Assignment of probability distributions for parameters in the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Part 1: Description of process

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

Volumn 88, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 1-32

  Rechard, Rob P ^a   Tierney, Martin S ^b  

^a SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES   (United States)

^b Plantae Research Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

40 CFR 191; Maximum entropy formalism; Monte Carlo simulations; Nuclear waste repository; Performance assessment; Probabilistic risk assessment; Probability distributions; Radioactive waste disposal; Risk assessment; Uncertainty; Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Indexed keywords

MAXIMUM ENTROPY FORMALISM; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP);

COMPUTER SIMULATION; MONTE CARLO METHODS; PERFORMANCE; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

PILOT PLANTS;

EID: 10644238970     PISSN: 09518320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2004.07.011     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. Rechard RP. Historical background on performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3): 5-46.
2. Rechard RP. An introduction to the mechanics of performance assessment using examples of calculations done for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant between 1990 and 1992. SAND93-1378 rev. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1996.
3. Rechard RP. General approach used in the performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. In: Scientific Basis forNuclear Waste Management XXV, Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, November 26-29, 2001, Boston, MA. Warrendale, PA: Materials Research Society; 2002 p. 213-26.
4. DOE (US Department of Energy). Title 40 CFR Part 191 Compliance Certification Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. DOE/CAO-1996-2184, Carlsbad, NM: US DOE, Carlsbad Area Office; 1996. 21 vols.
5. Rechard RP. Milestones for disposal of radioactive waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in the United States. SAND98-0072 rev. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 2000.
6. Rechard RP. Historical background on assessing the performance of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. SAND98-2708. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1999.
7. Larson KW, Swift PN, Chu MSY, Anderson DR, Froehlich GK, Howard BA, Howarth SM, Pickering SY. Certifying the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: lessons learned from the WIPP experience. In: Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental Remediation, ICEM'99, September 20-26, Nagoya, Japan. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engneers; 1999.
8. Helton JC, Marietta MG, Guest editorial. The 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):1-3.
9. Helton JC, Martell M-A, Tierney MS. Characterization of subjective uncertainty in the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):191-204.
10. Halmos PE. Finite-dimensional vector spaces. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand; 1958.
11. Tierney MS. Constructing probability distributions of uncertain variables in the models of the performance of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: the 1990 performance simulations. SAND90-2510. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1990.
12. Tierney MS. Using data and information to form distributions of model parameters in stochastic simulations of performance of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). In: Proceedings of PSAM II: International Conference Devoted to Advancement of System-Based Methods for the Design and Operation of Technological Systems and Processes, San Diego, CA, USA, March 20-25. vol. 2. Los Angeles: Univ of California; 1994 p. 51.9-51.16.
13. Rechard RP, Peterson AC, Schreiber JD, Iuzzolino HJ, Tierney MS, Sandha JS, editors. Preliminary comparison with 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1991, vol. 3: Reference data. SAND91-0893/3. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1991.
14. Rechard RP, Trauth KM, Guzowski RV. Quality assurance procedures for parameter selection and use of expert judgment panels supporting performance assessments of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. SAND91-0429. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1992.
15. Sandia WIPP Project. Preliminary performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1992, vol. 3: model parameters. SAND92-0700/3. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1992.
16. Haimes YY, Lambert JH. When and how can you specify a probability distribution when you don't know much? Part II Risk Anal 1999;19(1):43-6.
17. Rechard RP, Tierney, MS. Assignment of probability distributions for parameters in the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, part 2: application of process. Reliab Engng Syst Safety 2004; (this issue).
18. Jumarie G. Relative information: theories and applications. New York: Springer; 1990.
19. Tribus M. Rational descriptions, decisions, and designs. New York: Pergamon; 1969.
