Calculated Hydrogeologic Pressures and Temperatures Resulting from Radioactive Waste in the Eleana Argillite

  • R. R. Eaton
  • W. D. Sundberg
  • D. E. Larson
  • M. P. Sherman
Part of the Advances in Nuclear Science & Technology book series (ANST)


The SHAFT 78 code (multi-dimensional, two fluid phases, porous medium) has been used to begin assessment of the consequences of nuclear waste burial in a 1000 acre repository emplaced in argillite. The repository is assumed to contain spent fuel [SF (UO2)] at a loading of 150 kW/acre and to be located at a depth of 600 m. It was found that with perfect backfill, permeability = 1.0×10−7 darcys, a maximum fluid pressure in the repository of 770 bars existed at a time of 55 years after burial. Holding all other input variables constant, the maximum fluid pressure in the underground workings never exceeded the local lithostatic pressure when the permeability of the backfill material was increased to 1.0×10−1 darcys. The calculated temperature profiles are essentially independent of backfill permeability and porosity indicating that the heat flow is conduction dominated.


Pore Pressure Fluid Pressure Burial Depth Spend Fuel Lithostatic Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. F. McVey, “Near Field Interactions,” presented at the 19th Annual ASME Symposium on Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste, Albuquerque, NM (1979).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Pruess, et. al, SHAFT 78-A Two-Phase Multidimensional Computer Program for Geothermal Reservoir Simulation, LBL-8264, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Earth Sciences Division, Berkeley, CA 94720.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Magara, “Permeability Considerations in Generation of Abnormal Pressures,” Soc. Petr. Engr. 11, 236–242 (1971).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. D. Marine, “Geohydrology of Buried Triassic Basin at Savannah River Plant,” S. Carolina. Am. Ass. Petr. Geol. Bull. 58, 1825–1837 (1974).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Lyfort, USGS, Albuquerque, NM, personal communication, (1978).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. F. McVey, A. R. Lappin and R. K. Thomas, Small-Scale Heater Tests in Argillite of the Eleana Formation at the Nevada Test Site, SAND79–0344, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. R. Eaton, W. D. Sundberg, D. E. Larson and M. P. Sherman, Status of SHAFT 78 With Respect to Modeling Radioactive Waste Burial in Eleana Argillite Including Calculations to Date, SAND79–1484, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (1979).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. R. Eaton
    • 1
  • W. D. Sundberg
    • 1
  • D. E. Larson
    • 1
  • M. P. Sherman
    • 2
  1. 1.Sandia LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Rochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations