Deliverable 2.

2
Gap Analysis
31.5.2021 version Final
Dissemination level: Public

Timothy Schatz
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Kivimiehentie 3, Espoo, Finland

email: [email protected]

This project has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2019-2020 under grant agreement No 945098.
Project acronym Project title Grant agreement No.
PREDIS PRE-DISposal management of radioactive waste 945098
Deliverable No. Deliverable title Version
D2.2 Gap Analysis Final
Type Dissemination level Due date
Report Public M9
Lead beneficiary WP No.
VTT 2
Main author Reviewed by Accepted by
Timothy Schatz (VTT) Internal: Anthony Banford (NNL), Maria Oksa (VTT)
Christophe Bruggeman (SCK
CEN), PREDIS Partners. External:
Piet Zuidema, Tara Beattie
Key Contributing author(s) Pages
Erika Holt (VTT), Bernd Grambow (IMT), Maxime Fournier (CEA), David Lambertin (CEA) 68
Thierry Mennecart (SCK CEN), Ernst Niederleithinger (BAM)

Abstract
A Gap Analysis was conducted in two separate phases: 1) to evaluate industry and stakeholder needs for
research, development and demonstration in predisposal waste management technologies and initially
define the scope of the PREDIS project and 2) to further review, refine and prioritise project plans against
identified needs and discern additional needs. Information was gathered by a variety of methods, including
quantitative and qualitative surveys, live polling, interviews with end-users, webinar presentations,
discussion groups and literature reviews. While a strong and important feedback cycle from industry end
user group members representing waste generators, waste owners and waste management organisations
was already implemented during the project preparation (gap analysis phase 1), this outreach was
significantly strengthened and intensified after the launch of PREDIS to collect additional feedback on the
project direction (gap analysis phase 2).

This report summarises the combined findings of both phases of the gap analysis work which were
conducted during the 2019 proposal preparation period and, in more in-depth fashion, during the first eight
months of the project (September 2020 through April 2021). The phase 1 results influenced how the scope
of the project was selected. The phase 2 results further refined the project scope and evaluated and
prioritised additional topical gaps. The phase 2 outcomes are presented specific to the technical work
packages of the PREDIS project representing metallic waste streams, liquid organic and solid organic waste
streams and the monitoring and storage of cemented waste packages.

Of the gaps identified on the basis of the defined objectives and processes, most (58 %) are already in the
scope of the PREDIS technical work packages and only 10% were well outside the scope of PREDIS.
Another portion of topics can be considered for inclusion by modification of the existing work package tasks.
More specifically (relative to the scope of the PREDIS project), the findings of phase 2 showed:
- 77 gap identified topics/issues were already in-scope (of the PREDIS project),
- 14 gap identified topics/issues were not in-scope, but could be (relevant to the PREDIS project),
- 34 gap identified topics/issues were not in-scope and cannot be, but could be promoted to the SRA,
- 7 gap identified topics/issues were not in-scope and should not be (considered further in PREDIS).

It can be concluded that the project was originally well-designed based on the steps taken during the
background preparation phase. The outcomes of the phase 2 gap analysis work will be used to refine the
scope of work for the various technical work packages. These refinements will be described in the modified
Description of Action after the year one periodic review. The results of the phase 1 gap analysis work provide
clear justifications and transparency for the selection of the four technical work packages and their tasks.
Some topics that arose during the Gap Analysis that are determined to be outside the scope of the PREDIS
project will be considered for integration to the Strategic Research Agenda as a future public deliverable of
PREDIS and others are completely out of scope.
Coordinator contact
Maria Oksa
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd
Kivimiehentie 3, Espoo / P.O. Box 1000, 02044 VTT, Finland
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: +358 50 5365 844
Notification
The use of the name of any authors or organisation in advertising or publication in part of this report is
only permissible with written authorisation from the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd.
The citate of the name of the authors and/or the organizations prepared this report is obligatory in using,
Acknowledgement
This project has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2019-2020 under
grant agreement No 945098.
Gap Analysis

D OCUMENT CHANGE H ISTORY

Date Version Author Comments

18.5.2021 0.1 Schatz, Holt Initial Draft, for external comments
20.5.2021 0.2 Schatz, Holt Input WP summaries to Ch 6
(earlier hold for Appendices)
25.5.2021 0.3 many Editorial comments from partners
29.5.2021 0.4 Schatz, Holt Address of comments (v2.0), to
partners for final check
31.5.2021 1.0 Schatz, Holt Final report, for EC submission.
PREDIS publication (webpage)

Page 4/68
Gap Analysis

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

DOCUMENT CHANGE HISTORY................................................................................................................. 4

1 PREFACE................................................................................................................................................. 7
2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 7
3 GAP ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 9
4 PHASE 1 GAP ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 10
5 PHASE 2 GAP ANALYSIS PROCESS .............................................................................................. 16
5.1 Gap Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 16
5.2 PREDIS Industry Identification .............................................................................................................................. 17
5.3 PREDIS Data Collection Approaches .................................................................................................................. 17
5.3.1 EUG On-Line Feedback Survey ............................................................................................................. 18
5.3.2 Detailed EUG Inventory Surveys ........................................................................................................... 19
5.3.3 State-of-the-Art Reviews ....................................................................................................................... 19
5.3.4 Technical Webinars .................................................................................................................................. 20
5.3.5 Ancillary Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 21
5.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 23
5.4.1 EUG On-line Feedback Survey.............................................................................................................. 23
5.4.2 Detailed EUG Inventory Surveys .......................................................................................................... 23
5.4.3 State-of-the-Art Reviews and Associated Gap Analysis Activities ......................................... 23
5.4.4 Technical Webinars .................................................................................................................................. 24
5.4.5 Ancillary Activities .................................................................................................................................... 24
6 RESULTS AND MAIN FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 25
6.1 Gap Identification Summary .................................................................................................................................. 26
6.2 Gap Handling Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 28
6.3 Gap Handling in Specific Work Packages ......................................................................................................... 28
6.3.1 Metallic Waste Gap Analysis (WP4) .................................................................................................... 28
6.3.2 Liquid Organic Waste Gap Analysis (WP5) ....................................................................................... 29
6.3.3 Solid Organic Waste Gap Analysis (WP6)........................................................................................... 31
6.3.4 Concrete Packages and Monitoring Gap Analysis (WP7) ............................................................. 33
7 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 35
7.1 Key Takeaways .......................................................................................................................................................... 35
7.2 Actions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX 1: AGENDA FOR TA5 SESSION OF THE NUGENIA FORUM ........................................ 37
APPENDIX 2: PRE-PROJECT SURVEY .................................................................................................. 39
APPENDIX 3: SCOPE OF PREDIS WORK PACKAGES 4-7 ................................................................ 41
APPENDIX 4: WP4-RELATED GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS................................................................ 43
EUG On-line Feedback Survey ............................................................................................................................. 43
WP4 Technical Webinar .......................................................................................................................................... 46

Page 5/68
Gap Analysis

Summary Table from WP4 Internal Gap Analysis Report ........................................................................... 47

APPENDIX 5: WP5-RELATED GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................ 49

EUG On-line Feedback Survey ............................................................................................................................. 49
WP5 Technical Webinar .......................................................................................................................................... 52
Summary Table from WP5 Internal Gap Analysis Report ........................................................................... 53
APPENDIX 6: WP6-RELATED GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................ 54
EUG On-line Feedback Survey ............................................................................................................................. 54
WP6 Technical Webinar .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Summary Table from WP6 Internal Gap Analysis Report ........................................................................... 58
APPENDIX 7: WP7-RELATED GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................ 59
EUG On-line Feedback Survey ............................................................................................................................. 59
WP7 Technical Webinar .......................................................................................................................................... 62
Summary Table from WP7 Internal Gap Analysis Report ........................................................................... 63
APPENDIX 8: LIVE-POLLING RESULTS, EURAD AND SNETP EVENTS ...................................... 66

Page 6/68
Gap Analysis

1 Preface
The PREDIS (Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste) project has conducted a two-phase Gap
Analysis to 1) identify industry needs for research, development and demonstration (RD&D) and initially define
the scope of the project and 2) to further review, refine and prioritise project plans against identified needs and
discern additional needs . Initial work was performed during the project preparation phase to define the scope
of work topics of most interest to the end user community, and then further continued during the first eight
months of the project (September 2020 to April 2021) to provide more input on the detailed work programme,
based on the European Commission (EC) request. A variety of methods were used to collect feedback from
industry as well as members of the wider stakeholder community and consortium partners. The leaders of
PREDIS RD&D work packages 4-7 have provided analysis and contributed summaries for their respective
technology areas.

This report was available for all partners to review and provide feedback prior to publication. The report was
internally peer-reviewed by two members of the project consortium, Anthony Banford (NNL, UK; WP leader)
and Christophe Bruggeman (SCK CEN, Belgium) and also externally peer-reviewed by two reviewers: 1) Piet
Zuidema, (Zuidema Consult GmbH, Switzerland), and 2) Tara Beattie, (TB Environmental Services, UK).
Outcomes from the Gap Analysis work can be used to refine the scope of the PREDIS work programme, if
necessary, within the technical work packages 4-7 on the material waste stream processing or can be ear-
marked for potential future activities. These refinements will be described in the modified Description of Action
after the year one periodic review (autumn 2021) and are outside the scope of this deliverable. Many items of
the Gap Analysis will also be considered for integration in the Strategic Research Agenda as a future public
deliverable of PREDIS.

2 Introduction
The aim of this document is to provide a description of the framework, methodology and results for the PREDIS
project Gap Analysis. This work was conducted both during proposal preparation to define the original scope
of the project and then within Task 2.6 during the first eight months of the project to evaluate if the project is
focused on the highest priority technology development needs of industry across many Member States, and
to provide clearer justifications and transparency for the four selected technical work packages and their tasks.
The later phase of the Gap Analysis was carried out to further refine the technical work packages based on
end user feedback, especially with regard to the focus and potential effort weighting between the tasks.

The PREDIS proposal was planned and submitted to the Euratom call NFRP-10 for research and innovation
in 2019. The four-year project targets the development and improvement of activities for the characterisation,
processing, storage and acceptance of intermediate- and low-level (ILW/LLW) radioactive waste streams. The
focus is on the treatment and conditioning of metallic materials, liquid organic wastes and solid organic wastes
arising from nuclear plant operations, decommissioning and other industrial processes. The project also
addresses monitoring and digitalisation1 solutions for improvements in handling and assessing cemented-
waste packages in extended interim surface storage.

The preparations for the PREDIS project proposal were made primarily from within the Implementing
Geological Disposal and Nugenia or Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platforms (IGD-TP and SNETP,
respectively), and in close synergy with the European Joint Program on Radioactive Waste management
(EURAD). Background information from the JOPRAD project (2015-17) was also taken into account. The
project scope was developed with strong industry feedback regarding priority needs targeting specific waste
streams, with tasks aligned to innovations in treatment and conditioning of liquid organic, solid organic and
metallic wastes and storage of cemented wastes.

As the project was to be in-line with the joint-funding concept of research activities (Work packages 4 to 7)
receive only 50% funding of the direct costs, and thus it is important that the focus of the project also be tailored
to the needs of the co-financing organisations (such as industry Nuclear Power Plant operators and waste

1 Enabling or improving processes by leveraging digital technologies and digitised data.

Page 7/68
Gap Analysis

generators). The project budget is 23.7 M€ total, of which 14 M€ is provided by the EC and 9.7 M€ obtained
by national level co-financing arranged by partners. Importantly, 80% of the project budget is devoted to
research, development and demonstration (RD&D) activities.

The European Commission’s PREDIS proposal evaluation noted the following three issues pertaining to the
Gap Analysis expectations that they recommended PREDIS to address within the project scope:

 “The process and basis to arrive at the selection of topics to be included is, however, not apparent
from the proposal.

 The methodology of the individual work packages is well developed, sound and credible. However,
the structure behind the selection and how the selection has been made is not described. Each
component certainly has good reasons for being selected but it is not clear how the priority has been
made and what tasks have been given a lower priority

 “As proposed, all activities start at day 1 and there is no mechanism for adapting the work packages
to the outcome of the strategic considerations.”

To address these comments, the PREDIS project implemented the Gap Analysis activities (as Task 2.6, led
by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland). The objectives of the Gap Analysis are firstly, to clarify why
the consortium selected the project’s technical topics and secondly, to evaluate if something in the scope
should be adjusted (including weighting of scope between WPs and/or tasks). This Gap Analysis process
activated in the first phase of the project has also allowed a wide community to give feedback on the technology
development needs and priorities. All 47 consortium members as well as a large and varied stakeholder
community have contributed to the Gap Analysis via multiple activities, which are described in this report.
Based on the Gap Analysis outcomes presented here, adjustments will be made to the projects Description of
Action at Milestone 3 (Month 18) after the first periodic review at Month 12 (September 2021). Figure 1 below
indicates the historic, current and future information that is linked to the PREDIS Gap Analysis activities. It
aims at illustrating the harmony and sequence, which is also reflected in this report format.

This report is structured to provide clarity about the gap analysis objectives (Chapter 3), followed by a more
detailed description about how the initial work scope (Work packages and Tasks) was originally selected in
the first portion of the gap analysis work (Chapter 4). This information was not detailed in the original proposal
due to document file size limitations, but it does provide important insights about how topics for the project
were selected. The next section (Chapter 5) describes the Methodologies used to gather information for the
Gap Analysis. The Results and Main Findings (Chapter 6) cover the key outcomes, arranged per Work
package and then an overall evaluation for the predisposal waste management domain. The final Summary
(Chapter 7) provides the general assessment after completing the Gap Analysis and addresses how the
findings will be utilised.

Figure 1. Timeline of the PREDIS Gap Analysis activities.

Page 8/68
Gap Analysis

3 Gap Analysis Objectives

The RD&D needs for predisposal waste management span a wide range of activities, from waste generation
through to final disposal. There is also overlap and necessary RD&D synergies with decommissioning and
disposability issues, for instance on topics of waste classification, waste acceptance criteria and packaging.
This overlapping range of activities is illustrated in Figure 2, showing how the scope of PREDIS is
complimentary to the SHARE and EURAD projects. It must be noted that the EURAD and SHARE projects
also touch on predisposal waste management issues, and there are also some gaps and overlaps such as
EURAD covering high-level waste and spent fuel before disposal. It is acceptable that there may be several
projects tackling sometimes similar topics, but they all fit together within this “cradle to grave” view of waste
management. The interfaces between the three projects of PREDIS, SHARE and EURAD are very important,
also during the gap analysis and Strategic Research Agenda developments.

Figure 2. PREDIS project interfaces with upstream and downstream domains.

The Gap Analysis in the PREDIS proposal preparation phase (Phase 1) and also during the first eight months
of the project implementation (Phase 2) was focused on research and technology gaps in the predisposal
management of radioactive wastes. Efforts were primarily aimed at identifying those gaps to which the PREDIS
project itself could directly contribute. Specifically, gaps of interest are those meeting the following criteria:

 represent areas of clear need by many Member States (e.g., problematic wastes, wastes with large
and/or increasing raw volumes),
 represent opportunities for effective and immediate investment return (0- to 4-year horizon with an
expectation of a jump in technology readiness (maturation) within that timeframe),
 represent topics of importance to industry, with a commitment to implement (co-funding potential),
 identified in Strategic Research Agendas of the community (i.e., EURAD, IGD-TP, SNETP/Nugenia).

Conversely, another set of constraints were applied to rule out some types of gaps. In particular, excluded
gaps are those falling under the following areas:

 represent specific decommissioning-related, disposal-related, high-level waste (spent fuel)-related

technology RD&D topics sufficiently addressed elsewhere and outside the scope of the Euratom call
(covered, e.g., by the EURAD and SHARE projects),
 represent networking or coordinated action topics, for instance as handled by IAEA and OECD-NEA,
 represent areas of limited need (few interested parties or Member State applicability).

Page 9/68
Gap Analysis

It has always been recognised that additional RD&D topics may be raised during the Gap Analysis that do not
fit the scope of the PREDIS project technical work packages but are still very relevant to the community. Such
topics can then be addressed by the predisposal radioactive waste management Strategic Research Agenda
(SRA) developed in PREDIS within Task 2.2, led by the National Nuclear Laboratory (UK) which is to produce
a draft compilation SRA in September 2021 (confidential) and then the final public SRA of PREDIS as
Deliverable D2.3 ready in summer 2024.

The Phase 1 Gap Analysis was during proposal development (Chapter 4) and the Phase 2 Gap Analysis
activities (Chapter 5) of Work package 2, Task 2.6 during the initiation period of the project were targeted
towards assessing in detail the technical topics of PREDIS that form the basis of Work packages 4 to 7. Both
of these phases are described in the next chapters, followed by the analysis.

4 Phase 1 Gap Analysis

The PREDIS project targets innovative and break-through technologies for safer, more efficient, economic,
and environmentally friendly handling of low and intermediate level waste (LILW) for all Member States. When
originally preparing the project proposal, a gap analysis was carried out in spring 2019 through both literature
reviews and discussions with industry.

As seen earlier in Figure 1, the first background activity was to review existing Strategic Research Agendas
(SRA) to consider what had already been flagged as important needs. Three SRAs were identified in the
proposal: the Nugenia Global Vision (2015) associated with Technical Area 5 in radwaste and
decommissioning, the JOPRAD Programme Document (Deliverable 4.2, 2018), and the EURAD project
founding documents (2019).

For instance, the EURAD SRA Theme 2 on “Radioactive Waste Characterisation, Processing and Storage
(pre-disposal activities) and Source Term Understanding for Disposal” clearly identified the following relevant
high and medium priority topics that were directly relevant to the PREDIS proposal: High priority: Developing
novel conditioning technologies for non-mature and problematic waste (relevant to WP4-6)

 High priority: Improved understanding of radionuclide release from existing and future wasteforms
other than Spent Fuel (relevant to WP5-6)
 High priority: Improved understanding of the impacts of extended storage on waste package
performance. (relevant to WP7)
 Medium: Optimisation of radioactive waste treatment techniques where there is potential for
volume/hazard reduction and potential cost savings (relevant to WP4-6)
 Medium priority: Demonstration of geopolymer performance in representative disposal conditions.
(relevant to WP5-6)
 Medium priority: Developing reliable and affordable technologies for the radiological characterization
and segregation of historical preconditioned radioactive waste (including non-destructive assay
techniques to provide quality assurance of packages being stored; relevant to WP7).

From the Nugenia Global Vision, Chapter 6.2 (Technical Area 5B) related to waste management noted the
overarching challenges to address, and those which were considered in the PREDIS proposal included:

 To innovate enhanced decontamination and dismantling technologies for structures and components,
(relevant to WP4)
 To establish improved treatment technologies (thermal or other) to reuse/recycle materials, minimise
waste volumes and to develop robust and passive waste forms (relevant to WP4-6)
 Optimisation of wastes treatment by investigating alternative or novel wasteform matrices and their
associated processing routes. Such methods may include alternative cementation or other ambient
temperature processing routes. (relevant to WP4-6)
 To accelerate the introduction of new technologies and technical approaches through inactive and
active demonstrations (relevant to WP4-7)
 Waste minimisation strategies for decommissioning, incl. safe release of material to the environment,
recycle/reuse, disposal to VLLW repositories (relevant to WP4-6)

Page 10/68
Gap Analysis

 Tools for surveillance programmes and active condition monitoring during interim storage; also
improved in-situ monitoring technologies, risk-based approaches to decision making (relevant to WP7)

In terms of industry feedback for the gap analysis, verbal discussions, presentations and surveys were made
with members of the IGD-TP and Nugenia (now SNETP). Industry end users associated with EURAD are
represented by IGD-TP. Inquiries were targeted to those companies responsible for waste predisposal
activities, such as Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and research reactor operators as waste generators, as well as
organisations offering solutions for waste processing. It was also important to understand and account for the
concerns of the waste management organisations who need to implement final disposal of the waste streams
after processing. As the project scope was defined by the Euratom call on low- and intermediate-level
radioactive waste (LILW), legacy wastes and waste streams from other industrial sectors beyond just power
generation were included.

The IGD-TP provided a 3-page position paper on 12 March 2019 regarding the EC call NFRP-10, addressed
to EURAD PMO and EURAD-Science networks. It clearly stated, “The first priority for the majority of the IGD-
TP members are treatment and conditioning of organic wastes, comprised of liquid wastes and solid wastes
(bitumen, ion-exchange resins, polymers).”

The Technical Area 5 session of the Nugenia (now SNETP) Exchange Forum in France on 15 March 2019
was organised to collect feedback on challenges for both predisposal radioactive waste management and
decommissioning. An open solicitation was made to the community to suggest topics beforehand by submitting
short abstracts. Regarding waste management, 21 abstracts and 19 pitching presentations were given by 14
organisations to present potential RD&D collaboration topics. Approximately 50 persons attended the session,
representing 35 organisations, with the event agenda listing presentation topics shown in Appendix 1. The EC
officer related to waste management also presented in the plenary session regarding the EC expectations for
the Euratom call.

After the SNETP event, the presented topics were grouped into six themes, with written summaries distributed
to industry stakeholders of the IGD-TP and SNETP communities to provide feedback on their priority needs.
This feedback was requested in the form of a survey, as shown in Appendix 2, and was carried out via email
and 14 replies were received, including the combined feedback from IGD-TP. Participants were asked to
specify, “Which waste types [liquid organic, solid organic,2 metallic,3 graphite and cemented] are relevant for
your organisations?” and “Which waste type [of those specified in the answer to the previous question] should
receive highest priority?” on a scale from 1 (“high”) to 6 (“low”).

Figure 3 shows the mean priority ranking given to the five waste types with scoring from 6 to 1 (where 6 =
highest, 5 = high, 4 = medium, 3 = low, 2 = lowest and 1 = not a priority) for respondent assigned values from
1 to 6, respectively. It can be seen that the waste types prioritised as most important were solid organic (mean
= 4.85) and cemented (mean = 4.83) wastes. Graphite waste were given the least important rating in terms of
priority (mean = 3.56). Furthermore, comments received for graphite indicated that the development of treatment
and conditioning methods for graphite materials could be postponed into future research activities:
 “A large volume waste but the lowest priority for us.”
 “Large volume of graphite will be removed from reactors and packaged for interim storage as LL
wastes.”
 “Lowest priority linked also to the long time-scale connected to the benefit from the outcome.”

Based on received comments, it could be also concluded that qualification and acceptance of waste was seen
as important but could be included into the work plan as an incorporated aspect, and not necessarily as a
separate work package. Another reason for including WAC issues into Work Package 2 as a strategic study
rather than technical RD&D topic in the project was the predicted difficulty in getting co-financing for such work.

2 Further subcategorised into bituminised waste, polymerised waste, resins, consumables and others.
3 Further subcategorised into reactive metals, contaminated steel, activated steel and others.

Page 11/68
Gap Analysis

Figure 3. Mean priority scores for waste types from the pre-project survey (6 = highest, 1 = not a priority).

Additionally, in the industry pre-proposal survey, participants were also asked to provide their assessments of
a set of six proposed work packages (i.e., work package 1: treatment and recycling of metallic materials and
waste, work package 2: graphite materials treatment and conditioning, work package 3: liquid organic waste,
work package 4: solid organic waste, work package 5: cemented waste and packages and work package 6:
qualification and acceptance of waste) with respect to:

 “The clarity, pertinence and outlook on the achievability of the stated objectives (based on your
insights) of the WP;”
 “The innovative character of the work proposed, and if the WP would contribute sufficiently to the
increase of scientific and technical knowledge (beyond state of the art);”
 “The relevance of the end results for your organisation, the share of your inventory that can benefit from
the WP results, and the added value that is created by the WP;”
 “An estimation at what point in the future do you hope to gain benefit from the outcome of the WP and
how;”
 “Other needs you think are missing if any.”

Examples of responses from the WMOs or waste generator/owners are shown below with regard to 1) clarity
of the plans, 2) innovation aspect, 3) relevance of technology development for the specific waste type, and 4)
expected timeline seen for the development needs. The examples are given in Tables 1, 2 and 3 for three of
the six proposed work packages regarding the liquid organics waste treatment and conditioning, graphite
materials treatment and conditioning, and qualification and acceptance of waste.

Page 12/68
Gap Analysis

Table 1. Responses from WMOs regarding aspects of proposed liquid organic waste package.
Liquid organics Clarity Innovation Relevance Time/Outcome

WMO/owner 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

WMO/owner 2 Yes Yes Yes

WMO/owner 3 - - - -

WMO/owner 4 Yes Yes

WMO/owner 5 Yes Yes Yes Long-Term

WMO/owner 6 Yes Yes

WMO/owner 7 Yes Maybe No Maybe

WMO/owner 8 - - - -

WMO/owner 9 - - - -

Table 2. Responses from WMOs regarding aspects of proposed graphite waste package.
Graphite Clarity Innovation Relevance Time/Outcome

WMO/owner 1 Yes Maybe Maybe Long-Term

WMO/owner 2 - - No

WMO/owner 3 - - - -

WMO/owner 4 - - Yes

WMO/owner 5 Yes No Maybe Maybe

WMO/owner 6 - - - -

WMO/owner 7 Yes Yes Yes Yes

WMO/owner 8 - - - -

WMO/owner 9 - - - -

Page 13/68
Gap Analysis

Table 3. Responses from WMOs regarding aspects of proposed qualification and waste acceptance package.
Qualification &
Waste
Acceptance
issues Clarity Innovation Relevance Time/Outcome

WMO/owner 1 - - - -

WMO/owner 2 Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe

WMO/owner 3 Yes

WMO/owner 4 Yes Yes

WMO/owner 5 Maybe Maybe Maybe

WMO/owner 6 Yes Yes

WMO/owner 7 Yes Maybe Yes

WMO/owner 8 - - - -

WMO/owner 9 - - - -

Lastly, participants were asked in terms of their potential involvement in the project as End Users, to indicate
their potential role in the project as a potential partner or just as an end-user following the project. The majority
answered with their interest and commitment to follow the project as an end user.

Overall, the survey showed that the majority of parties supported the research work packages on cemented
waste, liquid organic waste, solid organic waste, metallic waste and qualification and acceptance of waste.
The survey also indicated that some topics could be left out of the proposal because either 1) the urgency was
not high enough (within 10 years), 2) the necessary investment or budget to result in technical progress was
too high (over 50 million euros), 3) the reach or applicability to a significant number of Member States was too
low, 4) the overall industry interest was not significant enough (e.g., not warranting co-financing), or 5) a
combination of these four factors. As such, the topics that were excluded from the proposal after the industry
survey were issues related to uranium conditioning and graphite waste processing, while the topic of bitumen
waste processing was left as optional (in work package 6). It is acknowledged that these topics should still be
accommodated in the PREDIS Strategic Research Agenda.

Based on the survey results, it was decided to focus the proposal into four material waste streams, with the
bulk of the effort to be put on treatment and conditioning technology activities. In order to effectively address
such topics, it is also necessary to consider up-stream waste characterisation needs and downstream long-
term performance concerns. Furthermore, to complete full assessments for implementation, end users need
to understand the economic and environmental impact of the new technologies. A holistic approach to the
proposal was then formed, as shown in Figure 4, with the Work Packages represented vertically (waste
streams) and task areas horizontally (technology innovation actions). The technical scope of the work
packages is summarised in Appendix 3, giving the tasks and innovation objectives for each. The project
Management Team made a decision during proposal preparation to allocate roughly the same budget to each
work package (~20% each of the total project budget), as the easiest way to avoid biases between topics since
the importance and urgency is highly variable between national programs, industry needs and partner
preferences. It was also deemed important that each work package had the scope (and programme) to make
an advance in technology readiness level (TRL) during the course of the PREDIS project.

Page 14/68
Gap Analysis

Figure 4. Structure of PREDIS project, based on industry feedback.

In July 2019, a presentation of the proposal content was circulated to the same industry group to solicit
additional feedback on the proposal structure and content. The feedback received noted that the proposal
was representative of industry views and no urgent or critical suggestions were given for improvements.
Feedback was received from Ian Gordon of IAEA, 29 July 2019. The proposal was also reviewed in detail by
the EURAD coordinator’s Project Management Office led by Andra (France), with comments received 20
September 2019.

With regard to Nugenia (now part of SNETP), the NUGENIA Executive Committee provided the PREDIS
proposal the NUGENIA label of endorsement in August 2019. Feedback and inquires to join the consortium
from Nugenia members could be provided on the proposal summary published on the NUGENIA Open
Innovation Platform during summer 2019.

Further holistic international insights and feedback were obtained by discussions with IAEA, OECD-NEA, the
EURAD project management office as well as the EC officer, regarding their views of the current needs and
challenges of the predisposal waste management community. These discussions were held at the
EURADWASTE’19 Conference organised by the European Commission in June 2019 in Romania. This
information built upon the initial discussions held among the community and with the EC Officer Christophe
Davies after his presentation at the IGD-TP Exchange Forum held in Berlin, December 2018, and explained
the progress made in proposal concept development during spring 2019.

All of the background actions during 2019, from reviewing existing documentation, soliciting feedback from
industry, and engaging in discussions with large organisations representing various stakeholders, contributed
to the formulation of the project proposal structure and content. Furthermore, solicitations to contribute to the
proposal development were made available and openly to the whole community through the Nugenia, SITEX
and EURAD Science networks. Additionally, the IGD-TP was invited several times during the process to
provide feedback. These actions led to a very inclusive project proposal process, in line with the EURAD vision.
These activities have been described in this section to record the extensive work and, open and transparent
process that led to the PREDIS project proposal, which could not be included in the project proposal due to
page limits.

The next sections describe the Gap Analysis objectives, methods and findings that were then performed after
the official start of the project, from September 2020, through April 2021.

Page 15/68
Gap Analysis

5 Phase 2 Gap Analysis Process

5.1 Gap Analysis Methodology
At a very general level, a gap analysis compares a current situation with a potential or desired state. It usually
involves evaluating the following items: 1) areas of focus, 2) goals to achieve, 3) known current state, 4) desired
target future state, and 5) actions towards bridging the gap between the two states. In the RD&D sense, a gap
analysis helps target (identify goals) where a project should focus to generate greatest impact across several
potential dimensions, including items that may be actor-specific and those having scientific, financial and/or
societal impacts (Figure 5). In some cases, there may also be legal and political (policy) issues that may also
factor into a gap analysis.

Actor-Specific Scientific impacts Financial impacts Societal impacts

impacts
•new products, •quality of science & •revenue, turnover •protection of
services technology •new solutions, citizens
•improved •innovation increased offering •protection of
performance •organisational •adequate funding environment
•improved skills or performance sources available •economic
competences renewal/growth

Figure 5. Areas of impact expected from a project or investment that may be accounted for in a gap analysis.

For PREDIS, one important focus of the Gap Analysis in both the proposal and project phase has been on
assessing scientific impacts or the technology gaps which are evaluated with respect to their Technology
Readiness Level (TRL). TRL is a common classification system, showing progress from basic research through
laboratory programs to ultimately system readiness and wide acceptance (see Figure 6). PREDIS tasks should
aim at improving TRL levels, especially at the higher levels closer to industry implementation. Initial TRL states
and PREDIS outcome expectations per work package and task were described in the project proposal and will
be elaborated on in future deliverable reports.

Figure 6. Technology Readiness Level (TRL) assessment scale4.

