4.
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
4.1. Aim
This section focuses the description of the disposal system. In particular, it:
• introduces the components of the disposal system (Section 4.2);
• identifies the key aspects of the near-field (Section 4.3), geosphere (Section 4.4) and
biosphere (Section 4.5) that need to be described; and
• considers the factors that need to taken into account when describing the disposal system
(Section 4.6).
4.2. Introduction
As stated in Section 2.4, the disposal system can be considered to consist of the following
components.
•
The near-field - the waste, the disposal area, the engineered barriers of the disposal
facility plus the disturbed zone of the natural barriers that surround the disposal facility.
•
The geosphere - the rock and unconsolidated material that lies between the near-field and
the biosphere. It can consist of both the unsaturated or vadose zone (which is above the
groundwater table) and the saturated zone (which is below the groundwater table).
•
The biosphere - the physical media (atmosphere, soil, sediments and surface waters) and
the living organisms (including humans) that interact with them.
The division between these disposal system components, especially the geosphere and
biosphere, is somewhat arbitrary for a disposal facility that is located at or within a few
metres of the ground surface (see Section 2.4). However, it is convenient within a safety
assessment programme to distinguish between the three components both from a
presentational and modelling perspective. It is important to provide a clear definition of these
components and their associated interfaces (such as the geosphere-biosphere interface) in the
assessment. It is also important to recognise the important interactions between the various
components that occur across their associated interfaces, for example the impact that the
surface water bodies have on the sub-surface water bodies and vice-versa.
The description that is developed should be a qualitative and quantitative description of the
above system components. At this stage, detailed data required by the computer codes to
represent conceptual and mathematical models are not required - such data are collated under
the model formulation and implementation stage (see Section 6). Instead, the focus at this
stage is on general data that can be used to describe the present-day disposal system. All
sources of data used in the description should be documented and referenced to ensure that an
appropriate audit trail of information is maintained.
Information provided could be a mixture of verifiable information associated with presentday conditions, or it could relate to assumptions to be made for assessment purposes, if, for
example, the assessment were site generic, and there is little or no site specific context. It
could also be a mixture of both. In any case, a clear distinction should be made between the
verifiable information and the assumptions made for assessment purposes.
As with all steps in the assessment, the system description can be updated and revised in an
iterative manner in the light of experience and understanding gained from previous iterations
of the assessment and in light of any data acquisition programmes. Indeed it is helpful to
ensure close coordination of the safety assessment and the supporting data acquisition
programmes, with the safety assessment often being a valuable means of identifying and
prioritising supporting data acquisition work [IAEA, 1999a].
In the following sections, each of the key aspects of the near-field, geosphere and biosphere
that need to be described are identified.
4.3. Near-field
4.3.1. Waste
The diverse sources of production of low and intermediate level waste means that its
characteristics can vary considerably. It can contain individual radionuclides with different
half-lives and toxicity, and can vary in physical and chemical form. When describing the
waste for a safety assessment, it is therefore helpful to collate information on the following
aspects of the waste (see for example BNFL [2000] and IAEA [2000]).
•
Waste origin, nature and quantities - waste from different sources (e.g. nuclear power
plant operation, reactor decommissioning, hospitals) have different characteristics and
consideration needs to be given to these varied sources and characteristics within the
assessment. The total volume to be disposed from each source needs to be specified.
•
Radionuclide inventory – can be expressed in terms of total activity for each waste
stream or as a concentration per unit mass and/or volume of waste. It determines the
length of time for which the waste remains a hazard and so can influence the timescales to
be considered in the assessment, and the nature and longevity of the design features
required to limit the release of radionuclides.
•
Waste form 1 – the physical, chemical and biological properties of the waste after any
conditioning should be specified. Conditioning can consist of compaction (if appropriate)
and waste immobilisation in a medium such as concrete, bitumen or polymers.
4.3.2. Engineered Barriers
Engineered barriers can be used as physical and/or chemical obstructions to prevent or delay
the movement (e.g. migration) of radionuclides from the disposal facility to the geosphere
and biosphere. IAEA [2001a] identifies the following engineered barriers that should be
described.
•
1
Waste packages - comprise the waste form, the waste container, overpackage and
coatings (e.g. thin wall carbon steel, concrete, stainless steel). The waste packages are
often selected to benefit other stages of waste treatment, e.g. storage and transport as well
as disposal. However, they can provide a physical and chemical barrier to radionuclide
migration and provide some mechanical strength. The exact nature of the packaging
varies depending on factors such as waste and site characteristics and so needs to be
Definitions for all terms appearing in italics are given in the glossary to these notes. Only terms that have not been used in
previous sections are italicised in this section.
specified for each assessment. Steel drums and/or cubic/cylindrical boxes (steel or
concrete) can be used as waste containers and should be described (see for example
Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3).
