Description

Future developments in human technology and changes in the capacity and motivation to implement technologies.

Category

Categorisation as a Feature, Event and/or Process.

  • Features are physical components of the disposal system and environment being assessed. Examples include waste packaging, backfill, surface soils. Features typically interact with one another via processes and in some cases events.
  • Events are dynamic interactions among features that occur over time periods that are short compared to the safety assessment timeframe such as a gas explosion or meteorite impact.
  • "Processes" are issues or dynamic interactions among features that generally occur over a significant proportion of the safety assessment timeframe and may occur over the whole of this timeframe. Events and processes may be coupled to one another (i.e. may influence one another).

The classification of a FEP as an event or process depends upon the assessment context, because the classification is undertaken with reference to an assessment timeframe. In this generic IFEP List, many IFEPs are classified as both Events and Processes; users will need to decide which of these classifications is relevant to their context and its timeframes.

  • Event
  • Process

Relevance to Performance and Safety

The “Relevance to Performance and Safety” field contains an explanation of how the IFEP might influence the performance and safety of the disposal system under consideration through its impact on the evolution of the repository system and on the release, migration and/or uptake of repository-derived contaminants.

Technological developments are relevant to repository performance and safety because they will affect: 1) the likelihood that human actions could compromise the integrity of the repository, or transport radionuclides or other contaminants that have already been released from the repository, from the deep subsurface to the biosphere; 2) the ability of humans to mitigate any impacts of radionuclides or other contaminants that might originate in the repository; 3) the actual impacts on receptors of any radionuclides or other contaminants that might originate in the repository. Generally, improved levels of technology in future compared to the present would presumably decrease the likelihood that humans might inadvertently intrude into a repository, or into a deep plume of radionuclides or other contaminants that have already been released from the repository, even if knowledge of the repository had been lost (because the existence of a repository would be recognised by non-intrusive techniques even more readily than using present technology). Improved technology would also increase the likelihood of humans being able to mitigate the impacts of radionuclides or other contaminants that might be released from a repository. An example would be improved treatments for cancers that might be caused by exposure to radionuclides or improved remediation techniques. Conversely, decreased levels of technology in future compared to the present might increase the likelihood of inadvertent intrusion and decrease the likelihood that impacts from any releases of radionuclides or other contaminants could be mitigated. Irrespective of whether humans could mitigate the impacts of radionuclides or other contaminants that might be released from a repository, the magnitude and nature of these impacts could in part be determined by technological developments. For example, technologies for producing food will impact upon the likelihood that food sources for humans could be contaminated by radionuclides and the routes by which humans could be exposed in the event of such contamination. The increasing use of insulation in homes is an example of a recent technological development that has tended to increase risks from natural radon releases from the subsurface in some regions of the world.

2000 List

A reference to the related FEP(s) within the 2000 NEA IFEP List.

1.4.09

Related References