Programmer`s manual for CAMCON: Compliance Assessment Methodology CONtroller

Rechard, Robert P.; Gilkey, A.P.; Rudeen, David Keith; Byle, Kathleen A.; Iuzzolino, H.J.

doi:10.2172/10182359

Cited by 7 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Expression 3-7 defines the expectation operator, 2101, whose operational meaning should be obvious: take an 42 arbitrary but well-behaved function h(x), weight it with the infinitesimal probability dF(x), and integrate the product 4 3 over all values of x E Dw The expected (or mean) value of the components of performance measure C can be calcu-44 lated by taking 45 46 47 48 49 The covariance matrix of the performance measure C is found by taking 50 h(x) = fi(x), for each i = 1,2,3,...,N. The full joint CDF for the performance measure C may be calculated by taking…”

Section: 41mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although performance criteria are not established, the act does specify the approach to nuclear waste disposal 48 to be followed in the United States. The policy is based on the belief that the current generation has an obligation to 49 bear the political and financial costs of developing a permanent disposal option. A specific requirement that directly 50 affects disposal of the waste considered in the 1994 PA is that DOE defense and experimental waste, with the exception of defense transuranic waste, should be disposed of with commercial waste and thus must comply with all 1 at the repository will prevent unreasonable risk of breaching the repository, consistent with recommendations by the NAS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…48 where N1 counts the number of times the event R 1 2 occurs during the period of performance (see Example for defi- 49 nitions of the other parameters). As argued in Example 2, the summary scenario B(x) corresponds to a unique set of 50 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The difference between the waste parcels for the horizontal and ver-42 tical emplacements are the type of container used and, therefore, the amount of waste per waste parcel. 47 48 All 11 parcels per emplacement scheme are modeled in the Simple PA, where each waste type is placed individ- 49 ually into the repository. The waste disposal group for the Complex PA includes nine waste parcels: five spent fud 50 51 parcels, one INEL calcine parcel as a glass-ceramic waste form, and three DOE high-level waste parcels.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Performance assessment of the direct disposal in unsaturated tuff or spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste owned by USDOE: Volume 2, Methodology and results

Rechard¹

1995

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: 41mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance assessment of the direct disposal in unsaturated tuff or spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste owned by USDOE: Volume 2, Methodology and results

Rechard¹

1995

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In 1990 the GENPROP code was used to manually produce a CDB file. As the process evolved, parameters were collected into a centralized location called the secondary database (Rechard, 1992) and the codes began reading a CDB file (some parameters are still gained via input files or are hard-wired). The input file consisted of columns of data whose placement specification was defined by a header.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidebook for performance assessment parameters used in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant compliance certification application. Volume 1: Main report

Howarth¹,

Martell²,

Weiner

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historical background on performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Rechard

2000

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protection Agency (EPA) certified that the WIPP dkposal system complied with its regulations. The EPA's decision was primarily based on the results from a performance. assessment conducted in 1996, which is summarized in thk special issue of Reliability Engineerhg and System Safety. This performance assessment was the culmination of four prelirninaryperformance assessments conducted between 1989 and 1992. "This paper provides a historical setting and context for how the performance of the deep geologic repository at the WIPP was analyzed.' Also included is background on political forces .acting on the project.Key Words: performance assessmen~probabilistic risk assessment risk assessment; radioactive waste disposal; Waste Isolation Pilot PlanG history . '1.0 IntroductionIn 1998,25 years 'after selection of the "Delaware Basin in southeastern New Mexico as a~otential disposal site for radioactive waste, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), an underground geologic disposal system, complied with its regulations. This paper presents a historical summary of the system characterization, engineering analyses, and scientific investigations undertaken by the WIPP Project over the past 25 years and provides a context for the~esults presented in this special issue of Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Although it is mot .essentird to know the WIPP'S history to comprehend the engineering analysis, an understanding of the issues that the project faced can be helpful. Many paths were followed during these 25 years to discern which phenomena were important at the WIPP, and often these paths were initiated in Tesponse to evolving notions of what kind of :g@tific information was "significant, what level of understanding was required, and how society could use this scientific information to decide whether deep geologic disposal of nuclear waste was acceptable.1-3/9/99 Draft \. DISCLAIMERPortions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document... .- Characterization of WIPP Disposal SystemThe choice of New Mexico as a potential disposal site for nuclear waste in 1973 (Claibome and Gera, 1974) was one in a series of episodes in which New Mexico had figured prominently with regard to nuclear phenomena. In 1942, the Manhattan Engineering Dkrnct selected New Mexico as the location (including what are known now asLos Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories) for assembling the scientists, engineers, and technicians who would develop the fist atomic bomb. As a direct consequence of that development, the first atomic explosion took place in 1945 in the desert near Alamogordo, New Mexico (Serber, 1992). Sixteen years later, in 1961, scientists with the Gnome Project detonated a device in the Delaware Basin in bedded salt near Carlsbad, New Mexico, as part of the Plowshare Program, which was exploring nonmilitary uses of nuclear explosives (Gard, 1968).After a potential...

show abstract

Programmer`s manual for CAMCON: Compliance Assessment Methodology CONtroller

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Performance assessment of the direct disposal in unsaturated tuff or spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste owned by USDOE: Volume 2, Methodology and results

Performance assessment of the direct disposal in unsaturated tuff or spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste owned by USDOE: Volume 2, Methodology and results

Guidebook for performance assessment parameters used in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant compliance certification application. Volume 1: Main report

Historical background on performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About