•
Disposal units - comprise the engineered structures/isolation layers (e.g. concrete, porous
medium for drainage, bitumen, polymers, clay), lining materials (e.g. reinforced concrete,
clay and asphaltic or organic membranes), and backfilling materials (e.g. concrete, fly
ash, clay mixtures). There is usually some form of drainage system to channel any
infiltrating water away from the waste. Depending on the position of the disposal units
with respect to the watertable, additional barriers might be constructed to control the
movement of water into and out of the units (see for example Figure 4.4 and 4.5).
•
Disposal facility cover – often comprising a series of alternative low and high
permeability layers (see for example Figure 4.6). The purpose of a cap is to limit
infiltration of water, provide gas control, and serve as an intrusion barrier and an erosion
barrier. Materials used in cap systems can include clays, soil/sand, gravel and cobbles,
geotextiles, concrete slabs, asphalt and polymeric membranes. In the case of cavern
disposal facilities such as the Swedish SFR disposal facility at Forsmark [Carlson et al,
1997], the “cover” is provided by the overlying rocks.
Whenever possible quantitative information should be provided including dimensions and
physical and chemical characteristics related to the performance of the barriers. Examples of
the range of engineered barriers used for near surface disposal facilities are given in IAEA
[2001a] and IAEA [1997].
4.3.3. Hydrological and Chemical Conditions
Hydrology and chemistry control two key aspects of the near-field:
•
the rate at which water can enter the disposal units and the rate at which it can transport
released radionuclides away, i.e. the dominant mass transfer process; and
•
the chemistry of the water in the near-field.
It is therefore important that information relating to near-field hydrological and chemical
conditions is collated. For existing disposal facilities, such information can be gathered from
the site. For proposed facilities, information can be taken from existing sites that have
similar characteristics, and/or generic assumptions can be adopted.
Hydrological information will include information on the moisture content, porosity, and
hydraulic conductivity of the near-field materials. Information relevant to the chemistry of the
near-field will include: temperature; pressure; pH; redox potential; ionic strength (total
dissolved solids); buffer capacity; chemical composition; speciation; complexation; solubility
limits.
Figure 4.1: Artist’s Impression showing a Section through the Vault Waste Package at
the Drigg Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, United Kingdom [BNFL, 2000]
Figure 4.2: Waste Packages in the Repository Richard, Czech Republic
Figure 4.3: Section of Reinforced Concrete Container for Proposed Conditioned
Radioactive Waste Forms for Future Disposal in Russia [MosNPO RADON, 2001]
1 - Reinforced Concrete Container; 2 – 200 Litre Barrels with Conditioned Radioactive
Waste; 3 - Concrete Matrix/Ballast Filler
Figure 4.4: Cross-section through a Closed Disposal Units at Centre de l’Aube, France
[Andre, 1997]
Figure 4.5: Cross-section of Proposed Radioactive Waste Disposal Units in Russia
[MosNPO RADON, 2001]
Figure 4.6: Preliminary Design of Final Site Cap at Drigg
4.4. Geosphere
It is important for the system description to include qualitative and quantitative information
concerning their salient features, especially those that might affect the isolation of
radionuclides in the disposal facility and any subsequent migration (see for example BNFL
[2000] (Figures 4.7 and 4.8), IAEA [2000], and Prozorov et al [2001] (Figure 4.9)). Any
information concerning the potential impact of geosphere conditions on the performance of
the disposal facility, and vice versa, should be noted. Where possible, any spatial and
temporal variations in the geosphere characteristics should also be noted. The following
geosphere characteristics should be taken into account in a safety assessment of a disposal
system [IAEA, 1999b].
Figure 4.7: Simplified Cross-section of Regional Geology through the Drigg Site
[BNFL, 2000]
Figure 4.8: Schematic Cross-section of the Hydrogeological Zones beneath the
Drigg Site [BNFL, 2000]
Figure 4.9: Cross-section of the Geology at the Saratov “RADON” Facility Site
[Prozorov et al, 2001]
•
Geology – the consolidated and unconsolidated lithology, its mineralogy and structure.
Information should be provided on the geological succession and the thickness and
geographical extent of each geological unit. The resource potential of the geological units
should also be described. Any information concerning local and regional faulting and
fracturing of the units should also be presented.
•
Hydrogeology – available information concerning unsaturated and saturated water flow
in the geosphere in the vicinity of the site should be documented (e.g. depth to the
watertable, moisture content, hydraulic gradients, hydraulic conductivities, storativities,
porosities, velocities, residence times and associated spatial and temporal variability).
Aquicludes, aquitards and aquifers should be identified and information provided on
recharge and discharge rates, and the occurrence and rate of abstraction of any boreholes
in the aquifers. The nature of the interface(s) between the geosphere and the biosphere
should be described (e.g. well, soil, river, estuary, marine). Information relevant to
potential transport of radionuclides in the geosphere should also be collected such as
dispersion and diffusion information, as well as the geochemical information summarised
below.
•
Geochemistry – the geochemical characteristics of the geological units and their
associated groundwater should be documented. If available, information concerning
parameters such as Eh, pH, water temperatures, chemical species present in the
groundwater, elemental sorption characteristics, colloids and salinity levels should be
collated.
•
Tectonic and seismic conditions – IAEA [1999b] notes that “the tectonics and seismicity
of the site and, where appropriate, the region shall be such that significant tectonic
processes and events such as faulting, seismic activity or vulcanism are not expected to
occur with an intensity that would compromise the necessary isolation capability of the
repository”. Thus it is necessary to collate any available information concerning tectonic
and seismic conditions at the site.
4.5. Biosphere
The IAEA has co-sponsored a programme of work on biosphere modelling and assessment
(BIOMASS) [IAEA, 2001b]. As part of this programme, consideration has been given to the
identification and description of the biosphere for the purpose of the assessment of
radioactive waste [IAEA, 2002a and 2002b]. IAEA [2002a] notes that the biosphere system
can be defined as a set of specific characteristics that describe the biotic and abiotic
components of the surface environment and their relationships that are relevant to safety
assessments of solid radioactive waste disposals. Components of the biosphere system are
given below.
•
Climate and atmosphere: climate is the expression of meteorological parameters such as
temperature, precipitation, evaporation, wind speed and direction over an area. These
parameters should be described so that they are consistent with the other components of
the biosphere system and/or on the basis of the assessment context. At a minimum,
information should be provided concerning the broad classification of the assumed
climate state(s) e.g. temperate, boreal etc. Climate will often have a profound effect on
many of the other system components. Atmosphere is defined in terms of the composition
of the air.
•
Water bodies are the surface water masses e.g. lakes, rivers, wetlands, seas, and
estuaries. At a minimum, information should be provided as to whether such features are
present in the biosphere system.
•
Human activity describes the nature of communities (e.g. agrarian vs industrial); their
habits; their level of technological development; and their degree of subsistence. This
component provides an indication of how humans utilise/exploit the
environment/resources and the extent to which humans have disturbed or continue to
disturb their environment.
•
Biota are the terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal life in the biosphere system. A
distinction can be made between domestic and wild flora and fauna and between those
which are in the food chain and those which are out of the food chain but used by humans
for purposes other than food.
•
Near surface lithostratigraphy describes the general characteristics of soils and
sediments within the biosphere system including both their composition and structure.
•
Topography is the configuration of the earth’s surface including its relief and relative
positions of natural and man-made features. Information should be provided concerning
the features of the system under consideration and its relief.
•
Geographical extent defines the boundaries/spatial domain of biosphere that is to be
described. At a minimum, the area over which direct contamination of the biosphere may
occur should be considered. It should be recognised that the extent might change as a
function of time. Additional issues to consider when defining the geographical extent
include: the end-point(s) of interest; human activities, especially resource area
requirements; and the nature of the interface between the geosphere and the biosphere.
•
Location is the position of the biosphere system on the earth’s surface. Information
concerning latitude and longitude should be provided for site-specific contexts. For more
generic situations, less specific information might be available and might be restricted to
more general information, for example whether the system is coastal, inland, and
information describing its distance from the sea and altitude.
A biosphere system description, taking account of the overall assessment context, can be
developed by building on the initial identification of biosphere system components. The
development of a description of the biosphere system consists of three main parts.
• Identification of significant characteristics of each biosphere system component, taking
account of their relevance to the underlying assessment context.
• Determination of phenomena relevant to providing a suitable description of the dynamic
behaviour of the biosphere system for the purposes of radiological assessment. These
phenomena may be intrinsic to individual biosphere system components or associated
with the interactions and relationships between different biosphere system components.
• Description of the configuration of, and connectivity between, different parts of the
system, taking account of the part they would play in the migration and accumulation of
contaminants within the biosphere system.
In order to assist in developing the description of the biosphere system, a series of
classification tables have been used in BIOMASS. These tables provide a set of possible
classes for each of the biosphere system components and a set of associated characteristics.
Example tables for the water bodies component are given in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 (the full set of
tables for all components can be found in IAEA [2002a]). A summary that relates each of the
biosphere system components to the classification tables and to the biosphere characteristics
used for system description is given in Table 4.3.
It is important to describe the configuration of, and connectivity between, the different
components of the system. Information concerning the processes that may affect them, such
as erosion and flooding, should be collated. These processes may operate within individual
system components or be associated with the interactions and relationships between different
components.
BIOMASS Theme 1 Example Reference Biosphere 2B [IAEA, 2002b] allows the illustration
of this. The example is a hypothetical and non-specific system. For the description, the
screening tables were used, as they provide the basis for the high-level identification of the
components.
Table 4.1. Table WI from IAEA [2002a] listing Water Body Classes
1
2
3
Surface Water Bodies
(a) Natural:
- Rivers
- Lakes
- Springs
- Streams
- Wetlands
- Estuaries
- Seas
- Oceans
(b) Artificial:
- Canals
- Harbour
- Wells
- Reservoirs
- Distribution/storage water systems
Subsurface Water Bodies
• Variably saturated zone
• Saturated zone
Ice Sheets
• Continental
• Shelves
• Corrie and valley glaciers
• Sea Ice
Table 4.2: Table WII from IAEA [2002a] listing Water Body Characteristics
Table WII. Water bodies characteristics
1
Geometry
• Level
- Position
- Variation (Global, local)
• Basal characteristics
2
Flow rate
• Variation (e.g.: permanent, ephemeral)
3
Suspended Sediments
• Composition
• Load
4
Freeze/Thaw Phenomena
• Ground freezing
- Seasonal
- Long-term (Permafrost, ice lens etc)
- Snowpack development
• Water body freezing
5
Hydrochemistry
• Composition of:
• Major anions and cations
• Minor anions and cations
• Organic compounds
• Colloids
• pH and Eh
Table 4.3: BIOMASS Scheme Relating Principal Components of the Biosphere
System and Corresponding Scientific Areas to Tables Listing Classification Schemes
and Characteristics [IAEA, 2002a]
Biosphere system components
Principal components
(Related Scientific Areas )
CLIMATE
(Climatology / Meteorology)
WATER BODIES
Classification/Principal
component types
(System Identification)
Characteristics
Climate
Classification
Table CI
Climate Characteristics
Table CII
Water Body Types
Table WI
Water Body Characteristics
Table WII
Human Community
Types/Activities
Table HI
Human Community use of
biosphere system components
Table HII
Types of Aquatic
and Terrestrial
Ecosystem
Table BI
Composition of biotic
community
Table BII
Rock Types
Table GI
(System Description)
(Hydrology / Hydrogeology /
Hydrochemistry)
HUMAN ACTIVITIES
(Anthropology / Sociology /
Demography)
BIOTA
(Ecology)
NEAR-SURFACE
LITHOSTRATIRAPHY
(Geology / Geomorphology /
Edaphology)
TOPOGRAPHY
(Geography)
Patterns of biotic communities
Geological Characteristics
Table GII
 onal Soil Types
Z
and Sediment
Types
Table SI
 oils and Sediment
S
Characteristics
Table SII
Topographical
Categories
Table TI
Topographic Characteristics
Table TII
Notes to Table 4.3: GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT and LOCATION are outside the classification scheme; their implications are propagated
through the whole system identification and description process.
The principal components of the biosphere system for ERB2B were identified as:
Climate
Geology
Topography
Water Bodies
Human Community
Biota
ZBVII Temperate (fuller explanation provided below)
Sedimentary
Inland, lowland, with subdued fluvial incision
River, lake, wetland, groundwater system (saturated and
unsaturated) water distribution system,
Small farming community living off primarily local produce,
(including that from terrestrial and fish farming, use of
natural resources to supplement diet and other uses of
natural resources). Although the climate implies a need for
irrigation for agriculture, no irrigation is assumed to be
necessary on the farmland receiving the discharge from the
contaminated area of the aquifer.
Natural aquatic systems: lake, river, swamp and marsh.
Soil and Sediment
Managed terrestrial systems: managed grasslands, improved
and
rough
improved
and
rough
field
crop
ecosystems/cultivated land tree crop ecosystems woodland
and shrubland.
