole seals followed by field-testing of 
effectiveness of ramp and shaft seals. 
Testing, as appropriate, to evaluate the 
effectiveness of backfill placement. 
CANDIDATE PARAMETERS 
Fracture characteristics, fault zone 
characteristics (offset, location, age), 
stratigraphic contacts, and lithophysal 
characteristics. 
Event detection, event magnitude, event 
location, strong-motion data collection and 
analysis, seismic attenuation investigations 
(within 50 kilometers). 
Drift convergence, tunnel stability, 
engineered ground support systems, 
geotechnical parameters at selected 
locations. 
Drift convergence, drift shape, drift 
degradation, ground support visual 
condition, rail alignment, invert visual 
condition, pallet visual condition, waste 
package alignment, and spacing. 
Borehole seals materials, configuration, 
performance; shaft seals materials 
configuration, performance; ramp seals 
materials, configuration, performance; 
laboratory and field hydraulic and pneumatic 
seal effective permeability. 
PURPOSE 
To evaluate results from 
integrated site models 
To evaluate annual 
probability distribution as a 
function of intensity. 
To evaluate tunnel stability 
assumptions under ambient 
conditions. 
To evaluate drift 
degradation assumptions 
under thermal conditions. 
To evaluate design 
assumptions for effective 
seals. 
DISCUSSION / 
BASELINE 
INFORMATION 
Section 3.3.2.1 
Section 3.3.2.2 
Section 3.3.2.3 
Section 3.3.2.4 
Section 3.3.3.1 

TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-7 November 2004 
Table 3-2. Performance Confirmation Activity Description and Relationships to Performance Assessment Parameters, Purpose, and Section 
Containing Detailed Discussion and Baseline Information (Continued) 
ACTIVITY 
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 
Monitoring and Testing of Waste Packages 
Waste package 
monitoring 
Corrosion testing 
Corrosion testing 
of thermally 
accelerated drift 
samples 
Waste form 
testing 
Remote monitoring for evidence of external 
corrosion of the waste package. 
Corrosion testing in the laboratory of waste 
package, waste package pallet, and drip 
shield samples in the range of 
representative repository thermal and 
chemical environments. Includes laboratory 
testing of general corrosion, phase 
transformations of Alloy 22; and localized 
corrosion. 
Corrosion testing in the laboratory of waste 
package, waste package pallet, and drip 
shield samples exposed to conditions in the 
thermally accelerated drifts. Includes 
corrosion model applicability and laboratory 
testing of general corrosion, phase 
transformations of Alloy 22; and localized 
corrosion 
Waste form testing (including waste 
package coupled effects) in the laboratory 
under anticipated in- package conditions. 
CANDIDATE PARAMETERS 
External visual corrosion and possibly 
internal pressure of the waste package. 
Alloy 22, Type 316 stainless steel, and 
titanium alloys (Grade 7 and 24) mass loss 
rate, passive current density, surface 
dissolution, open circuit potential, critical 
potential, stress crack corrosion, microbial 
effects, surficial passive film stability, and 
mechanical properties. 
Thermally accelerated drifts exposed Alloy 
22, Type 316 stainless steel, and Titanium 
alloy (Grade 7 and 24) mass loss rate, 
passive current density, surface dissolution, 
open circuit potential, critical potential, 
stress crack corrosion, microbial effects, 
surficial passive film stability, and 
mechanical properties. 
Radionuclide release rate, dissolution rate, 
environmental and hydrochemical indicators 
(Eh, pH, colloid characteristics), bare waste 
form dissolution, fuel rod waste form 
dissolution, including cladding degradation, 
failure and unzipping rate, and waste 
form/waste package performance under 
coupled chemical environments. 
PURPOSE 
To evaluate waste package 
integrity and confirm the 
absence of leakage and 
leak paths. 
To evaluate results of 
corrosion models. 
To evaluate results of 
corrosion models. 
To evaluate results of 
waste form degradation 
models and evaluate 
in-package expected 
conditions. 
DISCUSSION / 
BASELINE 
INFORMATION 
Section 3.3.4.1 
Section 3.3.4.2 
Section 3.3.4.3 
Section 3.3.4.4 
NOTE: 
Cl = chlorine; Eh = electrochemical potential; H = hydrogen; I = iodine; O = oxygen; pH = hydrogen potential; Q = Norwegian Geotechnical Institute 
Q-System Rating for Rock Mass Classification; RMR = Geomechanics Classification Rock Mass Rating System; Sr = strontium; Tc = technetium; 
U = uranium. 
Activities are grouped according to the four acceptance criteria in the YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). 

The effectiveness of the selected activities in meeting the objectives of the performance 
confirmation program is discussed in terms of three barriers that limit radionuclide release, and 
water and radionuclide movement. The three primary barriers (with their corresponding features 
and SSCs) associated with the performance confirmation activities are: 
 Upper Natural Barrier 
 Topography 
 Soils 
 Unsaturated zone of rock (which includes the repository horizon). 
 Engineered Barrier System 
 Waste forms 
 Cladding 
 Waste packages 
 Waste package pallets 
 Drip shields 
 Emplacement drift inverts 
 Emplacement drifts 
 Emplacement drift closures. 
 Lower Natural Barrier 
 Unsaturated zone rock below the drifts 
 Saturated zone (consisting of rock, and alluvium). 
The Upper Natural Barrier operates as a barrier because the surface topography, soils, and 
bedrock limit water infiltration. Moreover, the unsaturated rock layers above the repository 
horizon and the drift opening further limit water flux into the repository emplacement drifts. The 
primary large-scale processes contributing to this capability are: 
 Lateral diversion of percolating water 
 Damping of episodic pulses of precipitation and infiltration 
 Capillary forces limit seepage into the emplacement drift 
 Limitation of seepage because of elevated temperatures in the rock 
 Limit flow of water in possible fast paths (if present they represent a small fraction of 
total percolation flux, limited by properties of the Upper Paintbrush non-welded vitric 
(PTn). 
The Engineered Barrier System performs because the waste package (protected from rockfall 
damage by drip shields) limits water contacting the waste form, coupled with cladding that limits 
water contacting the waste matrix, followed by the waste form that limits rate of release of 
radionuclides. Finally, the drift invert further limits the rate of release of radionuclides to the 
Lower Natural Barrier. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-8 November 2004 

The Lower Natural Barrier performs because the unsaturated rock layers below the repository 
horizon limit radionuclide transport to the saturated zone. The tuff and alluvial aquifers further 
limit radionuclide transport in the saturated zone. 
The repository system utilizes natural and engineered barriers that have been selected (natural 
barrier systems) and designed (Engineered Barrier System) to work together to isolate waste. 
The capability of each barrier depends upon the physical processes that contribute to 
performance. Physical features of each barrier system contribute to performance and can be 
grouped and evaluated independently, such as precipitation (the expected maximum input of 
water to the system), or a geologic feature, an engineered structure, a waste package, or a waste 
form with physical and chemical characteristics that significantly decrease the mobility of 
radionuclides. Engineered barriers may also include material placed over and around the waste. 
The capability of barriers is measured by their ability to prevent or substantially reduce the rate 
of movement of water or radionuclides from the Yucca Mountain repository to the accessible 
environment, or prevent the release or substantially reduce the release rate of radionuclides. 
Upper Natural BarrierThe natural features of Yucca Mountain include the rock above and the 
rock below (i.e., hydrologically downstream of) the repository. The rock above the repository 
consists of the surface soils and the unsaturated zone features, which together limit the rate and 
volume of water reaching the Engineered Barrier System. The performance of the rock above 
the repository will be measured by monitoring precipitation (i.e., the input to water movement 
through the features) and seepage. 
By limiting water movement to the emplacement drifts, the Upper Natural Barrier limits the 
release of solubility-limited radionuclides such as the isotopes of plutonium and neptunium. The 
performance of this barrier can be evaluated by seepage measurements. If seepage occurs, data 
interpretation requires a history of the temporal and spatial patterns of precipitation for periods 
prior to the seepage event. These data collection activities, started during site characterization, 
will continue during performance confirmation. The other performance confirmation activity 
associated with the Upper Natural Barrier is the seal testing activity required by 
10 CFR 63.133(a) and (d). It evaluates the effectiveness of ramp, borehole, and shaft seal 
designs. Ramp, borehole, and shaft seal testing (Section 3.3.3.1), will be conducted to ensure 
that these penetrations do not circumvent the functions provided by surface soils and the 
unsaturated zone above the repository. The activity is to ensure that the repository penetrations 
do not create a hydrologic short circuit of the surface and unsaturated zone above the repository 
barriers. 
A small fraction of the precipitation percolates through the rock to the repository horizon, and 
even a smaller fraction can overcome the drift wall capillary effect to seep into the waste 
emplacement drift. Seepage refers to the water that drips into the drift. The seepage 
(Section 3.3.1.2) is therefore, the amount of water reaching the Engineered Barrier System. 
Seepage will be monitored at two types of locations: (1) in bulkheaded (i.e., unventilated) 
alcoves or boreholes at near-ambient temperature, and (2) in unventilated thermally accelerated 
drifts to detect thermally driven seepage into a heated and unventilated drift which represent 
conditions most typical of the postclosure repository during its compliance period. Observations 
of subsurface conditions (Sections 3.3.1.3 and 3.3.1.4), will confirm that the physical conditions 
and assumptions used in the models are actually the conditions encountered in the repository. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-9 November 2004 

The thermal-mechanical-hydrologic-chemical environment within the emplacement drifts affects 
the performance of the engineered features. Consequently, some performance confirmation 
activities during the construction of the repository (Section 3.3.2.3) are designed to evaluate 
assumptions and data that influence the in-drift environments. Existing data are based in large 
measure on prior construction of the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF). 
Actual subsurface conditions from site characterization excavations will be confirmed by 
mapping of emplacement drifts and mains. The mapping activity includes fractures and faults, 
stratigraphic contacts, and lithophysal characteristics. Mechanical properties will be measured 
and confirmed based on deformation just after construction. Water samples will be obtained 
from the rock, and the water chemistry and age will be assessed using chloride mass balance and 
isotope chemistry (Section 3.4.3.1.3). Monitoring of host rock near-field coupled processes 
(e.g., moisture content, fracture permeability, temperatures and thermal gradients, mechanical 
properties and deformations, water chemistry data) will be accomplished using boreholes from 
an observation drift or from alcoves located near a thermally accelerated drift (Section 3.4.3.1.9). 
Temperature evolution during the postclosure period is important to simulate during the 
operational period, because degradation of the waste packages is subject to the temperature 
dependent, long-term environmental conditions. Data and insight into anticipated postclosure 
conditions in the repository will be obtained during the preclosure period using thermally 
accelerated drifts. Performance confirmation activities addressing the environment in thermally 
accelerated drifts include temperature measurements and tests, humidity, dust composition, gas 
composition, pressure, radiolysis effects, condensate chemistry, thin film chemistry, and 
microbes (Section 3.4.4). 
The heat added to the underground facility due to decay of the radioactive waste will result in 
elevated temperatures for long periods, and the elevated temperatures can influence coupled 
processes in the drifts and in the surrounding near-field rock. These processes couple heat flow, 
hydrology, chemistry, and mechanical stability. Measurements of these characteristics began 
during site characterization, focusing on the nonlithophysal rock units. Because the waste will 
also be emplaced in lithophysal rock units, evaluation of design and performance assessment 
assumptions and analyses in the lithophysal rock will be obtained in thermally accelerated drifts 
activities. 
Engineered Barrier SystemThe Engineered Barrier System is composed of SSCs designed to 
work together and to complement the natural barriers system in isolating waste from the 
environment. As shown in Figure 1-2, the Engineered Barrier System consists of several 
features that contribute to waste isolation, including: (1) drip shields that keep water and rockfall 
away from the waste packages; (2) long-lived waste packages that isolate the waste forms from 
the in-drift environment; (3) corrosion-resistant waste forms and cladding on spent nuclear fuel 
that limits water contact with the waste form and release of radionuclides from a breached 
package; (4) solid waste forms that degrade and release radionuclides slowly; (5) waste package 
pallets; (6) the granular emplacement drift invert, beneath the waste package that delay the 
diffusive release of radionuclides; (7) emplacement drifts; and (8) emplacement drift closures to 
limit releases in the unlikely event of igneous activity. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-10 November 2004 

Potential causes of a breach of a waste package include corrosion or mechanical failure due to 
ambient, thermally induced, or seismically induced rockfall. Accordingly, some activities 
directly monitor conditions that could lead to degradation of the waste package, and thus to 
mobilization of the waste form. Selected emplacement drifts will be periodically inspected for 
unlikely occurrences of rockfall, sagging ground supports, changes in package positions and drift 
stability due to seismic events, as well as invert degradation (Section 3.3.1.8) to ensure that 
designed systems are operating as anticipated. In the thermally accelerated drift, drift shape and 
thermal seepage will be monitored to evaluate assumptions concerning thermally induced natural 
system changes (Section 3.3.1.9). 
A substantial portion of the performance confirmation program is related to the Engineered 
Barrier System, specifically the waste package degradation mechanisms because, during the 
compliance period, the waste package in the environment created by the natural systems isolates 
radionuclides from the accessible environment. 
For further understanding, representative waste packages will be monitored in situ 
(Section 3.3.4.1). A number of performance confirmation activities address the mechanistic 
details of the corrosion processes to assess whether the measured waste package and drip shield 
corrosion rates are as anticipated (Section 3.3.4.2 and Section 3.3.4.3). In general, these 
activities continue work begun during site characterization for each potential degradation mode 
of a waste package. The activities are extended to include samples exposed in the laboratory 
under a range of potential repository thermal and chemical environments, and samples exposed 
in one or more thermally accelerated emplacement drifts. 
Waste form testing evaluates anticipated chemical and physical changes in waste forms. This 
evaluates assumptions made about the availability of radionuclides from the waste form 
(Section 3.3.4.4). The Project will also evaluate whether conditions can be created within intact 
packages that would cause the waste package to corrode from the inside out (waste package, 
waste form coupled effects). The cladding, the waste form, and the drift invert also limit annual 
dose at the accessible environment. 
Lower Natural BarrierThe rock below the repository consists of the unsaturated zone and 
saturated zone features. The saturated zone includes both tuff and alluvium along the 
18-kilometer distance to the regulatory compliance point. 
The Lower Natural Barrier is important in reducing the annual dose at the accessible 
environment for radionuclides with short half-lives (e.g., cesium and strontium) and for 
solubility-limited radionuclides (e.g., neptunium and plutonium). The mapping and supporting 
activities described above will support assessment of flow characteristics of the unsaturated 
zone. In addition, transport and sorption properties of the Lower Natural Barrier unsaturated 
zone will be evaluated by in situ tests conducted in the repository horizon as a surrogate for the 
properties of the unsaturated zone rock below the repository (Section 3.3.1.4). The saturated 
zone activities include chemistry (affects retardation), colloids, and water level and fault zone 
hydrologic characteristics (useful for evaluating flow paths and rates). 
Overall performance will be evaluated by monitoring radionuclide content in wells located in the 
saturated zone upgradient, beneath, and downgradient from the repository. Because of the 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-11 November 2004 

expected lack of a radionuclide source term and the expected long transport duration the most 
likely result of this activity is that no elevated radionuclide content in the saturated zone water is 
found. 
For the unsaturated zone, transport and sorption properties will be tested in an ambient seepage 
alcove or drift containing no emplaced waste packages, in order to provide information to 
evaluate unsaturated zone transport models results (Section 3.3.1.4). For the saturated zone, 
performance confirmation activities will monitor the water levels and water chemistry to 
evaluate overall assumptions and data about saturated zone flow as well as behavior of 
radionuclides (Section 3.3.1.5). Fault zones within the saturated zone provide the potential for 
faster flow rates and preferential flow paths; therefore, testing of the hydrologic characteristics of 
a fault zone is included to confirm flow paths and rates (Section 3.3.1.6). The performance 
confirmation program also includes tracer testing in the Alluvial Test Complex using multiple 
boreholes to evaluate transport of radionuclides in the saturated zone (both dissolved and 
colloidal transport) (Section 3.3.1.7). 
In addition to these location-based barriers, this Performance Confirmation Plan includes a 
discussion on thermally accelerated drifts, which involves both natural and engineered features, 
and activities associated with disruptive events and the waste form itself. 
Representativeness of Samples and Conditions for TestingWaste package testing 
performance confirmation activities are to demonstrate that they are monitoring or testing 
representative samples in representative locations consistent with YMRP NUREG-1804 
(NRC 2003, [DIRS 163274] Section 2.4.1). 
The corrosion coupons (test samples) currently in the long-term corrosion facility are 
representative of waste package and drip shield materials (same materials as in the design), 
including processes used to fabricate, assemble, weld, and stress relieve these materials. Future 
samples will be obtained from representative waste packages procured to hold waste at the 
repository and will include material having undergone the weld and stress relief processes. 
Waste packages selected for underground monitoring will be representative of different 
configurations as well as different environmental conditions that may exist underground such as 
in areas with differing rock properties (i.e., thermal conductivity or fracture density) and location 
within the drifts (e.g., near the ventilation entrance as well as the ventilation exit to investigate 
differences related to temperature and humidity variations, as well as proximity to hotter or 
cooler packages) (Section 3.3.4.1). 
Thermally Accelerated Drift Test FacilityThe interactions of the Upper and Lower Natural 
Barriers and the Engineered Barrier System during the elevated thermal period are an important 
part of the performance confirmation program. DOE has chosen to develop a field test complex 
specifically to address these interactions. Because this test bed has a high level of complexity, 
investigates coupled processes, and represents a large contribution to the performance 
confirmation program, it is discussed in a separate section (Section 3.4.5). To examine the 
effects of the long-term postclosure environmental conditions on repository performance, one or 
more emplacement drifts will be thermally accelerated by a blend of ventilation control and 
waste package loading. These thermally accelerated drifts are normal emplacement drifts that 
are strategically loaded with waste packages to ensure a prescribed thermal load. The thermally 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-12 November 2004 

accelerated drift testing simulates postclosure temperatures, while reducing the postclosure 
boiling to subboiling transition time period to approximately fifty years, in order to observe 
in-rock and in-drift thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical coupled processes during the 
operational period. In addition, waste packages will be closely monitored, and samples of 
engineered barrier materials will be placed to allow the study of potential corrosion mechanisms 
in a realistic in situ environment. 
For the proposed concept of two thermally accelerated drifts within the underground facility, 
each accelerated drift begins in the middle nonlithophysal unit, and the dip of the stratigraphic 
units will result in transition into the lower lithophysal unit about one third of the way into the 
drift. The observation drift will be at a lower elevation than the two heated drifts; it will also be 
in a pillar between drifts rather than directly below a heated drift to reduce thermal interference. 
Alcoves and boreholes from the observation drift will be used to position instruments in the 
near-field rock, which will allow maintenance of the instruments without entering the heated 
drifts. Remote methods will be evaluated (not as part of performance confirmation) that can 
access the accelerated drifts to retrieve samples, inspect waste packages, measure changes to the 
drift shape, and measure the evolution of the environment, including observation of seepage, if 
any, and the locations and intensity of condensation during cooling. 
The technology to remotely detect and measure anticipated parameters in bulkheaded alcoves is 
available. However, high-temperature and high-radiation environments representative of 
postemplacement conditions in thermally accelerated drifts will require development of specific 
remote monitoring applications. 
3.3 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION ACTIVITIES 
For purposes of presenting planned activities, summary activity descriptions are provided in the 
following sections. The order of presentation is in accordance with major headings of 
10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F and the YMRP NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003, [DIRS 163274] 
Section 2.4.3) (see Section 2). 
Each activity is identified by a name, an activity description, purpose, selection justification 
(both technical and regulatory), current understanding for that activity, and anticipated 
methodology that may be appropriate to test and monitor parameters in that activity. The 
summary introduction lists the major parameters that may be measured or tested, the barrier that 
the activity investigates, when testing and monitoring began or are anticipated to begin, and other 
programs that may support interpretations. 
The purpose, selection justification, current understanding, and potential methodologies are 
discussed. The selection justification contains a tie to the appropriate part of the regulation and 
states why this is the appropriate activity to evaluate barrier performance. The current 
understanding describes in summary manner what is known about the parameters covered by this 
activity, the location of the baseline, and an assessment of the potential impacts on waste 
isolation as a result of this activity, recognizing that an activity specific evaluation will be 
conducted during test planning. Currently LP-SA-001Q-BSC, Determination of Importance and 
Site Performance Protection Evaluations ([DIRS 158528]) establishes the process and 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-13 November 2004 

responsibilities for evaluating activities for adverse impacts and establishing appropriate quality 
assurance controls to prevent or minimize such potential impacts at the Project site. 
The anticipated test methodologies are only examples of those that were used in the decision 
analysis (see Section 1) to evaluate feasibility and suitability of the parameters to satisfy the 
performance objectives. These methodologies are only examples of potential techniques and 
methods that may be used. The PC Test Plans (further described in Section 5) developed later 
during the detailed test planning will provide detailed discussion. 
Eleven performance confirmation activities and tests described in this section were begun during 
site characterization: 
 Precipitation monitoring 
 Seepage monitoring 
 Subsurface water and rock testing 
 Unsaturated zone testing 
 Saturated zone monitoring 
 Saturated zone alluvium testing 
 Subsurface mapping 
 Seismicity monitoring 
 Construction effects monitoring 
 Corrosion testing 
 Waste form testing. 
Site characterization testing developed parameters for subsurface design, the Engineered Barrier 
System design, and for the initial assessments of repository performance. Prior testing is not 
discussed further, except where the individual test activity descriptions refer to the prior tests. 
Two new tests will be initiated during construction, and seven new tests will be initiated during 
operations. The further that the tests are projected into the future, the less about their design, 
methodologies, and specific parameters is discussed at this time. 
The test methods included in the following test activity descriptions are intended to reflect the 
general approach and demonstrate one or more possible methods for attaining the purpose of 
each test. The descriptions will be modified as needed in PC Test Plans to support eventual 
implementation. Advances in technology can be expected to occur by the time many of these 
activities are fielded. Therefore, this performance confirmation program must remain flexible, 
with a process using PC Test Plans, to reevaluate, reexamine, and modify the activities to 
consider the current state of technology and understanding. In some cases, the actual set of 
activities may change as new tests are needed, or as influenced by new technologies. 
3.3.1 General Requirements Testing and Monitoring (Natural and Engineered Barriers) 
In response to 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2), the performance confirmation program is directed at 
monitoring and testing to evaluate if natural and engineered systems and components designed or 
assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure are functioning as intended, as described 
below and in Section 3. Performance confirmation program activities are designed to provide 
data that evaluate, where practicable, the ability of natural systems and engineered SSCs 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-14 November 2004 

assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure to serve their intended and anticipated 
functions. 
The function of the Upper Natural Barrier is to reduce the rate of water movement into the rock 
mass below. The ability of the surface barrier to limit water movement will be addressed by 
monitoring of precipitation and seepage. Results from the program will be used to assess the 
joint capabilities of the topography, surficial soils, and the unsaturated rock features above the 
repository to limit the amount of water that seeps into the drifts. The ability of the unsaturated 
zone above the repository barrier to limit water movement will be addressed by monitoring 
seepage into bulkheaded alcoves, thermally accelerated drifts and emplacement drifts, and by 
collection of seepage water found. If seepage occurs, water samples will be analyzed for 
chemical constituents to provide additional data to help evaluate the results from in-drift 
environment models. The chemistry of water in the unsaturated zone adjacent to emplacement 
drifts across the repository will provide information to assess the percolation flux that influences 
seepage. This chemistry will also influence the in-drift environments. 
The function of the Lower Natural Barrier includes both unsaturated and saturated zone rocks 
and alluvium below the repository. The function of the unsaturated zone is to limit the rate of 
transport of radionuclides from the invert to the saturated zone beneath the repository. The 
retardation effect of the unsaturated zone on the radionuclide movement is radionuclide specific. 
The performance confirmation program will monitor saturated zone wells upgradient and 
downgradient of the repository, testing the joint capability of the unsaturated zone below and the 
saturated zone barriers to limit radionuclide transport. The program will monitor any changes in 
background sources from the Nevada Test Site to evaluate if radionuclides are released from the 
Engineered Barrier System. The chemistry in the unsaturated zone will provide information to 
assess the percolation flux that influences transport. This chemistry will also directly influence 
the transport of radionuclides in the near-field rock. 
The function of the saturated zone is to reduce the rate of radionuclide transport from the 
repository to the accessible environment. Similar to the unsaturated zone barrier below the 
repository, the retardation effect of the saturated zone on radionuclide movement is radionuclide 
specific. The capability of the saturated zone barrier to limit radionuclide movement will be 
addressed directly by a program of monitoring saturated zone wells upgradient, under, and 
downgradient from the repository for water levels, chemistry, and radionuclide content. 
Properties of the alluvium will be evaluated with cross-hole tracer testing. Additional activities 
that indirectly address the capability of the saturated zone barrier include testing of fault zone 
hydrologic and transport characteristics. 
Activities designed principally to provide information relevant to these functions include: 
 Precipitation monitoring (Section 3.3.1.1) 
 Seepage monitoring (Section 3.3.1.2) 
 Subsurface water and rock testing (Section 3.3.1.3) 
 Unsaturated zone testing (Section 3.3.1.4) 
 Saturated zone monitoring (Section 3.3.1.5) 
 Saturated zone fault hydrology testing (Section 3.3.1.6) 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-15 November 2004 

 Saturated zone alluvium testing (Section 3.3.1.7) 
 Thermally accelerated drift near-field monitoring (Section 3.3.1.9). 
Performance confirmation program activities are designed to provide data to evaluate, where 
practicable, intended and anticipated performance. Rockfall monitoring in the underground 
facility will be conducted by drift inspection. The thermally accelerated emplacement drifts will 
be monitored for drift degradation through changes in shape as well as the in-drift environment 
conditions to ensure that the testing environments are comparable to the actual conditions in the 
emplacement drifts. In-drift condition monitoring includes dust buildup and composition, which 
could facilitate corrosion. Condensation water quantities, composition, and ionic characteristics 
will be monitored remotely in a thermally accelerated emplacement drift. 
Activities designed principally to provide information relevant to these performance objectives 
are: 
 Drift inspection (Section 3.3.1.8) 
 Dust buildup monitoring (Section 3.3.1.10) 
 Thermally accelerated drift in-drift environment monitoring (Section 3.3.1.11). 
To accomplish the performance confirmation objectives for these activities, thermally 
accelerated drift testing will provide insight into the postclosure response of the repository to 
expected thermal loads. The intent is to develop thermal environments in normally constructed 
emplacement drifts in which representative postclosure coupled thermal, hydrologic, mechanical, 
and chemical processes as well as microbial and radiological effects can be monitored and 
observed. Planning for these activities is preliminary in nature; other methods and approaches 
may be employed and will be described in the PC Test Plans. 
Activities are planned in thermally accelerated drifts to monitor in-drift conditions, expose 
samples of Engineered Barrier System materials to potential corrosion mechanisms in 
representative in situ environments, monitor drift degradation, and test near-field coupled 
processes (Section 3.4.5). The conceptual test design includes plans for two thermally 
accelerated drifts and an observation and instrumentation drift at a lower elevation. Completion 
of the instrumentation and baseline measurements of the two accelerated drifts will be 
accomplished as early as practicable during waste emplacement activities. 
3.3.1.1 Precipitation Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes precipitation monitoring and analysis of 
precipitation composition. Precipitation represents the maximum input of water to the Upper 
Natural Barrier. Candidate parameters that may be measured include: precipitation rate, 
quantity, and chemical composition. This is a long-term field collection activity providing a 
direct measurement of the parameters. Precipitation monitoring began during site 
characterization and will continue until closure. Meteorological monitoring, in conjunction with 
this performance confirmation activity, is also expected to support the environmental safety and 
health compliance program. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-16 November 2004 

PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate the precipitation input parameter that relates 
to seepage modeling. This activity includes testing and monitoring to evaluate the results and 
assumptions of conceptual and numerical models used to describe the hydrologic conditions at 
Yucca Mountain. Precipitation quantity, distribution (i.e., spatial and temporal), and 
hydrochemistry will be monitored to assess and extend the precipitation and hydrochemistry 
record at the site. It will also provide for a comparison with seepage data. The Upper Natural 
Barrier contributes to waste isolation by limiting the amount of water available to contact the 
Engineered Barrier System and by establishing the physical and chemical environment that 
contributes to the long life of the Engineered Barrier System. As shown in Figure 1-1, 
infiltration into the Upper Natural Barrier is limited through a combination of low precipitation, 
evapotranspiration, and runoff. This activity directly addresses the performance of the Upper 
Natural Barrier because precipitation serves as the maximum input of water to the repository 
system from the environment. 
Selection JustificationThis activity was selected because it directly addresses one of the bases 
for evaluating the performance of the Upper Natural Barrier and the requirements of the 
regulations. Precipitation serves as the maximum input of water to the repository system from 
the environment. As such, this activity is important to understanding seepage monitoring 
activities, and understanding input and output values of the process that carries water from the 
surface, through the unsaturated zone, and potentially down into the emplacement drifts. 
Information obtained from precipitation monitoring will be used as input to the unsaturated zone 
flow model for the evaluation of other quantities potentially important to repository performance 
(e.g., seepage time histories). 
If the trends measured in the related seepage monitoring activities exceed the predicted ranges, 
the precipitation data will be used in the evaluation of those seepage measurements. 
Precipitation is the most significant environmental factor controlling net infiltration at Yucca 
Mountain (BSC 2003, [DIRS 165991] Table 6-8). The results from the risk-informed, 
performance-based activity selection approach described in Section 1.4.1 indicate high 
confidence that the measurements represent the temporal and spatial scale over the area of the 
repository during the preclosure measurement period. There is confidence that the modeled 
range of this parameter will not be exceeded during the measurement period. This activity is a 
relatively straightforward continuation of an existing activity to confirm the precipitation input 
parameter for the seepage model, placing seepage measurements in context. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.131(a)(2). Specifically, that the performance confirmation program must provide 
data that indicate, where practicable, whether natural systems and components required for 
repository operation, and that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after permanent 
closure, are functioning as intended and anticipated. 
Current UnderstandingPrecipitation monitoring is conducted currently at 29 operating 
precipitation-monitoring stations in the field for evaluating the record at Yucca Mountain. 
Stations record precipitation and other meteorologic data as they occur. Measurement recording 
is equipment specific, but usually recording is done every number of minutes (for electronically 
measured parameters such as temperature) or recording of a certain volume over time in the case 
of tipping buckets (during an event). Storage gauges total the precipitation received since the 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-17 November 2004 

last time they were serviced. Office activities include obtaining meteorologic and climatic data 
collected by others from surrounding areas for comparison with the local Yucca Mountain 
record. This includes evaluating the statistical basis for the evaluation of fluctuations and 
extreme events that might affect infiltration, percolation, seepage, and transport. 
Data collected will be used to evaluate precipitation inputs in support of the process model 
abstraction. The current performance assessment model simulates climatic change by using 
three separate distributions at different times in the compliance period. Table 3-3 compares 
estimates of annual precipitation for the present-day climate scenarios, representing conditions 
estimated to prevail for approximately the next 600 years. 
Table 3-3. Estimated Precipitation for the Modern Climate Scenarios 
Modern Climate Scenarios 
Lower Bound 
(mm/year) 
Mean 
(mm/year) 
Upper Bound 
(mm/year) 
Annual precipitation Average 185.8 188.5 265.6 
Maximum 282.2 281.8 397.1 
Minimum 148.0 147.4 207.8 
Source: USGS 2003, [DIRS 166518] Table 6-8; DTN: GS000308311221.005 [DIRS 147613] 
Table 3-3 summarizes the average, maximum, and minimum annual precipitation rates for three 
present-day climate scenarios: a lower-bound scenario, a mean scenario, and an upper-bound 
scenario. It is not expected that the precipitation monitoring during the construction or 
operations period will deviate significantly from the present-day (modern) climate ranges. 
Table 3-3 will serve as the initial basis for comparison with performance confirmation data 
(Section 4.1). Trends will be treated as described in (Sections 4 and 4.2). 
Anticipated MethodologyThis activity includes long-term monitoring and laboratory analysis 
of selected water samples. Precipitation monitoring at Yucca Mountain presently uses two types 
of precipitation gauges. The first type is a tipping bucket gauge that defines the temporal nature 
of the events. The tipping bucket gauge, funnel, and rocker mechanism records the precipitation 
event as a cumulative number of 0.01-inch events and records the time they occurred. The 
second type of precipitation gauge is a storage gauge that consists of a large can, a funnel, and a 
measuring tube. Although this second type provides only a composite (total) precipitation 
amount it provides a confidence check for the tipping bucket gauge and will provide the water 
for the chemical analysis. 
The precipitation-monitoring stations at Yucca Mountain are described in the Yucca Mountain 
Site Description (BSC 2004, [DIRS 169734] Section 6). Some are tipping bucket gauge and a 
storage gauge (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163158]). Others are equipped with tipping bucket gauges but 
no storage gauges. Because some of the chemical tests require larger volumes of water, the 
storage gauge is an ideal sample system; the size of the funnel can be increased if additional 
sample volume is required. Problems with snow and ice are dealt with by use of heating 
elements in the tipping bucket gauge and liquid antifreeze in the storage gauge. Because the 
precipitation monitoring activities will be conducted for an extended period, updates to the 
equipment, sampling program, and methodologies are expected (Brandt 2004 [DIRS 170246]). 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-18 November 2004 

The testing data are typically evaluated as an annual or seasonal range of precipitation and 
moisture conditions. A limit on the amount of precipitation would be established based on 
historical data, future climate assumptions, and the sensitivity of performance assessment 
models. If the precipitation exceeded a predetermined limit, or was increasing at a rate that may 
cause it to exceed expected ranges during the postclosure period, an evaluation of the potential 
impact on the understanding of system performance would be conducted and reported as 
described in Section 4. 
This activity will not adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives 
because the monitoring is noninvasive and occurs at the surface. Additionally, 
precipitation-monitoring activities do not result in the introduction of materials with chemical 
compositions that could transport through the natural system and affect the performance of the 
repository. Further evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted 
during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.1.2 Seepage Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes seepage monitoring, and laboratory analysis (from 
bulkheaded alcoves on the intake side of the repository and in the thermally accelerated drifts). 
Candidate parameters that may be measured include: seepage rate, locations and quantity; 
chemical composition; ventilation air temperature, humidity, and pressure. It represents the 
output of water from the Upper Natural Barrier to the Engineered Barrier System. This 
long-term field collection activity provides a direct measurement of seepage quantity and 
chemistry, if present and able to be sampled. Seepage monitoring in sealed ambient condition 
alcoves and in the Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) Cross-Drift 
began during site characterization and will continue to be expanded to new areas through 
closure. General observation of seepage (if any) will also be conducted in conjunction with drift 
inspections (Section 3.3.1.8). 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate results from the seepage model. Results of 
this activity are used to assess: (1) the spatial and temporal distribution of seepage in the drift, 
and, if possible, obtain samples of the seepage water for chemical analysis; and (2) the impact of 
thermal loading on the spatial and temporal extent of seepage and on water chemistry. The 
Upper Natural Barrier contributes to waste isolation by limiting the amount of water available to 
contact the Engineered Barrier System and by establishing the physical and chemical 
environment that contributes to the long life of the Engineered Barrier System. Point 
atmospheric measurements of vent air for temperature, relative humidity, and barometric 
pressure will be collected to confirm input conditions to the unsaturated zone. As shown in 
Figure 1-1, the Upper Natural Barrier limits flow through the volcanic tuffs in the unsaturated 
zone above the repository. The primary large-scale processes contributing to this capability 
include: 
 Lateral diversion of percolating water 
 Damping of episodic pulses of precipitation and infiltration. 
This activity is intended to evaluate the assumptions used in and results obtained from the 
conceptual and numerical models used to describe the hydrologic conditions at Yucca Mountain 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-19 November 2004 

for flow in the unsaturated zone. In addition, this activity will obtain field observations that can 
be used to evaluate chemical models that also indicate flow in the unsaturated zone. 
Selection JustificationWhile precipitation serves as the maximum input of water to the 
repository system from the environment, seepage represents the output from the Upper Natural 
Barrier as it enters the Engineered Barrier System. As such, this activity evaluates the expected 
results of the infiltration, unsaturated zone flow in the rock above the repository, and seepage 
into drift models. 
Deep percolation rates above the repository directly influence water seepage into the drifts and 
the amount of water entering breached waste packages, which, in turn, facilitates the release of 
radionuclides from the Engineered Barrier System into the unsaturated zone underlying the 
repository horizon. Because of drift wall capillary diversion, the ambient seepage model 
suggests that only a small fraction of the percolating water will reach the Engineered Barrier 
System components. The repository thermal pulse also affects seepage into drifts. 
A combination of ambient percolating and refluxed water may penetrate back along preferential 
flow paths into the thermally perturbed rock, that has temperatures above boiling, and seep into 
the drifts. 
Information obtained from seepage monitoring will be used as input to models to determine the 
chemistry of water contacting engineered components. Seepage water chemistry can induce 
degradation of those components through aqueous corrosion processes. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, there is confidence that the modeled range of this parameter will not 
be exceeded and that a change in the parameter value greater than that currently used as the 
range in the performance assessments would likely change the selected conceptual models or 
require consideration of additional conceptual models. Therefore, this activity evaluates the 
seepage assumptions and expected values. This long-term field collection activity provides a 
direct measurement of seepage quantity and chemistry if present and able to be sampled. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(1) 
and (2); 10 CFR 63.132(a), and (b); and 10 CFR 63.133(a). Specifically, the performance 
confirmation program must provide data that indicate, where practicable, whether actual 
subsurface conditions encountered and changes in those conditions during construction and 
waste emplacement operations are within the limits assumed in the licensing review; and 
whether natural systems and components required for repository operation, and that are designed 
or assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure, are functioning as intended and 
anticipated. During repository construction and operation, a continuing program of surveillance, 
measurement, and testing, must be conducted to ensure that geotechnical and design parameters 
and design assumptions are confirmed. During the early or developmental stages of 
construction, a program for testing of the unsaturated zone must be conducted. 
Current UnderstandingThe rock above the repository of the Upper Natural Barrier limits the 
movement of water through the unsaturated zone. Water flow in the fractured welded tuffs 
above the repository (the Tiva Canyon welded and the TSw hydrogeologic units that host the 
repository) occurs primarily in widely distributed fractures. In contrast, the PTn between the 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-20 November 2004 

fractured welded tuffs is characterized by matrix-dominated flow. The transition from fracture to 
matrix flow tends to attenuate (dampen) flow pulse amplitude caused by variable infiltration and 
by lateral heterogeneity because of the distribution of fracture flow paths. This damping effect, 
both temporally and spatially, reduces the variability of percolation rates at depth. Geochemical 
data indicate that percolation rates at the level of the repository are relatively uniform. The 
unsaturated zone flow model is a comprehensive model based on an extensive field and 
laboratory testing program and is calibrated to match data and observations from pneumatic 
testing, water content (saturation) data, hydraulic-potential data, and geochemical and isotopic 
data. 
Underground openings in unsaturated rock divert water around them because of the capillary 
barrier effect. Therefore, much of the water that percolates downward through the Yucca 
Mountain unsaturated zone will not seep into the drifts or reach Engineered Barrier System 
components. However, it is possible for the water potential in the rock formation to be higher 
than at the drift wall. When this occurs, water will exit the formation and enter the drift. At the 
drift surface, water can: (1) evaporate, (2) be transported as film flow down the wall, or (3) form 
a drop that eventually detaches becoming drift seepage. The impact of heat, generated by the 
decay of radioactive wastes, on drift seepage is of special interest. The hydrological and 
mechanical alteration of the rock physical parameters (i.e., permeability, porosity, moisture 
content, fracture interconnectivity) and the chemical evolution of waters, gas, and minerals are 
coupled to the thermal loading. Zones of boiling, condensation, and drainage are expected to 
influence the seepage distribution and water chemistry. 
Models and analogue geologic data (BSC 2004, [DIRS 169218] Section 8) indicate that only a 
small fraction (less than about 10 percent) of drip shields and waste packages will experience 
any water flow in current climatic conditions. Even during wetter future climates, approximately 
one in three waste packages will be exposed to water seepage. The remainder will remain dry. 
The average seepage flux into emplacement drifts is about 25 percent of the percolation flux. 
The design of the repository system uses the heat generated by emplaced waste to increase the 
diversion of percolating water and to further limit the amount of water available to seep into the 
emplacement drifts. As air temperature in the emplacement drifts exceeds the boiling point of 
water, liquid water will generally not be available to flow into emplacement drifts. Elevated 
temperatures will persist for several hundred to approximately 1,500 years following closure, 
depending on the specific location within the repository emplacement layout. To quantify and 
model the capillary barrier effect, associated seepage testing was conducted in ESF alcoves 
(Alcove 8) and niches (3107, 3566, 3650, 4788, and 1620) and at the Busted Butte Test Facility. 
The seepage model considers the matrix and fracture hydrologic properties of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff and the design of the repository to evaluate the likelihood that seepage occurs. 
It incorporates the processes and conditions that evolve over time, including changes caused by 
the heat of the emplaced waste. Boiling of water dries the rock surrounding emplacement drifts 
and promotes the movement of water vapor away from the repository. The model is also used to 
evaluate the effect of the disturbed zone on seepage and on long-term performance of the 
repository when temperatures have declined to well below boiling. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-21 November 2004 

