'INTRAVAL - Progress Report Number 9, March 1992 .
intravalPROGRESS REPORT9March 1992 - November 1992INTRAVAL - An International Project to StudyValidation of Geosphere Transport Models-
INTRAVALProgressReport No. 9INTRAVALProgress Report Number 9, 1992The international INTRAVAL project started inOctober 1987 in Stockholm as an international efforttowards validation of geosphere models for transportof radionuclides. The project was initiated by theSwedish Nuclear Inspectorate, SKI, and was prepared by an ad-hoc group with representatives fromeight organisations.24 organisations 'Parties' from fourteen countriesparticipate in INTRAVAL. The project is governedby a Coordinating Group with one representativefrom each Party. The SKI acts as Managing Participant and has set up a Project Secretariat in which alsoHer Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution HMIP/DoE,U.K. and the OECD/NEA take part. Project organisation, the objectives of the study and rules for thepublication of results are defined by an Agreementbetween the Parties.The INTRAVAL philosophy is to use results fromlaboratory and field experiments as well as fromnatural analogue studies in a systematic study of themodel validation process. It is also part of the INTRAVAL project strategy to interact closely withongoing experimental programmes.
INTRA VALProgress Report No. 9Table of ContentsIntroductionThe Eighth INTRAVAL workshop and the fourth Phase 2 CoordinatingGroup meetingINTRAVAL Sub-committee for integration (ISI)INTRAVAL Phase I reportingInformation from the Phase 2 working groupsINTRAVAL Phase 2 reportingCurrent status of INTRAVAL Phase 2 test casesLas Cruces TrenchApache LeapYucca MountainFinnsjonStripaWIPP 2GorlebenWIPP 1MolAlligator RiversTwin LakeDistribution of background information55666777810101214151717181920Appendix I INTRAVAL organisation21Appendix 2 INTRAVAL Phase 2 test casesLas Cruces TrenchApache LeapFinnsjonStripaWIPP 2GorlebenWIPP 1MolAlligator RiversTwin Lake2727282931343637384042Appendix 3 List of test case related presentations at INTRAVAL workshops45
5INTRAVALProgressReport No. 9INTRAVALProgress Report Number 9IntroductionINTRAVAL is the third project in a series of threeinternational cooperation studies aimed at evaluatingconceptual and mathematical models for groundwater flow and radionuclide transport in the context ofperformance assessment of repositories for radioactive waste. In the two previous studies, INTRACOIN(1981-1986) and HYDROCOIN (1984-1990), thenumerical accuracy of computer codes, the validityof the underlying conceptual models and differenttechniques for sensitivity/uncertainty analysis havebeen tested. In INTRAVAL the focus is on the validityof model concepts.The INTRAVAL study was started in October1987. The first three year study, Phase 1, is finalised.The second three year period, Phase 2, started inOctober 1990. The last workshop will be held in theautumn 1993.The purpose of the INTRAVAL study is to increasethe understanding of how mathematical models candescribe various geophysical, geohydrological andgeochemical phenomena. The phenomena studiedare those that may be of importance to radionuclidetransport from a repository to the biosphere. This isbeing done by systematically using information fromlaboratory and field experiments as well as fromnatural analogue studies as input to mathematicalmodels in an attempt to validate the underlying conceptual models and to study the model validationprocess. In INTRAVAL the ambition is to covervalidation of models both with regard to the processes and site-specific systems.Eleven test cases are included in Phase 2 of thestudy. The test cases are based on experimental programmes performed within different national andinternational projects. Several of the cases are basedon international experimental programmes, such asthe Stripa Project and the Alligator Rivers AnalogueProject.Pilot Groups have been appointed for each of thetest cases. The responsibility of the Pilot Group is tocompile data and propose formulations of the testcases in such a way that it is possible to simulate theexperiments with model calculations. It is a pronounced policy of the INTRAVAL study to supportinteraction between modellers and experimentalistsin order to gain reassurance that the experimentaldata are properly understood and that the experiencesof the modellers regarding the type of data neededfrom the experimentalists are accounted for.Contact between the participants is maintained byarranging workshops which are followed by Coordinating Group meetings. Working Group