Independent Peer Review of - Low Level Waste Repository Ltd

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Peer Review of LLWR Response to S9R2LLWR_2008-8-2Version 1convinced that the proposed system will achieve this. For example, weare not convinced that with their current proposed design, the verticaldrains would continue to operate for the required period and would notbecome clogged. The peer review panel considers that a simpler facilitydesign with a permeable vault base might be better.4.2.5 Radiological Capacity and CFA of Waste133. Given the various uncertainties that exist (e.g., surrounding whichregulatory criteria to apply, the interim nature of the current safetyassessment, and the on-going LLW strategy development process), thepeer review panel agrees with the SLC that it is correct not to make firmdecisions at this time on the establishment of new radiological capacitylimits or conditions for waste acceptance of waste.TerraSalus Limited 30 2 September 2008
Peer Review of LLWR Response to S9R2LLWR_2008-8-2Version 15 Conclusions5.1 Peer Review134. The peer review panel considers that the submission made in response toRequirement 2 and provided to the EA on 1 May 2008 had improvedconsiderably in the time since the peer review panel reviewed the work inearly April 2008. Many of the changes and developments have resolvedpeer review comments, and the SLC’s project team has acknowledged thebenefit provided by the peer review.135. Inevitably and appropriately some peer review comments and issuesremain to be dealt with. The SLC has indicated that it is planning furtherwork to address the remaining issues in the lead up to the next safety case.136. Peer review is an ongoing process and will need to continue throughoutthe programme leading to the next safety case. Planning of peer reviewactivities needs to be an integral part of planning for the programmeleading to the next safety case.5.2 Addressing the Requirements137. The peer review panel considers that the submission has certainlyprovided a wide range of information that goes well beyond the originalwording of Requirement 2 as stated in the Authorisation.138. The submission includes the outcome of a wide-ranging risk managementstudy and addresses many issues relevant to the radiological capacity ofthe site. The submission does not demonstrate that risks are ALARA, butit does indicate a firm commitment to the next safety case and to making arobust ALARA demonstration. This seems appropriate given the variousuncertainties that exist.5.3 Proposed Strategy139. With regard to the strategy being proposed for the LLWR, the peer reviewpanel agrees with the SLC that:A final site cap will be essential.A period of active institutional control after waste disposals ceasewill be essential.Coastal defences cannot be relied on to protect the LLWR fromerosion in the long-term (i.e., for timescales relevant to long-livedradionuclides).TerraSalus Limited 31 2 September 2008
Page 3: Peer Review of LLWR Response to S9R
Page 6 and 7: Peer Review of LLWR Response to S9R

Independent Peer Review of - Low Level Waste Repository Ltd

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?