The baseline information for this activity will be synthesized from TSPA-LA results as well as 
from information obtained from reports. Drift-scale seepage is modeled externally in the 
Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170000]) and the results are 
then abstracted as described in the Abstraction of Drift Seepage (BSC 2003 [DIRS 165564]), and 
then imported into the TSPA-LA model before performing the performance-assessment 
simulations. 
Anticipated MethodologySeepage monitoring and sampling will include, monitoring seepage 
occurrences and quantities, as well as conducting laboratory analyses of seepage fluids to 
confirm test results and evaluate model predictions. This work will be conducted using seepage 
alcoves or boreholes, as well as in thermally accelerated drifts. General observation of seepage 
(if any) will also be conducted in conjunction with drift inspections (Section 3.3.1.8). Seepage 
monitoring is intended to document the spatial and temporal distribution of seepage in the drifts 
(if it occurs) and, if possible, to obtain samples of the seepage water for chemical analysis. 
Additionally, it is intended to document the impact of thermal loading as it relates to the spatial 
and temporal distribution of seepage and water chemistry. 
For the monitoring of inlet ventilation air characteristics, stations are currently located in the ESF 
and ECRB Cross-Drift consisting of barometric pressure transducers, humidity and temperature 
probes, wind speed sensors, and thermocouple psychrometers. These sensors are connected to 
data loggers, which in turn are connected to the underground fiber optic network for routine and 
remote data download. It is expected that a similar arrangement and test design will be 
employed for this performance confirmation activity. 
Video systems will be installed in bulkheaded alcoves and monitored to identify potential 
seepage in the thermally accelerated drifts and bulkheaded alcoves (e.g., dark spots on the rock 
wall ground support, or wet spots on the drip shields). Humidity and temperature monitoring of 
the exit air in one thermally accelerated drift could be used as an indicator of seepage. 
Identification of humidity spikes or an abrupt temperature decrease in the exit air could be an 
indication of potential seepage. If spikes are noted, attempts will be made to investigate and 
recover samples. 
To accomplish the performance confirmation thermal objectives for seepage monitoring, 
following the start of repository operations, thermally accelerated testing will be implemented by 
developing thermal environments in normally constructed emplacement drifts in which 
representative coupled thermal, hydrological, mechanical, chemical processes as well as 
radiological and microbial effects can be monitored. The thermally accelerated drifts concept is 
described in more detail in Section 3.4.5 
Seepage monitoring and sampling in thermally accelerated drifts will test the impact of decay 
heat on drift seepage. The thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical alteration of the 
permeability, porosity, moisture content, and fracture interconnectivity of the rock and the 
chemical evolution of waters, gas, and minerals are coupled to the thermal load. The technology 
to remotely detect seepage in bulkheaded alcoves is available. However, the high-temperature 
and high-radiation environments representative of postemplacement conditions in the thermally 
accelerated drifts will require development of applications for the technology capable of remote 
monitoring. Experience gained in thermally accelerated drift tests may contribute to developing 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-22 November 2004 

technologies for such applications. Revisions to the Performance Confirmation Plan will update 
this activity description, as appropriate. 
Seepage data are typically evaluated as an observed seepage occurrence (for very low flow rates) 
or rate at a specific location for larger flows. The number of observations of potential seepage (if 
seepage rate is too small to obtain a sample) compared to the predicted probability of seepage 
will also be evaluated. A limit on the amount of seepage and seepage composition would be 
established based on historical data and the sensitivity of performance assessment models. If the 
seepage rates, chemical composition, or probability distribution exceeded a predetermined limit, 
an evaluation of the potential impact of the understanding of system performance would be 
conducted and reported as described in Section 4. 
This activity will not adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives 
because the monitoring is noninvasive and occurs in the drifts remotely. The amount of seepage 
that could be sampled is insignificant so as to not impact water reaching the drifts. In the 
thermally accelerated drifts, the monitoring and testing period will be followed by closure of the 
test bed, which may include removing waste packages and instrumentation and sealing, as 
appropriate. Further evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be 
conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.1.3 Subsurface Water and Rock Testing 
Activity DescriptionLaboratory analysis of chloride mass balance and isotope chemistry based 
on samples taken at selected locations of the underground facility. Candidate parameters that 
may be measured include: laboratory analysis of chloride mass balance and isotope chemistry 
(uranium, strontium, oxygen, hydrogen, 36Cl/Cl, 3H, chlorine, 99Tc and 129I/127I), based on water 
obtained from samples taken at selected locations in the underground facility. The results 
represent the chemistry of water of the Upper Natural Barrier in the immediate vicinity of the 
repository openings, which can be used to confirm assumptions for fast paths used in unsaturated 
zone model. This long-term field collection activity provides a direct measurement of the 
parameters. Chloride mass balance data and isotopic composition data collection began in the 
ESF and ECRB Cross-drift during site characterization and will continue during construction, as 
new drifts are made available for sampling. The locations and design of the sampling and testing 
in emplacement drifts are very preliminary at this time. The PC Test Plans will provide 
additional detail and develop the logic of where and how samples would be obtained to confirm 
barrier capability. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate whether the Upper Natural Barrier operates 
as expected to verify assumptions for fast paths used in unsaturated zone models. Chloride mass 
balance and isotope geochemistry sampling and analysis are used to: (1) evaluate the amount of 
infiltration at the surface and the percolation flux through the repository level, (2) evaluate 
whether the fast pathway parameters used in the analysis adequately represent actual conditions, 
(3) assess the effects of water-rock interaction on the isotopic systems at the bulk rock scale, and 
(4) evaluate assumptions about the long-term percolation history of flow through the unsaturated 
zone using the ages and isotopic composition of low temperature fracture minerals. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-23 November 2004 

The Upper Natural Barrier contributes to waste isolation by limiting the amount of water 
available to contact the Engineered Barrier System and by establishing the physical and chemical 
environment of the Engineered Barrier System. As shown in Figure 1-1, the Upper Natural 
Barrier limits flow through the volcanic tuffs in the unsaturated zone above the repository. This 
sampling supplements the seepage monitoring that is a direct measure of the seepage quantity 
and quality, but is not expected to occur over large areas of the repository. Results from this 
activity will be used to evaluate the chloride mass balance and isotopic signature from past 
events and help understand the long-term record from Yucca Mountain. 
Selection JustificationThis activity will obtain field observations to evaluate assumptions and 
inputs used in chemical models that indicate flow in the unsaturated zone. Chloride mass 
balance and isotopic composition can be used to understand historic infiltration rates. 
Information has been obtained from existing subsurface facilities, and this activity will extend 
the dataset to cover areas of the repository not yet sampled. While precipitation serves as the 
maximum input of water to the repository system from the environment, and seepage represents 
the output from the Upper Natural Barrier as it enters the Engineered Barrier System, rock matrix 
water records a long-term history of past events in the vicinity of the repository openings. As 
such, this activity is very important to evaluating the expected results and assumptions related to 
the infiltration and unsaturated zone flow in the rock above the repository models. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, this activity was determined to have a moderate potential impact of 
the understanding of the performance of the total system. Changes in parameter values greater 
than that currently used as the range in the performance assessments would likely cause a 
reevaluation of the selected conceptual models or require consideration of additional conceptual 
models. Therefore, this activity will provide confirmation of the estimates of flow in the Upper 
Natural Barriers (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168343]). 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(1) 
and (2), specifically, the performance confirmation program must provide data confirming actual 
conditions and that indicate, where practicable, whether natural systems and components 
required for repository operation, and that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after 
permanent closure, are functioning as intended and anticipated. 
Current UnderstandingChloride mass balance data and isotopic composition data collection 
began during site characterization and will continue during construction. Chloride mass balance 
data from analysis of the ESF and the ECRB Cross-Drift samples indicate considerable spatial 
variability of surface infiltration and percolation flux (BSC 2004, [DIRS 169734] 
Section 7.1.4.4). These isotopic data will be used to evaluate the understanding of the flow and 
transport in the unsaturated zone. 
ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift isotope geochemistry data, notably for 36Cl and 3H have been 
interpreted to indicate fast flow paths; however, the data are not mutually consistent in that fast 
pathways indicated by 3H are not coincident with such pathways inferred from the 36Cl data. The 
conceptual and numerical modeling insights gained from the isotope data have been used to 
develop a conceptual understanding of flow and transport in the unsaturated zone even though 
contradictions still exist in the present data sets (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168343]). 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-24 November 2004 

The baseline information for this activity will be synthesized from TSPA-LA results as well as 
from information obtained from analysis and modeling reports. Drift-scale seepage is modeled 
externally in the Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170000]) 
and the results are then abstracted as described in the Abstraction of Drift Seepage (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167970]), and then imported in to the TSPA-LA model before performing the 
performance-assessment simulations. Results of existing analyses are presented in the 
unsaturated zone field-testing report (BSC, 2004 [DIRS 169056]). 
Anticipated MethodologyThe pore-water chloride and rock and fracture coating isotope 
geochemistry samples will be collected at selected locations in the repository. At each locality, 
an approximately 2 meter long borehole will be dry drilled with dried and filtered compressed 
air. The core will be handled only with latex gloves to avoid chloride contamination, and 
preserved quickly to avoid undue dry out. The core will be transported to the laboratory for 
water extraction within 48 hours after collection. Although drilling techniques using air as the 
drilling fluid dry out the outer volume of the core samples, enough of the water in the core 
samples remains to allow for sample extraction. This is preferable to contaminating the samples 
with construction water. Water from the cores will be extracted by ultra centrifugation of core, 
and the extracted water will be analyzed by ion chromatography. Aliquots of the water will also 
be used to measure a comprehensive suite of dissolved ions and isotopes. The core will be used 
for bulk rock analyses of Uranium and Strontium isotopes. In addition to the core samples, 
fracture coating samples may be taken at periodic locations at selected locations in the drifts, 
especially at faults and at sites where a high concentration of fracture coatings suggest a high 
percolation flux. Fracture coating samples will also be analyzed for isotope geochemistry 
(e.g., uranium and strontium isotopes). 
The data are typically evaluated as a set of chemical and isotopic analyses representative of the 
water held in the rock matrix. A limit on the composition of the matrix water as a control on 
seepage composition would be established based on a comparison of design criteria and the 
sensitivity of performance assessment models. In addition, the isotopic and chloride mass 
balance can be used to assess historical infiltration rates. If the potential for seepage chemical 
composition exceeded a predetermined limit, or isotopic composition indicates an incorrect 
assumption of infiltration rates, an evaluation of the potential impact on the understanding of 
system performance would be conducted and reported as described in Section 4. 
This activity will not adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives 
because the drilling to obtain samples is very limited and occurs in a very small portion of the 
drift and mains cross section. Since the amount of rock that may be sampled is an insignificant 
amount, impact to the pathway of water reaching the drifts is negligible, especially during the 
periods after closure. Before emplacement, it would be possible to seal the boreholes, as 
appropriate, if analytical and modeling results indicated that the small boreholes would increase 
seepage potential. Further evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be 
conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.1.4 Unsaturated Zone Testing 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes testing of transport properties and field sorptive 
properties of the Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor member (Tptp), in an ambient seepage alcove 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-25 November 2004 

or a drift with no waste packages emplaced. Candidate parameters that may be measured 
include: sorption parameters, van Genuchten parameters describing fractures and matrix, colloid 
or colloid-facilitated transport parameters, fracture density, apertures, coatings, air permeability, 
seepage, alcove temperature, and relative humidity. This activity confirms the transport 
properties in the immediate vicinity of the repository openings and serves as a surrogate for 
unsaturated welded, fractured rock of the Lower Natural Barrier below the repository. This 
long-term field collection and laboratory analysis activity provides direct measurements of the 
parameters. This activity began during site characterization and will continue during 
construction and emplacement. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate sorption coefficients used in the unsaturated 
zone model. The performance confirmation activities associated with the transport and sorptive 
properties of the Topopah Spring Tuff include testing to evaluate the assumptions and results of 
conceptual and numerical models used to describe flow and transport in the unsaturated zone at 
Yucca Mountain. 
Selection JustificationInformation from unsaturated zone testing will be used to support the 
unsaturated zone transport model. Transport of radionuclides through the unsaturated zone 
mainly occurs in fractures within the welded units. Because fractures are difficult to sample and 
test in the laboratory, in situ testing in alcoves will better assess heterogeneous effects and 
ultimately improve the confirmation of parameter values used in performance assessment. 
Transport parameters in the nonwelded units have been characterized during site characterization 
because of the relative ease of sampling and testing in the laboratory of units where matrix 
conductivity predominates. As such, there is much less uncertainty in the properties of these 
units so they may not need to be confirmed during performance confirmation activities. The 
uncertainty associated with modeling the nonwelded units is not the transport properties, but 
rather their spatial distribution in relation to the flow paths from the repository to the saturated 
zone. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, this activity was determined to have a moderate potential impact on 
the understanding of the performance of the total system. It was estimated that there was a 
moderate chance that the mean annual dose calculations would change if the parameter value 
were found to lie outside its current modeled range. If the results of this activity are not as 
anticipated, the implications on the system performance could include a greater potential for 
radionuclide transport through the rock of the Lower Natural Barrier. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.131(a)(2). Specifically, the performance confirmation program must provide data 
that indicate, where practicable, whether natural systems and components required for repository 
operation, and that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure, are 
functioning as intended and anticipated. 
Current UnderstandingThe repository horizon is underlain by approximately 215 meters to 
365 meters (BSC 2003 [DIRS 165802]) of unsaturated volcanic rock. The series of unsaturated 
layers below the repository is comprised of tuffaceous rocks exhibiting varying degrees of 
welding, which affect both the fracture density and matrix conductivity. Densely welded tuffs 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-26 November 2004 

are brittle and typically develop interconnected fractures, which may allow water to divert 
around areas of lower conductivity, whereas nonwelded tuffs exhibit low fracture density and 
higher matrix conductivity. 
The natural barrier below the repository (Lower Natural Barrier) limits and delays radionuclide 
movement to the accessible environment through a variety of natural processes. In the 
unsaturated zone, these processes include: (1) low water flow rates, (2) matrix diffusion that 
mechanically traps radionuclides in the rock, and (3) chemical adsorption of radionuclides onto 
mineral surfaces. Radionuclides are also dispersed spatially and temporally. 
Sorption is a general term that describes a combination of chemical interactions between the 
dissolved radionuclides and the surrounding rock. Field transport studies will generally not 
address the different components of retardation: matrix diffusion, absorption, adsorption, 
precipitation, and ion exchange. The key factor is to identify removal of a portion of a dissolved 
species from the mobile liquid phase to the immobile liquid or solid phase, whatever the 
underlying component. This removal results in the retardation of dissolved or suspended 
(i.e., colloidal) transport species. 
The capability of the Lower Natural Barrier is radionuclide specific. For the short-lived, 
radionuclides that comprise most of the repository inventory at emplacement (cesium, 
strontium), radioactive decay will reduce the activity and amount of the nuclides to negligible 
levels long before they are transported to the accessible environment. For the long-lived, 
moderately to strongly sorbing radionuclides (e.g., plutonium, neptunium), the Lower Natural 
Barrier retards transport by thousands of years and reduces their activity at the accessible 
environment. For the nonsorbing or mobile radionuclides (primarily technetium and iodine), the 
tuff and alluvium in the Lower Natural Barrier will disperse and retard transport for centuries to 
thousands of years. 
The general methodology to incorporate sorption into the transport models is to use an effective 
sorption coefficient. The effective sorption coefficient (Kd) represents the partitioning of a 
radionuclide between the solid and the aqueous phase. This coefficient, combined with the 
contact time, and the contact area (i.e., matrix or fracture) can be used to estimate radionuclide 
transport through the unsaturated zone. The baseline information for this activity will be 
synthesized from TSPA-LA reference database, as well as from information obtained from 
analysis and modeling reports. Kd values derived from field tests will be compared to the 
laboratory batch tests and to the Kd values presented in Radionuclide Transport Models Under 
Ambient Conditions (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163228]), the Drift-Scale Radionuclide Transport Model 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 164889]), and the TSPA models. 
Anticipated MethodologyThis activity includes in situ experiments, field mapping, 
field-testing, and laboratory analysis of samples collected from the field tests. The transport and 
sorption testing will be conducted in two or more of the seepage monitoring alcoves located 
within the repository. Testing will be initiated during the construction phase and will continue to 
the early stages of the emplacement phase. Because the repository is to be constructed primarily 
in the Topopah Spring Tuff middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) and in the Topopah Spring 
Tuff crystal-poor lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll), a minimum of one test will be planned and is 
to be conducted in the Tptpmn and one test in the Tptpll. Fracture mapping data will be used to 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-27 November 2004 

select test locations and to ensure that the selected test locations provide good spatial coverage of 
the geologic units. A system of up to 9 horizontal boreholes, up to 10 meters in length, have 
been recommended to be drilled, stretching from the alcove floor to the ceiling. 
The fracture density, apertures, and coatings will be measured and documented in both the 
boreholes and in the borehole core. Single and cross-hole air-injection, and water release testing 
will be conducted in the boreholes. After the fracture flow system has been quantified, and flow 
between the boreholes identified, the fracture system will be locally saturated and liquid tracers 
released in the upper boreholes. Tracers will be selected to represent both highly sorptive and 
poorly sorptive radionuclides. Samples taken from the lower boreholes will be used to document 
the change in tracer concentration between the upper and lower boreholes and will provide 
estimates of the Kd values. In addition, infiltration platforms will be constructed to conduct 
unsaturated flow tests and quantification the van Genuchten values that are important to 
modeling flow and transport in the unsaturated zone (BSC 2003, [DIRS 166509] p. 41). 
Continuous relative humidity and temperature measurements will be taken in and immediately 
outside the alcoves. 
The results of the testing are compared to models that relate conservative, reactive, and colloidal 
tracer testing to transport properties. If the results from tracer testing exceeded a predetermined 
limit that would cause the assumed transport properties of the Lower Natural Barrier to be 
incorrect, an evaluation of the potential impact on the understanding of system performance 
would be conducted and reported as described in Section 4. 
This activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance 
objectives because the alcoves and drilling to obtain samples is very limited and occurs in a very 
small portion of the repository. The amount of rock anticipated to contain residual 
concentrations of tracers is negligible with respect to performance. Before repository closure, 
boreholes and alcoves may be sealed, as appropriate, if modeling results indicated that the small 
boreholes and alcoves would increase seepage potential or alter the chemistry of potential water 
leaving the drifts. Further evaluations on waste isolation, test-to-test interference, and operations 
will be conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.1.5 Saturated Zone Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes monitoring, sampling, and analyzing saturated zone 
water from Nye County and site wells. Candidate parameters that may be measured 
include: water levels, electrochemical potential (Eh), hydrogen potential (pH), colloid 
characteristics, and radionuclide concentrations. Some very limited sampling to confirm natural 
colloid characteristics may be included. Water level changes indirectly control the flow 
components of the saturated zone feature of the Lower Natural Barrier. 
Changes in gradient, as a result of local increases in water levels at the source or decreases in 
levels at the receptor, may reduce travel time for water. For radionuclides, water chemistry can 
impact transport. Eh and pH are indicators of conditions that could cause radionuclides to 
exhibit different transport behaviors. This long-term monitoring, field collection, and laboratory 
analysis activity provides direct measurements of the parameters. This activity began during site 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-28 November 2004 

characterization and will continue during construction and the emplacement period until 
permanent closure. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate hydrologic and chemical parameters used 
with the saturated zone flow model. Saturated zone testing includes monitoring groundwater in 
wells upgradient and downgradient of the repository. It also includes associated laboratory 
testing of samples to evaluate groundwater chemistry and radionuclide concentrations. These 
data will be used to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the groundwater, the absence of 
leakage from the repository unsaturated zone, and arrival of radionuclides from upgradient 
sources (e.g., nuclear testing). 
Selection JustificationAs noted above, water level changes indirectly control the flow 
components of the saturated zone feature. Changes in gradient as a result of local increases in 
water levels at the source or decreases in levels at the receptor may increase the rate of 
radionuclide transport. Water chemistry can impact radionuclide transport. Eh and pH are very 
important indicators of conditions that could cause radionuclides to exhibit different transport 
behaviors. 
The detection of radionuclides from the repository is an indirect confirmation measurement 
because radionuclides from the repository are not expected to be observed at all during the 
monitoring. If in the highly unlikely event radionuclides from the repository were observed, this 
would be strong evidence that something in the repository system is not performing as 
anticipated. Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection 
approach described in Section 1.4.1, this activity evaluates assumptions that have a high potential 
impact on the understanding of performance of the total system. It was estimated that there was 
a very high chance that the mean annual dose calculations would change if the parameter value 
were found to lie outside its current expected range. However, there is very high confidence that 
the modeled range of this parameter will not be exceeded. If it were exceeded, it would cause a 
reevaluating of the selected conceptual models or require consideration of additional conceptual 
models. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.131(a)(2). Specifically, this activity addresses the requirements that the performance 
confirmation program must provide data that indicate, where practicable, whether natural 
systems and components required for repository operation, and that are designed or assumed to 
operate as barriers after permanent closure, are functioning as intended and anticipated. 
Current UnderstandingThe natural barrier below the repository (Lower Natural Barrier) limits 
and delays radionuclide movement to the accessible environment through a variety of natural 
processes. The saturated zone feature of the Lower Natural Barrier includes the volcanic rock 
and alluvium in the saturated zone below the water table that will delay the movement of most 
radionuclides by thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Saturated zone processes that 
limit the movement of radionuclides includes: (1) low groundwater flow rates, (2) matrix 
diffusion, (3) sorption, and (4) filtration of colloids that could potentially transport radionuclides. 
Radionuclide concentrations will also be reduced by spatial dispersion of radionuclides, by 
mixing and dilution in groundwater. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-29 November 2004 

The capability of the Lower Natural Barrier is radionuclide specific. For the short-lived, 
radioactive nuclides that comprise most of the repository inventory at emplacement (cesium, 
strontium), radioactive decay will reduce the activity and amount of the nuclides to negligible 
levels long before they are transported to the accessible environment. For the long-lived, 
moderately to strongly sorbing radionuclides (e.g., plutonium, neptunium), the Lower Natural 
Barrier retards transport by thousands to tens of thousands of years and reduces their activity at 
the accessible environment. For the nonsorbing or mobile radionuclides (primarily technetium 
and iodine), the tuff and alluvium in the Lower Natural Barrier will disperse and retard transport 
for centuries to thousands of years. 
The expected lack of radionuclide release and movement to the saturated zone may not be able to 
be evaluated directly because even a poorly performing unsaturated zone below the repository 
barrier is unlikely to be detected by this activity, due to the long duration of transport. Changes 
of surrogate indicator parameters (water levels, Eh, pH) will be closely monitored to serve as an 
early warning that the geohydrologic system is reacting to changes in the basin. These slight 
changes may not be related to activities at Yucca Mountain (in fact it may be more related to 
other natural or anthropogenic activities offsite upgradient on the Nevada Test Site or in Jackass 
Flats) but may indicate that the overall impact to the predictive models and potential long-term 
performance may need to be reevaluated. Information from saturated zone testing will be used to 
support the saturated zone transport models. 
The baseline information for groundwater chemistry and water levels for this activity will be 
synthesized from Performance Assessment results as well as from information obtained from 
analysis and modeling. Modeling and analysis reports that may contain information relevant to 
the development of the baseline include: Site-Scale Saturated Zone Transport (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169053]); Saturated Zone In Situ Testing (BSC 2003 [DIRS 167209]); Geochemical and 
Isotopic Constraints on Groundwater Flow Directions, Mixing, and Recharge at Yucca 
Mountain (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169339]); Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone 
Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model (USGS 2004 [DIRS 168473]); Site-Scale Saturated Zone 
Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169051]); and the TSPA models. 
Anticipated MethodologyThis activity includes monitoring, sampling, and analyzing saturated 
zone water from Nye County and site wells for water levels, Eh, pH, and radionuclide 
concentrations. Much of the monitoring will be done with automated equipment attached to data 
loggers. For samples that are recovered for laboratory analysis, annual sampling or biennial 
sampling may be optimal. Because some of the wells may experience seasonal or shorter time 
variations based on storm events, some of the shallower wells (likely in the alluvium) may 
require quarterly sampling initially until the seasonal trends are understood. 
Groundwater sampling of the Nye County and site wells for analysis of the parameters oxidation 
potential (Eh) and pH will be performed periodically during licensing, preemplacement 
construction, emplacement operations, monitoring operations, closure. Individual sampling 
campaigns are expected to require less than six months to complete, and can be conducted by 
automated equipment. Currently, field instrumentation is available for measuring water levels, 
Eh, and pH, and laboratory analysis is not required. However, delivery of groundwater samples 
to a laboratory for radionuclide concentrations analysis will be required. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-30 November 2004 

The testing data are typically evaluated as water levels and chemical composition of groundwater 
samples. If the parameters that characterize overall chemistry lie outside of the expected range, 
then barrier capability may need to be reevaluated and the impact on the understanding of 
performance assessed. Some unexpected groundwater changes (e.g., reducing Eh or pH more 
conducive to precipitation of radionuclides) could positively impact performance. Emphasis will 
be on detecting changes that would adversely impact performance. If the results from saturated 
zone monitoring exceeded predetermined limits that would cause the modeled flow and transport 
properties of the Lower Natural Barrier to be incorrect, an evaluation of the potential impact on 
the understanding of system performance would be conducted and reported as described in 
Section 4. The detection of radionuclides from the repository is not expected to be observed 
during the monitoring period. If in the highly unlikely event radionuclides from the repository 
are observed, this would be strong evidence that the repository barrier systems are not 
performing as anticipated. The NRC would be notified immediately with an analysis of system 
performance to follow. 
This activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance 
objectives because the monitoring of existing wells, including the obtaining of samples, will 
remove only a very small amount of water from the groundwater reservoir. The amount of water 
that may be sampled is of such an insignificant amount as to not impact the chemical 
environment of the saturated zone. Before repository closure, it would be possible to seal the 
wells and boreholes, as appropriate, if analytical and modeling results indicated that the wells 
and boreholes would increase vertical migration or alter the chemistry of potential water leaving 
the unsaturated zone heading for the receptor. Further evaluations on waste isolation and 
test-to-test interference will be conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.1.6 Saturated Zone Fault Hydrology Testing 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes hydraulic and tracer testing of fault zone hydrologic 
characteristics, including anisotropy, in the saturated zone fractured and nonwelded tuffs to 
evaluate fault properties in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. Candidate parameters that may be 
measured include: transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, water flux or specific discharge, 
effective flow porosity, longitudinal dispersivity, sorption parameters, parameters describing 
diffusion between flowing and stagnant water, colloid or colloid-facilitated transport parameters; 
Eh, pH, and natural colloid concentrations. Results from this activity will be used to evaluate 
whether the flow in the saturated zone of the Lower Natural Barrier performs as anticipated. 
This short-duration testing, field collection, and laboratory analysis activity provides both direct 
and indirect measurements of the parameters. This is a new activity that will be initiated during 
construction. As such, the locations, durations, and design of the testing are very preliminary at 
this time. Testing at each potential site (which would include many separate phases of pumping, 
tracer injection, and recovery) is expected to be completed in one to three years. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate fault parameter assumptions in the saturated 
zone flow and transport models. The performance activities associated with the fault zone 
hydrologic characteristics include testing and monitoring to evaluate fault zone hydraulic 
conductivity (permeability), porosity, dispersivity, and anisotropy in fractured and nonwelded 
tuff in the flow path from the repository, are within the ranges assumed for these parameter 
values. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-31 November 2004 

Selection JustificationMajor fault zones may act as barriers to flow or as preferential pathways 
and both conditions have been identified near Yucca Mountain. Fault zones could affect the 
spreading of a contaminant plume, but might not significantly affect the unretarded radionuclide 
travel time. A permeable fault zone could spread flow paths vertically while retaining the 
general leading-edge shape of the plume. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, this activity was determined to have a relatively low potential to 
impact total system performance because fault properties are modeled at both ends of the 
spectrum and have a large range. There is confidence that the modeled range of this parameter 
will not be exceeded, but if it were exceeded, a reevaluation of the selected conceptual models or 
consideration of additional conceptual models would likely be required. There is moderate 
confidence that the relevant time-dependent processes for the repository are captured in the 
parameters measured. There is moderate confidence that the relevant spatial processes for the 
repository would be captured in the parameters measured. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.131(a)(2). Specifically, this activity addresses the requirements that the performance 
confirmation program must provide data that indicate, where practicable, whether natural 
systems and components required for repository operation, and that are designed or assumed to 
operate as barriers after permanent closure, are functioning as intended and anticipated. 
Current UnderstandingThe natural barrier below the repository (Lower Natural Barrier) limits 
and delays radionuclide movement to the accessible environment through a variety of natural 
processes. The saturated portion of the Lower Natural Barrier includes the fractured volcanic 
rocks from below the repository to approximately 12 to 14 kilometers south of Yucca Mountain, 
and the saturated alluvium at the water table from the volcanic aquifer to the accessible 
environment. The movement of radionuclides in the saturated zone is slow because the velocity 
of water that can carry them is low. In addition, several processes retard the movement of 
radionuclides compared to the rate of movement of the water. 
Saturated zone processes that limit the movement of radionuclides includes: (1) low 
groundwater flow rates, (2) matrix diffusion, (3) sorption, and (4) filtration of colloids that could 
potentially transport radionuclides. Radionuclide concentrations will also be reduced by spatial 
dispersion of radionuclides, by mixing and dilution in groundwater. 
The pathways for radionuclide movement immediately downgradient from Yucca Mountain 
occur in fractured volcanic rocks. This portion of the saturated zone barrier is complicated by 
the faulting and tilting of the volcanic rocks; however, it is represented in an equivalent porous 
medium model in terms of two weakly-coupled aquifers: (1) an upper volcanic aquifer 
associated with the Topopah Spring Tuff zone, and (2) a lower volcanic aquifer associated with 
the Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuff zones with some major fault zones modeled as areas of 
enhanced permeability. As such, hydrologic characteristics as investigated by testing are 
anticipated to be useful for evaluating flow paths and rates. 
Variations in structure (e.g., fault zones) and permeability (e.g., high-permeability zones) in the 
vicinity of Yucca Mountain are known to be present. Faults may act as barriers to flow or as 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-32 November 2004 

preferential pathways. Both conditions have been identified near Yucca Mountain. For 
example, if a fault causes the juxtaposition of two units with differing materials, it may act as a 
barrier to flow in some places and a conduit for flow at other places along its length and depth. 
For nonwelded units with very low matrix permeability, faults may serve as foci for numerous 
fractures and allow preferential flow vertically, and intercommunication between more highly 
permeable zones above and below the nonwelded unit. Although these types of heterogeneity 
are expected to result in local perturbations in the flow field, the flow regime, on a regional scale, 
is not expected to be significantly altered. Detailed hydrologic modeling studies of the saturated 
zone that have examined the effects of fault zones on flow and transport indicate inclusion of 
additional structure in the model would affect the spreading of a contaminant plume, but would 
not significantly affect the unretarded radionuclide travel time. For example, the presence of a 
permeable fault tends to spread flow paths vertically while retaining the general leading-edge 
shape of the plume. 
Results of testing at the C-Well Complex indicated influences that could be attributed to fault 
properties. Additional detail can be found in Saturated Zone In Situ Testing (BSC 2003) 
[DIRS 167209]. 
Saturated zone fault hydrology testing is a new activity that will be initiated during construction. 
As such, the locations, durations, and design of the testing are very preliminary at this time. 
Based on very successful past hydraulic and tracer testing at the C-wells Testing Complex 
downgradient of the repository, the test sites may consist of three boreholes arranged in a 
triangular configuration. The Site-Scale Saturated Zone Flow Model (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 169051]) divides the area nearest Yucca Mountain into three permeability-enhanced 
zones: (1) the Fortymile Wash zone, (2) the Imbricate fault zone, and (3) the Solitario Canyon 
fault zone. Of these three zones, the Imbricate fault zone and the Solitario Canyon fault zone are 
located at the eastern and western boundaries of the repository and therefore are candidates for 
testing. 
Testing may include deepening existing wells or drilling new wells downgradient of the 
repository in the vicinity of a fault zone likely to be a conduit for flow (a new Southern Testing 
Complex). The exact location has not yet been determined. Alternative conceptual models may 
need to be evaluated before the appropriate locations are selected. Another new test site may be 
located in the Solitario Canyon fault zone. The exact location has not been determined, but three 
new boreholes would be drilled in, and across, the Solitario Canyon fault, and packers installed 
to allow three-dimensional hydraulic and tracer testing. As in the Southern Testing Complex, the 
testing may probably concentrate on the Crater Flat Group but might also allow testing of the 
deeper tertiary tuff or the shallower Paintbrush group, depending on the final placement and 
configuration of the wells. 
Because this is a new activity, an established baseline is not available at this time. Whereas 
testing activities very similar to this have been conducted during site characterization at the 
C-wells Testing Complex and in the interpretation of boundary conditions noted in other 
hydraulic single well tests, this specific performance confirmation activity will not begin until 
construction begins. Therefore, the baseline information for this activity will be synthesized 
from performance assessment assumptions as well as from published results from analogue sites 
in fractured and faulted rocks. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-33 November 2004 

Anticipated MethodologyThis short-duration testing activity includes monitoring of water 
levels during ambient and stress conditions, tracer injection, field sample collection (including 
limited onsite or in situ analysis) and offsite laboratory analysis. Testing may include single and 
cross-hole pumping and tracer tests using boreholes with spacing (both in plan view as well as 
with depth) depending on predictive modeling and test objectives. Fault testing will likely be 
conducted at two test locations in the repository area. The boreholes could both straddle and 
penetrate the test faults. Downhole packers would be used to isolate several test intervals in each 
borehole allowing each borehole to function as point sources. The use of three boreholes and 
in situ packers allows cross-hole hydraulic and tracer testing in both the horizontal and vertical 
planes. The packers would also allow boreholes that penetrate the fault to be used to conduct 
tests in the hanging wall, fault zone, and the footwall. Single-hole and cross-hole hydraulic 
testing could be used to quantify the fault zone hydraulic conductivity, porosity, and anisotropy. 
Cross-hole tracer testing could be used to evaluate dispersivity and sorption characteristics. 
The testing data are typically evaluated as results of hydraulic and tracer testing. These results 
are compared to models that relate hydraulic properties to flow and conservative, reactive and 
colloidal tracer testing to transport properties. If the results from hydraulic and tracer testing 
exceed a predetermined limit that would cause the assumed flow and transport properties of the 
saturated zone feature of the Lower Natural Barrier to be incorrect, an evaluation of the potential 
impact on the understanding of system performance would be conducted and reported as 
described in Section 4. 
This activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance 
objectives because the new wells that may be tested, including obtaining samples, remove only a 
very small amount of water from the fractured and nonwelded tuffs of the groundwater reservoir. 
The amount of water that may be sampled is of such an insignificant amount as to not impact the 
chemical environment of the saturated zone. The amount of rock that could contain residual 
concentrations of tracers is of such an insignificant amount as to not impact the chemical 
environment of groundwater in the flow path, especially during the periods after closure when 
the saturated zone would be considered an active participant in barrier performance. Before 
repository closure, it would be possible to seal the wells and boreholes, as appropriate, if 
analytical and modeling results indicated that the wells and boreholes would increase the 
probability of vertical migration or alter the chemistry of potential water traveling through the 
rock heading for the receptor. Further evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference 
will be conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.1.7 Saturated Zone Alluvium Testing 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes use of the Alluvial Test Complex tracer test using 
multiple boreholes to evaluate transport properties of the alluvium along a potential flow path 
south of Yucca Mountain. Candidate parameters that may be measured include: transmissivity, 
hydraulic conductivity, water flux and specific discharge, effective flow porosity, longitudinal 
dispersivity, sorption parameters, parameters describing diffusion between flowing and stagnant 
water; colloid or colloid-facilitated transport parameters; Eh, pH, and natural colloid 
concentrations. Results of this activity will be used to evaluate if the saturated zone alluvium 
feature of the Lower Natural Barrier performs as anticipated. This short-duration testing, field 
collection, and laboratory analysis activity provides both direct and indirect measurements of the 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-34 November 2004 

parameters. This activity began during site characterization but was suspended when a permit to 
withdraw water and inject was denied by the State of Nevada. The testing is expected to begin 
again, and continue during the early stages of construction. Completion of the testing is 
anticipated to take from one to three years. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate inputs and assumptions for the saturated zone 
flow and transport models. The performance activities associated with the Alluvial Test 
Complex include testing and monitoring of the alluvium to evaluate the assumptions and results 
of conceptual and numerical models used to describe the saturated zone hydrologic conditions in 
the alluvium south of Yucca Mountain. Cross-hole pump and tracer transport tests will be 
conducted. 
Selection JustificationAlluvium properties could influence evaluation of the performance of 
the Lower Natural Barrier. If, in the unlikely event that the transport parameters for alluvium are 
outside of the expected range in the adverse direction, then the ability of the alluvial feature of 
the Lower Natural Barrier to meet the objectives of the barrier capability would be evaluated. 
The assumed range from analogue studies is very broad and has a mean value representing less 
retardation potential than many other investigators would choose. Because of early results from 
single well tracer tests at the Alluvial Testing Complex that indicated that there was little to no 
matrix diffusion the performance assessment models take little credit for retardation due to 
matrix diffusion in the alluvium. Further, the transport model takes into account uncertainty in 
the alluvium transport properties as well as uncertainty about where, along the flow paths from 
Yucca Mountain, water potentially carrying radionuclides would actually enter the alluvial 
materials from the fractured tuffs. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, this activity was determined to have a relatively high potential impact 
on the performance of the total system. It was estimated that there was a very high chance that 
the mean annual dose calculations would change if the parameter value were found to lie outside 
its current modeled range. There is very high confidence that the modeled range of this 
parameter will not be exceeded but if it did, it would cause a reevaluation of the selected 
conceptual models or require consideration of additional conceptual models. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.131(a)(2). Specifically, this activity addresses the requirements that the performance 
confirmation program must provide data that indicate, where practicable, whether natural 
systems and components required for repository operation, and that are designed or assumed to 
operate as barriers after permanent closure, are functioning as intended and anticipated. 
Current UnderstandingThe natural barrier below the repository (Lower Natural Barrier) limits 
and delays radionuclide movement to the accessible environment through a variety of natural 
processes. The saturated portion of the Lower Natural Barrier includes the fractured volcanic 
rocks from below the repository to approximately 12 to 14 kilometers south of Yucca Mountain, 
and the saturated alluvium at the water table from the volcanic aquifer to the accessible 
environment. The movement of radionuclides in the saturated zone is slow because the velocity 
of water that can carry them is low. In addition, several processes retard the movement of 
radionuclides compared to the rate of movement of the water. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-35 November 2004 

Saturated zone processes that limit the movement of radionuclides includes: (1) low 
groundwater flow rates, (2) matrix diffusion, (3) sorption, and (4) filtration of colloids that could 
potentially transport radionuclides. Radionuclide concentrations will also be reduced by spatial 
dispersion of radionuclides, by mixing and dilution in groundwater. 
Sorption is a general term that describes a combination of chemical interactions between the 
dissolved radionuclides and the surrounding rock. Field transport studies will generally not 
address the different components of sorption: absorption, adsorption, precipitation, and ion 
exchange. The key factor is to identify removal of a portion of a dissolved species from the 
mobile liquid phase to the immobile solid phase, whatever the underlying component. This 
removal results in the retardation of dissolved or suspended (i.e., colloidal) transport species. 
Because the alluvial materials are a porous media with few connected fracture pathways, water 
flow and radionuclide transport occur in intergranular pores. The conceptual model for transport 
in the alluvial sediments is that of a porous continuum. The effective porosity of the alluvium is 
greater than the fracture porosity of the tuffs. Consequently, pore velocities in the alluvium are 
smaller than those in the fractures of the volcanic aquifers. Sorption onto minerals in the 
alluvium results in retardation of the radionuclide movement relative to the water movement in 
these sediments. 
Testing and quantification of the hydraulic and transport characteristics of the alluvium was 
deemed necessary in order to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 63. The Alluvial Testing 
Complex is located approximately 18 kilometers south of Yucca Mountain along a potential 
groundwater flow path parallel to Fortymile Wash. The test complex consists of three Nye 
County Early Warning Detection Program boreholes (NC-EWDP-19D1, I9IM1, and 19IM2) 
along with a single piezometer borehole (NC-EWDP-19P). The boreholes are arranged in a 
quasi-triangular configuration. The distance between the boreholes ranges from approximately 
10 to 30 meters. To date, single-hole hydraulic and tracer testing has been conducted at the 
Alluvial Testing Complex in borehole NC-EWDP-19D1. This work and the analysis are 
documented in Saturated Zone In Situ Testing (BSC 2003 [DIRS 167209]). The Alluvial Testing 
Complex data was used to develop estimates of groundwater specific discharge. The Alluvial 
Testing Complex data reduces the uncertainty in the specific discharge estimates originally 
developed based on input from an expert elicitation panel and the results from hydraulic and 
tracer testing in tuff. The uncertainties in the specific discharge estimates are incorporated into 
the flow and transport models using a cumulative distribution function. 
The baseline information for groundwater chemistry and water levels in the alluvium for this 
activity will be synthesized from TSPA-LA results as well as from information obtained from 
analysis and modeling reports. Reports that may contain information relevant to the 
development of the baseline include: Site-Scale Saturated Zone Transport (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169053]); Saturated Zone In Situ Testing (BSC 2003 [DIRS 167209]); Geochemical and 
Isotopic Constraints on Groundwater Flow Directions, Mixing, and Recharge at Yucca 
Mountain (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169339]); Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone 
Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model (USGS 2004 [DIRS 168473]); Site-Scale Saturated Zone 
Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169051]); and the TSPA models. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-36 November 2004 

