Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T02:16:01.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect f Waste Package and Engineered Barrier System Design:Options on Long-Term Waste Package Degradation Characteristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

J. H. Lee ,
K. G. Mon ,
B. E. Bullard  and
D. E. Longsine
J. H. Lee
Affiliation:
CRWMS M&O, Duke Engineering & Services, Las Vegas, NV
K. G. Mon
Affiliation:
CRWMS M&O, Duke Engineering & Services, Las Vegas, NV
B. E. Bullard
Affiliation:
CRWMS M&O, Duke Engineering & Services, Las Vegas, NV
D. E. Longsine
Affiliation:
CRWMS M&O, Duke Engineering & Services, Las Vegas, NV
Get access

Abstract

Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of a number of waste package and engineered barrier system (EBS) design options on long-term waste package degradation in the potential repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The evaluations were performed by analyzing the waste package degradation in terms of the first breach and first pit-breach profiles with time. Results for each design option were assessed by comparing to results for the reference-case design. An important finding from the analyses is that the waste package lifetime could be extended substantially by limiting and delaying the contact of dripping water with the Alloy 22 corrosion resistant material (CRM) barrier. In the current model, this would keep the CRM barrier outside the conditions that makes the alloy susceptible to localized corrosion. Uncertainty in waste package degradation analysis would be reduced by improved understanding and characterization of the processes that create the local exposure condition on waste package.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 556: Symposium QQ – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXII , 1999 , 567
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] DOE, Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, DOE/RW-0508, Washington, D.C., 1998.Google Scholar
[2] CRWMS M&O, Waste Package Materials Selection Analysis, BBA000000-01717-0200-00020 Rev. 01, Las Vegas, NV, 1998.Google Scholar
[3] CRWMS M&O, Controlled Design Assumptions Document, B00000000-01717-4600-00032 Rev. 04/ICN 3, Las Vegas, NV, p. 3–64, 1997.Google Scholar
[4] CRWMS M&O, Total System Performance Assessment- Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA) Analyses Technical Basis Document: Chapter 5 Waste Package Degradation Modeling and Abstraction, B00000000-01717-4301-00005 REV 01, Las Vegas, NV, 1998.Google Scholar
[5] Lee, J.H., Mon, K.G., Longsine, D.E., and Bullard, B.E., This volume.Google Scholar
[6] CRWMS M&O, Total System Performance Assessment- Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA) Analyses Technical Basis Document. Chapter 3 Thermal Hydrology, B00000000-01717-4301 – 00003 REV 01, Las Vegas, NV, 1998.Google Scholar
[7] Gruss, K.A., Cragnolino, G.A., Dunn, D.S., and Sridhar, N., Corrosion/98, Paper No. 149, NACE.Google Scholar
[8] Roy, A.K., Fleming, D.L., and Lum, B.Y., , B.Y., UCRL-JC-129068, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Livermore, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
[9] CRWMS M&O, Waste Package Degradation Expert Elicitation Project, Yucca Mountain, Rev. 1, Las Vegas, NV, 1998.Google Scholar
[10] Lee, J.H., Atkins, J.E., and Andrews, R.W., Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XIX, ed. Murphy, W.M., and Knecht, D.A. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 412, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996), pp. 571–580.Google Scholar
[11] Summers, T.S.E., Wall, M.A., Matthews, S.J., and Rebak, R.B., This volume.Google Scholar