Geological disposal program of Switzerland

Lucoex-Conference and Workshop 2015 Geological disposal program of Switzerland June 2015 Tim Vietor

Geological repositories for Switzerland HLW repository (period analysed: 1 Mio. a) L/ILW repository (period analysed: 100 000 a) Option for 'combined repository' Monitoring and feasibility of 'easy' retrieval until final closure required 2

Swiss programme: Stepwise approach Demonstration of disposal feasibility (L/ILW: 1988, HLW: 2006) Site selection ('sectoral plan') - Stage 1: selection of siting regions (2008 2011) - Stage 2: selection of siting areas for surface facility within siting regions, narrowing down of siting regions to at least 2 for each repository type - Stage 3: selection of a site for each repository type & preparation of general licence application General licence (~ 2030) Construction licence (in situ URL: > 2030; L/ILW: > 2025; HLW: > 2035) Operation licence (L/ILW: ~ 2050; HLW: ~ 2060) Licence for closure 3

Site selection process: results of stage 1 (completed in Nov. 2011) 4 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

The 'Sectoral Plan' (the rules for site selection) 1 The documents Properties host rock Long term stability Process & responsibilities Criteria (safety, environmental impact, socio-economic issues) 13 criteria in 4 groups 1 available in English 6 Reliability of geological information Technical feasibility

Site selection: Starting point 'white map of Switzerland' 7

Site selection: Key principle first priority to safety 8

Site selection: Safety criteria 9

Site selection: Broad involvement of stakeholders Roles and responsibilities as well as information flow clearly defined Swiss Federal Office of Energy 10

Site selection: Broad involvement of stakeholders Roles and responsibilities as well as information flow clearly defined 11

Site selection: Broad involvement of stakeholders Roles and responsibilities as well as information flow clearly defined 12

At a large scale: Acceptable regions? Long-term stability (erosion, neotectonics) Spatial conditions (space, complexity) & explorability L/ILW repository (100'000 a) All of Switzerland possible But: geological complexity of Alps & Folded Jura acknowledged HLW repository (1 Million a) 'Mittelland' & eastern Tabular Jura possible Alps & Folded Jura excluded (longterm stability, spatial conditions) 14 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

Which host rocks? Quality as radionuclide barrier, sufficient strength, sufficient thickness After pre-selection of 26 potential host rocks: HLW repository: Opalinus Clay L/ILW repository: Opalinus Clay, 'Brauner Dogger', Effinger Schichten Example: Profile Marl (Helvetikum, Alps) 15 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015 Northern Switzerland

Siting regions: Locally, what needs to be avoided? (HLW) Regional fracture zones Zones to be avoided (Neotectonics) Densely structured zones Overdeepened gullies (glacial erosion) insufficient thickness / unsuitable depth of host rocks 16

Endpoint of stage 1: Siting regions developed in a systematic stepwise narrowing down process based on the requirements of sectoral plan accepted by Federal Council (Nov 30, 2011), based on thorough review by safety authorities and broad consultation are basis for subsequent stages of the site selection process 17

Endpoint of stage 1: participation formally organized Identification of communities to be formally involved in stage 2 (through regional conferences & working groups) more than 200 communities involved! 18

Site selection process: achievements in stage 2 (Status: June 2015) 19

Siting areas surface facilities: First proposals by Nagra Proposals for participatory process with regions (20 siting areas, January 2012) 22

In Switzerland, there is always somebody close by and this leads to strong public involvement through a participatory process (normally in a critical, but constructive manner) 23

Siting of surface facilities: Important factors / criteria Safety & technical feasibility - Access from existing rail / road network (distance, conflicts, ) - Situation at site (size, topography, geotechnical conditions,..) - Access to underground (groundwater, geotechnical conditions, ) - Safety «external events» (flooding/erosion, landslides, dams (breaching), military facilities, gas pipelines, ) Compatibility with land use planning & environmental impact legislation - Residential areas, nature conservation, landscape protection, forests, valuable farm land, wildlife, - Water protection (surface waters, groundwater (different levels of protection)) Integration into region - Current land use (used/unused industry, gravel pits, ) - Relation / distance to towns, villages, ; relation to recreational areas, parks, - Visibility, compatibility with landscape (skyline, ) 24

Siting of surface facilities: Important factors / criteria Safety & technical feasibility - Access from existing rail / road network (distance, conflicts, ) - Situation at site (size, topography, geotechnical conditions,..) - Access to underground (groundwater, geotechnical conditions, ) - Safety «external events» (flooding/erosion, landslides, dams (breaching), military facilities, gas pipelines, ) Compatibility with land use planning & environmental impact legislation - Residential areas, nature conservation, landscape protection, forests, valuable Different farm weighting land, wildlife, of criteria leads to different sites - Water (together protection with different (surface stakeholders: waters, groundwater regions, (different cantons) levels of protection)) Integration into region - Current land use (used/unused industry, gravel pits, ) - Relation / distance to towns, villages, ; relation to recreational areas, parks, - Visibility, compatibility with landscape (skyline, ) 25

Regional conference at work Discussions Visit at potential surface site 26 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

Siting areas surface facilities: Proposals analyzed Additional proposals; proposals discussed / analyzed by regions (20 + 13 siting areas) 27

Siting areas surface facilities: Result Siting areas designated by Nagra based on results of participatory process with regions (7 siting areas) 28 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

Narrowing-down process: The steps 1 Develop approach according to requirements 2 Identify priority host rocks (L/ILW geological repository) Dose calculations & qualitative evaluation criteria 3 Identify optimal siting perimeters (for each region) 4 Evaluate each siting region (optimal siting perimeter) Dose calculations & qualitative evaluation criteria 5 Safety-based comparison proposals for stage 3 A siting region can only be placed in reserve if it shows «clear disadvantages in terms of safety» compared to the others 30 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

Step 2: Selection of priority host rock (data) rock profile (west east); good data base role of 'hard layers (brittle deformation, potentially water conducting) priority host rock not sensitive to / affected by 'hard layers 31 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

Step 2: Selection of priority host rock (data) In siting regions with Opalinus Clay as host rock, the Opalinus Clay qualifies as priority host rock 32 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

Stage 2: Collection of additional field data 33 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

34 Datum/Autorenkürzel Filename

35 Datum/Autorenkürzel Filename

36 Datum/Autorenkürzel Filename

2D-seismics: regional tectonic elements Regionale Störungszone Zu meidende tekton. Zone Regionale Störungszone Zeitsektion, zu Illustrationszwecken vertikal überhöht Aktuelle Interpretation der 2D-Seismik 11-NS-20 (NL) 37 14.02.2015 17. GV CHGEOL T. Vietor, Nagra

Step 3: Identification of optimal siting perimeters Ensure sufficient overburden to account for future glaciations Distinguish: L/ILW (100 000 a) vs. HLW (1 Mio. a) for HLW and L/ILW: Differences between siting regions Avoid regional fracture zones & tectonically weak zones 38 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

Step 3: Identification of optimal siting perimeters Choose appropriate depth in order to avoid excessive geotechnically induced damage to host rock & engineered barriers Target depth based on: experimental observations (URL) geotechnical modelling FE experiment tunnel at Mont Terri 39

Step 3: Optimal siting perimeters HLW: optimal siting perimeters for the three siting regions 40

Step 3: Optimal siting perimeters L/ILW: optimal siting perimeters for the six siting regions 41

Step 4: Evaluation of siting regions Dose calculations (incl. prescribed parameter variations) all siting regions are acceptable 42

Step 4: Evaluation of siting regions Qualitative evaluation according to prescribed criteria (13 criteria, 40 indicators) all siting regions are acceptable HLW L/ILW 43 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

Step 5: Safety-based comparison Comparison of decision-relevant features and corresponding indicators clear differences that lead to clear disadvantages HLW L/ILW 44

Step 5: Safety-based comparison leads to proposal of Zürich Nordost and Jura Ost for the L/ILW-, the HLW- and for a combined repository 45

Documention: Main report & key reports and many reference reports; about 200 reports in total 46

47 The next steps

The next steps Site selection programme Review of Nagra s proposals by authorities consultation government decision on stage 2 Preparation of stage 3 Start of stage 3: further site-characterisation by 3D-seismics surveys and drilling program and preparation of the next waste management programme update of cost study (for payments into decommissioning & disposal fund) RD+D activities 48

Conclusions Sectoral plan provides a suitable framework for site selection process Significant progress made in site selection process over the last 7 years (since start of sectoral plan ) Priority to safety is broadly accepted (common denominator) Involvement of society through regional conferences & working groups successful (active co-operation) Key factors - Clearly defined stepwise process & criteria defined before start of site selection - Stakeholders in general prepared to engage and work together (and to accept basic rules defined beforehand) - Importance of strong process owner to keep project on track - Sufficient time available for the process 49

Thank you!

Step 3: Identification of optimal siting perimeters Choice of appropriate depth: deep enough to avoid effects by erosion relevant erosion processes general erosion glacial (over)deepening gulley erosion combinations p.m.: importance of future glaciations 51 Zu/130515 IAEA_Switzerland_Nagra_13 May 2015

Step 3: Identification of optimal siting perimeters Importance of future glaciations: analyses of past glaciations Distinguish: L/ILW (100 000 a) vs. HLW (1 Mio. a) for HLW and L/ILW: Differences between siting regions 52