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

Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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, mineralogical characterisation  identification of tectonical structures in the bedrock (fractures, discontinuities, age, evolution)  derivation of hydrostratigraphical classification  design of grundwater models for evaluation of long-term safety  geoscientific and safety-related evaluation of the site Konrad Visit Report Page 19 of 291 History of geoscientific exploration

 Early geological investigations via drilling from 1937 to 1943  exploitation of iron ore deposit  First preliminary site investigations for radioactive waste disposal in 1975  good prospects of suitability  Phase I: Suitability investigations and R & D program carried out from 1976 to 1982  final report with results of research and investigation works  application for the initiation of a plan-approval procedure for disposal in 1982  Phase II: Site investigation programme incl. underground work and supplementary work above ground from 1983 to 1990  to submit the „plan“ and start licensing documentation  to fulfil additional demands of licensing authority / experts,  to provide documents for application („EU - Erläuternde Unterlagen“)  plan approval decision in 2002; claims dismissed and legally binding plan- approval decision in 2007  Investigations and monitoring for preservation of evidence since 1990  long-term measurements for statistical evaluation, to maintain stability of the mine Konrad Visit Report Page 20 of 291 Phase I - Suitability investigations 1976 - 1982

MAIN ASPECTS  Site description  Site specific and geoscientific investigations  (Investigations for mine engineering and nuclear technology)  Based on existing sample material from exploratory drillings and mine openings; partly re-interpretation and re-evaluation of existing material  Investigation of  Geological structure of the deposit, including petrographic and tectonic conditions  Hydrogeological conditions in the overburden and in the mine  Properties of geological formations as barrier for radionuclide migration  Rock mechanics in openings and drifts in the whole mine  Seismological safety of the mine for long-term operation Konrad Visit Report Page 21 of 291 Phase I : Techniques

 Geological investigations  Tectonical and geological mapping & interpretation; lithological and stratigraphical classification; structural conditions; sampling; mineralogical and geochemical analysis;  Rock mechanical investigations  Construction of mine layout; geodetic observation of ground surface; convergence and extensometer measurements; measurement of stress pattern in situ (bi/triaxial cells, hydraulic fracturing, strength investigation of cores)  Geophysical measurements  Ultrasonics (for determination of rock strength), seismics, deviation recording (for neotectonic movements)  Hydrogeological investigations  Permeability of geological barrier; formation water; determination of leakage volume and locations Konrad Visit Report Page 22 of 291 Phase I: Geological Structure

RESULTS  Geological formations form a shallow inclined geological structure  Ore deposit is largely covered by overlaying Cretaceous formations  closed in its depth  no contact to the earth`s surface or to near-surface groundwater horizons  Fault zones with large dislocations do not occur in the Cretacious overburden; E-W oriented fracture tectonics older than the Aptian  Tectonical dissection of the ore deposit is limited to a few partial areas in the mining district with fractures and fault zones  Pronounced fine jointing of the ore deposit shows only low development, apart from mining effects in the direct zone of the surrounding rock Konrad Visit Report Page 23 of 291 Geological profile Thick mudstone layers Iron ore deposit (Lower Cretaceous) Cross section through the (Upper Jurassic, Malm) 200 to 400 m thick southern part of the “Gifhorner 12 to 18 m thick Trog” at the Konrad Mine Konrad Visit Report Page 24 of 291 Phase I: Lithological and petrological investigations

FINDINGS  Overburden consists of thick homogeneous rock units; water bearing formations are regional with only slight thickness  Sealing clay rock formations exist over large areas and have thicknesses of 600 to 1000 m  separation of the ore horizon from near-surface water bearing rock formations  Clay rocks have petrophysical properties such as very low permeability which avoid inflow of water  Strongly swelling clay minerals, in particular in Albian formations up to 300 m thick, effect self-healing of cracks and joints; high sorption capacity  Favourable deformation behaviour of the clay rock formation  regular forming and homogenous movement of the subsidence trough  Iron ore itself is relatively impermeable and has sorption capacity for certain radionuclides (such as Co-60)  acts as another natural barrier  Strength behaviour of iron ore permits driving of solid cavities suitable for emplacement operation Konrad Visit Report Page 25 of 291

clay / smectite clay / smectite content [weight%] Depth content [weight%] Clay content and sorption samples [m] samples Quartenary capacity

Turonian

Cenomanian Profiles of shafts illustrating content of clay and smectite Upper Albian

2  total clay fraction Middle Albian 2  smectite component

Lower Albian Shaft Konrad 1 Aptian 1 Position of sampling for Barremian 1 determining CEC

Hauterivian Upper Cretac eous Upper Malm siliceous claystone argillaceous marl

claystone

Kimmeridgian claystone clayey, silty sandstone argillaceous marl

calciferous claystone

Coral oolite claystone

argillaceous marl

calciferous claystone

3rd level subjacent argillaceous marl limestone location 542 deposit Cation exchange capacity (CEC) oolitic ore 5th level superjacent argillaceous marl of the rocks in the overburden argillaceous marl Konrad Visit Report Page 26 of 291 Phase I: Hydrogeological conditions

RESULTS  Only small amounts of formation humidity from the ore deposit and the adjoinig rock;  water-bearing fissures with residual waters reduced flow after a brief period or dried up entirely  on account of low humidity potential only very long-term leakage of water from the ore deposit; sufficient for filling residual pore space  No open inflow of water from the rock apart from a few dripping locations  Natural rock humidity of coral oolite and fracture waters correspond to highly saliniferous, fossil stagnant waters of the northern German deep water type  specific water chemism in balance with geological surrounding  Faults and fractures do not impede the hydrogeological sealing of the mine from near-surface water bearing formations  No water pathways due to mining activities or to disturbances of the natural hydrogeological conditions have formed in the overburden  Neither exploratory drillings nor shafts will affect hydrogeological sealing Konrad Visit Report Page 27 of 291 Phase I: Rock mechanical stability

RESULTS  Volume of subsidence trough corresponds to one-third of underground openings; homogenous deformation of overburden; only residual movements; no depression damages at the surface  Solidity of openings and drifts; no necessity of revision; reliable ground anchoring  Useable volume of iron ore deposit sufficient for construction of emplacement rooms (up to 1 Mio. m³)  No risk to the site from tectonic or subsidence quakes Konrad Visit Report Page 28 of 291

Subsidence at the surface in the area of the Konrad mine Lines of equal subsidence in mm, dated may 1981 Konrad Visit Report Page 29 of 291 System of geological barriers at the Konrad site

Type of Hydrogeological Petrographic Structural barrier barrier barrier barrier

Upper Upper Upper Upper Cretacious „Hils“ Cretacious Jurassic Iron ore transgression above Part of Cretacious sand- claystone & claystone & „deposit Jurassic strata; „Pläner“ barrier stone argillacious argillacious layer“ (pre-cretaceous limestone marl marl faulting)

Watertight isolation Property Saline formation waters largely watertight to of emplacement layer of in isolated horizons; impermeable due to by transgression water supply swelling; sorption horizon; barrier (sealing fault zones)

Dilution and dispersion Pilling up of water and Water retention, Effect of discontinuity for barrier of radionuclides radionuclide retention hydraulic pathways

Hydrogeological enclosure of repository Barrier for propagation of radionuclide inventory after GSF (1982) Konrad Visit Report Page 30 of 291 Phase II - Site investigation program 1983 - 1990

MAIN ASPECTS:  Structure of the deposit as well as of underlying and overlying strata  General geological structure of the area  Hydrogeological situation in the overburden, the iron ore bed and the underlying stratum  Hydrochemical conditions of water-bearing strata (quarternary, cretacious, jurassic) and hydrological situation  Properties of geological formations as barriers to dispersion of radionuclides (permeability, sorption)  Rock mechanics near rooms, drifts and the whole mine openings  Long-term seismological stability of the site Konrad Visit Report Page 31 of 291 Phase II: Techniques

 Advanced subsurface investigation  Excavation of new drifts  Core drillings  Geological mapping  Mapping of fractures and faults  Re-evaluation of old drillings  Interpretation of profiles in shafts, drifts and drillings following new standards concerning stratigraphy, mineralogy and geochemistry  Deep borehole Konrad 101  Seismic reflection investigations in the Konrad area & comparison with industrial seismic investigation  Hydrogeological and hydrological investigations from the surface  Impermeability and tightness of shaft sealing and old boreholes

Konrad Visit Report Page 32 of 291 Phase II: General Results

 Exact stratigraphic positioning of new galleries  Description of geomechanical, hydraulical and lithogical properties and thickness of opened strata, esp. coral oolite  Geological mapping: Stratigraphy, petrography, tectonics, bedding conditions, hydrogeology  Excavation of new drifts, esp. 2 test chambers in field 5/1: verification of geotechnical stability of planned emplacement rooms Konrad Visit Report Page 33 of 291

 Excavation of exploration drifts on 800-m- and 1300-m-level to the boundary of planned emplacement area south of Bleckenstedter fault  Extension of shaft cross-drift on 1000-m- level from shaft 1 to the east to explore the conditions in the ore deposit north of the Bleckenstedter fault  Drifting of a new ramp above 1100-m-level

Mine layout Position of new drifts for passby (boundary drifts) and position of underground drillings Konrad Visit Report Page 34 of 291 Fine petro- stratigraphical profile In reconnaissance gallery 672 on 5th level

Cross section of the drift Konrad Visit Report Page 35 of 291

 Sampling for determination of chemical composition, isotopes, and age determination  Linear increase of concentration with depth, Salinity gradient 6,5g/L*100m Deep formation  Deeper than 100m all waters of Na-Cl-type  Mixture of solutions of different origin, but all characterised as deep waters native waters; in balance with geological formations Content of cations against  Increasing ratios of Ca/Cl and Br/Cl and decreasing Na/Cl-ratio with depth; high content of Sr, I, Br; high Na/K- and Sr/Cl ratio depth, dated July 1979 Konrad Visit Report Page 36 of 291 Distribution of lower iron ore deposit of the Coral oolite in the Konrad mine Location of Konrad trench and major tectonic elements

A Sauingen fault

Konrad fault A‘ Bleckenstedt fault A A‘ S Konrad Visit Report Page 37 of 291 Tectonic elements at the Konrad mine Tectonic map of lower bed (middle coral oolite) Shaft Konrad 1

Shaft Konrad 2

Fractured Zone Bleckenstedter Fault in ramp 410 N (schematic diagram) Ore deposit Dip: 65° to the north 3rd level (1000 m) th Strike: East-West 4 level (1100 m) th Fault throw: 90 m to 135 m 5 level (1200 m) Age of origin: 120 to 100 Ma ago Dr. W. Diem, June 1999 Konrad Visit Report Page 38 of 291 Phase II: Deep borehole Konrad 101

 Objectives  Evaluation of geological barriers and of existing aquifers  Task  Collecting of reliable rock-physical, sediment-petrographic, and geochemical data; determination of hydraulic permeability, transmissivity and hydraulic pressure  Technical data  1001,75 m total depth, 932 m core pull (94,5%)  Borehole measurements and testing:  Geological mapping, formation log, stratigraphic table  borehole geophysics Shaft 1  temperature measurements  17 packer tests  4 pumping tests  photo-documentation of cores

Shaft 2

KONRAD 101 Konrad Visit Report Page 39 of 291 Phase II: Deep borehole Konrad 101

TECHNIQUES  Investigation of water samples:  (determination of radionuclides und age determination of deep groundwater) >> comparison with water samples from boreholes in the Konrad area  Investigation of rock samples  Rock mechanical investigations: stability and deformability  Mineralogical and geochemical investigations  Rock parameter: effective porosity, total porosity, permeability, carbonate and C org content,  description of porosity / pore space, scanning electron microscope  Palaeontological investigation on profile

Konrad Visit Report Page 40 of 291

Konrad 101 Drilling log of a deep borehole Konrad Visit Report Page 41 of 291

Simplified Permeability Hydraulic pressure geological profile Konrad 101

Permeability and hydraulic pressure and detailed stratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous

Lower Cretaceous Depth im m Upper Jurassic

Bioclastic grain- to packstone with echinoderm debris and branching bryozoan (centre); 209,45m; width of field of view is 2,2 mm. (from: Niebuhr et al. 2001) Konrad Visit Report Page 42 of 291 Phase II: Surface hydrogeological and hydrological investigation program

 Geology and stratigraphy of Quarternary strata  Groundwater measurement network  Hydrochemical investigation and age determination of near-surface groundwater  Temperature and conductivity profiles in observation wells  Natural radiological exposure of near-surface groundwater  Tracer measurement of flow direction and velocity  Determination of permeabilities and transmissivities  Construction and evaluation of groundwater surface contour, groundwater trendlines  Outflow conditions of receiving streams, above-ground water-divides and catchment areas  Influence of subsidence caused by mining on depths of water table

Konrad Visit Report Page 43 of 291 Phase II: Surface hydrogeological and hydrological investigation program

RESULTS  Hydrogeological situation pronounced by groundwater storey  Ground water near the surface mostly found in quarternary deposits; hydraulic connection to local water courses  Below depth of 150 m ground water contains considerable amount of solutes (> 1 g/L);  increasing density; minor to insignificant flow velocity  Deeper ground water levels consist of individual aquiferous strata with little thickness, separated by thick claystone strata with minimum water-bearing properties  System is bordered below by salt layers of Middle Muschelkalk; lateral hydraulic borders formed by salt domes  Tectonic fault zones only play a minor role in the general flow characteristics as hydraulic flow connections from separated aquifers  Water-bearing fissures reduced flow within a brief period, even fractured zones near major faults (e.g. Bleckenstedter fault) ceased to flow Konrad Visit Report Page 44 of 291 Legend Iron ore deposits (after H. Kolbe)

Salt structure Model area for groundwater

Salt pillow distribution in the subsurface Tectonic fault

Hydrogeological model area Position of cross section through the

Position of cross-sections model area

Shaft, borehole

River

Autobahn

Road Konrad Visit Report Page 45 of 291 Hydrogeological Model Cross section through the model area

Shaft

Salzgitter Konrad 1 heights kink in kink in kink in kink in kink in section section section section section

Boundary of bed Lower Cretaceous Aquifer Water migration through Lower Cretaceous Bleckenstedt fault Fault Sauinger fault Jurassic Aquifer Water migration through Oxfordian

Repository Triassic Aquifer Water migration through „Cornbrash“ sandstone Konrad Visit Report Page 46 of 291

 Thank you for your attention !

Konrad Visit Report Page 47 of 291

Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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

Appendix 4

Konrad Site Geology and Hydrogeology

Konrad Visit Report Page 48 of 291

Konrad Site Geology and Hydrogeology

based on a lecture given by Nicole Schubarth-Engelschall Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS), Salzgitter, Germany [email protected]

Visit of the Canadian Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project Joint Review Panel Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Salzgitter, Germany, October 22 and 23, 2012 Konrad Visit Report Page 49 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 50 of 291

Geological Setting

Geographical extension of iron ore areas Konrad Visit Report Page 51 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 52 of 291 Stratigraphical Profile Position of the iron ore deposit ― Text • 2. Stufe – 3. Stufe • 4. Stufe – 5. Stufe

Konrad Visit Report Page 53 of 291 Geological Structure

FINDINGS (Phase 1 Investigations) ― Geological formations form a shallow inclined geological structure ― Ore deposit is largely covered by overlaying Cretaceous formations • closed in its depth • no contact to the earth`s surface or to near-surface groundwater horizons ― Fault zones with large dislocations do not occur in the Cretacious overburden; E-W oriented fracture tectonics older than the Aptian ― Tectonical dissection of the ore deposit is limited to a few partial areas in the mining district with fractures and fault zones ― Pronounced fine jointing of the ore deposit shows only low development, apart from mining effects in the direct zone of the surrounding rock Konrad Visit Report Page 54 of 291 Geological Profile Thick mudstone layers Iron ore deposit (Lower Cretaceous) Cross section through the (Upper Jurassic, Malm) 200 to 400 m thick southern part of the 12 to 18 m thick “Gifhorner Trog” at the Konrad Mine Konrad Visit Report Page 55 of 291 Lithological and Petrological Investigations

FINDINGS (Phase 1 Investigations) ― Overburden consists of thick homogeneous rock units; water bearing formations are regional with only slight thickness ― Sealing clay rock formations exist over large areas and have thicknesses of 600 to 1000 m • separation of the ore horizon from near-surface water bearing rock formations ― Clay rocks have petrophysical properties such as very low permeability which avoid inflow of water ― Strongly swelling clay minerals, in particular in Albian formations up to 300 m thick, effect self-healing of cracks and joints; high sorption capacity ― Favourable deformation behaviour of the clay rock formation • regular forming and homogenous movement of the subsidence trough ― Iron ore itself is relatively impermeable and has sorption capacity for certain radionuclides (such as Co-60) • acts as another natural barrier ― Strength behaviour of iron ore permits driving of solid cavities suitable for emplacement operation Konrad Visit Report Page 56 of 291 Hydrogeological Conditions

FINDINGS (Phase 1 Investigations) ― Only small amounts of formation humidity from the ore deposit and the adjoinig rock; ― water-bearing fissures with residual waters reduced flow after a brief period or dried up entirely • on account of low humidity potential only very long-term leakage of water from the ore deposit; sufficient for filling residual pore space ― No open inflow of water from the rock apart from a few dripping locations ― Natural rock humidity of coral oolite and fracture waters correspond to highly saliniferous, fossil stagnant waters of the northern German deep water type • specific water chemism in balance with geological surrounding ― Faults and fractures do not impede the hydrogeological sealing of the mine from near- surface water bearing formations ― No water pathways due to mining activities or to disturbances of the natural hydrogeological conditions have formed in the overburden ― Neither exploratory drillings nor shafts will affect hydrogeological sealing Konrad Visit Report Page 57 of 291 Rock Mechanical Stability

FINDINGS (Phase 1 Investigations) ― Volume of subsidence trough corresponds to one-third of underground openings; homogenous deformation of overburden; only residual movements; no depression damages at the surface ― Solidity of openings and drifts; no necessity of revision; reliable ground anchoring ― Useable volume of iron ore deposit sufficient for construction of emplacement rooms (up to 1 Mio. m³) ― No risk to the site from tectonic or subsidence quakes Konrad Visit Report Page 58 of 291

― Sampling for determination of chemical composition, isotopes, and age determination • Linear increase of concentration with depth, Salinity gradient 6,5g/L*100m • Deeper than 100m all waters of Na-Cl-type Deep Formation • Mixture of solutions of different origin, but all characterised as Water deep native waters; in balance with geological formations • Increasing ratios of Ca/Cl and Br/Cl and decreasing Na/Cl-ratio Content of cations against with depth; high content of Sr, I, Br; high Na/K- and Sr/Cl ratio depth, dated July 1979 Konrad Visit Report Page 59 of 291 Tectonic Elements at the Konrad Mine Tectonic map of lower bed (middle coral oolite) Shaft Konrad 1

Shaft Konrad 2

FINDINGS (Phase 2 Investigations) ― Hydrogeological situation pronounced by groundwater storey ― Ground water near the surface mostly found in quarternary deposits; hydraulic connection to local water courses ― Below depth of 150 m ground water contains considerable amount of solutes (> 1 g/L); • increasing density; minor to insignificant flow velocity ― Deeper ground water levels consist of individual aquiferous strata with little thickness, separated by thick claystone strata with minimum water-bearing properties ― System is bordered below by salt layers of Middle Muschelkalk; lateral hydraulic borders formed by salt domes ― Tectonic fault zones only play a minor role in the general flow characteristics as hydraulic flow connections from separated aquifers ― Water-bearing fissures reduced flow within a brief period, even fractured zones near major faults (e.g. Bleckenstedter fault) ceased to flow Konrad Visit Report Page 61 of 291 Legend Model Area for Iron ore deposits (after H. Kolbe)

Salt structure Groundwater Distribution

Salt pillow

Tectonic fault in the Subsurface

Hydrogeological model area Position of cross section through the Position of cross-sections model area Shaft, borehole

River

Autobahn

Road Konrad Visit Report Page 62 of 291 Hydrogeological Model Cross section through the model area

Shaft

Salzgitter Konrad 1 heights kink in kink in kink in kink in kink in section section section section section

Boundary of bed Lower Cretaceous Aquifer Water migration through Lower Cretaceous Bleckenstedt fault Fault Sauinger fault Jurassic Aquifer Water migration through Oxfordian

Repository Triassic Aquifer Water migration through „Cornbrash“ sandstone Konrad Visit Report Page 63 of 291

Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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

Appendix 5

Safety Assessment Example: Konrad Repository Practical Aspects of Repository Engineering for Disposal of Spent Fuel/HLW in Sedimentary Environments

Konrad Visit Report Page 64 of 291 Practical Aspects of Repository Engineering for Disposal of Spent Fuel/HLW in Sedimentary Environments

Safety Assessment Example: Konrad Repository

Peter W. Brennecke

IAEA Network of Centres of Excellence Konrad Visit Report Page 65 of 291 Contents

 Introduction  Legal regulations in Germany  Atomic Energy Act  Radiation Protection Ordinance  Safety assessment for the operational phase  Normal operation  Assumed incidents  Safety assessment for the post-closure phase  Radiological calculations  Water law - related investigations  Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements Konrad Visit Report Page 66 of 291 Radioactive Waste Disposal in Germany

 Basic principle of radioactive waste disposal in the Federal Republic of Germany:

 Disposal of all types of solid or solidified radioactive waste (short-lived, long-lived) in deep geological formations.

 Exclusion of liquid and gaseous radioactive waste from disposal (appropriate conditioning required). Konrad Visit Report Page 67 of 291 Konrad Repository (LLW, ILW, short - lived and long - lived) Konrad Visit Report Page 68 of 291 Iron Ore Deposit Konrad Visit Report Page 69 of 291 The Konrad Repository

- History Abandoned iron ore mine - Location near Salzgitter, Federal State of Lower Saxony, Northern Germany - Host rock Coral Oolite; mudstone overburden up to 400 m thick - Emplacement depth 800 m (to 1,300 m) - Type of waste Radioactive waste with negligible heat generation (i.e., LLW and ILW) - Volume of waste packages Planned: up to 650,000 m³ Licensed: 303,000 m³ at max. - Total alpha emitter activity 1.5 · 1017 Bq - Total beta/gamma emitter activity 5.0 · 1018 Bq Konrad Visit Report Page 70 of 291 Protection of Man and the Environment

 The protection objectives for the operation of a repository are prescribed by the Atomic Energy Act and the Radiation Protection Ordinance. Beyond these all other pertinent regulations are to be reckoned with. Konrad Visit Report Page 71 of 291 Radiation Protection Ordinance

 Radiation protection objectives for a repository according to the Strahlenschutzverordnung (Radiation Protection Ordinance - (RPO)):

• Section 6 states that the radiation exposure has to be kept as low as possible.

• Section 47 para. 1 states that the radiation exposure for individuals arising from the respective facility under consideration is to be limited, i. e., to 0.3 mSv/a (effective dose rate) and to 0.9 mSv/a (organ dose rate), being the sum of all relevant exposure pathways, respectively. Konrad Visit Report Page 72 of 291 Safety Criteria for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste in a Mine (January 1983)

 In the post-closure phase, the radionuclides which might reach the biosphere via the water path as a result of transport processes not completely excludable must not lead to individual dose rates which exceed the limiting values specified in section 47 of the Radiation Protection Ordinance (0.3 mSv/a concept).

Konrad Visit Report Page 73 of 291 Geology of the Konrad Site

• Iron ore sediment deposited about 150 million years ago during the Upper Jurassic (Malm). • Sedimentary oolithic iron ore layer (12 m to 14 m thick) stratigraphically forms part of the Middle Coral Oolith. • Overlying Cretaceous strata mainly consist of clayish rock and completely cover the iron ore sediment by a transgression. • Actual geological barrier to near-surface groundwater built up by Lower Cretaceous clay layers (Thickness of the over-burden barrier: 200 m to 400 m). • Good quality of the Upper Cretaceous barrier proved by means of a variety of laboratory analyses. Konrad Visit Report Page 74 of 291 Geological Cross Section of the Konrad Site

Iron ore deposit Thick mudstone layers (Upper Jurassic, Malm) (Lower Cretaceous) 12 to 14 m thick 200 to 400 m thick Konrad Visit Report Page 75 of 291 Konrad Disposal and Ventilation Scheme

shaft shaft Konrad 1 Konrad 2 Main features • Separation of waste package and debris

emplacement transports area (controlled area) • Parallel ventilation of disposal and mining areas sewage Fresh air disposal of radioactive waste Return air (conventional) old mining areas, not for disposal Return air (contaminated) Debris transport path Transport path for

excavation for radioactive waste radioactive waste Konrad Visit Report Page 76 of 291

Unloading Hall Konrad Visit Report Page 77 of 291 Waste Package Handling in the Unloading Hall Konrad Visit Report Page 78 of 291 Fork Lift Truck and Transportation Vehicle Konrad Visit Report Page 79 of 291

Stacking of Standardized Containers Type IV Konrad Visit Report Page 80 of 291 Emplacement Rooms / Emplacement Fields

Width: 7 m Height: 6 m Length: up to 1,000 m Konrad Visit Report Page 81 of 291 Konrad Site - Specific Safety Assessment

 Normal operation.  Assumed incidents.  Thermal impact upon the host rock.  Criticality safety (demonstration of sub-criticality).  Long-term radiological effects.

 Pollution of the near-surface groundwater. Konrad Visit Report Page 82 of 291 Radiological Site-Specific Safety Assessment (1)

 Exposure of the operating staff and of the environment of the Konrad repository to direct and scattered radiation and to radiation due to radioactive substances released from the waste packages which is discharged via the exhaust air and waste water path (normal operation).  Exposure of the operating staff and of the environment of the Konrad repository to radiation due to radioactive substances released as a result of mechanical and/or thermal loads on the waste packages in the operational phase (assumed incidents).  Decay heat of the radionuclides contained in the waste packages (thermal influence upon the host rock).

Konrad Visit Report Page 83 of 291 Radiological Site-Specific Safety Assessment (2)

 Criticality safety in the operational and post-closure phase, i.e. demonstration of sub-criticality.  Exposure to radiation in the surroundings of the Konrad repository due to radioactive substances released via the water path (post- closure phase).

Work has to be based on detailed site-specific geological and hydrogeological data, a sufficiently detailed concept of the Konrad repository including its planned mode of operation, and data concerning the types, quantities and properties of the various waste packages to be disposed of. Konrad Visit Report Page 84 of 291 Safety Assessments and Boundary Conditions

Site-specific safety assessment Protection goal

§§ 46 and 47 StrlSchV (RPO) Normal operation 1 mSv/a and 0,3 mSv/a, resp. § 49 StrlSchV (RPO) Assumed incidents 50 mSv (20 mSv self-restriction)

Thermal impact upon the host rock ∆T < 3 K

Criticality safety (demonstration of sub- k < 0,95 criticality) eff < 0,3 mSv/a Long-term radiological effects as safety indicator Konrad Visit Report Page 85 of 291 Konrad Safety Assessment (Normal Operation)

Release rate limits (return air/ sewage)

Doses due to effluents Exposure for personnel in the environment due to effluents

Radioactive effluents Requirements into the environment

Dose rate of waste packages Radionuclide Surface contamination • surface: 2 mSv/h inventory • α: 0.5 Bq/cm3 • 1 m (2 m) distance: 0.1 mSv/h of waste • β/γ: 5 Bq/cm3 packages

Direct radiation + skyshine Direct + scattered radiation

Doses in the environment Exposure for personnel Konrad Visit Report Page 86 of 291 Release of Volatile Radionuclides (1)

1st barrier: waste form H-3 Rn-222: • unspecified 5 ⋅10-2/a • fixed matrix 3.3/a • as HTO 5 ⋅10-2/a • not fixed 53/a • as HT 5 ⋅10-4/a waste C-14 form I-129 • unspecified 5 ⋅10-2/a • unspecified 10-4/a • solid 5 ⋅10-10/a • as AgI 10-6/a

aerosols • α-aerosols+Pu-241 5 ⋅10-12/a 2nd barrier: • βγ-aerosols+Ra-226 5 ⋅10-10/a container with specified tightness transmission 10-2, 10-3 or 10-4/a Konrad Visit Report Page 87 of 291 Release of Volatile Radionuclides (2)

3rd barrier: closure of emplacement rooms and backfill

convergence no release of - aerosols wall waste wall - iodine ~ 5 m ~ 50 m - radon

pump backfill: ~70 % Konrad debris ∅ ≤ 5 mm HT ~20 % water C-14 purpose ~10 % cement + retarder ≠ CO2 minimization of residual voids tight enclosure of waste packages convergence no accumulation of explosive gas mixtures → pressing out Konrad Visit Report Page 88 of 291 Unloading of Waste Packages (Incidents 1) Konrad Visit Report Page 89 of 291 Stacking of Waste Packages (Incidents 2) Konrad Visit Report Page 90 of 291 Hydrology of the Konrad Site

 Hydrogeological situation characterised by a pronounced stockwork structure.  Deeper groundwater levels consist of individual aquiferous strata, separated by claystone strata with minimum water-bearing properties.  In the post-closure phase remaining voids in the underground facilities will gradually fill up with subterranean water.  Parameter studies used to calculate the very slow movement of subterranean water.  Parameter variations employed to investigate various connections of layers and influences of geological fault zones.  Waterpaths leading from the mine openings would reach the biosphere at various places. Konrad Visit Report Page 91 of 291 Site-specific Safety Assessment for the Post-closure Phase (1)

 Comprehensive underground investigation programme to obtain detailed information on the geological structure and the hydrogeological situation of the Konrad site.  Preparation/elaboration of the hydrogeological model: • Experimental determination of hydrogeological parameters such as permeabilities, effective porosities and hydraulic conductivities for the individual stratigraphical units. • Performance of two-dimensional model calculations to consider the density dependence (salt content) of the groundwater flow. • Use of FEM 301 and SWIFT. • Modelling the groundwater movements as basis for radionuclide transport model calculations. Konrad Visit Report Page 92 of 291 Site-specific Safety Assessment for the Post-closure Phase (2)

 Radionuclide transport model calculations: • Calculations of the migration of radionuclides from the repository area along three potential release paths (two stratigraphical models; one fault zone model) using various investigation area specific geological and hydrogeological data. • Calculation of resulting individual dose rates.  Discussion with the competent licensing authority: • Conservativies, e.g. hydraulic potential (steady state calculations) and Oxfordian formation (homogeneity). • Shaft sealing, sealing of adjacent historical drillings, dilution factors, time frame, evaluation of calculated individual dose rates resulting in a limitation of permissible I-129 and U-238 inventories.

Konrad Visit Report Page 93 of 291 Safety Assessment on the Long-term Radiological Effects

Mudstone layers up to 400 m thick

No significant hydraulic Transport retardation potential Konrad Visit Report Page 94 of 291 Cross Section of the Hydro- geological Model Area: Release Paths

Shaft

Salzgitter Konrad 1 heights kink in kink in kink in kink in kink in section section section section section

Boundary of bed Lower Cretaceous Aquifer Water migration through Lower Cretaceous Bleckenstedt fault Fault Sauinger fault Jurassic Aquifer Water migration through Oxfordian

Repository Triassic Aquifer Water migration through „Cornbrash“ sandstone Konrad Visit Report Page 95 of 291 Relevant Radiation Exposures Calculated for Periods of Time up to 106 a Dose § 47 StrlSchV (RPO) 0,3 mSv/a Konrad Visit Report Page 96 of 291 Additional Evidence Supporting the Long-Term Safety Assessment

 Age of the Konrad groundwater at least 107 years, and possibly as long as 1.5 · 108 years, corresponding to the age of the geological formation.  Indication of groundwater movements in the range of less than 1 cm per 103 years (stagnant groundwater).  Increase of the Konrad groundwater salinity with depth.  Indication of a diffusion-dominated vertical transport of substances.  Consideration of transport of substances with groundwater flow as conservative assumption (300,000 years); bandwidth of groundwater flow times due to model calculations: 330,000 years up to 38.8 million years. Konrad Visit Report Page 97 of 291 Maximum Activities Of Relevant Radionuclides And Radionuclide Groups

Radionuclide / Radionuclide Groups Activity in Bq H – 3 6,0 E 17 C – 14 4,0 E 14 I – 129 7,0 E 11 Ra – 226 4,0 E 12 Th – 232 5,0 E 11 U – 235 2,0 E 11 U – 236 1,0 E 12 U – 238 1,9 E 12 Pu – 239 2,0 E 15 Pu – 241 2,0 E 17 Total Alpha-Emitters 1,5 E 17 Total Beta-/Gamma-Emitters 5,0 E 18 Konrad Visit Report Page 98 of 291 Licensing Prerequisites for a Repository

 Protection of man and the environment during the operational and post-closure phase of a repository.  Investigation and assessment of not-excludable releases via the water path (post-closure phase): • Radiological long-term effects (radionuclide-specific radiation exposures). • Possible pollution of near-surface groundwater by organic and inorganic substances.

 Results of investigation and evaluation of possible groundwater pollution serve as a basis for the requisite permission under water law for a repository. Konrad Visit Report Page 99 of 291 Additional Requirements: Water Law

 Konrad license, Appendix 4: Water Law Permit.  Allowable masses of 94 groundwater-relevant elements and organic compounds (non-radioactive waste package constituents).  Two additional requirements imposed by the licensing authority: • Control of the chemical composition of the waste packages to be disposed of in the Konrad repository, registration and balancing the masses of the harmful non-radioactive substances, estimation of such masses in legacy waste. • Annual reporting to the competent authority dealing with water law.

Konrad Visit Report Page 100 of 291 Survey on the Structure of the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements (1)

1. Introduction 2. General basic requirements on radioactive waste to be disposed of 3. General requirements on waste packages - Local dose rate - Surface contamination - Depressurized delivery 4. Requirements on waste forms - Basic requirements - Waste form groups - Exhausting of activity limiting values - Filling of waste packages 5. Requirements on waste containers/packagings - Basic requirements - Waste container classes - Incident resistant packagings - Inner containers Konrad Visit Report Page 101 of 291 Survey on the Structure of the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements (2)

6. Activity limitations - Permissible activities for individual radionuclides per waste package - Total activities - Declaration of radionuclides 7. Mass limitations of non-radioactive harmful substances - Permissible masses - Threshold values - Waste assignments 8. Delivery of waste packages - Compliance with transport regulations - Permits - Marking of waste packages - Requirements on shipping units Konrad Visit Report Page 102 of 291

Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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

Appendix 6

Waste Acceptance Requirements Summary Presentation Slides

Konrad Visit Report Page 103 of 291

KONRAD REPOSITORY - WASTE ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS -

Peter W. Brennecke [email protected] Braunschweig, Germany formerly Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) Salzgitter, Germany

Visit of the Canadian Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project Joint Review Panel Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Salzgitter, Germany, October 22 and 23, 2012

1 Konrad Visit Report Page 104 of 291 Contents

 Introduction  The KONRAD Repository  Site-Specific Safety Assessments  KONRAD Waste Acceptance Requirements  KONRAD Requirements as of December 1995  Additional Requirements Imposed by the Licensing Authority  Conclusions and further Steps

2 Konrad Visit Report Page 105 of 291 Radioactive Waste Disposal in Germany

 Basic principle of radioactive waste disposal in the Federal Republic of Germany:

 Disposal of all types of solid or solidified radioactive waste (short-lived, long-lived) in deep geological formations.

 Exclusion of liquid and gaseous radioactive waste from disposal.

3 Konrad Visit Report Page 106 of 291 The Konrad Repository

- History Abandoned iron ore mine - Location near Salzgitter, Federal State of Lower Saxony, Northern Germany - Host rock Coral Oolite - Emplacement depth 800 m to 1,300 m - Type of waste Radioactive waste with negligible heat generation (i.e., LLW and ILW) - Volume of waste packages Planned: up to 650,000 m³ Licensed: 303,000 m³ at max. - Total alpha emitter activity 1.5 · 1017 Bq - Total beta/gamma emitter activity 5.0 · 1018 Bq - Licensing procedure August 31, 1982 to May 22, 2002

4 Konrad Visit Report Page 107 of 291 Geological Cross Section of the Konrad Site

iron ore deposit thick mudstone layers (Upper Jurassic, Malm) (Lower Cretaceous) 12 to 18 m thick 200 to 400 m thick

5 Konrad Visit Report Page 108 of 291 Perspective of Shaft Area Konrad 1

6 Konrad Visit Report Page 109 of 291 Perspective of Shaft Area Konrad 2

7 Konrad Visit Report Page 110 of 291 Konrad Disposal and Ventilation Scheme

shaft shaft Konrad 1 Konrad 2 Main features • separation in space of waste package and debris transports emplacement area (controlled area) • parallel ventilation of deposition and drifting areas

sewage fresh air disposal of radioactive waste return air (conventional) old mining areas, not for disposal return air (contaminated) debris transport path transport path for

excavation for radioactive waste radioactive waste

8 Konrad Visit Report Page 111 of 291 Safety Criteria for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste in a Mine (January 1983)

 The required safety of a repository constructed in a geological formation must be demonstrated by a site- specific safety assessment which includes the respective geological situation, the technical concept of the repository including its scheduled mode of operation, and the waste packages intended to be disposed of.  In the post - closure phase, the radionuclides which might reach the biosphere via the water path as a result of transport processes not completely excludable must not lead to individual dose rates which exceed the limiting values specified in section 47 of the Radiation Protection Ordinance (0.3 mSv/a concept).

9 Konrad Visit Report Page 112 of 291 Konrad Site - Specific Safety Assessment

 Normal operation  Assumed incidents  Thermal impact upon the host rock  Criticality safety  Long - term radiological effects

 Pollution of the near - surface groundwater

10 Konrad Visit Report Page 113 of 291 Annual Individual Dose Rate Limits (for normal operation)

Radiation Protection Ordinance Euratom Basic BfS dose levels for planning Safety Standards (Konrad Repository) Occupationally 20 mSv/a effective dose 20 mSv/a 5 mSv/a mean value exposed persons in addition further organ from direct radiation (category A) doses are to be considered 0.5 mSv/a § 55 effective dose due to inhalation

Population / 1.0 mSv/a by direct radiation 1.0 mSv/a environment (effective dose) ∼ 20 % of the limits of the former RPO § 46 by direct radiation Population / by release via air and and release via air environment water path: and water path § 47 0.3 mSv/a effective dose, gonads, ∼ uterus, red bone marrow 20 % of the limits of the former RPO 1.8 mSv/a bone surface, skin 0.9 mSv/a other organs and tissues

11 Konrad Visit Report Page 114 of 291 Annual Individual Dose Rates (in case of incident)

§ 49 300 mSv bone surface, skin Limits of the RPO 500 mSv extremities (incl. skin) 150 mSv thyroid, other organs and tissues

deduction of • release rate limits • waste acceptance requirements

12 Konrad Visit Report Page 115 of 291 Relevant Radiation Exposures Calculated for Periods of Time up to 106 a Dose § 47 StrlSchV (RPO) 0,3 mSv/a

13 Konrad Visit Report Page 116 of 291 Additional Evidence Supporting the Long-Term Safety Assessment

14 Konrad Visit Report Page 117 of 291 Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements

Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements as of December 1995  were prepared and examined within the Konrad repository licensing procedure,  form part of the Konrad license issued on May 22, 2002,  define the safety - related envelope or framework for all types of short - lived and long - lived radioactive waste with negligible heat generation (i.e., LLW and ILW) intended for disposal in the Konrad repository,  provide guidance to radioactive waste conditioning and  are successfully applied by the waste generators and conditioners, and  are presently revised.

15 Konrad Visit Report Page 118 of 291 Survey on the Structure of the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements (1)

16 Konrad Visit Report Page 119 of 291 Survey on the Structure of the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements (2)

17 Konrad Visit Report Page 120 of 291 Cylindrical Cast Iron Container Type II

D = 1,060 mm H = 1,500 mm V = 1.3 m³

18 Konrad Visit Report Page 121 of 291 Sheet Steel Container Type I

L = 1,600 mm W = 1,700 mm H = 1,450 mm V = 3.9 m³

19 Konrad Visit Report Page 122 of 291 Concrete Container Type IV

L = 3,000 mm W = 1,700 mm H = 1,450 mm V = 7.4 m³

20 Konrad Visit Report Page 123 of 291 Maximum Activities Of Relevant Radionuclides And Radionuclide Groups

21 Konrad Visit Report Page 124 of 291 Additional Requirements: Nuclear Law

 Fifteen additional waste - related requirements imposed by the licensing authority:  Four requirements with respect to criticality safety which address permissible activities / activity distributions of fissile material in the waste form.  Eight requirements with respect to quality assurance / quality control which address, inter alia, criticality safety aspects and procedures concerning radioactive waste to be repatriated from conditioning in foreign countries.  Three more general requirements.  Revision of the Konrad waste acceptance requirements and related quality assurance / quality control measures.

22 Konrad Visit Report Page 125 of 291 Additional Requirements: Water Law

 Konrad license, Appendix 4: Water Law Permit.  Allowable masses of 94 groundwater - relevant elements and organic compounds (non - radioactive waste package constituents).  Two additional requirements imposed by the licensing authority:  Control of the chemical composition of the waste packages to be disposed of in the Konrad repository, registration and balancing the masses of the harmful non - radioactive substances, estimation of such masses in legacy waste.  Annual reporting to the competent authority dealing with water law.

23 Konrad Visit Report Page 126 of 291

Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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

Appendix 7

Waste Acceptance Requirements Extended Presentation Slides

Konrad Visit Report Page 127 of 291

KONRAD REPOSITORY - WASTE ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS -

Peter W. Brennecke [email protected] Braunschweig, Germany formerly Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) Salzgitter, Germany

Visit of the Canadian Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project Joint Review Panel Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Salzgitter, Germany, October 22 and 23, 2012

1 Konrad Visit Report Page 128 of 291 Contents

 Introduction  The KONRAD Repository  Site-Specific Safety Assessments  KONRAD Waste Acceptance Requirements • KONRAD Requirements as of December 1995 • Additional Requirements Imposed by the Licensing Authority  Conclusions and further Steps

2 Konrad Visit Report Page 129 of 291 Radioactive Waste Disposal in Germany

 Basic principle of radioactive waste disposal in the Federal Republic of Germany:

 Disposal of all types of solid or solidified radioactive waste (short-lived, long-lived) in deep geological formations.

 Exclusion of liquid and gaseous radioactive waste from disposal.

3 Konrad Visit Report Page 130 of 291 Konrad Repository (LLW, ILW, short - lived and long - lived)

4 Konrad Visit Report Page 131 of 291 Iron Ore Deposit

5 Konrad Visit Report Page 132 of 291 The Konrad Repository

6 Konrad Visit Report Page 133 of 291 Protection of Man and the Environment

7 Konrad Visit Report Page 134 of 291 Radiation Protection Ordinance

 Radiation protection objectives for a repository according to the Strahlenschutzverordnung (Radiation Protection Ordinance - (RPO)):

• Section 6 states that the radiation exposure has to be kept as low as possible.

8 Konrad Visit Report Page 135 of 291 Safety Criteria for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste in a Mine (January 1983)

9 Konrad Visit Report Page 136 of 291 Geology of the Konrad Site

10 Konrad Visit Report Page 137 of 291 Geological Cross Section of the Konrad Site

Iron ore deposit Thick mudstone layers (Upper Jurassic, Malm) (Lower Cretaceous) 12 to 14 m thick 200 to 400 m thick

11 Konrad Visit Report Page 138 of 291 Shaft Konrad 1

Aerial view of 2002 Future function: • Air intake shaft • Transport of material and staff

Planned new buildings

12 Konrad Visit Report Page 139 of 291 Shaft Konrad 2

Aerial view of 2002 Future function: • Exhaust air shaft • Waste disposal shaft

Planned new buildings

13 Konrad Visit Report Page 140 of 291 Konrad Disposal and Ventilation Scheme

shaft shaft Konrad 1 Konrad 2 Main features • Separation of waste package and debris

excavation for radioactive waste radioactive waste

14 Konrad Visit Report Page 141 of 291 Unloading Hall

15 Konrad Visit Report Page 142 of 291 Waste Package Handling in the Unloading Hall

16 Konrad Visit Report Page 143 of 291 Fork Lift Truck and Transportation Vehicle

17 Konrad Visit Report Page 144 of 291 Stacking of Standardized Containers Type IV

18 Konrad Visit Report Page 145 of 291 Emplacement Rooms / Emplacement Fields

Width: 7 m Height: 6 m Length: up to 1,000 m

19 Konrad Visit Report Page 146 of 291 Waste Characterisation: Mechanical Impact

Drop Test

20 Konrad Visit Report Page 147 of 291 Waste Characterisation: Thermal Impact

Fire Test

21 Konrad Visit Report Page 148 of 291 Konrad Site - Specific Safety Assessment

 Normal operation.  Assumed incidents.  Thermal impact upon the host rock.  Criticality safety (demonstration of sub-criticality).  Long-term radiological effects.

 Pollution of the near-surface groundwater.

22 Konrad Visit Report Page 149 of 291 Radiological Site-Specific Safety Assessment (1)

23 Konrad Visit Report Page 150 of 291 Radiological Site-Specific Safety Assessment (2)

24 Konrad Visit Report Page 151 of 291 Safety Assessments and Boundary Conditions

Site-specific safety assessment Protection goal

§§ 46 and 47 StrlSchV (RPO) Normal operation 1 mSv/a and 0,3 mSv/a, resp. § 49 StrlSchV (RPO) Assumed incidents 50 mSv (20 mSv self-restriction)

Thermal impact upon the host rock ∆T < 3 K

Criticality safety (demonstration of sub- k < 0,95 criticality) eff < 0,3 mSv/a Long-term radiological effects as safety indicator

25 Konrad Visit Report Page 152 of 291 Konrad Safety Assessment (Normal Operation)

Release rate limits (return air/ sewage)

Doses due to effluents Exposure for personnel in the environment due to effluents

Radioactive effluents Requirements into the environment

Dose rate of waste packages Radionuclide Surface contamination • surface: 2 mSv/h inventory • α: 0.5 Bq/cm3 • 1 m (2 m) distance: 0.1 mSv/h of waste • β/γ: 5 Bq/cm3 packages

Direct radiation + skyshine Direct + scattered radiation

Doses in the environment Exposure for personnel

26 Konrad Visit Report Page 153 of 291 Release of Volatile Radionuclides (1)

aerosols • α-aerosols+Pu-241 5 ⋅10-12/a 2nd barrier: • βγ-aerosols+Ra-226 5 ⋅10-10/a container with specified tightness transmission 10-2, 10-3 or 10-4/a

27 Konrad Visit Report Page 154 of 291 Release of Volatile Radionuclides (2)

3rd barrier: closure of emplacement rooms and backfill

convergence no release of - aerosols wall waste wall - iodine ~ 5 m ~ 50 m - radon

28 Konrad Visit Report Page 155 of 291 Annual Individual Dose Rate Limits (normal operation)

29 Konrad Visit Report Page 156 of 291 Unloading of Waste Packages

30 Konrad Visit Report Page 157 of 291 Stacking of Waste Packages

31 Konrad Visit Report Page 158 of 291 Annual Individual Dose Rates (in case of incident)

Radiation Protection Ordinance BfS dose levels for planning Occupationally Limits of the RPO exposed persons – as for environment (category A) Population / 50 mSv effective dose, gonads, environment row uterus, red bone mar § 49 300 mSv bone surface, skin Limits of the RPO 500 mSv extremities (incl. skin) 150 mSv thyroid, other organs and tissues

Deduction of • Release rate limits • Waste acceptance requirements

32 Konrad Visit Report Page 159 of 291 Hydrology of the Konrad Site

33 Konrad Visit Report Page 160 of 291 Site-specific Safety Assessment for the Post-closure Phase (1)

34 Konrad Visit Report Page 161 of 291 Site-specific Safety Assessment for the Post-closure Phase (2)

35 Konrad Visit Report Page 162 of 291 Safety Assessment on the Long-term Radiological Effects

Mudstone layers up to 400 m thick

No significant hydraulic Transport retardation potential

36 Konrad Visit Report Page 163 of 291 Cross Section of the Hydrogeological Model Area: Release Paths

37 Safety Assessment on Long-term Konrad Visit Report Page 164 of 291 Radiological Effects: Model Area

38 Konrad Visit Report Page 165 of 291 Relevant Radiation Exposures Calculated for Periods of Time up to 106 a Dose § 47 StrlSchV (RPO) 0,3 mSv/a

39 Konrad Visit Report Page 166 of 291 Additional Evidence Supporting the Long-Term Safety Assessment

40 Konrad Visit Report Page 167 of 291 Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements

Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements as of December 1995  were prepared and examined within the Konrad repository licensing procedure,  form part of the Konrad license issued on May 22, 2002,  define the safety-related envelope or framework for all types of short - lived and long - lived radioactive waste with negligible heat generation (i.e., LLW and ILW) intended for disposal in the Konrad repository,  provide guidance to radioactive waste conditioning and  are successfully applied by the waste generators and conditioners, and  are presently revised.

41 Konrad Visit Report Page 168 of 291 Survey on the Structure of the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements (1)

42 Konrad Visit Report Page 169 of 291 Survey on the Structure of the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements (2)

43 Konrad Visit Report Page 170 of 291 Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements

Local dose rate (incl. neutrons) • surface: 2 mSv/h (mean value) in agreement 10 mSv/h (local max.) with the transport • 1 m distance: 0.1 mSv/h for drums regulations • 2 m distance: 0.1 mSv/h for containers

Surface contamination 2 • α-emitter: 0.5 Bq/cm average 2 2 • other 5 Bq/cm over 100 cm radionuclides:

44 Konrad Visit Report Page 171 of 291 Standardized Waste Containers (1)

External dimensions No Name Length / diameter Width Height Gross volume mm mm mm 3 m

1) 1 Concrete container ø 1060 –––– 1370 1.2 type I 2) 2 Concrete container ø 1060 –––– 1510 1.3 type II

3 Cast-iron container ø 900 –––– 1150 0.7 type I 3) 4 Cast-iron container ø 1060 –––– 1500 1.3 type II 5 Cast-iron container ø 1000 –––– 1240 1.0 type III

45 Konrad Visit Report Page 172 of 291 Standardized Waste Containers (2)

4) 6 Container type I 1600 1700 1450 3.9 7 Container type II 1600 1700 1700 4.6 8 Container type III 3000 1700 1700 8.7

4) 9 Container type IV 3000 1700 1450 7.4

10 Container type V 3200 2000 1700 10.9 11 Container type VI 1600 2000 1700 5.4

1) Height 1370 mm + strap of 90 mm = 1460 mm

2) Height 1510 mm + strap of 90 mm = 1600 mm

3) Height 1370 mm for type KfK

4) Stacking height 1400 mm for type KfK

Container materials include e.g. sheet steel, reinforced concrete or casting material.

Table 1: Basic container types for receiving radioactive waste with negligible heat generation.

46 Konrad Visit Report Page 173 of 291 Cylindrical Cast Iron Container Type II

D = 1,060 mm H = 1,500 mm V = 1.3 m³

47 Konrad Visit Report Page 174 of 291 Sheet Steel Container Type I

L = 1,600 mm W = 1,700 mm H = 1,450 mm V = 3.9 m³

48 Konrad Visit Report Page 175 of 291 Concrete Container Type IV

L = 3,000 mm W = 1,700 mm H = 1,450 mm V = 7.4 m³

49 Konrad Visit Report Page 176 of 291 Concrete Container Type Test: 5 m Drop Test

50 Konrad Visit Report Page 177 of 291 Cylindrical Container Type Test: 1 h, 800 °C Fire Test

51 Konrad Visit Report Page 178 of 291 Filling of Residual Voids in a Waste Container

Foto: Siemens

52 Konrad Visit Report Page 179 of 291 Loading a Waste Container with Inner Containers Demolition Rubble / Decommissioning Waste (1)

Foto: Siemens

53 Konrad Visit Report Page 180 of 291 Loading a Waste Container with Inner Containers Demolition Rubble / Decommissioning Waste (2)

Foto: Siemens

54 Konrad Visit Report Page 181 of 291 Loading a Waste Container with Inner Containers Large Component / Decommissioning Waste (3)

55 Konrad Visit Report Page 182 of 291 Guaranteed Values- Normal Operation Assessment (1)

Packages with specified tightness

Packages without Annual permeability factor specified tightness

≤ 0.01 ≤ 0.001 ≤ 0.0001 Radionuclide / radionuclide group Metallic Other Metallic Other Metallic Other Metallic Other solid waste solid waste solid waste solid waste *) *) *) *) matter form matter form matter form matter form groups groups groups groups Tritium - unspecified 3.0E+09 3.3E+09 3.3E+09 3.3E+09 - in the form of HTO with a total activity in the waste form (without tritium activity) of 10 a) < 10 Bq 7.4E+10 4.2E+12 8.4E+12 9.3E+12 b) ≥ 1010 Bq and < 1012 Bq 4.2E+10 9.4E+10 9.5E+10 9.5E+10 12 c) ≥ 10 Bq 3.0E+09 3.3E+09 3.3E+09 3.3E+09 - in the form of HT 1.9E+11 1.9E+11 1.9E+11 1.9E+11

C-14 - unspecified or in volatile form 8.4E+12 1.8E+08 9.2E+12 2.0E+08 9.2E+12 2.0E+08 9.2E+12 2.0E+08 - percentage in volatile form a) > 1% and ≤ 10% 1.8E+09 2.0E+09 2.0E+09 2.0E+09 b) ≤ 1% 1.8E+10 2.0E+10 2.0E+10 2.0E+10

Kr-85 3.0E+10 3.0E+10 3.0E+10 3.0E+10

56 Konrad Visit Report Page 183 of 291 Guaranteed Values - Normal Operation Assessment (2)

I-129 - unspecified 1.9E+07 1.9E+09 1.9E+10 1.9E+11 - on silver-bearing filters from exhaust gas treatment in reprocessing plants 1.9E+09 1.9E+11 1.9E+12 1.9E+13

Ra-226 - unimmobilized 9.0E+06 4.8E+10 4.8E+11 4.8E+12 - immobilized 1.4E+08 4.8E+10 4.8E+11 4.8E+12

other α-emitters and Pu-241 1.9E+14 1.9E+16 1.9E+16 1.9E+16

other β-/γ-emitters except Pu-241 with a mass fraction of water and/or residual humidity in the waste form of a) < 1% 3.7E+15 3.7E+17 3.7E+17 3.7E+17 b) ≥ 1% 3.7E+13 3.7E+15 3.7E+15 3.7E+15

*) including absorber and control element assemblies from light water reactors

Table 2: Guaranteed values for radionuclides and radionuclide groups per waste package, resulting from the safety assessment for the intended operation. Data indicated in Bq per waste package.

57 Konrad Visit Report Page 184 of 291 Activity Limiting Values - Assumed Incident Analysis (1)

Waste container class I Waste container class II Radionuclide / radionuclide group Waste form group Waste form group

01 02 03 04 05 06 01-06

I-129 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 1.1E+10 Cl-36 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 1.4E+11 I-125 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 5.1E+11 Ac-227 5.1E+07 2.6E+09 6.4E+09 1.6E+10 5.1E+10 5.1E+10 1.3E+12 Pb-210 1.4E+08 5.0E+09 1.7E+10 4.3E+10 1.4E+11 1.4E+11 3.4E+12 Se-79 7.0E+08 2.4E+10 8.7E+10 2.1E+11 7.0E+11 7.0E+11 1.7E+13 Sn-126 7.3E+08 2.6E+10 9.1E+10 2.1E+11 7.3E+11 7.3E+11 1.9E+13 Cd-113m 7.3E+08 2.6E+10 9.1E+10 2.1E+11 7.3E+11 7.3E+11 1.9E+13 Ra-228 7.3E+08 2.7E+10 9.1E+10 2.1E+11 7.3E+11 7.3E+11 1.9E+13 Sr-90 8.6E+08 3.0E+10 1.1E+11 2.7E+11 8.6E+11 8.6E+11 2.1E+13 Ag-108m 9.6E+08 3.4E+10 1.2E+11 3.0E+11 9.6E+11 9.6E+11 2.3E+13 Am-242m 7.0E+08 3.6E+10 8.7E+10 2.1E+11 7.0E+11 7.0E+11 1.7E+13 Nb-94 1.1E+09 3.9E+10 1.4E+11 3.6E+11 1.1E+12 1.1E+12 2.7E+13 Na-22 2.3E+09 8.0E+10 2.9E+11 7.3E+11 2.3E+12 2.3E+12 5.7E+13 Rb-87 3.4E+09 1.2E+11 4.1E+11 1.1E+12 3.4E+12 3.4E+12 8.4E+13 Eu-152 4.4E+09 1.6E+11 5.4E+11 1.4E+12 4.4E+12 4.4E+12 1.1E+14 Co-60 5.0E+09 1.7E+11 6.1E+11 1.6E+12 5.0E+12 5.0E+12 1.2E+14 Cs-137 5.1E+09 1.9E+11 6.4E+11 1.7E+12 5.1E+12 5.1E+12 1.3E+14

58 Konrad Visit Report Page 185 of 291 Activity Limiting Values - Assumed Incident Analysis (2)

Ra-226 6.3E+07 2.1E+09 7.9E+09 2.0E+10 6.3E+10 6.3E+10 1.6E+12 Pa-231 6.0E+07 3.0E+09 7.4E+09 1.9E+10 6.0E+10 6.0E+10 1.4E+12 Th-232 1.4E+08 5.1E+09 1.7E+10 4.3E+10 1.4E+11 1.4E+11 3.4E+12 Cm-248 1.3E+08 6.4E+09 1.6E+10 4.0E+10 1.3E+11 1.3E+11 3.3E+12 Np-237 2.1E+08 7.9E+09 2.7E+10 6.9E+10 2.1E+11 2.1E+11 5.4E+12 U-232 3.1E+08 1.6E+10 4.0E+10 9.9E+10 3.1E+11 3.1E+11 7.9E+12 Th-228 7.0E+08 3.6E+10 8.7E+10 2.1E+11 7.0E+11 7.0E+11 1.7E+13 Cm-245 7.3E+08 3.6E+10 9.1E+10 2.1E+11 7.3E+11 7.3E+11 1.9E+13 Cm-246 7.6E+08 3.7E+10 9.3E+10 2.3E+11 7.6E+11 7.6E+11 1.9E+13 Am-243 7.6E+08 3.7E+10 9.3E+10 2.3E+11 7.6E+11 7.6E+11 1.9E+13 Am-241 7.6E+08 3.7E+10 9.3E+10 2.3E+11 7.6E+11 7.6E+11 1.9E+13 Pu-239 8.3E+08 4.1E+10 1.0E+11 2.6E+11 8.3E+11 8.3E+11 2.1E+13

Other 8.3E+08 4.1E+10 1.0E+11 2.6E+11 8.3E+11 8.3E+11 2.1E+13 α-emitters

Other 5.1E+09 1.9E+11 6.4E+11 1.7E+12 5.1E+12 5.1E+12 1.3E+14 β-/γ-emitters

Table 3: Activity limit values for reference nuclides and unspecified other α- and β-/γ-emitters, resulting from the incident analysis. Data indicated in Bq per waste package.

59 Konrad Visit Report Page 186 of 291 Activity Values - Criticality Safety Analysis

U-233 U-235 Pu-239 Pu-241

Type of Level of enrichment container

≤ 5% > 5% ≤ 5% > 5%

Concrete Type I 4.5E+10 1.3E+10 1.6E+07 5.5E+06 8.7E+10 7.2E+13 container Type II 4.5E+10 1.3E+10 1.6E+07 5.5E+06 8.7E+10 7.2E+13

Cast-iron Type I 2.5E+10 1.0E+10 9.6E+06 4.0E+06 6.4E+10 5.3E+13 container Type II 4.5E+10 1.3E+10 1.6E+07 5.5E+06 8.7E+10 7.2E+13 Type II *) 4.5E+10 1.3E+10 1.6E+07 5.5E+06 8.7E+10 7.2E+13 Type III 4.5E+10 1.2E+10 1.6E+07 5.2E+06 8.0E+10 6.4E+13

Container Type I 9.0E+10 3.2E+10 3.4E+07 1.3E+07 2.0E+11 1.7E+14 Type II 9.0E+10 3.6E+10 3.4E+07 1.4E+07 2.3E+11 1.9E+14 Type III 1.8E+11 7.9E+10 6.8E+07 2.8E+07 5.0E+11 4.1E+14 Type IV 1.8E+11 6.4E+10 6.8E+07 2.6E+07 4.1E+11 3.4E+14 Type V 1.8E+11 7.9E+10 6.8E+07 2.8E+07 5.0E+11 4.1E+14 Type VI 9.0E+10 3.9E+10 3.4E+07 1.4E+07 2.5E+11 2.1E+14

Table 7a: Activity values for fissionable substances except natural uranium and depleted uranium, resulting from the criticality safety analysis. Data indicated in Bq per waste package.

*) Type KfK (Annex I/Table 1)

60 Konrad Visit Report Page 187 of 291 Maximum Activities Of Relevant Radionuclides And Radionuclide Groups

61 Konrad Visit Report Page 188 of 291 Licensing Prerequisites for a Repository

 Results of investigation and evaluation of possible groundwater pollution serve as a basis for the requisite permission under water law for a repository.

62 Konrad Visit Report Page 189 of 291 Regulations on Groundwater

 German Legislation • Act on the Order of Water Resources Management (WRMA) as of 1996, Amendment in 2010. § 34 (2): Substances may only be stored or deposited in such a way that a harmful pollution of the groundwater or another detrimental modification of its characteristics is not to be feared. • Water Act of the Federal State of Lower Saxony as of 1990. • Groundwater Ordinance as of 1997. Clarification of the WRMA skeleton regulations; putting the principle of concern into more concrete forms. • Further ordinances, technical guidelines and recommendations.

Konrad Visit Report Page 190 of 291 Model Calculations on Possible Groundwater Pollution (1)

 Examination and evaluation of possible groundwater pollution with the help of very conservative model calculations (worst-case study).  Stepwise procedure: • Assumption of complete waste package dissolution in the Konrad subterranean water (1 million m³). • Dilution through dispersion and diffusion during transportation through the geosphere. • In the Quaternary comparison of concentrations, i. e. calculated concentrations of organic and inorganic waste package constituents compared to respective limitations.  Site-specific geological and hydrological characteristics not taken into account (including sorption processes).

64 Konrad Visit Report Page 191 of 291 Model Calculations on Possible Groundwater Pollution (2)

 Under the assumptions and boundary conditions chosen, given limitations for organic and inorganic non-radioactive waste package constituents are not exceeded.  In reality, it is to be expected that much lower concentrations of organic and inorganic substances as compared to those calculated will occur in the near-surface groundwater, i.e. only by additional pollutions.  Possible influences upon the groundwater quality and / or a harmful pollution of the groundwater or another detrimental modification of its characteristics need not be feared.

65 Konrad Visit Report Page 192 of 291 Additional Requirements: Nuclear Law

 Fifteen additional waste- elated requirements imposed by the licensing authority: • Four requirements with respect to criticality safety which address permissible activities / activity distributions of fissile material in the waste form. • Eight requirements with respect to quality assurance / quality control which address, inter alia, criticality safety aspects and procedures concerning radioactive waste to be repatriated from conditioning in foreign countries. • Three more general requirements.  Revision of the Konrad waste acceptance requirements and related quality assurance / quality control measures.

66 Konrad Visit Report Page 193 of 291 Additional Requirements on Criticality Safety

 Avoidance of enhanced local concentrations of fissile material in the case of thermal impacts on waste packages containing more than 15 g of fissile material.  Limitation of permissible U-233 masses to 5 g per waste package.  Impediment to the separation of U-235 with respect to natural uranium, depleted uranium and U-235 / U-238 mixtures with less than 5 mass-% U-235.  Limitation of the permissible mass of fissile material in any 100 l volume within a waste container / packaging containing more than 1/20 of the smallest critical mass.

67 Konrad Visit Report Page 194 of 291 Additional Requirements: Water Law

68 Konrad Visit Report Page 195 of 291 Special Features of the Konrad Water Law Permit

 Limitation of the allowable masses of 22 harmful substances (e. g., mercury, beryllium) to less than 1,000 kg.  No chemical analyses of the waste package content required for monitoring, registering and balancing the harmful substances.  Trace impurities:

• To be left unconsidered for the determination of amounts and the balance of harmful substances. • May include substances limited in the permission under water law and other substances whose amounts cannot be quantified. • Occurence only in such amounts not causing detrimental changes of the near-surface groundwater.

Konrad Visit Report Page 196 of 291 Realization of Additional Requirements (1)

 Basic concept: • Analogeous procedure as applied to the determination and application of radionuclide vectors. • Chemical characterization of all types of radioactive waste with negligible heat generation using so-called material vectors.

 Preparation of a comprehensive material list.  Preparation of a detailed waste container / packaging list.  Compilation of material vectors for waste packages or charges of waste packages envisaged for disposal in the Konrad repository.

Konrad Visit Report Page 197 of 291 Realization of Additional Requirements (2)

 Rationale of the basic concept: • Transfer of requirements preferably in a way offering procedures and measures being practicable for both the waste generators and the Konrad repository operator. • Minimization of chemical characterization activities per waste package or charges of waste packages. • Reference to those data in the material and container list being applicable when registering waste packages for Konrad waste package quality control. • Data in the material and container list available for all waste generators.

Konrad Visit Report Page 198 of 291 Status of Implementation (1)

 Introduction of threshold values: • Description threshold value - describing the percentage mass fraction of a harmful substance (e. g., contained in a waste package) which, if exceeded, must be indicated. • Declaration threshold value - defining the percentage mass fraction of a harmful substance (e. g., contained in a waste package) which, if exceeded, must be balanced. • Masses of harmful substances not exceeding the threshold values are neither to be indicated nor to be balanced (trace impurities). • Threshold values given in percent of the gross waste package mass.

Konrad Visit Report Page 199 of 291 Status of Implementation (2)

 Revision of the approach: • Performance of comprehensive calculations using assumptions on the occurence and distribution of harmful substances in the waste. • Use of model items (material vectors) for most relevant wastes to allow for the detailed checking and evaluation of applicability of the concept. • Model items to be supplemented in a step-by-step procedure with waste generator-specific (real) data. • Procedure in progress; more and more information and data on individual material vectors supplied by the waste generators leading to a validation / possible correction of the assumptions.

Konrad Visit Report Page 200 of 291 Involvement of Waste Generators

 Responsibility of waste generators for supplying the information and data needed: • Chemical characterization of waste streams, waste forms, waste containers, waste packages or charges of waste packages.

 Annual information meetings since 2007.  Numerous technical meetings and discussions.  Distribution of draft documents in spring and fall 2009.  Technical meetings of the waste generators and the competent authority dealing with water law in 2010.

Konrad Visit Report Page 201 of 291 Further Steps

 Continuation of the examination and evaluation of the concept for the transfer of the water law - relevant requirements by the competent authority and its expert.  Final evaluation and issue of the permit.  In parallel, examination of the concept with respect to its applicability by the waste generators (including technical meetings with the competent authority dealing with water law).  Final evaluation by the waste generators.  Revision and publication of the Konrad waste acceptance requirements, the waste package quality assurance / quality control measures and related documents.

Konrad Visit Report Page 202 of 291

Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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

Appendix 8

Konrad Repository: Requirements on Non-Radioactive Waste Package Constituents

Konrad Visit Report Page 203 of 291

KONRAD REPOSITORY: REQUIREMENTS ON NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE PACKAGE CONSTITUENTS

Peter W. Brennecke [email protected] Braunschweig, Germany formerly Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) Salzgitter, Germany

Visit of the Canadian Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project Joint Review Panel Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Salzgitter, Germany, October 22 and 23, 2012

1 Konrad Visit Report Page 204 of 291 Konrad Site - Specific Safety Assessment

 Normal operation  Assumed incidents  Thermal impact upon the host rock  Criticality safety  Long-term radiological effects

 Pollution of the near-surface groundwater

2 Konrad Visit Report Page 205 of 291 Relevant Radiation Exposures Calculated for Periods of Time up to 106 a Dose § 47 StrlSchV (RPO) 0,3 mSv/a

3 Konrad Visit Report Page 206 of 291 Additional Evidence Supporting the Long-Term Safety Assessment

4 Konrad Visit Report Page 207 of 291 Licensing Prerequisites for a Repository

 Protection of man and the environment during the operational and post-closure phase of a repository.  Investigation and assessment of not-excludable releases via the water path (post-closure phase):  Radiological long-term effects (radionuclide-specific radiation exposures).  Possible pollution of near -surface groundwater by organic and inorganic substances.  Results of investigation and evaluation of possible groundwater pollution serve as a basis for the requisite permission under water law for a repository.

5 Konrad Visit Report Page 208 of 291 Regulations on Groundwater

Konrad Visit Report Page 209 of 291 Model Calculations on Possible Groundwater Pollution (1)

 Examination and evaluation of possible groundwater pollution with the help of very conservative model calculations (worst-case study).  Stepwise procedure:  Assumption of complete waste package dissolution in the Konrad subterranean water (1 million m³).  Dilution through dispersion and diffusion during transportation through the geosphere.  In the Quaternary comparison of concentrations, i. e. calculated concentrations of organic and inorganic waste package constituents compared to respective limitations.  Site-specific geological and hydrological characteristics not taken into account (including sorption processes).

7 Konrad Visit Report Page 210 of 291 Model Calculations on Possible Groundwater Pollution (2)

 Under the assumptions and boundary conditions chosen, given limitations for organic and inorganic non-radioactive waste package constituents are not exceeded.  In reality, it is to be expected that much lower concentrations of organic and inorganic substances as compared to those calculated will occur in the near-surface groundwater, i. e. only by additional pollutions.  Possible influences upon the groundwater quality and / or a harmful pollution of the groundwater or another detrimental modification of its characteristics need not be feared.

8 Konrad Visit Report Page 211 of 291 Additional Requirements: Water Law

 Konrad license, Appendix 4: Water Law Permit.  Allowable masses of 94 groundwater-relevant elements and organic compounds (non-radioactive waste package constituents).  Two additional requirements imposed by the licensing authority:  Control of the chemical composition of the waste packages to be disposed of in the Konrad repository, registration and balancing the masses of the harmful non- radioactive substances, estimation of such masses in legacy waste.  Annual reporting to the competent authority dealing with water law.

9 Konrad Visit Report Page 212 of 291 Special Features of the Konrad Water Law Permit

Konrad Visit Report Page 213 of 291 Realization of Additional Requirements (1)

 Preparation of a comprehensive material list.  Preparation of a detailed waste container / packaging list.  Compilation of information on waste streams and waste forms as well as of material vectors for waste packages or charges of waste packages (data bank).  Performance of model calculations.

Konrad Visit Report Page 214 of 291 Realization of Additional Requirements (2)

Konrad Visit Report Page 215 of 291 Status of Implementation (1)

Konrad Visit Report Page 216 of 291 Status of Implementation (2)

 Present activities: • Performance of comprehensive calculations using assumptions on the occurence and distribution of harmful substances in the waste. • Use of model items (material vectors) for most relevant wastes to allow for the detailed checking and evaluation of applicability of the concept. • Model items to be supplemented in a step-by-step procedure with waste generator-specific (real) data. • Procedure in progress; more and more information and data on individual material vectors supplied by the waste generators leading to a validation / possible correction of the assumptions.

Konrad Visit Report Page 217 of 291

Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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

Appendix 9

Waste Acceptance Requirements for the Konrad Repository

Konrad Visit Report Page 218 of 291

WASTE ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

KONRAD REPOSITORY

Peter W. Brennecke [email protected] Braunschweig, Germany formerly Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) Salzgitter, Germany

Visit of the Canadian Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project Joint Review Panel Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Salzgitter, Germany, October 22 and 23, 2012

Konrad Visit Report Page 219 of 291

WASTE ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE KONRAD REPOSITORY

1. THE KONRAD PROJECT

The Konrad mine is the most recent of all former iron ore pits in the Southeast of Lower Saxony, Federal Republic of Germany. It is located in the south of a large iron ore formation which was deposited about 150 million years ago. The overlying Cretaceous strata mainly consist of clayish rock with a thickness of several hundred meters. It completely covers the iron ore sediment by a transgression. The hydrogeological situation is characterised by a pronounced stockwork structure. The Konrad mine is exceptionally dry for an iron ore pit. Based on prior experience an uncontrolled inflow of water during the operational phase can be excluded. In the post-closure phase, however, the remaining voids will gradually fill up with subterranean waters (moisture content of the iron ore: about 2%). According to the favourable geological and hydrogeological situation the Federal Government decided in the seventies of the last century to investigate the Konrad mine aiming at the construction and operation of a repository for the emplacement of all types of solid or solidified low and intermediate level radioactive waste being short-lived and long-lived, respectively (radioactive waste with negligible heat generation).

2. SAFETY ASSESSMENTS

The basic aspects which must be taken into account in order to achieve the objective of disposal are compiled in the Safety Criteria for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste in a Mine (Sicherheitskriterien für die Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in einem Bergwerk) announced by the then responsible Federal Minister of the Interior (BMI – Bundesministerium des Innern) in 1983. The following criteria are considered to be the most important ones: Konrad Visit Report Page 220 of 291

• The required safety of a repository constructed in a geological formation must be demonstrated by a site - specific safety assessment which includes the respective overall geological situation, the technical concept of the repository and the waste packages intended to be disposed of. • The objectives for the operation of a repository are prescribed by the Atomic Energy Act and the Radiation Protection Ordinance. • In the post-closure phase, the radionuclides which might reach the biosphere via the water path as a result of transport processes that can not completely be excluded must not lead to individual dose rates exceeding the limiting values specified in § 47 of the Radiation Protection Ordinance (0.3 mSv/a concept). Within the scope of a site - specific safety assessment the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS – Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) demonstrated the safety of the Konrad repository. On the basis of the results of this safety assessment it was possible to establish the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements. According to the present state of affairs, these requirements must be met when waste packages will be delivered to the Konrad repository. Additional requirements on the waste packages to be disposed of result from the license issued by the regulatory body. At present, work is performed in order to prepare finally binding waste acceptance requirements. Irrespectively of the requirements resulting from the above-mentioned safety assessments, the requirements of the regulations for the transport of dangerous goods in their actual version must additionally be fulfilled when waste packages will be delivered for disposal. Radioactive waste with negligible heat generation mainly originates from research establishments, nuclear power plants, reprocessing plants, regional depots of the Federal States (Land), the nuclear fuel cycle industry, the decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear facilities as well as from the German Federal Armed Forces and the pharmaceutical industry. In order to prove the safety of the Konrad repository in the operational and post-closure phase, safety assessments were carried out covering the following aspects:

(a) Exposure of the operating staff and of the environment of the plant to direct and scattered radiation and to radiation due to radioactive substances released from the waste packages, which is discharged via the exhaust air and waste water path (normal operation). The radiological effects affect the staff and the environment of the repository. They are due to external radiation and the intake of radioactive substances released from the waste packages and their controlled discharge into the environment. The effects of external radiation are restricted by limiting the dose rate of the waste packages and by radiation shielding in the repository as well as by administrative measures. The effects of the release of radioactive substances into the environment are kept to a minimum by the barriers of the waste form, the packaging, the sealing of filled emplacement rooms, and by dilutions in the case of spreading in air and water. For conservative reasons, with respect to the environment, a sedimentation of airborne radionuclides in the repository is not assumed. (b) Exposure of the operating staff and of the environment of the plant to radiation due to radioactive substances released as a result of mechanical and/ or thermal loads on the waste packages in the operational phase (assumed incidents). Konrad Visit Report Page 221 of 291

The radiological effects affecting the staff and the environment of the repository are mainly due to the release of radioactive substances from the waste packages due to mechanical and/or thermal impacts. They are limited by precautionary measures, by the barriers of the waste form, the packaging, the underground facility, and by dilution when spreading in the atmosphere. The limit of radionuclide – specific activity is determined by comparing the exposure of the critical organ with the respective incident dose limit. The selected individual radionuclides cover all the radionuclides with half- lives of more than 10 days, which occur in the radioactive waste intended for disposal in the Konrad repository and for which dose factors, at least for the inhalation and ingestion exposure paths, have been specified in the Radiation Protection Ordinance. (c) Decay heat of the radionuclides contained in the waste packages (thermal influence upon the host rock). In the Konrad repository it is intended to dispose of only radioactive waste with a negligible thermal effect on the host rock. This requirement is met when the temperature increase at the emplacement room wall due to the decay heat of the radionuclides contained in the waste does not exceed 3 K. This value is small as compared with the temperature variations to which the rock is subjected when cavities are driven, ventilated, and closed again. Such variations are up to about 20 K. On the basis of the temperature limitation mentioned above, activity limits for the waste packages are derived. (d) Criticality safety in the operational and post-closure phase (nuclear criticality). In the framework of the site-specific safety assessments, it was investigated whether critical assemblies could arise during the operational phase or whether a criticality incident may be possible in the post-closure phase by water access to the waste packages emplaced and leaching of the whole fissile material. The analysis has shown that the criticality safety is ensured by limiting the mass concentration of the fissile material (50 g per 100 l of waste form) and by determining a maximum permissible mass of fissile material per waste package. (e) Radiation exposure from radioactive substances released via the water path (long term safety assessment in the post-closure phase). On the basis of an evaluation of the geological and hydrogeological situation, it is assumed that in the post-closure phase of the Konrad repository an access of formation water to the radioactive waste will take place. The transition of radionuclides from the waste packages into the formation water and their migration with the water from the repository area through the geosphere to the surface water has been assessed in model calculations. Due to the long transit times of the transport medium from the repository to the biosphere, a potential radiation exposure in the biosphere results only for long lived radionuclides and their decay products and only after hundreds of thousands of years. This work was based on site-specific geological and hydrogeological data, a sufficiently detailed concept of the plant including the planned mode of operation, and data concerning the types, quantities and properties of the waste packages to be disposed of. (f) In order to pay attention to chemical impacts of certain waste package constituents and to demonstrate the safety of the Konrad repository in the post-closure phase possible releases of organic and inorganic substances via the water path are to be investigated. Harmful Konrad Visit Report Page 222 of 291

substances can only be released from a repository in geological formations via the water path. When the biosphere is reached, the harmful substances can primarily be taken up by man via the ingestion pathway, in particular via drinking water. Against this background, a possible pollution of the near-surface groundwater has been examined and evaluated with the help of very conservative model calculations. After having been dissolved in the subterranean water of the Konrad mine and diluted through dispersion and diffusion during transportation through the geosphere and in the Quarternary, the performed considerations are based on a comparison of calculated and limiting concentrations, i.e. the concentrations originating from organic and inorganic waste package constituents are compared to limitations of concentrations for chemical elements and organic and/or inorganic compounds in the near-surface groundwater and/or drinking water. Within the licensing procedure for the Konrad repository, it was shown that the respective organic and inorganic substances listed in particular in the appendix to the German Ordinance on Groundwater Protection as well as in further relevant documents may not reach or may reach the groundwater in a quantity so small as to obviate the danger of a deterioration of the near-surface groundwater, i.e. its harmful pollution or a detrimental change of its characteristics. Taking into consideration the chosen approach to perform a conservative study, it must be assumed in reality, that much lower concentrations of the organic and inorganic substances will occur in the near-surface groundwater.

3. KONRAD WASTE ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS

The derivation of requirements on radioactive waste with negligible heat generation basically started from the point of view that a flexible system of requirements should be established, which is not only tailored to the radioactive waste presently produced but can further be adopted in respect to future developments in the waste conditioning. The waste generators thus do not need to meet "general" requirements but have the possibility of applying and meeting the requirements which are specifically applicable to their radioactive waste. Naturally, such a procedure results in a set of requirements being considerably extended and be- coming more complicated. The advantages offered to the waste generators (particularly with respect to the expected period of operation of the Konrad repository of several decades) prevail, however, over such disadvantage. The system of requirements on waste packages to be emplaced in the Konrad repository is formulated in such a way that it first describes the general aspects which must be fulfilled by the waste packages and then turn into more specific requirements on the waste forms, the packagings and the radionuclide inventories. The various waste forms are condensed into six waste form groups; the waste packages are assigned to two waste container classes. The safety related requirements on the quality of the waste form and of the packaging have been elaborated for these groups and classes, respectively. From the individual safety assessments admissible activities of radionuclides and radionuclide groups (non-specified alpha and beta/gamma emitters) per waste package have been derived depending on waste form group, waste container class or standardised waste container. Konrad Visit Report Page 223 of 291

As the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements are the result of the above-mentioned individual safety assessments, the requirements derived are independent of one another and must be met separately.

3.1 BASIC REQUIREMENTS

Two general basic requirements must be fulfilled by the waste packages to be disposed of. These are: (a) compliance with the requirements derived from the site-specific safety assessments performed for the Konrad repository; (b) prohibition of mixing non-radioactive waste which is to be disposed of in compliance with the Waste Disposal Law (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz) with radioactive waste.

3.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ON WASTE PACKAGES

The general requirements on waste packages reflect various boundary conditions allowed for in the planning work. Part of these requirements (a) have served as input data for the safety assessments (e.g., the local dose rate and the non- adherent surface contamination); (b) have been inferred from the handling and stacking of the waste packages (e.g., the maximum mass and the mass distribution of a shipping unit); (c) are connected with the documentation (e.g., the identification of the waste packages and the waste data sheet).

3.3 REQUIREMENTS ON WASTE FORMS

The various waste forms to be disposed of must fulfil the basic requirements and the additional basic requirements if an immobilisation material (e.g., cement or bitumen) is used; as well as the special requirements formulated for the six waste form groups. The basic requirements which are to be met by all waste forms must always be complied with. These requirements result from the objective of avoiding possible contamination caused, e.g., by free moving liquids or fire due to spontaneous ignition. As a result of the safety assessment of the representative incidents assumed, it was possible to condense the various waste forms with similar properties (i.e., with a similar radionuclide release behaviour due to mechanical and/or thermal loads) into waste form groups. This allowed the definition of six groups differing in the requirements which have been derived for the quality of a waste form.

3.3.1 Basic requirements

All waste forms must be solid or solidified and they must neither rot nor ferment. The content of the liquids and gases in bottles, ampoules etc. and the content or release of free moving liquids was Konrad Visit Report Page 224 of 291

regulated and is to be limited. Furthermore, no self-igniting or explosive materials are permitted and the concentration by mass of fissile materials is restricted to 50 g per 100 litres of waste form. The processing of radioactive waste in a packaging is permitted if the safety related barrier func- tions of the packaging are not adversely affected. Immobilised waste must have completely set or must be completely solidified. If, for example, solid radioactive waste are cast or if the void spaces between inner packagings are filled, suitable free flowing immobilisation materials must be used which can be consolidated, for example, by vibration. Contaminated liquids may be used for the mixing of the immobilisation material if the quality requirements of the respective waste form group are fulfilled and if compatibility with those materials to be cast is guaranteed. Possible chemical reactions between the radioactive waste, the immobilisation material and the packaging must be limited to a safety related permissible level.

3.3.2 Waste form groups

The waste forms are to be assigned to one of the following waste form groups:

group 1 - Bitumen and plastic products; group 2 - Solid matter; group 3 - Metallic solid matter; group 4 - Compacted waste; group 5 - Cemented / concreted waste; group 6 - Concentrates. There are specific requirements which are to be fulfilled by each of the waste form groups. If a waste form is, e.g., assigned to group 1, it must be guaranteed that the basic requirements are met. All waste forms can therefore be assigned to group 1. If an assignment to other groups is made, specific requirements must be fulfilled in addition to the basic requirements. For example, compacted waste must be compacted with a pressure of at least 30 MPa into an inherently stable form, and concentrates must consist of a non-combustible solid with a compressive strength of at least 10 N/mm². The specific requirements on a waste form result from the limitation of radioactive substances released in the case of an incident and are thus connected with the activity concentration in a waste package. An increased quality of the waste form and, by analogy, of the waste container means that the permissible activity in a package can be increased from waste form group 1 to waste form group 6. This demonstrates the very close connection between waste form, packaging and radionuclide inventory and their interdependence and interaction with respect to the requirements to be met. The waste forms can be assigned to those waste form groups whose specific requirements they fulfil. No generally valid rule can be defined for the "correct" assignment of a waste form to a waste form group. However, careful consideration must be given by the waste generators to the Konrad Visit Report Page 225 of 291

properties of the waste form, the packaging selected and the radionuclide inventory of each waste package.

3.3.3 Exhausting of activity limiting values

According to the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements the maximum permissible activities in the waste container class I can be exhausted without fulfilling the increased requirements on the waste form quality as they are required, for instance, in the waste form class 5. This possibility is given when the waste form is included in a packaging which shows a specially defined stability against mechanical loads. This stability is going beyond the design characteristics required up to now in the waste container class I. When keeping these quality characteristics the respective waste form can exhaust the activity limiting values of waste form classes 5 and 6. When the waste forms are packed in a container assigned to waste container class II, they can exhaust the permissible limiting values of this class. It is not differentiated according to the waste form groups; the basic requirements have to be met at any rate.

3.3.4 Filling of waste packagings

The filling of packagings must be performed in such a way that the limits of the local dose rate complying with the transport regulations are not exceeded and that the packagings are not unduly damaged by the waste forms. The packagings should be filled as completely as possible in order to minimise the residual voids and a uniform mass distribution should be ensured during transport, handling and stacking.

3.4 REQUIREMENTS ON WASTE CONTAINERS

Radioactive waste forms must be packed into packagings for transport, handling and stacking. The waste packagings must be manufactured in accordance with the conditions established in tests for packagings. In parallel to the waste forms and waste form groups, respectively, the waste containers to be used must fulfil the basic requirements and the special requirements formulated for the two waste container classes. The basic requirements must always be met. The specific requirements again resulted from the safety assessment of the representative incidents assumed.

3.4.1 Basic requirements

Standardised packagings are to be used for the disposal of radioactive waste in the planned Konrad repository (Table 1). Two types of cylindrical concrete packagings and three types of cylindrical cast iron packagings may be used as well as six different types of box-shaped packagings (containers) which might be manufactured from sheet steel, concrete or cast iron. 200-l and 400-l-drums will not be accepted as single waste packages and must be packed into containers. Packagings which are used for radioactive waste arising from the reprocessing of spent fuel elements from German nuclear power plants by COGEMA in France, may differ from the standardised packagings. Konrad Visit Report Page 226 of 291

Packagings must be designed in such a way that their stackability in the repository is ensured for a height of at least 6 m without adverse effects on their tightness and integrity. When the tightness has been specified, the packagings must ensure this tightness by their design or by an appropriate inner packaging with suitable tightness. On delivery, the packagings must be free of apparent corrosive and mechanical damages which adversely affect their tightness and integrity.

3.4.2 Waste container classes

The release of radionuclides from a waste package due to an incident is essentially determined by the barrier properties of the packaging during and after the incident. According to the barrier quality of the containers or packagings in the case of the assumed incidents, a distinction is made between • Containers without increased requirements on the barrier properties (waste container class I); and • Containers with increased requirements on the barrier properties (waste container class II). The two classes differ in the specific requirements which are defined for the quality of a packaging from a safety related point of view. In both cases the basic requirements on packagings must be fulfilled. The waste packagings can be assigned to those waste container classes whose specific requirements they fulfil. If these requirements of a waste container class are met, the activity limiting values of this class can be exhausted for the respective waste form group using the packaging concerned.

3.4.3 Inner packagings

For the packaging of waste forms it is permitted to use inner packagings such as, for example, 200-l- and 400-l-drums as well as metal cartridges or vessels. Such inner packagings must be declared. They may only be filled with waste forms which meet the requirements given in Section 0. No special requirements are imposed on inner packagings except that they should be constructed to guarantee a specified tightness of the packaging.

3.5 ACTIVITY LIMITATIONS

The permissible activities of radionuclides and radionuclide groups (non-specified alpha and beta/gamma emitters) per waste package result from the site-specific safety assessments for the operational and post-closure phase of the Konrad repository. The requirements derived from these investigations are to be met individually and independently of one another. In all cases the most restrictive requirement with respect to the permissible activities of the radionuclides and radionuclide groups in a waste package must be adhered to. Part of the activity limitations per waste package inferred in this way can by far exceed the activities actually existing or to be reckoned with in future. Konrad Visit Report Page 227 of 291

3.5.1 Normal operation of the repository

Volatile radionuclides have been identified as being of greatest importance for the normal operation of the planned Konrad repository. As a result of the respective safety assessment, permissible activity values per waste package were derived for four radionuclides and two radionuclide groups (Table 2). Different chemical forms (e.g., unspecified tritium, HTO and tritium in metals) were taken into consideration. With respect to the requirements elaborated, it is only necessary to distinguish between the waste form group metallic solid matter and the other waste form groups. A distinction is made for packagings with and without specified tightness (annual portion of release less than 0.01 to less than 0.0001). The activity values derived depend on the waste form as well as on the tightness of the packaging and can be exhausted independently by each radionuclide and radionuclide group. The amount of activity emplaced will be balanced for each year of operation. If the balancing for a certain radionuclide or a certain radionuclide group for a current year of operation shows that the approximate values for the activity emplaceable per year in the Konrad repository will not be exhausted, it is then possible to emplace those waste packages which exceed the guaranteed values per waste package.

3.5.2 Assumed incidents

The incident analysis resulted in the establishing of six waste form groups and two waste container classes, as already mentioned, as well as in the derivation of activity limiting values for radionuclides which are radiologically most important (key radionuclides), other radionuclides and non-specified further alpha and beta/ gamma emitters. Activity limits for these radionuclides were given for each waste form group and waste container class I. For waste container class II, which has considerably higher activity limiting values, the limits were condensed for all six waste form groups because, in this case, the packaging represents the predominant barrier. As an example, the limits for key nuclides are compiled in Table 3. The activity limits are specified for individual radionuclides per waste package. If a waste package contains more than one radionuclide, a summation criteria must be applied, i.e., a sum-of-fractions rule to evaluate the activities to be disposed of for compliance with the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements.

3.5.3 Thermal requirements

In the Konrad repository only radioactive waste with negligible heat generation will be disposed of. As temperature variations of 3 K or more occur in the host rock due to seasonal temperature variations, this criterion was used to limit the activity concentration per waste package. Activity values per waste package were derived for key nuclides (Table 4) and other nuclides. As the heat generation of a radionuclide is a function of the decay energy and the specific activity, the long lived alpha emitters demand the major restrictions. The derived activity values may be exceeded if a radial and/or axial heat dilution is applied. A respective summation criterion must also be applied. Konrad Visit Report Page 228 of 291

3.5.4 Nuclear criticality safety

Within the scope of the investigations of the criticality safety, by analogy to the incident analysis and the assessment of the thermal influence upon the host rock, activity values have been determined for four radionuclides as a function of the standardised waste container used. These values may be exceeded if a radial and/or axial dilution is applied.

3.5.5 Long term safety in the post-closure phase

Model calculations for possibly occurring releases of radionuclides from the repository into the biosphere via water transport were carried out. Thus it could be demonstrated that the total activity in the Konrad repository at the beginning of the post-closure phase may amount to approximately 1.5 E+17 Bq for alpha emitters and 5.0 E+18 Bq for beta/gamma emitters (Table 6).

3.6 DELIVERY

Advance notice must be given before a waste package can be delivered to the repository. This is necessary in order to plan the emplacement campaigns for the different types of waste packages and to inform the deliverer of the scheduled time period for the disposal of his waste. A detailed description of a waste package is necessary for the quality assurance of waste packages and subsequent disposal. The relevant waste package properties which are to be documented must be declared in the waste data sheet. Furthermore, the data relevant to transport must be declared in the transport document. Data sheets for these purposes were drafted. Waste packages are to be delivered to the repository in shipping units. Cylindrical waste packages must be loaded on pool pallets. Containers are delivered and handled individually. Pool pallets and containers are handled using the spreader technique and must be equipped with the appropriate lifting lugs. The mass of the shipping units must not exceed 20 t and must be delivered in dry state.

Konrad Visit Report Page 229 of 291

Table 1: Survey of standardised cylindrical and box-shaped packagings for radioactive waste with negligible heat generation

External dimensions

No Designation Length/diameter: Width: Height: Gross volume: 3 mm mm mm m 1) 01 Cylindrical ø 1 060 – 1 370 1.2 concrete packaging type I 2) 02 Cylindrical ø 1 060 – 1 510 1.3 concrete packaging type II

03 Cylindrical cast ø 900 – 1 150 0.7 iron packaging type I

3) 04 Cylindrical cast ø 1 060 – 1 500 1.3 iron packaging type II

05 Cylindrical cast ø 1 000 – 1 240 1.0 iron packaging type III

4) 06 Container type I 1 600 1 700 1 450 3.9

07 Container type II 1 600 1 700 1 700 4.6

08 Container type III 3 000 1 700 1 700 8.7

4) 09 Container type IV 3 000 1 700 1 450 7.4

10 Container type V 3 200 2 000 1 700 10.9

11 Container type VI 1 600 2 000 1 700 5.4

1) Height: 1 370 mm + 90 mm lifting lug = 1 460 mm 2) Height: 1 510 mm + 90 mm lifting lug = 1 600 mm 3) Height: 1370 mm for FZK type 4) Stacking height: 1400 mm for FZK type

Container materials are e.g. sheet steel, reinforced concrete or cast iron.

Konrad Visit Report Page 230 of 291

Table 2: Activity values for radionuclides and radionuclide groups per waste package, resulting from the safety of the normal operation. Data in Bq per waste package

Radionuclide/ Packaging without Packaging with specified tightness radionuclide specified tightness group Annual portion of release

≤ 0.01 ≤ 0.001 ≤ 0.0001

Metallic Other Metallic Other Metallic Other Metallic Other solid waste solid waste solid waste solid waste matter form matter form matter form matter form groups groups groups groups Tritium - unspecified 3.0E+09 3.3E+09 3.3E+09 3.3E+09 - as HTO a) *) 7.4E+10 4.2E+12 8.4E+12 9.3E+12 b) *) 4.2E+10 9.4E+10 9.5E+10 9.5E+10 c) *) 3.0E+09 3.3E+09 3.3E+09 3.3E+09 - as HT 1.9E+11 1.9E+11 1.9E+11 1.9E+11 C-14 - unspecified or in volatile 8,.E+12 1.8E+08 9.2E+12 2.0E+08 9.2E+12 2.0E+08 9.2E+12 2.0E+08 form - volatile portion ≤ 10% 1.8E+09 2.0E+09 2.0E+09 2.0E+09 - volatile portion ≤ 1% 1.8E+10 2.0E+10 2.0E+10 2.0E+10 Kr-85 3.0E+10 3.0E+10 3.0E+10 3.0E+10 I-129 - unspecified 1.9E+07 1.9E+09 1.9E+10 1.9E+11 -on silver containing filters from off gas purification in reprocessing 1.9E+09 1.9E+11 1.9E+12 1.9E+13 plants Ra-226 -non- 9.0E+06 4.8E+10 4.8E+11 4.8E+12 immobilised -immobilised 1.4E+08 4.8E+10 4.8E+11 4.8E+12 further α-emitters including Pu- 1.9E+14 1.9E+16 1.9E+16 1.9E+16 241 further β-/γ-emitters excluding Pu- 241 3.7E+15 3.7E+17 3.7E+17 3.7E+17 d) *) 3.7E+13 3.7E+15 3.7E+15 3.7E+15 e) *) *) Total activity in the waste form without tritium activity: a) < 1010 Bq, b) < 1010 Bq to < 1012 Bq, c) ≥ 1012 Bq. Percentage (mass) of water resp. of residual moisture in the waste form d) < 1%, e) ≥ 1%. Konrad Visit Report Page 231 of 291

Table 3: Activity limiting values for key radionuclides and alpha and beta/gamma emitters resulting from the incident analysis. Data in Bq per waste package

Waste container class I Waste container Radionuclide/ class II radionuclide group Waste form group Waste form groups

01 02 03 04 05 06 01-06 I-129 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 4.3E+08 1.1E+10 Cl-36 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 6.0E+09 1.4E+11 I-125 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 2.1E+10 5.1E+11 Ac-227 5.1E+07 2.6E+09 6.4E+09 1.6E+10 5.1E+10 5.1E+10 1.3E+12 Pb-210 1.4E+08 5.0E+09 1.7E+10 4.3E+10 1.4E+11 1.4E+11 3.4E+12 Se-79 7.0E+08 2.4E+10 8.7E+10 2.1E+11 7.0E+11 7.0E+11 1.7E+13 Sn-126 7.3E+08 2.6E+10 9.1E+10 2.1E+11 7.3E+11 7.3E+11 1.9E+13 Cd-113m 7.3E+08 2.6E+10 9.1E+10 2.1E+11 7.3E+11 7.3E+11 1.9E+13 Ra-228 7.3E+08 2.7E+10 9.1E+10 2.1E+11 7.3E+11 7.3E+11 1.9E+13 Sr-90 8.6E+08 3.0E+10 1.1E+11 2.7E+11 8.6E+11 8.6E+11 2.1E+13 Ag-108m 9.6E+08 3.4E+10 1.2E+11 3.0E+11 9.6E+11 9.6E+11 2.3E+13 Am-242m 7.0E+08 3.6E+10 8.7E+10 2.1E+11 7.0E+11 7.0E+11 1.7E+13 Nb-94 1.1E+09 3.9E+10 1.4E+11 3.6E+11 1.1E+12 1.1E+12 2.7E+13 Na-22 2.3E+09 8.0E+10 2.9E+11 7.3E+11 2.3E+12 2.3E+12 5.7E+13 Rb-87 3.4E+09 1.2E+11 4.1E+11 1.1E+12 3.4E+12 3.4E+12 8.4E+13 Eu-152 4.4E+09 1.6E+11 5.4E+11 1.4E+12 4.4E+12 4.4E+12 1.1E+14 Co-60 5.0E+09 1.7E+11 6.1E+11 1.6E+12 5.0E+12 5.0E+12 1.2E+14 Cs-137 5.1E+09 1.9E+11 6.4E+11 1.7E+12 5.1E+12 5.1E+12 1.3E+14

Konrad Visit Report Page 232 of 291

Table 4: Activity limiting values for key radionuclides and alpha and beta/gamma emitters resulting from the analysis of the thermal influence upon the host-rock. Data in Bq per waste package

Concrete packaging Cast iron packaging Radionuclide/ radionuclide *) Type I Type II Type I Type II Type II Type III group

Th-232 6.8E+09 7.4E+09 4.3E+09 7.4E+09 6.8E+09 5.8E+09 U-235 7.4E+09 8.1E+09 4.7E+09 8.1E+09 7.4E+09 6.3E+09 U-233 9.0E+09 9.8E+09 5.7E+09 9.8E+09 9.0E+09 7.7E+09 Th-230 9.7E+09 1.1E+10 6.1E+09 1.1E+10 9.7E+09 8.3E+09 Pa-231 1.0E+10 1.1E+10 6.5E+09 1.1E+10 1.0E+10 8.7E+09 U-234 1.3E+10 1.4E+10 8.3E+09 1.4E+10 1.3E+10 1.1E+10 Cm-248 1.5E+10 1.7E+10 9.7E+09 1.7E+10 1.5E+10 1.3E+10 Np-237 1.7E+10 1.8E+10 1.1E+10 1.8E+10 1.7E+10 1.4E+10 Cm-247 1.8E+10 1.9E+10 1.1E+10 1.9E+10 1.8E+10 1.5E+10 Pu-244 2.4E+10 2.6E+10 1.5E+10 2.6E+10 2.4E+10 2.0E+10 Ra-226 2.4E+10 2.6E+10 1.5E+10 2.6E+10 2.4E+10 2.0E+10 U-238 2.7E+10 2.9E+10 1.7E+10 2.9E+10 2.7E+10 2.3E+10 Cm-245 4.6E+10 5.0E+10 2.9E+10 5.0E+10 4.6E+10 3.9E+10 Ac-227 1.3E+11 1.4E+11 8.1E+10 1.4E+11 1.3E+11 1.1E+11 Am-242m 1.8E+11 2.0E+11 1.2E+11 2.0E+11 1.8E+11 1.6E+11 Ra-228 1.9E+11 2.1E+11 1.2E+11 2.1E+11 1.9E+11 1.6E+11 Nb-94 2.5E+11 2.8E+11 1.6E+11 2.8E+11 2.5E+11 2.2E+11 Pu-238 4.5E+11 4.9E+11 2.8E+11 4.9E+11 4.5E+11 3.8E+11 Pb-210 7.5E+11 8.1E+11 4.7E+11 8.1E+11 7.5E+11 6.4E+11 Ca-41 8.5E+11 9.2E+11 5.4E+11 9.2E+11 8.5E+11 7.2E+11 Ag-108m 1.3E+12 1.4E+12 8.3E+11 1.4E+12 1.3E+12 1.1E+12 Cl-36 1.3E+12 1.4E+12 8.3E+11 1.4E+12 1.3E+12 1.1E+12 Be-10 1.3E+12 1.4E+12 8.3E+11 1.4E+12 1.3E+12 1.1E+12 Sn-126 1.7E+12 1.8E+12 1.1E+12 1.8E+12 1.7E+12 1.4E+12 Rb-87 1.9E+12 2.1E+12 1.2E+12 2.1E+12 1.9E+12 1.6E+12 Co-60 2.6E+12 2.9E+12 1.7E+12 2.9E+12 2.6E+12 2.2E+12 Ar-39 2.7E+12 2.9E+12 1.7E+12 2.9E+12 2.7E+12 2.3E+12 Cs-137 4.5E+12 4.9E+12 2.8E+12 4.9E+12 4.5E+12 3.8E+12 Ni-63 3.8E+13 4.1E+13 2.4E+13 4.1E+13 3.8E+13 3.2E+13 Fe-55 1.5E+15 1.6E+15 9.4E+14 1.6E+15 1.5E+15 1.3E+15

further α-emitters 6.2E+10 6.8E+10 4.0E+10 6.8E+10 6.2E+10 5.3E+10

further β-/γ-emitters 3.4E+12 3.7E+12 2.1E+12 3.7E+12 3.4E+12 2.9E+12

*) Type FZK Konrad Visit Report Page 233 of 291

Table 5: Activity limiting values for key radionuclides and alpha and beta/gamma emitters resulting from the analysis of the thermal influence upon the host rock. Data in Bq per waste package

Container Radionuclide/ radionuclide group Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI

Th-232 2.0E+10 2.2E+10 4.8E+10 4.0E+10 5.6E+10 2.8E+10 U-235 2.2E+10 2.4E+10 5.3E+10 4.4E+10 6.2E+10 3.1E+10 U-233 2.7E+10 2.9E+10 6.4E+10 5.3E+10 7.5E+10 3.7E+10 Th-230 2.9E+10 3.1E+10 6.9E+10 5.7E+10 8.0E+10 4.0E+10 Pa-231 3.0E+10 3.3E+10 7.2E+10 6.0E+10 8.4E+10 4.2E+10 U-234 3.9E+10 4.2E+10 9.3E+10 7.7E+10 1.1E+11 5.4E+10 Cm-248 4.5E+10 5.0E+10 1.1E+11 9.1E+10 1.3E+11 6.3E+10 Np-237 5.0E+10 5.4E+10 1.2E+11 9.9E+10 1.4E+11 7.0E+10 Cm-247 5.3E+10 5.8E+10 1.3E+11 1.1E+11 1.5E+11 7.4E+10 Pu-244 7.0E+10 7.7E+10 1.7E+11 1.4E+11 2.0E+11 9.8E+10 Ra-226 7.1E+10 7.8E+10 1.7E+11 1.4E+11 2.0E+11 9.9E+10 U-238 7.8E+10 8.6E+10 1.9E+11 1.6E+11 2.2E+11 1.1E+11 Cm-245 1.3E+11 1.5E+11 3.2E+11 2.7E+11 3.8E+11 1.9E+11 Ac-227 3.8E+11 4.1E+11 9.1E+11 7.6E+11 1.1E+12 5.3E+11 Am-242m 5.4E+11 5.9E+11 1.3E+12 1.1E+12 1.5E+12 7.6E+11 Ra-228 5.6E+11 6.1E+11 1.3E+12 1.1E+12 1.6E+12 7.8E+11 Nb-94 7.5E+11 8.2E+11 1.8E+12 1.5E+12 2.1E+12 1.1E+12 Pu-238 1.3E+12 1.5E+12 3.2E+12 2.7E+12 3.7E+12 1.9E+12 Pb-210 2.2E+12 2.4E+12 5.3E+12 4.4E+12 6.2E+12 3.1E+12 Ca-41 2.5E+12 2.7E+12 6.0E+12 5.0E+12 7.0E+12 3.5E+12 Ag-108m 3.9E+12 4.2E+12 9.3E+12 7.8E+12 1.1E+13 5.4E+12 Cl-36 3.9E+12 4.2E+12 9.3E+12 7.8E+12 1.1E+13 5.4E+12 Be-10 3.9E+12 4.3E+12 9.3E+12 7.8E+12 1.1E+13 5.5E+12 Sn-126 5.0E+12 5.4E+12 1.2E+13 1.0E+13 1.4E+13 7.0E+12 Rb-87 5.6E+12 6.1E+12 1.3E+13 1.1E+13 1.6E+13 7.8E+12 Co-60 7.8E+12 8.5E+12 1.9E+13 1.6E+13 2.2E+13 1.1E+13 Ar-39 8.0E+12 8.7E+12 1.9E+13 1.6E+13 2.2E+13 1.1E+13 Cs-137 1.3E+13 1.4E+13 3.2E+13 2.6E+13 3.7E+13 1.8E+13 Ni-63 1.1E+14 1.2E+14 2.7E+14 2.2E+14 3.1E+14 1.6E+14 Fe-55 4.4E+15 4.8E+15 1.1E+16 8.8E+15 1.2E+16 6.2E+15

further α-emitters 1.8E+11 2.0E+11 4.4E+11 3.7E+11 5.2E+11 2.6E+11

further β-/γ-emitters 1.0E+13 1.1E+13 2.4E+13 2.0E+13 2.8E+13 1.4E+13

Konrad Visit Report Page 234 of 291

Table 6: Permissible activities of relevant radionuclides and radionuclide groups at the end of the operational phase of the Konrad repository

Radionuclide/ Activity radionuclide group [Bq]

H-3 6.0E+17

C-14 4.0E+14

I-129 7.0E+11

Ra-226 4.0E+12

Th-232 5.0E+11

U-235 2.0E+11

U-236 1.0E+12

U-238 1.9E+12

Pu-239 2.0E+15

Pu-241 2.0E+17

Total α-emitters 1.5E+17

Total β-/γ-emitters 5.0E+18

Konrad Visit Report Page 235 of 291

Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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

Appendix 10

German Approach To Radioactive Waste (LLW, ILW) Disposal

Konrad Visit Report Page 236 of 291

GERMAN APPROACH TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE (LLW, ILW) DISPOSAL

Peter W. Brennecke Consultant Braunschweig, Germany [email protected]

Visit of the Canadian Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project Joint Review Panel Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Salzgitter, Germany, October 22 and 23, 2012

Konrad Visit Report Page 237 of 291

Approach to Radioactive Waste Disposal in Germany

− Decision on the basic approach to radioactive waste disposal in the Federal Republic of Germany already taken by 1960. − Disposal of all types of solid or solidified radioactive waste (short-lived and long-lived, non-heat generating and heat generating including spent nuclear fuel) in deep geological formations.

− Exclusion of liquid and gaseous radioactive waste disposal (appropriate conditioning required). Konrad Visit Report Page 238 of 291

Basic Responsibilities

The Federal Government (Bund) has to construct facilities for engineered long-term storage and disposal of radioactive waste (Section 9a, Atomic Energy Act)

Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) is the competent authority for the construction and the operation of repositories (Section 23, Atomic Energy Act) Konrad Visit Report Page 239 of 291 Responsibilities for Radioactive Waste Disposal in Germany according to Nuclear Law

BMU Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

Regulator

BGR Geoscientific experts BfS Federal Office for Radiation Protection Implementor Federal State Authority Contractors (e.g., NMU) Licensing Authority (e.g., DBE, TÜV) Operation (Nuclear Law)

Repository Licence Konrad Visit Report Page 240 of 291

Konrad Repository (LLW, ILW, short - lived and long - lived) Konrad Visit Report Page 241 of 291 Konrad Repository (1)

History Abandoned iron ore mine

Salzgitter, Federal State Location of Lower Saxony, Germany

Coral Oolite, about 150 Host rock million years old

Emplacement 800 m (to 1,300 m) depth

Mudstone overburden Main 300 m to 400 m thick; no characteristics connection to near - surface groundwater Konrad Visit Report Page 242 of 291 Konrad Repository (2)

Type of waste Radioactive waste with negligible heat generation (i.e., LLW and ILW, short-lived and long-lived, solid or solidified) Volume of Planned: about 650,000 m3 waste packages Licensed: max. 303,000 m3

Total activity Licensed: 5.0 · 1018 Bq β/γ-emitter 1.5 · 1017 Bq α-emitter

Emplacement technique Stacking of cylindrical and box-shaped waste packages

Period of operation 30 or 40 years - to be decided

Konrad Visit Report Page 243 of 291

Waste Acceptance Process (1)

− Responsibility of Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS - Federal Office for Radiation, operator of the Konrad repository) : Preparation of waste acceptance requirements and waste package quality control / quality assurance measures to demonstrate the fulfilment of the waste acceptance requirements. − Preparation and examination of the Konrad waste acceptance requirements and waste package quality control / quality assurance measures as part of the Konrad repository licensing procedure. − Approval of those requirements and measures in the licensing decision of May 2002 as well as in subsequent administrative court cases.

Konrad Visit Report Page 244 of 291

Waste Acceptance Process (2)

− Responsibility of the operators of nuclear facilities (waste generators): conditioning of radioactive waste (LLW, ILW) according to the Konrad waste acceptance requirements (cf. § 74 Radiation Protection Ordinance), demonstration of the fulfilment of the Konrad waste acceptance requirements and preparation of an appropriate waste package documentation to be examined by BfS. − Responsibility of the competent authority of the Federal State: Supervision of the nuclear safety of the conditioning facility and the correct performance of the conditioning process according to the measures and specifications approved by BfS Konrad Visit Report Page 245 of 291

Waste Acceptance Process (3)

− Responsibility of BfS (licensee and operator of the Konrad repository): examination of the waste package documentation and, if the requirements are fulfilled, approval of the waste package(s) for disposal in the Konrad repository. Konrad Visit Report Page 246 of 291

Conditioning of Radioactive Waste

− Definition: Those operations that produce a waste package suitable for handling, shipment, storage and/or disposal. Conditioning may include the conversion of the waste to a solid waste form, enclosure of the waste in containers, and, if necessary, providing an overpack. − Rationale: To be able to handle, to ship, to store and/or to dispose of radioactive waste particulary considering radiation protection issues. − Conditioning is carried out using stationary and/or mobile facilities.

Konrad Visit Report Page 247 of 291 Mobile Hydraulic Super Compactor FAKIR

Photo: GNS Konrad Visit Report Page 248 of 291 Mobile PETRA Drying Facility

Photo: GNS Konrad Visit Report Page 249 of 291 Metal Cutting Facility MARS

Photo: GNS Konrad Visit Report Page 250 of 291

Ordinance on the Protection against Damage and Injuries Caused by Ionizing Radiation - Radiation Protection Ordinance -

Chapter 3, Section 9: Radioactive Waste

• § 72 Planning for Incidence and Whereabouts of Radioactive Waste • § 73 Registration • § 74 Treatment and Packaging • § 75 Duties for the Transfer of Radioactive Waste • § 76 Delivery • § 77 Exemptions from Compulsory Delivery • § 78 Storage • § 79 Prohibition of Avoidance

Konrad Visit Report Page 251 of 291

Ordinance on the Protection against Damage and Injuries Caused by Ionizing Radiation - Radiation Protection Ordinance -

§ 74: Treatment and Packaging (1)….The competent authority for the safekeeping and disposal of radioactive waste as defined in the Atomic Energy Act defines all safety requirements for waste packages for disposal, as well as the provisions for the treatment of the waste contained therein, and assesses the suitability of the waste packages for disposal in accordance with these requirements and provisions. (2) For the treatment and packaging of radioactive waste, waste packages suitable for disposal are to be made in processes which have been authorized by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection….

Konrad Visit Report Page 252 of 291

Konrad Site - Specific Safety Assessments

− Normal operation − Assumed incidents − Thermal impact upon the host rock − Criticality safety − Long - term radiological effects

− Pollution of the near - surface groundwater (non - radioactive waste package constituents) Konrad Visit Report Page 253 of 291

Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements

Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements as of December 1995

− were prepared and examined within the Konrad repository licensing procedure, − form part of the Konrad license issued on May 22, 2002, − define the safety-related envelope or framework for all types of short - lived and long - lived radioactive waste with negligible heat generation (i.e., LLW and ILW) intended for disposal in the Konrad repository, − provide guidance to radioactive waste conditioning since their first publication (draft 1987), − are successfully applied by the waste generators and conditioners, and − are presently revised in a two-step-process in order to include additional requirements imposed by the licensing authority in the Konrad license and new findings.

Konrad Visit Report Page 254 of 291 Survey on the Structure of the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements (1) 1. Introduction 2. General basic requirements on radioactive waste to be disposed of 3. General requirements on waste packages - Local dose rate - Surface contamination - Depressurized delivery 4. Requirements on waste forms - Basic requirements - Waste form groups - Exhausting of activity limiting values - Filling of waste packages 5. Requirements on waste containers/packagings - Basic requirements - Waste container classes - Incident resistant packagings - Inner containers Konrad Visit Report Page 255 of 291 Survey on the Structure of the Konrad Waste Acceptance Requirements (2)

D = 1,060 mm H = 1,500 mm V = 1.3 m³

Photo: GNS Konrad Visit Report Page 257 of 291 Sheet Steel Container Type I

L = 1,600 mm W = 1,700 mm H = 1,450 mm V = 3.9 m³ Konrad Visit Report Page 258 of 291 Concrete Container Type IV

L = 3,000 mm W = 1,700 mm H = 1,450 mm V = 7.4 m³

Photo: GNS Konrad Visit Report Page 259 of 291

Approaches to Quality Control / Quality Assurance of Waste Packages

− Basic procedures to demonstrate the fulfilment of waste acceptance requirements:

• Process qualification with accompanying inspections (per campaign, campaign independent).

• Random checks of already produced waste packages.

• Waste container design testing of waste containers / packagings including the provision of quality assurance measures for the fabrication.

Konrad Visit Report Page 260 of 291

Two Variants of Process Qualification

− Campaign-independent • Homogeneous waste stream • More effort for qualification • Less effort for subsequent inspections

− Per Campaign • Less homogeneous primary waste • Less effort for qualification • More effort for subsequent inspections

Konrad Visit Report Page 261 of 291 Basic Procedures of Quality Control / Quality Assurance

Process Qualification: Random Checks: ― Relevant process conditions ―Used in principal for legacy to be laid down in a manual waste ―Verification of the suitability ―Control of 0.5 to 12 % of the of the process waste packages ―Subsequent inspections to ―Data that was determined verify the fullfilment of the under independent control is qualified process conditions not checked again ―Qualification per campaign or campaign-independent Konrad Visit Report Page 262 of 291 Campaign - Independent Process Qualification Konrad Visit Report Page 263 of 291 Quality Control by Random Checks

0.5 to 12 % Konrad Visit Report Page 264 of 291 Non - Destructive Testing Facilities

Segmented γ -Scanner dose rate and neutron Tomography System measurements simultaneous transmission Neutron Counter and emission measurement passive for spontaneous fission, using a 60Co -source active using Sb - Be - Neutrons Konrad Visit Report Page 265 of 291

Destructive Testing

Drilling Facility Drill Core Sample Konrad Visit Report Page 266 of 291 Waste Container Design Testing Mechanical Load - 5 m Drop Test Konrad Visit Report Page 267 of 291 Waste Container Design Testing Thermal Load - 800 °C, 1 h Konrad Visit Report Page 268 of 291 Shipment of Radioactive Material and Waste

− Area of the atomic law:

− IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material TS-R-1 (ST-1 Revised).

− ADR - European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road.

− Area of the dangerous goods transport law and the dangerous goods transport regulations:

− RID - Agreement for the International Carriage of the Dangerous Goods by Rail.

− GGVSE - Gefahrgutverordnung Strasse und Eisenbahn. Konrad Visit Report Page 269 of 291 Waste Packages To Be Shipped

200- l - Drum „Konrad“ Container MOSAIK Waste Container (IP ... Type A) (IP... Type B) (Typ A ... Type B) Konrad Visit Report Page 270 of 291 Konrad Licensing Procedure (1)

− On August 31, 1982, PTB applied for a license to turn the former iron ore mine into a repository. − Additional site investigations performed by BGR between 1982 and 1989. − Definition of “non - heat generating waste“: rock temperature increase < 3 K by waste package emplacement. − Final license application in April 1990 (version 4/90). − Public display of documents and public participation in 1991. − Longest public hearing in a German nuclear licensing process from September 1992 to March 1993 for 75 days.

Konrad Visit Report Page 271 of 291

Konrad Licensing Procedure (2)

− Agreement between the Federal Government and German utilities on June 14, 2000: • Termination of the Konrad licensing procedure according to law. • Withdrawal of application for immediate enforcement. − Withdrawal realized by BfS 3 days later. − License issued by the competent licensing authority NMU on May 22, 2002. − Duration of licensing procedure: about 20 years. Konrad Visit Report Page 272 of 291

Konrad Repository - Court Cases

− License was immediately sued by several communities and private persons. − Decision of the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) Lüneburg on March 8, 2006: • License issued for the Konrad repository on May 22, 2002, is legal. • Court rejected all safety - related objections of the plaintiffs. • Court denied possibility of lodging an appeal. − Plaintiffs complained about the non - admission of an appeal at the Federal Administrative Court (BVG Leipzig). − BVG Leipzig rejected complaint on March 27, 2007.

Konrad Visit Report Page 273 of 291

Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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

Appendix 11

Managing Past Disposal Practices and New Plans - German Case

Konrad Visit Report Page 274 of 291

MANAGING PAST DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND NEW PLANS - GERMAN CASE

Peter Brennecke [email protected] Braunschweig, Germany formerly Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) Salzgitter, Germany

ICEM 2011 The 14th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management Reims, France, September 25 - 29, 2011 Konrad Visit Report Page 275 of 291

Radioactive Waste Disposal in Germany

• Decision on the basic approach to radioactive waste disposal in the Federal Republic of Germany already taken in the beginning of the sixties. • Disposal of all types of solid or solidified radioactive waste (short-lived and long-lived, non-heat generating and heat generating including spent nuclear fuel) in deep geological formations. • Repository planning work including co-disposal of non- heat generating and heat generating radioactive waste.

• Exclusion of liquid and gaseous radioactive waste disposal (appropriate conditioning required)

2 Konrad Visit Report Page 276 of 291 Repository Sites in Germany

Exploration mine

Repository / URL to be closed

Repository to be closed

Licensed in 2002, under construction

3 Konrad Visit Report Page 277 of 291 Konrad Repository (1)

History Abandoned iron ore mine

Salzgitter, Federal State Location of Lower Saxony, Germany

Coral Oolite, about 150 Host rock million years old

Emplacement 800 m (to 1,300 m) depth

Mudstone overburden Main 300 m to 400 m thick; no characteristics connection to near - surface groundwater Konrad Visit Report Page 278 of 291 Konrad Repository (2)

Total activity Licensed: 5.0 · 1018 Bq β/γ-emitter 1.5 · 1017 Bq α-emitter

Emplacement technique Stacking of cylindrical and box-shaped waste packages

Period of operation 30 or 40 years - to be decided

Konrad Visit Report Page 279 of 291

Construction Work Shaft Area Konrad 1 (Hoisting Machine Building)

Konrad Visit Report Page 280 of 291 Mining Work - Reconstruction of Drifts Konrad Visit Report Page 281 of 291 Gorleben Exploration Mine

Shaft 2 Shaft 1

8 Konrad Visit Report Page 282 of 291 Investigation of the Gorleben Salt Dome

• In 1979 start of the above-ground investigation programme. • In 1986 start of the underground investigation programme by sinking two shafts for the excavation of the Gorleben salt dome. • Interuption of site investigations from Oct. 01, 2000, until Sept. 30, 2010 (Gorleben Moratorium). • Performance of a preliminary safety assessment with respect to the suitabiliy of the Gorleben site as well as to determine missing geoscientific and safety-relevant data. • International Peer Review Process to evaluate this assessment. • Continuation of the underground exploration since Nov. 11, 2010. • Introduction of a new communication and transparent information system; involvement of the local public and stakeholders in underground investigation activities.

9 Konrad Visit Report Page 283 of 291 Morsleben Repository (1)

10 Konrad Visit Report Page 284 of 291 Morsleben Repository (2)

- Radioactive waste disposal  Waste: about 36,800 m³ of solid and solidified LLW and ILW and 6,617 spent sealed radiation sources. 14  Total activity: about 3,4 x 10 Bq (relating to 2010).  Operation: 1971 - 1998. - Enhancement of geomechanical stability and integrity (central part)  Backfilling of 27 rooms (not used for waste disposal) with approx. 950,000 m³ of salt concrete from Oct. 2003 to Feb. 21, 2011. - Licensing procedure for the closure of the Morsleben repository  Application for closure in 1992 and 1997 (renewed).  Licensing documents available to the public from Oct. 22 to Dec. 21, 2009.  Public hearing to start on Oct. 13, 2011 (about 10,000 objectors, less than 400 objections).

11 Konrad Visit Report Page 285 of 291 Asse II Repository (1) Konrad Visit Report Page 286 of 291 Asse II Repository (2)

- Radioactive waste disposal  Waste: about 47,000 m³ of solid and solidified LLW and ILW. 15  Total activity: about 3,1 x 10 Bq (relating to 2002).

 Operation: 1967 - 1978. - Since 1988 inflow of saline solutions from the overburden (currently approx. 12 m3/day). - Reduced mine stability as cavities had not been backfilled for a long period of time. - Closure of the Asse II repository  2010: Basic decision in favour of retrieval and start of detailed planning work. Preparation of emplacement room investigations by drilling to get detailed information, e.g., on the status of waste packages disposed of.  Continuation of retrieval planning work (e.g., planning of a second shaft and a radioactive waste conditioning and storage facility).

13 Konrad Visit Report Page 287 of 291

Two Phases of German Radioactive Waste Management Policy

• 1960s to 1998 • Asse • Gorleben • Konrad • Morsleben • 1998 to 2009 • AkEnd: Repository site selection procedure • Conceptual and safety-related issues • Safety Requirements on the Disposal of Heat- Generating Radioactive Waste • VerSi: Ranking of potential repository sites by comparing safety assessments Konrad Visit Report Page 288 of 291 On-Going and Future Waste Disposal Activities

• Closing and sealing the Morsleben repository in a timely and transparent process. • Performance of emplacement room investigations at the Asse II repository to decide on retrievability (final decision on closure). • Continuation of Konrad repository construction (termination of construction work by 2019) and start of operation. • Performance of the Gorleben preliminary safety assessment to decide on the continuation of this project or its abandonment. • Involvement / participation of local communities and stakeholders (Gorleben repository project). • Achieving national consensus on radioactive waste disposal policy. • Preparation of new legal regulations on the selection of repository sites by the end of 2011.

15 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel

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

Appendix 12

Letters of Thanks