Advertisement

What Role for Performance Assessment?

  • Leon Reiter
Conference paper

Abstract

Performance Assessment (PA) is the primary and, perhaps, the only real issue in determining regulatory compliance for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in the U.S. Experience has revealed both the strengths and weaknesses of PA. The main point of this paper is that while PA is necessary, by itself, it is not sufficient. Although this caveat is recognised, it is not always given sufficient attention. Presenting and evaluating the assumptions, models, and data that underlie PA results are of paramount importance. PA should be only one part of a safety case that also includes consideration of simplified calculations, multiple barriers, and the use of natural analogues.

Keywords

Performance Assessment Nuclear Waste Natural Analogue Nuclear Regulatory Commission Multiple Barrier 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ewing RC, Tierney MS, Konikow LF, Rechard RP. Performance assessments of nuclear waste repositories: a dialogue on their value and limitations. Risk Anal 1999; 19: 933–958Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Konikow LF, Ewing RC. Editorial: Is a probabilistic performance assessment enough? Ground Water 1999; 37: 481–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bredehoeft JD. Issue Paper: From models to performance assessment: the conceptualisation problem. Ground Water 2003; 41: 571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ewing RC, Macfarlane A. Policy Forum: Yucca Mountain. Science 2002, 296: 659–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Waste Management. Viability assessment of a repository at Yucca Mountain; Volume 3, Total System Performance Assessment, December 1998Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barnard RW and others. TSPA 1991: An initial total-system performance assessment for Yucca Mountain. Sandia National Laboratories SAND91-2795, July 1992Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reiter L. A low probability-high consequence event. Proceedings of IUGG 2003, Sapporo, Japan, 2003, pp A.565-A.566Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Metlay D. From tin roof to torn wet blanket: predicting and observing groundwater movement at a proposed nuclear waste site. In: Sarewicz D, Pielke RA, Byerly R (ed) Prediction: science, decision making, and the future of nature. Island Press, Washington, 2000, pp 199–228Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Department of Energy. Yucca Mountain Project Site Recommendation Material, Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report, Revision 1, February 2002Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U. S Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Letter to Margaret Chu, October 21, 2003Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Timothy McCartin. Personal communication 2003Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Timothy McCartin. Meeting of Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, March 26, 2003, transcripts: 81-82Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morgan MG, Henrion M. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leon Reiter
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review BoardArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations