TM-45865 Technical Meeting on the Disposal of Intermediate Level Waste IAEA Safety Standards and Activities on the Disposal of Intermediate Level Waste TM-45865 Technical Meeting on the Disposal of Intermediate Level Waste Yumiko Kumano Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management Unit Division of Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety - NSRW

Overview IAEA Safety Standards and previous discussions on ILW disposal Consultancy in April 2013 Way forward The presentation will successively go through the problem definition then will explain and give the outcomes of the consultancy we organized and finally will propose the position of the IAEA regarding the issue of intermediate level waste disposal and intermediate depth disposal

IAEA Safety Requirements 2010 Under development Under development Published in 2011-12 Published in 2011 Under development 2009 Under development 2009 Published in 2011 Under development Published in 2012 Under development

Safety Standards: Predisposal Classification Storage Safety Assessment Safety Case Management System DS 448 DS 447 DS 454 overview of safety standards

Safety Standards - Disposal Site Aspects Design Construction Operation Closure Post Closure Safety Assessment Management System Near Surface disposal of RW DS 356 Specific Safety Guide Monitoring and Surveillance of Disposal Facilities DS 357 Specific Safety Guide overview of safety standards 5

Safety Standards - Disposal SSR-5 Disposal of RW DS 356 Near Surface Disposal SSG-23 SC and SA for disposal SSG-14 Geological Disposal Near Surface disposal of RW DS 356 Specific Safety Guide LLW HLW +ILW? 6

Workshop in Korea - 2008 Workshop on Intermediate Depth Disposal of Radioactive Waste : the Safety Basis and its Realization (Korea, 2008) The concept of intermediate depth disposal is not useful - The depth of a geological disposal should be determined by a combination of geological, engineering and safety considerations rather than by an arbitrary standard of what constitutes “intermediate depth” or “deep” The need for additional guidance for ILW disposal between a few tens to a few hundred meters below ground surface should be further examined In addition it is important to mention the workshop that took place in Korea in 2008 on intermediate depth disposal of radioactive waste : the safety basis and its realization. In fact the workshop was organized to address in particular the issue of depth of disposal and the main conclusions of this workshop were that first The concept of intermediate depth disposal is not useful. The depth of a geological disposal should be determined by a combination of geological, engineering and safety considerations rather than by an arbitrary standard of what constitutes intermediate depth or deep Second the workshop concluded that there is a need for additional guidance for ILW between a few tens to a few hundred meters below ground surface should be further examined  This discussion on terminology could not be reflected to GSG-1, while SSR-5 incorporates this conclusion.

GSG-1(2009): Classification of RW WASTE CLASSES LLW: Above the clearance level, limited amounts of long lived Rn. Requires robust isolation and containment for periods up to a few hundred years. Suitable for disposal in engineered near surface facilities typically from the surface to 30 m depth ILW: content in long lived Rn → greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by NS disposal facilities. Disposal at greater depth than that of NS disposal facilities i.e. order of tens of m to a few hundred m (intermediate depth disposal) HLW: high levels of activity concentrations, heat generation by radioactive decay or waste with large amounts of long lived Rn. Disposal in deep, stable geological formations of several hundred meters depth or more below the surface. The suitability of waste for disposal in a particular disposal facility is required to be demonstrated by the safety case and supporting safety assessment for that facility As you know as well The IAEA safety guide on the classification published in 2009 defines the different types of radioactive waste and makes links with disposal options. I am not going to give the definitions of VLLW, VSLW and Exempt waste which are given in the SG but I will just give the definitions of those waste of interest for our issue. LLW are defined as waste which are above clearance level, with limited amounts of long lived Rn. These waste requires robust isolation and containment for periods up to a few hundred years . They are suitable for disposal in engineered near surface facilities typically from the surface to 30 m ILW: are defined as waste with a content in long lived radionuclides which implies the need for a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by near surface disposal facilities, which is provided by disposal at greater depth than that of near surface disposal facilities i.e. in the order of tens of meters to a few hundred meters High levek waste are defined in the classification as waste with high levels of activity concentrations, which generates heat by radioactive decay or waste with large amounts of long lived radioanuclides. Because of these characteristics these waste should be disposed of in deep stable geological formations of several hundred meters or more below the surface In addition to these definitions one very important element which is given in the classification is that the suitability of waste in a particular disposla facility is required to be demonstrated by the safety case and supporting safety assessment for that facility EW, VSLW, VLLW This new classification applies to all types of radioactive waste. It is based primarily on long term safety. It is meant to facilitate communication and information exchange within and among states. In order to take into account comments made on the previous classification, a generic linkage has been made between the classes of waste and potential disposal options but one essential element which is mentioned in the classification is that the suitability of waste for disposal in a particular disposal facaility is required to be demonstrated by the safety case and supporting safety assessment for that facility

