Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:34:12.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lessons Learned from the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Project The Engineered Barrier System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2012

D. J. Duquette ,
C. A. W. Di Bella ,
R. M. Latanision  and
B. E. Kirstein
D. J. Duquette
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180-3590
C. A. W. Di Bella
Affiliation:
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 2300 Clarendon Blvd., Arlington, VA 22201-3367
R. M. Latanision
Affiliation:
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 2300 Clarendon Blvd., Arlington, VA 22201-3367
B. E. Kirstein
Affiliation:
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 2300 Clarendon Blvd., Arlington, VA 22201-3367
Get access

Abstract

Nuclear waste isolation programs both inside and outside the United States have provided evidence that there are many geologic options for a repository, but virtually all of them rely to some degree on an engineered barrier system (EBS) to isolate and/or retard the migration of radionuclides to the biosphere. At Yucca Mountain, the design of the EBS was unexpectedly challenging because of uncertainties in quantitatively determining the local environment of the EBS particularly during the thermal pulse. The EBS design for the Yucca Mountain site evolved from a thin-walled, limited-lifetime, corrosion-resistant canister through a corrosion-allowance canister, to the present design, which may have a lifetime of more than 106 years. The EBS proposed for the Yucca Mountain repository has many individual sub-barriers, beginning with the spent fuel and waste, the cladding of the spent fuel, the geometry of the package, etc. The anticipated modes of degradation of engineering materials, including corrosion of the fuel, of the canister, and of the drip shield proposed specifically for the Yucca Mountain project, and the consequences of the materials degradation on the performance of the repository are presented. The roles of conservative modeling and simplifying assumptions for radionuclide mobilization and transport in the EBS on characterization of the source term are addressed.

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1475: Symposium NW – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXXV , 2012 , imrc11-1475-nw35-o26
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

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. NWTRB, “Second Report to the U. S. Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Energy” (November 1990).Google Scholar
2. SNL (Sandia National Laboratories), “Total System Analysis Model/Analysis for the License Application”, MDL-WIS-PA-000005, Rev. 00 (2008).Google Scholar
3. SNL,” General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of Waste Package Outer Barrier,” ANL-EBS-MD-000003, Rev. 03 (2007).Google Scholar
4. NRC (National Research Council), “ Technical Basis for Yucca Mountain Standards ,” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (1995).Google Scholar
5. Prather, K. A., Department of Chemistry, University of California at San Diego, personal correspondence (2010).Google Scholar
6. Gelencsér, A., Carbonaceous Aerosol, (Springer, the Netherlands, 2004).Google Scholar
7. Peterman, Z., United States Geological Survey, “Effects of Temperature on the Composition of Soluble Salts in Dust”, Presentation to the USNWTRB (January 2008).Google Scholar
8. Dubinko, V. I., Turkin, A. A., Vainshtein, D. I., and den Hartog, H. W., J. Nucl. Mater., 277, 184 (2000).10.1016/S0022-3115(99)00207-XGoogle Scholar
9. Weiss, H., Van Konynenburg, R. A., and McCright, R. D., “Metallurgical Analysis of 304L Stainless Steel Canister from the Spent Fuel Test – Climax”, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCID-20436 (1985).10.2172/59368Google Scholar
10. Murphy, W. M., Garrick, B. J. and Kirstein, B. E., “ A quantitative risk analysis perspective on the source term for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain ”, ed. Burakov, B. E. and Aloy, A. S., (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 1123, Warrendale, PA, 2009)Google Scholar
11. Flint, A. L., Flint, L.E.. Hevesi, J. A., and Hudson, D. B., “Characterization of arid land-water balance processes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada”, in Flow and Transport Through Unsaturated Rock, ed. Evans, D. D., Nicholson, T. J., and Rasmussen, T. C., American Geophysical Union Monograph, 135–149 Washington, D. C. (2001).Google Scholar
12. Flint, A. L., Flint, L. E., Bodvarsson, G. S., Kwicklis, E. M., and Fabryka-Martin, J., J. Hydrology, 247, 1–30 (2001).10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00358-4Google Scholar
13. Buscheck, T. A., Rosenberg, N. D., Gansemer, J., and Sun, Y., “Thermohydrologic behavior at an underground nuclear repository”, Water Resources Research, 38, 10-1–10-19 (2002).10.1029/2000WR000010Google Scholar
14. Buscheck, T. A., “Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model”, ANL-EBS-MD-000049, Rev 03, Appendix X (2005).10.2172/883416Google Scholar
15. Bernot, P., “Dissolved Concentration Limits of Elements with Radionuclide Isotopes”, ANL-WIS-MD-000010, Rev 06, SNL (2007).Google Scholar
16. Murphy, W. M., “ Natural Analogues and Performance Assessment for Geologic Disposal of Nuclear Waste ”, (Mater. Res. Symp. Proc., 608, 533–544, Warrendale, PA, 2000).Google Scholar
17. Murphy, W. M. and Grambow, B., Radiochemica Acta, 96, 563–567 (2008).Google Scholar
18. Cui, D., Ranebo, Y., Low, J., Rondinella, V. V., Pan, J., and Spaniu, K., “ Immobilization of radionuclides on iron canister material at near-field conditions ”, (Mater. Res. Symp. Proc., 1124, 2009).Google Scholar
19. Ferriss, E. D. A., Helean, K. B., Bryan, C. R., Brady, P.V., and Ewing, R. C., J. Nucl. Mater., 384, 130 (2009)10.1016/j.jnucmat.2008.11.007Google Scholar