Ann ICRP. 1998;28(4):i-vii, 1-25.
(79) Waste, by definition, has no benefit. It should be viewed as one aspect of the beneficial practice that gave rise to it. Furthermore, radioactive waste management should be placed in the context of the management of society's waste in general. (80) A major issue in evaluating the acceptability of a disposal system for long-lived solid radioactive waste is that doses or risks may arise from exposures in the distant future. There is uncertainty surrounding any estimate of these doses or risks due to lack of knowledge about future conditions. Such exposures are treated as potential exposures as their magnitude depends on future processes and conditions that have probabilities associated with them. (81) Nevertheless, the Commission recognises a basic principle that individuals and populations in the future should be afforded at least the same level of protection from the action of disposing of radioactive waste today as is the current generation. This implies use of the current quantitative dose and risk criteria derived from considering associated health detriment. Therefore, protection of future generations should be achieved by applying these dose or risk criteria to the estimated future doses or risks in appropriately defined critical groups. These estimates should not be regarded as measures of health detriment beyond times of around several hundreds of years into the future. In the case of these longer time periods, they represent indicators of the protection afforded by the disposal system. (82 Constrained optimisation is the central approach to evaluating the radiological acceptability of a waste disposal system; dose or risk constraints are used rather than dose or risk limits. By this transition from limitation to optimisation, the needs of practical application of the radiological protection system to the disposal of long-lived solid waste disposal are met: determination of acceptability now for exposures that may occur in the distant future. Optimisation should be applied in an iterative manner during the disposal system development process and should particularly cover both site selection and repository design. (83) Two broad categories of exposure situations should be considered: natural processes and human intrusion. The latter only refers to intrusion that is inadvertent. The radiological implications of deliberate intrusion into a repository are the responsibility of the intruder. Assessed doses or risks arising from natural processes should be compared with a dose constraint of 0.3 mSv per year or its risk equivalent of around 10(-5) per year. With regard to human intrusion, the consequences from one or more plausible stylized scenarios should be considered in order to evaluate the resilience of the repository to such events. (84) The Commission considers that in circumstances where human intrusion could lead to doses to those living around the site sufficiently high that intervention on current criteria would almost always be justified, reasonable efforts should be made at the repository development stage to reduce the probability of human intrusion or to limit its consequences. In this respect, the Commission has previously advised that an existing annual dose of around 10 mSv per year may be used as a generic reference level below which intervention is not likely to be justifiable. Conversely, an existing annual dose of around 100 mSv per year may be used as a generic reference level above which intervention should be considered almost always justifiable. Similar considerations apply in situations where the thresholds for deterministic effects in relevant organs are exceeded. (85) Compliance with the constraints can be assessed by utilising either an aggregated risk-oriented approach, with a risk constraint, or a disaggregated dose/probability approach, with a dose constraint, or a combination of both. A similar level of protection can be achieved by any of these approaches; however, more information may
（79）按照定义，废物没有益处。它应被视为产生它的有益活动的一个方面。此外，放射性废物管理应置于整个社会废物管理的背景下。（80）评估长寿命固体放射性废物处置系统可接受性的一个主要问题是，在遥远的未来可能因接触而产生剂量或风险。由于对未来状况缺乏了解，对这些剂量或风险的任何估计都存在不确定性。此类接触被视为潜在接触，因为其大小取决于具有相关概率的未来过程和状况。（81）然而，委员会承认一项基本原则，即未来的个人和人群应至少获得与当代人相同水平的保护，使其免受当今处置放射性废物行为的影响。这意味着要采用从考虑相关健康损害得出的当前定量剂量和风险标准。因此，应通过将这些剂量或风险标准应用于适当界定的关键群体中的估计未来剂量或风险，来实现对后代的保护。这些估计不应被视为超过未来约几百年时间的健康损害衡量标准。在这些较长时间段的情况下，它们代表处置系统提供的保护指标。（82）受限优化是评估废物处置系统辐射可接受性的核心方法；使用剂量或风险约束而非剂量或风险限值。通过从限制到优化的这种转变，满足了辐射防护系统在长寿命固体废物处置实际应用中的需求：确定现在对于可能在遥远未来发生的接触的可接受性。在处置系统开发过程中，优化应以迭代方式应用，尤其应涵盖场址选择和处置库设计。（83）应考虑两类广泛的接触情况：自然过程和人为侵入。后者仅指无意的侵入。故意侵入处置库的辐射影响由侵入者负责。应将自然过程产生的评估剂量或风险与每年0.3毫希沃特的剂量约束或其每年约10⁻⁵的风险当量进行比较。关于人为侵入，应考虑一个或多个合理的典型情景的后果，以评估处置库对此类事件的复原能力。（84）委员会认为，在人为侵入可能导致场址周边居民的剂量高到按照当前标准几乎总是有理由进行干预的情况下，应在处置库开发阶段做出合理努力，以降低人为侵入的可能性或限制其后果。在这方面，委员会此前曾建议，每年约10毫希沃特的现有剂量可作为一般参考水平，低于该水平干预不太可能有理由。相反，每年约100毫希沃特的现有剂量可作为一般参考水平，高于该水平几乎总是应考虑进行干预。在相关器官确定性效应阈值被超过的情况下也适用类似考虑。（85）可通过采用具有风险约束的汇总风险导向方法、具有剂量约束的分解剂量/概率方法或两者结合来评估是否符合约束条件。这些方法中的任何一种都可实现类似水平的保护；然而，可能需要更多信息。
