Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Stockton, Tom

Publications and source records attributed to Stockton, Tom.

Panel Session 80: Interagency Community of Practice in Risk and Performance Assessment

This panel focused on the status of the Inter-agency Performance and Risk Assessment Community of Practice (P and RA COP). Representatives from the P and RA COP and subject matter experts discussed lessons learned and provided feedback on building the P and RA COP to support risk-informed environmental decision making. Panelists with presentations: Understanding Mechanisms to Manage Uncertainty and Risk in Waste Containment Systems (Craig Benson, University of Virginia - CRESP (USA) Scaling for Performance Assessments (Paul Black, Katie Catlett, Doug Anderson, Paul Duffy, Tom Stockton, Sam Van Sickle, John Carson); Interagency Community of Practice in Rick and Performance Assessment (Horst Monken Fernandes); Institutional Controls as a Risk Management Tool (David Esh); Superfund: Explanation of Screening and PRG's for Risk and Dose Assessment (Stuart Walker)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Modeling Streamflow and Sediment Transport Under Current and Future Climates at the West Valley Site - 20231

Performance Assessment models often require inputs representing specific hydrologic processes such as streamflow and sediment flux. This paper details the development of a process-level hydrologic model and its use in a Probabilistic Performance Assessment (PPA) system-level model for the West Valley Site in western New York. For this PPA model, a watershed model was developed using SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) and used to evaluate water and sediment fluxes in nearby streams draining the Site. A particular challenge of probabilistic modeling over long periods of time is scaling parameters appropriately so that outcomes are not grossly over- or underestimated. This challenge is especially important when the spatial and temporal scales of process and system level models differ. In this instance, the SWAT watershed model and GoldSim PPA model have similar spatial scales of stream reaches and sub-catchments within a single watershed (approximately hundreds to tens of thousands of square meters, but the temporal scales differ considerably. The SWAT model calculates streamflow and sediment transport rates at the daily scale, while the PPA model requires long-term average values that are applied over hundreds to thousands of year-long periods. As such, distributions of daily climatic parameters such as average precipitation rate, temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity were developed to force a transient SWAT model that captures the dynamic behavior of the watershed in response to daily changes in the weather. Output from the model, which includes stream flow (m{sup 3}/y) and sediment transport rate (Mg/y) is then averaged over a 100-year period as an approximation for the long-term average values which can be applied in GoldSim. A single SWAT model was run 5000 times with varying climatic inputs and deterministic soil, land use, and elevation data, and the range of outputs were compiled into a distribution which can be implemented stochastically into the PPA Model. Additionally, this paper includes a high-level discussion of how changes in future climate affect weather input distributions, and a summary of how those changes in weather affect the outcomes from the SWAT model and the inputs into the PPA model. In this analysis, future climate distributions were developed based on climate research documenting the expected changes to precipitation and temperature in western New York. The 5,000 SWAT simulations were then repeated with these future climate distributions, and the resulting output was implemented into the PPA Model as hydrologic conditions under a future climate. In the current version of the PPA Model, hydrologic parameters change linearly from the 'current climate' conditions to the 'future climate' conditions over a period of 100 years, after which they remain constant. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Distribution Development for the RDX Regional Model at Los Alamos National Laboratory - 20385

