Paper detail

Use of groundwater lifetime expectancy for the performance assessment of a deep geologic radioactive waste repository:2. Application to a Canadian Shield environment

Cornaton et al. [2007] introduced the concept of lifetime expectancy as a performance measure of the safety of subsurface repositories, based upon the travel time for contaminants released at a certain point in the subsurface to reach the biosphere or compliance area. The methodologies are applied to a hypothetical but realistic Canadian Shield crystalline rock environment, which is considered to be one of the most geologically stable areas on Earth. In an approximately 10\times10\times1.5 km3 hypothetical study area, up to 1000 major and intermediate fracture zones are generated from surface lineament analyses and subsurface surveys. In the study area, mean and probability density of lifetime expectancy are analyzed with realistic geologic and hydrologic shield settings in order to demonstrate the applicability of the theory and the numerical model for optimally locating a deep subsurface repository for the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. The results demonstrate that, in general, groundwater lifetime expectancy increases with depth and it is greatest inside major matrix blocks. Various sources and aspects of uncertainty are considered, specifically geometric and hydraulic parameters of permeable fracture zones. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the existence and location of permeable fracture zones and the relationship between fracture zone permeability and depth from ground surface are the most significant factors for lifetime expectancy distribution in such a crystalline rock environment. As a consequence, it is successfully demonstrated that the concept of lifetime expectancy can be applied to siting and performance assessment studies for deep geologic repositories in crystalline fractured rock settings.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.