Publications

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

This paper applies sensitivity and uncertainty analysis to compare two model alternatives for fuel matrix degradation for performance assessment of a generic crystalline repository. The results show that this model choice has little effect on uncertainty in the peak ¹²⁹I concentration. The small impact of this choice is likely due to the higher importance of uncertainty in the instantaneous release fraction and differences in epistemic uncertainty between the alternatives.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Over the past four years, an informal working group has developed to investigate existing sensitivity analysis methods, examine new methods, and identify best practices. The focus is on the use of sensitivity analysis in case studies involving geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste. To examine ideas and have applicable test cases for comparison purposes, we have developed multiple case studies. Four of these case studies are presented in this report: the GRS clay case, the SNL shale case, the Dessel case, and the IBRAE groundwater case. We present the different sensitivity analysis methods investigated by various groups, the results obtained by different groups and different implementations, and summarize our findings.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

The Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Campaign of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Fuel Cycle Technology (FCT) is conducting research and development (R&D) on geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level nuclear waste (HLW). Two high priorities for SFWST disposal R&D are design concept development and disposal system modeling. These priorities are directly addressed in the SFWST Geologic Disposal Safety Assessment (GDSA) control account, which is charged with developing a geologic repository system modeling and analysis capability, and the associated software, GDSA Framework, for evaluating disposal system performance for nuclear waste in geologic media. GDSA Framework is supported by SFWST Campaign and its predecessor the Used Fuel Disposition (UFD) campaign. This report fulfills the GDSA Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Methods work package (SF-21SN01030404) level 3 milestone, Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Methods and Applications in GDSA Framework (FY2021) (M3SF-21SN010304042). It presents high level objectives and strategy for development of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis tools, demonstrates uncertainty quantification (UQ) and sensitivity analysis (SA) tools in GDSA Framework in FY21, and describes additional UQ/SA tools whose future implementation would enhance the UQ/SA capability of GDSA Framework. This work was closely coordinated with the other Sandia National Laboratory GDSA work packages: the GDSA Framework Development work package (SF-21SN01030405), the GDSA Repository Systems Analysis work package (SF-21SN01030406), and the GDSA PFLOTRAN Development work package (SF-21SN01030407). This report builds on developments reported in previous GDSA Framework milestones, particularly M3SF 20SN010304032.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is an important failure degradation mechanism for storage of spent nuclear fuel. Since 2014, Sandia National Laboratories has been developing a probabilistic methodology for predicting SCC. The model is intended to provide qualitative assessment of data needs, model sensitivities, and future model development. In fiscal year 2021, improvement of the SCC model focused on the salt deposition, maximum pit size, and crack growth rate models.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

The use of evidence theory and associated cumulative plausibility functions (CPFs), cumulative belief functions (CBFs), cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), complementary cumulative plausibility functions (CCPFs), complementary cumulative belief functions (CCBFs), and complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs) in the analysis of time and temperature margins associated with loss of assured safety (LOAS) for one weak link (WL)/two strong link (SL) systems is illustrated. Article content includes cumulative and complementary cumulative belief, plausibility, and probability for (i) SL/ WL failure time margins defined by (time at which SL failure potentially causes LOAS) - (time at which WL failure potentially prevents LOAS), (ii) SL/WL failure temperature margins defined by (the temperature at which SL failure potentially causes LOAS) - (the temperature at which WL failure potentially prevents LOAS), and (iii) SL/SL failure temperature margins defined by (the temperature at which SL failure potentially causes LOAS) - (the temperature of SL whose failure potentially causes LOAS at the time at which WL failure potentially prevents LOAS).

The use of evidence theory and associated cumulative plausibility functions (CPFs), cumulative belief functions (CBFs), cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), complementary cumulative plausibility functions (CCPFs), complementary cumulative belief functions (CCBFs), and complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs) in the analysis of loss of assured safety (LOAS) for weak link (WL)/strong link (SL) systems is introduced and illustrated. Article content includes cumulative and complementary cumulative belief, plausibility, and probability for (i) time at which LOAS occurs for a one WL/two SL system, (ii) time at which a two-link system fails, (iii) temperature at which a two-link system fails, and (iv) temperature at which LOAS occurs for a one WL/two SL system. The presented results can be generalized to systems with more than one WL and two SLs.

The use of evidence theory and associated cumulative plausibility functions (CPFs), cumulative belief functions (CBFs), cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), complementary cumulative plausibility functions (CCPFs), complementary cumulative belief functions (CCBFs), and complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs) in the analysis of time and temperature margins associated with loss of assured safety (LOAS) for one weak link (WL)/two strong link (SL) systems is illustrated. Article content includes cumulative and complementary cumulative belief, plausibility, and probability for (i) SL/WL failure time margins defined by (time at which SL failure potentially causes LOAS) – (time at which WL failure potentially prevents LOAS), (ii) SL/WL failure temperature margins defined by (the temperature at which SL failure potentially causes LOAS) – (the temperature at which WL failure potentially prevents LOAS), and (iii) SL/SL failure temperature margins defined by (the temperature at which SL failure potentially causes LOAS) – (the temperature of SL whose failure potentially causes LOAS at the time at which WL failure potentially prevents LOAS).

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

This analysis provides estimates on the leak frequencies of nine components found in liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. Data was taken from a variety of sources, with 25 different data sets included in the analysis. A hierarchical Bayesian model was used that assumes that the log leak frequency follows a normal distribution and the logarithm of the mean of this normal distribution is a linear function of the logarithm of the fractional leak area. This type of model uses uninformed prior distributions that are updated with applicable data. Separate models are fit for each component listed. Five order-of-magnitude fractional leak areas are considered, based on the flow area of the component. Three types of supporting analyses were performed: sensitivity of the model to the data set used, sensitivity of the leak frequency estimates to differences in the model structure or prior distributions, and sufficiency of sample sized used for convergence. Recommended leak frequency distributions for all component types and leak sizes are given. These leak frequency predictions can be used for quantitative risk assessments in the future.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.