Anticipated MethodologyThis short-duration testing activity includes monitoring of water 
levels during ambient and stress conditions, tracer injection, field sample collection (including 
limited onsite or in situ analysis) and offsite laboratory analysis. Three boreholes will be used to 
conduct single hole and cross-hole hydraulic and tracer tests at locations representative of the 
saturated thickness of the alluvium. Tracer tests include conservative tracers, nonconservative 
tracers, and polystyrene microspheres. Pressures, temperatures, and flow rates will be recorded 
during testing. Packers will be used to isolate the screened intervals in the boreholes. Flow rates 
will be recorded using calibrated flow meters. During hydraulic testing, a borehole will be 
pumped while other boreholes serve as observation wells. Prior to conducting tracer tests, 
selected intervals will be pumped to quantify vertical leakage in the well. The results of this test 
will determine the analysis methods necessary to conduct hydraulic tests and to determine which 
intervals will be used for the cross-hole tracer tests. 
Injection pump back tests will also be conducted. Tracer tests using fluorinated benzoic acid and 
bromide will be followed by tests using fluorescent polystyrene microspheres and natural 
colloids that have 152Sm sorbed onto them. The microsphere and 152Sm responses will provide 
estimates of colloid transport parameters and the colloid facilitated radionuclide transport 
parameters. The results from the benzoic acid and bromide tracers will provide estimates of 
longitudinal dispersivity and diffusive mass. Lithium will be used as a reactive tracer in 
cross-hole tracer testing. Comparison of its field transport behavior with its laboratory transport 
behavior is important in evaluating the TSPA use of laboratory derived sorption parameters in 
field scale radionuclide transport predictions. Additional laboratory batch and column sorption 
tests will be conducted to compare the sorption values of lithium and other tracers with the 
sorption values of radionuclides such as 237Np. These laboratory tests will be used to confirm the 
basis for modeling saturated zone flow and transport or for modeling sorption in the alluvium. 
The testing data are typically evaluated as results of tracer testing. These results are compared to 
models that relate conservative, reactive and colloidal tracer testing to transport properties of the 
alluvium as part of the saturated zone feature of the Lower Natural Barrier. If the results from 
tracer testing exceeded a predetermined limit that would cause the assumed transport properties 
of the Lower Natural Barrier to be incorrect, an evaluation of the potential impact on the 
understanding of system performance would be conducted and reported as described in 
Section 4. 
This activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance 
objectives because the existing wells that will be tested, including obtaining samples, remove 
only a very small amount of water from the alluvial deposits of groundwater reservoir. 
The amount of water that may be sampled is of such an insignificant amount as to not impact the 
chemical environment of the saturated zone. The amount of alluvium that will contain residual 
concentrations of tracers is of such an insignificant amount as to not impact the chemical 
environment of groundwater in the flow path, especially during the periods after closure when 
the alluvium would be considered an active participant in barrier performance. Before repository 
closure, it would be possible to seal the wells and boreholes, as appropriate, if analytical and 
modeling results indicated that the wells and boreholes would increase the probability of vertical 
migration or alter the chemistry of potential water traveling through the alluvium heading for the 
receptor. Further evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted 
during the detailed test planning. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-37 November 2004 

3.3.1.8 Drift Inspection 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes regular inspection of nonemplacement drifts, and 
periodic inspection of emplacement drifts, thermally accelerated drifts, and other underground 
openings using remote measurement techniques, as appropriate. Candidate parameters that may 
be measured include: temperature (as a surrogate indicator of evaporating seepage), seepage, 
rockfall, size and frequency monitoring, ground support conditions, engineered barrier 
component positions, drift continuity. This inspection aids in ensuring that designed systems are 
operating as expected. This activity evaluates the potential environment that components of the 
Engineered Barrier System will endure and that the option for retrievability is preserved. This 
long-term field observation and measurement activity provides direct measurements. This is a 
new activity that focuses on areas important to repository operations and confirming preservation 
of the option to retrieve spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, although similar 
inspection activities were conducted in the ESF, alcoves and ECRB Cross-Drift. Periodic drift 
inspections will begin during operations and will continue through closure. Planning for this 
activity is preliminary in nature; frequency of observations, other methods and approaches may 
be employed and will be described in the PC Test Plans prior to construction. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate drift stability assumptions, both within 
emplacement drifts and nonemplacement drifts, and rockfall size or probability distributions. 
The activity also supports confirmation of retrievability. Inspection includes detection or 
measurement of significant rockfall, drift convergence, changes in waste package position, and 
changes to rail alignment. Inspection to evaluate performance and design assumptions includes 
detection of temperature, liquid seepage, and degradation not directly related to retrievability. 
Selection JustificationMechanical effects from rockfall associated with drift degradation over 
time may lead to failure of the drip shields and waste packages. The failure of the Engineered 
Barrier System will depend on the rate of accumulation of rubble and rate of rockfall in the drift 
and the threshold load-bearing capacity of the systems. The accumulation in the drift will 
increase the waste package temperatures and may affect the water seepage into the drifts. As 
such, this observation activity is important to the drift stability modeling and has impacts on 
seepage and thermal processes within the drifts. 
If the observations indicate a change in the parameter value greater than that currently expected, 
that result would likely change the selected conceptual models or require consideration of 
additional conceptual models. As such, if the results of this activity are not as anticipated, the 
implications on system performance could have impacts on the environment to which 
Engineered Barrier System components will be subjected in the repository and the ability to 
retrieve spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste if needed. Mechanical loading from 
rockfall rubble accumulated from drift degradation over time may lead to failure of the drip 
shields and waste packages. For the reasons presented above, this activity is designed to meet 
the requirement to confirm that the design preserves the option to retrieve waste. It also 
addresses the requirement for the collection of data for geotechnical and design parameter 
confirmation by monitoring the drift environment (temperature and humidity), seepage, and 
waste package corrosion. Specifically, this activity addresses the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.111(e), 10 CFR 63.131(a)(1), and 10 CFR 63.132(a), (b), and (e). 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-38 November 2004 

Explicitly, 10 CFR 63.111(e) requires that the geologic repository operations area is to be 
designed to preserve the option of waste retrieval. Confirmation of the retrieval option must 
continue during the operations period until completion of a performance confirmation program 
and the NRC review of the information obtained. 
This activity also addresses the requirement that the performance confirmation program provide 
data that indicate, where practicable, whether actual subsurface conditions encountered and 
changes in those conditions during construction and waste emplacement operations are within 
the limits assumed in the licensing review; and that the engineered systems and components 
required for repository operation, and that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after 
permanent closure, are functioning as intended and anticipated. Furthermore, that during 
repository construction and operation, a continuing program of surveillance be conducted to 
ensure that geotechnical and design parameters are confirmed, that subsurface conditions must 
be monitored and evaluated against design assumptions, and that in situ monitoring of the 
thermal-mechanical response of the underground facility be conducted until permanent closure, 
to ensure that the performance of the geologic and engineering features is within design limits. 
Current UnderstandingThis long-term field observation and measurement activity includes 
inspection of selected emplacement drifts to confirm that the design preserves the option to 
retrieve spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste after placement of the waste 
packages. The length of the emplacement drift will be subject to inspection, but monitoring may 
not include the entire length of the drift during each inspection. Inspections will be conducted 
remotely with cameras or other equipment. In addition, sensor devices to measure temperature, 
other environmental conditions, and make observations of potential drift seepage would be 
included on a gantry or other remote monitoring mechanism. 
Inspections will involve monitoring drift stability (deterioration of the crown or ribs), and any 
resulting degradation of the rail and other systems. Preservation of the retrievability option 
within the emplacement drifts requires continued functionality of the drift opening and rail 
system. Failure of these elements could impact retrieval of waste. Additionally, the 
performance confirmation monitoring itself must not adversely impact waste retrieval. 
Rail system obstruction, misalignment, or damage to the extent it inhibits a waste package gantry 
from traveling along the track could be caused by unlikely occurrences of drift invert heave or 
drift rockfall. The drift opening will be monitored to verify that rockfall or convergence of the 
drift back, ribs, and invert have not adversely affected the clearance envelope required for 
package removal. 
Regularly scheduled monitoring of selected emplacement drifts will be performed. However, 
following significant seismic events, monitoring emphasis will be directed, as appropriate, at 
areas with significant geologic features identified during emplacement drift mapping to evaluate 
movement or damage to engineered systems. 
During operational activities, the waste package could be misaligned (impacting retrievability) 
by placement gantry malfunction. The position of the package during initial placement in the 
drift would be monitored and corrected by the operations department and is not considered a part 
of retrievability monitoring under the performance confirmation program. Also, emplacement 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-39 November 2004 

door functionality is not included in the scope of the performance confirmation program, since 
this is considered to be an operations function and not a barrier assumed after permanent closure. 
The operations department would monitor design systems outside including the emplacement 
access doors for retrievability. This is in agreement with the current philosophy that is discussed 
in the Emplacement and Retrieval System Description Document (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167280]). 
The design confirmation data preserve the option for spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste retrieval and would include video (visual documentation of drift condition) or 
convergence measurement data gathered with remote monitoring equipment. Convergence 
monitoring data, on the other hand, would be collected and analyzed. The data are typically 
evaluated as a convergence rate. A limit on the rate of convergence would be established based 
on historical data and performance assessment models. 
The baseline for this activity will be developed from reports that may include: Scoping Analysis 
on Sensitivity and Uncertainty of Emplacement Drift Stability (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166183]); 
Supporting Rock Fall Calculation for Drift Degradation: Quantification of Uncertainties 
(BSC 2001 [DIRS 158207]); Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550]); 
Evaluation of Emplacement Drift Stability for KTI Resolutions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168889]); and 
Supporting Rock Fall Calculation for Drift Degradation: Drift Reorientation with No Backfill 
(CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 149639]). This comparison will indicate whether the ranges for 
the parameters measured in situ are consistent with the data used as the basis for the conceptual 
models and the ranges used for the input parameters for the numerical models relevant to drift 
stability. 
Anticipated MethodologyAlthough the concepts for this activity have not yet been planned, 
and would not be finalized until needed during waste emplacement, it is likely that the 
technology will consist of using a remotely operated vehicle equipped with cameras and sensing 
devices. The cameras may be designed to provide stereographic views and projections of the 
drift wall and invert. Sensors would provide measurements of temperature and seepage within 
the drifts. General observation of seepage (Section 3.3.1.2) (if any) will also be conducted in 
conjunction with drift inspections. This activity may benefit from the past experiences in 
acquiring remote visual observations in the ESF Drift Scale Test using the camera. Although not 
the configuration that will be used in the emplacement drifts, the Drift Scale Test employed a 
thermally insulated remote video unit that traveled to the back of the 50 meter long drift on a 
gantry and provided video, still, and infrared images of the drift. These images were used to 
assess drift stability conditions, look for evidence of seepage, and to observe the general 
conditions of the simulated waste packages and test components. 
Planning for this activity is preliminary in nature; other methods and approaches may be 
employed and will be described in the PC Test Plans prior to construction. This activity will not 
adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives because the 
monitoring is noninvasive and occurs in the drifts remotely. Further evaluations on waste 
isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted during the detailed test planning. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-40 November 2004 

3.3.1.9 Thermally Accelerated Drift Near-Field Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes monitoring of near-field coupled processes 
(thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical) properties and parameters associated with the 
thermally accelerated drifts. Candidate parameters that may be measured include: rock-mass 
moisture content, temperatures, air permeability (fracture permeability), mechanical deformation, 
mechanical properties, and water chemistry. This activity monitors the near-field properties in 
the immediate vicinity of the thermally accelerated drifts and serves as a surrogate for anticipated 
conditions during the thermal pulse and changes that may result after the thermal pulse in the 
fractured unsaturated rock above and below the repository of the Upper and Lower Natural 
Barriers. This long-term remote field monitoring and testing provides both direct measurements 
and indirect observations. 
This is a new activity that will be conducted within the thermally accelerated drift and will be 
initiated during operations, continuing until closure. As such, for the field-testing, the locations, 
durations, and design of the testing are very preliminary at this time. This monitoring will be 
conducted periodically at a frequency yet to be determined. Other methods and approaches may 
be employed and will be described in the PC Test Plan prior to waste operations. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate coupled process results from the 
thermal-hydrologic-chemical-mechanical models. This activity monitors the near-field 
properties in the immediate vicinity of the thermally accelerated drift walls and serves as a 
surrogate for anticipated conditions during the thermal pulse and resulting permanent changes 
that may result after the thermal pulse in the fractured unsaturated rock above and below the 
repository subsides. Ongoing evaluation of these coupled processes that affect water chemistry, 
porosity and matrix and fracture permeability is intended to assess the predicted repository 
performance bases pertaining to drift seepage. 
Selection JustificationMonitoring of thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical coupled 
processes are important to the evaluation of the near-field coupled processes surrounding the 
repository emplacement drifts. Seepage into waste emplacement drifts could be a significant 
factor in waste isolation because of its potential to contribute to degradation of engineered 
barriers and radionuclide transport. Boiling of pore water will generate water vapor, which will 
flow along paths of least resistance, followed by transport to and condensation in cooler rock 
surrounding the emplacement drifts. Water chemistry evolves as a result of the 
thermal-hydrologic-chemical processes that occur within this elevated temperature zone. In 
addition, thermal-hydrologic-mechanical effects give rise to thermally-induced fracture aperture 
changes that lead to changes in fracture permeability. Further, redistribution of moisture from 
thermal-hydrologic processes is also reflected in time evolution of fracture permeability. 
Changes in the near-field environment during the thermal pulse could change seepage patterns 
and compositions as well as drift stability. Section 3.3.2.4 complements this activity. This 
long-term field collection and laboratory analysis activity provides relatively direct 
measurements as well as indirect observations expected to evolve during the preclosure period 
due to both natural evolution and repository activities and will likely vary spatially. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-41 November 2004 

Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, changing seepage enhancing conditions due to drift degradation or 
focusing of flow because of residuals from thermal processes (e.g., plugging of fractures or 
enhanced flow through fractures activated by thermal-mechanical processes) were judged to be 
significant. There is confidence that the modeled range of the rock-mass moisture content, 
fracture permeability, and perturbed thermal effects will not be exceeded. A change in these 
rock water parameter values, greater than that currently used as the range in the performance 
assessments, would change the selected conceptual models or require consideration of additional 
conceptual models. 
For the above reasons, this activity is important. In addition, the near-field environment is 
important to evaluating the performance life times of the Engineered Barrier System 
components, as well as the drift stability after heating and cooling. For the reasons presented 
above, this activity is designed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(1) and (2), 
10 CFR 63.132(a), (b), (c), and (e); and 10 CFR 63.133(a). Specifically, that the performance 
confirmation program provide data that indicate, where practicable, whether the actual 
subsurface conditions encountered and changes in those conditions during construction and 
waste emplacement operations are within the limits assumed in the licensing review; and that the 
natural and engineered systems and components are functioning as intended and anticipated. 
In addition, a continuing program of surveillance, measurement, and testing must be conducted 
to ensure that geotechnical and design parameters (e.g., near-field environment) are evaluated. 
Subsurface conditions must be monitored and evaluated against design assumptions. In situ 
monitoring of the thermal-mechanical response of the underground facility must be conducted 
until permanent closure, to ensure that the performance of the geologic and engineering features 
is within design limits. 
During the early or developmental stages of construction, a program for testing of the thermal 
interaction effects of the Engineered Barrier System features, rock, unsaturated zone, and 
saturated zone water, must be conducted. This activity provides the data for the unsaturated zone 
rock and water portion of the requirements for 10 CFR 63.133(a). Because of the distance to the 
saturated zone and the slow migration of the thermal pulse during the performance confirmation 
period, it is not prudent to test for coupled process behavior in the saturated zone. Model results 
indicate negligible effects on saturated zone water levels and chemistry based on thermal 
conditions anticipated from the repository. 
Current UnderstandingEstimating the evolution of the near-field environment is complex 
because of coupled thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical processes and changes in the 
emplacement drift configuration caused by the collapse and rubbling of overlying rocks. Water 
and gas compositions will be influenced by chemical reactions within the unsaturated fractured 
rock. Local changes in water and gas chemistry may result from interactions with engineered 
materials, corrosion products, or both. Major processes affecting the evolution of the near-field 
environment include evaporative processes and mineral dissolution and precipitation, as well as 
aqueous and gaseous-phase transport and chemical reactions. 
The near-field environment is defined as the conditions within the repository region, including 
the rock immediately surrounding the drifts outward to a distance that encompasses significant 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-42 November 2004 

heating related processes or excavation related changes in rock properties (DOE 2002, 
[DIRS 155943] p. G-20). Significant refers to the effect on the repository system 
performance. 
Interactions between the natural system and radioactive wastes could cause both permanent and 
transient property changes within a region that extends for a considerable distance into the rock 
mass (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170338]; BSC 2003 [DIRS 164890]; BSC 2003 [DIRS 162050]; 
BSC 2003 [DIRS 166498]). Beyond this near-field lies the far-field (i.e., relatively unaltered 
host rock of the unsaturated zone and saturated zone), where only minor changes may occur, 
such as slightly elevated temperatures. The near-field may extend considerably farther for some 
processes than for others (BSC 2003, [DIRS 162050] Figure 6.8-40; BSC 2003, [DIRS 164890] 
Figure 7.4.3-2), ranging from tens of meters to 100 meters or more outward from the 
emplacement drift (BSC 2003, [DIRS 162050] Section 6; BSC 2003, [DIRS 164890] 
Figure 7.4.3; BSC 2003, [DIRS 166498] Sections 6.2 and 6.3). The near-field also evolves as 
the rate of heat generation from the decay of the radioactive waste decreases over time. 
Three field thermal tests have been conducted to obtain a more in depth understanding of the 
thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical coupled processes and to provide data for enhancing 
confidence in the model analyses. Those tests are the Drift Scale Test, Large Block Test, and the 
Single Heater Test. The tests were conducted in the Tptpmn; the Single Heater Test and the 
Drift Scale Test were conducted in situ (at Alcove 5 of the ESF) and the Large Block Test was 
conducted in a nearby outcrop located at Fran Ridge. Detailed descriptions of the Drift Scale 
Test, the Large Block Test, and the Single Heater Test can be found in the following reports: 
Drift Scale Test Design and Forecast Results (CRWMS M&O 1997 [DIRS 146917]), Drift Scale 
Test As-Built Report (CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 111115]), Large Block Test Final Report 
(Lin, et. al. 2001 [DIRS 159069]), and the Single Heater Test Final Report (CRWMS M&O 
1999 [DIRS 129261]). Results from characterizing the Drift Scale Test block are contained in 
the Ambient Characterization of the Drift Scale Test Block (CRWMS M&O 1997 
[DIRS 101539]). Early results of the Drift Scale Test are discussed in the Drift Scale Test 
Progress Report No. 1 (CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 108306]) and Thermal Testing 
Measurements Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 160771]). Thermal testing measurements for all three 
tests are reported in Thermal Testing Measurements Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 160771]). 
Performance assessment process models that use these measurements are described in the 
following reports: Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 163056]); Drift-Scale 
Coupled Processed (DST and THC Seepage) Models (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168848]); Drift Scale 
THM Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167973]); and the Abstraction of Drift-Scale Coupled Processes 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169617]). 
An established baseline is not available at this time, especially as it relates to conditions created 
by actual waste packages or to conditions in units other than the Tptpmn. Very successful past 
thermally induced property monitoring activities, very similar to this, have been conducted 
during site characterization in the ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift (although not remotely) and are 
currently ongoing (the references are cited in the previous paragraphs). This specific 
performance confirmation activity will not begin until the thermally accelerated drift test bed is 
constructed and waste packages emplaced. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-43 November 2004 

Near-field monitoring will collect data that will be compared with ranges of acceptability 
established in current numerical models and thermal results reports: Drift Scale THM Model 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 164890]), Drift Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models 
(BSC 2002 [DIRS 158375]), and Thermal Hydrological-Chemical (THC) and Thermal 
Hydrological (TH) Only Drift Scale Model Analysis (DTN: SN0002T0872799.007 
[DIRS 148605]), Abstraction of Drift Scale Coupled Processes (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169617]), 
Multiscale Thermohdrologic Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 163056]), and Thermal Measurements 
Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 160771]). These comparisons will indicate whether the ranges for the 
parameters measured in situ are consistent with the data used as the basis for the conceptual 
models and the ranges used for the input parameters for the numerical models relevant to 
seepage and coupled processes. 
Anticipated Methodology-GeneralThis long-term remote field monitoring and testing activity 
includes monitoring that will be accomplished using boreholes drilled into the near-field rock 
surrounding the thermally accelerated emplacement drifts. These boreholes will be collared in 
the test observation drift or subsidiary alcoves located beneath the emplacement drift and dry 
drilled toward, but not intersecting, a thermally accelerated emplacement drift. Arrays of 
boreholes will be designed, depending on the type of monitoring to be performed. Each array 
will define the number of boreholes, the location, and the orientation for specific monitoring 
measurements to be performed. During drilling operations, core will be collected from each hole 
to evaluate initial in situ rock moisture content and chemistry. The following monitoring 
methods may be used for data collection in the near-field surrounding a thermally accelerated 
emplacement drift. 
Anticipated MethodologyIn-Hole LoggingRegular ongoing measurement of water saturation 
will likely be performed using neutron and induction in-hole logging techniques. This will 
provide actual moisture content in the rock immediately surrounding each borehole. 
Induction logging is a subsurface geophysical technique that measures formation conductivity as 
a function of temperature and moisture. Accuracy for this measurement diminishes in highly 
resistive environments. Because of this, induction logging will only be used as a secondary 
means in place of neutron logs to measure actual moisture content. 
Anticipated MethodologyTomographic AnalysisAdditional borehole arrays for broader 
spatial measurement of relative changes in water saturation will include electrical resistivity 
tomography and ground penetrating radar. Electrical resistance tomography testing is a 
geophysical technique involving paired source (i.e., current) and receiver (i.e., voltage) 
electrodes, located along the length of specifically oriented boreholes, preferentially selected to 
either send or receive electrical signals. The measurements of voltage and current are used to 
map the moisture content in the rock between boreholes. The system is capable of monitoring 
the change in water saturation levels as the boiling front moves through the rock mass. 
Ground penetrating radar is a geophysical technique that requires calibration of the measured 
dielectric coefficient to moisture content and temperature. Ground penetrating radar 
measurement could potentially be conducted in the boreholes used for neutron logging. This 
technique applies radar in a cross-hole and topographic fashion in the heated rock to derive 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-44 November 2004 

temporal changes in the dielectric properties of the rock mass. These data are then used to infer 
temporal and spatial saturation changes as heating progresses. 
Anticipated MethodologyPermeabilityAir permeability testing will be used for monitoring 
the fracture permeability changes in the rock resulting from moisture redistribution and fracture 
closure or opening from thermally induced stresses. Permeability tests will be performed in 
selected zones surrounding a thermally accelerated drift where modeling results indicate that 
thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical processes may result in permeability changes. Fracture 
permeability measurements involve injecting a gas into a test zone within a borehole and 
measuring the pressure response. The tests will generally be conducted in boreholes that lie 
above and below the thermally accelerated heated emplacement drift. 
Anticipated MethodologyChemical AnalysisThe boreholes used for permeability testing 
may also be used for obtaining water samples for chemical analysis in addition to water samples 
from core. Water samples will be collected and isotopic and ionic analyses will be performed to 
assess the source of the seepage water (e.g., percolation or condensation). 
Anticipated MethodologyRock Displacement and Stress MeasurementsMechanical 
measurements will also include the measurement of stress and displacement in the rock 
surrounding a thermally accelerated emplacement drift. The boreholes used for these 
measurements will be generally oriented perpendicular to the axis of the emplacement drift or in 
an orientation necessary to measure the maximum in situ stress. 
Measurements for rock displacement will most likely be accomplished using multi-point 
borehole extensometers (MPBXs), acoustic emissions, or tiltmeters. Displacement data from 
MPBXs can be used to determine the location, rate of movement, and a calculated strain. 
Additionally, the development of the three-dimensional deformation field in the heated rock 
mass may be monitored by using an array of high-resolution tiltmeters. The tilt data will be used 
to map the rock mass displacement field over time. Displacements, combined with temperature 
data, will provide a measure of the rock mass thermal expansion coefficient. 
Measurements of in situ stress, and the changes to that stress field, can address the following 
situations: 
 Confirmation of the expected reversal in directions of the principal stresses. Currently 
the maximum compressive in situ stress is the vertical (i.e., overburden) stress. The 
thermal loading from the emplacement of waste is expected to increase the horizontal 
compressive stresses such that they become the maximum principal stress. 
 Identification of stress failures. 
 Detection of mechanical events (e.g., fracture formation, fracture slippage, rock failure 
in drifts) that might be indicated by sudden and discontinuous changes in stress. 
There are basically two objectives for performance confirmation testing and data gathering for 
rock displacement and stress measurement: (1) to evaluate the predicted conditions of the 
underground rock during repository performance; and (2) to detect conditions that significantly 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-45 November 2004 

differ from those predicted, especially if the new conditions might indicate scenarios that would 
impact successful repository performance. The first item regarding the shift of the principal 
stresses satisfies the first objective for performance confirmation. The second and third items 
address the second objective, but require some definition of a negative-impact scenario. For 
example, preliminary failure stress curves have been developed from the recent series of 
pressurized slot tests in the ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift; these curves indicate combinations of 
normal and shear stress values at which shear failure begins in the lithophysal rock. 
Measurements of stresses would identify locations where stresses were approaching such a 
failure curve. Similarly, sudden changes in stress might indicate large-scale rock fracturing and 
possible rockfall conditions in an emplacement drift. Such rockfall events are expected to occur 
during the course of the repository's life. Stress measurement data can be used to evaluate 
preemplacement predictions of this behavior, as well as indicate if rockfall conditions are 
significantly different, better, or worse than the predicted performance. 
Anticipated Methodology-Thermal-HydrologicCommercially available resistive temperature 
devices or other types of temperature sensors will be used to measure the temperature in the 
surrounding near-field rock for thermally accelerated drifts. Resistive temperature devices will 
likely be installed in an array of boreholes drilled to form vertically oriented planes that are 
orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the emplacement drift. This configuration of thermal 
sensors is useful in comparing field measurements with model predictions and in characterizing 
the rocks natural thermal property heterogeneity. Monitoring temperatures within these planes 
also provides information on the evolution of the temperature field with time, including 
signatures of phase change. 
The testing data for the overall activity are typically evaluated as results of in situ rock properties 
and recovered samples of water as they change in response to the thermal pulse. These results 
are compared to models that relate thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical behavior of the rock 
of the Upper and Lower Natural Barriers. If the results from testing and monitoring exceeded a 
limit that would cause the modeled rock properties of the Upper and Lower Natural Barrier in the 
near-field to be incorrect, an evaluation of the potential impact on the understanding of system 
performance would be conducted and reported as described in Section 4. 
This activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance 
objectives because the instrumentation is superficial to the drift wall and the remote techniques 
will not affect the waste packages or in-drift conditions. If drilling is used to emplace 
instrumentation, it will be very limited and occur in a very small portion of the drift. The amount 
of rock that may be disturbed is of such insignificant amount as to not impact the pathway of 
water reaching the drifts, especially during the periods after closure. However, before closure, it 
may be possible to remotely seal the boreholes, as appropriate, if analytical and modeling results 
indicated that the small boreholes would increase seepage potential. Further evaluations on 
waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.1.10 Dust Buildup Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes monitoring and laboratory testing of quantity and 
composition of dust on engineered surfaces. Candidate parameters that may be measured 
include: quantity, physical properties, and chemical composition of dust deposited on waste 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-46 November 2004 

packages, drip shields, rail, and ground support surfaces. Results from this activity will be used 
to assess the potential environment that components of the Engineered Barrier System will 
endure. Dust monitoring activities in the ESF similar to this performance confirmation activity, 
have been conducted during site characterization and are currently ongoing. This specific 
performance confirmation activity will begin during construction and operation. This long-term 
field collection provides a direct measurement and indirect observations of the parameters. Dust 
will be collected in representative locations to be specified in the PC Test Plans for this activity. 
This activity will be done in representative emplacement drifts and individual locations selected 
based on ventilation variations. The sample locations will be representative and selected after 
startup of the ventilation system. Sampling will also be conducted in the thermally accelerated 
drift test bed to complete the data set for those activities. The locations will be sampled 
periodically on a frequency yet to be determined. Other methods and approaches may be 
employed and will be described in the PC Test Plans prior to waste operations. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate assumptions of dust buildup and potential 
chemical effects. Results from this activity will be used to assess a part of the potential 
environment that components of the Engineered Barrier System will endure. The accumulation 
of dust on the surface of the drip shield (once installed) and on the waste package outer barrier 
has a role in determining the chemical characteristics of the aqueous environment in which these 
two Engineered Barrier System metallic components will operate in the repository. Dust is a 
collective term that is meant to include a variety of particulate material that originates from 
various sources. 
Selection JustificationDust buildup contributes to corrosion of the waste package, drip shield, 
and other engineered components, because of possible impacts on water chemistry and 
deliquescence. Because dust contributes in determining the chemical characteristics of the 
environment in which Engineered Barrier System components will operate in the repository, this 
activity is important to evaluating the bases for the expected conditions and to assess if the 
environments being used in the waste package and waste form testing are representative. Salts 
that are present as aerosols in atmospheric air and entrained in ventilation air introduced into the 
repository drift may be deposited on the drip shield and waste package surfaces. Evaluating the 
range in chemistry of water contacting the engineered barriers is important for determining 
corrosion rates of the engineered materials. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, this activity was determined to have a potential impact on the 
understanding of the performance of the total system. Mean annual dose calculations that 
consider the effects of localized corrosion may change if monitored parameter values were found 
outside the range used in the model. There is moderate confidence that the modeled range of this 
parameter will not be exceeded during the compliance period, thereby increasing its need for 
evaluation. In addition, if the range were exceeded, a change in the parameter value greater than 
that currently used as the range in the performance assessments, would likely change the selected 
conceptual models or require consideration of additional conceptual models. As such, if the 
results of this activity are not as anticipated, the implications on system performance could 
include a greater potential in the waste package corrosion failure mode and accordingly, a greater 
potential for Engineered Barrier System breach and radionuclide release to the Lower Natural 
Barrier. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-47 November 2004 

For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2) 
and 10 CFR 63.134(a)(c). Specifically, the activity addresses the requirement that the 
engineered systems and components required for repository operation, and that are designed or 
assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure, are functioning as intended and 
anticipated by providing insight into the environment in which they will endure. It is required 
that a program be established at the geologic repository operations area for monitoring the 
condition of the waste packages and that the environment of the waste packages selected for the 
waste package monitoring program must be representative of the environment in which the 
wastes are to be emplaced. This activity evaluates portions of that representative environment. 
Current UnderstandingDuring the period when the repository is operational, the ventilation 
system will contribute particulate matter from the atmosphere. After the repository is closed, 
fine debris from the host rock will settle onto the metallic surfaces. This debris is mainly 
expected to originate from rock dust that will contain the various mineral components of the tuff, 
plus any precipitated chemical species resulting from water seeping into the drift and the possible 
evaporation of salts dissolved in that water. 
Dust minerals have deliquescent properties. When these minerals (salts) settle onto the metal 
drip shield or the waste package, they accumulate with continued exposure. As the temperature 
decreases in the repository, the relative humidity increases. Of concern to the drip shield and the 
waste package performance is the critical relative humidity above which a moisture film will 
form on the metal surfaces. It is at this point, corrosion processes can initiate on a metal surface 
since there is an electrolyte present and corrosion cells, with discrete anodes and cathodes, can 
be established. The deliquescent properties of the salts decrease the critical relative humidity at 
which an electrolyte is formed on the surface, and therefore, at which corrosion reactions can 
occur. 
The deliquescent properties of salts are determined by its attraction to water molecules. Because 
of these attraction forces, salts that are highly deliquescent raise the boiling point of the solution. 
In some cases, the deliquescence and boiling point elevation are large. For example, calcium 
chloride is a highly deliquescent salt that lowers the critical relative humidity, and raises the 
salts boiling point of concentrated solutions. Other salts show less pronounced effects. 
The deliquescent properties of salt mixtures can be significantly different from the properties of 
the individual salts themselves, and nearly always, the deliquescence of the mixture is greater 
than that of the individual salts, meaning that the critical relative humidity is lower and the 
boiling point elevation is higher than that of the individual salts in the mixture. Much of the dust 
material is expected to be inert, in the sense that it has little or no effect on deliquescence. Silica, 
for example, is expected to have little effect on deliquescence. Thus, the composition of the dust 
material that falls and accumulates on the drip shield and waste package surfaces is important in 
predicting the future performance of these Engineered Barrier System components. 
Geochemical environments are complex due to the large number of chemical components and 
interactions among these components. 
Baseline information and expected variability will be developed, obtained from the models and 
reports associated with in-drift physical and chemical environments, and later included in the 
PC Test Plans as it is developed for this work. Some of the corrosion rate parameters depend 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-48 November 2004 

strongly on the chemical composition of solids (dust, salts from evaporated seepage) on the 
waste package (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167461]). In order to evaluate the effects of the dust 
deliquescence process, a field-sampling program was undertaken to characterize repository dust 
(Peterman 2001 [DIRS 165976]; Peterman et al. 2002 [DIRS 165975]; Peterman et al. 2003 
[DIRS 162819]). Conditions of the waste packages entering the repository will be documented 
consistent with the calculation titled Surveying and Removal of Radiological Contamination 
from External Surfaces of Waste Packages (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168869]). 
The major element compositions of the bulk dust samples were very similar to those of the 
repository host rock, indicating that the dust is dominated by finely comminuted (pulverized to 
powder) rock produced during tunnel excavation and construction activities (Peterman et al. 
2003 [DIRS 162819]). Enrichments relative to the tuff wall rock in CaO, MgO, MnO, fluoride, 
and CO2 are interpreted to be due to preferential comminution of fracture and cavity coatings 
(carbonates, manganese oxides hydroxides, fluorite) relative to the bulk tuff (Peterman et al. 
2003 [DIRS 162819]). The enrichment of chlorine is likely related to salts derived from native 
pore water and construction water. Ferrous iron is enriched in the dust due to construction 
related ferrous metal particulates. Finally, measured organic carbon, up to a few percent of the 
total mass, has nonrock sources (soot and aerosols from diesel exhaust, abraded rubber and fiber 
from the conveyer belts, aerosols of hydraulic fluid, oil and greases, etc.). 
Water-soluble anions and cations comprise only a tiny fraction of the bulk material, less than 
0.5 percent of the total. Calcium, sodium, and potassium are the major cations in descending 
order of concentration, and sulfate, nitrate, and chloride are the major anions (carbonate was not 
analyzed). These compositions represent salts derived from evaporation of both native pore 
water and construction water. The construction water can be identified by the presence of 
Lithium Bromide, which was used as tracer in this fluid (Peterman et al. 2003 [DIRS 162819]). 
Bromide was also observed as a soluble constituent of dust. The compositions of the dust 
leachate are used in the model titled Engineered Barrier System: Physical and Chemical 
Environment Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167461]) as input for determining the compositions of 
brines that might form by deliquescence on the drip shield and waste package, and under what 
conditions (relative humidity, temperature) those brines will occur. 
Anticipated MethodologyThis activity includes in situ monitoring, observation, laboratory 
analysis and field-testing. Samples exposed in the drift will be collected and analyzed to 
measure the actual salts that are present in the dust to assess (or refute) these predictions. 
Although the concepts for this sampling have not yet been planned, and would not be finalized 
until waste emplacement, the technology will consist of using a remotely operated vehicle 
equipped with cameras and remote sampling devices. The cameras may be designed to provide a 
visual of the sampling activity. The remote sampling device would provide a mechanism to 
obtain the dust sample and transport it back to the surface for laboratory analysis. 
The testing data are typically evaluated as results of dust composition that actually accumulates 
on the waste packages. Computer models account for a large number of interactive terms in 
order to predict the properties of water solutions containing multiple salts. These models predict 
behavior for the anticipated range of materials that will be present in the dust. These analytical 
results are compared to models that relate dust to corrosion of the waste package and drip 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-49 November 2004 

shields. If the results from testing and monitoring exceeded a predetermined limit that would 
cause the modeled corrosion of the Engineered Barrier System components to be incorrect, an 
evaluation of the potential impact on the understanding of system performance would be 
conducted and reported as described in Section 4. 
This activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance 
objectives because the sampling and monitoring is noninvasive and occurs in the drifts remotely. 
Further evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted during the 
detailed test planning. 
3.3.1.11 Thermally Accelerated Drift In-Drift Environment Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes monitoring and laboratory testing of gas 
composition; water quantities, composition, and ionic characteristics (including thin films); 
microbial types and amounts; and radiation and radiolysis within a thermally accelerated drift. 
Candidate parameters that may be measured include: temperature, relative humidity, gas 
composition, radionuclides, pressure and radiolysis, thin films evaluation, condensation water 
quantities, composition and ionic characteristics including microbial effects. This activity 
evaluates the potential environment that components of the Engineered Barrier System will 
endure. This long-term field collection and lab analysis activity provides relatively direct 
measurements. This is a new activity that will be conducted within the thermally accelerated 
drifts and will be initiated during operations, continuing until closure. As such, for the 
field-testing, the locations, durations, and design of the testing are very preliminary at this time. 
This monitoring will be conducted periodically at a frequency yet to be determined. Other 
methods and approaches may be employed and will be described in the PC Test Plans prior to 
waste operations. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate assumptions used in in-drift physical and 
chemical environment models. Characterization of the environment that surrounds the waste 
package container and drip shield supports evaluating the performance life times of these 
Engineered Barrier System components. The major degradation mode that can affect the 
performance of these components is corrosion, and the kinds of corrosion and the rates of 
corrosion are dependent on the environmental conditions that will be measured in this activity. 
Selection JustificationBecause confirmation of the environment that immediately surrounds 
the Engineered Barrier System components is important for evaluating the performance life 
times of these components (the kinds of corrosion and the rates of corrosion are highly 
dependent on the environment), this in-drift environment monitoring activity is important. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, it is estimated that it is unlikely that the mean annual dose 
calculations would change if these parameter values are found to lie outside its current modeled 
range, possibly with the exception of the laboratory testing for water conditions (thin films, 
including microbial effects). In addition, if the range was exceeded, a change in these parameter 
values, including the microbial types and amounts, greater than that currently used as the range 
in the performance assessments, would likely change the selected conceptual models or require 
consideration of additional conceptual models. As such, if the results of this activity are not as 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-50 November 2004 

anticipated, the implications on system performance could include a greater potential in the 
waste package corrosion failure mode and accordingly, a greater potential for Engineered Barrier 
System breach and radionuclide release to the Lower Natural Barrier. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity is designed to meet the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.131(a)(1) and (2), 10 CFR 63.132(a) and (b), and 10 CFR 63.133(a). Specifically, 
the activity addresses the requirement that the performance confirmation program provide data 
that indicate, where practicable, whether the actual subsurface conditions encountered and 
changes in those conditions during construction and waste emplacement operations are within 
the limits assumed in the licensing review; and that the natural and engineered systems and 
components are functioning as intended and anticipated (e.g., corrosion due to environment). In 
addition, that a continuing program of surveillance, measurement, and testing be conducted to 
ensure that geotechnical and design parameters (e.g., environment) are confirmed. That 
subsurface conditions must be monitored and evaluated against design assumptions and that 
there be monitoring for the condition of the waste packages. 
Current UnderstandingThis activity focuses on in-drift conditions and is a companion activity 
to the thermally accelerated drifts near-field monitoring and thermally accelerated drifts 
thermal-mechanical effects monitoring and will be conducted in the thermally accelerated drifts. 
Three field thermal tests have been conducted to obtain a more in depth understanding of the 
thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical coupled processes and to provide data for enhancing 
confidence in the model analyses. Those tests are the Drift Scale Test, Large Block Test, and the 
Single Heater Test. The tests were conducted in the Tptpmn; the Single Heater Test and the 
Drift Scale Test were conducted in situ (at Alcove 5 of the ESF) and the Large Block Test was 
conducted in a nearby outcrop located at Fran Ridge. Detailed descriptions of the Drift Scale 
Test, the Large Block Test, and the Single Heater Test can be found in the following reports: 
Drift Scale Test Design and Forecast Results (CRWMS M&O 1997 [DIRS 146917]), Drift Scale 
Test As-Built Report (CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 111115]), Large Block Test Final Report 
(Lin, et. al. 2001 [DIRS 159069]), and the Single Heater Test Final Report (CRWMS M&O 
1999 [DIRS 129261]). Results from characterizing the Drift Scale Test block are contained in 
the Ambient Characterization of the Drift Scale Test Block (CRWMS M&O 1997 
[DIRS 101539]). Early results of the Drift Scale Test are discussed in the Drift Scale Test 
Progress Report No. 1 (CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 108306]) and Thermal Testing 
Measurements Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 160771]). Thermal testing measurements for all three 
tests are reported in Thermal Testing Measurements Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 160771]). 
Performance assessment process models that use these measurements are described in the 
following reports: Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 163056]), Drift-Scale 
Coupled Processed (DST and THC Seepage) Models (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168848]), Drift Scale 
THM Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167973]), and Abstraction of Drift-Scale Coupled Processes 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169617]). 
This is a new activity. An established baseline is not available at this time, especially as it relates 
to conditions created by actual waste packages. Whereas thermally induced property monitoring 
activities have been conducted during site characterization in the ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift 
(although not remotely) and are currently ongoing, this specific performance confirmation 
activity will not begin until the thermally accelerated drift is constructed and waste packages 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-51 November 2004 

emplaced. The references that may be consulted for this activity may include: Drift Scale THM 
Model (BSC 2003 [DIRS 164890]), Drift Scale Coupled Processes (Drift Scale Test and THC 
Seepage) Models (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158375]), and Thermal Hydrological-Chemical (THC) and 
Thermal Hydrological (TH) Only Drift Scale Model Analysis (DTN: SN0002T0872799.007 
[DIRS 148605]), Ventilation Model and Analysis Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168720], and 
Multiscale Thermohdrologic Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 163056]). Data specifically from the 
Drift Scale Test will be used from the reports discussed in the previous paragraph. 
Anticipated MethodologyGeneralThis activity includes remote monitoring and sample 
collection. A remote monitoring device will be used to obtain the data required to evaluate the 
environmental conditions and assess types and rates of corrosion. These activities will be 
conducted within the thermally accelerated drifts and will be initiated during operations, 
continuing until closure. The following factors pertinent to each parameter discussion and 
anticipated methodology will be evaluated. 
Description and Anticipated MethodologyWaterFrom the perspective of the Engineered 
Barrier System, the most important environmental parameter is water. Water is an electrolyte, 
and therefore essential in making possible the electrochemical reactions that lead to corrosion 
cell establishment on the surface of the drip shield or the waste package. The quantity of water 
that contacts these engineered components, and species that are contained within the water 
(especially the dissolved ionic species), are significant in determining the corrosion behavior of 
the drip shield and waste package. The water compositions are expected to vary with time and 
with location in the drifts. The other parameters that are to be measured in this activity influence 
either the time when water can access the surface of the drip shield or waste package, or the 
chemical characteristics of that water. 
Description and Anticipated MethodologyTemperature and HumidityThe temperature 
around the waste package is expected to increase when the drift is closed. It is estimated that the 
maximum temperature will occur within 10 years of repository closure. Depending on how the 
waste packages are spaced in the repository, the peak temperature in the base case could be as 
high as 203C on the waste package and as high as 282C for low probability seismic collapse 
(DIRS 163056 Section 6.3.6 and 6.3.7). Water that percolates toward the drift is vaporized 
which generates mineral and salt precipitates. After reaching the maximum value, the 
temperature will slowly decrease. As the temperature decreases, the relative humidity increases. 
Eventually a point is reached at which the temperature is sufficiently low and the relative 
humidity is sufficiently high that a moisture film may form on the Engineered Barrier System 
surfaces. This point is dependent on the deliquescent properties of various dusts (Section 3.4.3) 
and the salts they contain. 
The deliquescence of the salts reduces the critical relative humidity value above which an 
aqueous solution can form and the dissolution of salts in this solution can increase the 
temperature where this solution boils. It is expected that these solutions will be concentrated in 
salts and can be correctly called brines. There is a broad range of temperature and humidity over 
which these brines can form. In the absence of any salts, the boiling point of water at the 
elevation of the repository underground facility is 96C. On a salt-free surface of Alloy 22, the 
critical relative humidity above which a moisture film can be sustained is approximately at 
80 percent relative humidity. On a dust-coated surface, the critical relative humidity may be as 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-52 November 2004 

