Radioactive Waste Management 2009 S tability and Buffering Capacity of S tability and Buffering the Geosphere for Long-term Isolation of Radioactive Waste: Application to Capacity of the Geosphere Crystalline Rock for Long-term Isolation AS pt pa Geological settings selected as potential host formations for the deep geological disposal of radioactive licabilit of Radioactive Waste: waste are chosen for, among other assets, their long-term stability and buffering capacity against ty io a disruptive or destabilising events and processes. The NEA Integration Group for the Safety Case organised nn a workshop on geosphere stability to develop a better understanding of the scientific evidence and to d B Application to Crystalline Rock Cu arguments that contribute to confidence in the geological stability for deep geological disposal. ryffe sr tain Tthhaets ef opcruosceede doinng cs rypsrteaslelinnte tahned o outthcoerm teysp eosf ao f gheaorsdp, hferraec tsutraebdil itryo cwkso. rkTshheo wp,o hrkesldh oipn uNnodveermscboerre d2 0t0h7e, lling C ea fact that many such rocks are intrinsically stable environments that evolve extremely slowly and provide Rp Workshop Proceedings a oc good buffering against external events and processes. There is a good understanding of the processes ckity Manchester, United Kingdom and events that can affect crystalline rocks and, although there is less confidence in predicting exactly o when and where such events will occur and the volume of rock that will be affected, the extent of the f t 13-15 November 2007 h impacts on a geological repository can be confidently addressed using bounding approaches supported e by geological information from similar sites around the world. G e o s p h e r e f o r L o n g -t e r m I s o la t io n o f R a d io a c t iv e W a s www.nea.fr te -:HSTCQE=U[UZ[W: : (66 2009 03 1 P) € 65 ISBN 978-92-64-06056-2 N U C L E A R E N E R G Y A G E N C Y Cover_f.fm Page 1 Wednesday, April 7, 2004 11:00 AM Radioactive Waste Management Stability and Buffering Capacity of the Geosphere for Long-term Isolation of Radioactive Waste: Applications to Crystalline Rock Workshop Proceedings Manchester, United Kingdom 13-15 November 2007 © OECD 2009 NEA No. 6362 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when Japan became its first non-European full member. NEA membership today consists of 28 OECD member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities also takes part in the work of the Agency. The mission of the NEA is: – to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co- operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as – to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development. Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field. Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at:www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda. © OECD 2009 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) [email protected] the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC)[email protected]. Cover credits: SKB, Sweden; NEI, United States. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A safety case for a geological repository for high-level and/or long-lived radioactive waste aims at conveying reasoned and complementary arguments to illustrate and instil confidence in the performance of the disposal system. Potential geological host formations and their surroundings are chosen, in particular, for their long-term stability, their ability to accommodate the waste disposal facility, their ability to prevent or attenuate potential release of radioactivity (e.g. through their retention capacities), and their buffering capacity vis-à-vis external and internal perturbations. In building a safety case, it is therefore important to assess: • the features, events and processes (FEPs) that could influence the evolution of the geosphere; • the long-term stability of the favourable conditions displayed by the host formation; • the buffering capacity of the formation vis-à-vis perturbations. The key issue is to evaluate the resilience of the main safety functions of the geosphere (including its flow and transport properties) to natural perturbations. The relevance of various naturally occurring processes and events will depend upon the timescale to be considered, but timescales on the order of about one million years are typical. The NEA Integration Group for the Safety Case (IGSC) initiated the “geosphere stability” project to address the role and importance of geosphere stability, and to develop a better understanding of the scientific evidence and arguments that contribute to confidence in geological stability. Under this initiative, a first workshop in 2003 was devoted specifically to argillaceous settings. The second workshop, which is the subject of these proceedings, focused on crystalline rocks – a term that, in this context, encompassed all forms of hard, fractured rocks. The workshop took place on 13-15 November 2007 in Manchester, United Kingdom. In this workshop, the stability of a crystalline rock was broadly defined as the presence of thermal-hydrological-mechanical-chemical (THMC) conditions considered favourable for the safety of a radioactive waste repository. Stability, in this sense, does not imply that steady-state conditions exist. The geosphere is constantly evolving, although in many cases rather slowly, and such evolution is perfectly acceptable for safe geological disposal. What is important is that the geosphere's evolution is fully understood. The main functions of a crystalline host rock for a radioactive waste repository are to contribute to the isolation of the waste mainly by providing a favourable environment (e.g. chemically) for the repository, by contributing to retardation of radionuclide transport and by providing containment of waste. As a repository programme and understanding of the accompanying processes advance and mature, it is possible to differentiate these functions into more detailed requirements or sub-functions. Such detailed requirements of the crystalline host rock are intimately linked to the repository concept. 3 The workshop underscored the fact that many crystalline rocks are intrinsically stable environments, which provide good buffering against external events and processes. It is acknowledged that the properties and conditions of crystalline rocks evolve with time, but generally this evolution is limited and the erosion rates of such rocks are often extremely low. Furthermore, the geoscientific understanding of such evolutionary processes is advanced and it is therefore possible to place defensible bounds on many of these effects, without simply resorting to a very conservative approach in assessments. Regarding external disruptive events and processes for crystalline rock, the workshop concluded that there is, in general, good confidence in the understanding of their magnitudes, causes, characteristics and frequencies. There is less confidence in predicting where and when such a perturbation will occur and in understanding the volume of rock affected by a perturbation. Nevertheless, the extent to which a repository is affected by a perturbation can often be confidently addressed by using bounding and/or pessimistic approaches. These can be supported by the results of natural analogue studies (although relevant site-specific observations are viewed as providing stronger evidence than those from a generic natural analogue study). Any assessment of the long-term safety of a repository in crystalline rock will have to take into account uncertainties relating to geosphere stability. There are good examples of safety cases for a repository in crystalline rock where comprehensive accounts of geosphere stability issues are provided and where compliance with regulatory criteria is indicated or expected. The results of assessments of geosphere stability also provide feedback for repository siting and engineering with regard to factors such as its location, depth (e.g. providing transport paths with sufficient retardation, maintaining reducing conditions), layout (avoiding deformation zones and preferred tunnel orientations to minimise spalling) and design of the engineered barrier system (such as canister thickness and strength to ensure resilience to mechanical loads). This feedback is an important mechanism for addressing geosphere stability issues in a waste management programme. Participants agreed that the workshop had been a considerable success in helping to build confidence in the stability of crystalline rocks, which could act as hosts for a geological disposal facility for long-lived wastes. These proceedings synthesise the main outcomes of that workshop and present a compilation of the related supporting papers. 4 Acknowledgements On behalf of all the participants, the NEA wishes to express its gratitude to the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) for serving as host of the workshop and for its attendant support in logistical arrangements and financing. The NEA also acknowledges the contributions of the programme committee for the workshop: • Alan Hooper, NDA, United Kingdom, Chair • Johan Andersson, JA Streamflow, Sweden (representing Posiva) • Betsy Forinash, NEA Secretariat • Raymond Munier, SKB, Sweden • Koji Umeda, JAEA, Japan Finally, we extend our thanks to those who provided oral or poster presentations and to all participants for their enthusiasm and active engagement at the workshop. These proceedings were prepared under contract by Dr. Tim McEwen. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Scope and Objectives of the Workshop .............................................................................................. 13 Synthesis of the Workshop ................................................................................................................. 15 Poster Session ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 33 Session I General Framework: Crystalline Rocks as Host Formations Safety Functions of Crystalline Rock Formations in Deep Geological Disposal and Their Handling in a Safety Case – SKB’s SR-CAN Example ..................................................................................... 45 Regulatory Expectations Concerning the Confidence in Geosphere Stability and its Handling in an Environmental Safety Case ................................................................................................................. 57 Session II Examples of Key Processes Affecting the Geosphere for Crystalline Rock Likelihood of Tectonic Activity Affecting the Geological Stability of a Repository in Japan: Development of NUMO’s ITM Methodology .................................................................................... 67 Climate Change and its Potential Impact on Mechanical, Hydraulic and Chemical Conditions ........ 77 Uplift and Erosion: Potential Impact on the Geological Environment ............................................... 91 Predictability of the Evolution of Hydrogeological and Hydrogeochemical Systems; Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste in Crystalline Rocks ................................................................................. 99 Geological and Rock Mechanics Aspects of the Long-term Evolution of a Crystalline Rock Site... 109 Session III Arguments to Support Confidence in the Stability of Crystalline Rocks as Potential Host Formations Lithological History and Ductile Deformation: The Lessons for Long-term Stability of Large-scales Structures in the Olkiluoto ................................................................................................................ 123 7 Stability and Predictability in Younger Crystalline Rock System: Japanese Islands Case ............. 133 Developing Confidence in Stability and Predictability of a Repository in Unsaturated Tuffs ......... 147 Session IV Response and Resilience of Crystalline Rock to Natural Perturbations and Geosphere Evolution (buffering) Fracture Reactivation in Response to Seismic Events ...................................................................... 157 Buffering against Intrusion of Groundwater of Undesirable Composition ....................................... 173 Understanding shield Groundwater Flow Domain Evolution during the Quaternary Period to Build Confidence in Repository Long-term Safety ...................................................................... 185 Hydraulic and Hydrochemical Response to Seismic Events ............................................................ 197 Poster Session Discipline-integrated Modelling Approach for Describing the Olkiluoto Crystalline Site in Finland .......................................................................................................................................... 207 Study on Characterisation of Quaternary Tectonic Movement by Uplift Estimation using Fluvial Terraces ............................................................................................................................................. 217 Examination of Earthquake Ground Motion in the Deep Underground Environment of Japan ........ 227 Frequency of Fault Occurrence at Shallow Depths during Plio-pleistocene and Estimation of the Incident of New Faults ........................................................................................................... 235 The Role of the Geoshpere in Posiva’s Safety Case ......................................................................... 241 Understanding the Characteristics of Long-term Spatio-temporal Variation in Volcanism and the Continuity of the Related Phenomena for Estimating Regions of New Volcano Development . 247 Numerical Assessment of the Influence of Topographic and Climatic Perturbations on Groundwater Flow Conditions .................................................................................................... 257 Impacts of Natural Events and Processes on Groundwater Flow Conditions: A Case Study in the Horonobe Area, Hokkaido, Northern Japan ..................................................................................... 269 Groundwater Flow Prediction Method in Consideration of Long-term Topographic Changes of Uplift and Erosion ........................................................................................................................ 277 An Integrated Approach for Detecting Latent Magmatic Activity beneath Non-volcanic Regions: An Example form the Crystalline Iide Mountains, Northeast Japan ................................................ 289 8