Description
The actions that might be taken following repository closure to remedy problems with a repository arising from its sub-standard performance, disruption by some natural event or process, or inadvertent or deliberate damaged by human actions.
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.
- 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.
Remedial actions will influence the impacts of any (assumed or real) impaired repository performance. If the remedial actions are successful, then impacts of impaired performance will be reduced or eliminated. However, if inappropriate remedial actions are taken, then the impacts could be made worse. In an extreme case where repository performance is incorrectly believed to be impaired, unnecessary remedial actions could cause impairment. For example, if the integrity of a repository is incorrectly believed to be compromised, an unnecessary decision might be taken to retrieve the waste, with consequent adverse environmental impacts. Certain remedial actions, whether necessary or not, could generate waste that needs to be managed appropriately.
2000 List
A reference to the related FEP(s) within the 2000 NEA IFEP List.
Related References
-
IAEA (), Upgrading of Near Surface Repositories for Radioactive Waste, IAEA Technical Report Series 433, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TRS433_web.pdf
-
Ahn J and Apted M (Eds) (2010). (), Geological Repository Systems for Safe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuels and Radioactive Waste, Woodhead Publishing, ISBN 9781845695422, http://store.elsevier.com/product.jsp?isbn=9781845699789