Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T21:18:24.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Requirement of the assessment strategy for biosphere in mature safety cases for nuclear waste repositories – Finland case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

A. T. K. Ikonen
A. T. K. Ikonen*
Affiliation:
Environmental Research and Assessment EnviroCase, Ltd., Hallituskatu 1 D 4, 28100 Pori, Finland
*
*E-mail: ari.ikonen@envirocase.fi
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In safety assessments for nuclear waste disposal, the biosphere is a completely open system, whereas the bedrock can be treated with comparably simple boundary conditions. The bedrock has a vital role in providing and maintaining favourable conditions for the waste, but the public interest tends to focus on the biosphere. More importantly, the bedrock groundwater does arrive from the biosphere. Also, the regulations usually set the safety criteria in terms of doses occurring in the biosphere. Thus, it is reasonable to address the biosphere as a part of the disposal system, performance of which should be described based on conceptual models that cover phenomena and processes controlling radionuclide release and transport. From these, the actual assessment models and data are expected to be derived based on high-level research and expertise obtained through empirical study. In this paper, the complexity expected of a biosphere assessment within a mature safety case is discussed through the example of the Finnish regulations and recent safety cases for nuclear waste disposal. Both elaborate and complex presentations and stylised approaches have their benefits, and a balance needs to be sought.

Keywords

safety casesafety assessmentnuclear waste disposalrequirementscomplexityconfidence
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 79 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 1607 - 1612
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015. This is an open access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015

References

Avila, R., Kautsky, U., Ekström, P.-A., Åstrand, P.-G. and Saetre, P. (2013) Model of the long-term transport and accumulation of radionuclides in future landscapes. AMBIO, 42, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, J.K., Lindborg, T. and Thorne, M.C. (2014) Influence of climate on landscape characteristics in safety assessments of repositories for radioactive wastes. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 138, 192–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergström, U., Nordlinder, S. and Aggeryd, I. (1999) Models for Dose Assessments: Modules for Various Biosphere Types. Technical Report TR-99-14. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., Stockholm.Google Scholar
Caffrey, E.A., Leonard, M.E., Napier, J.B., Neville, D.R. and Higley, K.A. (2014) Radioecology: Why bother? Journal of Environmental Protection, 5, 181–192.Google Scholar
Canham, C.D., Cole, 11 and Lauenroth, W.K. (2003) Models in ecosystem science. Pp. 1-10 in: Models in Ecosystem Science (C.D. Canham, 11 Cole and W.K. Lauenroth, editors). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S.R. (2003) The need for fast-and-frugal models. Pp. 455–460 in: Models in Ecosystem Science (C.D. Canham, 11 Cole and W.K. Lauenroth, editors). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
DeAngelis, D.L. and Mooij, W.M. (2003) In praise of mechanistically rich models. Pp. 63-82 in: Models in Ecosystem Science (C.D. Canham, 11 Cole and W.K. Lauenroth, editors). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Galson, D.A. and Richardson, P.J. (2011) PAMINA, Performance Assessment Methodologies in Application to Guide the Development of the Safety Case (Contract Number: FP6-036404): Project Summary Report. European Commission.Google Scholar
Haapanen, R., Aro, L., Koivunen, S., Lahdenperä, A.-M., Kirkkala, T., Hakala, A., Helin, 1 and Ikonen, A.T.K. (2011) Selection of real-life analogues for future lakes and mires at a repository site. Radioprotection, 46, S647–S651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IAEA (1999) Use of natural analogues to support radionuclide transport models for deep geological repositories for long lived radioactive wastes. IAEA-TECDOC-1109. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna.Google Scholar
IAEA (2003) “Reference Biospheres” for solid radioactive disposal: Report of BIOMASS Theme 1 of the BIOsphere Modelling and ASSessment (BIOMASS) Programme, Part of the IAEA Co-ordinated Research Project on Biosphere Modelling and Assessment (BIOMASS). IAEA-BIOMASS-6. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna.Google Scholar
IAEA (2006) Fundamental Safety Principles. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SF-1. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna.Google Scholar
IAEA (2010) Handbook of parameter values for the prediction of radionuclide transfer in terrestrial and freshwater environments. Technical Report Series 472. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna.Google Scholar
Ikonen, A.T.K. (2006) Posiva Biosphere Assessment: Revised Structure and Status 2006. POSIVA 2006-07. Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, Finland.Google Scholar
Karlsson, S. and Bergström, U. (2000) Dose rate estimates for the Olkiluoto site using the biosphere models ofSR 97. Working Report 2000-20. Posiva Oy, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Lindborg, T., Brydsten, L., Sohlenius, G., Strömgren, M., Andersson, E. and Löfgren, A. (2013) Landscape development during a glacial cycle: Modeling ecosystems from the past into the future. AMBIO, 42, 402–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NEA (2004) Post-closure Safety Case for Geological Repositories: Nature and Purpose. NEA No. 3679. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).Google Scholar
NEA (2012) Methods for Safety Assessment of Geological Disposal Facilities for Radioactive Waste: Outcomes of the NEA MeSA Initiative. NEA No. 6923. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).Google Scholar
NEA (2013) The Nature and Purpose of the Post-closure Safety Cases for Geological Repositories: “Safety Case Brochure 2012”. NEA/RWM/R(2013)1. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. (2003) The role of quantitative models in science. Pp. 13–31 in: Models in Ecosystem Science (C.D. Canham, 11 Cole and W.K. Lauenroth, editors). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Posiva (2013a) Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Biosphere Assessment 2012. POSIVA 2012-10. Posiva Oy, Eurajoki, Finland.Google Scholar
Posiva (2013b) Olkiluoto Biosphere Description 2012. POSIVA 2012-06. Posiva Oy, Eurajoki, Finland.Google Scholar
Posiva (2014) Knowledge quality assessment method-ology, pp. 45-50 in: Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Data Basis for the Biosphere Assessment BSA-2012, Part I. POSIVA 2012-28. Posiva Oy, Eurajoki, Finland.Google Scholar
Roivainen, P. (2011) Characteristics of Soil-to-Plant Transfer of Elements Relevant to Radioactive Waste in Boreal Forest. Dissertations in Forestry and Natural Sciences, 56. University of Eastern Finland.Google Scholar
Staudt, C., Semiochina, N., Kaiser, J.C. and Pröhl, G. (2013) Modeling the impact of climate change in Germany with biosphere models for long-term safety assessment of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 115, 214–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
STUK (2001) Long-term Safety of Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Guide YVL 8.4. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Helsinki.Google Scholar
STUK (2003) Disposal of low and intermediate level waste from the operation of nuclear power plants. Guide YVL 8.1. Second, revised edition. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Helsinki.Google Scholar
STUK (2014) Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Guide YVL D.5. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Helsinki.Google Scholar
Vieno, T (1994) WELL-94: A Stylized Well Scenario for Indicative Dose Assessment of Deep Repositories. Report YJT 94-19. Nuclear Waste Commission of Finnish Power Companies, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Vieno, T and Nordman, H. (1999) Safety Assessment of Spent Fuel Disposal in Hästholmen, Kivetty, Olkiluoto and Romuvaara, TILA-99. Report POSIVA 99-07. Posiva Oy, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Vira, I (2014) Vain turvallinen loppusijoitus on mahdol-linen (in Finnish; Only safe disposal is possible). Pp. 14-16 in: Ytimekäs 1/2014 (J. Aho, editor). Teollisuuden VoimaOyj, Olkiluoto, Eurajoki, Finland.Google Scholar