Jean-Paul Boyazis

1
The Belgian RD program for disposal of High and
Intermediate level Waste

• Jean-Paul Boyazis
• Director Studies and Final Disposal Programs

2
Conditioned waste intended for deep disposal
(4860 tHM UOX, 70 tHM MOX)

• Complete reprocessing
• 4000 vitrified HLW
• 6500 hulls HLW
• 2400 vitrified HLW (historic)
• 14000 bituminised MLW (historic)
• 8000 other MLW
• Total HLW 2200 m3
• Total MLW 7600 m3

• Direct disposal
• 400 vitrified HLW
• 800 hulls HLW
• 10000 spent fuels
• 2400 vitrified HLW (historic)
• 14000 bituminised MLW (historic)
• 8000 other MLW
• Total HLW 4700 m3
• Total MLW 7600 m3

3
Disposal as the reference solution in Belgium (1)

• Deep disposal in geological formations
• Internationally preferred way to ensure long-term
  protection of man and environment from radwaste
  hazards (IAEA Joint Convention)
• Multibarrier
• Passively safe
• Reduce burden on future generations
• Considering current technologies and level of
  nuclear development
• Recognising current scientific uncertainties

4
Disposal as the reference solution in Belgium (2)

• No formal decision for disposal, but repeated
  support
• Methodological RD
• Establish and test whether one safe and feasible
  deep disposal solution exists in Belgium
• Without prejudging the implementation site
• Boom Clay beneath the Mol/Dessel nuclear zone as
  the reference host formation and site
• Ypresian Clays beneath the Doel nuclear zone as
  alternative

5
Historical developments (1)

• Reporting / Assessments
• 1st RD phase (1974-1989)
• SAFIR (1989)
• Evaluation Commission SAFIR (1990)
• Choice of Boom Clay beneath Mol/Dessel nuclear
  zone justified
• But consider alternative host formation and
  direct disposal of spent fuel
• Basis for RD programme 1990-2000
• 2nd RD phase (1990-2000)
• SAFIR 2 (2001)

6
The SAFIR 2 exercise (1)

• Set of public reports and reviews to
• Inform the authorities (government/FANC)
• Obtain approval for future RD
• Define further RD and demonstration needs
• Internal aims
• 1st attempt to integrate scientific and technical
  foundations
• 1st attempt to develop safety arguments
• BUT neither a licensing application nor a full
  safety case
• Reports
• Main Overview Background (societal)

7
The SAFIR 2 exercise (2)

• Peer review
• At the request of the Belgian Government
• Under the auspices of the OECD/NEA
• Programme is mature enough to go to siting, but
  requires
• Specific policy guidances (e.g. aquifer
  protection, retrievability)
• Specific regulatory framework
• Additional RD according to ONDRAFs proposals

8
The SAFIR 2 exercise (3)

• Confirms quality of RD (esp. in URL)
• Confirms possibility to dispose of HLW in Boom
  Clay confidence in
• Performances of the Boom Clay
• Performances of vitrified waste
• Long-term safety strategy and assessment method
• Industrial feasibility of gallery excavation
• Highlights difficulties
• Practical implementation of design
• Necessity to limit induced perturbations to the
  host formation
• Compatibility of some waste categories with clay
  (bituminised waste of former Eurochemic plant)

9
Safety functions

• Physical containment (C)
• Isolate radionuclides from the water
• Two sub-functions
• Water tightness (C1)
• Limit the water influx (C2)
• Delay and spread the release (R)
• Slow down radionuclide migration / dispersion
  towards biosphere
• Two sub-functions
• Resistance to leaching (R1)
• Diffusion et retention (R2)
• Dilution and dispersion (D)

10
(No Transcript)
11
Overall RD Priorities (1)