Representing uncertainty in model inputs often means finding a balance between uncertainty and physical reality. Developing wide distributions may seem conservative in principle, but this approach may lead to unrealistic model results. Characterizing the current state of knowledge of stochastic inputs presents many challenges, especially if the data available are limited or have limited relevance to the site. Relationships among these inputs may also be important to represent but are typically complex or difficult to define. Often special adjustments must be made to account for reduced credibility in particular data. If parameters are strongly related to one another, a correlation structure may be developed for input to the model. Other techniques such as regression models may be used to incorporate relationships between the information available and the desired parameters. The process of developing distributions must consider details of the model in terms of what the distribution is meant to represent. This paper uses the example of a probabilistic fate and transport model for hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) in the regional aquifer at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). For many parameters, a single draw is applied to all space and time over which the model is run, for a single iteration. This simplification is often made for many reasons, and can often be beneficial, but also adds additional complexity in the distribution development process. Defining the distributional goals as they relate to the modeling process is an important step, which should take place prior to evaluation of the data. Usually, the distributions developed are meant to characterize the average value of the parameter over the spatial and temporal domain of the model. Distribution development requires consideration of many sources of information on the parameter where available, ideally from multiple references. Examples of different sources include data from different references but also from different conditions, measurement methods, or experimental types. Depending on these conditions and the reliability or relevance of particular references, different sources of data may each contribute valuable information but have varying relevance to the site. In these cases, weighting data unequally is a useful way to incorporate this information. As an example, aqueous dispersivity data are available for a variety of rock types. Only a few values are available for the desired rock type, and this is not enough to develop a distribution. Therefore, dispersivity values from other rock types are included in distribution development but are down-weighted such that the best data have the most influence on the distribution developed. In another case, K{sub d} distributions in the model are meant to represent a known composition of multiple soil types. Data from these materials are weighted accordingly to develop a distribution for the weighted average K{sub d} across soil types. Other cases include varying reliability of different sources, and weighting data according to the confidence in these sources. In some cases, input parameters are correlated with one another. An example is advective porosity, which is positively correlated with total porosity and must be less than total porosity. Paired data with both parameters must exist to discern the relationship between the two parameters and if it is necessary to build a correlation structure into the model. In general, correlated parameters may be represented in the model by a multivariate distribution, or perhaps more desirably, capturing the correlation within the developed distributions which may be treated as independent from one another. In the example of porosity, this can be done by transforming advective porosity into a proportion of total porosity which may be drawn independently from the distribution of total porosity. This paper explores how complex data and correlations can be incorporated to meet the distributional goals of the model, using the RDX regional model as a detailed example. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Incorporating the Impacts of Climate Change on Hydrology in a Performance Assessment Model - 20403

The evidence of climate change is increasingly well-documented and impacts should be incorporated in performance assessment studies. The current climate literature provides both observational evidence and climate model projections of climate trends and/or climate change in the late 20. and early 21. centuries for North America and the northeast United States. Probabilistic modeling is a core requirement for quantifying uncertainty and evaluating its impacts. Not evaluating future climate states in a performance assessment because of the existence of uncertainty is contradictory to good modeling practices - the most uncertain issues and parameters require the most attention in effective probabilistic modeling. Excluding climate change limits development of modeling information that could aid in effective decision making. In this work we develop methods to use the output from hydrologic models and analysis of historical aerial imagery to quantify and implement the impacts of climate change on hydrologic processes at a nuclear waste site in West Valley, New York. Specifically, we used the HELP (Hydraulic Performance of Landfill Performance) model to characterize key hydrologic processes under both current and future climate conditions to assess the impacts of changing climate on hydrology. A suite of previous climatic models were reviewed and synthesized to produce a cohesive representation of the current state of knowledge of the impact of climate change on important model inputs such as precipitation. Output from the HELP simulations was coupled to the GoldSim model that was used to develop the Probabilistic Performance Assessment (PPA) approach through the application of a novel 'nearest neighbor' technique. First, several thousand realizations were generated from the HELP model using a Latin Hypercube experimental design to ensure adequate coverage of the parameter space of explanatory variables used to drive HELP. For example, porosity is a physical parameter that is used as an input to both HELP and the GoldSim PA model. We then ran sensitivity analysis (SA) algorithms on the output of HELP for each of the responses of interest. For each predictor, each time we build an SA model we get a different value for the sensitivity index (SI). From the collection of all the SA models, the average was computed among all of the SIs to represent the predictor within the context of the nearest neighbor approach. That is, we conduct SA on each HELP outcome for each scenario. This gives us parameter sensitivity indices for the outcomes. We average the parameter sensitivity indices across the outcomes to get the average SI for a scenario. For each realization that is generated from the Goldsim PA model, Goldsim generates random values for physical/empirical parameters that HELP uses as well. For each vector of physical/empirical parameters that Goldsim generates, the vector from the 5,000 HELP runs that is most 'similar' to the Goldsim vector is computed using the nearest neighbor approach. In this context 'similar' means minimization of the SA-weighted sum of the absolute differences among the 5,000 values computed for this statistic, where each value corresponds to a different HELP realization. In order to account for the impacts of climate change, this process was repeated using the spatially downscaled future climate projections. For each of the key parameters of interest, it was assumed that a linear change depicted the relationship between the values for the present day and those for 2100. In this way, the climatically-driven changes in key parameters used to inform the GoldSim model are quantified and incorporated into the PA model output for the future. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Bayesian Approach to Estimation of Water Table Elevations Using Historical Rasters as Prior Information 2019 - 20430

