skip to main content

Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Froehlich, Gary K."
  1. Abstract not provided.
  2. The US Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located in southeast New Mexico, is a deep geologic repository for the permanent disposal of transuranic waste generated by DOE defense-related activities. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), in its role as scientific advisor to the DOE, is responsible for evaluating the long-term performance of the WIPP. This risk-based Performance Assessment (PA) is accomplished in part through the use of numerous scientific modeling codes, which rely for some of their inputs on data gathered during characterization of the site. The PA is subject to formal requirements set forth in federal regulations.more » In particular, the components of the calculation fall under the configuration management and software quality assurance aegis of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) requirements. This paper describes SNL's implementation of the NQA requirements regarding configuration management. The complexity of the PA calculation is described, and the rationale for developing a flexible, robust run-control process is discussed. The run-control implementation is described, and its integration with the configuration-management system is then explained, to show how a calculation requiring 37,000 CPU-hours, and involving 225,000 output files totaling 95 Gigabytes, was accomplished in 5 months by 2 individuals, with full traceability and reproducibility.« less
  3. The US Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located in southeast New Mexico, is a deep geologic repository for the permanent disposal of transuranic waste generated by DOE defense-related activities. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), in its role as scientific advisor to the DOE, is responsible for evaluating the long-term performance of the WIPP. This risk-based Performance Assessment (PA) is accomplished in part through the use of numerous scientific modeling codes, which rely for some of their inputs on data gathered during characterization of the site. The PA is subject to formal requirements set forth in federal regulations.more » In particular, the components of the calculation fall under the configuration management and software quality assurance aegis of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers(ASME) Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) requirements. This paper describes SNL's implementation of the NQA requirements regarding software quality assurance (SQA). The description of the implementation of SQA for a PA calculation addresses not only the interpretation of the NQA requirements, it also discusses roles, deliverables, and the resources necessary for effective implementation. Finally, examples are given which illustrate the effectiveness of SNL's SQA program, followed by a detailed discussion of lessons learned.« less
  4. This document describes a proactive plan for assessing and controlling sources of risk for the ASCI (Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative) V&V program at Sandia National Laboratories. It offers a graded approach for identifying, analyzing, prioritizing, responding to, and monitoring risks.
  5. This report describes the results of the FY01 Level 1 Peer Reviews for the Verification and Validation (V&V) Program at Sandia National Laboratories. V&V peer review at Sandia is intended to assess the ASCI (Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative) code team V&V planning process and execution. The Level 1 Peer Review process is conducted in accordance with the process defined in SAND2000-3099. V&V Plans are developed in accordance with the guidelines defined in SAND2000-3 101. The peer review process and process for improving the Guidelines are necessarily synchronized and form parts of a larger quality improvement process supporting the ASCI V&Vmore » program at Sandia. During FY00 a prototype of the process was conducted for two code teams and their V&V Plans and the process and guidelines updated based on the prototype. In FY01, Level 1 Peer Reviews were conducted on an additional eleven code teams and their respective V&V Plans. This report summarizes the results from those peer reviews, including recommendations from the panels that conducted the reviews.« less
  6. In May 1998, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified the US Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) as being in compliance with applicable long-term regulations governing the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level, and transuranic radioactive wastes. The WIPP is the first deep geologic repository in the US to have successfully demonstrated regulatory compliance with long-term radioactive waste disposal requirements. The first disposal of TRU waste at WIPP occurred on March 26, 1999. Many of the lessons learned during the WIPP Project's transition from site characterization and experimental research to the preparation of a successfulmore » application may be of general interest to other repository programs. During a four-year period (1992 to 1996), the WIPP team [including the DOE Carlsbad Area Office (CAO), the science advisor to CAO, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), and the management and operating contractor of the WIPP site, Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WID)] met its aggressive schedule for submitting the application without compromising the integrity of the scientific basis for the long-term safety of the repository. Strong leadership of the CAO-SNL-WID team was essential. Within SNL, a mature and robust performance assessment (PA) allowed prioritization of remaining scientific activities with respect to their impact on regulatory compliance. Early and frequent dialog with EPA staff expedited the review process after the application was submitted. Questions that faced SNL are familiar to geoscientists working in site evaluation projects. What data should be gathered during site characterization? How can we know when data are sufficient? How can we know when our understanding of the disposal system is sufficient to support our conceptual models? What constitutes adequate ''validation'' of conceptual models for processes that act over geologic time? How should we use peer review and expert judgment? Other lessons learned by SNL and the WIPP team are more specific to the regulatory context of the project and the demands imposed by pervasive review by the regulator and other external organizations. How should we document the relationship between site data and the parameter values used in computer models? How can we manage software configuration and use it to support the regulatory requirement that analyses be traceable and reproducible? Can we institute a quality assurance (QA) program that will meet the regulatory requirements and enhance the process without unreasonable budget and schedule impacts? How can we resolve technical disputes, both within the project and with external critics? How should we involve regulators and stakeholders in the compliance process? The WIPP teams answers to these questions, and others like them, were, in many cases, pragmatic solutions based on the needs of the pro-warn at the time. Some problems encountered and their solutions may be of limited interest. However, that it is possible to license a geologic repository in a regulatory proceeding while incorporating meaningful public review and criticism is a lesson of general interest to all radioactive waste management programs.« less
Switch to Detail View for this search