Natural terrestrial systems: temperate deciduous and
evergreen forest.
Chernozem (but need to consider modification by cultivation
as well as effects of permanent saturation in some areas).
River and lake-bed sediments assumed to be highly organic
and fine.
The “word picture” developed for this case places ERB2B in the context of a regional
aquifer. The geosphere-biosphere interface occurs where the contaminated aquifer interacts
with the soils and sediments of the river catchment illustrated in Figure 4.10. The nature of
the different habitat areas was determined from a consideration of the slope gradient and the
soil hydrology, as illustrated in Figure 4.11. The size of the catchment area was selected to be
approximately consistent with that necessary to support the small river and lake required for
ERB2B. For the description, consideration was taken to the water flows and other relevant
data.
The climate was classified as ZBVII according to the classification scheme of Walter [1984].
The climate needs to be sufficient to support the ERB2B system as described, with river and
lake. The climate data derived consistent with the water flow were elicited from a
comparison of climate data for ZBVII [Walter, 1984] with actual climatic data from Budapest
(Met’logia and Lorinc) and Odessa which are approximate ZBVII climates. The data for
ERB2B were also chosen to suit the water flow criteria mentioned above. This demonstrated
consistency between climate and water balance assumptions for the ERB2B system and real
systems of the same type.
Figure 4.10: Dimensional illustration of the BIOMASS Example Reference Biosphere
2B Catchment
Figure 4.11: River and Lake Cross-Sections from BIOMASS Example Reference
Biosphere 2B Showing Depth to Aquifer
AR
EA 1
W
AR
EA 2
AR
AR
EA 3
GR
>2
REA 6
AR
SU
MMER <2m
WI
SU
MMER <2m
WI
EA 1
W
AR
EA 2
AR
AR
EA 3
AR
GR
EA 4
A
SH
>2
REA 5
A
M
REA 6
L
OWER
0
SUM
MER <0.4m
WINT
SU
MMER <2m
WI
SU
MMER <2m
WI
m
4.6. Factors Affecting the System Description
4.6.1. Influence of the Assessment Context
The description of the disposal system should be undertaken with the assessment context
firmly in mind. In particular, in light of experience gained from studies such as BIOMASS, it
has been found helpful to consider the following components of the assessment context when
describing the disposal system.
Purpose – for example, if the assessment is for a strategic study, or the development of
generic regulations and siting criteria, then the system can usually be described at a relatively
high level with no need for site-specific data. Instead, generic data from previous relevant
studies can be used. In contrast, if the assessment is for a specific design and site, then sitespecific will be required.
End-points – as noted in Section 3, a variety of end-points can be considered in an
assessment and it is important to ensure that the disposal system is described in sufficient
detail to allow the calculation of the relevant end-points. For example, if the only assessment
end-point to be assessed were flux from the near-field, then it would be necessary to describe
the near-field, but only describe the geosphere and biosphere in so far as they provide
boundary conditions for the calculation of near-field fluxes. In contrast, the calculation of
individual dose to a member of the critical group would require additional information
describing the geosphere and biosphere (including critical group habit data). The calculation
of collective doses to a wider population would require additional biosphere data concerning
the wider population and its associated biosphere.
Philosophy – the adoption of a realistic assessment philosophy will require more detailed
system description information in order to demonstrate that the data are best estimate data. In
contrast, the adoption of a cautious philosophy allows bounding estimates to be adopted and
so the level of system description can be less detailed.
Timescales – it is important to recognise that the system description, given at this stage of the
safety assessment, is for the present-day disposal system. If system evolution is to be
considered in the assessment, then this system description should be seen as the starting point
for the description of the future evolution of the system. The description of the future
evolution of the system will be undertaken as part of the scenario development and
justification step of the assessment approach (see Section 5) rather than at this stage.
Societal assumptions (part of disposal system characteristics) - in order to derive a suitable
models for the assessment, there is a requirement to describe and then quantify the ways in
which exposures could take place. To do this, it is necessary to describe the key behavioural
characteristics (activities) of the exposed populations considered in the assessment,
remembering always that these exposures are hypothetical. As noted in Section 3.9,
assumptions concerning future human actions and the characteristics of potential exposure
groups can be defined as part of the assessment context. It is important to ensure that the
system description is consistent with these assumptions.
4.6.2. Recognition of Uncertainties
When describing the disposal system, it is important to recognise that there are two
significant sources of uncertainty that need to be taken into account. When the developing
the system description, it is important to be aware of and to document the contribution of
these two sources of uncertainty.
