Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2.1
In establishing a safety assessment methodology for H12, the AEC Guidelines have been followed. These give specific guidance regarding safety indicators and their corresponding timescales, namely: The overall safety of the geological disposal system should be evaluated in terms of radiation dose as a primary indicator and compared with criteria proposed by regulatory bodies overseas; Individual doses should be calculated based on the assumption that human activities do not change in the future, in order to illustrate the relative significance of the possible consequences of geological disposal; No time cut-off is defined. Consequence analyses should be continued until the maximum impact on future generations arises; Supplementary safety indicators should be used in order to compare the consequences of geological disposal with natural radiation levels, thereby minimizing uncertainties associated with future human activities. Furthermore, in order to achieve a transparent and comprehensive assessment, the AEC Guidelines stress the importance of using systematic scenario development methodologies. They classify assessment scenarios into two groups, namely: Isolation failure scenarios, where the human environment is affected due to the physical isolation of the waste being compromised; Groundwater scenarios, where radionuclides are transported to the surface environment (biosphere) with flowing groundwater. In addition to considering a wide range of scenarios, the AEC Guidelines emphasize the need to take into account a variety of modeling options and alternative parameter values in order to increase the robustness of the assessment results and thereby enhance confidence in them. 2.2 Development and treatment of safety assessment cases
The H12 safety assessment considers a range of disposal systems, including different possible geological and surface environments and repository designs. Furthermore, the effects of the following sources of uncertainty on system performance are considered. The long-term safety of a given geological disposal system cannot be assessed conclusively due to the incompleteness of our knowledge about the system and its future behavior. These uncertainties can be classified into the following types (OECD/NEA, 1991): Scenario uncertainty; Model uncertainty; Data uncertainty. In the H12 safety assessment, these types of uncertainty are treated in the following manner:
Scenario uncertainty Scenario uncertainty (see, for example, OECD/NEA, 1999) arises from limited knowledge of: The evolution of slow processes such as chemical interactions between the engineered barrier materials and groundwater and the transport of radionuclides in the geosphere; The timing and frequency of events that may affect the stability of the geological environment; Future human activities. Scenario uncertainty is taken into account in the H12 safety assessment by defining a number of calculation cases corresponding to a range of scenarios identified in the process of scenario development. In order to reduce the risk of overlooking potentially important scenarios, a systematic methodology based on the work of a number of independent organizations has been applied. In particular, a comprehensive list of FEPs (Features, Events and Processes) has been developed by collating all the FEP lists developed in earlier assessments and the potential impacts of these FEPs and their interactions have been considered. Model uncertainty In some cases, two or more alternative conceptual models are able to explain the observed behavior of phenomena equally well, but lead to significantly different predictions when they are used to extrapolate the observations over time and/or space. This is one source of model uncertainty. Model uncertainty can also arise from possible errors in formulating and simplifying mathematical equations and in programming software. In treating model uncertainty, it is important to recognize the hierarchy of models used in an assessment. At the level of research models, the validity of alternative models can be evaluated by comparing them with observations from laboratory experiments, field tests and natural analogue studies. This has been done as part of international validation projects (e.g. OECD/NEA and SKI, 1994). When two or more candidate research models exist, a number of alternative calculation cases are defined so that their significance can be evaluated. At the assessment model level, the approach used in H12 is to verify that simplifications of the corresponding research models leads to conservative results. In addition, calculation codes are verified against other programs and, when available, analytical solutions, in order to minimize the possibility of programming errors. Data uncertainty Data uncertainty arises from measurement errors, interpolation of spatially heterogeneous geological properties (OECD/NEA, 1991) and extrapolation of results of experiments and natural analogue studies over times and conditions relevant to the assessment (Nagra, 1994a). In selecting ranges of parameter values to be used in the present assessment, careful
evaluations have been made of relevant data acquired by JNC and other organizations and the resulting datasets have been reviewed by internal and external groups of experts. A number of alternative calculation cases have been defined to cover the feasible ranges of parameter values to illustrate the impact of parameter uncertainty. In practice, conservative values which lead to greater consequences are often selected, where appropriate, to keep the number of calculation cases manageable. The number of cases for quantitative analysis or qualitative consideration that can potentially be defined if all combinations of geological and surface environments and repository designs and uncertainties are to be considered is very large. There are two different approaches to dealing with this situation, namely (for quantitative analysis): the use of stochastic (Monte-Carlo) simulations; deterministic analyses for a suitably defined subset of potential cases. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages. In H12, the latter approach is adopted, since it is well suited to providing a transparent assessment of the sensitivity of the system to uncertainties and to variations in the geological and surface environments and repository designs. The assessment consists of the following steps: Development and application of a systematic methodology to ensure that relevant features, events and processes (FEPs) are fully taken into account in developing scenarios for the assessment; Definition of a Base Scenario (one of a number of groundwater scenarios) and, within this scenario, definition and quantitative analysis of a Reference Case and alternative cases; Definition of a range of isolation failure scenarios and alternative ("perturbation") groundwater scenarios for either quantitative or qualitative analysis2-1); Identification of key phenomena and uncertainties from the results of these analyses; Overall assessment of system performance in a range of geological and surface environments, particularly with respect to the feasibility of safe geological disposal in Japan. By establishing a Base Scenario and Reference Case, around which sensitivity analyses are performed, the cases that are considered are reduced to a number that is manageable using a deterministic approach. The following calculation cases are considered within the Base Scenario: The Reference Case; Alternative geological environment cases and alternative design cases to address various geological disposal systems; Model and data uncertainty cases. Model and data uncertainty cases are identified based on an evaluation of their potential
2-1)
The possibility of occurrence of many of the isolation failure scenarios can be reduced significantly by appropriate site selection and repository design. Nevertheless, it is appropriate, in some cases, to endeavor to quantify or bound their possible consequences, as well as the probabilities of occurrence of the events that initiate them.
significance. In addition, some of the model uncertainty cases include FEPs that could be relevant but are not considered in the Reference Case. In addition, a number of calculation cases are considered for the perturbation scenarios. Isolation failure scenarios are treated either qualitatively or by less formal "what if?" calculations. Figure 2-1 outlines the procedure for evaluating barrier performance and the system safety in H12.
Reference Case
Sensitivity analysis
Safety standards
Construct/compile appropriate
Conceptual models Mathematical models Data The Reference Case provides a baseline for the derivation and assessment of alternative cases Uncertainties in scenarios, models and data Variations in the geological environment and design
Figure2-1 Procedure for evaluating barrier performance and the system safety
Key factors
Evaluation of confidence Results of foreign safety assessments Supplementary safety indicators Natural analogues
2.3
Modeling strategy
The near-field, consisting of the EBS and a limited volume of the surrounding host rock, are the elements of a repository system that tend to be characterized by least uncertainty. In H12, this has led to the development and application of relatively realistic near-field datasets and models, although with moderately conservative assumptions made where there is uncertainty2-2). In the case of the surrounding geosphere, greater uncertainties associated, for example, with the characterization of large-scale heterogeneity from a limited number of insitu measurements, lead to a more conservative modeling strategy for this part of the system. Emphasis on the near-field is considered appropriate given the complex geological structure of Japan, especially at the stage prior to site selection. A different approach is taken for the biosphere assessment. No attempt is made to model the evolution of the surface environment and the lifestyles of future generations, due to uncertainties that are largely irreducible. Rather, certain sets of assumptions are made about
2-2)
In the case of the near-field host rock, hypothetical datasets have been defined for generic geological environments, with a level of conservatism that matches the confidence level established through in-situ measurements and experiments at a number of field test sites.