Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T08:15:42.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probabilistic Performance Assessment vs. the Safety Case Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2019

François Diaz-Maurin Open the ORCID record for François Diaz-Maurin [Opens in a new window]  and
Rodney C. Ewing
François Diaz-Maurin*
Affiliation:
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA94305, USA Amphos 21 Consulting SL, C/ Venezuela 103, 08019Barcelona, Spain
Rodney C. Ewing
Affiliation:
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA94305, USA Department of Geological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA94305, USA
*
*(Email: fdm@stanford.edu)
Get access

Abstract

The “safety case” approach has been developed to address the issue of evaluating the performance of a geologic repository in the face of the large uncertainty that results for evaluations that extend over hundreds of thousands of years. This paper reviews the concept of the safety case as it has been defined by the international community. We contrast the safety case approach with that presently used in the U.S. repository program. Especially, we focus on the role of uncertainty quantification. There are inconsistencies between the initial proposal to dealing with uncertainties in a safety case and current U.S. practice. The paper seeks to better define the safety case concept so that it can be usefully applied to the regulatory framework of the U.S. repository program.

Keywords

waste managementnuclear materialsmodelingenvironmentsociety

Information

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 4 , Issue 17-18: Energy-Transfer, Storage and Conversion , 2019 , pp. 987 - 992
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Swift, P.N., in Geological Repository Systems for Safe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuels and Radioactive Waste (Second Edition) edited by Apted, M.J. and Ahn, J. (Woodhead Publishing, 2017), pp. 451–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, R.C., Tierney, M.S., Konikow, L.F., and Rechard, R.P., Risk Anal 19, 933 (1999).Google Scholar
U.S. NRC, An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, USA, 1975).Google Scholar
Bredehoeft, J.D., England, A., Stewart, D., Trask, N., and Winograd, I., Geologic Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes: Earth-Science Perspectives (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Alexandria, VA, USA, 1978).Google Scholar
Campbell, J.E., Dillon, R.T., Tierney, M.S., Davis, H.T., McGrath, P.E., Pearson, F.J., Shaw, H.R., Helton, J.C., and Donath, F.A., Risk Methodology for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Interim Report (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1978).Google Scholar
Cranwell, R.N., Guzowski, R.V., Campbell, J.E., and Ortiz, N.R., Risk Methodology for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Scenario Selection Procedure (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes: Radiation Protection and Safety Criteria, Proceedings of an NEA Workshop, Paris, 5-7 November 1990 (Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 1991).Google Scholar
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Review of Safety Assessment Methods, A Report of the Performance Assessment Advisory Group of the Radioactive Waste Management Committee (Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 1991).Google Scholar
Rechard, R.P., Risk Anal 19, 763 (1999).Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 191, Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes; Final Rule (1985), pp. 38066–38089.Google Scholar
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, The Nature and Purpose of the Post-Closure Safety Cases for Geological Repositories (OECD NEA, Paris, 2013), p. 53.Google Scholar
IAEA, The Safety Case and Safety Assessment for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 2012), p. 120.Google Scholar
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Post-Closure Safety Case For Geological Repositories: Nature and Purpose (Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 2004), p. 54.Google Scholar
Hedin, A. and Andersson, J., SKB’s Safety Case for a Final Repository License Application (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2014), p. 8.Google Scholar
Freeze, G., Voegele, M., Vaughn, P., Prouty, J., Nutt, W.M., Hardin, E., and Sevougian, S.D., Generic Deep Geologic Disposal Safety Case, Rev 1 (Sandia National Laboratories and Argonne National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy, Used Fuel Disposition Campaign, 2013), p. 356.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, R.J., Sevougian, S.D., Leigh, C.D., and Hansen, F.D., Towards a Defensible Safety Case for Deep Geologic Disposal of DOE HLW and DOE SNF in Bedded Salt (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA and Livermore, CA, USA, 2012), p. 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, W., Ann ICRP 41, 294 (2012).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metlay, D., in Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature (Island Press, Covelo, CA, 2000), pp. 199–228.Google Scholar
Rechard, R.P. and Voegele, M.D., Reliab Eng Syst Safe 122, 53 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheidt, C., Li, L., and Caers, J., editors, Quantifying Uncertainty in Subsurface Systems (Wiley & the American Geophysical Union, New York, N.Y., 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrick, B.J. and Kaplan, S., Risk Anal 19, 903 (1999).Google Scholar
Reset Steering Committee, Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste Management Strategy and Policy (Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2018).Google Scholar