First, there is uncertainty associated with characterising the system as it is at present. Such
uncertainties may arise from:
• an absence of data, i.e. no data or limited data have been collected to date; and
• measurement errors.
It is also important to recognise that measured values might be highly variable in space
and/or time due to natural variability in phenomena such as porosity in an aquifer.
Second, there is uncertainty associated with the future evolution of the disposal system (see
for example IAEA [2002b]). As noted above, the system can be expected to evolve over the
timescales considered in an assessment. There is considerable uncertainty associated with
this evolution and such uncertainties need to be taken into account within the assessment.
However, at the system description stage of assessment, it is usually sufficient to describe the
present-day system and recognise that this description might change with time.
These two sources of uncertainties, together with other sources of uncertainty, need to be
explicitly considered in the assessment - techniques for doing so are considered in Section 10.
4.7. Summary
When developing a description of the disposal system, it is helpful to consider:
•
the near-field - the origin, nature and quantities of waste, the radionuclide inventory, the
waste properties, and the characteristics of the engineered barriers (the waste packages,
the disposal units, and the disposal facility cover);
•
the geosphere - its geology, hydrogeology, geochemistry, and tectonic and seismic
characteristics; and
•
the biosphere – climate and atmosphere, water bodies, human activity, biota, near
surface lithostratigraphy, topography, geographical extent, and location.
The description that is developed should be a qualitative and quantitative description of these
system components. All sources of data used in the description should be documented and
referenced to ensure that an appropriate audit trail of information is maintained.
The description of the disposal system should be undertaken with the assessment context
firmly in mind (in particular the assessment purpose, end-points, philosophy and timescales),
and so ensure that the system is described to a level of detail that is appropriate for the
context being considered. It is also important to account for and document two significant
sources of uncertainty: the uncertainty associated with characterising the system as it is at
present; and the uncertainty associated with the future evolution of the disposal system.
4.8. References
Andre T (1997). Experience of an Engineering Company in Shallow Land Disposal of
L/ILW. Planning and Operation of Low Level Waste Disposal Facilities, Proceedings of an
International Symposium on Experience in the Planning and Operation of Low Level Waste
Disposal Facilities, Vienna, 17 – 21 June 1996, International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, pp 313 – 328.
BNFL (2000). Status Report on the Development of the 2002 Drigg Post-Closure Safety
Case. British Nuclear Fuels plc, Sellafield.
Carlsson J S, Karlsson F and Riggare P (1997). Assessment of the Long Term Performance
of the Swedish Final Repository for Radioactive Waste, SFR. Proceedings of an International
Symposium on Experience in the Planning and Operation of Low Level Waste Disposal
Facilities, Vienna, 17 – 21 June 1996, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp 353 368.
IAEA (2002a). “Reference Biospheres” for Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal: Volume II –
BIOMASS Methodology for Creating Assessment and Reference Biospheres. TECDOC to be
published, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA (2002b). “Reference Biospheres” for Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal: Volume III –
Example Reference Biospheres. TECDOC to be published, International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna.
IAEA (2001a). Technical Considerations in the Design of Near Surface Disposal Facilities
for Radioactive Waste. IAEA-TECDOC-1256, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA (2001b). Biosphere Modelling and Assessment (BIOMASS) Programme. BIOMASS
Working Material version ß1 distributed on CD, International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna.
IAEA (2000). Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Practices in Eastern
European Countries. Working Material, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA (1999a). Safety Assessment for Near Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste. IAEA
Safety Standard Series No. WS-G-1.1, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA (1999b). Near Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste. IAEA Safety Standard Series
No. WS-R-1, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA (1997). Planning and Operation of Low Level Waste Disposal Facilities. Proceedings
of an International Symposium on Experience in the Planning and Operation of Low Level
Waste Disposal Facilities, Vienna, 17 – 21 June 1996, International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna.
MosNPO RADON (2001). Radwaste Treatment Technology. Radon-Press, Moscow.
Prozorov L B, Tkatchenko A V, Gouskov A V and Korneva S A (2001). Long-term Safety
Assessment of “Radon” Type Facility. Paper No 298, Waste Management '01, Tucson,
Arizona.
Walter (1984). Vegetation of the Earth and Ecological Systems of the Geo-Biosphere.
Eugene Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart.
S:\Projects\APMD\Regional\EBP-ASIA-280 to do\Day 2\Presentations\asia280p12.doc