low as 20 percent and the boiling point of the resulting brine may approximate 120C. Below 
the boiling point of the brine, additional water percolating or seeping down through the rock can 
strike the drip shield, or fall directly on the waste package if the drip shield is not present, and 
collect on its surface. Variation of temperature around the waste package is expected. The 
temperature at the ends of the package will be 10C to 15C cooler than the central part of the 
package. Waste packages located at the ends of the drift will be cooler than those placed in the 
center of the drift. The temperature will decrease as the sensor is moved away from the waste 
packages toward the drift wall, but thermal convection and the presence of the invert will cause 
the atmosphere above the waste package to be at a different temperature than the atmosphere 
surrounding the lower portion of the waste package. The relative humidity would also vary 
spatially in the atmosphere around the waste package. This variation in temperature and 
humidity has implications on the placement of witness samples in the thermally accelerated drifts 
(Section 3.4.5). 
Description and Anticipated MethodologyAtmospheric GasesWater composition is 
influenced by atmospheric gases, particularly carbon dioxide, which tends to equilibrate with the 
carbonate and bicarbonate that is present in many of the waters associated with the site. These 
species influence the pH of the solution. Oxygen in the atmosphere is also important because it 
helps to establish the dissolved oxygen content in the water, which in turn, helps to establish the 
oxidation potential (Eh) of the solution. These properties significantly affect the corrosive 
characteristics of the water. 
Description and Anticipated MethodologyIonic SaltsThe ionic concentrations of species 
dissolved in the water affect the corrosion behavior of the metals. These species also influence 
the pH and Eh, and in addition, some species are aggressive toward breaking down the passive 
films that normally protect metals like Alloy 22 and titanium alloys. Other species are also 
notable for favoring passive film formation and are said to be corrosion inhibitors. Thus, the 
ratio of aggressive to inhibitor ions is an important parameter. With regard to predicting 
corrosion behavior, water chemistry is a complex subject because of interactions of the various 
species dissolved in the water. 
In general, a chloride ion is nearly always more aggressive toward promoting corrosion than 
other ions; the chloride ion attacks the metal at locations where the passive film is weakest and 
the result is localized corrosion, which most often occurs in creviced areas. On the other hand, a 
nitrate ion inhibits corrosion for metals and restores passivity. Chloride and nitrate act as 
opposing ion pairs, and since they are the most soluble of the anions that are present in nearly all 
the waters associated with the site, their effect on corrosion is the most important. They are 
present in an approximate 0.5 nitrate to 1.0 chloride ratio in most of the waters. Other ionic 
species that are usually present in the waters include anionic species of carbonate and 
bicarbonate, which tend to make the water more alkaline, which favors passivity. Carbonate 
dominated waters have good pH buffering properties, so the alkaline pH typical of these waters 
is maintained. Sulfate is another less aggressive anion found in nearly all the site waters tested. 
It appears to have some corrosion inhibiting properties, compared to chloride. 
Nearly all the site waters contain silicate and are usually saturated with silicate. This ion tends to 
make solutions more alkaline and it may have some buffering effect, although not as pronounced 
as that of carbonate. On the other hand, the site waters contain fluoride, which can be an 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-53 November 2004 

aggressive species toward titanium alloys and Alloy 22 in some cases as well. The effects of 
fluoride, as with chloride, are most prominent in more acidic solutions. However, fluoride salts 
are not as soluble as chloride salts, and therefore usually less available to concentrate. 
The cations in the water also influence the potential corrosivity of the water. The main concern 
is the relative amounts of alkali species (i.e., principally sodium and potassium) and alkaline 
earth (i.e., calcium and magnesium) species. In many instances, the calcium and magnesium 
salts are less soluble than the sodium and potassium salts, so they do not buildup to as high a 
concentration. In some cases, the alkaline earth salts are quite insoluble. However, chlorides of 
the alkaline earth elements are among the most aggressive reagents for promoting localized 
corrosion and stress corrosion cracking on many metals and alloys. These chlorides become 
quite soluble with an increasing temperature, and also raise the boiling point considerably 
(Section 3.3.4.2). They are aggressive because of their high concentrations of chloride and 
because of hydrolysis of these solutions to acidic values of pH. 
In the mixed ionic salt solutions, which are believed to be the most dominant of water 
chemistries that will contact the Engineered Barrier System, the other ions tend to counteract the 
effect of the halide ions, chloride and fluoride. Many additional ionic species will be present, 
mainly at very small concentrations, because of water contact with the mineral assemblage in the 
rock. Most of these species can be regarded as spectator ions that have little or no particular 
effect on the corrosion behavior of the Engineered Barrier System materials. Potentially 
damaging species, such as heavy metal ions, are believed to be confined to small concentrations 
in the water and will not concentrate because of their very low solubilities in the brines that will 
develop on the container surfaces. Analysis of waters collected in the drifts during performance 
confirmation is intended to confirm or refute the previous discussion. 
Description and Anticipated MethodologyMicrobial SpeciesMicrobes (i.e., bacteria and 
fungi) can live in a dormant state as spores for indefinitely long periods of time until favorable 
conditions for their propagation arrive in the repository. The most important factor is water. 
Microbes need liquid water for their life processes. Beyond water, they need a nutrient and an 
energy source, and (usually) chemical species in the water to provide these sources. There are a 
vast number of species, and each species has a range of environmental conditions in which it 
thrives. Microbes survive and propagate even in extreme environments of high temperature and 
high salt concentrations. Yucca Mountain has many species of microbes that are native and it is 
expected that excavation and construction of the repository, plus the operations conducted at the 
site, including the ventilation of the drifts, will introduce additional species. Microbes can 
colonize on metal surfaces and form biofilms. The biofilms often comprise different microbial 
species that form an ecological system creating chemical gradients across the biofilm. Microbes 
can colonize on metal surfaces and form biofilms. The biofilms often comprise different 
microbial species that form an ecological system creating chemical gradients across the biofilm. 
Thus, in the presence of biofilms, it is possible for the metal surface to be exposed to a reducing 
environment even through the prevailing exposure condition is oxidizing as it will be at Yucca 
Mountain. In addition, the pH and the concentration of various ionic species can also vary across 
the thickness of the biofilm. In addition, the pH and the concentration of various ionic species 
can also vary across the thickness of the biofilm. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-54 November 2004 

The main concern is what the chemical conditions on the metal surface are. Certain species of 
microbes produce acids and chemical species corrosive to many metals. Alloy 22 and titanium 
alloys have excellent resistance to a wide range of pH and chemical conditions, but there are 
limits. To date, information in the technical literature and data from the Project experimental 
laboratory work suggest that microbially influenced corrosion will not be a performance limiting 
process in the Yucca Mountain setting. 
The objective of collecting microbial samples in the thermally accelerated drifts is to identify the 
total counts of microbes and the speciation of these counts to determine how they compare with 
previously acquired microbe populations taken from the ESF, and to determine how these 
samples compare with microbe populations that have been used in testing activities. 
Description and Anticipated MethodologyRadiolysisGamma radiation penetrating through 
the waste package container can produce chemical changes in the environment (annual dose 
reduction provided by the waste package shell is addressed in Commercial SNF Waste Package 
Design Report, (BSC 2004, [DIRS 168217] Section 2, Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2). The 
main concern occurs when gamma radiation is simultaneously present with water so that 
chemical species potentially damaging to the waste package are formed. The thickness of the 
waste package significantly mitigates the amount of gamma radiation that penetrates through it, 
and the strength of the gamma field decreases with time as the radioactive material in the waste 
decays. Radiolysis decomposes water into its constituents, oxygen and hydrogen, plus a number 
of short-lived radicals and some metastable products such as hydrogen peroxide. In addition, 
species dissolved in the water can be oxidized or reduced, and atmospheric gases can be oxidized 
or reduced as well. The major concern is the oxidation products, because the main reduction 
product under aqueous conditions is hydrogen gas, which readily escapes from the repository 
drifts. Some of the oxidation products can be harmful to waste package performance since they 
raise the corrosion or open circuit potentials. On the other hand, moderately oxidizing conditions 
are generally of benefit to Alloy 22 and titanium alloys because they promote and retain 
passivity of the materials. 
The strength of the gamma field is expected to be reduced by the time aqueous conditions will 
occur, so that radiolytic effects on the environment are expected to be small, and consequently, 
the effects on the material performance will be small. The objective, therefore, of measuring the 
gamma field strength and its effects on the environment and on witness test samples emplaced in 
the drift, is to confirm or refute the previous discussion. 
Whereas laboratory analysis and sampling activities in the ESF similar to those described above 
have been conducted during site characterization, this specific performance confirmation activity 
will not begin until the thermally accelerated drift is constructed and waste packages emplaced. 
This activity includes in situ monitoring, laboratory and field-testing that would be conducted 
periodically, on a frequency yet to be determined, and documented in the PC Test Plan. Baseline 
information and expected variability will be developed, obtained from the models and reports 
associated with in-drift environments, and later included in the PC Test Plans as they are 
developed for this work. 
The testing data are typically evaluated as results of chemical and physical conditions in the drift 
that would impact the waste packages, drip shields, and other engineered materials. These 
results are compared to models that relate in-drift conditions to corrosion of the waste packages, 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-55 November 2004 

drip shields, and other engineered materials (for example, rails, ground support structures, and 
waste pallets). If the results from testing and monitoring exceeded a predetermined limit that 
would cause the modeled performance of the Engineered Barrier System components to be 
incorrect, an evaluation of the potential impact on the understanding of system performance 
would be conducted and reported as described in Section 4. 
This activity includes remote monitoring and sample collection and is not expected to adversely 
affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives as the sampling and 
monitoring is noninvasive and occurs in the drifts remotely. Further evaluations on waste 
isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.2 Geotechnical and Design Monitoring and Testing 
The repository performance confirmation program includes a continuing program of 
surveillance, geotechnical testing, and geologic mapping to confirm geotechnical and design 
parameters. Implementation of this aspect of the performance confirmation program will occur 
during construction and operations and includes thermally accelerated drift thermal-mechanical 
monitoring (Section 3.3.2.4) 
3.3.2.1 Subsurface Mapping 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes mapping of fractures, faults, stratigraphic contacts, 
and lithophysal characteristics. Candidate parameters that may be measured include: fracture 
characteristics, fault zone characteristics (offset, location, age), stratigraphic contacts, and 
lithophysal characteristics. This long-term field observation program provides a direct 
measurement of in situ conditions that represent the spatial scale over the area of the repository. 
This activity supports evaluation of the performance of the Upper and Lower Natural Barriers in 
the vicinity of the repository drifts and mains by confirming that the stratigraphic sequences and 
rock properties actually exist within the ranges as modeled in the Integrated Site Model. This 
activity will begin soon after underground construction begins and will be conducted more or 
less continuously as new drifts, mains, and shafts are mined. Mapping can only occur as new 
underground openings are exposed. Mapping will end soon after the last mined opening is 
finished. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate results from integrated site models. 
Underground geologic mapping provides the basis to evaluate the information on the geologic 
framework that was used to model and evaluate the performance of the natural systems of the 
Yucca Mountain repository. Documentation of fracture characteristics, fault zone 
characteristics, lithostratigraphic contacts, and lithophysal characteristics provides a background 
for confirming: (1) appropriateness of designed ground support components, (2) short and 
long-term stability of emplacement and nonemplacement openings, (3) predicting the effects of 
thermal loading on the walls of the emplacement drifts, (4) near-field hydrologic characteristics 
of the emplacement drifts, and (5) the presence of anomalous infillings which might have 
deleterious effects on waste isolation characteristics of the repository. 
Selection JustificationMapping of repository excavations ensures that any variations from the 
expected geologic conditions (e.g., lithology, lithophysal characteristics, fracture characteristics, 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-56 November 2004 

unexpected structural features) described in the License Application are documented. Fractures 
provide the majority of the permeability of the rock; however, in lithophysal-bearing zones, these 
cavities contribute dramatically to the hydrologic and mechanical behavior of the rock. If the 
conditions vary widely from the range expected, the conceptual models may not change, but it 
may be necessary to reevaluate the rate of water movement because stratigraphic sequences, rock 
properties and mineralogy in the vicinity of drifts account for about 50 percent of the calculated 
range in performance assessment. 
There is high confidence that the modeled range of this parameter will not be exceeded and that a 
change in the parameter values greater than those currently used as the range in the performance 
assessments would not change the selected conceptual models or require consideration of 
additional conceptual models. This long-term field observation program provides a direct 
measurement of in situ conditions that will stay the same during both the preclosure period and 
the compliance period but will likely vary spatially. There is very high confidence that the 
observations and measurements represent the spatial scale over the area of the repository. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity is designed to meet the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.131(a)(1) and (2), and 10 CFR 63.132(a), (b), and (c). Specifically, the activity 
addresses the requirements that the performance confirmation program must provide data that 
indicate, where practicable, whether the actual subsurface conditions encountered and changes in 
those conditions during construction and waste emplacement operations are within the limits 
assumed in the licensing review; and that the natural and engineered systems and components are 
functioning as intended and anticipated. In addition, that a continuing program of surveillance, 
measurement, and testing and geologic mapping be conducted to ensure that geotechnical and 
design parameters (e.g. environment) are confirmed and that subsurface conditions must be 
monitored and evaluated against design assumptions and the specific geotechnical and design 
parameters to be measured or observed, including any interactions between natural and 
engineered systems and components, must be identified in the Performance Confirmation Plan. 
Current UnderstandingThe Integrated Site Model merges the detailed Project stratigraphy, 
collected from surface mapping, boreholes, and underground mapping into model stratigraphic 
units that are useful for constructing the primary subsequent models and the repository design. 
The integrated site model was developed to provide a consistent portrayal of the rock layers, rock 
properties, and mineralogy of the Yucca Mountain site. The Integrated Site Model consists of 
three components: 
 Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) (BSC 2002 [DIRS 159124]) 
 Rock Properties Model Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 159530]) 
 Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]). 
The Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000), (BSC 2002 [DIRS 159124]) represents a 
three-dimensional interpretation of the geology surrounding the repository site at Yucca 
Mountain. The geologic framework model encompasses an area of 65 mi2 (168 km2) and a 
volume of 185 mi3 (771 km3). The boundaries of the geologic framework model were chosen to 
encompass the exploratory boreholes and to provide a geologic framework for hydrologic flow 
and radionuclide transport modeling through the unsaturated zone over the site area. The depth 
represented by the model is constrained by the inferred depth of the Tertiary Paleozoic 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-57 November 2004 

unconformity. The geologic framework model was constructed from geologic map and borehole 
data. Additional information from measured stratigraphic sections, gravity profiles, and seismic 
profiles was also considered. 
The Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000), (BSC 2002 [DIRS 159124]) provides a baseline 
representation of the locations and distributions of rock layers and faults in the subsurface of the 
Yucca Mountain area, for use in geoscientific modeling and repository design. The input data 
from geologic mapping and boreholes provide controls at the ground surface and down to the 
total depths of the boreholes; however, most of the modeled volume is unsampled and with 
attendant uncertainty. The geologic framework model is an interpretative and predictive tool that 
provides a representation of reality within the estimated uncertainty. 
The Rock Properties Model Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 159530]) provides 
exhaustive, three dimensional, discretized, numerical representations of several important 
hydrologic and thermal rock properties (porosity, bulk density, matrix saturated hydraulic 
conductivity, and thermal conductivity) that are intended for use in numerical design and 
performance assessment analyses. The composite modeling units defined for this analysis 
encompass the majority of the rocks within the unsaturated zone in the immediate vicinity of the 
repository at Yucca Mountain. 
The Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]) models the 
abundance and distribution of minerals and mineral groups within stratigraphic sequences in the 
Yucca Mountain area, for use in geoscientific modeling and repository design. The mineralogic 
model is, therefore, an interpretation and a prediction tool rather than an absolute representation 
of reality. The model possesses an inherent level of uncertainty that is a function of data 
distribution and geologic complexity. Uncertainty in the model is mitigated by the application of 
sound geologic principles. 
The baseline for mapping will be derived from the integrated site models above, with detail of 
mapping not captured at the scale of the drifts and mains supplemented from results in the 
previous geologic mapping in the ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift. These include: Geology of the 
North Ramp - Station 0+60 to 4+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Beason et al. 1996 [DIRS 101191]); Geology of the North Ramp  
Stations 4+00 to 28+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada (Barr et al. 1996 [DIRS 100029]); Geology of the Main Drift - Station 28+00 
to 55+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada 
(Albin et al. 1997 [DIRS 101367]); Geology of the South Ramp - Station 55+00 to 78+77, 
Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Eatman et al. 
1997 [DIRS 157677]); and Geology of the ECRB Cross Drift - Exploratory Studies Facility, 
Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Mongano et al. 1999 [DIRS 149850]). 
Anticipated MethodologyThis activity includes field mapping of fractures, faults, stratigraphic 
contacts, and lithophysal characteristics and very limited sampling for laboratory examination 
(e.g., thin section examination, mineralogical, or chemical analysis). In the emplacement drifts, 
geologic mapping will be performed once each drift is completed and the tunnel boring machine 
and its components are removed from the drift. Construction utilities will be removed and the 
drift crown, walls, and invert thoroughly cleaned with a specially designed, high-pressure air and 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-58 November 2004 

water system. The drift walls will then be completely photographed using high-resolution digital 
cameras, and the images stitched together to produce a full-periphery digital mosaic of the drift 
surface. These mosaics will be transferred to a hand-held computer where the fracture locations 
can be traced onto the photos. Orientation and special characteristics (such as noting if the 
fracture is a shear or fault, and sense of offset) will be recorded for each fracture. A suite of 
fracture characteristics (planarity, infilling, roughness, aperture, terminations, etc.) will also be 
recorded for the fractures along one wall of the drift. Fault characteristics will be noted 
including amounts of offset (where determinable), thicknesses and types of fault breccia and 
rubble, angularity and size of clasts, infilling, zonations within the breccia and rubble, 
cementation, etc. Lithostratigraphic contacts and lithophysal characteristics will also be 
collected. Geologic mapping will be followed by the installation of permanent ground support 
and other drift preparation. 
In nonemplacement drifts, a similar mapping technique will be used, but the mapping may be 
done on or immediately behind the trailing gear of the tunnel boring machine. Cleaning of the 
walls will also be necessary in these excavations to remove the tunnel boring machine smear 
from the walls, and to help mitigate dust concerns during excavation. Mapping will be 
coordinated with the excavation operation to minimize interference. The sequencing of 
construction operations and mapping will be different than in emplacement drifts. Data from 
mapping will probably be collected with the permanent ground support in place because less 
detailed geologic information is needed for nonemplacement drifts due to their lesser importance 
to an evaluation of waste isolation capability. 
In shafts, geologic data will also be collected in a similar fashion, using overlapping digital 
photos as the base upon which fracture traces are digitized. Data collection will be nearly 
identical in scope and detail to that in the horizontal nonemplacement drifts, except that the 
collection will be performed from the bottom deck of the shaft sinking Galloway or from a 
specially-designed mapping platform suspended from the shaft support infrastructure. 
The geologic mapping data are typically evaluated as maps of repository excavations. 
Comparison of these maps with integrated site models ensures that variations from the expected 
geologic conditions (e.g., lithology, lithophysal characteristics, fracture characteristics, 
unexpected structural features) described in the License Application are documented and provide 
the basis for an evaluation of their potential impact on the understanding of barrier or system 
performance. If the variation from expected conditions exceeded a limit, an evaluation of the 
potential problems (drift and main stability, changes in assumptions incorporated into Upper and 
Lower Natural Barrier models, or thermal response characteristics) would be conducted and 
reported as described in Section 4. 
This activity will not adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives 
because the mapping is noninvasive including observations and documentation of features 
already exposed by the tunnel boring machine. Sampling of rock is very minor. The effects of 
the wall cleaning are very short lived and induce a very small amount of water into the rock very 
early in construction. The wetting effects have been shown, during past mining operations, to 
dissipate almost immediately and are reversed by drying induced by ventilation. Construction 
effects greatly outweigh any impacts related to this activity. Further evaluations on waste 
isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted during the detailed test planning. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-59 November 2004 

3.3.2.2 Seismicity Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes monitoring regional seismic activity. It also 
includes observation of subsurface and surface (large magnitude) fault displacement after 
significant local or regional seismic events. Candidate parameters that may be measured 
include: event detection, event magnitude, event location, strong-motion data collection and 
analysis, and seismic attenuation investigations (within 50 km). This activity addresses 
disruptive influence that could impact the lifetime of the Engineered Barrier System as a result of 
seismic events. This long-term field data collection activity provides direct measurements that 
represent the temporal and spatial scale over the area of the repository during the monitoring 
period. Seismic monitoring began during site characterization. The existing seismic monitoring 
systemwill be maintained through closure of the repository. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate annual probability distribution as a function 
of intensity. The activity is designed to assess the regional seismic activity that is assumed in 
simulations of the seismic disruption scenario. These simulations suggest that large widespread 
failures of the waste packages may result from accelerated, localized corrosion caused by 
extensive rockfall from large-scale drift degradation resulting from very large seismic events. 
Waste forms may also experience failure resulting from shaking from very large seismic events. 
Seismic parameters for nominal earthquakes (i.e., location, size, style, and number) will continue 
to be collected continuously during construction and operation of the repository using automated 
equipment. Field observation data will be collected for any large magnitude fault displacements 
that occur after any significant local or regional seismic event. 
Selection JustificationThis activity is important because the effects of potential mechanical 
interactions between the drip shield and waste package under rockfall and seismic conditions are 
an uncertainty in performance assessment models. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, there is high confidence in the current understanding of the very low 
probability of large seismic events and the robustness of the geologic framework at the 
repository horizon for not being impacted by seismic activity. There is confidence that the 
modeled range of this parameter will not be exceeded. However, a change in the parameter 
value greater than that currently used as the range in the performance assessments would cause 
the Project to reevaluate the selected conceptual models or require consideration of additional 
conceptual models. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.131(a)(1), (2), and 10 CFR 63.132(a). Specifically, this activity addresses the 
requirements that the performance confirmation program must provide data that indicate, where 
practicable, whether actual subsurface conditions encountered and changes in those conditions 
during construction and waste emplacement operations are within the limits assumed in the 
licensing review; and whether natural systems and components required for repository operation, 
and that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure, are functioning 
as intended and anticipated. During repository construction and operation, a continuing program 
of surveillance, measurement, testing, and geologic mapping must be conducted to ensure that 
geotechnical and design parameters are confirmed. This activity focuses on the surveillance of 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-60 November 2004 

seismicity and observations of highly unlikely events to evaluate whether designed systems are 
operating as anticipated. 
Current UnderstandingThe assessment of seismic hazards at Yucca Mountain focuses on 
characterizing the potential vibratory ground motion that will be associated with future 
earthquake activity in the vicinity of the site. The evaluation of these hazards serves as a basis to 
define inputs for the preclosure seismic design of a geologic repository (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166274]). The evaluation also provides information that can be used to assess the impact 
of future seismic activity on the ability of the repository to meet the performance objectives for 
the postclosure period. 
Seismic hazards at Yucca Mountain are assessed probabilistically (YMP 1997 [DIRS 100522]). 
The assessment is founded on the evaluation of a large set of data pertaining to earthquake 
sources, fault displacement, and ground motion propagation in the Yucca Mountain region. The 
data set contains information about prehistoric earthquakes on nearby Quaternary faults. The 
historical earthquake record and information on the attenuation of ground motion are also 
important components of this data set. Tectonic models that have been proposed for the Yucca 
Mountain area and information from analogue sites in the Basin and Range Province provide the 
basis to characterize the patterns and amounts of fault displacement. The probabilistic 
assessment explicitly incorporates uncertainties in the characterization of seismic sources, fault 
displacement, and ground motion. The resulting hazard calculations thus represent a sound basis 
for seismic design and performance assessment by reflecting the interpretations that are 
supported by data, along with the associated uncertainties in those interpretations. 
Monitoring seismic activity provides the means to evaluate the historic earthquake information 
distribution and spectra. If the distribution or spectra or observations of fault displacements after 
seismic events were different than assumed in the probabilistic assessment, it would cause the 
Project to reevaluate the selected conceptual models and possibly reevaluate the assessment. 
The baseline for this activity and the history of seismic monitoring is described in more detail in 
CRWMS M&O (2000, [DIRS 151945] Section 12.3.3.1) and von Seggern and Smith (1997 
[DIRS 159532]). A catalogue of historical and instrumental earthquakes was compiled for the 
region within 300 kilometers of the repository site at Yucca Mountain (CRWMS M&O 1998, 
[DIRS 103731] Appendix G). Catalogue completeness has improved significantly with time, but 
the catalogue is still considered to be complete only for historical events of Mw 5.5 and larger 
within the 100 kilometer radius around Yucca Mountain since 1868 (Rogers et al. 1991, 
[DIRS 106702] p. 166). 
Anticipated MethodologyConsistent with operation of the existing seismic network, 
seismometers and digital recorders are deployed in the area to be monitored. Stations are 
distributed uniformly, with a higher density of stations closer to Yucca Mountain to enable the 
detection of smaller earthquakes and to provide better control in estimating the depths of 
earthquakes that occur in that area. Data from the monitoring stations are transmitted to a central 
recording site using digital telemetry. At the central recording site, data are recorded, analyzed, 
and archived. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-61 November 2004 

When significant events (those that exceed a predetermined threshold) are detected within 
50 kilometers of the site, geologists will travel to the event site and survey the area for evidence 
of surface displacement. If present, the amounts and directions of offset, including surface 
displacement, will be documented. Additionally, geologists will examine known underground 
fault traces for evidence of movement. Observations regarding any fallouts or wedge failures 
will also be made. Examination of selected emplacement drifts will be done remotely, 
concentrating on the locations of the known faults. 
Data analysis includes identification of earthquakes, location of earthquakes, and determination 
of their size. In addition, for earthquakes that are sufficiently well recorded, the type of faulting 
is determined. An evaluation of the earthquake probability would be established based on 
historical data and sensitivity of performance assessment models. If the probability exceeded a 
predetermined limit, an evaluation of the potential impact on the understanding of the repository 
system would be conducted and reported as described in Section 4. 
This activity will not adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives 
because the monitoring is noninvasive and occurs at the surface with some stations underground. 
Additionally, seismicity-monitoring activities do not result in the introduction of any materials 
that could affect the performance of the repository. If new methods are proposed in the future, 
further evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted during the 
revised test planning. 
3.3.2.3 Construction Effects Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes instrumenting the mined openings to detect 
construction deformation. Candidate parameters that may be measured include: drift 
convergence, tunnel stability, and engineered ground support systems. Geotechnical rock 
properties may be evaluated at selected locations. This activity supports evaluation of the 
performance of the Upper and Lower Natural Barriers in the vicinity of the repository drifts and 
mains by confirming the mechanical properties. This long-term field observation program 
provides a direct measurement of in situ conditions that will likely vary spatially. 
This activity began during site characterization and will continue during construction. 
Monitoring in drifts will cease when nuclear waste is emplaced. Long-term monitoring in mains 
and shafts is expected to continue until closure. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate tunnel stability assumptions under ambient 
conditions. The deformations will be monitored prior to waste emplacement. Geotechnical 
parameters, if determined to be necessary to understand the mechanical responses, would be 
collected at selected locations representative of rock properties from the subsurface mapping 
activity (Section 3.3.2.1). Since this activity will occur prior to emplacement of nuclear waste, 
mechanical responses at ambient temperatures will be monitored. These mechanical responses 
will be mainly deformations, which can be used to determine rock mass moduli. Because 
temperature gradients will be minimal, rock-mass coefficient of thermal expansion will not be 
determined. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-62 November 2004 

Selection JustificationBased on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity 
selection approach described in Section 1.4.1, it was determined that there is high confidence in 
the current understanding of the geologic framework and rock properties that control drift 
stability at the repository horizon. There is high confidence that the modeled range of this 
parameter will not be exceeded and that a change in the parameter values greater than that 
currently used as the range in the performance assessments would not change the selected 
conceptual models or require consideration of additional conceptual models. If the conditions 
vary widely from the range expected, the conceptual models would not change, but it may be 
necessary to reevaluate the effect of drift instability in the vicinity of drifts. Drift geometrics and 
potential drift collapse account for about 50 percent of the calculated range of seepage in 
performance assessment. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity is designed to meet the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.131(a)(1) and (2); 10 CFR 63.132(a), (b), and (c); and 10 CFR 63.133(a). 
Specifically, the activity addresses the requirements that the performance confirmation program 
must provide data that indicate, where practicable, whether the actual subsurface conditions 
encountered and changes in those conditions during construction and waste emplacement 
operations are within the limits assumed in the licensing review; and that the natural and 
engineered systems and components are functioning as intended and anticipated. In addition, 
that a continuing program of surveillance, measurement, and testing and geologic mapping be 
conducted to ensure that geotechnical and design parameters (e.g., environment) are confirmed 
and that subsurface conditions must be monitored and evaluated against design assumptions and 
the specific geotechnical and design parameters to be measured or observed, including any 
interactions between natural and engineered systems and components, must be identified in the 
Performance Confirmation Plan. During the early or developmental stages of construction, a 
program for testing engineered systems and components used in the design will be instituted. 
Current UnderstandingConstruction monitoring in the ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift primarily 
focused on an ongoing assessment of drift stability. Measurement components from that activity 
included strain gages (installed on steel sets), tunnel (vertical and horizontal) convergence pins, 
MPBXs (installed in the local rock), single-point borehole extensometers (SPBXs) (installed in 
the local rock), and rock bolt load cells. 
The baseline information for this activity will be synthesized from information obtained from 
reports, mainly Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550]), and design 
specifications. In addition, other references may include: Scoping Analysis on Sensitivity and 
Uncertainty of Emplacement Drift Stability (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166183]); Supporting Rock Fall 
Calculation for Drift Degradation: Quantification of Uncertainties (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158207]); 
Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550]); Evaluation of Emplacement Drift 
Stability for KTI Resolutions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168889]); and Supporting Rock Fall Calculation 
for Drift Degradation: Drift Reorientation with No Backfill (CRWMS M&O 2000 
[DIRS 149639]). 
Anticipated MethodologyThe deformations will be monitored prior to waste emplacement. 
Most measurements will use similar measuring devices and systems to those previously 
described, with an emphasis on deformational monitoring. Plans for construction monitoring of 
rock mass response in the repository main and emplacement drifts consider experience acquired 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-63 November 2004 

during construction monitoring of deformations in the ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift (BSC 2004, 
[DIRS 169734] Section 3.6.6.3). These measurements will provide a quantitative measure of 
drift stability. In addition, rock mass moduli will be determined from these deformations by 
using calculated or assumed loading along these excavated drifts. It is unlikely that temperature 
gradients will be significant during this preemplacement period. Therefore, determination of 
thermal-elastic rock mass properties such as the coefficient of thermal expansion will not be 
determined. Also, it is anticipated that camera and laser observations and monitoring of drift 
deformations will be conducted during this preemplacement period to assess or shakedown these 
measurement techniques. This approach will increase the reliability of deformational 
measurements planned for emplacement drifts after waste emplacement. 
The data analysis evaluates preemplacement deformational measurements to evaluate, for early 
times, mechanical models used to predict drift stability in the emplacement and main drifts. 
Also, rock mass, isothermal mechanical properties will be determined for each of the repository 
host rock units. This comparison of measurements with the baseline information will indicate 
whether the ranges for the parameters measured in situ are consistent with the data used as the 
basis for the conceptual models and the ranges used for the input parameters for the numerical 
models relevant to drift stability. A summary of results is contained in the Yucca Mountain Site 
Description (BSC 2004, [DIRS 169734] Section 3.6.6.3). If the conditions vary from the range 
expected, it may be necessary to reevaluate the effect of drift instability in the vicinity of drifts. 
This would be conducted and reported as described in Section 4. 
This activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance 
objectives because the instrumentation is very small and covers an insignificant portion of the 
rock in the repository. Construction effects resulting from the mining activities greatly outweigh 
any impacts related to this monitoring of construction effects activity. Further evaluations on 
waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.2.4 Thermally Accelerated Drift Thermal-Mechanical Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes monitoring drift and invert degradation in the 
thermally accelerated drifts. Candidate parameters that may be measured include: drift 
convergence, drift shape, drift degradation, ground support visual condition, rail alignment, 
invert visual condition, pallet visual condition, waste package alignment, and spacing. Results 
from this activity will be used to assess the potential environment that components of the 
Engineered Barrier System will endure during the performance confirmation period. This 
long-term remote field monitoring provides a direct measurement where the relevant 
time-dependent processes for the repository are captured in the measurement. This is a new 
activity that will be conducted within the thermally accelerated drifts and that will be initiated 
during operations, continuing until closure. As such, for the field-testing, the locations, 
durations, and design of the testing are very preliminary at this time. This monitoring will be 
conducted periodically at a frequency yet to be determined. Other methods and approaches may 
be employed and will be described in the PC Test Plans prior to waste operations. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate drift degradation assumptions and analyses 
under thermal conditions. These deformations, which will be measured remotely, will be used to 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-64 November 2004 

assess the degradation and mechanical-stability of these two features, thus providing an 
indication of overall drift stability. 
Selection JustificationThis activity is focused on assessments of drift stability that in turn, 
have impacts on the environment which Engineered Barrier System components will endue in 
the repository. Mechanical loading from rockfall rubble accumulated from drift degradation 
over time may lead to failure of the drip shields and waste packages. The failure of these 
Engineered Barrier Systems will depend on the rate of accumulation of rubble in the drift and the 
threshold load-bearing capacity of the systems. The accumulation in the drift outside the 
systems will increase the waste package temperatures and may affect water seepage into the 
drifts. As such, this activity is important to collect data for drift stability modeling and has 
impacts on models for seepage and thermal processes within the drifts. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, it was determined that there is confidence that the modeled range of 
these parameters will not be exceeded during the compliance period. If the conditions vary 
widely from the range expected, the conceptual models would likely not change, but it may be 
necessary to reevaluate the effect of drift instability in the vicinity of drifts. Drift geometrics and 
potential drift collapse affect the calculated range of seepage in performance assessment. This 
long-term remote field monitoring provides a direct measurement in which there is moderate 
confidence that the relevant time-dependent processes for the repository are captured in the 
measurement. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(1) 
and (2); 10 CFR 63.132(a), (b), and (c); and 10 CFR 63.133(a). Specifically, the activity 
addresses the requirement that the Performance Confirmation Plan must identify the 
geotechnical and design parameters to be measured or observed (drift and invert degradation). 
The plan must provide data that indicate, where practicable, whether actual subsurface conditions 
encountered and changes in those conditions during construction and waste emplacement 
operations are within the limits assumed in the licensing review; and that it provide data that 
indicate, where practicable, whether the natural and engineered systems and components 
required for repository operation, and that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after 
permanent closure, are functioning as intended and anticipated. This activity is also designed to 
assess, through surveillance and measurements, that during repository construction and 
operation, geotechnical and design parameters are within the bounds of the design assumptions. 
In addition, this activity serves as in situ monitoring of the thermal-mechanical response of the 
underground facility to be conducted until permanent closure, to ensure that the performance of 
the geologic and engineering features is within design limits and that during the early and 
developmental stages of construction, a program for testing of engineered systems and 
components used in the design, such as, thermal interaction effects of rock, are being conducted. 
Current UnderstandingThis activity is a follow-on to the construction effects monitoring 
(Section 3.3.2.3) and the drift inspection activity (Section 3.3.1.8) under thermal conditions. 
Construction monitoring in the ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift primarily focused on an ongoing 
assessment of drift stability. Measurement components from that activity included strain gages 
(installed on steel sets), tunnel (vertical and horizontal) convergence pins, MPBXs (installed in 
the local rock), SPBXs (installed in the local rock), and rock bolt load cells. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-65 November 2004 

This is a new activity. An established baseline is not available at this time, especially as it relates 
to conditions created by actual waste packages. Whereas thermally induced property monitoring 
activities very similar to this have been conducted during site characterization in the ESF and 
ECRB Cross-Drift (although not remotely) and are currently ongoing, this specific performance 
confirmation activity will not begin until the thermally accelerated drifts are constructed and 
waste packages emplaced. The references that may be consulted for this activity may include: 
Scoping Analysis on Sensitivity and Uncertainty of Emplacement Drift Stability (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166183]); Supporting Rock Fall Calculation for Drift Degradation: Quantification of 
Uncertainties (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158207]); Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168550]); Evaluation of Emplacement Drift Stability for KTI Resolutions (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168889]); Supporting Rock Fall Calculation for Drift Degradation: Drift Reorientation 
with No Backfill (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 149639]); Drift Scale THM Model (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 164890]); Drift Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models (BSC 2002 
[DIRS 158375]); Thermal Hydrological-Chemical (THC) Thermal Hydrological (TH) Only Drift 
Scale Model Analysis (DTN: SN0002T0872799.007 [DIRS 148605]); and Thermal Testing 
Measurements Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 160771]). 
Anticipated MethodologyThis technology consists of remote monitoring by equipment with 
both cameras and lasers. The cameras may be designed to provide stereographic views and 
projections of the drift wall and invert such that deformations within the drift are better observed. 
This stereographic capability is important because most of the anticipated deformations would 
occur inward, especially along the rib where horizontal thermal-elastic stresses steadily increase 
as the thermal pulse from the emplaced waste packages has a continual effect. Lasers can 
provide additional observations and deformation monitoring along the periphery of the thermally 
accelerated drift and the invert. A number of extensometer-based and other techniques are being 
considered. 
It is anticipated that camera and laser observations and monitoring are to be initially conducted 
on monthly intervals during the initial phase (i.e., up to 3 years) of the accelerated drift test. 
Monitoring frequency is likely to be reduced after this initial period, especially if deformations 
are consistent with numerical predictions. Measurements may provide some indication of the 
crushed tuff invert deformational behavior. Further evaluation of methods is required. 
Measurements of vertical closure and horizontal closure are part of the ongoing Drift Scale Test 
in the ESF (BSC 2004, [DIRS 169734] Section 5.4.5). However, these types of convergence 
measurements may not be possible with waste packages in place. In addition, postemplacement 
high-temperature and high-radiation environments will require development of technology for 
these applications. Planning for this activity is preliminary in nature; other methods and 
approaches may be employed and will be described in the PC Test Plans prior to waste 
operations. 
The monitoring data are typically evaluated as results of changes in in-drift configuration in 
response to the thermal pulse. These results are compared to models that relate 
thermal-mechanical-hydrologic-chemical behavior of the rock of the Upper and Lower Natural 
Barriers as they relate to postclosure drift stability. If the results from testing and monitoring 
exceeded a predetermined limit that would cause the modeled rock properties of the Upper and 
Lower Natural Barrier in the near-field to be incorrect, an evaluation of the potential impact on 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-66 November 2004 

the understanding of system performance would be conducted and reported as described in 
Section 4. 
This activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance 
objectives because the instrumentation is superficial to the drift wall and the remote techniques 
will not affect the waste packages or in-drift conditions. If drilling is used to emplace 
instrumentation, it will be very limited and occurs in a very small portion of the drift. The 
amount of rock that may be disturbed is of such insignificant amount as to not impact the 
pathway of water reaching the drifts, especially during the periods after closure. However, 
before closure, it may be possible to remotely seal the boreholes, as appropriate, if analytical and 
modeling results indicated that the small boreholes would increase seepage potential. Further 
evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted during the detailed 
test planning. 
3.3.3 Design Testing (Other Than Waste Packages) 
The repository performance confirmation program includes geotechnical testing to evaluate the 
effectiveness of design parameters for closures and seals to be installed as part of permanent 
repository closure. The only activity currently in this group is seal testing. 
This activity tests the effectiveness of engineered system components including borehole and 
shaft seals, and seals and backfill used as a seal or closure material in access drifts and ramps. In 
addition, it evaluates whether natural and engineered systems and components required for 
repository operation, and that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after permanent 
closure, will function as intended and anticipated. 
3.3.3.1 Seal Testing 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes laboratory testing of borehole seal effectiveness 
field-testing of ramp and shaft seals effectiveness, and field testing of backfill placement and 
compaction procedure effectiveness. Candidate parameters that may be measured include 
borehole seals materials, configuration, performance, shaft seals materials, ramp seals materials, 
laboratory and field hydraulic and pneumatic seal effective permeability. This laboratory 
analysis and field-testing activity provides direct measurements and indirect observations. This 
activity is principally related to regulatory requirements, but supports evaluation indirectly of the 
performance of the Upper and Lower Natural Barriers. This is a new activity to the Project. Seal 
testing will be initiated during construction and early stages of emplacement. Testing backfill 
procedures will be conducted during repository operations. As such, for the field-testing, the 
locations, durations, and design of the testing are very preliminary at this time. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate design assumptions for effective seals. The 
purpose of closing and sealing of the repository access drifts is to provide for long-term stability 
of the repository. Shaft, ramp, and borehole seals are designed to limit water intrusion into the 
repository. Backfill is included to enhance repository stability. Seal effectiveness criteria that 
will be evaluated include that seal and closure systems must be mechanically, chemically, 
geologically, and thermally compatible with the subsurface environment. Backfill placement 
and compaction procedures will be evaluated against design requirements. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-67 November 2004 

Selection JustificationSeal testing is an important activity because seals and backfill are 
components installed for repository closure which contribute to: precluding human intrusion; 
limiting preferential pathways for water towards the emplacement drifts; precluding magma flow 
between drifts in the unlikely igneous disruptive event scenario; and enhancement of overall 
stability of nonemplacement drifts. 
This activity was not included in the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection 
approach described in Section 1.4.1. However, this activity is designed to meet the requirements 
10 CFR 63.133(a), (c), and (d), but also help support the objectives of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2). 
Specifically, this activity addresses the requirements that during the early or developmental 
stages of construction, a program for testing of engineered systems and components used in the 
design, such as borehole and shaft seals, must be conducted. Tests must be conducted to 
evaluate the effectiveness of borehole, shaft, and ramp seals before full scale operation proceeds 
to seal boreholes, shafts, and ramps. Also, testing to evaluate effectiveness of backfill placement 
and compaction procedures must be conducted before beginning permanent backfill placement. 
In addition, it must be evaluated whether natural and engineered systems and components 
required for repository operation, and that are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after 
permanent closure, are functioning as intended and anticipated. 
Current UnderstandingBoreholes will be sealed and capped with a concrete (or alternate 
material) plug (or plugs) at preselected locations. Shafts and ramps will be sealed at selected 
locations, backfilled, and capped with concrete at the portal. Access drifts and the entrances to 
emplacement drifts are anticipated to be backfilled and plugged with an appropriate closure 
material. Backfill material will be crushed tuff; and concrete seals will be designed for seismic 
loads, loading from host rock stress relief, and loading from the tuff backfill. The key to the 
sealing program is that the seal performance does not have to exceed that of the intact rock. 
The performance confirmation program for testing engineered systems and components used in 
the design will be developed as early as practicable during construction. It will include 
evaluation of materials and design for the borehole, shaft, and ramp seals. Laboratory seal 
testing and testing to evaluate placement of granular materials is a common engineering activity 
for subsurface openings and waste disposal sites so numerous standards and methodologies exist. 
These existing standards and methodologies will be evaluated before testing begins for 
applicability to the needs of Yucca Mountain. Planning for this activity is preliminary in nature; 
other methods and approaches may be employed and will be described in updates to this plan. 
Laboratory testing of borehole seals will involve the conduct of comprehensive tests on seal 
materials and configurations under a relatively wide range of performance conditions. This wide 
data range (wide distribution) should allow good comparisons against current parameter 
expectations. Appropriate adjustments can then be made to seal designs and to performance 
expectations. 
Shaft and ramp seal testing will be more complex. An established baseline specific to Yucca 
Mountain is not available at this time. But as noted above, analogue information for the 
performance, testing and analysis of seals is widely available in the engineering literature. 
Criteria for shaft and ramp seal locations include placement of the seal at the interface between 
highly fractured rock and relatively unfractured rock. This criterion could position the seal at a 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-68 November 2004 

location at which flowing water would be drained into the host rock where its movement would 
then be attenuated by the matrix flow in the relatively unfractured rock. In any event, onsite 
(in situ), large-scale shaft and ramp seal testing will provide relevant data for performance 
evaluations. Again, testing can be conducted under a wide range of conditions and there will be 
ample time to compare results with performance expectations; make appropriate adjustments to 
designs or performance models, or both. 
Design specifications and candidate configurations are presented in: Subsurface Closure & Seal 
System Description Document (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 103086]); Closure Seal Locations 
and Geologic Environment Study (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 144992]); Closure Seal 
Materials and Configuration (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 145033]); Closure and Sealing 
Preliminary Design Calculation (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166604]); Repository Design, Closure and 
Sealing Typical Details (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158464]); and Repository Closure and Sealing 
Approach (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 150624]). 
Sealing of shafts, ramps and boreholes will be conducted as part of closure of the repository. 
Closure of the repository also includes removal of materials and backfilling of underground 
openings (except emplacement drifts). Field-testing to evaluate effectiveness of backfill 
placement and compaction procedures will be conducted prior to placement of backfill. Planning 
for these components of the activity is not developed; methods and approaches that may be 
employed and will be described in the PC Test Plan. 
The ramps and shafts seals design, and backfill design may change as more detailed information 
becomes available from detailed geologic mapping during construction. During construction 
mapping, locations for seal testing may be determined. 
Anticipated MethodologyIn addition to the considerations noted above, laboratory testing of 
borehole seals will be conducted on cored boreholes through intact tuff samples collected from 
alcoves in both welded and nonwelded tuff. Air permeability testing will be used to test the 
grout seal and surrounding rock. Field-testing of shaft and ramp seals may be conducted in large 
diameter openings that originate from alcoves or the observation drift, in full-scale drifts, or in 
comparable rock formations outside the repository footprint. Testing will be designed to monitor 
and evaluate water drainage by shaft seals and the ability to seal the surrounding damaged zone 
around shaft and ramp openings. Tests designed to evaluate the effectiveness of borehole, shaft, 
and ramp seals will be conducted before sealing these penetrations, as part of repository 
operations. Field tests will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of backfill placement and 
compaction procedures, against design requirements. The testing data are typically evaluated as 
permeability values and water drainage results. These results are compared to design 
specifications on performance. If the results from testing and monitoring exceeded a 
predetermined limit that would cause the seals to fail, an evaluation of the potential impact 
would be conducted and reported as described in Section 4. It is likely that the seals would be 
redesigned and retested to meet design criteria. 
The laboratory portion of this activity cannot adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet 
performance objectives, because this is a series of laboratory tests conducted offsite. The 
field-testing portion of this activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the 
repository to meet performance objectives because the testing occurs in a very small portion of 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-69 November 2004 

the drifts cross section and is expected to occur outside of the repository footprint where waste is 
to be emplaced. Further evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be 
conducted during the detailed test planning. Integration with Design and Engineering to define 
the underground layout will be conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.4 Monitoring and Testing of Waste Packages 
Performance confirmation activities include provisions for laboratory testing of waste package, 
waste package pallet, and drip shield materials representative of those emplaced in the 
repository. These performance confirmation activities focus on corrosion testing of waste 
package, waste package pallet, and drip shield materials, as well as internal waste conditions. To 
the extent practical, the laboratory experiments will be designed to be representative of the 
repository emplacement environments. These laboratory tests will be used to confirm the design 
basis for the waste package and to confirm information that supports modeling of waste package, 
waste package pallet, and drip shield performance. The waste package monitoring program 
includes corrosion monitoring, but is not limited to the use of corrosion coupons. 
Activities designed principally to provide information relevant to these objectives are: 
 Waste package monitoring (Section 3.3.4.1) 
 Corrosion testing (Section 3.3.4.2) 
 Corrosion testing of thermally accelerated drift samples (Section 3.3.4.3) 
 Waste form testing (Section 3.3.4.4). 
The waste package monitoring activity is a new activity that will begin after waste emplacement. 
It will be focused on examination of representative packages in situ in the repository. 
These corrosion testing activities, which continue the laboratory performance confirmation 
begun during site characterization, will continue during repository construction and operation. 
The focus is on the fabrication materials for the waste packages, waste package pallet, and drip 
shields in the environments relevant to evaluating the performance of these components. Testing 
for waste package, waste package pallet, and drip shield materials is presented in this section 
because of the similarities in the testing approaches. 
The corrosion testing activity consists of laboratory-based tests that are a continuation of the 
laboratory corrosion testing currently in progress. The laboratory testing environments may be 
modified as appropriate. The corrosion testing of thermally accelerated drift samples will 
involve exposure of test samples in the thermally accelerated drifts with subsequent sample 
characterization and analyses performed in the laboratory. The tests on samples exposed in the 
thermally accelerated drifts are designed to provide corrosion information in addition to the 
corrosion behavior measured from exposure of test samples in the laboratory environments. 
The principal objective of corrosion testing activities is determination of general corrosion rate 
and an evaluation of the overall corrosion performance of the waste package outer barrier 
material, waste package pallet material, and the drip shield material. Laboratory testing consists 
of general corrosion testing, phase transformation testing, localized corrosion testing and stress-
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-70 November 2004 

corrosion cracking testing. General corrosion testing includes passive current density, weight 
loss measurements, passive film composition, microbial effects, and mechanical properties. 
Qualitative and semi-quantitative information about resistance to localized corrosion and to 
environmentally accelerated stress corrosion cracking will be obtained. Localized corrosion and 
stress corrosion cracking are not expected to occur in the laboratory test environment or in the 
thermally accelerated drifts environment for materials planned for waste package and drip shield. 
Tests will be conducted to confirm this expectation. The stability of the Alloy 22, Type 316 
stainless steel, and titanium alloys passive film maintains very low general corrosion rates and 
provides protection from localized corrosion and environmentally accelerated stress corrosion 
cracking. Analyses of the passive film structure and composition are intended to evaluate 
predictions made from thermodynamic calculations of passive film stability. 
Waste form testing is ongoing, and has focused on bare fuel, cladded fuel and high level waste 
glass testing. This waste form testing is a new activity. The new waste form testing activity 
focuses on waste form testing in the laboratory under internal waste package conditions and 
includes waste package and waste form coupled effects. 
3.3.4.1 Waste Package Monitoring 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes remote monitoring for evidence of external 
corrosion of the waste package. Candidate parameters that may be measured include: external 
visual corrosion and possibly internal pressure of the waste package. This long-term remote 
field monitoring provides a direct measurement. This activity directly evaluates the performance 
of the waste package as a major component of the Engineered Barrier System. This is a new 
activity that will be initiated during the early stages of emplacement operations. Planning for 
this activity is preliminary in nature; other methods and approaches may be employed and will 
be described in the PC Test Plans prior to waste operations. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate waste package integrity and confirm the 
absence of leakage and leak paths. The test would be applied to a set of selected, representative 
waste packages. Testing may be conducted using remote monitoring for external corrosion or 
using technology to sense the differential pressure between the waste package interior and outer 
sections. 
Selection JustificationThis activity is focused on directly observing waste package 
performance, which in turn has a direct impact on the Engineered Barrier System performance. 
The intact waste packages can protect the waste form from dripping water. However, the 
Engineered Barrier System SSCs may be compromised by various degradation processes, 
including corrosion and mechanical damage, therefore, it is important to observe them during 
this period to assure their performance. Because waste packages are a key component of the 
Engineered Barrier System, if the waste packages degrade much faster than is currently planned, 
the Engineered Barrier System will be much less effective and would require a reevaluation of 
barrier capability and a resulting analysis of the impact on waste package performance 
assessment models. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-71 November 2004 

Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, it was determined that there is high confidence that the calculated 
range will not be exceeded. If a change in the parameter value exceeds the range currently used 
in the performance assessment, that change is anticipated to be sufficiently small that it will not 
change the selected conceptual models or require consideration of additional conceptual models. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2) 
and 10 CFR 63.134(a). Specifically, the activity addresses the requirements that the performance 
confirmation program must provide data that indicate, where practicable, whether the engineered 
systems and components (waste packages) are functioning as intended and anticipated and that a 
program be established for monitoring the condition of the waste packages. Waste packages 
chosen for the program must be representative of those to be emplaced in the underground 
facility. 
Current UnderstandingContact between water and the waste form and cladding is prevented 
as long as waste packages are intact. Water flow and potential radionuclide movement are 
limited even after the waste packages are breached. The waste packages have a dual-metal 
design consisting of two concentric cylinders. The inner cylinder is made of a thick shell of 
Stainless Steel Type 316 with additional restrictions on carbon and nitrogen. The outer cylinder 
is made of a shell of Alloy 22, a corrosion-resistant, nickel-based alloy. Alloy 22 protects the 
stainless steel inner cylinder from corrosion, and the Stainless Steel provides structural support 
for the thinner Alloy 22 cylinder. The corrosion rates for anticipated repository conditions of 
Alloy 22 are so low that it is not expected that packages will be breached by general corrosion or 
stress corrosion cracking during the regulatory compliance period. Analyses of the potential for 
early breach of waste packages by processes other than corrosion (e.g., improper heat treatment 
or damage by rockfall) indicate a low probability that packages will be breached during the 
compliance period. Even after that time, the slow breach rate of packages and the low rate of 
water movement through them limits releases of radionuclides for many tens of thousands of 
years. 
The baseline information for this activity will be synthesized from TSPA-LA results as well as 
from information obtained from analysis and modeling reports. The information will be obtained 
from the most recent versions of the following reports: Environment on the Surfaces of the Drip 
Shield and Waste Package Outer Barrier (BSC 2001 [DIRS 155640]); Analysis of Mechanisms 
for Early Waste Package/Drip Shield Failure (BSC 2003 [DIRS 164475]); WAPDEG Analysis of 
Waste Package and Drip Shield Degradation (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161317]); Probability Analysis 
of Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169356]); Aging and Phase 
Stability of Waste Package Outer Barrier (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162199]); General Corrosion and 
Localized Corrosion of Waste Package Outer Barrier (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166834]); General 
Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of the Drip Shield (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161236]); Stress 
Corrosion Cracking of the Drip Shield, the Waste Package Outer Barrier, and the Stainless Steel 
Structural Material (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169042]); and Hydrogen Induced Cracking of Drip Shield 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 161759]). 
Anticipated MethodologyThe field waste package monitoring, including the number of 
packages monitored, locations, durations, and design of the testing, are very preliminary at this 
time. It is expected that inspection of selected representative waste packages to evaluate the 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-72 November 2004 

integrity of the engineered systems and the design assumptions will be conducted periodically. 
Because changes are expected to be slow, if at all, inspection may be conducted yearly or less 
frequently. This monitoring and inspection will consist of visual observation of the waste 
package conditions and may include future technologies to sense the differential pressure 
between the waste package interior and outer sections. 
Waste packages selected for underground monitoring will be representative of different 
configurations as well as different environmental conditions that may exist underground such as 
in areas with differing rock thermal conductivities and different placement in the drifts (for 
example, near the ventilation entrance as well as the exit to examine effects temperature and 
humidity differences). 
Current methodologies that are known to be feasible and not impact performance would include 
remote visual inspection for corrosion and differential pressure sensing (i.e., waste package 
internal pressure compared to external pressure). Pressure sensing may require the installation 
and operation of magnetic sensing (or alternative) devices mounted on or within the waste 
packages. However, because of the regulatory requirement that performance confirmation 
activities not adversely affect the performance capability of the repository, there is a concern that 
the installation and operation of devices on the waste package could affect its integrity. Further 
evaluation is required due to the risk of such adverse effects. 
The data are typically evaluated as visual indicators of unexpected corrosion or loss of internal 
pressure. The corrosion of the waste package materials is one of the more important features of 
the Engineered Barrier System. If the results from visual observation or the loss of internal 
pressure exceed predetermined limits that would cause the anticipated failure rate for waste 
packages or source term assumptions to be incorrect, an evaluation of the potential impact on the 
understanding of system performance would be conducted and reported as described in 
Section 4. 
The visual observation activity will not adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet 
performance objectives because the visual monitoring is noninvasive and occurs in the drifts 
remotely. If future planning requires placing sensors directly on or through the waste packages, 
an analysis or determination of impact will be conducted to evaluate if the instrumentation could 
affect the integrity of the package as compared to noninstrumented packages. Further 
evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be conducted during the detailed 
test planning. 
3.3.4.2 Corrosion Testing 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes laboratory corrosion testing of waste package, waste 
package pallet, and drip shield samples in the range of representative repository environments. 
Candidate parameters that may be measured include: Alloy 22, Type 316 stainless steel, and 
titanium alloys (Grade 7 and 24) mass loss rate, passive current density, surface dissolution, open 
circuit potential, critical potential, stress crack corrosion, microbial effects, surficial passive film 
stability, and mechanical properties. This long-term laboratory testing provides direct 
measurements of corrosion of materials used in the Engineered Barrier System. Laboratory 
exposure of waste package, waste package pallet, and drip shield samples in the range of 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-73 November 2004 

potential repository thermal and chemical environments (including simulated radiolysis and 
inoculated microbial effects), followed by appropriate characterization and analyses to determine 
rates and the kind of corrosion, and the morphology of corrosion attack. The planned laboratory 
testing consists of three areas: 
A. Corrosion test facility 
B. Thermal aging facility 
C. Electrochemically-based testing. 
This activity directly evaluates the materials performance of the waste package as a major 
component of the Engineered Barrier System. This activity (testing and analysis) is conducted in 
the laboratory. The activity began during site characterization and the planned work is a 
continuation of work that has been underway for several years and will continue for several years 
or decades into the future. Test environments will be adjusted, as appropriate to reflect data 
obtained in the thermally accelerated drifts testing. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate results of corrosion models. This is 
accomplished through measurements of the general corrosion rate and an evaluation of the 
overall corrosion performance of the waste package outer barrier material, waste package 
material, and the drip shield material. The samples are representative of the waste package, 
waste package pallet, and drip shield materials, including processes used to fabricate, assemble, 
weld, and stress relieve these materials. 
Selection JustificationUnderstanding the corrosion modes of the Engineered Barrier System 
components is key to evaluating the Engineered Barrier System performance. This activity is 
very important in assessing the expected conditions and provides for evaluation of the 
Engineered Barrier System functionality. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, this activity was determined to have a high potential impact on the 
performance of the total system. It is estimated that there is generally a high probability that the 
mean annual dose calculations would change if these parameter values were found to lie outside 
its current modeled range. There is general confidence that the modeled ranges for these 
parameters will not be exceeded during the compliance period. Mechanical properties of passive 
films are the exception with relatively lower confidence (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168504]). Phase 
transformations in Alloy 22 can have detrimental effects on the performance of the material in 
the repository environment, because some of the transformation products are richer in 
molybdenum and chromiumalloying elements important for imparting high corrosion 
resistanceand deplete the surrounding matrix of these elements. In some cases the 
transformation product is more brittle than the base alloy, and would lead to loss of fracture 
toughness (important if the waste package were subjected to seismic motion). 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2) 
and 10 CFR 63.134(c). Specifically, the activity addresses the requirement that the performance 
confirmation program provide data that indicate whether engineered systems and components are 
functioning as intended and anticipated and that the waste package monitoring program include 
laboratory experiments that focus on the internal condition of the waste packages. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-74 November 2004 

Current UnderstandingThe significance of general corrosion is that it is the background 
degradation mode. Both Alloy 22 and titanium alloys (Grade 7 and 24) were selected for their 
anticipated very low general corrosion rates in the expected repository environments. With 
respect to the waste package outer barrier, even at the highest measured general corrosion rate, 
the container wall would not be corroded through during the compliance period. However, more 
information besides general corrosion rates can be obtained from test samples exposed in 
laboratory environments. Qualitative and semi-quantitative information on resistance to 
localized corrosion and to environmentally accelerated cracking can also be obtained. These 
tests serve as the physical demonstration of this prediction. The analysis of the passive film 
structure and composition serves to evaluate predictions made from thermodynamic calculations 
of the passive film. It is the chemical, physical, and mechanical properties of the passive film 
that determine its stability, maintain very low general corrosion rates, and assure protection from 
localized corrosion and stress corrosion cracking. 
Phase transformations of concern are of two types: formation of tetrahedrally compact phases 
that form rapidly at temperatures above 600C and formation of an ordered phase that forms 
rapidly at temperatures above 500C. The concern is whether these transformations will occur at 
the comparatively lower temperatures in the repository over much longer time periods. Existing 
models project that these transformations will not occur to a significant extent on the base metal, 
but there is more uncertainty on welded material and material that will be cold-worked as part of 
the stress relief process. 
The baseline information for this activity will be synthesized from TSPA-LA results as well as 
from information obtained from reports. The information will be obtained from the most recent 
versions of the following reports: Environment on the Surfaces of the Drip Shield and Waste 
Package Outer Barrier (BSC 2001 [DIRS 155640]); Analysis of Mechanisms for Early Waste 
Package/Drip Shield Failure (BSC 2003 [DIRS 164475]); WAPDEG Analysis of Waste Package 
and Drip Shield Degradation (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161317]); Probability Analysis of Corrosion 
Rates for Waste Package Materials (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169356]); Aging and Phase Stability of 
Waste Package Outer Barrier (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162199]); General Corrosion and Localized 
Corrosion of Waste Package Outer Barrier (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166834]); General Corrosion and 
Localized Corrosion of the Drip Shield (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161236]); Stress Corrosion Cracking 
of the Drip Shield, the Waste Package Outer Barrier, and the Stainless Steel Structural Material 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169042]); and Hydrogen Induced Cracking of Drip Shield (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 161759]). 
Anticipated Methodology (Part A)Corrosion TestingThe objective of this part of the 
activity is to continue obtaining corrosion data from a series of planned interval tests that were 
begun several years ago in the test facility. In a planned interval test, a large number of samples 
are emplaced in the test vessels at the beginning of the test. At various time intervals, some of 
the samples are removed from the test vessel for evaluation and analyses. One of the evaluations 
is a measurement of weight loss that occurred during the time interval the sample was exposed to 
the test solution. If the corrosion is uniformly distributed over the exposed test sample area, the 
amount of general corrosion is proportional to the weight loss. Thus, the time dependence of the 
general corrosion is obtained by the determination of the corrosion rate in each of the several 
time intervals the samples were exposed and then removed. It is important to examine the 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-75 November 2004 

surfaces of the test samples before and after exposure to the test solution in order to characterize 
the corrosion damage and whether the distribution of the damage is uniform or localized. 
In addition to the weight loss samples, other types of samples have been emplaced in the same 
vessels of the test facility so that the susceptibility of Alloy 22, Type 316 stainless steel and 
titanium alloys to other forms of corrosion can be established. Some of these samples are 
intentionally creviced (i.e., the area underneath close fitting washers), so that if localized 
corrosion susceptibility is present for the material and environment combination, the 
susceptibility is readily apparent as a corrosion attack in the crevice. Similarly, plastically 
strained samples in the form of a U-bend are emplaced in the test vessels, so that if a stress 
corrosion cracking or a hydrogen-induced cracking susceptibility is present for the material and 
environment combination, the susceptibility is readily apparent as visible cracks in the U-bend 
region. Lastly, self-loaded stress corrosion test samples are emplaced in the facility. These give 
even more quantitative results because the crack characteristics can be related to the stress level 
in the sample. While stress relief (such as by laser peening) is expected to alleviate stress 
corrosion concerns in the waste package, some continuation of stress corrosion testing is 
proposed to demonstrate the high resistance of the waste package material in case difficulties 
arise with demonstrating that the laser peening (or alternative stress relief process) has indeed 
removed residual tensile stress. 
These kinds of tests have a qualitative aspect (i.e., cracks are either present or not present; attack 
in crevices is present or not present), but some aspects can be made semi-quantitative to compare 
materials or to compare environments. For example, each washer contains several slots creating 
a number of possible crevice regions, so that the relative crevice corrosion susceptibility can be 
obtained by counting the number of regions that show attack. For the regions attacked, the depth 
of attack can be estimated. Similarly, for stressed U-bend samples, the number of cracks or the 
length of cracks can be used as a semi-quantitative index of the relative susceptibility to stress 
corrosion cracking; self loaded stress corrosion test samples provide quantitative data. 
In addition, the surfaces of the samples in these long-term tests are studied to define the 
characteristics of the passive films that form on Alloy 22, Type 316 stainless steel, and titanium 
alloys over the exposure time. One of the major arguments in demonstrating that these materials 
are long enduring in the repository environment is that they form an adherent and coherent 
passive film, and that this passive film remains physically, chemically, and mechanically stable 
with time. Some properties of the passive film are expected to change with time because of 
interaction with the environment, but these changes are not necessarily detrimental to 
performance. It is important to capture the changes in properties during the performance 
confirmation period to confirm or refute projections to longer periods. Microbial activity has 
been observed in the corrosion test facility (the vessels are open to the atmosphere) and periodic 
counts of microbial activity are conducted so that significant contributions of microbial activity 
on corrosion can be assessed in the overall evaluation of materials. 
Methods for corrosion testing follow standard practices of the American Society for Testing 
Materials, with modifications made to accommodate repository-specific conditions and 
requirements. Technical implementation procedures prescribe the specific test methods and 
procedures used to make up the test solutions. Much of the work in this activity is observation of 
exposed surfaces. The observations are made in stages. Sample surfaces are observed by optical 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-76 November 2004 

microscopy over nearly all of the surface area. Depending on the features observed, the next step 
is to look at the same surfaces under electron microscopy for more detailed imaging of the 
surface morphology. An environmental scanning electron microscope is used for this 
examination. The electron microscope has surface analysis capabilities so that the composition 
of the surface can be measured. As needed, other surface analytical tools can be used to evaluate 
features (e.g., the structure and the change in composition as a function of depth). These surface 
analytical techniques include x-ray photoemission spectroscopy, Auger electron spectroscopy, 
and Raman spectroscopy. 
Corrosion-related weight loss experienced by highly corrosion-resistant materials, such as 
Alloy 22, Type 316 stainless steel, and titanium alloy (Grades 7 and 24), is barely measurable on 
standard analytical balances. If proven acceptable, methods that are more sensitive may be 
employed for this testing. 
The test facility has been in operation for over five years and only one sample set remains in the 
test vessels of the original population. As part of performance confirmation activities, a 
restocking plan for the corrosion test facility is in preparation. The vessels will be restocked 
with additional samples of Alloy 22, Type 316 stainless steel, and different grades of titanium 
alloys. In parallel with developments expected to take place on weld process evaluations, 
samples that have been welded by different processes will be added to the test facility in the 
future. Similarly, test samples taken from prototype waste packages, waste package pallets, and 
drip shields will be added to the test facility. Lastly, as part of the restocking plan, the current 
test environments are reevaluated in light of the progress that has been made on defining the 
environmental scenarios that will develop around the waste package, waste package pallet, and 
drip shield. It is expected that some additional test environments will be incorporated, such as 
more concentrated solutions with boiling points well above 100C, as well as solutions with 
different ratios of nitrate to chloride ion to encompass a wider range of environmental 
conditions. 
Anticipated Methodology (Part B)Thermal Aging FacilityThe thermal aging facility began 
operations in 1998. Currently, five furnaces are in operation and are maintained at constant 
temperatures (400, 500, 550, 600, and 650C) in air. Several hundred samples have already 
been removed from the furnaces and examined for evidence of phase transformation and changes 
in mechanical properties. Several hundred samples are still being thermally aged. The thermal 
aging facility also provides test samples for other parts of this activity (Parts A and C) so that the 
effect of the range of metallurgical conditions can be determined in these testing efforts. 
The planned methodology is to measure the amount of material transformed, usually specified as 
an area fraction or volume fraction of the total, by using a number of different quantitative 
metallographic and microscopic techniques. Scanning electron microscopy and transmission 
electron microscopy are the two techniques used for identifying phases. These microscopic 
techniques also have associated surface analytical capabilities so that the elemental composition 
of the phase can be determined. This is important for distinguishing between different phases 
that can form. Electron backscatter diffraction techniques can be used for further distinction 
between phases, since each phase has a unique crystal structure. Finally, corroborating evidence 
includes measurement of mechanical properties in some instances, since the formation of second 
phases hardens the metal. This is especially true for ordering reactions. In general, a protocol 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-77 November 2004 

involving most of the aforementioned techniques is used to obtain a characterization of the 
structure. 
Anticipated Methodology (Part C)Electrochemically-based TestingElectrochemically-
based testing (i.e., measurements of potential and current) is particularly useful for determining 
localized corrosion susceptibility. It can also be used to provide alternative, and often more 
sensitive techniques to the weight-loss method for measuring general corrosion. In addition, it 
can be conducted in abiotic and biotic test environments to discern effects of microbially 
influenced corrosion. Polarization of potential from the open circuit potential also simulates the 
effect of radiolysis on the test solution. Because electrochemically-based testing is typically 
short-term (on the order of a day to a few weeks) in duration as compared to the testing 
conducted in a corrosion test facility (on the order of months to several years), many more 
experimental variables can be studied in a series of electrochemically-based tests to advance 
knowledge of the material performance in a repository setting. Electrochemically-based testing 
is readily amenable to factorial design experiments so that a more comprehensive analysis of 
multiple parameters can be conducted with a relatively small number of individual tests. 
Electrochemically-based testing can be used to measure properties that have been identified as 
significant to the long-term performance of the waste package, waste package pallet, and drip 
shield materials, for instance the open circuit potential and the critical potential. These 
properties form the basis for some of the models used to predict performancethe difference in 
value between the critical potential and the open-circuit potential is the basis for describing the 
susceptibility of a material to localized corrosion in a given environment. There are a number of 
critical potentials associated with breakdown or dissolution of passive films on metals, and other 
critical potentials associated with reformation of the passive film or repassivation of the metal, 
and there are a number of specific electrochemical measurement techniques. The work that has 
been performed in preparing for the License Application (construction authorization) has used a 
wide variety of techniques, most of which are American Society for Testing and Materials-based 
with some modification for the particular circumstances for this project. It is expected that these 
will continue as part of the performance confirmation program. 
The open circuit potential (this is also called the corrosion potential) has been found to change 
with time on the materials of interest. The change in open circuit potential is attributed to 
compositional changes in the passive film on Alloy 22, as the films age on the material surface. 
The evolution of the open circuit potential has been followed for several years on samples 
exposed in the test facility (Part A), and it is expected that this work will continue into the 
performance confirmation period in conjunction with the restocking of the test facility and 
introduction of new test environments into this facility. 
The general protocol for electrochemical testing to determine localized corrosion susceptibility is 
first to perform a suite of potentiodynamic tests where the Eh applied to a test sample is scanned 
linearly from the corrosion or open circuit potential to beyond the various critical potentials, and 
the film is broken down. Then, the scan is reversed, because some of the critical potentials are 
obtained on the reverse scan, where the passive film is restored. The amount of hysteresis in the 
system is also an indication of localized corrosion susceptibility. The results from 
potentiodynamic tests are then used to determine where potentiostatic tests should be conducted. 
In a potentiostatic test, the applied potential is kept constant, and the current is measured. Since 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-78 November 2004 

the potentiodynamic tests predict the potential regions where a metal should be completely 
passive and where it should be subject to localized corrosion attack, potentiostatic tests evaluate 
these predictions. Typically, the current decreases with time to a steady state value, but the 
current transient can be used to help quantify the degree of localized attack if the applied 
potential is above the critical value. Most of the testing is conducted on creviced samples, 
because crevice corrosion is believed to be a degradation mode that possibly affects Alloy 22 
under extreme environmental scenarios. 
Another electrochemically-based testing method that will be used is linear polarization. In linear 
polarization, the potential is scanned by a small amount (10 to 20 mV) from the corrosion 
potential. Linear polarization is used to measure the corrosion current (which for Alloy 22 and 
titanium alloys is the passive current density in most environments), from which the general 
corrosion rate is calculated. It is an alternative method to the weight loss method, discussed 
previously. Because quite small currents are measurable, linear polarization is a more sensitive 
technique and used when corrosion rates are very small. Linear polarization is especially useful 
for conducting tests on a large number of combinations of environmental and metallurgical 
conditions, expected in performance confirmation. Linear polarization is especially useful when 
working in environments in which microbes are inoculated for studying microbially influenced 
corrosion, because the amount of polarization is small and does not appear to adversely affect the 
life processes of the microorganisms. 
While general corrosion is believed to be the background degradation mode for the drip shield 
and waste package in the preponderance of expected repository environments, models for the 
overall corrosion performance are governed by critical ion concentrations that define the 
windows of susceptibility to other corrosion modes, such as localized corrosion, where the rates 
of attack are much larger. The critical ion concentrations are determined by conducting 
potentiodynamic tests across a range of compositions and noting where the critical potentials are 
located. Thus, a series of polarization curves in different environments is needed to determine 
these critical ion concentrations. In many instances, the critical ion concentrations are really the 
critical ratios of concentrations, for instance, the ratio of nitrate to chloride, and the ratio of alkali 
ions (sodium + potassium) to alkaline earth ions (calcium + magnesium). Microbially influenced 
corrosion on metals is another phenomenon that initiates when a critical concentration of some 
aggressive chemical species is exceeded. Electrochemically-based testing is used to define the 
boundaries for the onset of this corrosion mode. 
As stated earlier, a major advantage to electrochemically-based testing is that a large number of 
combinations of environments and metallurgical conditions can be investigated in a relatively 
short period of time. The long-term aging facility, discussed in (Part B) above, is a source for 
samples of different kinds of metallurgical structures. Another source of material for test 
samples comes from prototypes of the waste package container, waste package pallet (and 
eventually the drip shield) that will be manufactured in the coming years. As also stated earlier, 
many of the evaluations performed under the shorter-term electrochemically-based testing 
provide information on appropriate test conditions for the longer term testing, described in 
(Part A). Thus, the three components of laboratory testing work together. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-79 November 2004 

Planning for the laboratory corrosion testing activity is preliminary; however, in contrast to other 
activities in this plan, this activity is much more near-term and a continuation of ongoing work. 
Therefore, more detail is given above about this activity. 
The testing data are typically evaluated as corrosion rates under different scenarios. The 
corrosion rate of the waste package, waste package pallet, and drip shield materials are two of 
the more important performance related SSCs of the Engineered Barrier System. If the results 
from corrosion testing exceeded a predetermined limit that would cause the breach rate for waste 
packages and drip shields or source term assumptions to be incorrect, an evaluation of the 
potential impact on the understanding of system performance would be conducted and reported 
as described in Section 4. 
This laboratory portion of this activity cannot adversely affect the ability of the repository to 
meet performance objectives because this is a series of laboratory tests conducted offsite. 
3.3.4.3 Corrosion Testing of Thermally Accelerated Drift Samples 
Activity DescriptionCorrosion analyses in the laboratory of waste package, waste package 
pallet, and drip shield samples from the thermally accelerated drifts in the range of representative 
repository environments. Candidate parameter measurements may include: Alloy 22, Type 316 
stainless steel and titanium alloys (Grade 7 and 24) mass loss rate, passive current density, 
surface dissolution, open circuit potential, critical potential, stress crack corrosion, microbial 
effects, surficial passive film stability, and mechanical properties. This long-term field and 
laboratory testing provides direct measurements of corrosion of engineered materials that had 
been exposed to the conditions in the thermally accelerated drift test. As far as possible, the 
methodology for corrosion testing in the environment of thermally accelerated drifts and 
subsequent analysis and characterization of test samples from the thermally accelerated drifts 
will be conducted in a parallel manner with test samples exposed in the long-term corrosion 
testing facility under laboratory conditions (Section 3.3.4.3). This activity directly assesses the 
materials performance of the waste package as a major component of the Engineered Barrier 
System. The analysis and characterization of thermally accelerated drifts exposed samples will 
be conducted in a laboratory setting. The laboratory analyses will begin several years before 
waste packages are emplaced in the drifts and before in situ corrosion testing can begin in the 
thermally accelerated drifts. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate results of corrosion models. This is 
accomplished through measurements of the general corrosion rate and evaluation of the overall 
corrosion performance of the waste package outer barrier material, waste package pallet material, 
and the drip shield material. The activity will involve exposure of test samples in the thermally 
accelerated drifts with subsequent sample characterization and analyses performed in the 
laboratory. The samples will be representative of the waste package, waste package pallet, and 
drip shield materials (same materials as in the design), including processes used to fabricate, 
assemble, weld, and stress relieve these materials. 
Selection JustificationUnderstanding the corrosion modes of the Engineered Barrier System 
components is key to evaluating the barrier performance. This activity is very important to 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-80 November 2004 

assessing the expected conditions and provides for evaluation of the Engineered Barrier System 
functionality. 
Based on results from the risk-informed, performance-based activity selection approach 
described in Section 1.4.1, this activity was determined to have a high potential impact on the 
performance of the total system. It is estimated that there is generally a high chance that the 
mean annual dose calculations would change if these parameter values were found to lie outside 
its current modeled range. There is general confidence that the modeled ranges for these 
parameters will not be exceeded during the compliance period. Mechanical properties of passive 
films are the exception with relatively lower confidence. In addition, if the ranges were 
exceeded, a change in the parameter value greater than that currently used as the range in the 
performance assessments would likely change the selected conceptual models or require 
consideration of additional conceptual models. This is the case for about half the measured 
parameters (e.g., surface dissolution, weight loss rate, phase transformations). As such, if the 
results of this activity are not as anticipated, the implications on system performance could 
include a greater potential for waste package breach and accordingly, a greater potential for 
Engineered Barrier System breach and radionuclide release to the Lower Natural Barrier. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2) 
and 10 CFR 63.134(c). Specifically, the activity addresses the requirement that the performance 
confirmation program provide data that indicate whether engineered systems and components are 
functioning as intended and anticipated and that the waste package monitoring program include 
laboratory experiments that focus on the internal condition of the waste packages. 
Current UnderstandingTesting under real repository conditions is the most desirable 
performance confirmation of the behavior of the waste package, waste package pallet, and 
potential drip shield materials. The witness test samples are emplaced near the actual waste 
package. These test samples will experience the same temperatures, relative humidities, dust 
accumulation, moisture deliquescence, and water dripping (if it occurs in the allotted time 
period) with the same salt concentrations that the waste package container surface would 
encounter. 
The baseline information for this activity will be synthesized from performance assessment 
results as well as from information obtained from the most recent versions of the following 
reports: Environment on the Surfaces of the Drip Shield and Waste Package Outer Barrier 
(BSC 2001 [DIRS 155640]); Analysis of Mechanisms for Early Waste Package/Drip Shield 
Failure (BSC 2003 [DIRS 164475]); WAPDEG Analysis of Waste Package and Drip Shield 
Degradation (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161317]); Probability Analysis of Corrosion Rates for Waste 
Package Materials (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169356]); Aging and Phase Stability of Waste Package 
Outer Barrier (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162199]); General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of 
Waste Package Outer Barrier (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166834]); General Corrosion and Localized 
Corrosion of the Drip Shield (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161236]); Stress Corrosion Cracking of the Drip 
Shield, the Waste Package Outer Barrier, and the Stainless Steel Structural Material (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169042]); and Hydrogen Induced Cracking of Drip Shield (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161759]). 
Anticipated MethodologyTesting in the DriftsThis activity targets exposure of test samples 
in the field, (i.e., in the thermally accelerated drifts environment). A large number of samples 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-81 November 2004 

will be emplaced in the drift at the beginning of the test period and then will be removed 
according to a planned interval approach similar to that previously described for the corrosion 
test facility. The types of samples and the respective postexposure characterization and analyses 
of the samples are much the same as those proposed for the laboratory testing. The general 
arrangement proposed for the in-drift exposure is to create test locations at the entry, at the exit, 
and at the middle of a thermally accelerated drift. Test samples at these locations will be 
attached to the side rails of the waste package pallets. These test samples will serve as a 
witness sample, because they are exposed to the same thermal and chemical environment as 
the actual waste package, waste package pallet, and the drip shield. The intention is to make the 
laboratory component of the testing and the thermally accelerated drifts component as parallel as 
possible, so that direct comparisons can be made between results from the different exposure 
histories. 
After exposure in the thermally accelerated drifts for periods of several years and up to the length 
of time before the repository is closed, periodic withdrawals of samples will be made for 
subsequent analysis and characterization in a laboratory setting. The laboratory may be located 
in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain repository or it may be located elsewhere. The protocol 
for sample withdrawal and characterization will also follow a planned interval approach, as 
described in Section 3.3.4.2 (A) under the corrosion test facility. 
Anticipated MethodologyCharacterization and Analysis in the LaboratoryWith regard to 
observations for possible localized corrosion and environmentally accelerated cracking, test 
methods also follow the standard practices of the American Society for Testing Materials with 
modifications made to accommodate the Project-specific conditions and requirements. Several 
technical implementation procedures were written to cover specific test methods, as well as 
procedures for making up the test solutions. Characterization and analysis of samples exposed in 
the thermally accelerated drifts will be conducted by many of the same methods used for 
characterization and analysis of samples exposed in the Corrosion Testing Facility and described 
in Section 3.7.2 (Part A). 
An important part of the test samples characterization, whether exposed in a laboratory 
environment or in a drift at Yucca Mountain, is the determination as to whether the corrosion of 
these materials is uniform. This is determined by examination and analyses of the exposed 
surfaces. The general corrosion model is applicable for uniform attack; if localized attack is 
observed (e.g., at grain boundaries, in creviced regions, as random pits), then other models are 
applicable. 
Planning for this activity is preliminary in nature; other methods and approaches may be 
employed and will be described in the PC Test Plans prior to waste operations. 
The testing data are typically evaluated as corrosion rate under different scenarios. The 
corrosion rate of the waste package, waste package pallet, and drip shield materials is one of the 
more important attributes of the Engineered Barrier System. If the results from corrosion testing 
on samples exposed to thermally accelerated drift conditions exceed a predetermined limit that 
would cause the estimated breach rate for waste packages or source term assumptions to be 
incorrect, an evaluation of the potential impact on the understanding of system performance 
would be conducted and reported as described in Section 4. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-82 November 2004 

