IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v122y2014icp249-266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overview of total system model used for the 2008 performance assessment for the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Author

Listed:
  • Hansen, C.W.
  • Birkholzer, J.T.
  • Blink, J.
  • Bryan, C.R.
  • Chen, Y.
  • Gross, M.B.
  • Hardin, E.
  • Houseworth, J.
  • Howard, R.
  • Jarek, R.
  • Lee, K.P.
  • Lester, B.
  • Mariner, P.
  • Mattie, P.D.
  • Mehta, S.
  • Perry, F.V.
  • Robinson, B.
  • Sassani, D.
  • Sevougian, S.D.
  • Stein, J.S.
  • Wasiolek, M.

Abstract

A summary is presented for the total system model used to represent physical processes associated with the seven scenario classes (i.e., nominal conditions, early waste package (WP) failure, early drip shield (DS) failure, igneous intrusive events, igneous eruptive events, seismic ground motion events and seismic fault displacement events) considered in the 2008 performance assessment for the proposed repository for high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The total system model estimates dose to an exposed individual resulting from radionuclide movement through the repository system and biosphere. Components of the total system model described in this presentation include models for (i) climate analysis, (ii) land surface infiltration and associated unsaturated zone flow, (iii) multi-scale thermal hydrology and engineered barrier system (EBS) thermal–hydrologic environment, (iv) EBS physical and chemical environment, (v) WP and DS degradation, (vi) drift seepage and drift wall condensation, (vii) waste form degradation and mobilization, (viii) water and radionuclide movement in the EBS and underlying unsaturated and saturated zones, (ix) radionuclide movement in the biosphere and resultant human exposure, and (x) processes specific to early WP and DS failures, intrusive and eruptive igneous events, and seismic ground motion and fault displacement events.

Suggested Citation

  • Hansen, C.W. & Birkholzer, J.T. & Blink, J. & Bryan, C.R. & Chen, Y. & Gross, M.B. & Hardin, E. & Houseworth, J. & Howard, R. & Jarek, R. & Lee, K.P. & Lester, B. & Mariner, P. & Mattie, P.D. & Mehta,, 2014. "Overview of total system model used for the 2008 performance assessment for the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 249-266.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:122:y:2014:i:c:p:249-266
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095183201300166X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. François Diaz-Maurin & Rodney C. Ewing, 2018. "Mission Impossible? Socio-Technical Integration of Nuclear Waste Geological Disposal Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-39, November.
    2. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    3. Edoardo Tosoni & Ahti Salo & Enrico Zio, 2018. "Scenario Analysis for the Safety Assessment of Nuclear Waste Repositories: A Critical Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 755-776, April.
    4. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1315-1340, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:122:y:2014:i:c:p:249-266. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.