Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T06:58:26.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the Concepts and Assumptions in Five Recent HLW/Spent Fuel Performance Assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

F. B. Neall ,
P. Baertschi ,
I.G. McKinley ,
P. A. Smith ,
T. Sumerling  and
H. Umeki
F. B. Neall
Affiliation:
Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland
P. Baertschi
Affiliation:
NAGRA, Wettingen, Switzerland
I.G. McKinley
Affiliation:
NAGRA, Wettingen, Switzerland
P. A. Smith
Affiliation:
NAGRA, Wettingen, Switzerland Present address: Intera Information Technologies Ltd., Melton Mowbray, UK
T. Sumerling
Affiliation:
Safety Assessment Management, Reading, UK
H. Umeki
Affiliation:
Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation, Japan
Get access

Extract

Integrated performance assessments of proposed repositories for HLW involve multidisciplinary studies which include identification of possible paths of future evolution of the repository system (scenario analysis) and quantification of the consequences of each scenario using deterministic or probabilistic modelling approaches. The results of such studies are commonly presented as estimates of consequence (e.g. dose to a representative individual) against time which extends into the distant future. Individual components of the model chains used can be tested to some extent, but how can the integrated assessment be evaluated to give additional confidence in the overall results? In order to address this issue, the Kristallin-l performance assessmentI has been compared with other HLW/spent fuel performance assessments. This technical comparison forms the basis of this paper which summarises the results from a more extensive comparison of a number of HLW/spent fuel disposal concepts, safety assessment methodologies and models2. It is part of a wider study which attempted to put the results of the Kristallin-I performance assessment into perspective by use of both this technical comparison with other performance assessments and by consideration of other information (e.g. natural analogue studies, environmental radiation data and risk assessments for radiological and non-radiological hazards) which allows the reasonableness of the results and significance of the predicted doses to be illustrated. Due to limitations of space, this aspect of the study has not been included here and the reader is referred to the “Kristallin-I: Results in Perspective” report2 for more details.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 353: Symposium – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVIII , 1994 , 503
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1 NAGRA 1994: Kristallin-1 safety assessment NAGRA 1993: Kristallin-I Safety Analysis Report. Nagra Technical Report series NTB 93–22E, Nagra, Wettingen, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
2 Neall, F. (ed.) 1994: Kristallin-1: results in perspective. Nagra Technical Report series NTB 93–23, Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland Google Scholar
3 SKB 1992: SKB 91 Final Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel: Importance of the Bedrock for Safety. SKB Technical Report 92–20, Stockholm, May 1992Google Scholar
4 Vieno, T. et al. 1992: TVO–92 Safety Analysis of Spent Fuel Disposal. YJT Technical Report YJT–92–33 E, English edition, Helsinki, August 1993.Google Scholar
5 Goodwin, B.W. et al 1994: Postclosure Assessment of a Reference System for Disposal of Canada’s Nuclear Fuel Waste. AECL Report AECL–10717, COG–93–7Google Scholar
6 PNC 1992: Research and development on geological disposal of high level radioactive waste. First progress report. PNC TN 1410 93–018, Japan, September 1992Google Scholar