20. Harr ME. Reliability-based design in civil engineering. New York: McGrawHill; 1987.
21. Morgan MG, Henrion M. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. New York: Cambridge Univ Press; 1990.
22. Kaplan PG. A formalism to generate probability distributions for performance assessment modeling. In: High-Level Rad Waste Management: Proceedings of Second Annual International Conference, vol. 2. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society; 1991 p. 1487-90.
23. Barnard RW, Wilson ML, Dockery HA, Gauthier JH, Kaplan PG, Eaton RR, Bingham FW, Robey TH. TSPA 1991: an initial total-system performance assessment for Yucca Mountain. SAND91-2795. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1992.
24. Kaplan S. Expert information versus expert opinions. Another approach to the problem of eliciting/combining/using expert knowledge in PRA. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 1992;35(1):61-72.
25. NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency). Disposal of radioactive waste: review of safety assessment methods. Performance Assessment Advisory Group, Radioactive Waste Management Committee. Paris: NEA/OECD; 1991.
26. Rechard RP. Historical relationship between performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal and other types of risk assessment. Risk Anal 1999;19(5):763-807.
27. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 40 CFR Part 191: Environmental standards for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes; final rule. Fed Reg 1985;50(182):38066-89.
28. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Background information document final rule for high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes. EPA 520/1-85-023. Washington, DC: US EPA; 1985.
29. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 40 CFR Part 191: Environmental radiation protection standards for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes; final rule. Fed Reg 1993;58(242):66398-416.
30. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 40 CFR Part 194: Criteria for the certification and re-certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191 disposal regulations; certification decision; final rule. Fed Reg 1998;63(95): 27353-406.
31. Howard BA, Crawford MB, Galson DA, Marietta MG. Regulatory basis for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant performance assessment. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):109-27.
32. NRC (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, etc.: Disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, NV; final rule. Fed Reg 2001;66(213):55732-816.
33. Okrent D. On intergenerational equity and its clash with intergenerational equity and on the need for policies to guide the regulation of disposal of wastes and other activities posing very long term risks. Risk Anal 1999;19(5):877-901.
34. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 40 CFR Part 197: Public health and environmental radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada; final rule. Fed Reg 2001;66(114): 32074-135.
35. Helton JC, Burmaster DE, Guest editorial. Treatment of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in performance assessments for complex systems. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 1996;54(2-3):91-4.
36. Paté-Cornell ME. Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatment. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 1996;54(2-3):95-111.
37. Guikema S, Paté-Cornell ME. The danger of myopic conservatism in risk analysis: the problem of time allocation for the deep space network. In: Proc AIAA Space 2001 Conf and Exposition, 28-30 August, 2001, Albuquerque, NM. Reston, VA: Amer Inst Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2001.
38. Marietta MG, Bertram-Howery SG, Anderson DR, Brinster KF, Guzowski RV, Iuzzolino H, Rechard RP. Performance assessment methodology demonstration: Methodology development for evaluating compliance with EPA 40 CFR 1919. Subpart B, for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. SAND89-2027. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1989.
39. Bertram-Howery SG, Marietta MG, Rechard RP, Swift PN, Anderson DR, Baker BL, Bean Jr JE, Beyeler W, Brinster KF. Preliminary comparison with 40 CFR Part 191. Subpart B for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1990. SAND90-2347. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1990.
40. Helton JC, Marietta MG, Rechard RP. Conceptual structure of performance assessments conducted for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. In: Interrante CG, Pabalan RT, editors. In: Sci Basis Nucl Waste Management XVI, Material Research Society Proceedings, Boston, MA, November 30-December 4, 1992, vol. 294. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society; 1993 p. 885-98.
41. Helton JC, Garner JW, Marietta MG, Rechard RP, Rudeen DK, Swift PN. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results obtained in a preliminary performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Nucl Sci Eng 1993;114(4):286-331.
