Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T02:27:25.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stochastic Modeling of Long-Term Waste Package Degradation Incorporating Expert Elicitation on Corrosion Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

J. H. Lee ,
K. G. Mori ,
D. E. Longsine  and
B. E. Bullard
J. H. Lee
Affiliation:
CRWMS M&O, Duke Engineering & Services, 1261 Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134
K. G. Mori
Affiliation:
CRWMS M&O, Duke Engineering & Services, 1261 Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134
D. E. Longsine
Affiliation:
CRWMS M&O, Duke Engineering & Services, 1261 Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134
B. E. Bullard
Affiliation:
CRWMS M&O, Duke Engineering & Services, 1261 Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134
Get access

Abstract

The Viability Assessment (VA) of the potential repository for high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada was completed [1]. In the VA design concept, a two-layer waste container provides the primary component of the engineered barrier system (EBS). The VA reference design specifies a 100-mm thick carbon steel as the outer barrier and a 20-mm thick Alloy 22 as the inner barrier. A stochastic simulation model was developed to analyze long-term performance of the waste package in the potential repository. The model was developed by incorporating the latest corrosion data and models for the candidate waste package materials and the information developed from the Waste Package Degradation Expert Elicitation (WPDEE) [2].

The reference case results showed that only a small fraction of waste packages fail by localized corrosion (i.e., pit penetrations). The analysis also indicated the degradation mode that is most important to long-term waste package degradation is general corrosion (or passive dissolution) of the inner barrier under dripping conditions. However, the general corrosion rates for dripping conditions used in the analysis have a range over three to five orders of magnitude. This is due mainly to a lack of information on local chemical and electrochemical conditions on the inner barrier after the outer barrier breach. This paper discusses further the areas and issues that need improvement to reduce uncertainty in the waste package degradation analysis. It also discusses additional waste package degradation modes and associated processes that need to be included in the future analysis for the potential repository to enhance the confidence of the analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 556: Symposium QQ – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXII , 1999 , 515
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 Degradation Expert Elicitation Project, Yucca Mountain, Rev. I, Las Vegas, NV, 1998.Google Scholar
[3] CRWMS M&O, Waste Package Materials Selection Analysis, BBA000000-01717-0200-00020 Rev. 01, Las Vegas, NV, 1998.Google Scholar
[4] CRWMS M&O, Controlled Design Assumptions Document, B00000000-01717-4600-00032 Rev. 04/ICN 3, Las Vegas, NV, p. 3–64, 1997.Google Scholar
[5] CRWMS M&O, Total System Performance Assessment-1995: An Evaluation of the Potential Yucca Mountain Repository, 1300000000-01717-2200-00136 Rev. 01, Las Vegas, NV, 1995.Google Scholar
[6] 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
[7] McCright, R.D., Engineered Materials Characterization Report for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project: Volume 3. Corrosion Data and Modeling. Rev. 1.1, UCRL-ID-119564, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1998.Google Scholar
[8] Lee, J.H., Atkins, J.E., and Dunlap, B., Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XX, ed. Gray, W., and Triay, I. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 465, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997), pp. 1075–1082.Google Scholar
[9] Gdowski, G.E., Corrosion/98, Paper No. 151, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1988.Google Scholar
[10] 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
[11] CRWMS M&O, Total System Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA) Analyses Technical Basis Document: Chapter 4 Near-Field Geochemical Environment, B00000000-01717-4301-00004 REV 01, Las Vegas, NV, 1998.Google Scholar
[12] Vernon, W.H., Trans. Electrochemical Soc., 64, 31–41 (1933).Google Scholar
[13] Fyfe, D., in Corrosion: Metal/Environment Reactions, Vol.1, 3rd Ed., Shreir, L.L., Jarman, R.A., and Burstein, G.T. (ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 2:31-2:42, 1994.Google Scholar
[14] Haynie, F.H., Spence, J.W., and Upham, J.B., in Atmospheric Factors Affecting the Corrosion of Engineering Metals, Coburn, S.K. (ed.), ASTM STP 646, pp. 30–47 (1978).Google Scholar
[15] 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
[16] ASTM, G50-76, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.3.02, pp. 194–198 (1992).Google Scholar
[17] Farmer, J.C. and McCright, R.D., Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XII, ed. Lutze, W. and Ewing, R.C. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 127, Pittsburgh, PA, 1989), pp. 359–371.Google Scholar