Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:17:39.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternate Source Term Models for Yucca Mountain Performance Assessment Based on Natural Analog Data and Secondary Mineral Solubility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

William M. Murphy  and
Richard B. Codell
William M. Murphy
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Rd., San Antonio, TX 78238 USA
Richard B. Codell
Affiliation:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555
Get access

Abstract

Performance assessment calculations for the proposed high level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, were conducted using the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Total-System Performance Assessment (TPA 3.2) code to test conceptual models and parameter values for the source term based on data from the Peña Blanca, Mexico, natural analog site and based on a model for coprecipitation and solubility of secondary schoepite. In previous studies the value for the maximum constant oxidative alteration rate of uraninite at the Nopal I uranium body at Peña Blanca was estimated. Scaling this rate to the mass of uranium for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository yields an oxidative alteration rate of 22 kg yr−1, which was assumed to be an upper limit on the release rate from the proposed repository. A second model was developed assuming releases of radionuclides are based on the solubility of secondary schoepite as a function of temperature and solution chemistry. Releases of uranium are given by the product of uranium concentrations at equilibrium with schoepite and the flow of water through the waste packages. For both models, radionuclides other than uranium and those in the cladding and gap fraction were modeled to be released at a rate proportional to the uranium release rate, with additional elemental solubility limits applied. Performance assessment results using the Peña Blanca oxidation rate and schoepite solubility models for Yucca Mountain were compared to the TPA 3.2 base case model, in which release was based on laboratory studies of spent fuel dissolution, cladding and gap release, and solubility limits. Doses calculated using the release rate based on natural analog data and the schoepite solubility models were smaller than doses generated using the base case model. These results provide a degree of confidence in safety predictions using the base case model and an indication of how conservatism in the base case model may be reduced in future analyses.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 556: Symposium QQ – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXII , 1999 , 551
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] Mohanty, S., and McCartin, T.J., Total-system performance assessment (TPA) version 3.1.4 code: Module descriptions and user's guide. Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, San Antonio, TX (1998).Google Scholar
[2] Murphy, W.M., and Pearcy, E.C., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XV, edited by Sombret, C.G. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 257, 1992) pp. 521–527.Google Scholar
[3] Pearcy, E.C., Prikryl, J.D., Murphy, W.M., and Leslie, B.W., Appl. Geochem. 9, 713–732 (1994).Google Scholar
[4] Murphy, W.M., Pearcy, E.C., and Pickett, D.A., Natural analog studies at Peña Blanca and Santorini, in Seventh CEC Natural Analogue Working Group Meeting Proceedings, edited by Maravic, H. von and Smellie, J., EUR 17851 EN, European Commission, Luxembourg, 1997, pp. 105–112.Google Scholar
[5] Murphy, W.M., and Pearcy, E.C., Performance assessment significance of natural analog studies at Peña Blanca, Mexico, and at Santorini, Greece. In Fifth CEC Natural Analogue Working Group Meeting and Alligator River Analogue Project (ARAP) Final Workshop edited by Maravic, H. von, and Smellie, J., EUR 15176 EN, European Commission, Luxembourg, 1993, pp. 219–224.Google Scholar
[6] Wronkiewicz, D.J., Bates, J.K., Gerding, T.J., Veleckis, E., and Tani, B.S., J. Nucl. Mater. 190, 107–127 (1992).Google Scholar
[7] Pickett, D.A., and Murphy, W.M., Isotopic constraints on radionuclide transport at Peña Blanca, in Seventh CEC Natural Analogue Working Group Meeting Proceedings, edited by Maravic, H. von and Smellie, J., EUR 17851 EN, European Commission, Luxembourg, 1997, pp. 113–122.Google Scholar
[8] Pickett, D.A., Prikryl, J.D., Murphy, W.M., and Pearcy, E.C.. Submitted to Appl. Geochem. (1998).Google Scholar
[9] Burns, P.C., Ewing, R.C., and Miller, M.L., J. Nucl. Mater. 245, 1–9 (1997).Google Scholar
[10] Buck, E.C., Finch, R.J., Finn, P.A., and Bates, J.K., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXI, edited by McKinley, I.G., and McCombie, C. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 506, Warrendale, PA, 1998) pp. 87–94.Google Scholar
[11] Murphy, W.M., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XX, edited by Gray, W.J. and Triay, I.R. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 465, Warrendale, PA, 1997) pp. 713–720.Google Scholar
[12] Nguyen, S.N., Silva, R.J., Weed, H.C., and Andrews, J.E. Jr., UCRL-JC-106032. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (1991); S.N. Nguyen, R J Silva, H.C. Weed, and J.F. Andrews, J. Chem. Thermo. 24, 359–376 (1992).Google Scholar
[13] Wolery, T.J., UCRL-MA-l 10662-Pt.3. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Livermore, CA, (1992) 246 pp.Google Scholar
[14] Grenthe, I., Fuger, J., Konnings, R.J.M., Lemire, R.J., Muller, A.B., Nguyen-Trung, C., and Wanner, H., Chemical Thermodynamics of Uranium (North Holland Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam, 1992).Google Scholar
[15] Holland, H.D., and Brush, L.H., in Proceedings of the Conference on High-Level Radioactive Solid Waste Forms, edited by Casey, L.A., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CP-005, Washington, DC (1979) pp. 597–615.Google Scholar
[16] Shock, E.L., Sassani, D.C.., and Betz, H., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 61, 4245–4266 (1997).Google Scholar
[17] Mohanty, S., Cragnolino, G.A., Ahn, T., Dunn, D.S., Lichtner, P.C., Manteufel, R.D., and Sridhar, N., Engineered barrier system performance assessment code: EBSPAC version 1.1 technical description and user's manual. CNWRA 97-006. Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, San Antonio, TX (1997).Google Scholar
[18] Gray, W.J., “”Dissolution testing of spent fuel”, presented at Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, October 14-16, 1992 (unpublished).Google Scholar
[19] Gray, W.J., Leider, H.R., and Steward, S.A., J. Nucl. Mater., 190, 46–52 (1992).Google Scholar
[20] Gray, W.J., and Wilson, C.N., Spent Fuel Dissolution Studies FY 1991 to 1994. PNL-10540, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA (1995).Google Scholar
[21] DOE. Total System Performance Assessment - 1995; An Evaluation of the Potential Yucca Mountain Repository. B00000000-01717-2200-00136, Rev. 01, TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc., Las Vegas, NV (1995).Google Scholar
[22] Wilson, M.L. et al. Total-System Performance Assessment for Yucca Mountain - SNL Second Iteration (TSPA-1993). Sand93-2675. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM (1994).Google Scholar