42. Helton JC, Anderson DR, Baker BL, Bean JE, Berglund JW, Beyeler WE, Garner JW, Iuzzolino HJ, Marietta MG, Rechard RP, Roache PJ, Rudeen DK, Schreiber JD, Swift PN, Tierney MS, Vaughn P. Effect of alternative conceptual models in a preliminary performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Nucl Eng Des 1995;154(3):251-344.
43. Helton JC, Anderson DR, Baker BL, Bean JE, Berglund JW, Beyeler W, Economy K, Gamer JW, Hora SC, Iuzzolino HJ, Knupp P, Marietta MG, Rath J, Rechard RP, Roache PJ, Rudeen DK, Salari K, Schreiber JD, Swift PN, Tierney MS, Vaughn P. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results obtained in the 1992 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 1996;51(1):53-100.
44. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 40 CFR Part 194: Criteria for the certification and re-certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191 disposal regulations; final rule. Fed Reg 1996;61(28):5224-45.
45. Iman RL, Helton JC. An investigation of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models. Risk Anal 1988;8(1): 71-90.
46. Tierney MS. PA methodology overview. In: Rechard RD, editor. In: Initial performance assessment of the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste stored at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, volume 1: methodology and results. SAND93-2330/1. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1993.
47. Tierney MS, Rechard RP. Assessing performance of imprecisely characterized systems: a mathematical perspective. In: Soares DG, editor. In: Advances Safety and Reliability, Proc, ESREL'97, Intl Conf Safety Reliab, 17-20 June, Lisbon, Portugal, vol.1. New York: Pergamon; 1997. p. 569-76.
48. Rasmussen NC. Reactor safety study: an assessment of accident risks in US commercial nuclear power plants, NUREG-75/014, WASH-1400. Washington, DC: US NRC; 1975.
49. Breeding RJ, Helton JC, Gorham ED, Harper FT. Summary description of the methods used in the probabilistic risk assessments for NUREG-1150. Nucl Engin Des 1992;135(1):1-27.
50. NRC (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Use of probabilistic risk assessment methods in nuclear regulatory activities; policy statement. Fed Reg 1995;60(158):42622-9.
51. Vaughn P, Bean JE, Helton JC, Lord ME, MacKinnnon RJ, Schreiber JD. Representation of two-phase flow in the vicinity of the repository in the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):205-26.
52. Stockman CT, Garner JW, Helton JC, Johnson JD, Shinta A, Smith LN. Radionuclide transport in the vicinity of the repository and associated complementary cumulative distribution functions in the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):369-96.
53. Ramsey JL, Blaine R, Gamer JW, Helton JC, Johnson JD, Smith LN, Wallace M. Radionuclide and colloid transport in the Culebra Dolomite and associated complementary cumulative distribution functions in the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):397-420.
54. Helton JC, Anderson DR, Basabilvazo G, Jow H-N, Marietta MG. Conceptual structure of the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3): 151-65.
55. Hofer E, Hoffman FO. Selected examples of practical approaches for the assessment of model reliability-parameter uncertainty analysis. In: Proc NEA Workshop Uncert Anal for Perf Assessments of Rad Waste Disposal Systems, Seattle, United States, 24-26 February. Paris: NEA/OECD; 1987 p. 132-47.
56. Apostolakis GE. The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. Science 1990;250(4986):1359-64.
57. Helton JC, Davis FJ, Johnson JD. Characterization of stochastic uncertainty in the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):167-89.
58. Helton JC, Anderson DR, Basabilvazo G, Jow H-N, Marietta MG. Summary discussion of the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3): 437-51.
59. Tierney MS. Combining scenarios in a calculation of the overall probability distribution of cumulative releases of radioactivity from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, southeastern New Mexico. SAND90-0838. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1991.
60. Whittle P. Probability via expectation. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 1992.
61. NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). A guide for uncertainty analysis in dose and risk assessments related to environmental contamination. NCRP Commentary No. 14. Bethesda, MD: NCRP; 1996.
62. Helton JC, Iuzzolino HJ. Construction of complementary cumulative distribution functions for comparison with the EPA release limits for radioactive waste disposal. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 1993;40(3): 277-93.
63. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 1979;21(2):239-45.
64. Iman RL, Shortencarier MJ. A Fortran 77 program and user's guide for the generation of Latin hypercube and random samples for use with computer models. SAND83-2365, NUREG/CR-3624. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1984.
65. Rechard RP, Trauth KM, Rath JS, Guzowski RV, Hora SC, Tierney MS. Tierney MS. The use of formal and informal expert judgments when interpreting data for performance assessments. In: Scient Basis Nucl Waste Management XVI, Mat Res Soc Symp Proc, Nov. 30-Dec. 4, 1992, Boston, MA. vol. 294. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society; 1993 p. 943-50.