SSR-5(2009): Disposal of RW DISPOSAL OPTIONS Near surface disposal: disposal in a facility […] constructed on the ground surface or up to a few tens of metres below ground level. Such a facility may be designated as a disposal facility for low level radioactive waste (LLW) Disposal of intermediate level waste: […] Disposal could be by emplacement in facilities constructed […] at least a few tens of metres below ground level and up to a few hundred metres below ground level Geological disposal: disposal in a facility constructed […] in a particular geological formation (e.g. in terms of its long term stability and its hydrogeological properties) at least a few hundred metres below ground level. Such a facility could be designed to receive high level radioactive waste […]. However, with appropriate design, a geological disposal facility could receive all types of radioactive waste. In terms of disposal the recently published safety requirements on disposal of radioactive waste (SSR5) defines the different disposal options. Near surface disposal is defined as disposal in a facility constructed on the ground surface or up to a few tens of metres below ground level. Such a facility may be designated as a disposal facility for low level radioactive waste (LLW) The safety requirements publication also indicates that concerning disposal of intermediate level waste, depending on its characteristics, (ILW) can be disposed of in facilities of different types. Disposal could be by emplacement in facilities constructed at least a few tens of metres below ground level and up to a few hundred metres below ground level. It could include purpose built facilities and facilities developed in or from existing mines. It could also include facilities developed by drift mining into mountainsides or hillsides, in which case the overlying cover could be more than 100 metres deep Finally geological disposal is defined as disposal in a facility constructed in a particular geological formation (e.g. in terms of its long term stability and its hydrogeological properties) at least a few hundred metres below ground level. Such a facility could be designed to receive high level radioactive waste . However with appropriate design a geological disposal facility could receive all types of radioactive waste

The classification of radioactive waste In complement It is necessary to summarize the situation with regards to ILW and Intermediate depth disposal. The classification of rw makes the link between types of radioactive waste and disposal options. In particular the classification gives this graph and we often have feedback on it that it could be perceived that there is a direct link between intermediate level waste and intermediate depth disposal, in particular if this graph is taken alone without reading the document.

Consultancy on the need for a specific safety guide – March 2011 Consultancy organized in March 2011 Study and analyze the potential differences in terms of safety to expect between disposal of ILW at depths ranging from a few tens to a few hundred meters, geological disposal for HLW and near surface disposal Conclusions Term “Intermediate depth disposal” should be avoided/not useful No specific SG for ILW disposal – already covered by SSG-14 Develop a safety report to address specific issues of ILW disposal As a consequence and in order to try to finally address the issue a consultancy has been set up on the need of a specific safety guide on intermediate depth disposal or rather specific safety guide for Intermediate level waste. The consultancy, which took place in Vienna in March 2011 aimed at studying and analyzing the potential differences in terms of safety to expect between disposal of ILW at depths ranging from a few tens to a few hundred meters, geological disposal for HLW and near surface disposal 3 experts took part of the consultancy: Bengt hedberg from SSM sweden and who is as well the WASSC representative Christophe serres form the French TSO IRSN And Hirito KAWAKAMI from the japanese TSO

Consultancy to draft a technical document on disposal facilities for ILW – April 2013 Objectives To discuss previous discussions and up-to-date information To discuss contents of a new technical document To prepare an draft document To discuss work plan Consultants Don Howard (CNSC, Canada) : Chair Jean-Michel Hoorelbeke (ANDRA, France) Juergen Wollrath (BfS, Germany) Fredrik Vahlund (SKB, Sweden)

Consultancy to draft a technical document on disposal facilities for ILW – April 2013 Outcome Draft document on “SAFETY-RELATED ISSUES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF ILW” Issues related to ILW disposal Waste characteristics Half-life and activity / Chemotoxicity / Waste volume / Waste form properties and waste conditioning / Properties related to the operational safety Depth-related characteristics Geological properties / Erosion / Permafrost and glaciation / Human intrusion / Redox Design consideration for long-term isolation Operational issues

This week Objectives Information sharing on various national activities Discussion on common issues / Topics to be addressed in the Safety Report Drafting of the Safety Report Expected Outcome Updated draft Safety Report Preparation of Project Plan

International and Harmonization Projects in relation to Waste Management CRAFT (successor to SADRWMS) Application of GSG-3, SADRWMS methodology & SAFRAN Tool Illustrative examples to complement SG (DS284) PRISM Safety case development / implementation for near-surface disposal Barrier performance Uncertainty GEOSAF I / II Safety on geological disposal Regulatory expectations throughout development and operation Assessment – engineering, site, radiological impact, integration Working Group for the Dual Use Cask for Spent Nuclear Fuel Safety case covering both transportation / storage Extended periods of storage and meeting transport requirements HIDRA Human intrusion for both geological / near-surface disposal facilities Relationship with siting/ designing/ waste acceptance criteria

Thank You