Disposal Facility

1
Disposal Facility Engineered Barrier System
(EBS) Design PRISM Practical Illustration and
use of the Safety Case Concept in the Management
of Near-surface Disposal

• David Bennett
• 2 April 2009

2
Design Working Group

• David Bennett DavidBennett_at_TerraSalus.co.uk
• Nadja Zeleznik Nadja.Zeleznik_at_gov.si
• Bernhard Großmnn Bernhard.Grossmann_at_dmt.de
• Gyula Dankó gdanko_at_golder.hu
• Sandi Virsek Sandi.Virsek_at_gov.si
• Michael Tichauer Michael.Tichauer_at_irsn.fr
• Peter Salzer salzer_at_decom.sk
• Janez Perko JPerko_at_sckcen.be
• Dody Ivan dodik_at_bgu.ac.il
• Marija Kališnik Marija.kalisnik_at_gov.si
• Stasys Motiejunas S.Motiejunas_at_rata.lt

3
Working Group Objective

• To share information and communicate good
  practice on
• How decisions on the design, extension and
  improvement of near-surface waste disposal
  facilities can be informed by, and justified
  using the Safety Case
• How the Safety Case can be used on an ongoing
  basis to support management decisions on facility
  design and modification
• We will also acknowledge the role of the EIA
  process in the early stages of facility design
  and implementation

4
Proposed Work Areas

• Designing and upgrading near-surface radioactive
  waste disposal facilities using the safety case
• 1a) Review of past and current practice on design
• Will take examples from near-surface facilities
  in the WGs experience
• Will also seek information to cover a wider range
  of facilities and waste types
• Will actively seek assistance from other project
  participants and relevant organisations
• Have developed some terms of reference for this
  data gathering
• Will also review relevant IAEA and NEA documents

5
Proposed Work Areas

• 1b) Analysis of review findings to identify
  lessons on good practice in facility design
• Have begun to identify and consider the many
  factors that affect facility design
• Will describe expectations of facility design
  information at different stages of facility
  development
• Will describe relationships between facility and
  EBS design and the safety case at different
  stages
• Will discuss optimisation of EBS (ALARA)
• e.g., iterative schemes

6
Terms of Reference for Data Gathering

• Safety / design philosophy
• Both for operations and post-closure
• General description of facility development
  history, e.g
• Waste type and inventory
• Influence of regulations/guidance
• Commentary on reasons for the design of each
  engineered component (e.g., package, backfill,
  walls, cap, drains etc)
• e.g., size, shape, material, monitoring
• History of any design changes and their rationale
• Functions assigned to engineered components (if
  any)
• Treatment of barriers and barrier degradation in
  the safety case / assessment

7
Facilities Covered by Working Group

• Dessel, Belgium
• CSM, CSA, Morvilliers, France
• Konrad, Germany
• Püspökszilágy Pecs, Hungary
• Maišiagala new prototype near-surface
  repository, Lithuania
• Mochovce, Slovakia
• Slovenian silo concept
• LLWR, UK

8
Broadening Our Scope

• Borehole facilities
• Previous IAEA projects
• South Africa, Russia, US
• Mine tailings
• Previous IAEA projects
• Wismut?
• Forsmark, Olkiluoto type facilities
• Swedish/Finnish input
• Cavern type facilities
• Richard Czech Republic?
• Deeper concepts for LLW/ILW?
• France, Canada?

9
Requirements Constraints on Design

• Safety requirements (e.g., dose constraint,
  ALARA)
• Design philosophy (passive safety, isolation,
  containment.)
• Waste type / characteristics
• Stakeholders (public, local communities,
  scientific community and committees, others)
• Past practice / experience
• Operational factors (e.g., infrastructure, waste
  handling, waste QA checking)
• Site characteristics
• Monitoring
• Knowledge of any pre-existing facilities on the
  site (disposal and other)
• Safety assessors, facility operators
• Availability of barrier materials technology
• Barrier performance/degradation
• Safety assessment assumptions and results,
  existing WAC
• Project timescales and feasibility
• Allowing for flexibility and iterations of the
  safety case
• Costs vs benefits (of alternatives)
• Regulations
• Government Policy

10
Design in the Facility Lifecycle

• Stages (will vary by country and site)
• Site screening, investigation, characterisation,
  selection
• Design options and concept selection
• Detailed design
• Construction
• Operational phase
• Refinement of design
• Upgrading if necessary
• Closure
• Institutional Control

• Plan to discuss the design and related safety
  case activities for each stage
• Will consider a range of facility types
• Will consider the relative importance of various
  factors influences on design at each stage
• Will work closely with Group 1 on timeline

Design assessment
overlap, iteration, variation in stages
11
Planning

• Roles and responsibilities of group members
  defined and agreed
• Provisional schedule outlined
• Deliverables identified

12
Provisional Schedule

• Terms of reference for data gathering (drafted
  Apr 2009)
• Data gathering (by Oct 2009)
• Working group meeting to discuss findings and
  begin drafting report (Nov-Dec 2009)
• Improve report draft of report (Spring 2010)
• Presentations to next plenary in Spring 2010
• Workshop style day

13
Main Deliverables

• Terms of reference for data gathering
• Notes on relevance to the groups work of
  existing IAEA and NEA documents
• Papers on various disposal facilities
• Table of contents for report
• 2 part structure as described above
• Detail to be developed
• 1st Draft of report

14
(No Transcript)
15
Issues List

• Project website
• Project newsletter
• Draft IAEA safety guides

16
Interfaces with other WGs

• Generic WAC
• Design changes to manage uncertainties

17
Roles Responsibilities

• Review of ISAM, ASAM documents and other IAEA
  documents on engineered barriers, facility
  closure and design
• Put relevant documents on website (all)
• TR433, upgrading of NS repositories,
  SR35,surveillance and monitoring of NS
  repositories, ASAM cross-cutting report on
  engineered barriers
• Be aware of draft safety guides (DS334, 354, 355,
  357) (SM / all)
• Close cooperation with Group 1 at early stage
  (DB)
• Data gathering on our facilities (all)
• Send results to DB by 30 September, copy to
  others in group
• Everyone to read before group meeting

18
Roles Responsibilities

• Arrange next group meeting (DB, DI?)
• IAEA funding support (DB,JR)
• 2 or 3 days to discuss findings and lessons
• Prepare 1st draft of report (DB, GD, JP, PS)
• Begin drafting at the meeting and continue after
• Rest of group will review
• Presentations to next plenary (all data
  gatherers, authors)
• Ongoing communication with other groups via
  plenarys and Coordinating Committee