• Increase confidence in the performances and the
  feasibility of the must safety functions
• Considering timeframe
• Considering potential perturbations
• Considering contribution of the various
  components to long-term safety
• Host formation (dominant after thermal phase)
• Overpack (thermal phase)
• Glass and UO2
• - Aquifers and biosphere
• Further develop multifunction/barrier approach
• Qualitative assessment of safety reserves

12
Overall RD Priorities (2)

• Repository design based on the protection of the
  R2 (Diffusion and retention) function of the Boom
  Clay
• ? limit as far as possible the induced
  perturbations to the host formation
• Thermal impacts (clay and aquifers)
• Compatibility of various waste and materials
  (esp. bitumen)
• Chemical fronts (oxidation, alkaline, nitrate,
  etc.)
• Excavation Disturbed/Damaged Zone
• Etc.
• ? Assess long term effectiveness of R2
• Ensure C (Physical Containment) during thermal
  phase (EBS) Contained Environmental Concept

13

• VERTICAL BOREHOLE OPTION
• Overpack in stainless steel (Contained
  Environmental Concept not directly applicable)

14

• SLEEVE OPTION
• Contained Environmental Concept not applicable
• Buffer made of bentonite
• Overpack in stainless steel

15

• SUPERCONTAINER OPTION
• Contained Environment Concept principle applicable

16
Multi Criteria Analysis - Weighting

• Highest importance to aspects related to
  demonstration of confidence in the repository
  design
• Safety reserve
• Host rock perturbation
• Intrinsic robustness (level of characterisation
  and understanding)
• Demonstrativeness
• Working group Architecture GTA (2003)
• Best promising option at the current state
• Supercontainer with Ordinary Portland Cement
  buffer
• Supercontainer with Inorganic Phosphate Cement
  buffer as alternative
• IPC knowledge base not broad enough yet

17
Way forward (1)

• Definition of the 3rd phase of methodological RD
  (gt 2003)
• Consideration of the outcomes of the NEA Peer
  Review
• Responses by the Supervising authorities
• 5 concrete objectives
• Obtaining a decision-making process (incl.
  Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment)
• PRACLAY Heater Test
• 1st iteration of the Safety Case
• Concertation with Safety Authorities
• Knowledge management and traceability

18
Way forward (2)

• The perspective of a safe and feasible disposal
  solution in Boom Clay has been confirmed
• But RD still needed to reduce remaining
  uncertainties
• Focus on reference formation and site
• Consideration of alternatives
• Long-term management options (societal and
  environmental implications)
• PRACLAY in situ demonstration as pivot
• Confidence in feasibility
• Testing model predictions
• Specific regulatory framework and policy
  guidances are needed to move forward

19
Towards implementation integrating technical and
societal factors (1)

• Solution to technical and scientific questions is
  a prerequisite but is not sufficient
• SOCIETAL DIALOGUE ALSO NEEDED
• To share decision-making process
• To install a climate of confidence between
  stakeholders
• To support choices and implementation (siting)
• To inform RD

20
Towards implementation integrating technical and
societal factors (2)

• ? Coproduction of decision-making elements by all
  parties involved

21
Stepwise approach to repository development (1)

• To get a decision towards disposal of non-heat
  emitting, historic waste around 2025
• Define a decision-making process (2005)
• Clarify disposal option Support Boom Clay
  Define siting process
• Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (2009)
• Start actual siting (2010)

22
Stepwise approach to repository development (2)

• Confirm Boom Clay
• Safety and Feasibility Case I (2013)
• Feasibility, PRACLAY
• Safety and Feasibility Case II (2020)
• Exclude phenomenological difficulties
• Go for licensing
• Preliminary Safety Assessment Report (2025)
• Expand progressively PSAR and implementation to
  heat-generating waste

23
A view on the RD Costs

• RD program 1974 2000 150 M (2000)
• Current program 10 to 13 M / year
• Current human resources (RD disposal M/HLW)
• ONDRAF/NIRAS 15 persons (8 equivalent
  full-time)
• CEN.SCK 50 to 60 persons (37 equivalent
  full-time)