HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Magnuson, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Magnuson, S. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Magnuson, S. Related Collections Uncertainty Analysis Vadose Zone Risk Assessment

Regulatory Modeling for the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory's Subsurface Disposal Area and Conceptual Model Uncertainty Treatment

Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, P.O. Box 1625, MS 2107, Idaho Falls, ID 83415

View larger version (55K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Lithologic relationships for the vadose zone beneath the Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA).

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Location of the Big Lost River and spreading areas in relationship to the Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA).

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Horizontal extent of Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA) vadose zone simulation domain.

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Conformable grid for (A) base domain and (B and C) locally refined domains. Surficial sediments are shown in yellow, interbeds in green, and fractured basalt in blue.

View larger version (46K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Kriged (A) porosity and (B) permeability for most refined grid for the BC interbed with core sample values posted at their well locations.

View larger version (44K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. (A) Spatially varying infiltration rates assigned inside the SDA and (B) assignment locations for simulated waste stream source releases.

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Simulated maximum water saturation in the (A) BC interbed and (B) CD interbed immediately before the introduction of the additional spreading area water above the CD interbed.

View larger version (37K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Simulated maximum aquifer concentrations with spatially varying and uniform infiltration.

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Simulated maximum aquifer 239Pu concentrations for base and mobile fraction simulations.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Constitutive relationship curves for three representations of fractured basalt.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 11. Monitoring results from 1999 for three nested tensiometers in Well 76-5.

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Fig. 12. Well construction and simulation grid for Well 76-5.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 13. Simulated water potentials in response to surface wetting events with three fractured basalt constitutive relationships.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 14. Simulated flux out bottom of simulation domain with three fractured basalt constitutive relationships.