1. Development of a disposal concept WG5

2. How to deal with the RP Principle Need to educate the public to put the risks in context Public want to see the benefits to them before they will consider the risks Need to balance optimising doses to the public and operators Need to address non-radiological hazardous waste eg Pb, Be, Asbestos

3. Safety Concepts – demonstrability, DiD, Robustness Concept design can be influenced by consultation. Design needs to be flexible enough to accommodate any requirements raised through consultation. Multi-barrier approach is more suited to deep- disposal, but goes against retrievability

4. Safety Concepts – demonstrability, DiD, Robustness (2) Danish case disposal concepts tested through preliminary safety assessment, most robust concept was not the primary differentiator as all met the dose criteria.

5. Feedback from Design & operation of existing facilities Option of disposability until closure Many countries have legacy sites that were not designed for retrievability How do you balance a final disposal solution against the ability to recover if the solution is found not to be acceptable. Need to be aware of the significant incremental cost in designing for retrievability

6. Waste Characterisation Fundamental requirement for integrated waste management – producers and repository operators – supported by integrated regulation. Ability to cope with deviations and still remain within the Safe operating Envelope of SC Concept must be able to cope with all known or anticipated waste.

7. Waste Characterisation Clear assignment of responsibilities for characterisation between waste producer and facility operator In Sweden, waste producer retains ownership of package up to closure of the facility. ANDRA can suspend the waste agreement if they find a breach.