Total-system performance assessment for Yucca Mountain -- SNL second iteration (TSPA-1993); Executive summary

Wilson, Michael L.; Barnard, R.W.; Gauthier, John H.

doi:10.2172/145192

Cited by 26 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The selection of the distributions provided in this section were based on a review of previous estimates (Wilson et al 1994) and the qualified and corroborating data presented in this report. The results reflect the current best judgement of the author on the implications of these sources for estimating sorption-coefficient distributions to be used for the saturated zone.…”

Section: Sorption Coefficients For Performance Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distributions elicited for the Unsaturated Zone sorption parameter values are biased toward the tests that used p#l-water compositions, and those for the Saturated Zone parameter values. As in previous estimates (Wilson et al 1994), two key assumptions were used to formulate the sorption-coefficient distributions. These assumptions were as follows (their technical basis is described in Section 5):…”

Section: Sorption Coefficients For Performance Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unsaturated Zone and Saturated Zone Transport Properties (U0100)

Conca¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sorption Coefficients For Performance Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sorption Coefficients For Performance Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unsaturated Zone and Saturated Zone Transport Properties (U0100)

Conca¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As proposed, the in-drift waste package held either 21 PWR assemblies, 40 BWR assemblies, or several HLW pour canisters. Wilson et al 1994, Figure 4-2 Hence, the volume of expensive alloy 825 was reduced somewhat by in-drift disposal.…”

Section: A-336 Ymp Package Design In Early 1990smentioning

confidence: 99%

End of FY10 report - used fuel disposition technical bases and lessons learned : legal and regulatory framework for high-level waste disposition in the United States.

Weiner¹,

Blink

Rechard³

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report examines the current policy, legal, and regulatory framework pertaining to used nuclear fuel and high level waste management in the United States. The goal is to identify potential changes that if made could add flexibility and possibly improve the chances of successfully implementing technical aspects of a nuclear waste policy. Experience suggests that the regulatory framework should be established prior to initiating future repository development. Concerning specifics of the regulatory framework, reasonable expectation as the standard of proof was successfully implemented and could be retained in the future; yet, the current classification system for radioactive waste, including hazardous constituents, warrants reexamination.Whether or not consideration of multiple sites are considered simultaneously in the future, inclusion of mechanisms such as deliberate use of performance assessment to manage site characterization would be wise. Because of experience gained here and abroad, diversity of geologic media is not particularly necessary as a criterion in site selection guidelines for multiple sites. Stepwise development of the repository program that includes flexibility also warrants serious consideration. Furthermore, integration of the waste management system from storage, transportation, and disposition, should be examined and would be facilitated by integration of the legal and regulatory framework. Finally, in order to enhance acceptability of future repository development, the national policy should be cognizant of those policy and technical attributes that enhance initial acceptance, and those policy and technical attributes that maintain and broaden credibility.

show abstract

“…The hydrogeologic units that are considered in most unsaturated flow analyses as well as in this study are, from top to bottom: the Tiva Canyon welded (TCw) with a thickness of 81 m, the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) with a thickness of 39 m, the Topopah Spring welded (TSw) with a thickness of 299 m, the Topopah Spring vitrophyre (TSv) with a thickness of 15 m, the Calico Hills nonwelded-vitric (CHnv) with a thickness of 64 m, and the Calico Hills nonwelded-zeolitic (CHnz) with a thickness of 127 m [12,13]. The units exhibit significant differences in their properties [14] and hydraulic behaviors, and data that were available for this study included the thickness of layers, the means and standard deviations, and the range of the parameters.…”

Section: Physical Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%