From models to performance assessment: the conceptualization problem

Today, models are ubiquitous tools for ground water analyses. The intent of this paper is to explore philosophically the role of the conceptual model in analysis. Selection of the appropriate conceptual model is an a priori decision by the analyst. Calibration is an integral part of the modeling process. Unfortunately a wrong or incomplete conceptual model can often be adequately calibrated; good calibration of a model does not ensure a correct conceptual model. Petroleum engineers have another term for calibration; they refer to it as history matching. A caveat to the idea of history matching is that we can make a prediction with some confidence equal to the period of the history match. In other words, if we have matched a 10-year history, we can predict for 10 years with reasonable confidence; beyond 10 years the confidence in the prediction diminishes rapidly. The same rule of thumb applies to ground water model analyses. Nuclear waste disposal poses a difficult problem because the time horizon, 1000 years or longer, is well beyond the possibility of the history match (or period of calibration) in the traditional analysis. Nonetheless, numerical models appear to be the tool of choice for analyzing the safety of waste facilities. Models have a well-recognized inherent uncertainty. Performance assessment, the technique for assessing the safety of nuclear waste facilities, involves an ensemble of cascading models. Performance assessment with its ensemble of models multiplies the inherent uncertainty of the single model. The closer we can approach the idea of a long history with which to match the models, even models of nuclear waste facilities, the more confidence we will have in the analysis (and the models, including performance assessment). This thesis argues for prolonged periods of observation (perhaps as long as 300 to 1000 years) before a nuclear waste facility is finally closed.