Advertisement

Long-term Safety of Final Repositories: Experiences concerning the Rôle of Uncertainty and Risk in Assessments and Regulations

  • Bruno Baltes
  • Klaus-Jürgen Röhlig
Conference paper

Abstract

The concept of disposal of long-lived radioactive waste in deep geological repositories is an essentially passive and permanent management option which has the potential to isolate the waste for extremely long periods of time. Decisions to be made during repository development need to be supported by a post-closure Safety Case (a synthesis of evidence, analyses and arguments that quantify and substantiate a claim that the repository will be safe after closure). In the frame of Safety Assessments, which stand at the core of the Safety Case, potential long-term evolutions of the repository system called scenarios are constructed. For these scenarios, the behaviour of the system components (engineered, geotechnical and natural barriers) are described using model calculations with regard to the potential migration of radionuclides and to hazards for man or the environment.

Keywords

Radioactive Waste Safety Assessment Safety Criterion Scenario Uncertainty Deep Geological Repository 
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.
    Nuclear Energy Agency. The Probabilistic System Assessment Group, History and Achievements 1985-1994. OECD/NEA, Paris, 1997Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guttman I. Statistical Tolerance Regions: Classical and Bayesian. Griffin, London, 1970MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker A et al. Evaluation of Elements Responsible for the effective Engaged dose rates associated with the final STorage of radioactive waste: EVEREST project, Volume 3a. EC, EUR 17449/3a EN, Luxembourg, 1997Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baudoin P et al. Spent fuel disposal Performance Assessment. SPA project. EC, EUR 19132 EN, Luxembourg, 2000Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson BGJ. The Time Dimension in Risk Analysis: Examples from Recent Work in the United Kingdom. In: Saltelli et al. (eds.): Risk Analysis Nuclear Waste Management, pp. 231-262Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sumerling TJ (ed.). Dry Run 3: A Trial Assessment of Underground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Based on Probabilistic Risk Analysis, Overview. DoE/HMIP/RR/92.039, UK, June 1992Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). The Disposal of Canada’s Nuclear Fuel Waste: Postclosure Assessment of a Reference System. AECL-10717, COG-93-7, 1994Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    U.S. Department of Energy. Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain — TSPA. DOE/RW-0508/V4, December 1998Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Department of Energy. WIPP Compliance Certification Application. http://reserve.wippxarlsbad.nm.us/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/chaps1 9.nfoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Röhlig K-J. Use of Geostatistical Methods for Post-Closure Safety Assessments. 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM). April 29-May 3, 2001, Las Vegas, Nevada. ANS, 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Baltes
    • 1
  • Klaus-Jürgen Röhlig
    • 1
  1. 1.Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbHKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations