IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v19y1999i5p933-958.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance Assessments of Nuclear Waste Repositories: A Dialogue on Their Value and Limitations

Author

Listed:
  • Rodney C. Ewing
  • Martin S. Tierney
  • Leonard F. Konikow
  • Rob P. Rechard

Abstract

Performance Assessment (PA) is the use of mathematical models to simulate the long‐term behavior of engineered and geologic barriers in a nuclear waste repository; methods of uncertainty analysis are used to assess effects of parametric and conceptual uncertainties associated with the model system upon the uncertainty in outcomes of the simulation. PA is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of its certification process for geologic repositories for nuclear waste. This paper is a dialogue to explore the value and limitations of PA. Two “skeptics” acknowledge the utility of PA in organizing the scientific investigations that are necessary for confident siting and licensing of a repository; however, they maintain that the PA process, at least as it is currently implemented, is an essentially unscientific process with shortcomings that may provide results of limited use in evaluating actual effects on public health and safety. Conceptual uncertainties in a PA analysis can be so great that results can be confidently applied only over short time ranges, the antithesis of the purpose behind long‐term, geologic disposal. Two “proponents” of PA agree that performance assessment is unscientific, but only in the sense that PA is an engineering analysis that uses existing scientific knowledge to support public policy decisions, rather than an investigation intended to increase fundamental knowledge of nature; PA has different goals and constraints than a typical scientific study. The “proponents” describe an ideal, sixstep process for conducting generalized PA, here called probabilistic systems analysis (PSA); they note that virtually all scientific content of a PA is introduced during the model‐building steps of a PSA, they contend that a PA based on simple but scientifically acceptable mathematical models can provide useful and objective input to regulatory decision makers. The value of the results of any PA must lie between these two views and will depend on the level of knowledge of the site, the degree to which models capture actual physical and chemical processes, the time over which extrapolations are made, and the proper evaluation of health risks attending implementation of the repository. The challenge is in evaluating whether the quality of the PA matches the needs of decision makers charged with protecting the health and safety of the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodney C. Ewing & Martin S. Tierney & Leonard F. Konikow & Rob P. Rechard, 1999. "Performance Assessments of Nuclear Waste Repositories: A Dialogue on Their Value and Limitations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 933-958, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:19:y:1999:i:5:p:933-958
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00452.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00452.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00452.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert B. Cumming, 1981. "Is Risk Assessment A Science?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 1-3, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. François Diaz-Maurin & Rodney C. Ewing, 2018. "Mission Impossible? Socio-Technical Integration of Nuclear Waste Geological Disposal Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-39, November.
    2. Rob P. Rechard, 1999. "Historical Relationship Between Performance Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal and Other Types of Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 763-807, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    2. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    3. William A. Huber, 2010. "Ignorance Is Not Probability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 371-376, March.
    4. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    5. Rob P. Rechard, 1999. "Historical Relationship Between Performance Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal and Other Types of Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 763-807, October.
    6. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    7. Robert B. Cumming, 1981. "What Is Science Good For?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 225-227, December.
    8. Michael Greenberg & Karen Lowrie, 2011. "Celebrating Three Decades of Public Policy‐Oriented Interdisciplinary Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 7-11, January.
    9. Aven, Terje & Heide, Bjørnar, 2009. "Reliability and validity of risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(11), pages 1862-1868.
    10. Abreu, Danilo T.M.P. & Maturana, Marcos C. & Droguett, Enrique Lopez & Martins, Marcelo R., 2022. "Human reliability analysis of conventional maritime pilotage operations supported by a prospective model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    11. Miller B. Spangler, 1982. "The Role of Interdisciplinary Analysis in Bridging the Gap Between the Technical and Human Sides of Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 101-114, June.
    12. Julie Shortridge & Janey Smith Camp, 2019. "Addressing Climate Change as an Emerging Risk to Infrastructure Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 959-967, May.
    13. Andrew P. Hull, 1981. "The Limits of the Peer Review Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(3), pages 177-178, September.
    14. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    15. Shenae Lee & Gabriele Landucci & Genserik Reniers & Nicola Paltrinieri, 2019. "Validation of Dynamic Risk Analysis Supporting Integrated Operations Across Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-25, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:19:y:1999:i:5:p:933-958. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.