The laboratory portion of this activity cannot adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet 
performance objectives because this is a series of laboratory tests conducted offsite. The field 
portion of this activity is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet 
performance objectives because the sampling and monitoring is noninvasive and occurs in the 
drifts remotely. Further evaluations on waste isolation and test-to-test interference will be 
conducted during the detailed test planning. 
3.3.4.4 Waste Form Testing 
Activity DescriptionThis activity includes waste form testing (including waste package 
coupled effects) in the laboratory under anticipated in-package conditions. Candidate parameters 
that may be measured include: radionuclide release rate, dissolution, environmental and 
hydrochemical indicators (Eh, pH, colloid characteristics), bare waste form dissolution, fuel rod 
waste form dissolution, including cladding degradation, failure and unzipping rate, and waste 
form and waste package performance under coupled chemical environments. This long-term 
laboratory testing provides direct measurements of waste form performance under internal waste 
package conditions. This activity assesses the source term for radionuclides derived from the 
waste form, which are potentially able to leave the waste package and be transported out of the 
Engineered Barrier System. Elements of waste form testing began during site characterization. 
This site characterization testing included fuel and fuel rod segment degradation and 
radionuclide release testing, waste form colloids characterization and concentration studies, and 
flow-through dissolution testing. This is an activity where some analytical elements were begun 
during site characterization, expanded to take place in a simulated waste package, and will 
continue until at least the early stages of waste emplacement. Planning for this activity is 
preliminary in nature; other methods and approaches may be employed and will be described in 
the PC Test Plan prior to waste operations. This activity is designed to support performance 
confirmation for the TSPA-LA nominal, seismic, and igneous intrusion scenarios. 
PurposeThe purpose of this activity is to evaluate results of waste form degradation models and 
evaluate in-package expected conditions. This is accomplished by monitoring water 
accumulation from humid air exposure, water chemistry, and the mobile fractions of annual 
dose-critical radionuclides; in a laboratory test using commercial spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste glass inside two breached waste package mockups within a 
humidity chamber. Monitoring potential couple effects with waste package internal elements to 
include its internal surface material will also be evaluated. After refinements and improvements 
to the technical bases for the safety case (Hamilton-Ray 2004 [DIRS 172321]), if it is determined 
that in the igneous eruptive case that the waste package damage is extensive, then waste form 
testing could confirm assumptions about sorption onto corrosion products, diffusion 
characteristics and pathways, and water compositions representative of basaltic derived solutions 
that are important in the igneous intrusion scenario in TSPA-LA. Waste form testing could also 
confirm assumptions about water chemistry resulting from conditions assumed in the igneous 
intrusion scenario in TSPA-LA. This could include testing water compositions representative of 
basaltic derived solutions. 
Selection JustificationThe coupled nature of waste package source-term processes prevents the 
details of the process from being estimated with accuracy. One outcome of this is that large 
uncertainties are associated with the waste package source term models that will be relied on 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-83 November 2004 

during licensing. The performance confirmation program will evaluate if waste package 
source-term processes are within the uncertainty range used in the License Application. The 
performance confirmation activities will likely reduce the uncertainty, by explicitly considering 
the cross coupling and other factors not considered to remain conservative. 
Understanding the waste package source-term processes is essential to evaluating the Engineered 
Barrier System performance. This activity is very important to providing evaluation of the 
Engineered Barrier System functionality. The dissolution rate of the waste form in an aqueous 
environment is significant to waste isolation. Uncertainty in the dissolution rate is large such 
that the time required to release radionuclides from the waste forms can vary from hundreds of 
years to hundreds of thousands of years. Water chemistry and temperature within the waste 
package could affect the degradation rate of the spent nuclear fuel and vitrified wastes. 
Corrosion of the internal metallic components of the waste package could reduce pH, leading to 
higher dissolution rates. The water chemistry and especially pH will have a significant effect on 
reduction, sorption, and mechanisms that may significantly reduce the radionuclide release rate 
from a failed waste package. In addition, it is important to evaluate if there are processes that 
could potentially occur within a waste package that would cause it to corrode from the inside out, 
thereby, breaching the waste package and compromising the Engineered Barrier System 
capability. 
Considering the risk-informed, performance-based selection approach described in Section 1.4.1, 
this activity has a high potential impact on the understanding of the performance of the total 
system. It is estimated that there is generally a high probability that the mean annual dose 
calculations would change if these parameter values were found to lie above their current 
modeled range. There is generally high confidence that the modeled ranges for these parameters 
will not be exceeded during the regulatory compliance period. In addition, if the ranges were 
exceeded, a change in the parameter value greater than that currently used, as the range in the 
performance assessments, would likely change the selected conceptual models or require 
consideration of additional conceptual models. As such, if the results of this activity are not as 
anticipated, the implications on system performance could include a greater potential for 
Engineered Barrier System breach and radionuclide release to the Lower Natural Barrier. 
For the reasons presented above, this activity addresses the requirements of 10 CFR 63.131(a)(2) 
and 10 CFR 63.134(c). Specifically, the activity addresses the requirement that the performance 
confirmation program provide data that indicate engineered systems and components are 
functioning as intended and anticipated and that the waste package monitoring program include 
laboratory experiments that focus on the internal condition of the waste packages. 
Current UnderstandingThe waste forms that will be disposed at Yucca Mountain include 
spent nuclear fuel and vitrified high-level radioactive waste. Both of these are solid materials 
that will degrade slowly in the unsaturated environment of the repository. Spent nuclear fuel 
primarily consists of heavy metal oxides of uranium, plutonium, and other radionuclides. 
High-level radioactive waste consists of a borosilicate glass containing radionuclides. The 
release of radionuclides from the waste form is further limited by the low solubilities of most 
radionuclides in the unsaturated, oxidizing environment of the repository. Even if waste 
packages are breached, release rates may be slow because the degradation rates of spent nuclear 
fuel and borosilicate glass are slow and the release of radionuclides will be dispersed over 
thousands of years. Because of their low solubilities and their tendency to sorb onto minerals, 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-84 November 2004 

only a small fraction of the radionuclide inventory (mainly the mobile radionuclides technetium 
and iodine) is transported out of the repository. Even then, technetium located in the five metal 
phases of the fuel may not be readily released under repository-relevant conditions. The majority 
of the radionuclides do not move out of the repository environment. 
Waste form testing in the performance confirmation period will seek to measure chemical and 
physical changes occurring inside waste packages. Movement of liquid or vapor phase water 
through cracks in the waste package will trigger a series of coupled and nonlinear processes 
dominated by degradation of fuel and steel components inside the package. The interacting 
processes are collectively termed waste package source term coupled processes and must be 
effectively predicted as they largely control the availability of: (1) water in the waste package; 
(2) the pH in the package and invert; and (3) by extension, the solubility and colloid mobility of 
annual dose critical radionuclides. Testing may also verify that the cladding does not pit or fail 
from creep (time dependent deformation) at waste package temperatures that are below 
350 degrees C. It could also verify that splitting of the cladding will probably not occur under 
repository conditions. 
The baseline information for this activity will be synthesized from TSPA-LA results as well as 
from information obtained from reports. The information will be obtained from the most recent 
versions of the following reports: CSNF Waste Form Degradation: Summary Abstraction 
(BSC 2004, [DIRS 167321] Section 7.1); Defense HLW Glass Degradation Model 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167619]); DSNF and Other Waste Form Degradation Abstraction (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 163693]); Waste Form and In-Drift Colloids-Associated Radionuclide Concentrations: 
Abstraction and Summary (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166845]); and Geochemical Interactions in Failed 
Co-Disposal Waste Packages for N Reactor and Ft. St. Vrain Spent Fuel and the Melt and Dilute 
Waste Form (BSC 2002, [DIRS 160161] Section 7.1)). 
Anticipated MethodologyThis activity includes waste form testing (including waste 
form/package coupled effects) in the laboratory under internal waste package conditions. In the 
course of a series of tests under repository-like conditions within the performance confirmation 
period using scale mockups of breached waste packages, starting with small scale and ending 
with large scale tests involving actual waste forms, the actual water accumulation from humid air 
exposure, the water chemistry, and the mobile fractions of annual dose-critical radionuclides will 
be measured. This will provide relevant data for waste package source-term model evaluation. 
Data, which would be indicators of corrosion of the internal metallic components of the waste 
package, will also be measured. Those corrosion processes could, in turn, reduce pH, leading to 
higher dissolution rates and affecting the ability of radionuclides to be sequestered by alteration 
and corrosion products. 
DOE has authorized BSC to make improvements and refinements in the technical bases that 
support the SAR (Hamilton-Ray 2004 [DIRS 172321]). Part of that scope is to evaluate 
disruptive igneous consequence modeling related to waste package damage by an igneous 
intrusion and waste form pulverization by an igneous eruption and make model changes as 
warranted. Currently, the igneous intrusion scenario includes potential changes in water 
chemistry that may result from contact with incoming basalt rather than rock types existing in 
Yucca Mountain. If the results from these improvements suggest that performance confirmation 
testing is still warranted, the potential for damage to waste form resulting from these conditions 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-85 November 2004 

may be confirmed by enhanced performance confirmation testing. Water chemistries calculated 
from equilibrium with basaltic mineral assemblages may need to be confirmed against results 
from laboratory testing of basalts that would fill the emplacement drifts above the degraded 
waste package and drip shield. Basaltic flow-through column tests could also aid in confirming 
assumptions. 
Some of the simulations may include specific emphasis on sorption onto stationary phases 
(corrosion products), diffusion characteristics and pathways, and water compositions 
representative of basaltic derived solutions to confirm assumptions used in the igneous intrusion 
scenario in TSPA-LA. 
The test data are typically evaluated for dissolution rate. The dissolution rate of the waste form 
in an aqueous environment is important for radionuclides. Since water chemistry and 
temperature within the waste package could affect the degradation rate of the spent nuclear fuel 
and vitrified wastes, as well as, corrosion of the internal metallic components of the waste 
package that could in turn reduce pH, leading to higher dissolution rates these various effects 
will be studied and compared with model outputs. In addition, these values will also be 
compared with model result expected ranges. If the results from waste form testing exceed a 
predetermined limit that would cause the modeled transport properties of radionuclides or source 
term estimates of performance to be incorrect, an evaluation of the potential impact on the 
understanding of system performance would be conducted and reported as described in 
Section 4. 
This activity will not adversely affect the ability of the repository to meet performance objectives 
because this is a series of laboratory tests conducted offsite. 
3.4 PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION FACILITIES 
Performance confirmation activities will be performed in a number of physical locations. Some 
will occur on the surface, some underground prior to and after emplacement, and some in a 
laboratory. Many of the planned new activities are related to the coupled effects after 
emplacement. A new test bed, described as the thermally accelerated drifts, is a major emphasis 
of new testing and monitoring for performance confirmation and is discussed separately. 
3.4.1 Surface Activities 
Extensive surface-based testing of the unsaturated zone and saturated zone hydrologic 
characteristics at Yucca Mountain has been conducted (CRWMS M&O 2000, [DIRS 151945] 
Sections 4.5, 8.2, and 8.3.3; DOE 2002, [DIRS 155943] Section 4.2.9). Surface-based testing of 
the unsaturated zone included determination of stratigraphic units from borehole logs and 
air-injection testing, and infiltration rates determined from flux calculations, water-balance 
models, statistical modeling, and geochemical methods. Surface-based testing of the saturated 
zone included the C-Wells Complex that measured the flow and transport characteristics of the 
saturated zone aquifer. These tests are the basis for the filtration of colloids and dispersion 
models of the fractured rock in the saturated zone. 
Surface-based performance confirmation activities include testing to evaluate hydrologic 
conditions in the unsaturated and saturated zones. Precipitation will be monitored to evaluate 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-86 November 2004 

and extend the precipitation record at the site and will provide data to be used in stable 
conjunction with seepage to evaluate performance of the Upper Natural Barrier. 
Saturated zone testing includes monitoring groundwater in wells upgradient and downgradient of 
the repository, and associated laboratory testing of samples to determine groundwater chemistry 
and radionuclide concentrations. In addition, fault zone hydrologic characteristics; including 
anisotropy in the saturated zone will be measured. Observation of large magnitude fault 
displacements after significant seismic events will be conducted. Tracer testing at the Alluvial 
Test Complex will also be performed. Seismic monitoring will continue to be conducted with 
both surface-based and underground instrumentation. 
3.4.2 Activities in Emplacement Drifts and Mains Prior to Emplacement 
During construction of the underground facility, mapping of drift and shaft walls will be 
conducted. Mapping includes fractures, fault zone characteristics, stratigraphic contacts, and 
lithophysal content and characteristics of the rock mass. Samples will be collected from the 
underground facility to determine unsaturated zone chemistry, including chloride mass balance 
and isotope chemistry through laboratory analysis. Transport and sorption properties in the 
Topopah Spring Tuff unit are measured by tests in the emplacement drifts. Instrumentation will 
be provided to measure construction deformation while confirming mechanical properties. 
Underground activities include seepage and seismic monitoring, visual inspections, and access to 
boreholes drilled from observation drifts. 
3.4.3 Activities in Emplacement Drifts and Mains After Emplacement 
Activities that take place in loaded emplacement drifts will include seepage monitoring periodic 
inspection of drifts (to confirm the ability to retrieve), dust buildup monitoring and monitoring of 
waste packages. The thermally accelerated drift testing also occurs in loaded emplacement drifts 
but is more intensive and requires careful thermal management consistent with the test 
objectives. It is discussed separately in Section 3.4.5. Seals testing may occur in mains and 
shafts. It is also possible that seal testing could be conducted in comparable rock outside of the 
repository footprint, depending on the criteria detailed during PC Test Plan development. 
3.4.4 Laboratory Testing 
Many of the tests require a laboratory analysis component. A few of the tests are laboratory 
only, including corrosion testing and waste form testing. Activities that include a laboratory 
component in addition to a field component include precipitation monitoring, saturated zone 
monitoring, saturated zone fault zone tracer testing, saturated zone alluvium tracer testing, 
analysis of unsaturated zone water samples, unsaturated zone transport properties tracer testing, 
analysis of seepage samples, analysis of dust samples, analysis of gas, water and microbes from 
the thermally accelerated drifts, and corrosion testing of samples obtained from the thermally 
accelerated drifts. 
3.4.5 Thermally Accelerated Drift Test Bed 
The goal of thermally accelerated testing is to gain technical insight into the repository 
postclosure response to heat within the emplacement drifts. Thermal testing began during site 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-87 November 2004 

characterization, such as the Drift Scale Test, which is currently in the cooling phase. Thermal 
testing will continue during repository operations with construction of one or two thermally 
accelerated drifts. A one-drift thermally accelerated drift test concept has been evaluated and 
details can be located within previous revisions of this plan. The one-drift concept may have 
favorable aspects compared to the two-drift concept, but special handling of the waste packages 
is a prerequisite. If the special handling requirements of the waste packages cannot be 
performed, then the two-drift concept, or another alternative concept, will be implemented. This 
is a new test bed that will be initiated during operations, continuing until closure. As such, for 
the field-testing, the locations, durations, and design of the test bed configuration are conceptual 
at this time. Monitoring and testing activities within the test bed will be conducted periodically 
at a frequency yet to be determined. Other methods and approaches may be employed and will 
be described in the PC Test Plans for the activities that will be conducted within the thermally 
accelerated drift test bed prior to waste operations. 
A remote means to monitor and collect samples in bulkheaded alcoves is needed. 
High-temperature and high-radiation environments representative of postemplacement 
conditions in thermally accelerated drifts will require development of technology with remote 
monitoring capabilities. Revisions to the performance confirmation program will update this 
activity description, as appropriate. 
Performance confirmation activities in the thermally accelerated drifts will include monitoring in 
drift conditions, exposing samples of Engineered Barrier System materials to potential corrosion 
mechanisms in a realistic in situ environment, monitoring of drift degradation, and testing of 
near-field coupled processes. The activities that are planned to be executed in the thermally 
accelerated drifts include: 
 Seepage monitoring (Section 3.3.1.2) 
 Drift inspection (Section 3.3.1.8) 
 Thermally accelerated drift near-field monitoring (Section 3.3.1.9) 
 Dust buildup monitoring (Section 3.3.1.10) 
 Thermally accelerated drift in-drift environment monitoring (Section 3.3.1.11) 
 Thermally accelerated drift thermal-mechanical effects monitoring (Section 3.3.2.4) 
 Corrosion testing of thermally accelerated drift samples (Section 3.3.4.3). 
The discussion that follows identifies potential options and locations for such testing, but these 
are not all inclusive and other methods and arrangements may be employed. Screening 
calculations supporting the conceptual test design conclude that two accelerated drifts may be 
required (see Figure 3-1). 
PurposeThe primary purpose is to develop the thermally accelerated drift test that, using 
normally constructed emplacement drifts, ensures the proper implementation of the activities 
conducted in the thermally accelerated drifts. The thermally accelerated drifts test approximates 
two extreme thermal environments (peak and near ambient temperatures). The thermally 
accelerated drift test develops thermal environments in which representative coupled thermal, 
hydrologic, mechanical, chemical, microbial, and radiological processes and behaviors can be 
monitored and observed. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-88 November 2004 

Description (Two Drift Concept)One accelerated drift will be loaded and configured in the 
same manner as other emplacement drifts in the repository. That drift would be used to evaluate 
postclosure maximum temperatures. The testing program will monitor ventilation, reduce it 
gradually, and allow temperatures to climb into the postclosure range. When high temperature 
effects are attained after a 10- or 15-year period, the drift ventilation will then be increased to 
allow the drift to cool below boiling temperatures prior to repository closure. Near-field 
processes, with minor perturbations due to cooling toward the drift, would be accelerated from 
about 2,000 years to nominally 100 years; however, the ventilation would overwhelm in-drift 
hydrologic phenomena such as seepage and condensation. The only significant difference in the 
test configuration, compared to conditions in the rest of the repository, is in controlling the 
ventilation and allowing temperatures to rise during the preclosure period. 
The other accelerated drift will be used to evaluate in-drift and drift wall subboiling to boiling 
effects and then later, to evaluate the reversal from boiling to subboiling temperatures. The 
thermal, hydrological, mechanical and chemical effects must be observed in the absence of 
ventilation. This drift will require careful thermal management using derated (i.e., less than full) 
waste packages, waste of a different age (i.e., time withdrawn from a reactor) than the average 
waste, larger spacing between waste packages than standard in the regular emplacement drifts, or 
the movement or replacement of waste packages at termination of ventilation. The ventilation in 
this test will be terminated at an early time, after approximately five to fifteen years. Although 
the radial extent of thermal perturbation will be limited and peak temperatures will not reach 
repository postclosure levels, the in-drift and near-field region will experience a thermal cycle 
that transitions through the boiling range during heating and cooling phases. The temperatures 
expected in this test are in the range thought to contribute most to coupled process effects. 
Because in-drift hydrological phenomena will be similar to the postclosure repository, drip 
shields will be installed in all, or part, of this drift at the time of ventilation termination. 
An observation drift will be at a lower elevation than the two heated drifts. Alcoves and 
boreholes from the observation drift will be used to position instruments in the near-field rock. 
This will allow instrument maintenance without having to enter the heated drifts. Boreholes 
drilled from the heated drifts will be few to none. 
Instrumentation and baseline measurement completion of the two accelerated drifts will be 
accomplished during the one or two year period required to emplace waste packages in the drift 
of the first panel. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-89 November 2004 

NOTE: Not to scale. 
Figure 3-1. Conceptual Location of the Thermally Accelerated Drift Test Bed within the Underground Facility 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 3-90 November 2004 

4. DATA MANAGEMENT, ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING
This section describes the approach to the development of the performance confirmation 
program baseline information (preliminary baseline) and the approaches for the handling of 
parameter measurements, parameter measurements analysis and evaluation, and the reporting 
and recommendations (where appropriate) for corrective actions. 
The performance confirmation program is an ongoing program directed at collecting information 
per 10 CFR 63.102(m) ([DIRS 156605]) to evaluate the adequacy of the assumptions, data, and 
analyses in the License Application that led to the NRC findings that permitted construction of 
the repository and subsequent emplacement of the wastes (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). As 
described in Section 1.1 and in detail in Section 6, the performance confirmation program began 
during site characterization when data were collected to describe the site and quantify barrier 
performance (DOE 1988, [DIRS 100282] Volume VII Section 8.3.5.16). The performance 
confirmation program will continue until permanent closure of the repository. Data collected in 
the prelicensing phases of the performance confirmation program are used for evaluation of 
barrier effectiveness in performance assessments supporting the License Application. 
Parameter Monitoring DataSelected geotechnical and design parameters, including 
interactions between natural barrier features and engineered barrier SSCs, will be monitored 
during construction, emplacement, and operation to identify changes in the conditions assumed 
in the License Application, if any, that may affect compliance with the postclosure performance 
objectives for individual and groundwater protection, and the preclosure performance objective 
for preserving the retrievability option. The information collected will be used to confirm that 
the actual subsurface conditions encountered and changes in these conditions during construction 
and waste emplacement operations are within limits assumed the License Application 
Performance Assessments. 
Barrier Monitoring DataThe program will also provide information to indicate whether the 
natural barrier features and engineered barrier SSCs designed or assumed to operate as barriers 
after permanent closure are functioning as intended and predicted. Figure 4-1 illustrates a 
generalized management and evaluation process that will be routinely used to evaluate 
performance confirmation program results. If the information obtained from the performance 
confirmation program is inconsistent with that presented in the License Application, then the 
NRC will be informed. The variance will be evaluated and, if the variance is determined to be 
significant, mitigating actions will be evaluated, including potential design changes. The NRC 
will be notified. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-1 November 2004 

Figure 4-1. Generalized Flowchart Illustrating Performance Analysis and Trend Detection Process 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-2 November 2004 

Figure 4-1. Generalized Flowchart Illustrating Performance Analysis and Trend Detection Process 
(Continued) 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-3 November 2004 

Performance Confirmation Activity FlexibilityThe performance confirmation program must 
be flexible with specific details of the program evolving as necessary in response to information 
obtained from performance confirmation activities as well as from other testing and analysis 
programs conducted in parallel (see Section 1.5). The performance confirmation program may 
also need to be revised in response to design changes that affect the nature of the activities 
conducted or program implementation. The evolution of the performance confirmation program 
will be iterative, risk-informed, performance-based, based on the evaluation of new information 
and the identification of changes that will improve effectiveness or efficiency. These changes 
will be reflected in revisions to the Performance Confirmation Plan. 
Data Collection ImplementationTesting and data collection details will be defined in PC Test 
Plans along with appropriate implementation documents as discussed in Section 5. For 
parameters monitored within the scope of the performance confirmation program, baseline 
information and acceptable deviations from the baseline information will be identified for each 
parameter to the extent practicable. 
Performance Confirmation Data EvaluationEvaluation of performance confirmation 
monitoring or measurement results is influenced by two important factors: (1) the character of 
the monitored or measured parameter value, and (2) the method used to identify and evaluate 
changes from baseline conditions that could affect performance of the repository. Sources of 
baseline condition data are summarized in the current understanding subsections for the activities 
listed in Section 3. 
Evaluation of data is described as a process or approach because the nature of performance 
confirmation may require long observational periods and may involve monitoring slow, transient 
development of the responses of the repository to construction, operations, or natural conditions. 
The discussion of data evaluation is based on the premise that the data gathering process has 
been validated in accordance with approved procedures confirming instrument function, 
instrument calibration and raw data collection and reduction. Baseline values for performance 
confirmation parameters can be discussed in terms of separate points or distributions. 
The performance confirmation program is directed at parameters (assumptions, data, analyses) 
used to evaluate the performance of the natural and engineered barriers, or system performance, 
as presented in the License Application performance assessments. Confirming the parameters 
affecting repository barrier or total system performance will demonstrate compliance with the 
performance objectives for individual protection (10 CFR 63.113(b)) and groundwater protection 
(10 CFR 63.113(c)), and the preclosure performance objective for retrievability 
(10 CFR 63.111(e)). As defined in CFR 63.132 (d) measurements and observations must be 
compared with the original design bases and assumptions. If significant differences exist 
between measurements and observations and the original design bases and assumptions, the need 
for modification and significance to repository performance will be reported to the NRC. Thus, 
this program confirms information used to assess performance as it was evaluated for the License 
Application. 
The method used to evaluate parameter changes from baseline conditions is to compare its value 
relative to the range used in performance assessments or design considerations. As long as the 
monitoring results or measurements are not statistically different from the value used, the 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-4 November 2004 

continuing adequacy of that value to support the demonstration of compliance with the 
performance objectives is confirmed. If the results are outside the range of values considered in 
the performance assessment then the use of that value for compliance assessments requires 
further evaluation. 
Data RangesMost parameters of interest in performance confirmation are expected to exhibit 
spatial and temporal variability and will be sampled over the period of performance confirmation 
and varying interrogation intervals. Mindful of the requisite time for experiment deployment and 
transient evolution of test conditions, the treatment of data is illustrated here by an example using 
statistical ranges. After some predefined statistical analysis (e.g., calculated values for the mean, 
upper bound of the expected value at a particular confidence interval, trend analysis) the reduced 
data will be compared to a set of predefined limits to determine an appropriate action. The 
performance confirmation data evaluation is based on two constraints: 
 Expected Range: portion of parameter baseline used for performance assessment for 
which no action is required. 
 Condition Limits: the discrete value(s) or trend(s) outside (upper or lower) the 
expected range that results in more detailed evaluation and potentially additional 
sampling, including adversely developing trends as defined in the PC Test Plans. 
Figure 4-2 describes the relationship between condition limits and the ranges of acceptable 
performance requiring no action (the parameter values are within design and model validity 
bounds) or unacceptable performance requiring action. For those in the distributed monitoring 
category, some analytically determined cutoff based on performance assessment would be used. 
For parameters used in performance confirmation models, the expected range will be identified 
for both the nominal and disruptive case modeled ranges. The expected range is often a design 
basis or the range from model realizations. Discussion of the expected system and barrier 
performance is contained in documentation in support of the License Application (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168504]). The expected range developed for performance confirmation purposes will be 
developed considering (1) allowance for natural or measurement related variability, 
(2) expectations of the technical measurements (data quality objectives), (3) performance 
assessment results remain acceptable for values within the limits, and (4) substantial margins are 
maintained between condition limits and values representing design criteria, or significantly 
influencing determinations of barrier functionality or compliance with performance objectives. 
The condition limits will be developed from a scientific judgment of variance, yet still within a 
range that provides model results demonstrative of compliance with performance objectives. 
The condition limit will be the value that activates further evaluation, including probable NRC 
notification. The condition limits will be defined during the planning phase of a data collection 
activity based in part on a parameters importance to performance and a technical evaluation of 
the data. Condition limits for parameters will be discussed and defined in the PC Test Plan for 
each monitoring or measurement activity. Each PC Test Plan will define the appropriate 
sampling, monitoring, testing, or reporting frequency depending on the specific parameter needs. 
PC Test Plans will set decision rules and responses. These rules and responses comprise an 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-5 November 2004 

Figure 4-2. Expected Range and Condition Limits 
evaluation of conditional statements that specify the following criteria: (1) how the sample data 
will be compared to the condition limit, (2) which decision will be made as a result of that 
comparison, and (3) what subsequent action will be taken based on decisions. These criteria 
essentially derive from test expectations and are predicated on the governing technical 
difficulties (time, space, accuracy, etc.) embodied in the particular activity or test. 
Condition limits are conservative because they may impact repository performance but are set 
below the point at which environmental damage or barrier degradation is anticipated. For some 
parameters, exceedance in one direction may be adverse, while it would be advantageous in the 
other. For other parameters, exceedance in either direction could have potentially adverse 
impacts on repository performance. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-6 November 2004 

Test Parameters and Test MethodsAs previously discussed in Section 1.3.1, an eight-stage 
approach has been adopted for selection of test parameters and test methods. This section 
discusses Stage 2, predict performance and establish a baseline; Stage 3, establish bounds and 
tolerances for key parameters; Stage 7, analyze and evaluate data; and Stage 8, recommends 
corrective action in the case of variance. Because of the complex and possibly highly nonlinear 
nature of performance assessment, Stages 3 and 7 are difficult to address in isolation. These 
steps are discussed together in this section. The initial selection of the performance confirmation 
parameters (Stage 1) has been completed and is presented in Table 1-1). This initial selection of 
test parameters and test methods will be reassessed after update of the TSPA-LA. 
Baseline Information DevelopmentThe next step (Stage 2) in the implementation of the 
performance confirmation process is to define the baseline using the performance assessments 
from the License Application. The information is then used to define the details of each 
performance confirmation experimental investigation. PC Test Plans will be developed for each 
activity or group of activities. Baseline information (i.e., the ranges of existing data and model 
validity ranges) for parameters will be presented in those plans. Test completion criteria and 
variance criteria will be developed and described. 
Data and findings from the performance confirmation program will be analyzed and reduced as 
necessary and compared to the corresponding baseline information. The initial comparison will 
be based on statistical tests of the raw data to determine if the new data might not be from the 
same population as the baseline information. If a statistically significant difference exists 
between the parameter measurements and the baseline information, then an evaluation of the 
impact on performance will be made. Performance assessment and barrier analyses will be used 
to develop applicable condition limits and descriptions of expected trends for those parameters 
that impact performance (the following Sections 4.2 and 4.3 provide a more detailed discussion). 
For activities or parameters intended to confirm that design specifications have been met, 
comparison with design bases specifications will be performed. 
4.1 PERFORMANCE BASELINE INFORMATION 
4.1.1 Baseline 
To assess the impact of newly acquired data and information on the performance evaluations 
used in the licensing review, a performance confirmation baseline will be identified with pointers 
to data and assumptions used. For the first performance confirmation iteration, as discussed in 
this plan, the initial baseline information will be derived from information contained in 
calculations, process model analysis reports, and TSPA-LA. Performance assessment model 
input parameters (excluding simulation settings and TSPA system parameters which are outside 
the performance confirmation program) are found in the TSPA Input Database (which will be 
provided as upcoming in TSPA-LA model document (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168504])) along with 
links to the source documentation. The additional (upstream) parameter data used as inputs to 
analyses and models to generate the direct inputs to the License Application will be added to the 
baseline to facilitate evaluation of the specific measured parameters. Descriptions of what 
constitutes the baseline information for each parameter will be documented in the PC Test Plans 
developed for specific parameters or groups of parameters. For geotechnical and design 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-7 November 2004 

parameters, the baseline information is determined using analytical or statistical methods as 
reported in the source documentation. 
4.1.2 Data Categories 
Within the performance confirmation program, there are three categories of data that may be 
provided by each activity. The first consists of data values and distributions required by 
performance assessment, such as geophysical data of densities, distribution coefficients, porosity, 
and thermal capacity. These data are analyzed in reports to generate input data or distributions 
of such data for use by performance. Some of these analyses are relatively straightforward such 
as deriving a distribution for rock density in a particular unit. Others may be complex such as 
the generation of the saturated zone breakthrough curves as a function of physical parameters 
such as sorption coefficients, colloid concentration, colloid retardation factor, diffusion 
coefficient, effective porosity, and horizontal anisotropy. 
The second category is generated by tests producing results that are used to evaluate the results 
from individual process models. These are the models used to derive parameters (i.e., model 
abstractions) used in performance assessment. Parametric studies (temperature, pH, salinity) for 
the laboratory and in situ corrosion test data as well as the time evolution data (rock temperature 
and moisture content) captured in the thermally accelerated drift fall into this category. 
The third category consists of data associated with processes not numerically modeled in 
performance assessment but which are included by assumption. Examples of such assumptions 
are the focusing of infiltration seepage onto a limited number of waste packages and the 
effectiveness of borehole and shaft seals in preventing increase in predicted seepage into the 
emplacement drifts. 
4.1.3 Performance Confirmation Activities and Parameters 
Table 3-2 provides a crosswalk between parameters and the proposed activities. For each 
activity the table gives a brief summary of the parameter(s) to be measured along with an 
objective of the activity. The next column of the table defines the purpose of the activity in 
terms of how the data are to be used in the categories mentioned above. The last column of the 
table lists a reference to Section 3 where preliminary baseline information sources are described 
for each activity. 
Baseline Information LocationsThe direct input data (parameter values including variability 
and uncertainty distributions) used in TSPA are controlled and readily available. The details of 
models and abstractions used in performance assessment exist in supporting analysis and model 
reports where model specific parameters are defined. These supporting modeling and analysis 
documents will provide parametric ranges over which the individual models are valid along with 
other model or data limitations that could cause parameter validity to be questioned. 
Performance confirmation items for which performance assessment made assumptions will be 
identified and included in the baseline information. 
Baseline Information UpdatesTotal System Performance Assessment-License Application 
Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]) lists a large number of parameters that were 
expected to be used by TSPA and about 300 of these parameters are distributions rather than 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-8 November 2004 

single values. Where employed, the distributions reflect the uncertainty and/or variability in the 
parameter. 
The results of sensitivity and uncertainty studies and the various process models and abstractions 
will be used to identify process models and data sets that have a potential to significantly affect 
the postclosure performance assessment predictions if they are changed. These studies will 
provide insight into the analysis required to determining what margin is available for changes in 
the input data before performance assessment predictions are significantly affected. 
4.2 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 
4.2.1 Impact on Postclosure Performance Assessments 
Direct Input DataThe process of determining whether new data or information has an impact 
on reported postclosure performance assessments depends on the type of performance 
confirmation activity. Data that are used directly in the performance assessment models are the 
most readily assessed, because they are amenable to direct comparisons. 
Indirect Input DataThe second group of activities is comprised of those experiments 
conducted in the laboratory where data are taken as a function of environmental parameters 
(e.g., pH, Eh, temperature) or conducted as part of the thermally accelerated drift test. These 
measured data will require additional processing before a meaningful comparison can be made to 
the baseline information or supporting process model. 
AssumptionsThis category of measurements includes activities that provide data on an aspect 
of the repository for which assumptions were made in developing the performance assessment 
models. As examples, the hydraulic and transport properties of alluvium are a broad range based 
on similar materials found elsewhere as well as laboratory batch and column tests. The 
hypothesis is that alluvium, under normal circumstances can enhance performance. Because of 
the uncertainty in the length of the flow path in alluvium and the true range of hydraulic and 
transport properties of the alluvium in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, the program uses a 
conservative range to simulate these conditions, which leads to an increase in uncertainly in 
these parameters. The confirmatory testing to be done in the alluvium is needed because the 
saturated zone flow model is sensitive to hydraulic and transport properties. Since there are few 
in situ measurements to date, the results will be used to evaluate if the properties at this specific 
presumed representative location are within the bounds used in subsystem performance. 
Data Impact AnalysisWhen repository construction begins, performance confirmation will, on 
a continuing basis, compare the actual preemplacement subsurface conditions with those used in 
the performance assessment and in the design assumptions. Differences will be assessed for 
degree of impact on the License Application performance assessment. Findings will be 
documented and significant adverse trends will be reported as described in Section 4.3. The 
comparison process will continue after the start of waste emplacement, when thermal, 
mechanical, and chemical measurements will be initiated. This phase of performance 
confirmation measurements will continue until a license amendment to close is granted. The 
following sections provide further discussions on the analysis process. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-9 November 2004 

4.2.2 Addressing Unexpected Conditions 
Condition ReportingThe performance confirmation program is designed to detect parameters 
that deviate from an expected range of values. Predicting long-term performance for the 
repository at Yucca Mountain is a complex project, so that some deviations from expectations 
will probably occur. A logical pathway to document, track, and manage deviations significant to 
performance evaluations starts with recording the condition in the Corrective Action Program per 
AP-16.1Q, Condition Reporting and Resolution ([DIRS 168504]) followed by evaluations 
detailed in PC Test Plans. 
Initial internal reporting of conditions will be done in the Corrective Action Program system. 
PC Test Plans will describe, for each parameter, what constitutes an observation (the 
representative value at a particular period), what are predicted acceptable values (those that 
would not be expected to cause performance to change), what are the expected ranges, expected 
distributions, condition limits, and identification of potentially adverse trends. 
Through routine reporting, NRC would be kept current on progress of performance confirmation 
activities and their evaluations. The maturation of the collection and evaluation of data will be 
systematic. A protocol of standard reporting format and interval will be established with the 
NRC. Thus, the performance confirmation program will be subject to formal reporting in 
advance of discovery of conditions that differ from those assumed in the License Application. 
The reporting protocol would call attention to situations such as values outside of the condition 
limits. Along with NRC notification and evaluation(s) of the cause of the exceedance, an 
assessment of the potential significance of the deviation and determination of possible corrective 
actions will be conducted. 
For parameters not used in performance assessment models, comparisons with design bases, 
assumptions, or qualitative barrier capability assessments may require subject matter experts (see 
performance confirmation integration group discussion in Section 1.5.2) to set the expected 
range and condition limits. In cases where the evaluation process requires sampling over time, it 
is possible to observe the time evolution of estimated parameter values and associated 
uncertainty bands. The time series of reduced data can be analyzed to determine whether there is 
evidence of a trend that, if it were to continue, would eventually challenge assumptions 
supporting the License Application and/or adversely impact repository operations. If such a 
trend is identified, action should be initiated to evaluate possible consequences. 
Influence of Data Accuracy on Condition ReportingParameters to be monitored under 
performance confirmation will require varying degrees of accuracy and precision to support 
decision-making. The appropriate metric should be whether significant deviations important to 
evaluating assumptions used in the licensing basis have been detected. Requiring unnecessary 
accuracy or precision or evaluating bias within expected ranges may be misleading regarding the 
importance of the parameter. PC Test Plans will provide the rationale for how each parameter 
will be treated, and when conditions are outside of expectations and need to be reported in the 
Corrective Action Program system. 
An example would be where the expected range is not exceeded, but a potentially adverse trend 
is identified. In this example, the action would be to analyze statistically significant adverse 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-10 November 2004 

trends to determine if they represent conditions that require a change in operations or a corrective 
action prior to closure. The approach is intended to facilitate structured, risk-informed, 
performance-based decisions and actions that are commensurate with the performance 
significance (possible impact on performance at some future time). The Project will continue to 
refine its process as experience is gained with the performance confirmation and operations 
programs and improved performance and risk analysis tools become available. 
4.2.3 Data Reduction and Data Categories 
For tests where the parameter measured is a direct input (1st category) to the performance 
assessment after statistical analysis, the basic data will be reported along with a variability and 
uncertainty assessment. Data that are not used directly (2nd category) in the performance 
assessment, but are used to generate performance assessment inputs, will need a more detailed 
analysis. Laboratory corrosion testing is one example where corrosion rates are measured as a 
function of several fixed parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, salinity, Eh). For use in the 
performance assessment predictions, these data must be reduced to a multidimensional 
representation (e.g., a response surface or other abstraction). Another example is that of drift 
scale corrosion testing in which the multiple parameters evolve over time in accordance with 
local conditions driven by the applied thermal loading. In the former case, the monitored data 
must be translated into a usable abstraction for use in the performance assessment. In the latter 
case, the corrosion process model must be exercised with the baseline information for 
comparison with the experimental results. Both analyses must assess the variability and 
uncertainty of the data and propagate the uncertainty to the desired input used by performance 
assessment. For data included by assumption (3rd category) these assumptions may be reviewed 
in conjunction with the other data reviews discussed above. 
4.2.4 Comparisons of Parameter Measurements with the Performance Assessment 
Prediction Baseline Information 
Preliminary AnalysisIn general, the analysis process for each data set involves two steps. In 
cases where data are being gathered incrementally over varying time steps for a long total period, 
the following two-step process will be executed as new data becomes available. The first step 
will be to determine whether there is statistically significant reason (to a defined confidence 
level) to regard the new data as being sampled from a different parent distribution (or statistical 
population) than from those in the baseline information. This step also evaluates the 
representativeness of the new data. In some cases, cyclical behavior may be expected. In those 
cases, short datasets may only represent a partial subset of the parameter population being 
evaluated and could lead to a false acceptance of the null hypothesis when none actually exists in 
a longer record. If the first step indicates a reason to believe that the parameter measurements 
differ from the performance assessment baseline information, then the second step is to evaluate 
the performance predictions changes from those made with the baseline information. 
Detailed Analysis TechniquesThe implementation details of this process depend on three 
categories of data collection: in the performance confirmation program (direct input data), data 
comparable to performance assessment results (indirect data), and data that quantify processes 
not modeled in the TSPA (assumptions). Activities may include preliminary data analysis, 
statistical, and judgment informed evaluations. Some of the preliminary data analysis tasks 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-11 November 2004 

include reducing false precision from raw data measurements, combining or separating old and 
new datasets, testing for outliers, evaluating extreme data values, summarizing and graphical 
presentation and distribution plotting. 
Routine statistical activities that may apply to specific parameters include standard statistics, 
goodness of fit tests, identifying geospatial and temporal trends, evaluating stoichiometric 
(geochemical) correlations and other approaches appropriate to geospatial data. For 
better-understood and less uncertain parameters, it may be appropriate to apply control plot 
methods. Judgment-informed evaluations might include evaluations of error, accuracy, 
precision, and complex models. Treatment of these three categories is discussed below. 
4.2.4.1 Direct Input Data 
Data that are generated to evaluate equivalent data in the performance assessment baseline will 
directly follow the two-step process previously discussed. A statistical test will be conducted to 
determine whether or not the new data and the data used in the performance assessment come 
from the same distribution (1st case). The statistical tests will be structured so as to reduce to 
acceptable levels the chance of claiming the two data sets are the same, when in reality they are 
different. 
If the statistical test indicates that the new data are from a different distribution (2nd case) than 
assumed in the performance assessment baseline information, then further investigations will be 
needed to quantify the effect of the new data on performance assessment predictions. New 
significantly different data for a particular parameter may cause the performance assessment 
predictions to be reduced or increased. The former case (1st case) data from the same 
distribution) could result if the parameter measurements more accurately define an input 
parameters range such that extreme values of the parameter are no longer sampled in the 
stochastic performance assessment. An example of the latter (2nd case) is when the new data 
distribution provides parametric values that fall outside the region of validity of the process 
model developed for performance assessment. If the analysis of the parameter measurements is 
confirmed, then the impact evaluation will require a new performance assessment evaluation 
with an improved process model to accommodate the new data distribution, and could potentially 
result in predicted performance outside the regulatory limits. 
For parameters that have values within the range of validity of the process model, an estimate of 
the distribution change impact in input data can be obtained from the TSPA-LA performance 
assessment sensitivity studies. These studies will be used to identify the change in performance 
assessment results as a function of input parameter value changes. Because of the complex 
interrelationships between performance assessment processes, the statistical noise from the 
simultaneous sampling of other input parameters may necessitate performing a sensitivity study 
over partial ranges of the parameter total range. This process should provide a first estimate of 
the new data impact. If this analysis provides significant doubt on the impact, then the 
corresponding performance assessment model should be run with the new data distribution. The 
rerun should have the same random number seed for starting the stochastic computations, and 
should generate the same sets of sampled parameters in order to minimize sampling variations 
between the two runs. The outcome of this exercise should be a recommended action reflecting 
the anticipated magnitude of the change in performance assessment predictions. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-12 November 2004 

4.2.4.2 Indirect Data (Comparisons with Model Predictions) 
Test ClassesThose tests that monitor parameters as they evolve in the thermally accelerated 
drift test, and those that measure parameters as a function of multiple independent variables 
require a more complex analytic approach. Laboratory tests are to be conducted to better 
quantify the influence of environmental variables on parameters required for the performance 
assessment. These tests are generally used to support a particular process model. Those tests to 
be conducted in thermally accelerated drifts are conducted in an environment that is 
representative of those anticipated in the repository, but do not provide the test operator control 
over the evolution of the environmental parameters. With many parameters varying over time, it 
is difficult to quantify the influence of each parameter on the process being studied. However, 
the two classes of test provide data that can be used to evaluate the performance of one or more 
process models and quantify model uncertainty in performance assessment predictions using the 
baseline. 
Laboratory TestsFor the laboratory tests, the starting point for the initial new data impact 
evaluation is the documentation of the pretest predictions and the existing database used for 
TSPA-LA. Statistical tests will be performed to determine whether there are significant 
differences between prediction and observation. If there is justifiable reason to believe the 
process model is not an adequate representation of reality, then the process model may need to 
be reviewed. 
Thermally Accelerated Drift TestsTests in the thermally accelerated drifts provide a more 
complete set of measurements on the time evolution of many temperature (or temperature 
history) dependant parameters. The thermal loading and measured material properties will allow 
results from several process models to be evaluated. Again, comparison of predictions for in situ 
measurements should provide an ongoing indication of whether the process models implemented 
in the performance assessment could be assessed as functioning correctly. If there is an 
indication that a particular process model is making invalid predictions that would lead to an 
increase in the predicted annual dose, the process model may need to be reviewed to decide what 
path forward is warranted. 
4.2.4.3 Comparisons with Model Assumptions 
As examples of evaluating assumptions, the hydraulic and transport properties of alluvium are a 
broad range based on similar materials found at other locations as well as laboratory batch and 
column tests. The hypothesis is that alluvium, under normal circumstances can enhance 
performance. Because of the uncertainty in the length of the flow path in alluvium and the true 
range of hydraulic and transport properties of the alluvium in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, an 
assumed range is used to simulate these conditions. This leads to increased uncertainly in these 
parameters. The testing is done in the alluvium because the saturated zone flow model is 
sensitive to hydraulic and transport properties, but since there are few in situ measurements to 
date, a wide range(s) has been used in evaluating subsystem performance. Results are expected 
to confirm that the properties at this specific presumed representative location lie within the 
expected range used in models. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-13 November 2004 

