Independent Peer Review of - Low Level Waste Repository Ltd

Peer Review of LLWR Response to S9R2LLWR_2008-8-2Version 1intrusion. The peer review panel considers that if the consequences ofinadvertent human intrusion are to be compared against a dose-basedintervention criterion of this type, then it is a form of double counting alsoto make arguments as to the low probability of the intrusion event 4 .100. If arguments are to be made regarding the probability of inadvertenthuman intrusion, then logically the assessed risk from intrusion should becompared to a risk-based standard (e.g., the risk target).101. If calculated doses from inadvertent human intrusion are significant whencompared to the relevant dose-based intervention criterion, then a strongerargument would be made for or against waste retrieval by focussing on thecosts and other factors associated with retrieval, rather than by makingarguments about the probability of intrusion events.3.5 Quality Assurance and Use of Assessment Results3.5.1 Quality Assurance102. There is clear evidence that documents have been put through suitable QAprocesses, but some documents have been produced at too late a stage,and there has been little time for the SLC’s project team to draw togetherthe various different R&D and assessment studies into a coherentassessment to support the submission made in response to Requirement 2.103. For the next safety case, we believe that there will be a need for moredetailed documentation of safety assessment data and parameter values,and we recommend consideration of production of dedicated data reportssuch as SKB (2006).104. As an example of the need for further detailed documentation, we havenot seen detailed documentation of the GoldSim assessment model, orevidence of its verification or testing against the more detailed supportinghydrogeology models or against previous assessment models (e.g., thosefrom the 2002 PCSC).105. The peer review panel considers, therefore, that the safety assessmentwork could not be reproduced today by another suitably qualified teambased on the documentation provided.106. These issues are recognised by the SLC and will be taken into account inthe planning of the forward programme for development of the next safetycase. The issues are not significant for the submission made in responseto Requirement 2 because the submission is an interim deliverable, and4We note that judgement has to be exercised when developing human intrusion scenarios (e.g., sothat the illustrations considered are not wildly unrealistic), particularly those involvingsequences of events each with their own probabilities. However, in this case it does not seemunreasonable behaviour for people in the future to construct a house or houses on excavatedmaterials.TerraSalus Limited 24 2 September 2008