International Atomic Energy Agency Disposal Facility & Engineered Barrier System (EBS) Design PRISM:...

International Atomic Energy Agency

Disposal Facility & Disposal Facility & Engineered Barrier System (EBS) Engineered Barrier System (EBS)

Design Design

PRISM: PRISM: Practical Illustration and use Practical Illustration and use of the Safety Case Concept in the Management of of the Safety Case Concept in the Management of

Near-surface DisposalNear-surface Disposal

David Bennett2 April 2009


Design Working Group

• David Bennett [email protected]• Nadja Zeleznik [email protected]• Bernhard Großmnn [email protected]• Gyula Dankó [email protected]• Sandi Virsek [email protected]• Michael Tichauer [email protected]• Peter Salzer [email protected]• Janez Perko [email protected]• Dody Ivan [email protected]• Marija Kališnik [email protected]• Stasys Motiejunas [email protected]


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


Proposed Work AreasProposed Work Areas

1) 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 WG’s 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


Proposed Work AreasProposed 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


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


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


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?


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


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

overlap, iteration, variation in stages

De

sig

n &

ass

ess

me

nt


Planning

• Roles and responsibilities of group members defined and agreed

• Provisional schedule outlined

• Deliverables identified


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


Main Deliverables

• Terms of reference for data gathering

• Notes on relevance to the group’s 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


Issues List

• Project website

• Project newsletter

• Draft IAEA safety guides


Interfaces with other WGs

• Generic WAC

• Design changes to manage uncertainties


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


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

International Atomic Energy Agency Disposal Facility & Engineered Barrier System (EBS) Design PRISM:...

Documents

Transcript of International Atomic Energy Agency Disposal Facility & Engineered Barrier System (EBS) Design PRISM:...