66. Sandia WIPP Project. Quality assurance requirements for the selection and documentation of parameter values used in WIPP performance assessment. QAP 9-2, Rev. 2. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1996 (On file in Sandia WIPP Records Center [SWRC] as ERMS 242757).
67. Rechard RP, McCord J, Knowlton RG. Guidelines for consistent treatment of parameter uncertainty in TSPA-LA. In: Proc 10th Intl High-Level Rad Waste Management Conf (IHLRWM), Progress Through Cooperation, March 31-April 3, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. La Grange Park, IL: Amer Nucl Soc; 2003 p. 895-902 (CD-ROM).
68. DOE (US Department of Energy). Draft environmental impact statement: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, DOE/EIS-0026-D. Washington, DC: US DOE; 1979.
69. Lappin AR, Hunter RL, Garber DP, Davies PB, editors. Systems analysis, long-term radionuclide transport, and dose assessments, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), Southwestern New Mexico, March 1989. SAND89-0462. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1989.
70. Rechard RP, Iuzzolino HJ, Sandha JS. Data used in preliminary performance assessment of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. SAND89-2408. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1990.
71. Howarth SM, Martell M-A, Weiner RF, Lattier C. Guidebook for performance assessment parameters used in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant compliance certification application, volume 1: main report; volume II: appendices. SAND98-0180/1, 2. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1998.
72. Spetzler CS, Staël von Holstein CAS. Probability encoding in decision analysis. Manag Sci 1975;22(3):340-58.
73. Staël von Holstein CAS, Matheson JE. A manual for encoding probability distributions. Palo Alto, CA: SRI International; 1979.
74. Henrion M, Fischhoff B. Assessing uncertainty in physical constants. Am J Phys 1986;54(9):791-8.
75. Rechard RP, Sanchez LC, Trellue HR, Stockman CT. Unfavorable conditions for nuclear criticality following disposal of transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Nucl Technol 2001;136(1): 99-129.
76. Helton JC, Anderson DR, Baker BL, Bean JE, Berglund JW, Beyeler W, Blaine R, Economy K, Garner JW, Hora SC, Lincoln RC, Marietta MG, Mendenhall FT, Prindle NH, Rudeen DK, Schreiber JD, Shiver AW, Smith LN, Swift PN, Vaughn P. Computational implementation of a systems prioritization methodology for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: a preliminary example. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 1997;57(3):223-66.
77. Wilson C, Porter D, Gibbons J, Oswald E, Sjoblom G, Caporuscio F. Final Waste Isolation Pilot Plant conceptual models peer review report. Carlsbad, NM: US DOE; 1996 (On file in the SWRC as ERMS 241805).
78. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Technical support document for Section 194.23: parameter justification report. Docket A-93-02, item V-B-14. Washington, DC: US EPA; 1998.
79. (a) Knowles MK, Hansen FD, Thompson TW, Schatz JF, Gross M. Review and perspectives on spallings release models in the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Reliab Engng Syst Saf. 691-3331341.
80. (b) Wilson C, Porter D, Gibbons J, Oswald E, Sjoblom G, Caporuscio F. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, conceptual models second supplementary peer review report. Carlsbad, NM: US DOE; 1996 (On file in the SWRC as ERMS 244536).
81. Berglund JW, Garner JW, Helton JC, Johnson JD, Smith LN. Direct releases to the surface and associated complementary cumulative distribution functions in the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: cuttings, cavings and spallings. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):305-30.
82. Wolbarst AB, Forinash EK, Byrum CO, Peake RT, Marcinowski F, Kruger U. An overview of EPA regulation of the safe disposal of transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Health Phys 2001;80(2):110-25.
83. Sanchez LC, Drez PE, Rath JS, Trellue HR. Radioactive and nonradioactive waste intended for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):99-107.
84. ASME NQA-1. Quality assurance program requirements for nuclear facilities. NQA-1-1989 edition. Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) Standard. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engneers; 1989.
85. ASME NQA-2a. Quality assurance requirements for nuclear facility applications. NQA-2a-1990 addenda, part 2.7 to ASME NQA-2-1989 edition. Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) Standard. New York: American Society Mechanical Engneers; 1990.
86. ASME NQA-3. Quality assurance program requirements for the collection of scientific and technical information for site characterization of high-level nuclear waste repositories. NQA-3-1989 ed. (excluding § 2.1(b) and (c)). Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) Standard. New York: American Society Mechanical Engneers; 1989.
