Sessions VI and VII Conclusions and summary

1
Sessions VI and VII Conclusions and summary

• Francois Besnus Session Chair
• Cape Town July 6, 2007

2
Session VI, Safety Demonstration

• The Use of Safety Cases
• Structure of safety case should be maintained
  through every stage of the step-by-step process,
  with the content of the safety case being
  progressively developed as the project proceeds.
  For each key step of decision making, a decision
  should be taken only if structured information on
  all important elements of the disposal system is
  available
• Whatever the stage is the Safety case must back
  up on a Safety assessment that always comprises
  three components
• The assessment of the engineering, of the impact
• and of the management system

3
Session VI, Safety Demonstration

• Vaalputs PCRSA
• The presentation focused on the radiological
  impact, gave an overview of the knowledge
  necessary to establish a comprehensive set of
  scenarios and illustrated that the use of
  sensitivity analysis to adjust the safety
  strategy. The assessment concluded that the
  likelihood is high for post-closure safety at
  Vaalputs to be demonstrated successfully for the
  disposal of a national inventory of LILW

4
Session VI, Safety Demonstration

• Safety Assessment Conclusions
• The safety assessment is a step-by-step process,
  required to support the safety arguments in an
  integrated manner. It emphasizes the engineering
  suitability of a site, gives orders of magnitude
  of the possible radiological impacts and
  demonstrates that the necessary management
  system.

5
Session VI, Safety Demonstration

• International harmonization projects
• Presentation gave an overview of the projects
  conducted by IAEA that provide an important input
  for helping member states to set out efficient
  methods in appying safety standards
• On of the project,SAFRAN, dedicated to the
  development of a software for assessing a safety
  case was presented at the end of the session.

6
Session VI, Safety Demonstration

• Regulatory Romania
• The regulatory framework as applied in the
  country was presented. Authorization follows a
  phased approach which includes predisposal,
  disposal storage and decommissioning. The
  presentation outlined the different existing
  facilities in the country and their functions.
  Currently a disposal facility is situated at
  Baita Bihor, which was designed to handle low and
  intermediate waste. A new repository is planned
  at Saligny. A spent fuel facility will be
  provided at Cernavoda.

7
Session VI, Safety Demonstration

• Safe Management of Rad Waste in China
• The Chinese nuclear industry is well established
  and has regulatory processes for most activities
  regarding waste management in place. However
  they are still facing issues such as NORM,
  disused sealed sources, lack of understanding by
  the public and politicians

8
Session VII, Common Framework
9
Session VII, Common Framework

• The panel discussion touched on the issues of
  Pros and cons of prescriptive vs. a performance
  based approach. It was generally agreed that the
  performance based approach provides greater
  flexibility and a better opportunity to achieve
  an optimized solution. However, it was also
  pointed out that it requires a mature regulator
  and that it may not be suitable for all
  licensees. Small licensees would likely not have
  the resources for a propose-dispose approach.
• It was recognized that setting radiological
  criteria for the long term would be difficult.
  Various options were discussed and it was pointed
  out that the most robust solution may also end up
  being the least costly. Also, there may be
  safety benefits in carrying out the work right
  away.
• Since the common framework is also a common
  approach to safety, it is expected that its
  implementation would lead to better stakeholder
  acceptance. Again, countries could integrate the
  guidance in their own documents.
• While it is hard to quantify an acceptable a
  tradeoff between economy and safety, the most
  expensive option may turn out to be the cheapest.
  

10
Session VII, Common Framework

• It was felt that the existing proposal would
  accommodate mixed waste.
• The common framework links management options and
  classification. Implementation would require
  programmatic and management tools in addition to
  regulations.
• Equivalencies in the proposal for NORM may
  require some revision as they are not truly
  equivalent and the two classification schemes
  should agree on NORM definitions.
• Tailings pose unique problems due to their volume
  and long term hazard and other solutions may be
  required to deal with local conditions and
  effects.
• The participant touched on the subject of how
  safe is safe
• why propose near surface when sooner or later
  will need a DGR? (depends on situation)
• It was clarified that the proposal is an IAEA
  recommendation, which may be published as a
  separate document. There is no link to the Joint
  Convention.

11
Session VII, Common Framework

• Conclusions
• There are common safety, technical, economical
  and societal aspects that need to be addressed
  and these could be best handled through a common
  approach..
• A common framework will help to find a safe and
  cost effective disposal solution for the various
  wastes and will assist in decision making to link
  a waste type with a suitable disposal option.
• The IAEA should issue the document on a common
  framework. Countries that have developed
  policies for the management and disposal of
  nuclear waster could use the document to provide
  background for their policies, while other
  countries could use the document for policy
  purposes.