Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:27:37.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Performance Assessment through the Multiple Phases of a Nuclear Waste Management Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2012

E.J. Bonano ,
G.A. Freeze  and
G. Appel
E.J. Bonano
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185, USA
G.A. Freeze
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185, USA
G. Appel
Affiliation:
Nuclear & Regulatory Support Services (NRSS), Albuquerque, NM 87109 USA
Get access

Abstract

In many countries, regulations for the management of nuclear waste require a performance (safety/risk) assessment to demonstrate the safety asserted to be provided by the sites/facilities proposed for handling, storing, and disposing of the wastes. However performance assessment can play a bigger role than solely demonstration of compliance with applicable safety standards in support of a regulatory decision (i.e., licensing of a waste management facility). Performance assessment can be an effective management tool during all phases of a waste management program: from development of national nuclear waste management policies; to programmatic environmental impact assessments associated with design and siting evaluations, site selection, and site characterization; to licensing and operation of facilities.

International experience has demonstrated that nuclear waste management programs are long-term efforts, lasting at least two to three decades from initial policy development to licensing and commencement of waste management and disposal operations. This experience has also demonstrated that consistent attention to, and integration of, initial component studies are necessary to provide a comprehensive total system analysis for programmatic environmental impact assessments and for licensing.

For nearly 40 years, Sandia National Laboratories has developed and applied a performance assessment methodology in numerous national and international nuclear waste management programs. These applications range from development and feasibility testing of environmental health standards to preliminary evaluation of waste disposal sites; to establishing the basis for demonstration of compliance; to informing licensing (compliance demonstration) decisions. In many of these applications the performance assessment methodology has also served as a management tool for confirming the added value of research and development investments.

This paper presents examples to illustrate how performance assessment has been used as an effective management tool through multiple phases of a nuclear waste management program.

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1475: Symposium NW – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXXV , 2012 , imrc11-1475-nw35-il14
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

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. Meacham, P.G., Anderson, R.D., Bonano, E.J., and Marietta, M.G., SAND2011–8270, Sandia National Laboratories (2011).Google Scholar
2. Kaplan, S. and Garrick, J.B., Risk Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 13 (1981)Google Scholar
3. Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Draft Report to the Secretary of Energy, July 29, 2011, Blue Ribbon Commission for America’s Nuclear Future, p. 10, (2011).Google Scholar
4. United States National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Public Law 91–190, (1969).Google Scholar
5. United States Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 1987 (NWPA), Public Law 100–203, (1987).Google Scholar
6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 10, Part 60, 46 FR 13980, (1981).Google Scholar
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Part 191, 50 FR 38084, (1985).Google Scholar
8. Bingham, F.W., and Barr, G.E., SAND78–1730, Sandia National Laboratories, (1979).Google Scholar
9. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIS-0026, (1980).Google Scholar
10. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/CAO-1996-2184, (1996).Google Scholar
11. Cranwell, R.M., Guzowski, R.V., Campbell, J.E., and Ortiz, N.R., SAND80–1429, NUREG/CR-1667, Sandia National Laboratories, (1990).Google Scholar
12. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/RW-0073, (1986).Google Scholar
13. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/WIPP 04–3231, (2004).Google Scholar
14. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/WIPP-09–3424, (2009).Google Scholar
15. Sandia National Laboratories, MDL-WIS-PA-000005 REV 00 ADD 01, (2008).Google Scholar
16. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/RW-0573, (2008).Google Scholar
17. Bonano, E.J., Kessel, D., and Dotson, L., SAND2010–2237C, Sandia National Laboratories, (2010).Google Scholar
18. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG 2107, Technical Evaluation Report on the Content of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Repository License Application, Postclosure Volume: Repository Safety After Permanent Closure, (2011).Google Scholar