meetingstake place between the workshops.Since the issue of the previous Progress Report,the eighth INTRAVAL workshop and the fourthPhase 2 Coordinating Group meeting have been heldin San Antonio, USA. During the workshop the participants described the modelling work performedand discussed the results achieved so far. A full daysession was dedicated to a general discussion ofvalidation issues.Most of the Phase I reports have been finalised,printed and distributed to the Coordinate Groupmembers. Two of the reports are in print and someminor editorial changes remain in another report. ThePhase 1 Summary report is scheduled for printing inthe spring 1993. The schedule for the Phase 2 reporting was discussed and it was concluded that draftversions of the Working Group reports have to beavailable in the summer of 1993 and final versions inDecember 1993.The Eighth INTRAVAL Workshopand the Fourth Phase 2 CoordinatingGroup MeetingThe eighth INTRAVAL workshop and the fourthPhase 2 Coordinating Group Meeting were held inSan Antonio, Texas, USA, on the 9th through 13th ofNovember, 1992, with the Center for Nuclear WasteRegulatory Analysis (CNWRA) acting as host. At theworkshop technical presentations of the modellingresults achieved by the Project Teams were given. Afull day session was dedicated to a general discussionof validation issues. The session was divided into amorning session with presentations from invitedspeakers and an afternoon session with discussions.The schedule for the final reporting of the project wasdiscussed and it was concluded that draft versions ofthe Working Group reports have to be available in thesummer of 1993 and final versions in December1993. Extended outlines of the reports to be writtenwere presented.The Coordinating Group meeting was held on the13th of November, 1992. The time schedule for thefinalisation of the INTRAVAL project was agreedupon (see section about Phase 2 reporting). Because
INTRA VALProgressReport No. 9the leader of Working Group 4 was no longer available, it was decided to dissolve Working Group 4. Asummary of the Alligator Rivers Test Case will beprepared by the Secretariat. The Twin Lake test casewill be incorporated with Working Group I for theremaining part of INTRAVAL Phase 2.The next, and final, INTRAVAL workshop will beheld in Stockholm, Sweden, August 30 - September 3,1993. It was suggested that each Working Group,together with the Secretariat, should organise a oneday plenary session that should follow the outline ofthe Working Group report. The next CoordinatingGroup meeting will be held in connection with theworkshop in Stockholm. It was also decided to havean additional, and final, Coordinating Group meetingafter the Stockholm meeting. Separate WorkingGroup meetings are scheduled prior to the nextINTRAVAL workshop.The chairman informed that SKI will not be ableto organise a third phase of INTRAVAL. However,SKI would be interested in the formation of a "Forumfor flow and transport in rock in relation to performance assessment needs", but SKI would not take anyspecific initiative for its creation.6been distributed to the Working Group leaders andthe members of the Sub-committee for Integrationfor review. The final version of the Phase I Summaryreport is scheduled for printing in the spring of 1993.Information fromWorking Groupsthe Phase2Originally four Working Groups were set up addressing different types of test cases. Because of Mr. P.Duerdens, leader of Working Group 4, withdrawalfrom INTRAVAL, it was decided to dissolve Working Group 4. Two test cases were included in WorkingGroup 4; Alligator Rivers and Twin Lake. A summaryof the work on the Alligator Rivers Test Case will beprepared by the Secretariat. The Twin Lake test casewill be incorporated in Working Group 1 for theremaining part of INTRAVALPhase 2. Table 1 givesthe test cases included in the three remaining Working Groups.Table 1. Working Groupsfor INTRAVAL Phase2.INTRAVAL Sub-Committee for Integration (ISI)The second meeting of the INTRAVAL Sub-committee for Integration (ISI) was held on the 11th ofNovember, 1992. A draft outline of the INTRAVALintegration and validation (summary) report was reviewed. A draft version of this report is to be completed by summer 1993, a second draft version byDecember 1993 and the final report in 1994. The aimis to get the ISI summary report published in ascientific journal.INTRAVAL Phase 1 ReportingThe achievements from the first phase ofINTRAVAL will be documented in a Summary Report and a series of technical reports. The technicalreports cover descriptions, evaluations