Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:48:01.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uncertainties in geochemical models of natural systems: Implications for performance assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Christopher S. Palenik ,
Keld A. Jensen  and
Rodney C. Ewing
Christopher S. Palenik
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063, USA
Keld A. Jensen
Affiliation:
National Institute of Occupational Health, Denmark, Lersø Parkallé 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Rodney C. Ewing
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063, USA Department of Nuclear Engineering & Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2104, USA
Get access

Abstract

Licensing a geologic repository for nuclear waste will be based primarily upon the results of a performance assessment (PA), which evaluates compliance of the repository with radiation exposure limits by modeling the engineered and natural barrier systems over extended periods (104 to 106 years). The properly completed PA must include an analysis of the sources of uncertainty, as well as the range of input parameter values, in order to determine whether the analysis is “robust”, “realistic” or “conservative”. This paper examines the sources of uncertainty that may be encountered in source-term and near-field models in a performance assessment of a repository for spent nuclear fuel by examining the uncertainties in modeling the geochemical behavior of the Bangombé natural reactor in Gabon.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 824: Symposium CC – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXVIII , 2004 , CC3.3
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

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

1.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Regulations 10 CFR Part 63.Google Scholar
2. Bredehoeft, J.D., Ground Water, 41, 571 (2003).Google Scholar
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, 66, 55732 (2001).Google Scholar
4. Jensen, K.A. and Ewing, R.C., GSA Bulletin, 32, 113 (2001).Google Scholar
5. Hidaka, H. and Holliger, P., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 62, 89 (1998).Google Scholar
6. Jensen, K.A., Palenik, C.S. and Ewing, R.C., Radiochimica Acta, 90, 716 (2002).Google Scholar
7. Ewing, R.C., Tierney, M.S., Konikow, L.F., and Rechard, R.P., Risk Analysis, 19, 933 (1999).Google Scholar
8. Bethke, C.M., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 56, 4315 (1992).Google Scholar
9. Duro, L., et al., “Blind Prediction Modeling (BPM) exercises in Oklo,” Oklo working group Proceedings of the third and final EC-CEA workshop on Oklo – Phase II, held in Cadarache, France, ed. Louvat, D., Michaud, V., and Maravic, H. von (Nuclear Science and Technology Report EUR 19137 EN, 2000), 285.Google Scholar
10. Madé, B., Ledoux, E., Ayora, C., and Salas, J., “Coupled chemical transport modeling of uranium around the reaction zone at Bangombé (Oklo, Gabon),” Oklo working group Proceedings of the third and final EC-CEA workshop on Oklo – Phase II, held in Cadarache, France, ed. Louvat, D., Michaud, V., and Maravic, H. von (Nuclear Science and Technology Report EUR 19137 EN, 2000), 307.Google Scholar
11. Salah, S., Weathering processes at the natural nuclear reactor of Bangombé (Gabon). Identification and geochemical modeling of the retention and migration mechanisms of uranium and rare earth elements. (Ph.D. thesis, Universite Luis Pasteur Strasbourg I and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Ecole et Observatoire des Sciences de la Terre, Centre de Geochimie de la Surface U.M.R. 7517, Strasbourg, 2000) p. 256.Google Scholar
12.LLNL Thermodynamic DatabaseGoogle Scholar
13. Chen, F., Ewing, R.C., and Clarke, S., American Mineralogist, 84, 650 (1999).Google Scholar
14. Zhil'tsova, I.G., Polypanov, L.I., , Shmariovich, and Parlina, S.A., Lith. Min. Res., 20, 586 (1985).Google Scholar
15. Langmuir, D., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 42, 547 (1978).Google Scholar
16. Grenthe, I., Fuger, J., Konings, R.J.M., Lemire, R.J., Muller, A.B., Nguyan-Trung, C., and Warner, H. Chemical Thermodynamics. Vol. I Chemical Thermodynamics of Uranium. (Elsevier, 1992) 715.Google Scholar
17. Bredehoeft, J.D. and Konikow, L.F. Advances in Water Resources, 15, 371 (1993).Google Scholar
18. Burns, P.C., Miller, M.L., and Ewing, R.C. Canadian Mineralogist, 34, 845 (1996).Google Scholar
19. Hughes-Kubatka, K.A., Helean, K.B., Navrotsky, A., and Burns, P.C., Science, 302, 1191 (2003).Google Scholar
20. Wang, T., Bryan, C. Xu, H., and Gao, H. Geology, 31, 387 (2003).Google Scholar
21. Konikow, L.F., Ground Water, 24, 173 (1986).Google Scholar
22. Cohen, B.L., Risk Analysis, 23, 909 (2003).Google Scholar
23. Ewing, R.C., Palenik, C.S. and Konikow, L.F., Risk Analysis, (accepted).Google Scholar