SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
his chapter presents the site and facility characteristics that potentially influence ELLWF performance, the development of the PA waste inventory, including uncertainty quantification, and the screening approaches used to reduce the number of radionuclides included in the PA model simulations.
Table A-1, Table A-2, and Table A-3, respectively, list SAs, UDQEs, and other analyses and assessments prepared in support of the ELLWF since the previous ELLWF PA was issued in early 2008.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This appendix contains information and key data in support of Chapter 3 and Chapter 8. The following topics are addressed: PIF aquifer cutouts for ELLWF aquifer flow and transport analyses. Limits aquifer cutouts for ELLWF aquifer flow and transport analyses.
This chapter describes the GW flow and transport conceptual models in the VZ for both generic and special waste forms in STs, ETs, LAWV, ILV, and NRCDAs. The development and implementation of the GoldSim® system model for trenches is also introduced. The Trench System Model is used for sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification as reported in Chapter 6.
This chapter provides a description of the methods used for the sensitivity and uncertainty quantification analyses and identifies the parameters and assumptions found to be most important in the determination of compliance with PA performance objectives, development of WAC, establishment of individual DU inventory limits, and other regulatory decisions.
The work documented within this PA is the result of years of multidisciplinary research and modeling activities accomplished through the efforts of the individuals named in this section. Individuals who directly helped prepare this report are listed in Section 11.1; those who significantly contributed to the work described herein are acknowledged in Section 11.2.
This chapter summarizes safety functions and features, events, and processes; conceptual models which apply to all DUs; property data packages; and modeling tools developed and implemented in this PA to analyze ELLWF performance. Conceptual models of GW flow and transport in the VZ, which are specific to type of DU, are presented in Chapter 4.
The total relative uncertainty, U, reported for each isotope in each waste cut is given by (Eq. 2-2) in Section 2.3.5.3. Waste Cut 1 of Container SD00003950 has a total activity of 737.990 Ci distributed among the isotopes H-3 and Am-241. Table B-1 summarizes the calculation results for the best-effort analysis example presented in Section 2.3.5.9.
As a supplement to Chapter 6, Section 6.1.1.3, Table F-1 through Table F-24 provide tabular results of the sensitivity analysis calculations for waste disposal timing (Sensitivity Case S6) in NR07E (Cases 3 and 4) and NR26E (Cases 1 through 4). The title of each table identifies the DU, sensitivity case, and performance measure. Section F.1.1 (Table F-1 through Table F-8) presents results for NR07E and Section F.1.2 (Table F-9 through Table F-24) presents results for NR26E. In each table, radionuclides are sorted from highest to lowest nominal concentration or dose factor. Nominal values are when waste disposal occurs at the start of operations; timeline values are when waste disposal occurs at the end of operations. The differences (Δ values) in the last column of each table equal the timeline concentration or dose factor minus the nominal concentration or dose factor, where DF and CF are shorthand designations for dose factor and concentration factor, respectively.
This appendix contains supporting information and key data used during the IHI analysis, including the following: • A list of parent radionuclides requiring IHI inventory limits (Section G.1) • Tables of IHI acute and chronic dose factors, inventory limits, and concentration limits for all DUs (Section G.2) • IHI acute and chronic dose history time profiles for all DUs (Section G.3)
For the GW and air pathways described in Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, POs are evaluated for MOPs based on a 100-meter POA for all DUs. In this chapter, POs are assessed for the IHI who may physically disrupt the facility at some time after the end of IC and when the POA is at the DUs (Aleman et al., 2021).
This chapter, together with Appendix H, provides the necessary CWTS inventory limits and trigger values for every parent radionuclide not screened out in Sections 2.3.6, 2.3.7, and 2.3.8. Also provided are details associated with how generic and special waste forms are handled on a DU-specific basis, and a discussion of the conversion of preliminary inventory limits (via transport runs summarized in Chapter 5) into final inventory limits for use in the CWTS limits system. Using the final inventory limits, a projected 2065 CWTS inventory is generated for use in the PA closure analysis outlined in Chapter 9.
This chapter summarizes the results of PA compliance against all relevant PA POs and measures. The final inventory limits presented in Chapters 7 and 8, as well as the methodology employed, provide assurance that POs will be met throughout the compliance periods. Deterministic and stochastic closure analyses also demonstrate a minimal likelihood of exceeding POs. Potential peaks post compliance are also addressed where future work is proposed to improve the understanding in actual uncertainties.
This report is a summary of the international collaboration and laboratory work funded by the US Department of Energy Office (DOE) of Nuclear Energy Spent Fuel and Waste Science & Technology (SFWST) as part of the Sandia National Laboratories Salt R&D work package. This report satisfies milestone level-four milestone M4SF-19SNO10303064. Several stand-alone sections make up this summary report, each completed by the participants. The first two sections discuss international collaborations on geomechanical benchmarking exercises (WEIMOS), granular salt reconsolidation (KOMPASS), engineered barriers (RANGERS), and documentation of Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs).
Cliff failure is occurring and threatens to expose pits and shafts. Steep slope angles = FoS < 1 = high probability of failure and retreat. EQ magnitude > 5.5 could initiate failure where FoS > 1. Fracture characterization (location, orientation, etc.) is essential for predictive analysis of at-risk cliff failure locations. Additional surface exposure dating would be helpful and further constrain the effect of fracture characteristics. Continued monitoring is essential for change detection and identification of areas with higher cliff retreat rates.