Publications

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

The conceptual structure of the 1996 performance assessment (PA) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is described. This structure involves three basic entities (EN1, EN2, EN3): (i) EN1, a probabilistic characterization of the likelihood of different futures occurring at the WIPP site over the next 10,000 years; (ii) EN2, a procedure for estimating the radionuclide releases to the accessible environment associated with each of the possible futures that could occur at the WIPP site over the next 10,000 years; and (iii) EN3, a probabilistic characterization of the uncertainty in the parameters used in the definition of EN1 and EN2. In the formal development of the 1996 WIPP PA, ENI is characterized by a probability space (Sst, Gst, pst) for stochastic (i.e. aleatory) uncertainty; EN2 is characterized by a function f that corresponds to the models and associated computer programs used to estimate radionuclide releases: and EN3 is characterized by a probability space (Ssu, Gsu, psu) for subjective (i.e. epistemic) uncertainty. A high-level overview of the 1996 WIPP PA and references to additional sources of information are given in the context of (Sst, Gst, pst), f and (Ssu, Gsu, psu).

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is under development by the US Department of Energy (DOE) for the geologic disposal of transuranic waste. The construction of complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs) for total radionuclide release from the WIPP to the accessible environment is described. The resultant CCDFs (i) combine releases due to cuttings and cavings, spallings, direct brine release, and long-term transport in flowing groundwater; (ii) fall substantially to the left of the boundary line specified by the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) standard 40 CFR 191 for the geologic disposal of radioactive waste; and (iii) constitute an important component of the DOE's successful Compliance Certification Application to the EPA for the WIPP. Insights and perspectives gained in the performance assessment (PA) that led to these CCDFs are described, including the importance of: (i) an iterative approach to PA; (ii) uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; (iii) a clear conceptual model for the analysis; (iv) the separation of stochastic (i.e. aleatory) and subjective (i.e. epistemic) uncertainty; (v) quality assurance procedures; (vi) early involvement of peer reviewers, regulators, and stakeholders; (vii) avoidance of conservative assumptions; and (viii) adequate documentation.