Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:28:17.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maximum Individual Dose and Vicinity-Average Dose for a GeologicRepository

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2012

T. H. Pigford and
E. D. Zwahlen
T. H. Pigford
Affiliation:
Nuclear Engineering Department, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, tpigford@nas.edu
E. D. Zwahlen
Affiliation:
Nuclear Engineering Department, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, tpigford@nas.edu
Get access

Abstract

Recent proposals for a new U.S. standard for high-level waste disposal wouldlimit the average dose to individuals in the vicinity surrounding a geologicrepository. This would be a new approach to protecting the public fromenvironmental releases of radioactivity. Heretofore, criteria adopted forgeologic disposal have limited the reasonable maximum exposure to a futurehypothetical individual. Here we present quantitative analyses of therelation between maximum exposure and vicinity-average exposure, resultingfrom future human use of ground water contaminated by radioactive releasesfrom a repository.

Estimating the vicinity-average exposure would require postulates andguesses of location and habits of future people. Exposure probabilitiespostulated by others show that proposed dose limit to the vicinity-averageindividual would be a far more lenient standard than the traditional doselimit to reasonably maximally exposed individuals. The proposedvicinity-average dose limit would allow far greater concentrations ofcontaminants in ground water than would be allowed by normal standards ofground water protection. A safety standard that limits vicinity-averageexposure should also include limits on maximum exposure.

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

1. Johnson, C. A., “National Research Council Report ‘Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards’: A State of Nevada View,” Proceedings International Conference on High-Level Waste Management, Las Vegas, April 1996.Google Scholar
2. Andrews, R. W., Dale, T. F., and McNeish, J. A., “Total System Performance Assessment -- An Evaluation of the Potential Yucca Mountain Repository,” Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, INTERA, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, 1994.Google Scholar
3. Barraclough, I. M., Mobbs, S. F., and Cooper, J. R., “Radiological Protection Objectives for the Land-Based Disposal of Solid Radioactive Wastes,” Documents of the National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB), 3, No. 3, 1992.Google Scholar
4. Charles, D., and Smith, G. M., “Project 90 Conversion of Releases From the Geosphere to Estimates of Individual Doses to Man,” Swedish Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SKI Technical Report 91: 14, 1991.Google Scholar
5. Davis, P. A., Zach, R., Stephens, M. E., Amiro, B. D., Bird, G. A., Reid, J. A. K., Sheppard, M. T., Sheppard, S. C., Stephenson, M., “The Disposal of Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste: The Biosphere Model, BIOTRAC, for Postclosure Assessment,” AECL-10720, 1992.Google Scholar
6. Farris, W. T., Napier, B. A., Ikenberry, T. A., Simpson, J. C., Shipler, D. B., “Atmospheric Pathway Report, 1944–1992,” Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, PNWD-2228 HEDR, 1994.Google Scholar
7. Farris, W. T., Napier, B. A., Ikenberry, T. A., Simpson, J. C., Shipler, D. B., “Columbia River Pathway Dosimetry Report,” 1944–1992,” Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, PNWD-2227 HEDR, 1994.Google Scholar
8. Leigh, C. D., et al. , “User's Guide for GENII-S: A Code for Statistical and Deterministic Simulation of Radiation Doses to Humans from Radionuclides in the Environment,” Sandia National Laboratories, SAND-91–0561, 1993.Google Scholar
9. McCartin, T., Codell, R., Neel, R., Ford, W., Wescott, R., Bradbury, J., Sagar, B., Walton, J., “Models for Source Term, Flow, Transport and Dose Assessment in NRC's Iterative Performance Assessment, Phase 2,” Proc. International Conference on High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Las Vegas, NV, 1994.Google Scholar
10. Napier, B. A., Peloquin, R. A., Streng, D. L., J.V. and Ramschell, J.V., “GENII: The Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System,” Richland, Washington, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, PNL-6584, 1988.Google Scholar
11. Neel, R. B., Dose Assessment Module”, in NRC Iterative Performance Assessment Phase 2: Development of Capabilities for Review of A Performance Assessment for a High-Level Waste Repository.” Wescott, R. G., Lee, M. P., McCartin, T. J., Eisenberg, N. A., and Baca, R. B., eds., U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1464, 1995.Google Scholar
12. Rechard, R. P., Ed., “Performance Assessment of the Disposal in Unsaturated Tuff of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste Owned by U.S. Department of Energy, Vol. 1: Methodology and Results,” Sandia National Laboratories, SAND94–2563/2, March 1995.Google Scholar
13. Switzerland National Cooperative for the Storage of Radioactive Waste, “Nuclear Waste Management in Switzerland: Feasibility Studies and Safety Analyses,” Project Report NGB 85–09, June 1985.Google Scholar
14. Switzerland National Cooperative for the Storage of Radioactive Waste, “Kristallin - I: Safety Assessment Report,” Technical Report 93–22E, February 1994.Google Scholar
15. UK Department of the Environment, “Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions,” August, 1994.Google Scholar
16. van Dorp, F., NAGRA Project Manager for Biosphere Models, Switzerland, Private Communication, 1994.Google Scholar
17. Vieno, T., Hautojarvi, A., Koskinen, L., and Nordman, H., “TVO-92 Safety Analysis of Spent Fuel Disposal,” Report YJT-92–33E, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory, Helsinki, 1992.Google Scholar
18. Pigford, T. H., Blomeke, J. O., Brekke, T. L., Cowan, G. A., Falconer, W. E., Grant, N. J., Johnson, J. R., Matuszek, J. M., Parizek, R. R., Pigford, R. L., White, D. E., “A study of the Isolation System for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes,”, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1983.Google Scholar
19. International Atomic Energy Agency, “Critical Groups and Biospheres in the Context of Radioactive Waste Disposal,” Position Paper Produced for the Working Group on Principles and Criteria for Radioactive Waste Disposal, July 1995.Google Scholar
20. Fri, R. W., et al. , “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1995.Google Scholar
21. U.S. Congress, Proposed Legislation: HR-1020 (Upton, 1995)), S-167 (Johnston, 1995), S-1271 (Craig, 1996).Google Scholar
22. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), “A Proposed Public Health and Safety Standard for Yucca Mountain: Presentation and Supporting Analysis,” Report EPRI-TR10412, pp. 3–26 – 3–27, April 1994.Google Scholar
23. Nuclear Energy Institute, “NEI Comments on Behalf of the Nuclear Industry on Selected Findings and Recommendations of the NAS Report, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,” October 1995.Google Scholar
24. Kessler, J. H., “Initial EPRI Reaction to the NAS Yucca Mountain Standards Recommendations,” Proceedings International Conference on High-Level Waste Management, Las Vegas, April 1996.Google Scholar
25. Pigford, T. H., “Personal Supplementary Statement,” Appendix E in Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1995.Google Scholar
26. Pigford, T. H., “The Yucca Mountain Standard: Proposals for Leniency,” Proc. Materials Research Society: Scientific Basis for Radioactive Waste Management, October 1995.Google Scholar
27. Pigford, T. H., “The Yucca Mountain Standard: How Lenient Should it Be?” Proceedings International Conference on High-Level Waste Management, Las Vegas, April 1996.Google Scholar
28. Hynes, M., Las Vegas Review Journal, May 12, 1994.Google Scholar
29. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 10, Part 50, Appendix I, “Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion ‘As Low as is Reasonably Achievable’ for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents, May, 1975.Google Scholar
30. Wilems, R. E., “Illustrative Probabilistic Biosphere Model For Yucca Mountain Individual Risk Calculations,” Proceedings Waste Management 1994, Foss, R. G. and Macks, M. E., ed., University of Arizona, 1994.Google Scholar
31. Phillips, F. M., Presentation of “Technical Basis of Yucca Mountain Standards” to Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1996.Google Scholar
32. Pigford, T. H., “Invalidity of the Probabilistic Exposure Scenario Proposed by the National Research Council's TYMS Committee,” Report UCB-NE-9523, Rev. 1, May 1996.Google Scholar
33. Whipple, C. G., Presentation of “Comments Regarding the NAS Report on Yucca Mountain Standards,” International Conference on High-Level Waste Management, Las Vegas, April 1996.Google Scholar