and conclusions from the modelling work performed for thedifferent test cases. One of the technical reports is acompilation of descriptions of the experiments onwhich the test cases are based. The technical reportshave been prepared by six Working Groups. An editor was appointed for each test case with the responsibility to compile the test case analysis provided bythe Project Teams.All except four of the Phase 1 reports have beenfinalised, printed and distributed to the CoordinateGroup members. Two of the reports are in print andsome minor editorial changes remain in one report.A draft version of the Phase I Summary report hasWorkingTest CasesGroupILas Cruces TrenchApache LeapTwin Lake2FinnsjbnStripaWIPP 23GorlebenWIPP IMolChairmanT. NicholsonC-F. TsangS. NeumanP. BogorinskiA chairman has been elected for each WorkingGroup, sometimes aided by another person. Thechairs of the Working Groups are responsible for thepreparation of Working Group reports, which willform part of the final reporting of INTRAVAL Phase 2.Since the previous workshop in Sydney, Australia,in February 1992, all Working Groups have arrangedmeetings. Minutes from most of these meetings areavailable on request from the Project Secretariat.Except for the meetings presented in Table 2, half aday was dedicated to Working Group meetings during the workshop in San Antonio.
7Table 2. Working Group meetings held betweenMarch 1992 and November 1992.INTRA VALProgressReport No. 9Tentative schedule for the Phase 2 reporting:Working Group reports:WorkingDateGroupIJune 19922June 19923June 19924October1992LocationTest CaseLas edo,SpainLas CrucesTrench-Extended outline, November 1992Draft, summer 1993Final draft, December 1993Summary Report, INTRA VAL Phase 2:-AlligatorRiversPrior to the next INTRAVAL workshop a numberof Working Group meetings are scheduled (Table 3).First draft, December 1993Final report, December 1994Integrated conclusions (ISI) report for INTRA VALPhase I and 2:-Extended outline, November 1992First draft, summer 1993Second draft, December 1993Final Report, 1994Table 3. Scheduled Working Group LocationTest CaseUSAYuccaMountainTucson,USAApacheLeapIJune 1993 USA2March1993Berkeley,USA3December1992SNL, USA3March/April Bilthoven,1993Netherlands3June 1993 Germany4No more meetings,Working Group hasbeen dissolvedYuccaMountainCurrent Status of INTRAVAL Phase 2Test CasesLAS CRUCES TRENCHFlow and transport experiments in unsaturatedporous media preformed at Las Cruces, New Mexico.Experimental Set-upGorlebenINTRAVAL Phase 2 ReportingThe Secretariat will not take responsibility for publishing INTRAVAL Phase 2 Working Group reports.It is suggested that the technical work should bepublished in existing report series,journals etc. However, the Secretariat need a summary of the workwithin each Working Group to be included in theINTRAVAL Phase 2 Summary Report. In addition, aspecial report on integrated conclusions from theINTRAVAL Project will be prepared by theINTRAVAL Sub-committee for Integration (ISI).The experimental site is located at the New MexicoState University Collage Ranch, 40 km northeast ofLas Cruces in New Mexico, USA. A trench 16.5 mlong, 4.8 m wide and 6.0 m deep was dug in undisturbed soil. Two irrigated areas measuring 4 m x 9 mand I m x 12 m, respectively, are adjacent to thetrench. Water and tracers were applied at controlledrates on these areas. In the first experiment (Plot 1)water containing the conservative tracer tritium wasapplied at a rate of 1.76 cm/day on the area measuring4 m x 9 m. In the second experiment (Plot 2a), watercontaining tritium and bromide was applied at a rateof 0.43 cm/day on the other area (I m x 12 m) on theopposite side of the trench, and in the third experiment (Plot 2b) tritium, bromide, boron, chromiumand two organic compounds (pentafluorobenzoicacid and 2,6-difluorobenzoic acid) were applied at arate of 1.82 cm/day on the same area (I m x 12 m).The movement of the water below the soil surfacewas monitored with neutron probes and tensiometers. Tracer concentrations were sampled on a regularbasis through solute samplers installed in a two dimensional grid through the trench wall. In additionlaboratory experiments on cores were performed todetermine the physical properties of the soil. ThePlot I and Plot 2a experiments were includedin INTRAVAL Phase I and was used for modelcalibration. The calibrated models will be used in
INTRAVALProgressReport No. 9INTRAVALPhase2 to predict thePlot 2b experimentbefore the experimental data will be made availableto the Project Teams.Analyses by the Project TeamsThe Project Team from PNL/IUSNRC has used thePlot 2b experimental data for testing deterministicand stochastic models of water flow and solute transport through heterogeneous, unsaturated porous media. When evaluating the Plot 2b experiment it wasfound that the effects of spatial variations in hydraulic properties on solute transport during transientunsaturated flow are significant. The Plot 2b experiment was modelled using four scenarios: 1) isotropicconductivities and modified van Genuchten waterretention function, 2) anisotropic conductivities(Kx 2Kz) with constrained residual water content, 3) isotropic conductivities with water retentionparameters determined using -D inverse solutionand data from Las Cruces trench experiment 1, and4) a single stochastic realisation of conductivitiesconditioned on data from the trench. It was found thatsimple uniform models predicted water flow betterthan the single stochastic realisation conditioned ondata from the trench. Future work will investigate theuse of generalised scaling analysis for describing thespatial variability of flow and transport properties.The Project Team from CNWRAfUSNRC haveused the Plot 2b experiment to study the effect ofmodel complexity on the accuracy of model predictions. The technical approach includes re-estimationof the van Genuchten model parameters from waterretention data to ensure that initial suctions are consistent with measured initial water contents, krigingof the van Genuchten model parameters to quadrilateral zones, modelling of the movement of the moisture plume along three 2-D transects using the codePORFLOW, and finally, comparison of model predictions of water content to measured water contentat different times up to 310 days by momentumanalysis and point-to-point comparisons. All dataavailable from the Plot 2b experiment were used inthree models with different complexity regarding thediscretisation. It was found that the most complexmodel provides the most accurate predictions, basedon the sum of squared differences between computedand measured water contents. Analysis of the moments of the water content distribution does not aidin determining which of the three models is best.Analysis of the second moments indicates that thereis less variation among the three models than between the models and the experimental results.The Project Team from University of New Mexico/USNRC discussed the use of statistical inferenceto quantify the validity of different models applied tothe Las Cruces experiments. Observations and, inmost cases, blind predictions performed by differentgroups concerning water contents, first arrivals,fluxes and moments have been compared. The predictions made are based on 13 different conceptualmodels for the soil properties; five for a uniform8isotropic soil, two for a heterogeneous isotropic soil,and six where the soil properties have stochasticdistributions. The results varied, some models performing well for some measures and others performing well for other measures. For example, it wasfound that the models consistently predicted longertimes for the first arrival than observed, implying thatthe models cannot be regarded as conservative. Theapplied stochastical models showed more preferential flow than observed in the experiment. It waspointed out that quantifying the uncertainty in theapplied models requires models for probability distributions and correlation structure of the uncertainty.This suggests that stochastic models for uncertaintymay be required to quantitatively validate deterministic models.APACHE LEAPFlow and transportexperiments in unsaturatedfractured rock performed at Apache Leap Tuff Site, Arizona, USA.Experimental Set-up and ScalesThe Apache Leap Test Case in INTRAVAL Phase 2concentrates mainly on two topics, how a thermalsource will affect air, vapour, water and solute movement in geologic media, especially unsaturated fractured rock, and the water and air transport properitesof fractures and rock matrix in unsaturated rock.The effects of a thermal source were studied withlaboratory non-isothermal core measurements. Acylindrically shaped core, approximately 12 cm longand 10 cm in diameter, was extracted from a block ofApache Leap Tuff. The core with a prescribed initialmatrix suction and solute concentration was sealedand insulated to prevent water, air and solute gains orlosses from all surfaces, and to minimise heat lossalong the sides of the core. During the experiment, ahorizontal temperature gradient was establishedalong the long axis of the core. The data availablefrom the core measurements are rock matrix porosities, initial water contents, and temperatures.The behaviour of unsaturated fractured rock, wasstudied in a series of tests being performed to characterise water and air transport properites from fractures and rock matrix for a range of matrix suction.The measurements were conducted on a block ofApache Leap Tuff which was 92.5 cm long, 21.0 cmhigh and 20.2 cm wide and contained a single discretefracture oriented along the 92.5 cm by 20.2 cm plane.The rock was initially air-dried at a relative humidityof approximately 30 percent. The fracture tracesalong both ends of the block were connected tomanifolds, while the fracture traces exposed alongthe sides of the block were sealed with putty. Allexternal surfaces of the rock except those covered bythe manifold were then sealed with adhesive vinyl.One of the fracture surfaces covered by the manifoldwas open to the atmosphere and the other was irri-
9gated with water. The position of the wetting front inthe fracture over time and the position of the wettingfront in the matrix over time was studied. Availabledata are rock matrix sorptivity coefficient, rock matrix porosity, rock fracture aperture, and cumulativeinflow volume over time.In addition to these laboratory experiments thereare plans to perform field investigations. However,most of the data from the planned field experimentscannot be expected until after the end of INTRAVALPhase 2.Analyses by Project TeamsThe Project Team from the University of Georgia/USNRC presented laboratory experiments wherewater an
Progress Report No. 9 Table 2. Working Group meetings held between March 1992 and November 1992. Working Date Location Test Case Group I June 1992 Las Cruces, Las Cruces USA Trench 2 June 1992 Forsmark, Sweden 3 June 1992 Traben-Trarbach, Germany 4 October Toledo, Alligator 1992 Spain Rivers Tentative schedule for the Phase 2 reporting:
1. The Student Progress report is the legally required reporting document. The report must state that the student is receiving ELL support. 2. The Student Progress report must refer the parent to the enclosed report from the ELL teacher unless the ELL teacher’s comments are embedded in the Student Progress Report.
what further progress the Commission considers is required to meet the child poverty targets The progress report must include any comments or recommendations made by the Commission on the points above. Child Poverty Delivery Plan progress report 2020 The Scottish Government’s next progress report will cover the period April 2019 –
2019 District STAAR Progress Measure The distinction earned and the performance in the area of school progress are due to academic progress made by students. STAAR Test Accelerated Progress Expected Progress Limited Progress 4th Reading 14% 36% 50% 4th Math 17% 28% 54% 5th
SCLC Progress WG Report: Accepted by the Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee on July 17, 2019 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ii Small Cell Lung Cancer Progress Working Group Report 1 Appendices 17 o Appendix 1: SCLC Progress WG Roster 18 o Appendix 2: SCLC Progress WG Agenda 20 o Appendix 3: Open NCI-Supported SCLC Clinical Trials as of March 2019 22
Go to the 5 different Progress Reports Print or PDF feedback forms Click to enter Preferences. Enter column headings. Check a box and click the number to insert item into the corresponding column. Print or PDF Progress Report Add a row to the progress report. Delete a progress report. Return to IEP Writer Click to temporarily omit a row.
Sep 24, 2012 · Figure 6: NCC Progress Report – Status Overview Page Left Navigation Panel The NCC Progress Report – Status Overview page lists each section of the progress report and its status: Not Started, Not Complete, or Complete. Note: Depending on the type of grant program, the
Do you provide the IEP Report of Progress and Achievement from Current IEP to parents in alignment with the dates to be achieved for Objective #1 and Objective #2 on the goal page? No. Provide the IEP Report of Progress and Achievement from Current IEP concurrent with the issuance of Progress Reports (elementary) or Report Cards (secondary).
paper (if used) should be placed inside the front cover of the answer book. Rough work should be scored through. All questions should be attempted. Candidates should note that Question 10 contains a choice. Question 1 is on Pages 10, 11 and 12. Question 2 is on Page 13. Pages 12 and 13 are fold-out pages. NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 2014 FRIDAY, 16 MAY 1.00 PM – 3.30 PM [X274/13/02] Page two .
