Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T17:11:04.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representation of the biosphere in post-closure assessments for the UK geological disposal programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

R. Kowe  and
S. Norris
R. Kowe*
Affiliation:
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Radioactive Waste Management Directorate, NDA Harwell Office, Building 587, Curie Avenue, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RH, UK
S. Norris
Affiliation:
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Radioactive Waste Management Directorate, NDA Harwell Office, Building 587, Curie Avenue, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RH, UK
*
*E-mail: raymond.kowe@nda.gov.uk
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.

This paper gives an overview of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Radioactive Waste Management Directorate approach to representing the biosphere in post-closure safety assessment studies. The assessments consider potential releases of radionuclides and chemically toxic substances from a geological disposal facility that may reach the biosphere by transport in groundwater and gas. It gives an outline of the key processes and understanding underpinning the representation of the biosphere and how the biosphere may evolve over the long timescales of relevance to post-closure safety. The current biosphere assessment approach and associated models are supported by research studies and collaboration that ensure they are consistent with international recommendations. Research studies are also commissioned to reduce uncertainty surrounding key contaminants and potential exposure pathways and to help ensure that the approach and models are adaptable and flexible enough to incorporate future developments, as the geological disposal programme moves towards site selection.

Keywords

potentially exposed groupclimate changecarbon-14
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 76 , Issue 8 , December 2012 , pp. 3217 - 3223
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
© [2012] The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence (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 2012

References

BIOCLIM (2003) Deliverable D8a: Development of the Rule-based Downscaling Methodology for BIOCLIM Work Package 3. Andra, Ch âtenay-Malabry, France.Google Scholar
BIOCLIM (2004) Deliverable D10–12. Development and Application of a Methodology for Taking Climate-driven Environmental Change into Account in Performance Assessments. Andra, Ch âtenay- Malabry, FranceGoogle Scholar
Environment Agency and Northern Ireland Environment Agency (2009) Geological Disposal Facilities on Land for Solid Radioactive Wastes: Guidance on Requirements for Authorisation. Environment Agency, Bristol UK and Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Belfast, UK.Google Scholar
Egan, M.J. (2009) NDA RWMD Biosphere Assessment Studies FY2008–2009. Context and Approach to Future Biosphere Assessment Calculations. Quintessa Limited report to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority QRS-1378K-2, Version 1.0.Google Scholar
Ewen, J., Parkin, G. and O’Connell, P.E. (2000) SHETRAN: distributed river basin flow and transport modelling system. ASCE Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 5, 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GoldSim Technology Group (2010) GoldSim Probabilistic Simulation Environment User’s Guide, Version 10.1. GoldSim Technology Group, Issaquah, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Hughes, J.D. and Liu, J. (2008) MIKE SHE: software for integrated surface water/ground water modelling. Groundwater, 46, 797–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Atomic Energy Agency (2003) ‘‘Reference Biospheres’’ for Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal. Report of BIOMASS Theme 1 of the BIOsphere Modelling and ASSessment (BIOMASS) Programme. International Atomic Energy Agency report IAEA-BIOMASS-6. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) Quantification of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments for Radiological Assessments. International Atomic Energy Agency report IAEA-TECDOC-1616.Google Scholar
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International Atomic Energy Agency (2010) Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments. International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Reports Series 472. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
Limer, L.M.C. and Thorne, M.C. (2010) NDA RWMD Biosphere Assessment Studies FY2009–2010. The Biosphere Transport, Distribution and Radiological Impact of Se-79 Released from a Geological Disposal Facility. Quintessa report to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, QRS-1378W-4, Version 1.1.Google Scholar
Limer, L.M.C. and Thorne, M.C. (2011) NDA RWMD Biosphere Assessment Studies FY2010–2011. The Biosphere Transport, Distribution and Radiological Impact of C-14 Released from a Geological Disposal Facility. Quintessa report to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, QRS-1378ZM-1, Version 1.1.Google Scholar
Limer, L.M.C., Smith, K.R., Albrecht, A., Marang, L., Norris, S., Smith, G., Thorne, M.C. and Xu, S. (2011a) C-14 Long-Term Dose Assessment in a Terrestrial Agricultural Ecosystem: FEP Analysis, Scenario Development, and Model Comparison. BIOPROTA report, version 3.0 (Final), 14 November 2011.Google Scholar
Limer, L.M.C., Albrecht, A., Hormann, V., Gallerand, M-O., Medri, C., Perez-Sanchez, D., Smith, K.R., Smith, G. and Thorne, M.C. (2011b) Improving Confidence in Long-term Dose Assessments for U- 238 Series Radionuclides. BIOPROTA report, in preparation, version 1.0 (final draft), 25 May 2011.Google Scholar
Loutre, M.F. and Berger, A. (2000) Future climatic changes: Are we entering an exceptionally long interglacial? Climati. Change, 46, 61–90.Google Scholar
Mitchell, N.G. and Thorne, M.C. (2011) NDA RWMD Biosphere Assessment Studies FY2010–2011. The Biosphere Transport, Distribution and Radiological Impact of Uranium Series Radionuclides from a Geological Disposal Facility. Quintessa report to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority QRS-1378ZM- 5, Version 1.0.Google Scholar
National Dose Assessment Working Group (2009) Acquisition and Use of Habits Data for Prospective Assessments. Report of the NDAWG Habits Subgroup NDAWG/2/2009. National Dose Assessment Working Group, Harwell, UK.Google Scholar
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2010a) Geological Disposal: Biosphere Status Report. NDA Report NDA/RWMD/036.Google Scholar
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2010b) Geological Disposal: Generic Environmental Safety Case Main Report. NDA Report NDA/RWMD/021.Google Scholar
SKM Enviros (2011) Illustrative Assessment of Impacts on Non-Human Biota from Operational Radioactive Releases from a Generic Geological Disposal Facility - Input to the Operational Environmental Safety Assessment. SKM Enviros report, Version 5.Google Scholar
Smith, K.R. Smith, G. and Thiry, Y. (2010) International Workshop on the Environmental Behaviour of Radium: Workshop Report . BIOPROTA report Version 2.0, 24 June 2010. [Available from www.bioprota.org].Google Scholar
Smith, K., Smith, G.M. and Norris, S. (2012) BIOPROTA: international collaboration in biosphere research for radioactive waste disposal. Mineralogical Magazine, 76, 3233–3240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, M.C. (2007) A Guide to the Spreadsheet Model Used for Groundwater and Well Calculations for Generic Performance Assessments. Mike Thorne and Associates Limited Report to United Kingdom Nirex Limited, MTA/P0011c/2006–4. Issue 2.Google Scholar
Thorne, M.C. and Kane, P. (2006) Development of a Series of Narratives for Climatic and Landscape Change. Mike Thorne and Associates Limited Report to United Kingdom Nirex Limited MTA/ P0011a/2005–1. Issue 2.Google Scholar
Thorne, M.C. and Limer, L.M.C. (2009) NDA RWMD Biosphere Assessment Studies FY2008–2009. The Biosphere Transport, Distribution And Radiological Impact of Cl-36, Tc-99 and I-129 Released from a Geological Disposal Facility. Quintessa report to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority QRS-1378K-4, Version 1.0.Google Scholar
Towler, G.H. and Thorne, M.C. (2008) NDA RWMD Biosphere Assessment Studies FY2007–2008. Geosphere-Biosphere Interface Zone Issues, Catchment Modelling and Distributed Biosphere Modelling. Quintessa report to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority QRS-1378E-3, Version 1.0.Google Scholar
Towler, G.H. Thorne, M.C. and Walke, R. (2011) NDA RWMD Biosphere Assessment Studies FY2009–2010. Catchment Modelling in Support of Post-closure Performance Assessment. Quintessa report to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority QRS-1378W- 2, Version 1.2.Google Scholar
Walke, R.C., Thorne, M.C. and Limer, L.M.C. (2011) NDA RWMD Biosphere Assessment Studies FY2010- 2011: Biosphere Assessment Model. Quintessa report to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, QRS- 1378ZM-4, Version 1.0.Google Scholar
Wilson, J.C., Thorne, M.C., Towler, G. and Norris, S. (2011) Illustrative assessment of human health issues arising from the potential release of chemotoxic substances from a generic geological disposal facility for radioactive waste. Journal of Radiological Protection, 31, 411–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed