Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:17:16.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Near-Field Performance Assessment for the Saltstone Disposal Facility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1992

Roger R. Seitz ,
John C. Walton ,
Craig A. Dicke  and
James R. Cook
Roger R. Seitz
Affiliation:
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Subsurface & Environmental Modeling Unit, P. O. Box 1625, MS 2110, Idaho Falls, ID 83415
John C. Walton
Affiliation:
Southwest Research Institute, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, TX 78228
Craig A. Dicke
Affiliation:
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Subsurface & Environmental Modeling Unit, P. O. Box 1625, MS 2110, Idaho Falls, ID 83415
James R. Cook
Affiliation:
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, P.O. Box 616, Aiken, SC 29802
Get access

Abstract

A near-field performance assessment (PA) was conducted for the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The analysis was conducted in four parts: general screening calculations, degradation calculations, and flow and transport through the fractured and nonfractured facility. Modeling approaches and example sensitivity analysis results from the simulations of the fractured facility are discussed. Design considerations that may not be apparent without addressing flow and transport through fractures and lessons learned during the process are also presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 294: Symposium V – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVI , 1992 , 731
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

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. Wilhite, E. L., Proceedings from Waste Management '92, edited by Post, R. G. and Wacks, M. E., Volume 1, pp. 453–455.Google Scholar
2. Seitz, R. R., Garcia, R. S., Kostelnik, K. M., and Starmer, R. J., DOE, U.S., Report No. DOE/LLW- 135, 1992.Google Scholar
3. Walton, J. C., Plansky, L. E., and Smith, R. W., U.S. NRC, Report No. NUREG/CR-5542, 1990.Google Scholar
4. Guppy, R., NSS/R-105, DE88 753994, 1988.Google Scholar
5. Walton, J. C. and Seitz, R. R., Waste Management, 12, 179–187 (1992); >Walton, J. C. and Seitz, R. R., U.S. NRC, Report No. NUREG/CR-5614, 1991.Walton,+J.+C.+and+Seitz,+R.+R.,+U.S.+NRC,+Report+No.+NUREG/CR-5614,+1991.>Google Scholar
6. Ross, B.,Water Resources Research 26 (10), pp. 2625–2629.Google Scholar
7. Walton, J. C., U.S. NRC, Report No. NUREG/CR-5445, 1992.Google Scholar
8. Rasmuson, A. and Neretnieks, I., Journal of Geophysical Research 86, B5, pp. 3749–3758.Google Scholar
9. Runchal, A. K. and Sagar, B., ACRi/016/Rev. H, Analytic and Computational Research, Inc., Belair, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
10. Brookins, D. G., Eh-pH Diagrams for Geochemistry (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988),p. 999.Google Scholar