Borehole and shaft closure is another example. The TSPA does not model the effect of these 
openings. Rather, the TSPA makes the implicit assumption that these openings can be 
effectively sealed such that there is no degradation in properties expected from that of the 
pristine rock. If testing and modeling reveals a significant performance difference (rate of water 
ingress to the Engineered Barrier System) between the seals and the parent rock, then the impact 
of these differences on performance assessment predictions may need to be evaluated after the 
test design and implementation methods are scrutinized. Alternatively, the seals could be 
redesigned and retested. 
4.2.5 Iterative Performance Evaluation 
The performance confirmation program has many independent activities running concurrently 
over many years. As time evolves, there will be a stream of new data and information becoming 
available that will continuously improve the knowledge of parameters, assumptions, and process 
models. As the overall system model, as well as each model for the individual barriers, is 
dependent in a complex manner upon multiple inputs, each subject to variability and uncertainty, 
a dynamic approach to determining performance confirmation sensitivities has to be employed. 
With some parameters better defined than others, the sensitivity of predictions to changes in 
another parameter evolves with time. Periodically it will be necessary to reevaluate the baseline 
predictions and recalculate the expected range that defines acceptable performance. The DOE 
also expects to review periodically the need to exercise the whole TSPA model to evaluate the 
cumulative effects of new information. Studies will be undertaken to provide a metric for when 
this renormalization of prediction is required. 
4.3 TREND DETECTION, ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING 
The following sections provide a preliminary discussion of performance confirmation program 
actions for: identifying data and performance trends; analyses required of such identified trends; 
the proposed two tier reporting approach; and the potential corrective actions for consideration. 
4.3.1 Notification of Conditions 
Condition Recording and ReportingA logical pathway to determine whether deviations are 
significant to performance starts with recording the condition in the Corrective Action Program 
as described in AP-16.1Q ([DIRS 168504]) followed by evaluations detailed in PC Test Plans as 
described in Section 4.2.2. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 present simplified conceptual flowcharts of the 
processes. 
Many of the conditions refer to construction or operational programs. Recording and reporting 
under those programs is covered by descriptions of those programs. DOE will be sensitive to 
results and reports from construction, operation and other testing programs and evaluate the 
impact of those results and condition reports on the performance confirmation program (see 
Section 4.3.2). 
Use of Other DOE Program MethodsAlthough DOE Environmental Management Programs 
focus on remediation of legacy sites, some of the monitoring technologies and analytical tools 
employed by those programs may be appropriate to performance confirmation activities at Yucca 
Mountain. Examples of documents that could be evaluated for appropriate analogous 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-14 November 2004 

methodologies may include: Requirements-Based Surveillance and Maintenance Review Guide 
(DOE 1997 [DIRS 170250]), EM Corporate Data Collection Guidance for the Interim Data 
Management System (IDMS) and the Analysis and Visualization System (AVS) (DOE 1999 
[DIRS 170252]), Decision-Making Framework Guide for the Evaluation and Selection of 
Monitored Natural Attenuation Remedies at Department of Energy Sites (DOE 1999 
[DIRS 170253]), Technical Guidance for the Long-Term Monitoring of Natural Attenuation 
Remedies at Department of Energy Sites (DOE 1999 [DIRS 170254]), and Guidance for 
Optimizing Ground Water Response Actions at Department of Energy Sites (DOE 2002 
[DIRS 170255]). 
Use of Industry MethodsFor those parameters that have estimated normal distributions (or 
transformed mathematically to normal), industry standards such as ASTM D 6250 2003, 
Standard Practice for Derivation of Decision Point and Confidence Limit for Statistical Testing 
of Mean Concentration in Waste Management Decisions ([DIRS 170142]) and statistical 
methods appropriate to specific media such as: Statistical Methods for Groundwater Monitoring 
(Gibbons 1994 [DIRS 170143]) may be an example of methodologies that apply. In the 
American Society for Testing and Materials method, a direct comparison of the sample mean 
(using multiple observations to develop a representative mean) is done against the decision point. 
A decision point (or condition limit) in the context of performance confirmation is the numerical 
value that causes a decision-maker to choose one of the alternative actions (e.g., conclusion of 
compliance or noncompliance). The decision point (or condition limit) is defined during the 
planning phase of a data collection activity (in this case based on that parameters importance to 
performance), it is not calculated from the sampling data. Condition limits for parameters will 
be identified in the PC Test Plan for that activity. 
NRC NotificationThe NRC will be notified promptly whenever new data are found that results 
that significantly differ from the expected range in a direction that would indicate possible 
adverse impact to annual dose or a trend in data are found that, through time, could develop into 
a condition that is significantly different than the established performance predictions or the 
documented design basis. The data evaluation report will provide details to the NRC about the 
comparison of performance confirmation test data with the data used in the performance 
assessment predictions. 
4.3.2 Evaluation of Conditions 
Evaluation TechniquesAs previously discussed, evaluation or sensitivity analyses will be 
conducted for observed conditions using the appropriate model (i.e., statistical, process or total 
system) to determine whether there is a significant impact on the repository performance with 
respect to regulatory limits. 
If a condition limit is reached, the predetermined decision rule will be applied. Figure 4-1 
provides an example flow chart of the evaluation process to determine what actions are required. 
In the case of adverse variances or deviations, DOE will notify NRC. In both adverse and 
unexpected but potentially favorable conditions, a condition report is entered into the Corrective 
Action Program system and followed with a consequence assessment. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-15 November 2004 

Some changes in parameter distributions from performance confirmation activities may result in 
improvements in predicted performance. The magnitude of the favorable impacts will then be 
used to determine the type of corrective action required. Based on condition limits, after a 
favorable condition has been evaluated, details and results of this evaluation will also be reported 
to the NRC (as a follow-up to initial notification). 
4.3.3 Evaluation of Trends 
Trend DefinitionThe first step in determining if a statistically significant trend exists is to test 
the hypothesis of there not being a trend (i.e., there is no reason to believe the new data differ 
from the previous data). If this hypothesis is rejected then the next step is to fit a trend line 
model to the set of indicator data and assess the goodness of the fit. Deciding which model is the 
best to fit can be accomplished by using some common regression techniques. The regression 
model that yields the best fit is selected as the trend line model for the data set. It should be 
noted that this is the only step required to assess whether statistically significant trends exist in 
parameters, since the slope of the trend line determines whether the statistically fit trend line is 
adverse. 
Trend SensitivityIn some cases, especially with parameters that have measurement uncertainty 
and show very little incremental change, but are very important to demonstrate performance, a 
trend line may not be a sensitive enough tool to recognize changes in the most recent data. 
Stated differently, would a single point that is an outlier constitute a trend? The exact answer to 
this question would be determined by a combination of statistical testing and qualitative analysis, 
and the answer would likely differ for each of the different parameters. The statistical 
methodologies selected to evaluate each parameter or set of parameters should be capable of 
raising a warning flag based on the degree of deviation from the trend line or other objective 
model. If a warning flag is raised, additional emphasis will focus attention on the particular 
parameter. 
Trend IdentificationPrediction limits provide a reasonable way to assign condition limits and 
decide if a future abrupt increase in a parameter is of sufficient magnitude to conclude that it is 
statistically significant. In other words, if the historical data with regression methods are 
modeled, and if future behavior is consistent with past behavior, then it is possible to compute an 
upper limit that will contain a future value of the dependent variable with a specified degree of 
confidence (i.e., 95 percent). If the following periods observed result exceeds this limit, then 
one might conclude that a statistically significant adverse change has occurred. 
Trend EvaluationOnce a potential adverse trend is identified, an initial analysis of information 
readily available in the baseline would be used to determine whether the trend is unduly 
influenced by a small number of outliers and to identify contributing factors. If the trend is the 
result of outliers, then it will not be considered a trend requiring corrective actions, but the 
testing and measurement procedure will be evaluated in relation to the parameters importance to 
confirmation of performance to determine if another method or system may be better suited to 
monitoring. If the outliers are caused by cyclic components, a modification of sampling 
frequency may be recommended. If no outliers are identified, broader investigations will be 
conducted to assess whether a larger set of unmonitored or poorly constrained parameters may be 
contributing to the trend, and to assess contributing factors and causes. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-16 November 2004 

Evaluation of Trend SignificanceOnce this information is reviewed, the Project will assess the 
performance significance of the underlying issues. Trends in individual parameters must be 
considered in the larger context of their overall risk significance. For example, a hypothetical 
systematic increase in the estimate of the drip shield corrosion rate distribution from a mean 
value of Y to Z over several years may be a statistically significant trend in an adverse direction. 
However, it may not represent a significant increase in overall risk since the contribution of that 
parameter is relatively low, and it is possible that overall risk may actually have declined if there 
were reductions in the frequency of more risk significant initiating events or the reliability and 
availability of performance systems had improved. 
4.3.4 Potential Corrective Actions 
The recommended corrective action for a given set of data will be based on a combination of the 
potential adverse effects and the probability of those conditions actually being present (i.e., risk 
based). Condition limits for each parameter will be developed from barrier capability analyses 
or performance assessment sensitivity evaluations, and identified in the PC Test Plans. If the 
new data indicate that there is a small probability that the mean performance assessment 
predictions would increase by even a minimal amount, then this finding will be reported with a 
recommendation that no action be taken. However, if a new data set is developed and the 
resultant input data change could cause a significant change in performance assessment response 
(that is, exceeds a predetermined condition limit or shows an unexpected trend that may cause a 
condition limit to be exceeded at some future time), then the original data will be subject to a 
detailed review, report, and possible action. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-17 November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 4-18 November 2004 

5. TEST PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Whereas the previous section described the approach to the development and handling of the 
performance confirmation program baseline information, this section will describe how the 
program of activities will be implemented in the laboratory and the field through test planning 
and implementing documents. New implementing procedures will be developed to cover 
performance confirmation identification and notification processes. This section describes the 
process by which the PC Test Plans will be developed and their content. It acknowledges that a 
process, based on Figure 4-1 and the discussion in Section 1.6, will be required, developed, and 
implemented through the PC Test Plans for notification protocol if variances from the parameter 
values are outside expected ranges. The section also provides the plans for management 
structure and interfaces for field implementation of the activities. A table is provided to 
summarize the list of activities conducted or initiated during site characterization, that are 
comparable to identified performance confirmation activities, with a reference to governing 
technical work plans, scientific investigation test plans, and field work packages, and a brief 
description of the performance confirmation work conducted during site characterization. 
Further details regarding the schedule and timing of individual activities was provided in the 
description of the activities in Section 3 and provided in Section 6 in a broader context. 
5.1 GENERAL 
The processes involved in planning and implementing performance confirmation testing 
activities, through PC Test Plans and the underlying processes, in compliance with the Quality 
Assurance Requirements and Description (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171386]) and Augmented Quality 
Assurance Program (AQAP) (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171341]), are presented below. 
Performance confirmation testing and monitoring activities will be conducted in accordance with 
appropriate technical, safety, environmental, and quality procedures. 
The planning process for performance confirmation activities will be adapted to include 
information directly applicable to performance confirmation, for example, baseline information, 
variance criteria, and the process followed if the measurements are outside the preestablished 
expectations, including the NRC notification criteria. In addition, emphasis will be given to 
instrumentation selection, maintenance, reliability, and calibration when considering that many 
of these tests will be in locations not easily accessible or underway for long periods of times. As 
with all testing and monitoring activities, each performance confirmation activity is evaluated to 
assess relevance to: worker safety; waste isolation impacts due to test construction, performance 
confirmation activities or both; potential interactions between independent activities; and 
potential interactions between repository construction activities and performance confirmation 
activities. 
To implement the performance confirmation testing program, a single organization will be 
designated as the lead. This organization will be responsible for the maintenance of the 
Performance Confirmation Plan, development of the PC Test Plans, interfacing with TSPA and 
process model teams for establishing limits and ranges on parameters, interfacing with the test 
implementation and field test coordination organization to ensure the monitoring and testing 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-1 November 2004 

efforts are accomplished, and for developing notification and general reporting processes. 
Management will: 
 Select personnel with appropriate qualifications to conduct and manage performance 
confirmation activities 
 Ensure that personnel have completed necessary indoctrination and training in 
accordance with AP-2.1Q, Personnel Training and Qualifications ([DIRS 170114]) 
 Ensure that personnel conduct the activities in accordance with the procedures necessary 
to properly control their work. When sufficient procedures do not exist for controlling 
the work, management will ensure that new procedures or revisions to existing 
procedures are prepared and approved. 
Resources necessary to implement the performance confirmation program will be identified and 
captured in the Multiyear Planning system. 
5.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE CONFIRMATION ACTIVITIES 
The process for performing performance confirmation activities requires both planning and 
implementing documents and reports on monitoring results. This process will be similar to the 
one used for site characterization utilizing a multi-tier planning process, implemented by 
technical procedures and other work control documents as described in more detail in 
Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Figure 5-1 shows the hierarchy of planning and procedural documents 
relevant to implementation of performance confirmation testing and examples of the general 
procedures required for testing programs (e.g., environmental, safety and health; sampling; and 
personnel qualifications). 
5.2.1 Experiment Design for Performance Confirmation 
The performance confirmation program focuses attention on those areas where model 
uncertainties or assumptions could have a significant impact on performance assessment 
predictions. The data and assumptions used in the License Applications performance 
predictions are the initial basis of performance confirmation baseline information to translate 
barrier capability or performance assessment input parameters into performance confirmation 
measurable parameters. The input and intermediate vectors (i.e., calculated internally in the 
performance assessment model) along with attendant sensitivity studies allow evaluation of the 
relative importance of the uncertainties in parameter values, ranges, and distributions. Thus, 
modification of the Performance Confirmation Plan will refine the baseline and will be 
performed after the License Application is submitted. It will be based on the performance 
assessment computer simulations and the documented assumptions to ensure that the most recent 
model understanding and implementations are captured. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-2 November 2004 

Sources: 10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605], YMRP NUREG-1804 [DIRS 163274], LP-OM-070-BSC [DIRS 170704], 
AP-EM-010 [DIRS 167728], LP-ESH-019-BSC [DIRS 170072], AP-16.1Q [DIRS 168504], 
LP-SMF-002Q-BSC [DIRS 172199], AP-SV-1Q [DIRS 168938], AP-12.1Q [DIRS 170701], 
LP-2.13Q-OCRWM [DIRS 170114], AP-5.2Q [DIRS 168667], AP-SIII.1Q [DIRS 165688], LP-2.23Q-BSC 
[DIRS 170703] 
Figure 5-1. Planning and Procedural Document Hierarchy Relevant to Performance Confirmation 
Testing Implementation 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-3 November 2004 

The experiment design and analysis teams for the performance confirmation activities will be 
assembled from subject matter experts of the required disciplines. The subject matter experts 
will review each of the proposed activities (as previously given in Section 3) in the context of the 
performance assessment results and sensitivity studies to identify those parameter value ranges 
and distributions important to performance confirmation. 
The PC Test Plans will describe the monitoring, testing, and collection of data, including the 
methods for analyzing and evaluating the information. They will also establish bounds and 
tolerances for parameters, test completion criteria, and develop criteria for constructing and 
installing the performance confirmation program activities. Test plans will contain variance 
conditions, required actions, and completion times for reacting to measurements or observations 
that are at variance with expectations. 
Individual parameters require different sampling and instrumentation methods depending on how 
that parameter is expected to react to change. If temporal impacts from construction, operations, 
or natural variations are significant, then parameters may be monitored as a time series. The 
magnitude of the variation may not be enough during the period of performance confirmation to 
impact performance, but a trend extended over a very long period and under different climate 
and thermal scenarios may. The design of the testing evaluates how trends, in such cases, will be 
detected and analyzed. A sequence of observations is influenced by three separate 
components: (1) a trend or long-term component, (2) cyclical or oscillation functions about the 
trend, and (3) a random or irregular component. The PC Test Plans should address how each of 
these potential components will be handled and how sensitive performance would be to 
unexpected results in the components. 
Activities that will be used, as appropriate, to evaluate parameters (observations, sets of 
observations, or distributions) include preliminary data analysis, statistical analysis, process 
models, performance assessment subsystem models, and judgment informed evaluations 
(see Section 4.2). In addition, as appropriate to a specific set of parameters, industry standard 
methods, such as ASTM D 6250, 2003, Standard Practice for Derivation of Decision Point and 
Confidence Limit for Statistical Testing of Mean Concentration in Waste Management Decisions 
([DIRS 170142]) may be used to set decision points (similar to condition limits in this plan), 
decision rules, and the confidence limits. Decision rules and decision points may also apply to 
observed trends. This will not be required for all cases, but only for activities requiring some 
additional criteria and decision methods. For geostatistical data and non-normal distributions (or 
potentially distribution-free variables), other tests that do not depend on normal or transformed 
normal (e.g., log-normal) distributions may apply. Definition of evaluations of this type belong 
in the PC Test Plan as it is very parameter specific especially depending on what range of values 
may be considered as impacting annual dose or design. The PC Test Plans will specify how the 
monitoring, testing and experimental methods will be suitable for individual parameters in terms 
of time, space, resolution, and technique. Instrument reliability and replacement requirements 
are considered in the design of the testing program. The analyses on which these evaluations are 
based will be documented in accordance with the quality assurance process. 
As an example of the kind of statistical testing that may apply to some normally distributed 
parameter measurements, based on ASTM 6250 [DIRS 170142] above, the PC Test Plan must 
state the problem and a decision rule. A decision rule is a set of directions in the form of a 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-4 November 2004 

conditional statement that specify the following: (1) how the sample data will be compared to 
the decision point, (2) which decision will be made as a result of that comparison, and (3) what 
subsequent action will be taken based on decisions. A decision point can then be established. 
A decision point, in the context of performance confirmation, is the numerical value or trend that 
causes a decision-maker to choose predefined alternative actions. The decision point is defined 
during the planning phase of a data collection activity (in this case based on that parameters 
importance to performance); it is not calculated from the sampling data. 
Activities that are considered in performance confirmation and focus on parameters that are 
sensitive to experimental boundary conditions and predictions based on performance assessment 
inputs will be included in the detailed PC Test Plan. The predictions will be part of the 
experiment optimization process. The performance assessment models will be used, as 
appropriate, to make pretest predictions of the experimental results. These predictions will be 
reported in the detailed PC Test Plans developed under applicable procedures. 
5.2.2 Test Planning for Performance Confirmation 
Performance confirmation test planning documents are developed to address requirements in the 
Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171386]). Currently, as 
required for site characterization, technical work plans are developed in accordance with 
AP-2.27Q, Planning for Science Activities ([DIRS 172108]), and contain information sufficient 
to describe the products supported by the test, the purpose and objectives of the test, the 
definition of the work scope, the applicability of quality assurance controls, an explanation of the 
scientific approach and technical methods, interface controls, and a list of mandatory hold points. 
A technical work plan is written for testing activities that require data collection or test apparatus 
configuration and subsequent observation or measurement that collect data known to support 
Project quality affecting work elements. 
To plan performance confirmation testing and monitoring activities, AP-2.27Q ([DIRS 172108]) 
will be revised or another similar procedure developed that contains the elements listed below. 
Unlike during site characterization, the planning process for performance confirmation will need 
to account for specific parameter identification, expected ranges, variance limits, and the 
resulting reporting requirements. Therefore, at the appropriate stage of the Project, the 
performance confirmation planning processes will be controlled. For the purposes of this plan, 
the resulting planning documents will be referred to as PC Test Plans. Current science 
investigation test plans (written under the now decontrolled AP-SIII.7Q, Scientific Investigation 
Laboratory and Field Testing ([DIRS 159295])) and technical work plans that are identified as 
performance confirmation activities will be transitioned to PC Test Plans. PC Test Plans for 
those activities already begun during site characterization will be developed first, followed by 
planning for activities in later stages of the Project, according to a schedule commensurate with 
their need. Section 6 discusses schedule and provides an overview of the specific timing of the 
performance confirmation program. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-5 November 2004 

The PC Test Plans will specify, as appropriate, the following: 
 List of parameters to be measured 
 Definition of each test parameter, including the basis for parameter selection 
 Test methodology 
 Equipment and instrumentation requirements, including reliability and replacement 
 Planned tracers, fluids, and materials usage 
 Environmental, safety and health controls 
 Identification and mitigations of hazards associated with the tests 
 Software requirements 
 Data acquisition 
 Data management 
 Control of samples 
 Calibration requirements 
 Potential sources of error or uncertainty, bounding tolerances or margins, including 
assumptions, as applicable 
 Acceptance criteria for the results and data 
 Defined ranges for the measured parameter (expected range and condition limits) 
 Spatial and temporal test frequency 
 Baseline information 
 Anticipated changes to be observed or measured during the period of the tests 
 Identification of what constitutes trends or variations beyond the anticipated range 
during the monitoring or testing period 
 Reporting and action processes and requirements. 
PC Test Plans will require evaluations to ensure that planned testing does not adversely affect the 
ability of the geologic and engineered elements of the geologic repository to meet the 
performance objectives and is consistent with safe operation at the geologic repository operations 
and the SAR. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-6 November 2004 

Appropriate accuracy and precision also need to be part of the test planning efforts and design of 
the measurement systems. Parameters to be monitored will require varying degrees of accuracy 
and precision to ensure significant deviations have been detected. Some of the new activities 
described in this plan may be so complex that they may need a formal preparedness assessment 
review prior to startup. Methods similar to those described in QAP-2-6, Readiness Review 
([DIRS 170193]) establish responsibilities and process for such an assessment. The assessment 
will verify that specific work activity prerequisites, programmatic requirements, and program 
objectives have been satisfied prior to the start of a project phase, process, or activity subject to 
the Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171386]). 
General repository planning related to development of the site is identified in the Site 
Development Plan, (DOE 2004 [DIRS 170191]). The repository configuration required to meet 
performance confirmation requirements is defined and described in design documents and 
drawings. Construction planning reflecting performance confirmation needs is described in the 
Construction Execution Plan, (DOE 2004 [DIRS 168857]). 
5.2.3 Test Procedures, Implementing Documents, and Reports 
To implement the performance confirmation activities described in the PC Test Plans, a 
hierarchical implementing process consisting of field work packages, technical procedures, 
scientific notebooks, test work authorizations, and work orders will be employed. At this level 
of planning, activity specific implementing controls and requirements will be developed and 
documented, including specific principal investigator requirements (e.g., test bed construction 
specifics, data collection requirements, or special equipment requirements), material controls 
(e.g., test interference and committed material reporting requirements), land access and 
environmental compliance requirements, specific safety and health requirements, and test 
construction and site operations requirements. In addition, this process allows for a system of 
checks, balances, and traceability including management, quality, safety, and the investigators. 
Evaluations of impact to emplaced waste, equipment exposure, and test equipment suitability for 
temperature and radiation levels will be conducted at this stage of planning. 
Field Work PackagesField work packages provide a detailed and controlled mechanism for 
field activity planning that identifies: 
 Purpose and scope of the test 
 Roles and responsibilities of interfacing organizations 
 Project requirements for quality affecting and site disturbing testing activities 
 Planned tracer, fluid, and materials usage 
 Controls resulting from evaluations of potential impact from the activities on waste 
isolation and test-to-test interference 
 Environmental, Safety and Health controls 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-7 November 2004 

 Identification and mitigation of hazards associated with the test to be performed 
 Records requirements for the test. 
Field work packages are typically not required for laboratory testing as those activities do not 
impact the site; generally do not require environmental or other permits; and are controlled under 
facility safety and health plans, laboratory chemical hygiene plans, and technical procedures. 
A function of coordination is necessary to integrate field support requirements, quality 
requirements, environmental safety, and health requirements, and hazard analysis and controls 
into the field work packages, and assist in the permitting, estimating, and integrated scheduling. 
Field work packages and associated test work authorization documents are currently developed 
in accordance with AP-5.2Q, ([DIRS 168667]). This test coordination function must work 
closely with the performance confirmation organization described in Section 5.1 to ensure the 
successful planning and implementation of the program. 
Technical Procedures and Scientific Notebooks for Laboratory and Field TestingTechnical 
procedures are used to describe the actual process steps for conducting the technical work. For 
field work, they are referenced in the field work packages, and supplement the hazard analysis 
and hazard control process. Technical procedures are written for repetitive processes at the task 
level and generally contain the following: 
 Purpose and scope of the process 
 Roles and responsibilities 
 Procedure for implementation describing the step-by-step instructions that describe the 
technical requirements and the performer 
 Listing of the equipment and hardware and software 
 Qualification prerequisites 
 Calibration requirements 
 Control of samples 
 Data acquisition and reduction 
 Potential sources of error and uncertainty 
 Acceptance criteria for results and data 
 Records requirements and responsibilities for the specific process. 
Scientific notebooks can complement the technical procedures for investigation activities. 
A scientific notebook is a defensible document detailing the acquisition of data where the 
chronologically detailed process must be clear and thorough enough to allow a comparably 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-8 November 2004 

experienced investigator to replicate the experiment or study without recourse to the original 
investigator. Scientific notebooks are currently developed using AP-SIII.1Q, Scientific 
Notebooks ([DIRS 165688]). 
Test Work Authorization and Work Orders for Field Test ImplementationOperations and 
test management authorization is an essential principle of integrated safety management and is 
used at the Site to initiate field work activities. The work authorization process is currently 
defined in AP-5.2Q ([DIRS 168667]), for testing activities and LP-2.23Q, Work Request/Work 
Order Process ([DIRS 170703]), for craft labor support. Worker involvement is key in the 
development of these written instructions necessary to identify the most efficient and safe 
methods to accomplish the work scope. This lowest level of planning for performance 
confirmation test activities consolidates task specific work scope, identifies the specific work 
location, identifies a person-in-charge at the worksite, identifies tools needed for the job, 
consolidates applicable permits required to perform the work, identifies special qualification or 
training requirements for the work (e.g., underground access training), and provides a task 
specific hazard checklist with personal protective equipment requirements. Work control and 
authorization will remain similar for the near term of the Project; however, it is anticipated that 
logistics related to site access and task-specific work control will evolve during the construction 
and operational phases of the Project. 
Implementation Records, Data, and ReportsRecords generated as a result of the test 
implementation will be handled, stored, and submitted to the Records Processing Center in 
accordance with AP-17.1Q, Records Management ([DIRS 172198]). Acquired and developed 
data resulting from performance confirmation testing and monitoring activities will be submitted 
to the Technical Data Management System in accordance with AP-SIII.3Q, Submittal and 
Incorporation of Data to the Technical Data Management System ([DIRS 168062]). 
Periodically, during the implementation of site characterization activities, technical reports were 
written to capture the interpretations of results or conclusions of the investigations; to assemble 
related ideas into a single document; summarize the current state of knowledge on a scientific or 
engineering topic or suite of topics; and to summarize data, calculations, analyses, and models as 
documented in other products. The reports are currently prepared in accordance with LP-3.11Q 
([DIRS 171187]). For performance confirmation test activities, similar methods will be used to 
summarize test activity progress. These reports would supplement the test review and reporting 
activities described previously in Section 4 of this plan. 
5.2.4 Performance Confirmation Tests Initiated During Site Characterization 
Several of the performance confirmation activities (or elements of the activities) defined in 
Section 3 of this plan were initiated or conducted during site characterization. The test planning 
and implementation process used for site characterization has already been applied to these 
activities and as described in Section 5.2.2. PC Test Plans will be written to place these activities 
(in part or in whole), as appropriate, into the performance confirmation program planning 
process described above. 
Table 5-1 contains the list of performance confirmation activities conducted or initiated during 
site characterization, with a reference to governing technical work plans, scientific investigation 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-9 November 2004 

work plans, and field work package(s), and a brief description of the work conducted during site 
characterization. Because the other nine performance confirmation activities have not yet begun, 
they are not included in the table. Multiple participants were often associated with a suite of 
testing activities, thereby requiring multiple test plans and field work packages. For almost all of 
the other performance confirmation activities not listed in Table 5-1, certain elements of their 
planned methodologies and measurement types have been used in past investigations, although 
not necessarily for the same parameter investigation or in the same depth or environment 
(e.g., around waste packages) that will be used in the future activities. For example, remote 
visual monitoring is being conducted in the Drift Scale Test using a trolley driven remote camera 
to look for evidence of rockfall and moisture. This is similar to the parameters to be investigated 
in the drift inspection activity. Although this ESF investigation was not conducted around real 
waste packages, further development of such a system will be required for the techniques that 
will be employed for remote monitoring of the waste packages and drift inspections in the 
emplacement drifts. Another example would be dust collection. Dust collection and analysis is 
being conducted within the existing tunnels using vacuum systems operated by hand. The 
purpose of the activity and the analysis may be the same for the performance confirmation 
activity of dust buildup monitoring; however, this is not the technique that will be employed for 
dust buildup monitoring using remote technology. 
Table 5-1. Current Test Plans (or Technical Work Plans) and Field Work Plans 
PERFORMANCE 
CONFIRMATION SUMMARY OF ONGOING OR CURRENT TEST PLAN 
ACTIVITY TITLE PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED WORK (or TWP)* CURRENT FWP* 
SUBSURFACE 
MAPPING 
Subsurface mapping activities 
conducted during site 
characterization including mapping 
for fracture and lithophysal 
characteristics gathered from the 
excavated walls of the ESF and/or 
ECRB Cross-Drift. 
SITP-02-ISM-001, TSw 
Fracture and Lithophysal 
Studies - ISM 
TWP-NBS-GS-000005, 
Fracture and Lithophysal 
Studies 
FWP-ESF-PA-001, 
Geologic Mapping 
SEISMICITY 
MONITORING 
This ongoing activity encompasses 
several aspects of seismological 
SIP-UNR-027, Southern Great 
Basin Seismic Network 
FWP-SB-97-007, 
Seismic Monitoring 
monitoring and analysis, including Operations 
real-time earthquake monitoring, 
strong-motion data collection and 
analysis, seismic attenuation 
investigations, and characterization of 
earthquake source mechanics. 
CONSTRUCTION 
EFFECTS 
MONITORING 
This ongoing program currently 
monitors for tunnel stability and the 
performance of the engineered 
ground support systems including use 
of strain data from gages installed on 
steel sets, extensometers in the 
SITP-03-EBS-002, Test Plan 
for: Construction Monitoring 
Equipment Installation and Data 
Collection 
FWP-ESF-96-002, 
Construction 
Monitoring in the 
ESF 
tunnel walls, and convergence pin 
readings. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-10 November 2004 

Table 5-1. Current Test Plans (or Technical Work Plans) and Field Work Plans (Continued) 
PERFORMANCE 
CONFIRMATION SUMMARY OF ONGOING OR CURRENT TEST PLAN 
ACTIVITY TITLE PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED WORK (or TWP)* CURRENT FWP* 
PRECIPITATION 
MONITORING 
This ongoing program currently consists 
of measuring, with known accuracy, the 
accumulation and timing of precipitation 
around Yucca Mountain using tipping 
bucket rain gauges. 
SIP-UNLV-030, Precipitation 
Monitoring at Yucca Mountain 
TWP-MGR-MM-000001, 
Meteorological Monitoring and 
Data Analysis 
FWP-SB-99-002, 
Surface Based 
Moisture 
Monitoring 
FWP-SB-99-001, 
Field Activities in 
Support of 
Meteorological 
Programs 
SEEPAGE 
MONITORING 
Current ongoing studies conducted in 
the ECRB Cross-Drift, in Alcove 7, and 
in the seepage niches are designed to 
SITP-02-UZ-010, Moisture 
Monitoring and Investigation 
and Alcove 7 Studies 
FWP-ESF-PA-
004, 
Moisture Studies 
detect seepage in sealed drift sections 
and to evaluate the drying effects of 
ventilation and construction activity on 
the underground moisture conditions. 
The existing network of atmospheric 
moisture monitoring in the ESF and 
cross drift monitors temperature, 
relative humidity, barometric pressure, 
SIP-UNLV-035, Chemical 
Analysis for Alcove 8/Niche 3 
Tracer Studies 
SITP-02-UZ-001, Moisture 
Monitoring in the ECRB 
Bulkheaded Cross Drift 
in Sealed Drifts 
and wind speed to measure the effects 
of ventilation, temperature, and tunnel 
activity at several locations in the ESF 
and ECRB Cross-Drift 
SUBSURFACE Several site characterization activities SIP-UNLV-026, Ground Bomb-FWP-ESF-96-009, 
WATER AND 
ROCK TESTING 
from various regions of the tunnel were 
designed to conduct lab analysis of 
water and rock including tests to 
Pulse Chlorine-36 at the 
Proposed Yucca Mountain 
Repository Horizon: An 
Consolidated 
Sampling in the 
ESF 
determine whether or not fluids 
containing bomb-pulse 36Cl/chlorine 
Investigation of Previous 
Conflicting Results and 
traveled along fast travel pathways and Collection of New Data 
reached the repository horizon. 
UNSATURATED 
ZONE TESTING 
Ongoing activities consist of 
quantification of large-scale (~20 m) 
infiltration and seepage processes 
using Alcove 8 and Niche 3 in the ESF. 
These include an estimation of the 
TWP-NBS-HS-00004, Flow and 
Seepage Testing in Alcove 
8/Niche 3 
FWP-ESF-PA-
005, 
Flow and 
Seepage Testing 
in Alcove 8 and 
relationships between permeability, 
water content, water potential for 
unsaturated flow in faults, fracture 
Niche 3 
networks, and welded tuff. 
SATURATED The activities conducted during site SITP-02-SZ-003, Test Plan for FWP-SBD-99-
ZONE 
ALLUVIUM 
TESTING 
characterization consists of hydraulic 
and single-hole tracer testing. 
Single-well hydraulic and tracer testing 
Alluvial Testing Complex, Single 
Well, Multi-Well, and Laboratory 
Studies 
002, 
Alluvial Tracer 
Testing 
in NC-EWDP-19D1, the first of the 
Alluvial Testing Complex wells, was 
completed in April 2001, prior to the 
drilling of additional testing wells at the 
SIP-UNLV-034, Chemical 
Analysis in Support of Yucca 
Mountain Studies 
Alluvial Testing Complex location. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-11 November 2004 

Table 5-1. Current Test Plans (or Technical Work Plans) and Field Work Plans (Continued) 
PERFORMANCE 
CONFIRMATION SUMMARY OF ONGOING OR CURRENT TEST PLAN 
ACTIVITY TITLE PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED WORK (or TWP)* CURRENT FWP* 
CORROSION 
TESTING 
Ongoing activities in this area consist of 
a number of tests that are designed to 
provide information on the performance 
of the materials of construction of the 
SITP-02-WP-001, Waste 
Package and Drip Shield 
Materials Testing 
N/A - Controlled 
with laboratory 
safety plans and 
technical 
waste package and the drip shield 
including general corrosion testing, 
stress corrosion cracking and physical 
metallurgy. 
procedures 
WASTE FORM 
TESTING 
Ongoing activities in this area consist of 
activities to improve the understanding 
of spent nuclear fuel and radionuclide 
mobilization performance and to provide 
data that can be used for model 
development, validation, and 
confirmation by determining the reaction 
behavior of spent nuclear fuel, 
measuring the extent of radionuclide 
release, characterizing generated 
colloids from spent nuclear fuel, 
comparing the releases for the different 
configurations, and developing sufficient 
understanding of the kinetics and 
mechanisms of fuel reaction to provide 
accurate guidance and input data to the 
source term for sparingly soluble 
radionuclides in repository models of 
TWP-WIS-MD-000008, Waste 
Form Degradation Modeling, 
Testing, and Analyses in 
Support of LA 
SITP-02-WF-001, Long-Term 
Studies of the Degradation and 
Nuclide Release from 
Commercial Spent Fuel and 
Fuel Rod Segments 
SITP-02-WF-002, Longer-Term 
Studies of the Degradation and 
Radionuclide Release from 
Defense High-Level Waste 
(DHLW) Glass 
N/A - Controlled 
with laboratory 
safety plans and 
technical 
procedures 
fuel corrosion and transport. 
Sources: Brandt 2004, SIP-UNLV-030 [DIRS 170246]; Brune 2004, SIP-UNR-027 [DIRS 170249]; BSC 2002, 
SITP-02-SZ-003 [DIRS 158198]; BSC 2002, SITP-02-UZ-001 [DIRS 158187]; BSC 2002, SITP-02-UZ-
010 [DIRS 158189]; BSC 2002, SITP-02-WF-002 [DIRS 164401]; BSC 2002, SITP-02-WP-001 
[DIRS 170209]; BSC 2003, TWP-NBS-GS-000005 [DIRS 170211]; BSC 2003, SITP-03-EBS-002 
[DIRS 170210]; BSC 2003, TWP-MGR-MM-000001 [DIRS 163158]; BSC 2004, TWP-NBS-HS-000004 
[DIRS 170212]; BSC 2004, TWP-WIS-MD-000008 [DIRS 167796]; Bureau of Reclamation 2002, SITP-
02-ISM-001 [DIRS 158182]; Daniels 2004, SIP-UNLV-035 [DIRS 170248]; ORD 2003, FWP-ESF-PA-
001 [DIRS 170203]; ORD 2004, FWP-ESF-PA-004 [DIRS 170204]; ORD 2004, FWP-ESF-PA-005 
[DIRS 170205]; YMP 1999, FWP-ESF-96-002 [DIRS 147872]; Finn 2002, SITP-02-WF-001 [DIRS 
170214]; ORD 2002, FWP-SB-99-001 [DIRS 161578]; Page 2004, SIP-UNLV-029 [DIRS 170245]; 
Stetzenbach 2004, SIP-UNLV-026 [DIRS 170244]; USGS 2001 [DIRS 158199]; USGS 2002 
[DIRS 158195]; Wengatz 2004 [DIRS 170247]; YMP 2001 [DIRS 170208]; YMP 2002 [DIRS 170207]; 
YMP 1999 [DIRS 150629]; YMP 2000 [DIRS 150630]; and YMP 2002 [DIRS 169664] 
NOTE:* The columns containing the current test plan or field work plan are not intended to be comprehensive or 
complete, but provides a representative group of currently base lined documents that are used for the 
implementation of test activities similar to the performance confirmation activities described in this plan. 
Therefore, there is not always a one-to-one correlation between future performance confirmation 
activities and existing testing program activities. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 5-12 November 2004 

6. SCHEDULE
The previous section described the implementation of the testing program. This section outlines 
the schedule for the activities. Although there is discussion within the individual activity 
descriptions in Section 3 on activity start times and durations, this section places the 11 activities 
that began during site characterization, and the other nine that have not yet begun, in timeline 
with other Project milestones and activities. 
The 20 performance confirmation activities identified herein have been scheduled on bases 
commensurate with the current stage of the Project. These 20 activities fall into three timeframe 
or timeline groups: 
 Preconstruction (continuation of activities (or similar activities)) initiated during site 
characterization) 
 Construction (after receipt of a construction authorization) 
 Operation/monitoring (Post-waste emplacement). 
These three activity group timelines are shown in Figure 6-1. Activities that are in 
preconstruction and that will be a continuation of those initiated during site characterization have 
a greater level of planning and scheduling detail than those in later phases of the Project. Some 
of this schedule detail was captured in the Section 3 discussion for each individual activity. 
Additional schedule details are contained for the ongoing activities in their existing scientific 
investigation test plans or technical work plans (Table 5-1) and will be captured in the PC Test 
Plans once written for these activities. 
Detailed schedules are also captured in the Projects multi-year planning process (for ongoing 
activities) and may be detailed in individual PC Test Plans. Detailed schedules will reflect that 
many of the monitoring activities will be relatively quick to conduct and will be performed 
intermittently during the monitoring period. The individual test durations and sequencing during 
the monitoring period will be developed later and described in the products mentioned above. 
The phased nature of repository development allows progressive development of these 
schedules. Schedules for activities continuing from site characterization are well understood and 
will be integrated into early construction and operations planning products, while planning for 
some construction period activities requires finalization, and planning for operational period 
activities is mostly at a conceptual stage. Future revisions of this plan will provide additional 
details and more complete schedules, depending on the timing of the revision compared to the 
stage of the Project. 
For an overall perspective on test planning, Figure 6-2 (schedule through year 2011) and 
Figure 6-3 (schedule through year 2110) are included. These schedules provide perspective on 
test timing by showing selected major program milestones and related activity milestones. 
These schedules assume a period of 100 years for the performance confirmation program. The 
program will continue until repository closure and decommissioning. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 6-1 November 2004 

The monitoring period and the closure date are still under consideration. The waste package 
monitoring program will continue for as long as practical until permanent closure 
(10 CFR 63.134(d) [DIRS 156605]), and the performance confirmation program will continue to 
evolve as schedules change to ensure that work continues to evaluate repository performance. 
NOTE: Activities start with the origination of the arrow (i.e., construction start = 2007, operation start = 2010), except 
in the case of the first box, as site characterization activities have been going on well before 2004. 
Figure 6-1. Temporal Breakdown of Performance Confirmation Activities 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 6-2 November 2004 

NOTES: Activities include planning procurement and installation of instruments; AMR = analysis model report; 
MGR= mined geologic repository; PC = performance confirmation; FY = fiscal year; LA = License 
application; PMR = process model report; SR = site recommendation; SZ = saturated zone; 
TAD = thermally accelerated drift; TSPA = total system performance assessment; UZ = unsaturated zone. 
Site Characterization activities shown continuing from the left side of the schedule are ongoing 
performance confirmation testing activities. 
Figure 6-2. Schedule for the Performance Confirmation Program and Major Yucca Mountain Project 
Milestones 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 6-3 November 2004 

