Description
The changes in social patterns and institutions that impact upon a repository, including those involved in government, planning and regulation.
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.
Social and institutional developments are relevant to repository performance and safety because they could: 1) influence the measures that are taken to monitor and manage a repository post-closure; 2) influence the characteristics and spatial distributions of the human populations that could be impacted should any radionuclides or other contaminants travel from the repository to the near-surface; 3) influence the likelihood that future populations might intrude into the repository, or into a plume of radionuclides or other contaminants that have already been released from the repository but not yet reached the biosphere; and 4) influence the characteristics and spatial distributions of non-human biota that could be impacted should any radionuclides or other contaminants travel from the repository to the near-surface. Planning controls and environmental legislation could change in the future and cause modifications to the monitoring and management measures that are taken following repository closure. Demographic changes, social factors and planning controls could affect the sizes and spatial distributions of human populations in the area around a repository, and the activities of the human populations. Examples of such changes include increases and decreases in the sizes of local populations (including urbanisation / de-urbanisation), changes to the living environment of humans (e.g. whether living in high-rise buildings or low-rise buildings) and changes to lifestyles of humans (e.g. variations in the time spent indoors and outdoors). These factors would affect the likelihood that human populations could be impacted by radionuclides or other contaminants originating in a repository, and the nature of the impacts. The changed land uses in the area around a repository that could be caused by demographic changes, social factors and planning controls will cause the non-human biota to be modified. For example, such factors could change the proportions of forestry and arable farming in an area, with consequent changes in ecosystems. The likelihood that non-human biota will be impacted by radionuclides or other contaminants originating in a repository, and the nature of the impacts, will depend on the characteristics and spatial distributions of the non-human biota. The loss or records concerning a repository and societal memory of a repository’s existence, would increase the risk of inadvertent human intrusion into the repository, or into a plume of radionuclides or other contaminants that have already been released from the repository, but not yet reached the biosphere.
2000 List
A reference to the related FEP(s) within the 2000 NEA IFEP List.
Related References
-
IAEA (), Environmental Change in Post-closure Safety Assessment of Solid Radioactive Waste Repositories, Working Group 3 Reference Models for Waste Disposal of EMRAS II Topical Heading Reference Approaches for Human Dose Assessment. Environmental Modelling for Radiation Safety (EMRAS II) Programme, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, IAEA-TECDOC-1799, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE1799web.pdf
-
National Research Council (), Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges, Committee on Disposition of High-Level Radioactive Waste Through Geological Isolation, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, National Research Council, ISBN: 0-309-56764-5, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10119/disposition-of-high-level-waste-and-spent-nuclear-fuel-the
-
NEA (), Future Human Actions at Disposal Sites, A Report of the NEA Working Group on Assessment of Future Human Actions at Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites, Nuclear Energy Agency/Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ISBN 92-64-14372-6, https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/1995/nea6431-human-actions.pdf