Data collection for a gap analysis is accomplished using a variety of methods and targets as wide an audience
as possible. Methods that can be utilised can include:

4
Image source: https://climateinnovationwindow.eu/what-trl

Page 16/68
Gap Analysis

 reviewing existing literature, such as strategic research agendas, position papers, current
developments/projects already ongoing,
 reviewing past surveys, so as to not repeat previous efforts unless significant change is anticipated
 conducting technical state-of-the art reviews,
 creating and administering surveys, either:
o quantitative with numeric rankings or prioritisations
o qualitative open-answer free replies
 hosting workshops covering current practices, challenges and future needs:
o presentations from industry,
o discussion groups about prioritisation,
o live polling of opinions (multiple choice and free form words),
 individual interviews or discussions with industry, to hear direct feedback.

5.2 PREDIS Industry Identification

Within PREDIS Work Package 2, Task 2.1 was focused, over the first six months of the project, on identifying
relevant End User Group members comprised of companies that are either waste generators, waste owners
or waste management (disposal) organisations. A wider community of stakeholders has also been identified,
including regulators, technical support organisations, research organisations, universities, supply chain
companies and civil society members. These groups have been invited to participate in some of the Phase 2
Gap Analysis events, especially the webinars which included live polling and discussion groups. The End User
Group (EUG) of the project is continuously growing and is currently composed of 23 external members from
14 countries. More information is available in PREDIS Newsletter No. 2 published in April 2021 and on the
PREDIS website at https://predis-h2020.eu/end-user-group/. There are an additional 15 PREDIS consortium
members that are also considered EUG members due to their roles (for instance operating a research reactor
and associated waste management facilities). An additional 67 potential EUG members and 119 stakeholders
from 33 countries have been identified and have been contacted to solicit their involvement.

New members can apply to join the EUG or Stakeholders group directly from the PREDIS website
(https://predis-h2020.eu/end-user-group/) throughout the project. The EUG has been a key source of
information for the Gap Analysis. The status of the industry EUG and Stakeholders group was summarised in
the internal project report Deliverable D2.1 “Survey of End Users” published March 2021.

5.3 PREDIS Data Collection Approaches

In order to identify the gaps of interest (as bounded by the constraints outlined in Chapter 4) in predisposal
management, a variety of different information gathering activities were used, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Approaches used to collect input for Phase 2 Gap Analysis.

Page 17/68
Gap Analysis

Each of these activities is described in more detail in the sections below and elaborated on within the next
chapter of results. For context of the work packages’ technical scope (tasks) and innovation targets, please
refer to the summary in Appendix 3.

5.3.1 EUG On-Line Feedback Survey

Shortly after the first PREDIS project workshop held in October 2020, EUG internal and external members
were invited to participate in an online survey. Respondents were first asked to indicate which work packages
they were interested in and were then asked a variety of questions about various aspects of the orientation of
each selected work package. Several of these questions (see below) provided gap analysis input. In total there
were 19 respondents from 12 countries to this survey representing waste generating, waste owning and waste
managing organisations. As noted earlier, the outcomes of the survey were summarised in the internal project
report Deliverable D2.1 “Survey of End Users” published March 2021.

For Work Package 4 (on metallic wastes), participants were asked to respond to three questions with gap
analysis implications:

 “What are the primary interests [volume reduction, cost savings, development of treatment and
disposal routes for currently untreated wastes, minimising higher level clearance materials and/or
other] of your organisation related to metallic waste treatment?
 Are there any challenges/needs your organisation would like specifically to be addressed in this Work
Package or any specific topics/ideas/gaps that were missed?
 What methods, processes, technologies and/or demonstrations would be most useful for your
organisation from this Work Package?

For work package 5 (on liquid organic wastes), participants were asked to respond to five questions with gap
analysis implications:

 “What are the primary interests [volume reduction, cost savings, development of treatment and
disposal routes for currently untreated wastes, minimising higher level clearance materials and/or
other] of your organisation related to liquid organic waste treatment?
 Are there any challenges/needs your organisation would like specifically to be addressed in this Work
Package or any specific topics/ideas/gaps that were missed?
 What methods, processes, technologies and/or demonstrations would be most useful for your
organisation from this Work Package?
 Does your organisation have any radioactive liquid organic wastes that could benefit from direct
conditioning in a geopolymer-type matrix?
 Is your organisation facing waste acceptance criteria issues for liquid organic wastes or geopolymers
containing liquid organics?

For work package 6 (on solid organic wastes), participants were asked to respond to four questions with gap
analysis implications:

 “What are the primary interests [volume reduction, cost savings, development of treatment and
disposal routes for currently untreated wastes, minimising higher level clearance materials and/or
other] of your organisation related to solid organic waste treatment?
 Are there any challenges/needs your organisation would like specifically to be addressed in this Work
Package or any specific topics/ideas/gaps that were missed?
 What methods, processes, technologies and/or demonstrations would be most useful for your
organisation from this Work Package?
 Is your organisation facing waste acceptance criteria issues for solid organic wastes or geopolymers
containing liquid organics?

For work package 7 (on monitoring and storage of cemented waste packages), participants were asked to
respond to five questions with gap analysis implications:

 Are there any challenges/needs your organisation would like specifically to be addressed in this Work
Package or any specific topics/ideas/gaps that were missed?

Page 18/68
Gap Analysis

 What are the main topics [cracks, loss of thickness, change in dose rate, gas production/over pressure
within waste packages and/or other], connected with cement waste package degradation that your
organisation would like to see detected and monitored as a priority by instrumentation and controls,
and be considered during demonstration tests?
 Which durability performance indicators are most relevant?
 Would your organisation be interested in applying (and investing in) digital twin technology to predict
the evolution of waste packages at your facility?
 What measurements or analyses are missing from the portfolio of available non-destructive evaluation
techniques / monitoring technologies / instrumentation?

5.3.2 Detailed EUG Inventory Surveys

Part of the PREDIS work involves developing a database and better understanding of waste inventories. As
well as providing important strategic insight into the magnitude of waste arising around Europe, this inventory
also supports identification of priority waste streams for study in PREDIS. The database should be integrated
with other existing public knowledge databases, for instance as also collected by EURAD-Routes and the EC
initiatives. To facilitate this PREDIS gathering of inventory information, two questionnaires were prepared for
completion by PREDIS partners and EUG members who own, manage or generate radioactive wastes. The
first was related to work packages 4, 5 and 6 on metallic waste, liquid organic waste and solid organic waste.
The second survey was related to work package 7 on monitoring and storage of cemented waste packages.

The aim of the WP4 - 6 questionnaire is to help identify the priority waste streams in each country, and
document their quantity, their current state (e.g., raw, containerised, already conditioned and/or packaged),
time of future arising, and their radiological inventory. The prioritisation was views from PREDIS perspective
with respect to where to invest finances towards RD&D to make the greatest impact in improved predisposal
treatment and conditioning steps for certain waste streams. For WP7, the questions concerned 1) the
characteristics of cemented waste packages and their storage configuration in order to identify specific needs
of the PREDIS End Users, 2) the strategies for managing cemented waste including aspects such as
monitoring and managing package degradation and 3) the monitoring systems, data handling, and quality
management procedures adopted during storage of cemented waste packages. The questionnaires have
been sent to all PREDIS partners and end-users.

To date there have been 11 responses to the WP4 - 6 survey representing radioactive waste inventory
information from three EUG members and eight PREDIS consortium partners. Of these, four respondents
provided information on metallic wastes, four respondents provided information on solid organic wastes and
nine respondents provided information on liquid organic wastes. Regarding WP7 survey, there have been eight
responses from EUG members.

The responses from these questionnaires were also interpreted relative to gap analysis considerations. This
interpretation aimed at identifying any priority waste streams that were unaddressed by the scope of work
packages 4, 5 and/or 6. The survey results from WP7 were integrated to the WP7 state-of-art report. It should
be noted that the surveys were applicable to the initial scope of the PREDIS project, and thus issues that were
already deemed outside of the scope were not re-addressed by this second phase Gap Analysis solicitation
of feedback.

5.3.3 State-of-the-Art Reviews

All four technical work packages have been tasked during the first year of the project with conducting detailed
state-of-the-art (SOTA) reviews, to better understand current best practices, limitations and industry
challenges. This work has been done by reviewing literature as well as by direct one-to-one (partner to industry)
discussions with EUG members and stakeholders. The reviews have led to establishing more specific material
selections and boundary conditions for the experimental programs and tasks within the work packages. The
reviews along with the responses to the EUG surveys are being compiled and used in the preparation of the
following PREDIS deliverables and milestones:

 MS22: Inventory of metallic waste (WP4, month 12)

 MS23: Technologies for decontamination, characterisation, recycling and encapsulation (WP4, month
12)
 D4.1: Metallic waste inventory report (month 18)

Page 19/68
Gap Analysis

 MS32 Reference formulations (WP5, month 9)

 MS35: Experimental protocols for conditioning materials (WP5, M9)
 D5.1: Inventory data on liquid organic wastes (WP5, month 12)
 MS39: Leaching procedure for experiments (WP6, month 12)
 D6.4: Database of solid organic wastes (WP6, month 47)
 D7.1: State-of-the-art in packaging, storage and monitoring of cemented wastes (month 6)
 MS50: Agreement on materials and testing scenarios (WP7, month 12)

For WP4 - 6, these deliverables or milestones are not yet finalised or published (pertaining to the deliverable
dates in the above list). The Work Package 7 SOTA report (Deliverable D7.1) is published and available on
the PREDIS website https://predis-h2020.eu/publications-and-reports/. Gap Analysis results from these
sources are described in Chapter 5.4 and relevant corresponding Appendices per Work Package.

The information collected for producing the SOTA report was also interpreted relative to gap analysis
considerations by Work Package 7. This interpretation identified technology gaps and categorised them with
respect to source (how and where gaps were identified), classification (waste stream type), phase
(characterisation, treatment, conditioning, packaging, storage or transport), priority (i.e. the relative urgency of
development work), technology level (the relative level of R&D work needed to fill identified technology gap)
and whether such R&D work is within the scope, budget and timeline of the PREDIS project.

More broadly, each technical work package interpreted the information gathered from its own SOTA review
and internal gap analysis activities. These interpretations identified technology gaps and categorised them
with respect to source (how and where gaps were identified), classification (waste stream type), phase
(characterisation, treatment, conditioning, packaging, storage or transport), priority (i.e., the relative urgency
of development work to justify financial investments), technology level (the relative level of R&D work needed
to fill identified technology gap) and whether such RD&D work fit into the scope, budget and timeline of the
PREDIS project.

