Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:46:38.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimated Effects of Temperature-Relative Humidity Variations on the Composition of In-Drift Water in the Potential Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Lauren Browning ,
Randall Fedors ,
Lietai Yang ,
Osvaldo Pensado ,
Roberto Pabalan ,
Chandrika Manepally  and
Bret Leslie
Lauren Browning
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX
Randall Fedors
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX
Lietai Yang
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX
Osvaldo Pensado
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX
Roberto Pabalan
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX
Chandrika Manepally
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX
Bret Leslie
Affiliation:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD
Get access

Abstract

We define four distinct thermohydrochemical environments for drip shield and waste package corrosion in the potential nuclear waste repository, referred to here as the Dry, Seepage + Evaporation, Seepage + Condensation + Evaporation, and the Seepage + Condensation environments. These environments are bounded by temperature and relative humidity conditions at drift wall and drip shield/waste package surfaces judged most likely to initiate fundamental changes in the quantity and/or chemistry of in-drift waters. The duration in which different environments might exist is evaluated by comparing simulated, time-dependent temperature and relative humidity curves for three different locations within repository drift 25. In-drift conditions and processes postulated to cause drip shield/waste package corrosion are evaluated within the context of the thermohydrochemical environments by various means, including analytical calculations and geochemical simulations. Of the four environments considered here, the Seepage + Evaporation environment presents the most significant potential for aqueous corrosion of drip shield and waste package materials, and may persist for approximately 500 years in center drift locations. The likelihood for corrosion in other thermohydrochemical environments is significantly lower, but may increase with the acquisition of new data or the demonstration of extenuating circumstances.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 824: Symposium CC – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXVIII , 2004 , CC7.11
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. Brossia, C.S., et al. (2001). CNWRA 2001-003.Google Scholar
2. Pabalan, R., Yang, L., and Browning, L., CNWRA-2002-03, San Antonio, TX (2002).Google Scholar
3. Fedors, R., Green, S., Walter, D., Farrell, D., Svedeman, S., Dodge, F., Hart, R., Environmental Conditions In Drifts. CNWRA, San Antonio, TX (March 2004).Google Scholar
4. Manepally, C. and Fedors, R., Proc. of 10th IHLRWM Conference, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, (Published on CD ROM, 2003).Google Scholar
5.DOE, DOE/RW-0539-1 Rev 1, Las Vegas, NV: Department of Energy (2002).Google Scholar
6. Brossia, C.S. and Cragnolino, G.A., In Press – Corrosion Science (2004).Google Scholar
7. Dunn, D., Pensado, O., Brossia, C.S., Cragnolino, G., Sridhar, N., and Ahn, T., Proc. Internat. Worshop, Cadarache, Feron, France. D. and Macdonald, D.D. (Eds.) Maney Publishing, London, UK, pp. 208–224 (2003).Google Scholar
8. Dunn, D., Yang, L., Wu, C., and Cragnolino, G., this volume (2004a).Google Scholar
9.Bechtel SAIC Co., LLC. Technical Basis Document No. 5: In-Drift Chemical Environment, Rev 1. Las Vegas, NV (2003).Google Scholar
10.CRWMS M&O, MDL-NBS-HS-000001 REV 01, CRWMS M&O, Las Vegas, NV (2001).Google Scholar
11. Browning, L., Murphy, W., Manepally, C., and Fedors, R.. Computers & Geosci. 29: pp. 247–263 (2003).Google Scholar
12. Yang, I., Rattray, G., Yu, P., US Geol. Survey, WRIR 96-4058, Denver, CO (1996).Google Scholar
13. Yang, I., Yu, P., Rattray, G., Ferarese, J., Ryan, R., US Geol. Survey, WRIR 98-4132, Denver, CO (1998).Google Scholar
14. Mohanty, S., McCartin, T., and Esh, D., Total-system Performance Assessment (TPA) Version 4.0 Code: Module Descriptions and User's Guide, CNWRA, San Antonio, TX (January 2002).Google Scholar
15. Lin, C., Leslie, B., Codell, R., Arlt, H., and Ahn, T., Proc. of 10th IHLRWM Conference, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, pp. 646–652 (2003).Google Scholar
16. Bethke, C.M., The Geochemist's Workbench, release 4.0, Univ. Illinios, Urbana-Champaign, IL (2002).Google Scholar
17. Pulvirenti, A., Needham, K., M. Adel-Hadadi, Bishop, E., and Barkatt, A., Corrosion 2003. NACE Internat., Houston, TX (2003).Google Scholar
18. Delany, J.M., UCRL-53631, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 42 p. (1985)Google Scholar