NOTES: The duration of the repository monitoring period and the closure date are still under consideration. The 
2110 milestone date shown reflects a presumed 100-year period for preclosure operations. 
Activities include planning procurement and installation of instruments; MGR= mined geologic repository; 
PC = performance confirmation; FY = fiscal year; TSPA = total system performance assessment. 
Performance Confirmation Coordination, Data Collection, Evaluation, and Long-Term Process and 
Postclosure Simulation are shown purposefully to complete closure, not to support the License Application 
to Close, but to show that certain closure activities may be monitored and confirmed not to impact the 
repository ability to isolate waste. 
Dashed lines on PC Baseline Development represent the establishment of a preliminary baseline during 
site characterization, with refinement through construction. The dash line in Pre-Construction Testing 
represents on-going monitoring initiated during pre-construction, that continues through closure. 
Figure 6-3. Long-Term Performance Confirmation Program Schedule 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 6-4 November 2004 

7. REFERENCES
7.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
101367 Albin, A.L.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Lee, A.C.; Lung, R.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; 
and Barr, D.L. 1997. Geology of the Main Drift - Station 28+00 to 55+00, 
Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Milestone SPG42AM3. Denver, Colorado: Bureau of Reclamation and 
U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970625.0096. 
170214 ANL (Argonne National Laboratory) 2002. Test Plan Long-Term Studies of the 
Degradation and Nuclide Release from Commercial Spent Fuel and Fuel Rod 
Segments. SITP-02-WF-001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020402.0445. 
100029 Barr, D.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Singleton, W.L.; Albin, A.L.; Lung, R.C.; Lee, A.C.; Beason, 
S.C.; and Eatman, G.L.W. 1996. Geology of the North Ramp  Stations 4+00 to 
28+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0496. 
101191 Beason, S.C.; Turlington, G.A.; Lung, R.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; Ryter, D.; and Barr, 
D.L. 1996. Geology of the North Ramp - Station 0+60 to 4+00, Exploratory Studies 
Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: 
U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0449. 
170246 Brandt, A. 2004. Precipitation Monitoring at Yucca Mountain. Document Number: 
SIP-UNLV-030, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: University and Community College 
System of Nevada. ACC: MOL.20040629.0238. 
155640 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Environment on the Surfaces of the Drip Shield 
and Waste Package Outer Barrier. ANL-EBS-MD-000001 REV 00 ICN 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20010724.0082. 
158464 BSC 2001. Repository Design, Closure and Sealing Typical Details. DWG-SCS-MG-
000002 REV A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020102.0128. 
158207 BSC 2001. Supporting Rock Fall Calculation for Drift Degradation: Quantification 
of Uncertainties. CAL-EBS-MD-000022 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20011213.0238. 
158187 BSC 2001. Test Plan for: Moisture Monitoring in the ECRB Bulkheaded Cross Drift. 
SITP-02-UZ-001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20011018.0011. 
158375 BSC 2002. Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models. 
MDL-NBS-HS-000001 REV 01 ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20020312.0156. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-1 November 2004 

160161 BSC 2002. Geochemical Interactions in Failed Co-Disposal Waste Packages for 
N Reactor and Ft. St. Vrain Spent Fuel and the Melt and Dilute Waste Form. 
ANL-EBS-PA-000007 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020827.0001. 
159124 BSC 2002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). MDL-NBS-GS-000002 
REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020530.0078. 
158730 BSC 2002. Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model Report. MDL-NBS-GS-
000003 REV 00 ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020423.0151. 
159530 BSC 2002. Rock Properties Model Analysis Model Report. MDL-NBS-GS-000004 
REV 00 ICN 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020429.0086. 
170211 BSC 2002. Technical Work Plan for: Fracture and Lithophysal Studies. TWP-NBS-
GS-000005 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20021113.0214. 
158198 BSC 2002. Test Plan for Alluvial Testing Complex  Single-Well, Multi-Well, and 
Laboratory Studies. SITP-02-SZ-003 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20020404.0081. 
164401 BSC 2002. Test Plan for Long-Term Studies of the Degradation and Radionuclide 
Release from Defense High-Level Waste (DHLW) Glass. SITP-02-WF-002, Rev. 00. 
[Las Vegas, Nevada]: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020402.0444. 
158189 BSC 2002. Test Plan for: Moisture Monitoring Investigations and Alcove 7 Studies. 
SITP-02-UZ-010 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020117.0199. 
170209 BSC 2002. Test Plan for: Waste Package and Drip Shield Materials Testing. 
SITP-02-WP-001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020304.0050. 
160771 BSC 2002. Thermal Testing Measurements Report. ANL-NBS-HS-000041 REV 00. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20021004.0314. 
165564 BSC 2003. Abstraction of Drift Seepage. MDL-NBS-HS-000019 REV 00 ICN 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031112.0002. 
162199 BSC 2003. Aging and Phase Stability of Waste Package Outer Barrier. ANL-EBS-
MD-000002 REV 01 ICN 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20030807.0004. 
165991 BSC 2003. Analysis of Infiltration Uncertainty. ANL-NBS-HS-000027 REV 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031030.0003. 
164475 BSC 2003. Analysis of Mechanisms for Early Waste Package/Drip Shield Failure. 
CAL-EBS-MD-000030 REV 00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031001.0012. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-2 November 2004 

166274 BSC 2003. Development of Earthquake Ground Motion Input for Preclosure Seismic 
Design and Postclosure Performance Assessment of a Geologic Repository at Yucca 
Mountain, NV. MDL-MGR-GS-000003 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20031201.0001. 
162050 BSC 2003. Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models. 
MDL-NBS-HS-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20030804.0004. 
164889 BSC 2003. Drift-Scale Radionuclide Transport. MDL-NBS-HS-000016 REV 00. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030902.0009. 
164890 BSC 2003. Drift Scale THM Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000017 REV 00 ICN 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031014.0009. 
163693 BSC 2003. DSNF and Other Waste Form Degradation Abstraction. ANL-WIS-MD-
000004 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20030711.0002. 
166834 BSC 2003. General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of Waste Package Outer 
Barrier. ANL-EBS-MD-000003 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030916.0010; DOC.20031222.0002; DOC.20031222.0001. 
168343 BSC 2003. Analysis of Geochemical Data for the Unsaturated Zone. ANL-NBS-HS-
000017 REV 00 ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020314.0051; DOC.20031015.0006. 
166509 BSC 2003. Calibrated Properties Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000003 REV 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030219.0001; 
DOC.20031014.0011. 
165802 BSC 2003. GFM2000 Representation in the VULCAN Software System. 800-00C-
TU00-00100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20030922.0005. 
161759 BSC 2003. Hydrogen Induced Cracking of Drip Shield. ANL-EBS-MD-000006 
REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030304.0003. 
166498 BSC 2003. Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM). MDL-NBS-HS-
000007 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031216.0003. 
163228 BSC 2003. Radionuclide Transport Models Under Ambient Conditions. MDL-NBS-
HS-000008 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031201.0002. 
167209 BSC 2003. Saturated Zone In-Situ Testing. ANL-NBS-HS-000039 REV 00. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040128.0003. 
166183 BSC 2003. Scoping Analysis on Sensitivity and Uncertainty of Emplacement Drift 
Stability. 800-K0C-TEG0-00600-000-000. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: ENG.20031125.0002. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-3 November 2004 

163158 BSC 2003. Technical Work Plan for: Meteorological Monitoring and Data Analysis. 
TWP-MGR-MM-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20030328.0005. 
170210 BSC 2003. Test Plan for: Construction Monitoring Equipment Installation and Data 
Collection. SITP-03-EBS-002 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030626.0005. 
166296 BSC 2003. Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031215.0001. 
161317 BSC 2003. WAPDEG Analysis of Waste Package and Drip Shield Degradation. ANL-
EBS-PA-000001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031208.0004. 
166845 BSC 2003. Waste Form and In-Drift Colloids-Associated Radionuclide 
Concentrations: Abstraction and Summary. MDL-EBS-PA-000004 REV 00 ICN 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031222.0012. 
161236 BSC 2003. General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of the Drip Shield. 
ANL-EBS-MD-000004 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20030626.0001. 
167970 BSC 2004. Abstraction of Drift Seepage. MDL-NBS-HS-000019 REV 00 ICN 01 
Errata 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031112.0002; DOC.20040223.0001. 
166604 BSC 2004. Closure and Sealing Preliminary Design Calculation. 800-KMC-MGR0-
00200-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040113.0003. 
168217 BSC 2004. Commercial SNF Waste Package Design Report. 000-00C-DSU0-02800-
000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040315.0007. 
167321 BSC 2004. CSNF Waste Form Degradation: Summary Abstraction. 
ANL-EBS-MD-000015 REV 01 [Errata 002]. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030708.0004; DOC.20031224.0001; DOC.20040202.0002. 
167619 BSC 2004. Defense HLW Glass Degradation Model. ANL-EBS-MD-000016 REV 01 
ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040223.0006. 
168550 BSC 2004. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-000027 REV 02, Errata 1. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040325.0002; 
DOC.20030709.0003. 
170338 BSC 2004. Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and TH Seepage) Models. 
MDL-NBS-HS-000015 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20040712.0194. 
168848 BSC 2004. Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models. 
MDL-NBS-HS-000001 REV 02 Errata 002. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030804.0004; DOC.20040219.0002; DOC.20040405.0005. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-4 November 2004 

167973 BSC 2004. Drift Scale THM Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000017 REV 00 ICN 01 
Errata 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031014.0009; DOC.20040223.0002. 
167280 BSC 2004. Emplacement and Retrieval System Description Document. 800-3YD-
HE00-00100-000-001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040302.0008. 
167461 BSC 2004. Engineered Barrier System: Physical and Chemical Environment Model. 
ANL-EBS-MD-000033 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040212.0004. 
168889 BSC 2004. Evaluation of Emplacement Drift Stability for KTI Resolutions. 800-KMC-
SSE0-00200-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040520.0001. 
170212 BSC 2004. Flow and Seepage Testing in Alcove 8/Niche3. TWP-NBS-HS-000004 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040329.0005. 
169339 BSC 2004. Geochemical and Isotopic Constraints on Groundwater Flow Directions, 
Mixing, and Recharge at Yucca Mountain. ANL-NBS-HS-000021 REV 01 
[Errata 001]. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040412.0003; DOC.20040212.0003. 
169056 BSC 2004. In-Situ Field Testing of Processes. ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 02 
Errata 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031208.0001; DOC.20040412.0006. 
163056 BSC 2004. Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model. ANL-EBS-MD-000049 REV 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040301.0004. 
169218 BSC 2004. Natural Analogue Synthesis Report. TDR-NBS-GS-000027 REV 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040524.0008. 
169356 BSC 2004. Probability Analysis of Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials. 
ANL-DSD-MD-000001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040506.0004. 
170000 BSC 2004. Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse. MDL-NBS-HS-000002 
REV 02 Errata 2. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20030709.0001; DOC.20040512.0002; DOC.20040615.0004. 
169051 BSC 2004. Site Scale Saturated Zone Flow Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000011 REV 01 
Errata 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040126.0004; DOC.20040415.0001. 
169053 BSC 2004. Site-Scale Saturated Zone Transport. MDL-NBS-HS-000010 REV 01 
[Errata 002]. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040126.0003; DOC.20040325.0001; DOC.20040412.0007. 
169042 BSC 2004. Stress Corrosion Cracking of the Drip Shield, the Waste Package Outer 
Barrier, and the Stainless Steel Structural Material. ANL-EBS-MD-000005 REV 01 
ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040318.0010. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-5 November 2004 

168869 BSC 2004. Surveying and Removal of Radiological Contamination from External 
Surfaces of Waste Packages. 100-M0C-MR00-00100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040413.0047. 
167796 BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for Waste Form Degradation Modeling, Testing, and 
Analyses in Support of LA. TWP-WIS-MD-000008 REV 02 ICN 04. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040218.0001. 
168504 BSC 2004. Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) Model/Analysis for the 
License Application. MDL-WIS-PA-000004 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. TBV-5947 
168720 BSC 2004. Ventilation Model and Analysis Report. ANL-EBS-MD-000030 REV 03 
ICN 03 Errata 2. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031216.0002; DOC.20040202.0004; DOC.20040325.0003. 
169734 BSC 2004. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 02 
ICN 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040504.0008; Replacement for 168845. 
169617 BSC 2004. Abstraction of Drift-Scale Coupled Processes. MDL-NBS-HS-000018 
REV 00 Errata 002. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031223.0004; DOC.20040223.0003; DOC.20040512.0001. 
158182 Bureau of Reclamation. 2002. Test Plan for: TSW Fracture and Lithophysal Studies. 
SITP-02-ISM-001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 
ACC: MOL.20020205.0004. 
101539 CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and 
Operating Contractor) 1997. Ambient Characterization of the Drift Scale Test Block. 
BADD00000-01717-5705-00001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19980416.0689. 
146917 CRWMS M&O 1997. Drift Scale Test Design and Forecast Results. BAB000000-
01717-4600-00007 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19980710.0155. 
111115 CRWMS M&O 1998. Drift Scale Test As-Built Report. BAB000000-01717-5700-
00003 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990107.0223. 
108306 CRWMS M&O 1998. Drift Scale Test Progress Report No. 1. BAB000000-01717-
5700-00004 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19990209.0240. 
103731 CRWMS M&O 1998. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for Fault Displacement 
and Vibratory Ground Motion at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Milestone SP32IM3, 
September 23, 1998. Three volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19981207.0393. 
129261 CRWMS M&O 1999. Single Heater Test Final Report. BAB000000-01717-5700-
00005 REV 00 ICN 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.20000103.0634. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-6 November 2004 

103086 CRWMS M&O 1999. Subsurface Closure & Seal System Description Document. 
BCA000000-01717-1705-00012 REV 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990713.0240. 
144992 CRWMS M&O 2000. Closure Seal Locations and Geologic Environment Study. 
TDR-SCS-MG-000002 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.20000122.0037. 
145033 CRWMS M&O 2000. Closure Seal Materials and Configuration. TDR-SCS-MG-
000001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000124.0136. 
150624 CRWMS M&O 2000. Repository Closure and Sealing Approach. ANL-SCS-MG-
000001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000714.0553. 
149639 CRWMS M&O 2000. Supporting Rock Fall Calculation for Drift Degradation: Drift 
Reorientation with No Backfill. CAL-EBS-MD-000010 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000823.0003. 
151945 CRWMS M&O 2000. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 
REV 01 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001003.0111. 
170248 Daniels, J. 2004. Chemical Analyses for Alcove 8/Niche 3 Tracer Studies. Document 
Number: SIP-UNLV-035, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: University and Community 
College System of Nevada. ACC: MOL.20040629.0234. 
170250 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) [1997]. The Requirements-Based Surveillance and 
Maintenance Review Guide. DOE/EM-0341. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Environmental Management. ACC: MOL.20040629.0233. 
100282 DOE 1988. Site Characterization Plan Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada Research and 
Development Area, Nevada. DOE/RW-0199. Nine volumes. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: HQO.19881201.0002. 
170253 DOE 1999. Decision-Making Framework Guide for the Evaluation and Selection of 
Monitored Natural Attenuation Remedies at Department of Energy Sites. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration. 
ACC: MOL.20040629.0311. 
170252 DOE 1999. EM Corporate Data Collection Guidance for the Interim Data 
Management System (IDMS) and the Analysis and Visualization System (AVS). 
Revision 2.0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. 
ACC: MOL.20040629.0312. 
170254 DOE 1999. Technical Guidance for the Long-Term Monitoring of Natural Attenuation 
Remedies at Department of Energy Sites. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration. ACC: MOL.20040629.0310. 
170255 DOE 2002. Guidance for Optimizing Ground Water Response Actions at Department 
of Energy Sites. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Environmental Management. ACC: MOL.20040629.0309. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-7 November 2004 

155943 DOE 2002. Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report. DOE/RW-0539, 
Rev. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20020404.0042. 
171341 DOE 2004. Augmented Quality Assurance Program (AQAP). DOE/RW-0565. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20040813.0001. 
168857 DOE 2004. Construction Execution Plan. 000-PLN-MGR0-00700-000-000. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Repository Development. 
ACC: ENG.20040211.0005. 
171386 DOE 2004. Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. DOE/RW-0333P, 
Rev. 16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040823.0004. 
170191 DOE 2004. Site Development Plan. 000-PLN-MGR0-00100-000-001. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Repository Development. 
ACC: ENG.20040217.0006. 
157677 Eatman, G.L.W.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Barr, D.L.; Albin, A.L.; Lung, R.C.; 
and Beason, S.C. 1997. Geology of the South Ramp - Station 55+00 to 78+77, 
Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: MOL.19980127.0396. 
163435 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) 2001. Performance Confirmation for the 
Candidate Yucca Mountain High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. EPRI 
TR-1003032. Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute. TIC: 254361. 
170143 Gibbons, R.D. 1994. Statistical Methods for Groundwater Monitoring. New York, 
New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 256077. 
172321 Hamilton-Ray, B.V. 2004. "Contracting Office Authorization for Bechtel SAIC 
Company, LLC (BSC), Improvements and Refinements in the Technical Bases that 
Support the Safety Analysis Report (SAR); Ltr 05-001 - Contract Number DE-AC28-
01RW12101." Letter from B.V. Hamilton-Ray (DOE/ORD) to J.T. Mitchell, Jr. 
(BSC), October 29, 2004. 
157634 Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences 
and Value Tradeoffs. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 208907. 
159069 Lin, W.; Blair, S.C.; Wilder, D.; Carlson, S.; Wagoner, J.; DeLoach, L.; Danko, G.; 
Ramirez, A.L.; and Lee, K. 2001. Large Block Test Final Report. UCRL-ID-132246, 
Rev. 2. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
TIC: 252918. 
170294 Mitchell, J.T. 2004. Contract No. DE-AC28-01RW12101 - Response to Letter 
Dated April 23, 2004, Regarding Plan for Providing Definition and Interfaces of 
Testing and Monitoring Program. Letter from J.T. Mitchell, Jr. (BSC) to W.J. Arthur, 
III (DOE/ORD), May 7, 2004, DJW:bm-0507041499, with enclosure. 
ACC: MOL.20040616.0647. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-8 November 2004 

170504 Mitchell, J.T., Jr. 2004. Contract No. DE-AC28-01RW12101 - Response to Rejected 
Deliverable Transmittal on the Performance Confirmation Plan REV 03, Deliverable 
Pad 205. Letter from J.T. Mitchell, Jr. (BSC) to W.J. Arthur, III (DOE/ORD), 
June 4, 2004, DJW/JTM/bm - 0527041774, with enclosures. 
ACC: MOL.20040712.0190. 
149850 Mongano, G.S.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Beason, S.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; 
Albin, A.L.; and Lung, R.C. 1999. Geology of the ECRB Cross Drift - Exploratory 
Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. [Deliverable 
SPG42GM3]. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20000324.0614. 
163274 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 
Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
170243 NRC 2004. Risk Insights Baseline Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 
ACC: MOL.20040629.0235. 
161578 ORD (Office of Repository Development) 2002. Field Activities in Support of 
Meteorological Programs. FWP-SB-99-001, Rev. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: MOL.20030122.0036. 
170203 ORD 2003. Geologic Mapping. Field Work Package FWP-ESF-PA-001, Rev. 0. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Repository Development. 
ACC: SIT.20030721.0003. 
170205 ORD 2004. Flow and Seepage Testing in Alcove 8 and Niche 3. Field Work Package 
FWP-ESF-PA-005, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office 
of Repository Development. ACC: SIT.20040407.0002. 
170204 ORD 2004. Moisture Studies in Sealed Drifts (ECRB and Alcove 7). Field Work 
Package FWP-ESF-PA-004, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Repository Development. ACC: SIT.20040407.0001. 
170245 Page, H.S. 2004. Ground Water Level Measurements in Selected Boreholes Near the 
Site of the Proposed Repository. Document Number: SIP-UNLV-029, Rev. 0. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: University and Community College System of Nevada. 
ACC: MOL.20040629.0237. 
165976 Peterman, Z. 2001. Letter Report on Dust Geochemistry. Letter from Z. Peterman 
(USGS) to N. Kramer, September 7, 2001, with attachment. 
ACC: MOL.20011004.0234. 
165975 Peterman, Z.E.; Hudson, D.; and Harrington, B. 2002. Analyses of Water Soluble 
Anions and Cations in Dust from the Exploratory Studies Facility (Supplement to 
Letter Report of September 7, 2001). Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20020430.0259. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-9 November 2004 

162819 Peterman, Z.E.; Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; and Hudson, D. 2003. Geochemistry of 
Dust in the Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Proceedings of 
the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference 
(IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 637-645. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254559. 
106702 Rogers, A.M.; Harmsen, S.C.; Corbett, E.J.; Priestly, K.; and dePolo, D. 1991. The 
Seismicity of Nevada and Some Adjacent Parts of the Great Basin. Chapter 10 of The 
Geology of North America Decade Map. Volume 1. Boulder, Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. TIC: 243190. 
170244 Stetzenbach, K. 2003. Bomb-Pulse Chlorine-36 at the Proposed Yucca Mountain 
Repository Horizon: An Investigation of Previous Conflicting Results and Collection 
of New Data. Document Number: SIP-UNLV-026, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
University and Community College System of Nevada. ACC: MOL.20040629.0240. 
158199 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2001. Test Plan for: Nye County EWDP Borehole 
Lithostratigraphy. SITP-02-SZ-001 REV 00. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: MOL.20020204.0145. 
158195 USGS 2002. Test Plan for: Hydrologic/Hydrochemistry Studies in Cooperation with 
Nye County EWDP. SITP-02-SZ-002 REV 00. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: MOL.20020205.0003. 
166518 USGS 2003. Simulation of Net Infiltration for Modern and Potential Future Climates. 
ANL-NBS-HS-000032 REV 00 ICN 02. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20011119.0334; DOC.20031014.0004; DOC.20031015.0001. 
168473 USGS 2004. Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and 
Transport Model. ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 01. Denver, Colorado: 
U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020209.0058; MOL.20020917.0136; 
DOC.20040303.0006. 
170249 von Seggern, D. 2004. Southern Great Basin Seismic Network Operations. Document 
Number: SIP-UNR-027, Rev. 0. [Reno], Nevada: University and Community College 
System of Nevada. ACC: MOL.20040629.0239. 
159532 von Seggern, D.H. and Smith, K.D. 1997. Seismicity in the Vicinity of Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada, for the Period October 1, 1995, to September 30, 1996. Milestone 
Report SPT38AM4. [Reno, Nevada]: University of Nevada, [Reno], Seismological 
Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19981124.0334. 
172213 Watson, W.W, 2004. Meeting Notes: Assessment of the Proposed Performance 
Confirmation Program Relevance to TSPA-LA. Interoffice memorandum from W.W. 
Watson (BSC) to File, October 27, 2004, 1018043622, DJW/WWW/bm, with 
enclosure. ACC: MOL.20041027.0247. 
170247 Wengatz, I. 2004. Chemical Analyses in Support of Yucca Mountain Studies. 
Document Number: SIP-UNLV-034, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: University and 
Community College System of Nevada. ACC: MOL.20040629.0236. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-10 November 2004 

100522 YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1997. Methodology to Assess 
Fault Displacement and Vibratory Ground Motion Hazards at Yucca Mountain. 
Topical Report YMP/TR-002-NP, Rev. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site 
Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19971016.0777. 
147872 YMP 1999. Construction Monitoring in the Exploratory Studies Facility. Field Work 
Package FWP-ESF-96-002, Rev. 4. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site 
Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19990811.0078. 
150629 YMP 1999. Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation and Monitoring. Field Work 
Package FWP-SB-97-009, Rev. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site 
Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19991014.0231. 
150630 YMP 2000. Surface-Based Moisture Monitoring. Field Work Package FWP-SB-99-
002, Rev. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. 
ACC: MOL.20000214.0312. 
170208 YMP 2001. Alluvial Tracer Testing. Field Work Package FWP-SBD-99-002, Rev. 1. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. 
ACC: MOL.20011217.0135. 
170207 YMP 2002. Nye County Early Warning Drilling Program (EWDP) Phase IV Drilling. 
Field Work Package FWP-SBD-99-001, Rev. 4. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca 
Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.20021022.0138. 
169664 YMP 2002. Seismic Monitoring. Field Work Package FWP-SB-97-007, Rev. 3. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain Site 
Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.20020906.0241. 
7.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
156605 10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
156671 66 FR 55732. Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, Final Rule. 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 51, 
60, 61, 63, 70, 72, 73, and 75. Readily available. 
172197 AP-7.5Q, Rev. 002, ICN 001. Establishing Deliverable Acceptance Criteria and 
Submitting and Reviewing Del iverables. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20041004.0004 
170701 AP-12.1Q, Rev. 0, ICN 3. Control of Measuring and Test Equipment. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040429.0006. 
169649 AP-16.1Q, Rev. 7, ICN 3. Condition Reporting and Resolution. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040512.0003. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-11 November 2004 

172198 AP-17.1Q, Rev. 3, ICN 3. Records Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040915.0009. 
172108 AP-2.27Q, Rev. 1, ICN 5. Planning for Science Activities. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20041014.0001. 
168667 AP-5.2Q, Rev. 1 ICN 0. Testing Work Implementation and Control. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20030206.0003. 
167728 AP-EM-010, Rev. 0, ICN 2. Environmental Baseline Review. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20030730.0001. 
165688 AP-SIII.1Q, Rev. 2, ICN 0. Scientific Notebooks. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: MOL.20021202.0026. 
168062 AP-SIII.3Q, Rev. 2, ICN 1. Submittal and Incorporation of Data to the Technical 
Data Management System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040226.0001. 
159295 AP-SIII.7Q, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Scientific Investigation Laboratory and Field Testing. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: MOL.20020701.0180. 
168938 AP-SV.1Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Control of the Electronic Management of Information. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20040308.0001. 
170142 ASTM D 6250-98 (Reapproved 2003). 2003. Standard Practice for Derivation of 
Decision Point and Confidence Limit for Statistical Testing of the Mean Concentration 
in Waste Management Decisions. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American 
Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 256140. 
170114 LP-2.13Q-OCRWM Rev. 0, ICN 0. Verification of Education and Experience of 
Personnel. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20031112.0001. 
170703 LP-2.23Q-BSC, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Work Request/Work Order Process. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20040525.0002. 
171737 LP-3.11Q-BSC Rev 0, ICN 1. Technical Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040915.0003. 
170072 LP-ESH-019-BSC, Rev. 1, ICN 3. Silica Protection. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040603.0002. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-12 November 2004 

170704 LP-OM-070-BSC, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Site Access Control. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040331.0008. 
158528 LP-SA-001Q-BSC, Rev. 0. Determination of Importance and Site Performance 
Protection Evaluations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20020510.0386. 
172199 LP-SMF-002Q-BSC, Rev. 2, ICN 0. Field Logging, Handling, and Documenting 
Borehole Samples. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040907.0003. 
170193 QAP-2-6, Rev. 4, ICN 1. Readiness Review. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: DOC.20030902.0006. 
7.3 DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
147613 GS000308311221.005. Net Infiltration Modeling Results for 3 Climate Scenarios for 
FY99. Submittal date: 03/01/2000. 
148605 SN0002T0872799.007. Thermal-Hydrologic-Chemical (THC) and Thermal-
Hydrologic (TH) -Only Drift-Scale Model Analysis. Submittal date: 02/01/2000. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-13 November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 7-14 November 2004 

APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 November 2004 

TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 November 2004 

APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
accessible environmentAny point outside of the controlled area, including (1) atmosphere 
(including the atmosphere above the surface area of the controlled area), (2) land surfaces, 
(3) surface waters, (4) oceans, and (5) lithosphere. 
accuracyThe degree to which a calculation, measurement, or set of measurements agree with a 
true value or an accepted reference value. 
Alloy 22A high-nickel alloy used for the outer barrier of a waste package. 
barrierAny material, structure, or feature that, for a period to be determined by NRC, prevents 
or substantially reduces the rate of movement of water or radionuclides from the Yucca 
Mountain repository to the accessible environment, or prevents the release or substantially 
reduces the release rate of radionuclides from the waste. For example, a barrier may be a 
geologic feature, an engineered structure, a canister, a waste form with physical and chemical 
characteristics that significantly decrease the mobility of radionuclides, or a material placed over 
and around the waste, provided that the material substantially delays movement of water or 
radionuclides. 
baselineA set of information (developed from site characterization data, modeling assumptions 
or results, design bases and specifications, other relevant analogue or technical information) and 
analysis of that information on those parameters selected to be monitored, tested, evaluated, or 
observed during the performance confirmation program. The baseline is the standard to which 
comparisons are made, by parameter, to evaluate performance confirmation data. For the 
performance confirmation plan purposes, the baseline includes expected range, condition limits, 
and trend indicators (see baseline condition). 
baseline conditionA set of critical observations or data used for comparison or a control. 
When hypothesis testing is applied to performance confirmation decisions, data are used to 
choose between a presumed baseline condition and an alternative condition. Baseline conditions 
are also referred to as the baseline for statistical comparisons. Deviations from the baseline do 
not necessarily impact performance, only where the trend is unexpected or they exceed a 
predetermined decision point (action level) based on performance assessment sensitivity 
analysis. 
claddingThe metallic outer sheath of a fuel element generally made of stainless steel or a 
zirconium alloy. It is intended to isolate the fuel element from the external environment. 
colloidA large molecule or small particle that has at least one dimension within the size range 
of 10-9 to 10-6 meter, and is suspended in a liquid such as groundwater. 
condition limitThe discrete value(s) or trend(s) outside (upper or lower) the expected range 
that results in more detailed evaluation and potentially additional sampling (including adversely 
developing trends as defined in the PC Test Plans). The exceedance of a condition limit may 
cause a decision-maker to choose one of the alternative actions (e.g., conclusion of compliance 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 A-1 November 2004 

or noncompliance). The condition limit is defined during the planning phase of a data collection 
activity (based on that parameters importance to performance); it is not calculated from the 
sampling data. Condition limits for parameters will be discussed in the PC Test Plan for that 
activity. 
confirmation, or to confirmIn the context of the performance confirmation program, means to 
evaluate the adequacy of assumptions, data, and analyses that led to the findings that permitted 
construction of the repository and subsequent emplacement of the wastes. 
corrosion couponSynonymous with test sample in corrosion testing investigations where 
samples are selected to be representative of the waste package and drip shield materials, 
including processes used to fabricate, assemble, weld, and stress relieve these materials. 
decision ruleA set of directions in the form of a conditional statement that specify the 
following: (1) how the sample data will be compared to the condition limit, (2) which decision 
will be made as a result of that comparison, and (3) what subsequent action will be taken based 
on decisions. 
design basesInformation that identifies the specific functions to be performed by items and the 
specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for 
design. 
disposalThe emplacement of radioactive waste in a geologic repository with the intent of 
leaving it there permanently. 
doseThe total effective dose equivalent means, for purposes of assessing doses to workers, the 
sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposures) and the committed effective dose 
equivalent (for internal exposures). For purposes of assessing doses to members of the public, 
total effective dose equivalent means the sum of the effective dose equivalent (for external 
exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposures). 
driftThe near-horizontal underground excavations from the shaft(s) or ramp(s) to the other 
excavations such as alcoves and rooms. The term includes excavations for emplacement 
(emplacement drifts) and access (access mains). 
drip shieldA component of the Engineered Barrier System. The drip shield is above the waste 
package and is designed to (1) prevent seepage from dripping directly onto the surface of the 
waste package, and (2) to mitigate the effects of rockfall. 
emplacementThe placement and positioning of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive fuel 
(i.e., waste packages) in prepared locations within excavations of a geologic repository. 
emplacement driftA drift in which waste packages are placed. 
Engineered Barrier SystemThe waste packages, including engineered components and 
systems other than the waste package (e.g., drip shields), and the underground facility. 
experimentA test under controlled conditions. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 A-2 November 2004 

Exploratory Studies FacilityAn underground facility at Yucca Mountain used for performing 
site characterization studies. The facility includes a 7.9-km (4.9-mi) main loop (tunnel), the 
2.8-km (1.7-mi) Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block Cross-Drift, and a number 
of alcoves used for site characterization tests such as the Drift Scale Test. 
featureA natural barrier structure, characteristic, process or condition that functions to prevent 
or reduce the movement of water or prevent the release or substantially reduce the release rate of 
radionuclides. 
geologic repositoryA system that is intended to be used for, or may be used for, the disposal of 
radioactive waste in excavated geologic media. A geologic repository includes the geologic 
repository operations area, and the portion of the geologic setting that provides isolation of the 
radioactive waste. 
geologic repository operations areaA high-level radioactive waste facility that is part of a 
geologic repository, including both surface and subsurface areas, where waste handling activities 
are conducted. 
geologic settingThe geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical systems of the region in which a 
geologic repository is or may be located. 
hydraulic conductivityA measure of the ability to transmit water through a permeable 
medium. 
host rock(1) The rock unit in which the potential repository would be located. For a repository 
at Yucca Mountain, the host rock would be the middle portion of the Topopah Spring Tuff of the 
Paintbrush Group. (2) The geologic medium in which the waste is emplaced. 
in situIn its natural position or place. The phrase distinguishes between tests or experiments 
conducted in the field (e.g., in an underground excavation, in-place) from tests and experiments 
conducted in a laboratory. 
lithophysalPertaining to tuff units with lithophysae, small, bubble-like holes in the rock caused 
by volcanic gases trapped in the rock matrix as the ash-flow tuff cooled, often having concentric 
shells of finely crystalline alkali feldspar, quartz, and other materials that were formed by the 
entrapped gases that later escaped. 
modelA representation of a system, process, or phenomenon, along with hypotheses required to 
describe the process or system or to explain the phenomenon, often mathematically. Model 
development typically progresses from conceptual models to mathematical models. 
monitoringTo keep track of systematically with a view to collecting information and to analyze 
or sample, especially on a regular or ongoing basis. In performance confirmation, monitoring is 
generally long-term observation or sampling for a parameter or set of parameters. 
near-fieldThe region where the natural barrier may be significantly perturbed by repository 
excavation and the emplacement of waste. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 A-3 November 2004 

negligibleSo small, unimportant, or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention. 
observation driftA drift near a thermally accelerated emplacement drift, from which conditions 
in the observed drifts can be monitored without adverse effects from radiation or temperature and 
with minimal disruption of the conditions in the observed drift. 
parameterScientific data, performance assessment data, or engineering technical information 
that represent physical or chemical properties, consisting of an assigned variable name and 
generally represented by a value or range of values. Select parameters that potentially are 
subject to varied interpretation and selection of multiple values, and subject to multiple use for 
various technical products within the Project, reside in the Technical Data Management System 
(see observation and sample). 
passive filmA stable impervious oxide film which makes a metal or alloy resistant to further 
oxidation or rusting. The basic resistance to corrosion of some metals and alloys occurs 
because of their ability to form a protective coating on the metal surface. The chromium in 
Alloy 22 combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to form a thin, invisible layer of chrome-
containing oxide, called the passive film. The film self-repairs in the presence of oxygen if the 
Alloy 22 is damaged mechanically or chemically, and thus prevents corrosion from occurring. 
performance assessmentAn analysis that: (1) identifies the features, events, processes (except 
human intrusion), and sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion) that might 
affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal; (2) examines the effects of those features, events, processes, and 
sequences of events and processes upon the performance of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system; and (3) estimates the annual dose incurred by the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual, including the associated uncertainties, as a result of releases caused by all significant 
features, events, processes, and sequences of events and processes, weighted by their probability 
of occurrence. 
performance confirmationThe program of tests, experiments, and analyses conducted to 
evaluate the accuracy and adequacy of the information used to demonstrate compliance with the 
postclosure performance objectives in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 63. 
Performance Confirmation Test Plan (PC Test Plan)A test plan specifically developed to 
support the tests, experiments, and analyses of the performance confirmation program. PC Test 
Plans are distinct from other types of test plans that will be generated for planning and executing 
tests that are used to verify conformance of an item to specified requirements, or to demonstrate 
satisfactory performance for service. Examples of such preclosure testing include prototype 
qualification tests, production tests, proof tests prior to installation, construction tests, and 
preoperational tests. 
permanent closureFinal backfilling of the underground facility, if appropriate, and the sealing 
of shafts, ramps, and boreholes. 
permeabilityIn general terms, the capacity of a medium (like rock, sediment, or soil) to 
transmit liquid or gas. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 A-4 November 2004 

population (statistical)In statistics, the total collection of objects or events, or universe of a 
defined class of natural or constructed conditions to be studied and from which a sample is to be 
drawn. The set of data that consists of all possible observations or values of a certain 
phenomenon. In the context of analysis of performance confirmation, the population does not 
refer to people. 
precisionA measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same 
property. 
process modelA mathematical model that represents an event, phenomenon, process, 
component, etc., or series of events, phenomena, processes, or components, etc. A process 
model may undergo an abstraction for incorporation into a system model. 
retrievalThe act of permanently removing radioactive waste from the underground location at 
which the waste had previously emplaced for disposal. 
risk-informed, performance-basedAn approach to decision-making whereby risk insights are 
considered together with other factors to establish requirements that better focus attention on 
design, operation, and performance issues commensurate with their importance to public heath 
and safety. 
sample (statistical)In statistics, a set of data from the population. 
saturated zoneThat part of the earths crust beneath the regional water in which voids, large 
and small, are filled with water under pressure greater than atmospheric. 
seepageThe flow of the groundwater in fractures or pore spaces of permeable rock to an open 
space in the rock; the percolation flux that enters an underground opening. 
seismicPertaining to, characteristic of, or produced by earthquakes or earth vibrations. 
seismic eventAn earthquake. 
sensitivity studyAn analytic or numerical technique for examining the effects of varying 
specified parameters in a computer model. Shows the effects that changes in various parameters 
have on model outcomes and illustrates which parameters have a greater impact on the predicted 
behavior of the system being modeled. Also called sensitivity analysis because it shows the 
sensitivity of the consequences (e.g., radionuclide release) to uncertain parameters (e.g., the 
infiltration rate that results from precipitation). 
significanceAn effect is said to be significant if the value of the statistic used to test it lies 
outside defined limits, that is to say, if the hypothesis that the effect is not present is rejected. 
A test of significance is one that, by use of a test statistic, purports to provide a test of the 
hypothesis that the effect is absent. By extension, the critical values of the statistics are 
themselves called significant (see statistical hypothesis). 
siteThat area surrounding the geologic repository operations area for which DOE exercises 
authority over its use in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 63. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 A-5 November 2004 

site characterizationThe program of exploration and research, both in the laboratory and in the 
field, that is undertaken to establish the geologic conditions and the ranges of parameters of a 
particular site that are relevant to the implementing documents. 
statistical hypothesisIn statistics, a hypothesis concerning the parameters or form of the 
probability distribution for a designated population or populations, or, more generally, of a 
probabilistic mechanism which is supposed to generate the observations. Hypothesis testing is a 
term used generally to refer to testing significance when specific alternatives to the null 
hypothesis are considered. The null hypothesis is that assumed to be true, unless the data 
indicate with sufficient confidence that it should be rejected in favor of the alternative 
hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is accepted if the null hypothesis is rejected by statistical 
tests (see significance and population, statistical). 
total system performance assessmentA risk assessment that quantitatively estimates how the 
proposed Yucca Mountain repository system performs in the future under the influence of 
specific features, events, and processes, incorporating uncertainty in the models and data. Its 
purposes are: (1) provide the basis for predicting system behavior and for testing that behavior 
against safety measures in the form of regulatory standards, (2) provide the results of total 
system performance assessment analyses and sensitivity studies, (3) provide guidance to site 
characterization and repository design activities, and (4) help prioritize testing and selection of 
the most effective design options. 
trendA long-term movement in an ordered series, which may be regarded, together with the 
oscillation and random component, as generating the observed values. 
tuffIgneous rock formed from compacted volcanic fragments created from pyroclastic 
(explosively ejected) flows with particles generally smaller than 4 mm in diameter; the most 
abundant type of rock at the Yucca Mountain site. 
uncertaintyA quantitative or qualitative measure of how well a mathematical model represents 
a system, process, or phenomenon; or the interval above and below the measurement, parameter, 
or result that contains the true value. There are two types of uncertainty: (1) Stochastic (or 
aleatory) uncertainty caused by the random variability in a process or phenomenon 
(2) State-of-knowledge (or epistemic) uncertainty, which results from a lack of complete 
information about physical phenomena. State-of-knowledge uncertainty is further divided into: 
(i) Parameter uncertainty, which results from imperfect knowledge about the inputs to analytical 
models (ii) Model uncertainty, which is caused by imperfect models of physical systems, 
resulting from simplifying assumptions or an incomplete identification of the system modeled 
(iii) Completeness uncertainty, which refers to the uncertainty as to whether the important 
physical phenomena, relationships (coupling), and events have been considered. 
underground facilityThe underground structure, backfill materials, if any, and openings that 
penetrate the underground structure (e.g., ramps, shafts, and boreholes, including their seals). 
unsaturated zoneThe zone between the land surface and the regional water table. Generally, 
fluid pressure in this zone is less than atmospheric pressure, and some of the voids may contain 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 A-6 November 2004 

air or other gases at atmospheric pressure. Beneath flooded areas or in perched water bodies the 
fluid pressure locally may be greater than atmospheric. 
variabilityRefers to the observed difference attributed to heterogeneity or diversity in a 
population. Sources of variability are the results of natural random processes and stem from the 
differences among the elements of a population. Variability is not usually reducible by further 
measurement but can be better estimated by increased sampling based on the understood or 
assumed distribution in the parameters physical attributes. 
varianceIn performance confirmation, a difference between what is expected or predicted and 
what actually occurs. In statistics, the total variation displayed by a set of observations, as 
measured by the sums of squares of deviations from the mean, may in certain circumstances be 
separated into components associated with defined sources of variation used as criteria of 
classification for the observations. Such an analysis is called an analysis of variance, although in 
the strict sense it is an analysis of sums of squares. Many standard situations can be reduced to 
the variance analysis form. 
waste formThe radioactive waste materials and any encapsulating matrix. 
waste packageThe waste form and any containers, shielding, packing, and other absorbent 
materials immediately surrounding an individual waste container. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 A-7 November 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 05 A-8 November 2004