5.3.4 Technical Webinars

The PREDIS project held four technical webinars over the first three months of 2021 in order to share insights
on technical innovation plans from the work packages, hear case studies and discuss industry needs,
challenges and priorities. A further objective of the webinars was to inform the PREDIS project gap analysis.
The schedule of these webinars was as follows:

 January 19, 13-16 CET: WP7 - Innovations in cemented waste package monitoring and storage
 February 16, 13-16 CET: WP4 - Innovations in metallic material treatment and conditioning
 March 9, 13-16 CET: WP6 - Innovations in solid organic waste treatment and conditioning
 March 30, 13-16 CET: WP5 - Innovations in liquid organic waste treatment and conditioning

Each webinar consisted of two sessions of presentations followed by smaller group discussions to explore
issues raised in the formal presentations and to gather end user (and broader) information on future objectives
in predisposal waste management, potential barriers standing in the way of meeting those objectives and input
on the technologies being developed in the PREDIS work packages. The deliberations of the discussion
sessions provided direct feedback to the work packages and input to the gap analysis. A set of key takeaways
were derived from the discussion sessions for each webinar. These key takeaways were then further assessed
by the associated work packages relative to their scopes of work, as described in Section 5.4 and the relevant
Appendices.

Page 20/68
Gap Analysis

The webinars also served to widen access for interaction with the PREDIS project:

Overall, 16 different guest presentations from end users were featured during the
webinars. A total of 80 self-identified end users, representing 54 organisations from
27 different countries and 157 self-identified general stakeholders, representing 120
organisations from 46 different countries, registered to attend the webinars. The
webinars also benefited from extensive IAEA perspectives and insights as every
webinar featured IAEA presentations and participation to breakout room discussions.

Additionally, on-line polling was conducted during the webinars. These polls were aligned with some of the
gap analysis related questions asked in the EUG online survey and are used for focus area identification and
trend recognition. Similar or related questions were asked in each webinar, to compare responses between
audiences and with the feedback gained during the Phase 1 Gap Analysis when preparing the proposal.

During the WP4 webinar on metallic wastes, participants were asked to respond to two on-line poll questions
with gap analysis implications:

 What is the biggest challenge [segregation and sorting, classification and characterisation, treatment
and conditioning, transport, monitoring and storage, financial issues, regulatory compliance or other]
in the predisposal management of metallic waste?
 What should be the primary focus [volume reduction, cost savings, processing speed and efficiency,
untreated wastes, minimising secondary wastes, development of mobile or modular treatment options,
training and education or other] of near-term R&D related to metallic waste treatment and conditioning?

During the WP5 webinar on liquid organic wastes, participants were asked to respond to two (nearly the same,
by design) on-line poll questions with gap analysis implications:

 What is the biggest challenge [segregation, characterisation, treatment, conditioning, packaging,

storage, waste acceptance criteria or other] in the predisposal management of liquid organic waste?
 What should be the primary focus [untreated legacy wastes, volume reduction, processing speed and
efficiency, minimising secondary wastes, mobile or modular treatment systems, cost savings, training
and education or other] of near-term R&D related to liquid organic waste treatment and conditioning?

During the WP6 webinar on solid organic waste, participants were asked to respond to two (nearly the same,
by design) on-line poll questions with gap analysis implications:

 What is the biggest challenge [segregation, characterisation, treatment, conditioning, packaging,

storage, waste acceptance criteria or other] in the predisposal management of solid organic waste?
 What should be the primary focus [untreated legacy wastes, volume reduction, processing speed and
efficiency, minimising secondary wastes, mobile or modular treatment systems, cost savings, training
and education or other] of near-term R&D related to solid organic waste treatment and conditioning?

During the WP7 webinar on monitoring and storage of cemented waste packages, participants were asked to
respond to two on-line poll questions with gap analysis implications:

 What aspects of predisposal management of radioactive waste [technology demonstration, technology

access, minimising secondary wastes, safety, environmental impact, cost reduction, processing
speed, training, regulatory compliance, stakeholder confidence and/or other] do you think the PREDIS
project should primarily focus on?
 Which monitoring topics [deformation, cracks and voids, corrosion, temperature, gas generation, dose
rates, environmental conditions, remote operation, automation, upscaling, data handling, processing
and analysis and/or other] are your organisation’s goals or objectives related to?

5.3.5 Ancillary Activities

Various meeting events with large numbers of participants have been held that also provided complimentary
information to the PREDIS Phase 2 Gap Analysis, especially from in-meeting audience live polling. These
were PREDIS workshops, an SNETP forum and two EURAD events.

Page 21/68
Gap Analysis

PREDIS has organised two full-consortium workshops, 19-21 October 2020 and 4-6 May 2021. Both events
presented opportunities for engagement with the EUG and gathering feedback relevant to the Gap Analysis.
In the first event, four different half-day Work Package specific discussions were held including EUG member
participation part of the time. An additional half-day session was also held for a wider stakeholder audience
including a stakeholder panel, with the following

 Needs of waste producers, represented by Abderrahim Al Mazoui (EDF, France and SNETP)
 Needs of waste owners, represented by Mark Dowson (Sellafield site, UK)
 Needs of waste management organisations, represented by Irina Gaus (Nagra, Switzerland and IGD-
TP)
 International cooperation perspectives, represented by Piet Zuidema (EURAD Chief Scientific Officer)
 International cooperation perspectives, represented by Rebecca Robbins (IAEA, Austria).

The Stakeholder session was summarised in PREDIS Newsletter No. 1 published in November 2020. The
second workshop in May 2021 had one half-day session open for EUG participation.

A dedicated Technical Session 6 at the SNETP (earlier Nugenia) annual Forum was held February 2021
(online), including presentations from industry on predisposal current practices. The half-day session also
included brainstorming discussions in breakout rooms about priority research needs. The industry
presentation topics and invited guest speakers included PREDIS confirmed or potential EUG potential
members:

 Fuel cycle closure, D&RDWM, 1 Massimo Sepielli (ENEA, Italy), with Sogin and ISIN Regulator
 Decommissioning and pre-disposal waste handling needs, a French perspective, Clement Bosquier
(EDF, France)
 Decommissioning of Ignalina NPP, Dmitrij Ekaterinicev & Jurij Sapoval (INPP, Lithuania)
 Sweden's decommissioning and radwaste perspectives, Andreas Knutsson (Vattenfall, Sweden)
 Sellafield Challenges: Steering the Supertanker, David Connelly (Sellafield, UK)
 Small inventory program needs in decom and waste management, Andrea Rapić (Fund for financing
the decommissioning of the Krško NPP, Croatia)

The two events hosted by the EURAD project also included invited presentations by VTT as the Coordinator
of PREDIS, where issues about predisposal waste management were covered. These events were the training
event in September 2020 and the lunch-and-learn session in October 2020.

In some of the events above (SNETP Forum and EURAD events), PREDIS has used in-meeting, anonymous
live polling for multiple choice questions on predisposal radioactive waste needs. Similar questions were also
used in the technical webinars, described in the earlier section. These live polls have provided complimentary
insights about the similarities or differences in audience opinions for gap analysis topics.

During the Introductory Course on EURAD and Radioactive Waste Management and the Lunch-and-learn
session on Synergies of EURAD with the PREDIS project addressing pre-disposal waste treatment,
participants were asked to respond to the same two on-line poll questions with gap analysis implications:

 What is your opinion on the greatest challenge [waste segregation and sorting, waste classification
and characterisation, waste processing, waste transport, waste interim storage, financing, government
policy] in waste pre-treatment?
 What types of waste [metallic waste, graphite waste, concrete waste, solid organic waste, liquid
organic waste, other] should we focus on for near-term R&D on treatment technologies (for highest
impact/achievement potential)?

During Technical Session 6 of the SNETP Forum, participants were asked to respond to a similar set of on-
line poll questions with gap analysis implications:

 What is the biggest challenge [segregation and sorting, classification and characterisation, treatment
and conditioning, transport, monitoring and storage, financial issues, regulatory compliance, other] in
predisposal management of radioactive waste?
 For which waste type [metallic, graphite, solid organic, liquid organic, other] would near-term R&D
result in the greatest impact on predisposal management activities?

Page 22/68
Gap Analysis

5.4 Data Analysis

5.4.1 EUG On-line Feedback Survey
The survey was conducted using the web-based software tool Webropol (https://webropol.com/) and
responses to the standardised questionnaire were organised and evaluated using Microsoft Excel.

Of the 19 respondents to the survey, 15 expressed an interest in WP4, 11 in WP5, 9 in WP6 and 14 in WP7,
which likely corresponds to the particular waste inventories under their purview.

Lists of the open-ended responses to questions in the EUG on-line feedback survey with gap analysis
implications are provided, in order of receipt, in tables under the heading “EUG On-line Feedback Survey” in
Appendices 3 - 6 for WP4-, WP5-, WP6- and WP7-Related Gap Analysis Results, respectively. These
responses are categorised relative to the current scope of work in the relevant work packages, as being 1)
already in-scope, 2) not in-scope, but could be, 3) not in-scope and can’t be, but could be promoted to
the SRA or 4) not in-scope and shouldn’t be.

5.4.2 Detailed EUG Inventory Surveys

The responses to the WP4 - 6 radioactive waste inventory questionnaire were interpreted relative to gap
analysis considerations. To this end it was noted that no unexpected waste streams were flagged in the
responses to the inventory questionnaire and that indeed, essentially all the waste streams designated by the
respondents are being addressed by the original scope of each technical work package.

More specifically:

 The main metallic waste types identified are steel and Al as both sheets and pipes. These materials,
in both simple and complex geometries, are earmarked for testing in WP4. Additionally, some of the
waste streams in the inventory are mixed and will require sorting and segregation which also falls
within the scope of the characterisation task in WP4.

 The candidate liquid organic wastes to be tested in WP5 were oils, solvents and scintillation cocktails
and these correspond to the most commonly identified liquid organics in the inventory questionnaire.

 The main solid organic wastes identified are resins, plastic (e.g., PPE) and filters, and treatment
schemes are being tested on such wastes in PREDIS. Additionally, bitumen was identified as a major
waste stream and it is uncertain whether the processes being tested in PREDIS would be suitable for
processing this waste. Plasma treatment was identified in THERAMIN as a good candidate for treating
bitumen. In any case, the EUG members managing such waste made the strategic decision to focus
on cellulosic wastes for the purposes of the PREDIS project.

The results of the WP7 detailed EUG survey are integrated to the WP7 SOTA report, described in the next
section.

5.4.3 State-of-the-Art Reviews and Associated Gap Analysis Activities

As indicated above, over the course of the first months of the project, each technical work package pursued
its own state-of-the-art (SOTA) review and associated gap analysis activities. Each technical work package
gathered the information via various means and interpreted it in terms of the gap analysis. These
interpretations identified technology gaps and categorised them with respect to source (how and where gaps
were identified), classification (waste stream type), phase (characterisation, treatment, conditioning,
packaging, storage or transport), priority (i.e., the relative urgency of development work), technology level (the
relative level of R&D work needed to fill identified technology gap) and whether such R&D work is within (or
within reasonable reach of) the scope, budget and timeline of the PREDIS project (yes or no). More specifically,
the priority or relative urgency of filling an identified gap was categorised as high, medium or low with respect
to time where high = 0 to 5 y, medium = 5 to 10 y and low = 10 to 20 y and the technology level indicates how
close the identified gap is to being filled by proven, deployable technology as near, partway or far with respect
to the level of R&D work still required.

Each technical work package documented their gap analysis information collection and interpretation activities
in short reports which are compiled into this report in Chapters 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 for Work Packages 4 to 7,

Page 23/68
Gap Analysis

respectively. The specific gap analysis results from these activities are tabulated in Appendices 4, 5, 6, and 7
for Work Packages 4 to 7, respectively. The colour scheme used to visualise the gap analysis topics and issues
for the EUG on-line feedback survey is employed for the same purposes with these results.

For Work Package 7, since a detailed SOTA report was published in the first six months of the project, there
is also a more elaborately detailed gap analysis available. This analysis followed the same format for identifying
and categorising technology gaps as described above. The specific gap analysis results from information
collected for producing the WP7 SOTA report are tabulated in Appendix 7 for WP7-Related Gap Analysis
Results. The colour scheme used to visualise the gap analysis topics and issues for the EUG on-line feedback
survey is employed for these results as well.

Information and analysis from the SOTA reviews by WP4 - 6 will be formally reported in future milestones and
deliverables.

5.4.4 Technical Webinars

The four webinars included 23 presentations by project partners and 18 presentations by external EUG or
more general stakeholders. The data collected during the webinars was mostly qualitative in nature, though a
few live poll questions were used. The agenda of the webinars and the summary key messages (and poll
results) from each event can be found on the PREDIS website at https://predis-h2020.eu/events/. In total, the
webinar registration included over 400 persons from 40 countries, with the composition being approximately
46 % PREDIS partners and 54 % EUG or general Stakeholder participants. On average, 115 persons attended
each webinar. Key insights were provided in every webinar by IAEA predisposal waste management team
leader Rebecca Robbins, which also added credible views from a wider worldwide perspective. The average
feedback score from 85 respondents of the webinar participants was over 4.35 out of 5.0, with the same six
questions asked about communication for the event, technical quality of the sessions and breakout rooms, and
usefulness of the breakout room discussions.

Sets of key takeaways were derived from the discussion sessions for each of the four technical webinars.
Topics that were outside the scope of the technical work packages could also be discussed in the webinars,
raised by industry presentations or in the discussion groups. These key takeaways from the webinar
presentations, live polls and discussion groups were then further assessed by the associated work packages
relative to their scopes of work. Lists of the key takeaways with gap analysis implications are provided in tables
in Appendices 3 - 6 for WP4-, WP5-, WP6- and WP7-Related Gap Analysis Results, respectively. These
responses are categorised relative to the current scope of work in the relevant work packages, as being 1)
already in-scope, 2) not in-scope, but could be, 3) not in-scope and can’t be, but could be promoted to
the SRA or 4) not in-scope and shouldn’t be.

5.4.5 Ancillary Activities

Three sets of ancillary activities were implemented: 1) PREDIS workshops, 2) an SNETP Forum session and
3) two EURAD associated events. In each of these technical online events, live polling specific to the PREDIS
project gap analysis was carried out which indicated that the biggest generic challenges identified were waste
classification and characterisation, and waste processing (treatment and conditioning).

The results of the live polling for the EURAD and SNETP events are found in Appendix 8. The results of the
live-polling for the PREDIS technical webinars are available on the PREDIS website at https://predis-
h2020.eu/events/ by navigating to the webinar summary of interest. All of the live polling results are
summarised as follows:

 For the non-waste specific events (EURAD, SNETP), the majority of respondents consistently
considered classification and characterisation, waste processing, and segregation and sorting (in
rotating order) to be the biggest challenge in waste pre-treatment. Additionally, poll respondents at
these events regularly agreed that the top two wastes to be focussed on for near-term R&D were
always from among liquid organic wastes, solid organic wastes and metallic wastes.
 For the WP4 webinar, the majority of respondents consistently considered treatment and conditioning
and classification and characterisation (in that order) to be the biggest challenge in the predisposal
management of metallic waste. Additionally, poll respondents at this event agreed that volume

Page 24/68
Gap Analysis

reduction should be the primary focus of near-term R&D related to metallic waste treatment and
conditioning.
 For the WP5 webinar, the majority of respondents considered conditioning and waste acceptance
criteria (in that order) to be the biggest challenge in the predisposal management of liquid organic
waste. Additionally, poll respondents at this event agreed that untreated legacy wastes should be the
primary focus of near-term R&D related to liquid organic waste treatment and conditioning.
 For the WP6 webinar, the majority of respondents considered conditioning and characterisation (in
that order) to be the biggest challenge in the predisposal management of solid organic waste.
Additionally, poll respondents at this event agreed that volume reduction should be the primary focus
of near-term R&D related to solid organic waste treatment and conditioning.
 For the WP7 webinar, the majority of respondents considered that technology demonstration should
be the primary focus of the project. Additionally, poll respondents at this event agreed that data
handling, processing and analysis is the most important topic.

These results are consistent with both the general and specific outcomes of the work-package specific analysis
from EUG surveys, state-of-art-reviews and webinars. They also support the phase 1 gap analysis that
identified the most critical predisposal waste management challenges that should be addressed by the
PREDIS proposal application.

From the SNETP technical event, approximately 65 people attended the online session. The outcomes of the
SNETP Forum are summarised in a Policy Paper by Technical Area 5 leadership (including NNL and VTT as
PREDIS partners), expected for publication in May 2021. The key points summarised included the following
RD&D topics:

 Application of the waste hierarchy to avoid/minimise waste generation: through smart design,
appropriate material selection, operational measures, and designing for decommissioning.
 Establishment of improved (Predisposal) treatment technologies (thermal or other) to reuse/recycle
materials, minimise waste volumes and to develop robust and passive waste forms. Specific waste
focus areas include, organic wastes, metallics, contaminated concrete, irradiated graphite, etc.
 Development of characterisation techniques for waste inventory assessment, and plant/facility
assessment to aid planning for decommissioning and waste management.
 Development of waste segregation/sorting, advanced decontamination techniques and optimised
measurement/assay methods to enable a circular economy where appropriate.
 Application of transformative technologies to optimise decommissioning scenarios: for example,
digitalisation, supercomputing, artificial intelligence, in-situ characterisation and robotics.
 Identification of synergy effects for multi-unit sites or fleet-wide D&D projects, standardisation of
approach, use of mobile treatment facilities and optimisation of post-operational phase.

Many of these issues are in-line with the PREDIS technical WP objectives, while others can be addressed
further in the Strategic Research Agenda of PREDIS. SNETP is also in the process of renewing their Strategic
Research Agenda over the next 18 months (2021-22), and thus can be an avenue for further cooperation.

6 Results and Main Findings

The detailed results and mapping of all gaps identified in PREDIS activities are presented in Appendices 4 to
7 for Work Packages 4 to 7, respectively. Each of these Appendices contains a breakdown of the results from
the various activities, e.g., SOTA reviews, webinars and surveys. The following sections in this Chapter
provide a summary of the identified gaps (6.1), an overview of the gap handling procedure (6.2) and the short
reports documenting the gap analysis information collection and interpretation activities for Work Packages 4
to 7 (6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6, respectively). For reference, the work packages’ technical scope (tasks) and
innovation targets as originally described in the PREDIS proposal and project starting point are shortly
summarised in Appendix 3.

Page 25/68
Gap Analysis

6.1 Gap Identification Summary

A total of 133 unique topics/issues meeting the definition for gaps of interest outlined in Chapter 4 were
identified by the gap analysis activities described in Chapter 5. Of these, 40 were associated with WP4 on
metallic waste, 29 were associated with WP5 on liquid organic waste, 26 were associated with WP6 on solid
organic waste and 38 were associated with WP7 on the monitoring and storage of cemented waste packages.

Of the 40 topics/issues associated with predisposal of metallic wastes, 26 were categorised as being already
in-scope, 2 as being not in-scope, but could be and 12 as being not in-scope and can’t be, but could be
promoted to the SRA. No topics were categorised as being not in-scope and shouldn’t be. The disposition
of identified gap analysis predisposal topics/issues for metallic waste is shown in the pie chart in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Disposition of the identified gap analysis predisposal topics/issues for metallic waste relative to
PREDIS project scope.

Of the 29 identified gap analysis topics/issues associated with predisposal of liquid organic wastes, 18 were
categorised as being already in-scope, 0 as being not in-scope, but could be, 10 as being not in-scope
and can’t be, but could be promoted to the SRA and 1 as being not in-scope and shouldn’t be. The
disposition of identified gap analysis predisposal topics/issues for liquid organic waste is shown in pie chart in
Figure 9.

Page 26/68
Gap Analysis

Figure 9. Disposition of the identified gap analysis predisposal topics/issues for liquid organic waste relative
to PREDIS project scope.

Of the 26 identified gap analysis topics/issues associated with predisposal of solid organic wastes, 13 were
categorised as being already in-scope, 3 as being not in-scope, but could be, 7 as being not in-scope and
can’t be, but could be promoted to the SRA and 3 as being not in-scope and shouldn’t be. The disposition
of identified gap analysis predisposal topics/issues for solid organic waste is shown in the pie chart in Figure
10.

Figure 10. Disposition of the identified gap analysis predisposal topics/issues for solid organic waste relative
to PREDIS project scope.

Of the 38 identified gap analysis topics/issues associated with monitoring and storage of cemented waste
packages, 20 were categorised as being already in-scope, 9 as being not in-scope, but could be, 5 as being
not in-scope and can’t be, but could be promoted to the SRA and 4 as being not in-scope and shouldn’t
be. The disposition of identified gap analysis predisposal topics/issues for monitoring and storage of cemented
waste packages is shown in the pie chart in Figure 11.

Page 27/68
Gap Analysis

Figure 11. Disposition of the identified gap analysis predisposal topics/issues for monitoring and storage of
cemented waste packages relative to PREDIS project scope.

