DOCSLIB.ORG

DGR Joint Review Panel International Visit Report Konrad Repository ‐ Salzgitter, Germany October 22-23, 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DGR Joint Review Panel International Visit Report Konrad Repository ‐ Salzgitter, Germany October 22-23, 2012 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel DGR Joint Review Panel International Visit Report Konrad Repository ‐ Salzgitter, Germany October 22‐23, 2012 Attendees: Stella Swanson, Gunter Muecke, Jamie Archibald – Joint Review Panel Members Kelly McGee, Debra Myles – Panel Secretariat Members Dr. Ben Samwer – Konrad Project Management, Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz (BfS)/Federal Office for Radiation Protection Dr. Peter Brennecke – BfS Contractor/Advisor Purpose: To contribute contextual understanding to the Joint Review Panel’s review of the proposed DGR project Information exchanged in advance of the visit: • Records in relation to the Konrad Repository provided to the Joint Review Panel by Dr. Brennecke (CEARIS Doc #755) • DGR Joint Review Panel information sheet provided to Dr. Samwer (Appendix 1, Page 3) Photos: Photos taken during the visit (Appendix 2, Page 6) Monday, October 22, 2012 – Salzgitter 10:00am Arrival at BfS office; introductions 10:20am Short walk to Info-Stelle Konrad; observe informational video and exhibits 11:00am Session 1 – BfS presentations to the Joint Review Panel • Geology of the Konrad Area (Appendix 3, Page 10) • Konrad Site Geology and Hydrogeology (Appendix 4, Page 47) • Safety Assessment Example: Konrad Repository (Appendix 5, Page 63) • Waste Acceptance Requirements Summary Presentation Slides (Appendix 6, Page 102) Extended Presentation Slides (Appendix 7, Page 126) 4:00pm End of meeting Konrad Visit Report Page 2 of 291 Tuesday, October 23, 2012 – Konrad Repository Site Additional Attendees: Mr. Johannes Schneider – Geologist, BfS (tour and Session II) Dr. Norman Niehues – Head, Radiation Protection, Deutsche Gesellschaft zum Bau und Betrieb von Endlagern für Abfallstoffe (DBE) (Session II) Mr. Joachim Bluth – Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie und Klimaschutz (NMU)/Lower Saxony Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change (Session II) 9:20am Arrival at Konrad Repository 9:30am Safety instruction and outfitting 10:00am Descend underground; tour 12:00pm Ascend to surface; lunch 12:30pm Session II – presentations to the Joint Review Panel • Konrad Repository: Requirements on Non-Radioactive Waste Package Constituents (Appendix 8, Page 202) • Waste Acceptance Requirements for the Konrad Repository (Appendix 9, Page 217) • German Approach To Radioactive Waste (LLW, ILW) Disposal (Appendix 10, Page 235) • Managing Past Disposal Practices and New Plans - German Case (Appendix 11, Page 273) 3:30pm End of visit DECEMBER 14, 2012 – Visit Follow Up Appendix 12 (page 289): Post-Visit Letter of Thanks Thank you letter from the Joint Review Panel Members to Dr. Samwer and Dr. Brennecke Konrad Visit Report Page 3 of 291 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel DGR Joint Review Panel International Visit Report Konrad Repository ‐ Salzgitter, Germany October 22‐23, 2012 Appendix 1 DGR Joint Review Panel Information Sheet Konrad Visit Report Page 4 of 291 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel The Joint Review Panel Dr. Stella Swanson, Biologist, Panel Chair Dr. Gunter Muecke, Geologist, Panel Member Dr. James Archibald, Mining Engineer, Panel Member Debra Myles and Kelly McGee, Panel Co-Managers Michael Young, David Haddon and Robyn-Lynne Virtue, Panel Support Lucille Jamault, Communications Advisor The Joint Review Panel for the Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste (DGR) project is an independent body appointed by the Government of Canada. The Panel is responsible for conducting an environmental assessment and making recommendations to the federal government on the potential environmental effects of the project. The Panel is also responsible for considering the application by the proponent, Ontario Power Generation, to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for a license to prepare the site and construct the DGR facility. The Panel members, selected on the basis of their knowledge, expertise, and absence of bias or conflict of interest, are undertaking the review in an impartial and objective manner in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the DGR Joint Review Panel Agreement. About the Project The project is a proposal by Ontario Power Generation, the provincially-owned electricity generation company, to prepare a site and construct and operate a deep geologic repository for the long-term management of low and intermediate level radioactive waste from Ontario nuclear reactors. The DGR would manage about 200,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate level waste in underground emplacement rooms. Used nuclear fuel would not be stored in the DGR. The DGR would be located about 680 metres underneath the Bruce Nuclear site, near the shore of Lake Huron in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario. It would be constructed in low permeability limestone capped by 200 metres of low permeability shale. Ontario Power Generation proposes that these rock formations, in excess of 450 million years old, are intact, stable, predictable and have excellent isolating capabilities and no major faults or fractures. Konrad Visit Report Page 5 of 291 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Process FEDERAL GOVERNMENT appoints Joint Review Panel JOINT REVIEW PANEL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD analyses and requests additional on the environmental assessment information as required & licensing documents PUBLIC HEARING JOINT REVIEW PANEL submits environmental assessment report GOVERNMENT makes a decision on the Joint Review Panel environmental assessment Responsibility Proponent Responsibility Government JOINT REVIEW PANEL Responsibility makes a decision on licence to Public Participation prepare the site and construct Opportunity Konrad Visit Report Page 6 of 291 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel DGR Joint Review Panel International Visit Report Konrad Repository ‐ Salzgitter, Germany October 22‐23, 2012 Appendix 2 Photographs Konrad Visit Report Page 7 of 291 Figure 1: Konrad Information Centre, Salzgitter Figure 2: Konrad Shaft 1 Headframe Figure 3: Konrad Underground Looking Down a Drift from the Bottom of Shaft 1 Konrad Visit Report Page 8 of 291 Figure 4: Konrad Road Header Used to Excavate Figure 5: Konrad Underground Tour Figure 6: Dr. Archibald and Dr. Muecke in Konrad Refuge Station Konrad Visit Report Page 9 of 291 Figure 7: Waiting for the Lift to the Surface at Konrad Figure 8: Panel Members Muecke, Swanson and Archibald at end of tour of Konrad Konrad Visit Report Page 10 of 291 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel DGR Joint Review Panel International Visit Report Konrad Repository ‐ Salzgitter, Germany October 22‐23, 2012 Appendix 3 Geology of the Konrad Area Konrad Visit Report Page 11 of 291 Methodologies for Geological Disposal Fundamentals of Geological Disposal in Sedimentary Environments Geology of the Konrad area Nicole Schubarth-Engelschall Federal Office for Radiation Protection IAEA Network of Centres of Excellence Konrad Visit Report Page 12 of 291 Content Surface-based and underground geological site characterisation programme (techniques and results) Background & History Aims of suitability and geological investigations Phases of geological investigation • Phase I: 1976 – 1982 • Phase II: 1983 – 1990 Techniques and aims some results, e.g. geological / stratigraphical profile, drilling log, tectonic elements, formation water, lithological properties, hydrogeological conditions Konrad Visit Report Page 13 of 291 Background and History Abandoned iron ore mine Discovery of the iron-ore-deposit on the occasion of oil exploration in 1933 First geological exploration via drilling between 1937 and 1943 Sinking of shaft 1 from 1957 to 60 and of shaft 2 from 1960 to 62 Ore extraction between 1960 and 1976 Discontinuation of ore mining in 1976 on account of reduced profitability Dry conditions in the mine Simple geological conditions Iron ore deposit / coral oolite as host rock Overlying cretacious sediments as geological barrier Konrad Visit Report Page 14 of 291 Geological Setting Geographical extension of iron ore areas after H. Kolbe (early afterH. (early Kolbe sixties) Konrad Visit Report Page 15 of 291 The Iron Ore Deposit Sedimentary oolithic iron ore (Minette – type) Fe content levels between 27% and 33% Deposit reserves had been estimated at 1.4 billion tons of oolithic iron ore 6.7 million tons had been mined when operations were shut down in 1976 (0,5% of entire deposit) Iron ore deposits do not reach the surface Lies in depth between 1150,5 m and 1184,9 m Thickness 12 m – 18 m dip 20 – 22° Konrad Visit Report Page 16 of 291 Stratigraphical profile Position of the iron ore deposit Konrad Visit Report Page 17 of 291 General aims of geological suitability and investigation program Provide evidence of meeting site specific criteria Hydrogeological isolation of radioactive waste (age of groundwater) Exclusion of connection between repository and water bearing strata No unallowable dispersion of radionuclides Seismological safety Depth beneath surface sufficient for repository Favourable rock mechanical properties and conditions Konrad Visit Report Page 18 of 291 General aims of geological suitability and investigation program Geological investigation must allow for a site specific model and meet requirements of licensing authority stratigraphical classification of all occurring layers (z – q) facial and spatial characterisation with focus on host rock and geological barrier (thickness, extension, depth of layer, bedding) petrographical,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Article Was Published in an Elsevier Journal. the Attached Copy
    This article was published in an Elsevier journal. The attached copy is furnished to the author for non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution, sharing with colleagues and providing to institution administration. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Progress in Nuclear Energy 49 (2007) 365e374 www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene Review Permanent underground repositories for radioactive waste Norbert T. Rempe* 1403 N. Country Club Circle, Carlsbad, NM 88220, USA Abstract Solid radioactive waste first entered a deep geologic repository in 1959. Liquid radioactive waste has been injected into confined underground reservoirs since 1963. Solid wastes containing chemically toxic constituents with infinite half lives have been isolated underground since 1972. Performance to date of these and other repositories has not caused any of their owners and operators to transfer or contemplate transferring the waste confined in them to presumably safer locations. Natural and engineered analogues offer sound evidence that deep geologic isolation is effective, safe, and compatible with responsible environmental stewardship. Underground isolation of dangerous, including radioactive, wastes is therefore increasingly being used as a safe and reliable method of final disposal. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Realization of the German Repository Concept - Current Status and Future Prospects
    WM'99 CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 28 - MARCH 4, 1999 REALIZATION OF THE GERMAN REPOSITORY CONCEPT - CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS - Peter W. Brennecke/Helmut Röthemeyer/Bruno R. Thomauske Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) Salzgitter, Germany ABSTRACT Since the early sixties, the radioactive waste disposal policy in the Federal Republic of Germany has been based on the decision that all types of radioactive waste are to be disposed of in deep geological formations. According to the 1979 German radioactive waste management and disposal concept the Gorleben salt dome is investigated to decide upon its suitability to host a repository for all types of radioactive waste. In addition, the licensing procedure for the Konrad repository project has practically been finished, i.e. a decision could be taken. Since German unification on October 03, 1990, the Morsleben repository has to be considered, too. From January 1994 through September 1998 short-lived low and intermediate level radioactive waste with alpha emitter concentrations up to 4,0 · 108 Bq/m3 was disposed of in this facility. On September 27, 1998, federal elections took place in Germany. As a result, a coalition of the Social Democrats and the Greens has come into power. Based on the coalition agreement of October 20, 1998, nuclear energy is intended to be phased out in Germany. Thus, the new radioactive waste management policy comprises important disposal-related alterations and changes. INTRODUCTION The status and future prospects of the Morsleben repository as well as the Konrad and Gorleben repository projects are strongly influenced by technical, legal and political aspects. At present, due to the decrease of radioactive waste amounts to be emplaced in a repository, there is no time pressure for the disposal of wastes.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Methods to Detect Tunnelling at a Geological Repository Site Applicability in Safeguards
    #2008207/ APRIL 2021 Geophysical methods to detect tunnelling at a geological repository site Applicability in safeguards Heikkinen Eero (AFRY) Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Report #2008207 Nuclear Waste and Material Regulation Heikkinen Eero (AFRY) April 6, 2021 Contents ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 PREFAFE ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Nuclear safeguards to geological disposal ........................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Monitoring for long term nuclear safety ........................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Active geophysical surveys .................................................................................................................................. 10 1.4 Olkiluoto spent nuclear fuel repository .......................................................................................................... 13 2 Possibilities to detect an undeclared activity .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Underground Waste Disposal Authors: Kemal Yildizdag & Prof
    Underground waste disposal Authors: Kemal Yildizdag & Prof. Dr. habil. Heinz Konietzky (TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Geotechnical Institute) 1 Introduction to underground waste disposal ........................................................ 2 1.1 Radioactivity and radioactive waste types ..................................................... 2 1.2 Management, disposal and storage of radioactive wastes ............................ 5 2 Worldwide laws/regulations, applications and repositories .................................. 9 2.1 Repository design, multi-barrier concept & FEPs .......................................... 9 2.2 Host rocks for disposal and storage of radioactive wastes .......................... 13 2.3 Recent disposal and repository operations in Germany and worldwide ...... 18 3 Geotechnical aspects ........................................................................................ 21 3.1 Geotechnical terms and definitions concerning undergr. waste disposals ... 21 3.2 Geotechnical computations, experiments and measurements concerning underground waste disposals ............................................................................... 23 4 References ........................................................................................................ 32 5 Appendix ........................................................................................................... 37 Editor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Heinz Konietzky Layout: Angela Griebsch, Gunther Lüttschwager TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Institut für Geotechnik,
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Climate Change on Far-Field and Biosphere Processes for a HLW
    Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH Impact of climate change on far-fi eld and biosphere processes for a HLW-repository in rock salt GRS - 241 Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH Impact of climate change on far-fi eld and bisophere processes for a HLW-repository in rock salt Ulrich Noseck Christine Fahrenholz Eckhard Fein Judith Flügge Gerhard Pröhl Anke Schneider März 2009 Remark: This report, with the German title „Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen zum Nachweis der Langzeitsicherheit von Endlagern (Kurztitel WiGru5)“, was prepared under the contract No. 02 E 9954 with the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi). The work was conducted by the Ge- sellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktor- sicherheit (GRS) mbH. The authors are responsible for the content of this report. GRS - 241 ISBN 978-3-939355-15-1 Keywords: biosphere, climate, climate change, glacial, hydrogeology, interglacial, permafrost, radioactive waste, safety assessment, transport Preface The assessment of the long-term safety of a repository for radioactive or hazardous waste requires a comprehensive system understanding and capable and qualified numerical tools. All relevant processes which contribute to mobilisation and release of contaminants from the repository, transport through the host rock and adjacent rock formations as well as exposition in the biosphere have to be implemented in the programme package. The objective of the project “Scientific basis for the assessment of the long-term safety of repositories”, identification number 02 E 9954, was to follow national and international developments in this area, to evaluate research projects, which contribute to knowledge, model approaches and data, and to perform specific investigations to improve the methodologies of the long-term safety assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Updating the Hydrogeologic Framework for the Northern Portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer
    Final Report Updating the Hydrogeologic Framework for the Northern Portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer Prepared by Steven C. Young, Ph.D., P.E., P.G. Tom Ewing, Ph.D., P.G Scott Hamlin, Ph.D., P.G. Ernie Baker, P.G. Daniel Lupton Prepared for: Texas Water Development Board P.O. Box 13231, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3231 June 2012 Texas Water Development Board Final Report Updating the Hydrogeologic Framework for the Northern Portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer Steven C. Young, Ph.D., P.E., P.G. Daniel Lupton INTERA Incorporated Tom Ewing, Ph.D., P.G. Frontera Exploration Consultants Scot Hamlin, Ph.D., P.G Ernie Baker, P.G. June 2012 This page is intentionally blank. ii Final Report – Updating the Hydrogeologic Framework for the Northern Portion of the Gulf Coast Aquifer Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xiii 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Approach for Defining Stratigraphy ......................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Approach for Defining Lithology and Generating Sand Maps ................................ 1-3 2.0 Gulf Coast Aquifer Geologic Setting ................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 2-1
    [Show full text]
  • Communication on the Safety Case for a Deep Geological Repository
    Radioactive Waste Management 2017 Communication on the Safety Case for a Deep Geological Repository Communication on the Safety Case for a Deep Geological Repository NEA Radioactive Waste Management Communication on the Safety Case for a Deep Geological Repository © OECD 2017 NEA No. 7336 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 35 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958.
    [Show full text]
  • Jahresbericht
    jahresbericht Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Fukushima und die Folgen Neue Stromtrassen quer durch Deutschland Auf der Suche – Entsorgung radioaktiver Abfälle in Deutschland | Verantwortung für Mensch und Umwelt | Titelfoto: Michael Janssen / Photocase.de Impressum Herausgeber: Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Postfach 10 01 49 D-38201 Salzgitter Telefon: +49 (0)3018 333-0 Telefax: +49 (0)3018 333-1885 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.bfs.de Redaktion: Lutz Ebermann Gestaltung: Quermedia Querallee 38 34119 Kassel Druck: MAREIS DRUCK GmbH Zeissstraße 8 89264 Weißenhorn Fotos: BfS und genannte Quellen Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (2012) jahresbericht Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz jahresbericht Seite 9 Fukushima und die Folgen Am 11. März 2011 ereignete sich vor der Nordost- küste der japanischen Hauptinsel Honshu ein schweres Erdbeben mit nachfolgendem Tsunami. Im unmittelbaren Einwirkungsbereich dieser Na- turkatastrophe lagen 15 der insgesamt 54 japa- nischen Reaktoren. Der Beitrag geht ein auf Unfallablauf und -ursachen und gibt einen ersten Überblick über die Freisetzungen radioaktiver Stoffe und die Folgen in der Umgebung der Anlage für die Bevölkerung in und außerhalb von Japan. 97 Weitere ARBEITSSCHWerPUNKte DES bFs 97 "Sonne - Aber sicher!" - Das BfS engagiert sich für Hautkrebsprävention 101 Lungenkrebs-Früherkennung mittels Computertomographie 102 Berufliche Strahlenbelastung in der Medizin 103 Strahlenschutz beim Aufbau des digitalen Behördenfunks in Deutschland 106 Bedeutung von Ringversuchen für die Überwachung inkorporierter radioaktiver
    [Show full text]
  • "The German Approach to the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes."
    The German Approach to the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Ernst Warnecke Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Bundesallee 100 D-3300 Braunschweig Finnish-German Seminar on Nuclear Waste Management Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland September 23-25, 1986 THE GERMAN APPROACH TO THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES Ernst Warnecke Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Bundesallee 100 D-3300 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of Germany Abstract In the Federal Republic of Germany the PTB is responsible for the construction and operation of the repositories in which radioactive wastes will be disposed of. Two repository ries are planned: - Gorleben (salt dome; for all types of radioactive wastes) - Konrad (abandoned iron ore mine; for radioactive wastes with negligible thermal influence upon the host rock). The safe operation of the repositories has to be demon- strated to the licensing authorities. These are the respon- sible Ministers of the Federal States (Lander) and the mining authorities. According to the "safety criteria for the disposal of radioactive wastes in a mine", the safety of a repository has to be demonstrated by a site specific safety assessment for the normal operation of a repository, for incidents in the operational phase, and the post-opera- tional phase. These assessments result in waste acceptance requirements. The compliance of the waste packages to be disposed of with the waste acceptance requirements is checked with a waste package quality control either by random tests on waste packages or a qualification and in- spection of waste conditioning processes. Preliminary waste acceptance requirements have been set up for the planned Konrad repository. In the Kernforschungsan- lage Julich (KFA) a group for the quality control of radio- active waste has been established on behalf of the PTB.
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Project Team Visit to Federal Republic of Germany & Belgium To
    'rI 1- . I Il I0 111~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WM Recorde~r FileI4VI VIM Project~J~ - I 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W :Ut x .9. /0~~~~~~~~~~~~~.I Doc~~~~~~~~~~~;~etNo. WtiIDOCK ET CONTROL PDR &_ CENTER Distribution: = LPJR - .J,&.VJA6f-j #_C II fi e4 . '84 JUN 12 P2:29 _,- (Return to WM, 623-SS) REPORT ON OFFICIAL TRAVEL SALT PROJECT TEAM visit to FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY and BELGIUM to discuss NUCLEAR WASTE ACTIVITIES April 23 - May 4, 1984 4071701 9E4050 4 . MtDWASTER Wi16 a- VJ-V,,,,5g5, i '6.1r p TRIP REPORT Visit to FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND BELGIUM April 23 - May 4, 1984 A team of seven people associated with the U.S. DOE salt project visited facilities in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and Belgium. The trip started on April 23 and was completed on May 4, 1984. The objectives of the team visit were to (1) tour the underground and surface facilities related to nuclear waste disposal in Germany and Belgium; (2) discuss possible cooperative activities with the Germans, Belgians, and the European community; and (3) establish the process for agreement at the German-U.S. bilateral meeting in late August on activities to be performed in support of salt. Nuclear waste disposal activities in these countries are very similar to many of the activities planned for the Salt Repository Program. The FRG waste disposal program includes disposal of HLW in salt. The Belgium program is of interest principally because of the freezing technique used to construct their shaft. Members of the U.S. team are: NAME ORGANIZATION U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Cost and Financing of the Disposal of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste
    Report on the cost and financing of the disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste August 2015 In the event of discrepancies between this translation and the original German version, the latter shall prevail. Preamble 2 Preamble Contents Preamble .................................................................................................................. 4 1 Public sector ...................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Cost ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Financing .............................................................................................................. 7 2 Private operators ............................................................................................... 8 2.1 Cost ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Financing ............................................................................................................ 10 3 Cost of disposal................................................................................................ 10 3.1 Konrad disposal facility ....................................................................................... 10 3.2 Morsleben disposal facility .................................................................................. 11 3.3 Asse II mine .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS
    THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg This report would have not been possible without the generous support of a diverse group of friends and partners, in particular – listed in alphabetical order – the Altner-Combecher Stiftung, Bäuerliche Notgemeinschaft Trebel, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz (BUND), Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg e.V., Climate Core and Green/EFA MEPs Group in the European Parliament, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (HBS) and its offices in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Prague, and Washington DC, KLAR! Schweiz, Annette und Wolf Römmig, and the Swiss Energy Foundation. Thank you all for making this possible! THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT — 2019 3 FOREWORD More than 40 years ago in my home region, the forest near the village of Gorleben was chosen as the location for the German National Nuclear Waste Disposal Center. The site, which is now at the country’s center but at the time was located directly on the border between East and West Germany, was meant to host all facilities for reprocessing, treatment, storage, and a deep geological repository. The company responsible (which has long since closed) intended to open the repository for spent fuel in the salt dome named Gorleben-Rambow in 1999. After Fukushima, the German government decided to phase out nuclear energy for the second time. The experience of the nuclear catastrophe in Japan in 2011 also set in motion the review of the plans for the repository at Gorleben. After around 40 years of debating and fighting over Gorleben, the German government and parliament decided in favor of a new participatory site selection process for the repos- itory for high-level nuclear waste.
    [Show full text]