skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Model Validation Status Review

Abstract

The primary objective for the Model Validation Status Review was to perform a one-time evaluation of model validation associated with the analysis/model reports (AMRs) containing model input to total-system performance assessment (TSPA) for the Yucca Mountain site recommendation (SR). This review was performed in response to Corrective Action Request BSC-01-C-01 (Clark 2001, Krisha 2001) pursuant to Quality Assurance review findings of an adverse trend in model validation deficiency. The review findings in this report provide the following information which defines the extent of model validation deficiency and the corrective action needed: (1) AMRs that contain or support models are identified, and conversely, for each model the supporting documentation is identified. (2) The use for each model is determined based on whether the output is used directly for TSPA-SR, or for screening (exclusion) of features, events, and processes (FEPs), and the nature of the model output. (3) Two approaches are used to evaluate the extent to which the validation for each model is compliant with AP-3.10Q (Analyses and Models). The approaches differ in regard to whether model validation is achieved within individual AMRs as originally intended, or whether model validation could be readily achieved by incorporating information from other sources. (4)more » Recommendations are presented for changes to the AMRs, and additional model development activities or data collection, that will remedy model validation review findings, in support of licensing activities. The Model Validation Status Review emphasized those AMRs that support TSPA-SR (CRWMS M&O 2000bl and 2000bm). A series of workshops and teleconferences was held to discuss and integrate the review findings. The review encompassed 125 AMRs (Table 1) plus certain other supporting documents and data needed to assess model validity. The AMRs were grouped in 21 model areas representing the modeling of processes affecting the natural and engineered barriers, plus the TSPA model itself Description of the model areas is provided in Section 3, and the documents reviewed are described in Section 4. The responsible manager for the Model Validation Status Review was the Chief Science Officer (CSO) for Bechtel-SAIC Co. (BSC). The team lead was assigned by the CSO. A total of 32 technical specialists were engaged to evaluate model validation status in the 21 model areas. The technical specialists were generally independent of the work reviewed, meeting technical qualifications as discussed in Section 5.« less

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Yucca Mountain Project, Las Vegas, Nevada
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
894170
Report Number(s):
TDR-WIS-MD-00005, Rev. 00
MOL.20011211.0095, DC# 29009; TRN: US0700114
DOE Contract Number:  
NA
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; DOCUMENTATION; EVALUATION; LICENSING; PERFORMANCE; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RECOMMENDATIONS; SIMULATION; VALIDATION; YUCCA MOUNTAIN

Citation Formats

E.L. Hardin. Model Validation Status Review. United States: N. p., 2001. Web. doi:10.2172/894170.
E.L. Hardin. Model Validation Status Review. United States. doi:10.2172/894170.
E.L. Hardin. Wed . "Model Validation Status Review". United States. doi:10.2172/894170. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/894170.
@article{osti_894170,
title = {Model Validation Status Review},
author = {E.L. Hardin},
abstractNote = {The primary objective for the Model Validation Status Review was to perform a one-time evaluation of model validation associated with the analysis/model reports (AMRs) containing model input to total-system performance assessment (TSPA) for the Yucca Mountain site recommendation (SR). This review was performed in response to Corrective Action Request BSC-01-C-01 (Clark 2001, Krisha 2001) pursuant to Quality Assurance review findings of an adverse trend in model validation deficiency. The review findings in this report provide the following information which defines the extent of model validation deficiency and the corrective action needed: (1) AMRs that contain or support models are identified, and conversely, for each model the supporting documentation is identified. (2) The use for each model is determined based on whether the output is used directly for TSPA-SR, or for screening (exclusion) of features, events, and processes (FEPs), and the nature of the model output. (3) Two approaches are used to evaluate the extent to which the validation for each model is compliant with AP-3.10Q (Analyses and Models). The approaches differ in regard to whether model validation is achieved within individual AMRs as originally intended, or whether model validation could be readily achieved by incorporating information from other sources. (4) Recommendations are presented for changes to the AMRs, and additional model development activities or data collection, that will remedy model validation review findings, in support of licensing activities. The Model Validation Status Review emphasized those AMRs that support TSPA-SR (CRWMS M&O 2000bl and 2000bm). A series of workshops and teleconferences was held to discuss and integrate the review findings. The review encompassed 125 AMRs (Table 1) plus certain other supporting documents and data needed to assess model validity. The AMRs were grouped in 21 model areas representing the modeling of processes affecting the natural and engineered barriers, plus the TSPA model itself Description of the model areas is provided in Section 3, and the documents reviewed are described in Section 4. The responsible manager for the Model Validation Status Review was the Chief Science Officer (CSO) for Bechtel-SAIC Co. (BSC). The team lead was assigned by the CSO. A total of 32 technical specialists were engaged to evaluate model validation status in the 21 model areas. The technical specialists were generally independent of the work reviewed, meeting technical qualifications as discussed in Section 5.},
doi = {10.2172/894170},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {2001},
month = {11}
}