In cases of complex but only partially known geology and a lack of spatial control in observation well locations, water table elevation estimation is very challenging. In some cases, auxiliary information, such as observations of the movement of tracers, operation of injection and extraction wells, and calibration of groundwater models against the historical elevation data, can be combined with expert judgement to estimate flow directions in areas of sparse data and to aid in the production of more reliable contour maps (and associated rasters) than could be produced by relying on sparse well elevation data alone. Given a historical sequence of these raster maps, the question arises how to automate, to the extent possible, the process of producing new raster maps to reflect data from previous times, the current data and the operation of expert judgement. One solution is to adopt a Bayesian point of view and to regard the historical well elevation data, auxiliary information and historical raster maps as prior information. The well elevations for water table wells, as well as those for injection/extraction wells and the data associated with other relevant variables, can be viewed as predictors for the raster surface. From this prior information, we can, conditional on the values of these predictors for a new time period, compute an expected value map and a standard deviation map for the new raster. These then can be taken to specify a prior predictive distribution for the pixels in the new raster map. Then we condition the pixels, corresponding to water level observation wells within the raster, on the observed values in those wells (which in general will differ from the regression estimate) for the new time period. Given the smoothness of the water table surface, we then smooth the surface of deviations from the mean surface, based on the variograms of the historical rasters, and add this smoothed surface to the regression mean surface. The error structure of the produced raster map is defined by the regression error structure and the error due to smoothing based on the estimated variograms. This methodology has been developed and is being further refined for groundwater monitoring and remediation at LANL. It is a very flexible method that can also be applied with a variety of other predictors applied to model the water level wells in the area of interest over the historical record. The smoothness of the spatial process and its possible evolution over time can then be estimated from the residuals from this regression. This can be augmented by expert hydrogeological opinion based on site topography and hydrogeology. (authors)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Mission - 20501

