Salt Disposal of Heat-Generating Nuclear Waste

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Wawersik, W.R., and D.W. Hannum. 1979. Interim Summary of Sandia Creep Experiments on Rock Salt from the WIPP Study Area, Southeastern New Mexico. SAND79-0115. Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories. Wicks, G.G. 2001. “U.S. Field Testing Programs and Results.” Journal of Nuclear Materials 298, 78–85. Wicks, G.G., and M.A. Molecke. 1988. WIPP/SRL In Situ Testing Program: MIIT Update 1988. SAND87-2654C. Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories. Wieczorek, K., and U. Zimmer. 1999. “Hydraulic Behavior of the Excavation Disturbed Zone Around Openings in Rock Salt.” ICEM 99: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental Remediation, September 26–30, 1999; Nagoya, Japan. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. CD-ROM. Wolery, T.J. 1992. EQ3NR, A Computer Program for Geochemical Aqueous Speciation-Solubility Calculations: Theoretical Manual, User’s Guide, and Related Documentation (Version 7.0). UCRL-MA-110662 PT III. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Wolery, T.J., and S.A. Daveler. 1992. EQ6, A Computer Program for Reaction- Path Modeling of Aqueous Geochemical Systems: Theoretical Manual, User’s Guide, and Related Documentation (Version 7.0). UCRL-MA-110662 PT IV. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Wolery, T.J., and R.L. Jarek. 2003. Software User’s Manual for EQ3/6, Version 8.0. 10813-UM-8.0-00. Las Vegas: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 84
APPENDIX A: BASELINE FEATURES, EVENTS, AND PROCESSES (FEPs) LIST FOR SALT DISPOSAL This appendix lists the features, events, and processes (FEPs) used in the certification and recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, an isothermal repository for transuranic waste. This list provides a valuable resource as a starting point if the U.S. chooses a salt option for disposal of high-level nuclear waste. The purpose of FEP screening is to identify those FEPs that should be accounted for in PA calculations and those FEPs that need not be considered further. The DOE’s process of removing FEPs from consideration in PA calculations involved the structured application of explicit screening criteria. The criteria used to screen out FEPs are explicit regulatory exclusion, low probability (i.e., probability below the regulatory screening threshold), or consequence (i.e., consequences insignificant to overall results). Some FEPs screened out because of consequence are, in fact, potentially beneficial to subsystem performance (DOE 1996a). These are identified in this list as “Screened out based on low consequence–beneficial”; this screening decision is applied where there is uncertainty as to exactly how the FEP should be incorporated into assessment calculations or when incorporation of a beneficial FEP would incur unreasonable difficulties. All three criteria are derived from regulatory requirements. FEPs not screened out as on the basis of probability, consequence, or an explicit regulatory exclusion were retained for inclusion in PA calculations and are classified as either undisturbed performance or disturbed performance FEPs. Specific FEP screening criteria are stated in the current governing regulations for U.S. radioactive waste repository programs (40 CFR 197 and 10 CFR 63), and would be expected to be updated, as appropriate, if a new repository policy is enacted for the U.S. In some cases, the effects of the particular event or process occurring, although not necessarily insignificant, can be shown to lie within the range of uncertainty of another FEP already accounted for in the PA calculations. In such cases, the event or process may be included in PA calculations implicitly, within the range of uncertainty associated with the included FEP. Although some FEPs could be eliminated from PA calculations on the basis of more than one criterion; the most practical screening criterion was used for classification. In particular, a regulatory screening classification was used in preference to a probability or consequence screening classification. FEPs that have not been screened out based on any of the three criteria were included in the PA. FEPs classified in this table as “Included in undisturbed performance scenarios” were accounted for in WIPP PA calculations for undisturbed performance of the disposal system; i.e., the predicted behavior of a disposal system, including consideration of the uncertainties in predicted behavior if the disposal system is not disrupted by human intrusion or the occurrence of unlikely natural events. Undisturbed PA calculations are used to demonstrate compliance with the individual and groundwater protection requirements. The FEPs classified in this table as “Included in disturbed performance scenarios” are accounted for only in assessment calculations for disturbed performance of the disposal system. The disturbed performance FEPs that remain following the screening process relate to the disruptive effects of potential future drilling and mining events in the controlled area. 85
Page 1 and 2:
SANDIA REPORT SAND2011-0161 Unlimit
Page 3 and 4:
SAND2011-0161 Unlimited Release Pri
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS 1 Introduction ...........
Page 7 and 8:
NOMENCLATURE CFR DOE DRZ EPA FEP HL
Page 9 and 10:
1 INTRODUCTION While the need for i
Page 11 and 12:
that deep geologic disposal in salt
Page 13 and 14:
To the extent that regulatory guida
Page 15 and 16:
Table 1. Salt and potash mines in t
Page 17 and 18:
steel canisters and horizontal plac
Page 19 and 20:
Considerable qualitative support fo
Page 21:
Table 2. Qualitative comparison of
Page 24 and 25:
Source: Sandia National Laboratorie
Page 26 and 27:
2.2 Salt Repository Design A mine l
Page 28 and 29:
placed over the waste canisters for
Page 30 and 31:
other possible modes of interferenc
Page 32 and 33:
provides frame of reference for sha
Page 34 and 35:
Healing conditions are created once
Page 36 and 37:
permeability tests on Salado salt s
Page 38 and 39:
terms of principal stresses. Stress
Page 40 and 41:
Cross-hole and same-hole velocity m
Page 42 and 43: Figure 4. DRZ development and heali
Page 44 and 45: can be limited, changed, or otherwi
Page 46 and 47: natural salt extracted from the rep
Page 48 and 49: The thermal properties of the crush
Page 50 and 51: mechanical behavior and hydraulic p
Page 52 and 53: educing conditions is the reaction
Page 54 and 55: materials would also have an impact
Page 56 and 57: coefficient models exist (e.g., the
Page 58 and 59: and international researchers toget
Page 60 and 61: a very high level for the purpose o
Page 62 and 63: epresented in the FEP list, undersc
Page 64 and 65: • Response of the modified system
Page 66 and 67: analysis and performance assessment
Page 68 and 69: 4.4 Availability and Movement of Br
Page 70 and 71: Recent developments in Germany and
Page 72 and 73: 6. Damage Induced Permeability. Mec
Page 75 and 76: 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Deep
Page 77 and 78: 7. A HLW repository in salt is expe
Page 79 and 80: This analysis only addresses genera
Page 81: enchmarking program would continue
Page 84 and 85: Brodsky, N.S. 1990. Crack Closure a
Page 86 and 87: Grauer, R., B. Knecht, P. Kreis, an
Page 88 and 89: Knipping, B. 1989. Basalt Intrusion
Page 90 and 91: Plummer, L.N., D.L. Parkhurst, G.W.
Page 94 and 95: In the FEPs numbering scheme for WI
Page 96 and 97: WIPP FEP ID — FEP Name — Descri
Page 108 and 109: 1 Jack Moody Director, State Minera
show all

Salt Disposal of Heat-Generating Nuclear Waste

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?