Probability, conditional probability and complementary cumulative distribution functions in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal

Abstract A formal description of the structure of several recent performance assessments (PAs) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is given in terms of the following three components: a probability space ( S st, L st, Pst) for stochastic uncertainty, a probability space ( S su, L su, Psu) for subjective uncertainty and a function (i.e., a random variable) defined on the product space associated with ( S st, L st, Pst) and ( S su, L su, Psu). The explicit recognition of the existence of these three components allows a careful description of the use of probability, conditional probability and complementary cumulative distribution functions within the WIPP PA. This usage is illustrated in the context of the US Environmental Protection Agency's standard for the geologic disposal of radioactive waste (40 CFR 191, Subpart B). The paradigm described in this presentation can also be used to impose a logically consistent structure on PAs for other complex systems.

[1]  Ronald L. Iman,et al.  Risk methodology for geologic disposal of radioactive waste: small sample sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models, with an application to risk assessment , 1980 .

[2]  R M Cranwell,et al.  Performance assessment of radioactive waste repositories. , 1988, Science.

[3]  M. E Paté-Cornell,et al.  Probability and uncertainty in nuclear safety decisions , 1986 .

[4]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  A critique of current practice for the use of expert opinions in probabilistic risk assessment , 1988 .

[5]  J. W. Berglund,et al.  Mechanisms governing the direct removal of wastes from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant repository caused by exploratory drilling , 1992 .

[6]  George Apostolakis.  Uncertainty in probabilistic safety assessment , 1989 .

[7]  R. Ash,et al.  Real analysis and probability , 1975 .

[8]  F. Farmer.  REACTOR SAFETY AND SITING: A PROPOSED RISK CRITERION. , 1967 .

[9]  Ronald L. Iman,et al.  A FORTRAN-77 PROGRAM AND USER'S GUIDE FOR THE GENERATION OF LATIN HYPERCUBE AND RANDOM SAMPLES FOR USE WITH COMPUTER MODELS , 1984 .

[10]  S. Kaplan.  On The Method of Discrete Probability Distributions in Risk and Reliability Calculations–Application to Seismic Risk Assessment , 1981 .

[11]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Construction of complementary cumulative distribution functions for comparison with the EPA release limits for radioactive waste disposal , 1993 .

[12]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal , 1993 .

[13]  G. Parry.  On the meaning of probability in probabilistic safety assessment , 1988 .

[14]  S. Kaplan,et al.  On The Quantitative Definition of Risk , 1981 .

[15]  J C Helton,et al.  A Monte Carlo procedure for the construction of complementary cumulative distribution functions for comparison with the EPA release limits for radioactive waste disposal. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[16]  Ronald L. Iman,et al.  Rejoinder to comments , 1980 .

[17]  M. G. Marietta,et al.  Effect of alternative conceptual models in a preliminary performance assessment for the waste isolation pilot plant , 1995 .

[18]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Risk, Uncertainty in Risk, and the EPA Release Limits for Radioactive Waste Disposal , 1993 .

[19]  M.S.Y. Chu,et al.  Assessing compliance with the EPA high-level waste standard: an overview , 1986 .

[20]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Drilling intrusion probabilities for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal , 1993 .

[21]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Summary description of the methods used in the probabilistic risk assessments for NUREG-1150 , 1992 .

[22]  Rechard.  Review and discussion of code linkage and data flow in nuclear waste compliance assessments , 1989 .

[23]  J. W. Garner,et al.  Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results obtained in a preliminary performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant , 1993 .

[24]  P. J. Roache.  The SECO suite of codes for site Performance Assessment , 1993 .

[25]  G. Apostolakis.  The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. , 1990, Science.

[26]  J. Hammersley,et al.  Monte Carlo Methods , 1965 .

[27]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Calculation of reactor accident safety goals , 1993 .

[28]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  Uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessment , 1996 .

[29]  D. M. Rasmuson,et al.  Uncertainties in Nuclear Probabilistic Risk Analyses , 1984 .

[30]  Stan Kaplan.  Formalisms for handling phenomenological uncertainties: the concepts of probability, frequency, variability, and probability of frequency , 1993 .

[31]  G. Yadigaroglu,et al.  On Farmer's line, probability density functions, and overall risk , 1986 .

[32]  N. R. Ortiz,et al.  Risk methodology for geologic disposal of radioactive waste: Final report , 1987 .

[33]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Preliminary comparison with 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1991. Volume 4, Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results , 1992 .

[34]  Charles Levenstein.  Hazards: Technology and Fairness , 1987 .

[35]  Chris Whipple,et al.  Dealing with Uncertainty about Risk in Risk Management , 1987 .

[36]  Ellen K. Silbergeld.  Five Types of Ambiguity: Scientific Uncertainty in Risk Assessment , 1987 .

[37]  T. McKone,et al.  PREDICTING THE UNCERTAINTIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT , 1991 .

[38]  E Anderson,et al.  Key issues in carcinogen risk assessment guidelines, Society for Risk Analysis. , 1993, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[39]  D. C. Cox,et al.  Limit lines for risk , 1982 .

[40]  William Feller,et al.  An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications , 1967 .

[41]  Ronald L. Iman,et al.  Expert opinion in risk analysis: the NUREG-1150 methodology , 1989 .

[42]  F. O. Hoffman,et al.  Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[43]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Treatment of Uncertainty in Performance Assessments for Complex Systems , 1994 .

[44]  A. C. Peterson,et al.  Preliminary comparison with 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, December 1991. Volume 3: Reference data , 1991 .

[45]  K. K. Wahi,et al.  Use of performance assessment in assessing compliance with the containment requirements in 40 CFR Part 191 , 1990 .

[46]  T. A. Wheeler,et al.  Use of expert judgment in NUREG--1150 , 1991 .

[47]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Elicitation and use of expert judgment in performance assessment for high-level radioactive waste repositories , 1990 .