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) environmental legacy cleanup program requires decisions to be made for environmental remediation, decommissioning and disposal or management of radioactive waste. This legacy cleanup program was established to address groundwater contamination, material disposal areas (MDAs) that have been used to dispose of radioactive and other waste material, and 'aggregate areas' that might produce radioactive or other chemical waste as a result of remediation activities. The LANL site is regulated for environmental concerns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, some parts of LANL, such as material disposal area G (MDA G), have disposed of radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, and are subject to other regulations. For example, decommissioning the remote-handled TRU material stored in 33 shafts at MDA G falls under EPA's 40 CFR 191. Collectively, the regulations are all aimed in the same direction of finding the best solution, either through constructs such as 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), considering balancing factors as opposed to only cost and human health risk, and, under EPA regulations such as RCRA and NEPA, evaluating impact from all chemicals and both human health and ecological endpoints. Despite the basic goals and objectives of the regulations or their guidance, the main challenge is in their implementation. Arguably perhaps, but really in principle, all of these (and similar) regulations are asking for a decision analysis to be performed. Implementation challenges encountered have included lack of understanding of decision analysis in the industry, lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the decision analysis process, and lack of appreciation of the need to separate value judgments from science, the latter leading to developing conservative, or protective, science-based models. Conservative models lead to poor solutions, lack of effective stakeholder engagement leads to long drawn out protracted approaches to finding a solution (which also might never be found with this approach), and lack of understanding of decision analysis and Bayesian statistics causes poor models to be built, which creates unfortunate situations of 'garbage in, garbage out' becoming the basis for decision making. Stakeholder-engaged structured decision making (SDM) is an approach to solving problems that relies on the theory of decision science to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach incorporates stakeholder values using a scientifically rigorous methodology that separates value judgments from science in a way that helps avoid the pitfalls of biased, protective, or conservative modeling. This approach has its foundation in Keeney's 1992 treatise on value-focused thinking [1]. Keeney advocated a paradigm shift in decision making based on the idea that the standard way of thinking about decisions is backwards. The standard approach of focusing first on identifying alternatives rather than on articulating values results in a reactive approach with the emphasis on mechanics and fixed choices instead of the core values that have meaning to stakeholders. This paradigm shift effectively engages all stakeholders in the decision-making process while using a values focused thinking approach that can lead to the identification of decision opportunities and the creation of better alternatives. The intent is to be proactive and generate solutions that are related directly to values and objectives as identified by stakeholders. There are, perhaps, two overarching reasons why SDM can be used to benefit LANL's environmental legacy cleanup. Some of LANL's remaining waste management and environmental management problems are challenging and complex (for example, the Cr and RDX plumes, and MDAs) and while the traditional approach has, arguably, worked well for relatively simple risk-based problems, it cannot, or should not, be applied to more complex problems if the most effective and efficient solutions are desired. The second reason is cost. This has perhaps become more critical since publication of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that DoE's environmental liability is considered a high-risk concern for the nation [2]. The focus of SDM is on structuring solutions to decision risk problems by first addressing stakeholder and decision maker values and subsequently developing decision objectives and ways to measure those objectives, preference weighting across objectives, identifying decision alternatives that best achieve those values, and characterizing uncertainty in predictions of the measures. Because a complete decision model is created using SDM, it can be evaluated to find the main elements of the model that drive, or predict, the best solution. This approach creates complete decision models that are transparent, traceable, reproducible and technically defensible. The science behind SDM, or decision analysis, is well founded, yet it is not unusual to see ad hoc approaches to decision making implemented under various environmental regulations that are pertinent to the LANL site, including NEPA, RCRA and DOE Order 435.1. Such ad hoc approaches are often not transparent or traceable, and lack reproducibility and technical defensibility. The LANL legacy cleanup program has embarked on using SDM to address the complex problems that remain. Stakeholder meetings have been held, and a prototype version of the stakeholder value system has been developed. Further meetings are expected in the future to address specific project needs. This is a long-term endeavor considering the complex environmental problems faced by DOE EM in Los Alamos (EM-LA), and careful planning, consideration of stakeholder value systems, and engagement with stakeholders throughout the SDM process is expected to lead to a successful endpoint. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Probabilistic Groundwater Modeling of the RDX Plume at Los Alamos National Laboratory to Support Risk Assessment - 20359