87. Altman WD, Donnelly JP, Kennedy JE. Qualification of existing data for high-level nuclear waste repositories, generic technical position. NUREG 1298. Washington, DC: Office Nucl Mat Safety and Safeguards, US NRC; 1988.
88. CTAC (Carlsbad Area Office Technical Assistance Contractor). Expert elicitation on the WIPP waste particle size distribution(s) during the 10,000-year regulatory post-closure period. Carlsbad, NM: US DOE; 1997.
89. Pfeifle TW, Mellegard KD, Munson DE. Determination of probability density functions for parameters in the Munson-Dawson model for creep behavior of salt. SAND90-2366. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1992.
90. Lipton J, Shaw WD, Holmes J, Patterson A. Short communication: selecting input distributions for use in Monte Carlo simulations. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1995;21(1):192-8.
91. Rechard RP, Beyeler W, McCurley RD, Rudeen DK, Bean JE, Schreiber JD. Parameter sensitivity studies of selected components of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant repository/shaft system. SAND89-2030. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1990.
92. Rechard RP, Iuzzolino HJ, Rath JS, Gilkey AP, McCurley RD, Rudeen DK. User's manual for CAMCON: compliance assessment methodology controller. SAND88-1496. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1989.
93. Rechard RP, editor. User's reference manual for CAMCON: Compliance Assessment Methodology Controller version 3.0. SAND90-1983. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1992.
94. Johnson NL, Kotz S. Continuous univariate distributions-2. New York: Wiley; 1970.
95. Rechard RP. In: Apostolakis G, editor. CAMCON: computer system for assessing regulatory compliance of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. In: Proc Intl Conf Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM), Beverly Hills, CA, February 4-7, vol. 2. New York: Elsevier; 1991 p. 899-904.
96. Haan CT. Statistical methods in hydrology. Ames, IA: Iowa State Univ Press; 1977.
97. Blom G. Probability and statistics, theory and applications. New York: Springer; 1989.
98. Johnson NL, Kotz S. Continuous univariate distributions-1. New York: Wiley; 1970.
99. Smith G. Statistical reasoning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1985.
100. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. Paris: OECD; 2000.
101. Freeze RA, Cherry JA. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1979.
102. La Venue AM, RamaRao BS. A modeling approach to address spatial variability within the Culebra Dolomite transmissivity field. SAND92-7306. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1992.
103. Johnson NL, Kotz S. Discrete distributions. New York: Wiley; 1969.
104. Hansen FD, Knowles MK. Design and analysis of a shaft seal system for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2000;69(1-3):88-98.
105. Bell S. Approximating the normal distribution with the triangular. SCR-494. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; 1962.
106. Scherer WT, Pomroy TA, Fuller DN. The triangular density to approximate the normal density: decision rules-of-thumb. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 2003;82:331-41.
107. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Evaluating the reliability of predictions made using environmental transfer models. IAEA Safety Series 100. Vienna: IAEA; 1989.
108. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). An international peer review of the Yucca Mountain Project TSPA-SR. Joint report by Nuclear Energy Agency of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, and International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. Paris: OECD; 2002.
109. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Technical support of standards for high-level radioactive waste management. EPA 520/4-79-007C. Washington, DC: US EPA; 1977.
110. Helton JC, Beyeler W, Hora SC. Conceptual basis of a systems prioritization methodology for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 1997;57(3):203-22.
111. Lambert JH, Matalas NC, Ling CW, Haimes YY, Li D. Selection of probability distributions in characterizing risk of extreme events. Risk Anal 1994;14(5):731-42.
112. Helton JC. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal. Reliab Engng Syst Saf 1993;42(2-3):327-67.
113. Huffman FO, Kaplan S. Beyond the domain of direct observation: how to specify a probability distribution that represents the state of knowledge about uncertain inputs. Risk Anal 1999;19(1):131-4.
114. Hoffman FO, Hammonds JS. Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Anal 1994;14(5):707-12.
115. de Marsily G. Quantitative hydrogeology: ground water hydrology for engineers. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 1986.
116. Vanmarcke E. Random fields, analysis and synthesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1983.
117. Yaglom AM. An introduction to the theory of stationary random functions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1962.
118. Abramowitz M, Stegun IA. Handbook of mathematical functions. AMS 55. Washington, DC: Nat Bur Standards, US Dept of Commerce; 1964.