6.2 Gap Handling Overview

The 77 gap topics/issues categorised as being already in-scope of the PREDIS project are currently the
subject of on-going research and development work in the project and therefore a plan exists to address them.
For the 14 gap topics/issues categorised as being not in-scope, but could be of the PREDIS project, the
individual work packages will determine whether and how they will be handled in terms of integration into the
research & development work of the project. For the 34 gap topics/issues categorised as being not in-scope
and can’t be, but could be promoted to the SRA of the PREDIS project, Work Package 2 will determine
whether and how they will be incorporated into the SRA. No actions will occur regarding the 7 gap topics/issues
categorised as being not in-scope and shouldn’t be, as they are completely outside of the scope of the
PREDIS project. The next sub-sections provide more technical insights about the gaps and how they link to
the existing and potentially adapted scope of the four technical work packages. Chapter 7 provides an overall
summary of the Gap Analysis results and the future steps in the PREDIS project regarding these finding. The
summary points of the gap handling plan will also be covered in the first periodic reporting of the project (at
month 12) and discussions with the EC, before the update of the Description of Action.

6.3 Gap Handling in Specific Work Packages

6.3.1 Metallic Waste Gap Analysis (WP4)
Decontamination

Large volumes of metallic waste are generated during decommissioning and to a lesser extent during operation
of nuclear installations, among them steels, Ni-alloys and other metals. According to the principle of circular
economy, it is important to recycle as much of these materials as possible. A large volume of material can be
reclaimed through decontamination of these wastes. This reclamation allows saving storage and disposal
resources as well as reducing costs.

Within WP4 of the PREDIS project, it is planned to optimise known chemical/gel decontamination processes
with an emphasis on the management of treatment effluents. Constructive discussions with end-users as well
as feedback from the survey organised within Task 4.3 and from the webinar held on WP4 activities the
following topics were highlighted:

Page 28/68
Gap Analysis

1. Optimisation of chemical decontamination

2. Management of secondary wastes from chemical decontamination
3. Mobile waste treatment

Topics 1 and 2 are being addressed by PREDIS WP4 and will be complemented by including an LCA approach
when possible. Special attention will be paid to WAC via interactions with WMOs. Topic 3 is considered
important but not covered nor financed within the PREDIS project. It should be promoted to the SRA.

Characterisation

Before and after dismantling and cutting of the reactor components into segments, precise and accurate
characterisation is necessary for sorting of the metallic waste into different management routes. The aim is to
decide if decontamination is needed (clearance criteria have not been met and can be met after
decontamination) as well as to select the most efficient decontamination process.

To optimise the characterisation and sorting procedure, measurement uncertainties should be reduced and
thereby allow the management of metallic waste to be more efficient. Also, the reduction of the uncertainty in
the clearance measurements will increase the volume of metallic waste for recycling which means significant
reduction in costs. Procedures based on Monte Carlo simulations as well as on gamma camera technology or
on the use of a number of plastic scintillation detectors are proposed for reduction of the measurement
uncertainty. In WP4 Task 4.5, a new measurement layout for gamma spectrometry measurement is proposed
for significant reduction of the characterisation uncertainty. The ambition within the PREDIS project is the
optimisation of the characterisation methodology for sorting the waste streams, a pre-requisite for allowing the
recycling of a maximum volume of metallic waste following their decontamination. This is in line with the circular
economy strategy of Europe.

Conditioning

The operation and decommissioning of nuclear facilities generate a large volume of radioactive metallic waste
(steels, Al, Mg, Zr, Zn, U, Be, W). Prior to disposal, the radioactive waste must be conditioned in a stable and
confined form. Concrete encapsulation is one strategy to manage the low- and intermediate-level waste by
isolation from the environment. The major risk of this type of metal confinement is the aqueous corrosion,
resulting in hydrogen release under (anoxic) disposal conditions.

Gap analysis with regard to the encapsulation of the reactive metallic waste includes many aspects such as
the right chemical formulation as well as reducing the cost. Hence, the priority topics for the PREDIS WP4
activities on conditioning to be carried out are as follows:

1. Optimise magnesium phosphate cements (MPC) formulation for metallic waste encapsulation.
2. Characterise the MPC (mechanical properties, pH monitoring, leaching, irradiation).
3. Optimise the MPC cost for use on an industrial scale.
4. Study the reactivity of the inventoried metallic waste (Al and Be) but also the drum (low carbon steel).
Determine the volume of hydrogen produced as a function of the formulation and compare it to the
one measure in a conventional cement (Portland type cement).

All of these studies have to be done considering available literature, the waste acceptance criteria imposed by
the end-users and the disposal environment conditions.

6.3.2 Liquid Organic Waste Gap Analysis (WP5)

Work Package 5 of the PREDIS project focuses on the development of technical solutions for the direct
conditioning of radioactive liquid organic waste by immobilisation in a geopolymer matrix or related alkali-
activated materials. The project should make it possible to highlight the advantages of these technical solutions
and the applicability of these conditioning methods, in particular for liquid organic wastes currently without a
solution (i.e., those wastes that cannot be incinerated).

Page 29/68
Gap Analysis

Feasibility. In order to show their feasibility, these technical solutions must be optimised to surpass other
possible alternatives such as cement or polymer-based produces such as NOCHAR. It is with these two
reference materials that the performances of the innovative matrices developed within the framework of the
PREDIS project (Task 5.3) will be compared. The evaluation of the benefits provided by geopolymers must be
made in economic terms, relying in particular on the cost of raw materials and the increase in waste loadings
in order to limit the number of containers produced to be disposed (Task 5.5). In the PREDIS project, ambitious
waste load loadings of more than 20 to 30% in volume will be targeted.

Versatility. Direct conditioning solutions are simple to implement: the mortar can be prepared in a non-
radioactive environment upstream of the incorporation of the radioactive liquid organic waste. Such technical
options must show their versatility by allowing the treatment of radioactive organic liquid waste of various
natures: oils, solvents, scintillation cocktails, etc. These wastes, identified as the most numerous and
problematic in Europe (Task 5.2), are part of the reference waste on which the matrices developed within the
framework of the PREDIS project will be tested (Task 5.3). The partners will be free to add more specific waste
relevant in in their respective national context. The associated process options must make it possible to
accommodate deposit volumes that can vary from a few litres to several tens of cubic meters.

Sustainability. The sustainability of the processes must also be demonstrated by the ability to secure material
supplies from various sources of raw materials, in particular locally sourced materials limiting the number of
actors in the logistics chain. It is also a question of promoting the circular economy by using recycled materials,
which are currently not at all or poorly recovered. Many of the raw materials used in the PREDIS project will
be supplied nationally by the partners, which will also allow the comparison of the relative qualities of various
sources of supply for such materials. Materials from recycling will also be used.

Disposability. Once produced, the disposability of geopolymers and their compliance with WAC, when they
are defined, is of paramount importance. If these matrices are already acceptable or accepted in certain
countries of the European Union, many Waste Management Organisations ask to strengthen the robustness
of the knowledge of these matrices with regard to their behaviour in long-term interim storage, then with
disposal operational safety and post-closure safety. This involves evaluating the chemical reactivity and
durability of these matrices so as to better understand the interactions between the matrix and the organic
liquid waste it contains as well as the evolution of the geopolymer properties over time and therefore its
radionuclide containment capacities. Then, the performance requirements in terms of retention of binder early
age mechanical properties, resistance of binder to attack by relevant environmental factors and compatibility
with geochemical in-situ conditions in a repository must be defined beforehand and ensured. It is also
necessary to define the acceptable levels of release or leachate of encapsulated wastes and binder
constituents. An important part of WP5 is dedicated to the characterisation of the matrices developed within
the PREDIS project: study of the chemical durability under various conditions, of the leachability of
radionuclides and of the behaviour to irradiation (Task 5.4). The PREDIS project will therefore provide a great
deal of scientific knowledge contributing to the acceptability of geopolymers and related materials in nuclear
repositories throughout Europe.

Assessment of identified gaps

The PREDIS project aims to increase the interest in utilising geopolymers and related alkali-activated materials
for the direct conditioning of radioactive liquid organic waste and must therefore endeavour to demonstrate
that it is:

 a feasible technical solution, with no risks,

 applicable to the diversity of organic liquid waste streams,
 sustainable both economically and in terms of security of consistent supply,
 and that the matrix produced have sufficient properties, performance and safety to be disposable.

Once the preceding elements have been demonstrated, the processes implementing these conditioning
techniques must be adapted to waste of various types and quantities.

Page 30/68
Gap Analysis

6.3.3 Solid Organic Waste Gap Analysis (WP6)

Descriptions of identified gaps

Waste producers and waste management organisations are faced with the management of low and
intermediate-level radioactive solid organic waste (RSOW) streams. Solutions already exist for the long-term
management of organic waste streams and they can be safely disposed for some of them. The aim is to
investigate news processes leading to safest and cheapest solution. Nevertheless, it exists a large amount of
RSOW for which the current conditioning methods generate waste forms whose safe long-term storage and
disposal is difficult to achieve and / or demonstrate, because they are considered not sufficiently stable and /
or too highly reactive in alkaline conditions expected to prevail in many final repositories. The identified gaps
listed below are the ones appearing the most urgent in the process for the management of such waste streams
at the European level.

Specific to WP6, the gap analysis was initiated and based on the outcomes of the THERAMIN project (2016-
2020), where the benefit of the thermal treatment on the volume reduction and the destruction of the organic
compounds was proved (free access, report http://www.theramin-h2020.eu/ ).

Assessment of identified gaps

Because of the large variety and the different options already investigated or applied by the Waste
Management Organisations in Europe, but outside also, for the treatment and the management of RSOW, a
clear overview about the inventory (nature and quantity), the priority level and the possible or current treatment
has to be established.

 Gap 1: Radioactive Solid Organic Waste inventory (nature of the waste)

The type and the nature of RSOWs are diverse, they can be raw materials without any treatment and also
wastes that have already been conditioned. The gap is to perform the strategic overview of the RSOW for the
partners included in PREDIS and to extend the list of thermal technologies actually available or currently under
development that are suitable for the treatment of the RSOW. After the first survey sent to the WMO, a ranking
was established regarding the type of RSOW that should be considered within the project. They are:

o Organic-based Ion Exchange Resins (IER). The amount is continuously increasing, and solutions
should be proposed for their immobilisation, especially by using thermal treatment that is expected to
contribute to a (large) volume reduction. A re-evaluation of the waste classification could be necessary
since it results in a ‘concentration’ of radioactivity and the conditioned waste package can no longer
be classified as Low and Intermediate-Level Waste but as High-Level Waste.

o Common cement wastes (as for example the legacy waste where the materials were compacted prior
the packaging) containing organic compounds like consumables or other materials like wood. This is
typically the case for a lot of historical waste where the composition of the waste is not exactly known.

o Already conditioned organic waste forms like polymerised waste and bituminised waste where an
organic matrix was used to stabilise different inorganic or organic primary waste streams.
Unfortunately, the risks associated with such matrices (combustion in case of accidental fire) or
chemical reactions occurring after several decades (swelling of bituminised wastes) force the WMOs
to take action and condition the wastes.