A plume of the contaminant hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) with concentrations greater than the New Mexico tap water drinking standard (9.66 ppb) is present in the regional aquifer near the southwestern boundary of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). A risk assessment is performed for exposure to regional aquifer groundwater, with long-term predictions of RDX concentrations provided by a calibrated, probabilistic, numerical fate and transport model. The structure of the model is hierarchical, with the RDX Regional Aquifer (RA) groundwater model acting as the primary tool for analysis of downgradient RDX concentrations. The RA model is deeply informed by the conceptual site model (CSM) and is calibrated using site RDX concentration data and hydraulic head measurements, along with other analyses. The model is calibrated using data through December 2019. Where data are scarce other lines of evidence are used to inform inputs, including the multiphase RDX Vadose Zone (VZ) model and Pipe and Disk analytical screening tool. Model inputs are described with informative prior distributions using a robust approach to development that incorporates all available lines of evidence for every parameter used as an input to the RA model. Calibration is performed using a classical nonlinear optimization routine, which is then used to initialize a Bayesian calibration. The Bayesian calibration constrains the uncertainty in the classical calibration, ultimately providing posterior distributions for all model parameters. The challenges of the calibration include high-dimensional parameter space, including spatially heterogeneous hydraulic conductivities, comparatively sparse data, and low RDX concentrations. Posterior parameter distributions developed in the calibration process are then used for stochastic predictive model runs into the future. The result of the forward runs is spatially and temporally explicit estimates of head and concentration with uncertainty at all points in space and time. The probabilistic modeling approach presented here includes innovative computational and statistical methods that leverage high-performance computing (HPC) resources. It makes use of prior modeling work performed at the chromium plume site in the central LANL area, with extensive updates. The risk assessment will ultimately be used to support decision-making at the site, using multiple appropriately weighted sources of information, as well as uncertainty, sensitivity, and value-of-information analyses. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Updates to a Preliminary Probabilistic Performance Assessment Model for Radiological and Chemical Contamination at the West Valley Site, New York - 20420

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is the owner of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC), a 1,351-ha site located approximately 48 km south of Buffalo, New York. In 1962, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) entered into agreements with the Atomic Energy Commission and New York State to construct the first commercial reprocessing plant of nuclear fuel in the United States at the WNYNSC. NFS built and operated the spent fuel reprocessing plant and waste disposal facilities, processing 640 Mg (640 metric tons) of spent nuclear fuel from 1966 to 1972 under an Atomic Energy Commission license. Nuclear fuel reprocessing operations halted in 1972 and never restarted, leaving behind radioactive and chemical wastes. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was required to complete certain waste management activities under the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) Act of 1980 including decommissioning of WVDP facilities. As collaborating agencies, NYSERDA and the DOE are tasked with making decisions about decommissioning and risk reduction for the West Valley Site. Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) was contracted to develop a probabilistic performance assessment (PPA) model to assist the agencies in their decision making process for decommissioning the WVDP and WNYNSC. One important tool that is needed in order to inform the decision-making process is a science-based model of the West Valley Site that evaluates potential future consequences for human health and the environment. This forms the core of the spatial domain of the West Valley PPA Model. The PPA Model, developed using the GoldSim system modeling software, is a tool intended to provide support for decision making that evaluates uncertainty, in a manner that is transparent, defensible, and robust. The PPA Model includes contaminant transport and health effects components, and is organized around geographically-grouped contaminated facilities. These include the waste disposal areas licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of New York, a waste tank farm for storage of high level radioactive waste resulting from reprocessing operations, and several areas contaminated with radioactive and chemical constituents. The PPA Model evaluates contaminant transport from these sources to points of exposure across the site and into receiving surface waters and sediments. Hypothetical people and wildlife could be exposed to contamination at these locations, and the effects of these exposures are evaluated. Contaminant transport processes to be evaluated in the PPA Model include groundwater and surface water transport, contaminant translocation by plants and animals, diffusion, and erosion. The evaluation of exposures to people in this preliminary model is limited to a resident farmer scenario, and ecological assessment is performed at the level of a screening analysis. The results of these preliminary evaluations inform future model developments. PPA Model results are subjected to sensitivity analysis in order to determine those pathways and parameters that are most significant in influencing the results. This information allows analysts and decision makers to focus on those aspects of Site behavior and processes. With this information, the decision makers can drive informed, defensible decisions regarding decommissioning of the Site. This paper includes an update of the information presented at WM2019 [1]. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