Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T18:50:57.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

General Approach Used in the Performance Assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

Rob P. Rechard
Rob P. Rechard*
Affiliation:
Performance Assessment Department 6852, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185-0776, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

This paper discusses the technical approach and rationale of the performance assessments (PAs) conducted for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant that contributed to the success of the certification in 1998. The PAs were iterated: there were four preliminary PAs between 1989 and 1992 and the certification PA in 1996. Although many changes occurred between the 1992 PA and 1996 PA, the preliminary iterations provided a strong foundation on quality assurance, parameter and model databases, documentation, and peer review. The seven general steps of a PA are used to provide a brief overview of their history. The paper then delves into the rationale used for the most computationally intense step of a PA, the consequence evaluation. For this evaluation, Sandia National Laboratories mostly used detailed models when evaluating the probabilistic performance of the repository under the stylized conditions specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A computational tool, CAMCON, was specifically tailored for this approach. Many advantages were gained by using detailed models directly in the PA, rather than using simplified results of these models. One important advantage was that models and parameters remained fairly unbiased (i.e., the analysis had only a few major conservative assumptions rather than many, unquantified conservatisms). This approach allowed Sandia to faithfully provide a “reasonable expectation” of repository performance, as specified by the EPA.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 713: Symposium JJ – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXV , 2002 , JJ4.6
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

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.Pub. L. 96-164, 93 Stat. 1259 (1979).Google Scholar
2. Rechard, R.P., Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 69(1–3), 5–46 (2000).Google Scholar
3. Rechard, R.P., Sand98-0072 Revised. (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 2000).Google Scholar
4. Helton, J.C., Marietta, M.G., Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 69(1–3), 1–3 (2000).Google Scholar
5. Rechard, R.P., Sand93-1378. (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 1995).Google Scholar
6. Morgan, M.G., Henrion, M., Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990).Google Scholar
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fed. Regist. 63(93), 26846–26924 (1998).Google Scholar
8. Marietta, M.G., Bertram-Howery, S.G., anderson, D.R., Brinster, K.F., Guzowski, R.V., Iuzzolino, H., Rechard, R.P., Sand89-2027 (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 1989).Google Scholar
9. Bertram-Howery, S.G., Marietta, M.G., Rechard, R.P., Swift, P.N., anderson, D.R., Baker, B.L., Bean, J.E. Jr, Beyeler, W., Brinster, K.F., Guzowski, R.V., Helton, J.C., McCurley, R.D., Rudeen, D.K., Schreiber, J.D., Vaughn, P., Sand90-2347 (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 1990).Google Scholar
10. Helton, J.C., Marietta, M.G., Rechard, R.P., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVI, edited by Interrante, C.G., Pabalan, R.T. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 294, Pittsburgh, 1993) pp. 885–898.Google Scholar
11. Helton, J.C., Garner, J.W., Marietta, M.G., Rechard, R.P., Rudeen, D.K., Swift, P.N.. Nuc. Sci. Eng., 114(4), 286–331 (1993).Google Scholar
12. Helton, J.C., anderson, D.R., Baker, B.L., Bean, J.E., Berglund, J.W., Beyeler, W., Economy, K., Garner, J.W., Hora, S.C., Iuzzolino, H.J., Knupp, P., Marietta, M.G., Rath, J., Rechard, R.P., Roache, P.J, Rudeen, D.K., Salari, K., Schreiber, J.D., Swift, P.N., Tierney, M.S., Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 51(1), 53–100 (1996).Google Scholar
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fed. Regist. 61(28), 5224–5245 (1996).Google Scholar
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fed. Regist. 62(210), 58792–58806 (1997).Google Scholar
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fed. Regist. 41(235), 53363 (1976).Google Scholar
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fed. Regist. 50(182), 38066–38089 (1985).Google Scholar
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fed. Regist. 58(242), 66398–66416 (1993).Google Scholar
18. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Fed. Regist. 60(158), 42622–42629 (1995).Google Scholar
19. Rechard, R.P, Risk Anal. 19(5), 763–807 (1999).Google Scholar
20.Pub. L. 102–579, 106 Stat. 4777 (1992).Google Scholar
21. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIS-0026, vols. 1–2 (Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1979).Google Scholar
22. Lappin, A.R., Hunter, R.L. Garber, D.P., Davies, P.B., eds., Sand89-0462 (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 1989).Google Scholar
23. Cranwell, R.M., Guzowski, R.V., Campbell, J.E., Ortiz, N.R., Sand80-1429 (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 1990).Google Scholar
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fed. Regist. 66(114), 32074–32135 (2001).Google Scholar
25. Pate-Cornell, M.E., Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 54(2–3), 95–111 (1996).Google Scholar
26. Larson, K.W., Swift, P.N., Chu, M.S.Y., anderson, D.R., Froehlich, G.K., Howard, B.A., Howarth, S.M., Pickering, S.Y., in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental Remediation–ICEM '99 (Amer. Soc. Mech. Eng., 1999).Google Scholar
27. Rechard, R.P., Trauth, K.M., Guzowski, R.V., Sand91-0429 (Sandia National Laboratories, 1992).Google Scholar
28. Campbell, J.E., Cranwell, R.M., Science 239(4846), 1389–1392 (1998).bGoogle Scholar