 Gap 2: Thermal treatment identification

During the THERAMIN program, several processes were tested and have proved the feasibility and the benefit
of thermal treatment. Based on the achievements of the program, it was recommended to continue the effort
by improving the technologies and by increasing their TRLs. In PREDIS, this effort continues, and other
processes are investigated thanks to their promising and innovative aspect and also because they are
associated with the immobilisation processes that will be described in the next section. The promoted
technologies are:

Page 31/68
Gap Analysis

o Plasma incineration. The RSOW is incinerated and immobilised in a single reactor leading to a glassy-
type material. For example, SIIEG will produce samples from the treatment of Ions-Polymers resins.

o Incineration / Gasification. This process, developed by VTT, already proved its efficiency during
THERAMIN for the treatment of high organic matter containing radioactive waste leading to the
production of ashes and of “clean gas” that may use for energy production. The best options for the
immobilisation of the produced ashes will be investigated using geopolymer or cement-based
materials (section 2.1.3). Here, the gap is to prove the feasibility of the incineration / gasification of
bituminised waste leading to a TRL 2 to 4 during the duration of the program.

o Hot Isostatic Pressing. The process was also investigated during THERAMIN and remains encouraged
by the End Users. The value of the process lies in the capacity to retain volatile radionuclides and to
produce a glassy-type material to be packaged in a metallic canister. Several gaps are identified: the
feasibility of the technology using different types of initial materials and therefore achieving a versatile
technology, but also to prove the feasibility of the process at the industrial level by upscaling the
method thanks to the collaboration between USFD and NNL. In term of TRL, the intention is to move
from 2 to 4 using radiotracer.

o Molten Salt Oxidation. Already used for the treatment of the Radioactive Liquid Organic Waste (WP5),
CVRez intends to demonstrate the feasibility of the treatment of IERs and to increase the TRL from 4
to 6 by immobilising the residue obtained after the treatment using binders. Since this technology
already exists and is applied for the liquid waste, the process presents a great interest for the treatment
of the solid wastes.

o Wet Oxidation. Promoted by USFD and also investigated by POLIMI, this advanced process has to
be developed for the treatment of spent IERs and condition the 14C inventory for safe disposal. The
residue will be immobilised either HIP by USFD or by using binder by Polimi. During the course of
PREDIS program, the TRL should increase from 2 to 4.

 Gap 3: Suitable matrices for the immobilisation of the thermally treated waste

For most of the processes included in WP6, a conditioning step is necessary for the immobilisation of the
secondary wastes (ashes, residues, etc.) produced after (thermal) treatment. Until now, the most common
binders for the immobilisation of the (treated-) waste are cement-based materials. However, it appears that
geopolymer matrices can have properties that increase the stability, the durability and the loading of the treated
wastes and also lower the of production cost by using natural compounds. Nevertheless, cement-based
materials remain the most common option for the immobilisation of the treated waste. The gap here is to
compare the performance of the two types of binder.

Since it is commonly agreed that glassy-type materials are a good matrix for the immobilisation of radioactive
wastes (for example High Level Wastes), the feasibility demonstration of embedding thermally treated wastes
in such matrices is in the interest of the WMOs. CEA will investigate the glass coating of ashes from IER
incineration. The process is quite new and the TRL should increase from 1 to 4.

 Gap 4: Durability and stability evaluation of the conditioned wastes under disposal conditions

A systematic assessment of the durability and the stability of the selected conditioned wastes is required.
According to WAC (if available, not obvious for the geopolymer binder), the key parameters influencing the
stability and durability under representative disposal conditions will be identified.

Since most of the partners carry out this evaluation under their ‘national’ requirements, and in many cases
using different conditioned wastes (as for example the expected composition of the solution and the prevailing
redox conditions can be different from one repository to another), which makes an overall evaluation of the
benefit of the technologies and the immobilisation processes difficult. Therefore, a common approach is
needed by defining a reference protocol and experimental conditions.

Page 32/68
Gap Analysis

Following the recommendation of the EUG, this performance evaluation should be done in the most
representative conditions of the disposal system / sites, namely at high pH and not in deionised water at it was
done in the past or at high temperature.

The gap is to define common protocol and experimental conditions that will satisfy most of the WP6 partners,
allowing the evaluation of the performance of the end products. Since geopolymer and cement-based materials
are used in WP4 and WP5, it is recommended to use this reference protocol as much as possible.

 Gap 5: Development of a computational tool

In order to evaluate the matrix performance associated with each technology combined with the large variety
of RSOW and the different binder options for their immobilisation, a systematic study of the end products is
not conceivable. It would be very costly and time consuming. One option would be the development of a
computational tool allowing each EUG to take the decision about the best option for their own problematic
wastes according to their national constraints.

 Gap 6: Characterisation of the RSOW

Over the last several years, the level of details regarding the composition of RSOWs has increased. However,
for the legacy / historical wastes compositions are far less documented which poses problems for their
management and/or conditioning. The characterisation of such wastes was addressed several times during
the different interactions EUG – PREDIS, but it is not the intention of WP6 to characterise the initial waste as
it is the subject of other projects such as CHANCE or EURAD-ROUTES.

Ranking of identified gaps (see “Summary Table from WP6 Internal Gap Analysis Report” in Appendix 6)

Gaps 1 to 4 are important and should be brought directly into PREDIS since they are linked together. For
example, some countries are currently using the direct route for the immobilisation of the IERs, without
(thermal) treatment. The aim is to provide relevant information on the advantages of the treatment prior to
immobilisation in order to improve the process and / or to give guidance to WMOs on the most efficient and
safe way to treat the RSOWs

o Is it safe enough and economically attractive to immobilise this type of waste without (thermal)
treatment or is it preferable to treat them first?
o If treatment is preferable or unavoidable, which treatment? A chemical degradation or a thermal
treatment leading to secondary waste requiring an immobilisation or a ‘single process’ such plasma
incineration providing an immobilised and final end-product?
o If incineration or chemical degradation is favoured, which immobilisation process is better? HIP with
the retention capacity of the volatile radionuclides or the use of binders (geopolymer vs cement-based
materials)?

Gap 5 (computational tool) is certainly very useful but probably can’t be achieved within the 4 years of the
project. Preliminary work will be initiated in PREDIS and should be promoted further via the SRA. It will be
‘under construction’ at the end of PREDIS because this tool will need lot of information for the model calibration
and to provide reliable information afterwards.

Gap 6 is included in the WP6 description, but some questions will remain open due to the different routes for
the treatment of the RSOW which are not at the same maturity level and it will be difficult to provide a full
comparison.

6.3.4 Concrete Packages and Monitoring Gap Analysis (WP7)

Evaluation and Assessment

The incoming information (minutes, notes on the discussions with end users) from the January WP7 webinar
was analysed by Timothy Schatz (VTT) on behalf of the MT. The evaluation (comparison to PREDIS work
program and information given by WP7 partners) was done by the WP7 leader (Ernst Niederleithinger, BAM).
For the categorization, three types were found (already in scope, not in scope, but can and maybe will be and
not in scope and can’t be). The results are compiled in the “WP7 - Categorised Webinar Takeaways” table in
Appendix 7 (following the general colour scheme outlined above).

Page 33/68
Gap Analysis

Independently, the State-of-the-Art report including the end-user questionnaire and all other available
information was collected, sorted and evaluated by the T7.2 team (lead by Stefania Uras, SOGIN). The same
team also provided a classification of all identified gaps (based on waste stream classification, predisposal
phase, priority, technology level and PREDIS project relevance).

Lastly, two additional gaps, sourced purely as end user needs, are presented in the “WP7 Internal Gap Analysis
Issue Categorisation” table in Appendix 7 (following the same colour scheme).

For Work Package 7 a comprehensive SOTA report (Deliverable D7.1) is published and available on the
PREDIS website https://predis-h2020.eu/dissemination/. This report was also taken into account for the
categorisation of the gaps mentioned below. The identified gaps can be sorted into three categories (WP
leader, confirmed by task leaders and partners):

1) Gaps that are PREDIS relevant and not in the work program but are dealt with in other research
projects: For these gaps (7, 10 and 11 in “WP7 SOTA Report Gap Analysis Issue Categorisation,”
Appendix 7), technologies are under development in the projects MICADO or CHANCE. PREDIS will
have a MoU with both projects asap. The WP7 team plans to invite selected CHANCE and MICADO
partners to the next WP7 workshop to ensure that data from their measurement technologies could
also be used in practical implementations of the WP7 digital twin and data/decision platforms after the
end of PREDIS (open interface of PREDIS data deliverables).

2) Gaps that are PREDIS relevant and should be brought into the WP7 work plan: Gap 3 in “WP7 -
Categorised Webinar Takeaways” (Appendix 7) and Gap 1 in “WP7 SOTA Report Gap Analysis Issue
Categorisation” (Appendix 7) was emphasised by several end users. Internal sensors would be
required for this purpose, potentially as an extension to the RFID technology to be developed by
VTT/BAM. Gap 13 in “WP7 SOTA Report Gap Analysis Issue Categorisation” (Appendix 7) is not a
part of the work program of PREDIS (and can’t be due to lack of resources), the technologies
developed in WP7 should be evaluated for their potential of mobile/robotic deployment in T 7.6.

3) Gaps, which are already part of the PREDIS WP7 work program, but which should be given more
emphasis: Gap 3 in “WP7 SOTA Report Gap Analysis Issue Categorisation” (Appendix 7) is mentioned
in the PREDIS WP7 work plan without being specific. The work plan should be extended and clarified
on this point.

4) Gaps that should be left out of PREDIS: Gap 5 in “WP7 - Categorised Webinar Takeaways” (Appendix
7) is beyond the scope of PREDIS. There are too many local and national boundary conditions to be
considered. Thus, this type of analysis must be made by follow up national projects. However, WP7
T7.6 will give guidance on the costs of the new technologies as an input to this analysis via the
LCC/LCA activities in WP2. For Gaps 5 and 9 in “WP7 SOTA Report Gap Analysis Issue
Categorisation” (Appendix 7), commercial sensors are already available for leakage and condensation
detection. The T7.5 data platform will propose open interfaces for any kind of additional sensors to be
integrated in a practical implementation platform after PREDIS.

5) Gaps, which are already part of the PREDIS WP7 work program: Gap 14 in “WP7 SOTA Report Gap
Analysis Issue Categorisation” (Appendix 7) is included in T7.4 to validate models for Digital
Twin/prediction. Muon technology might give information about package content. More research on
legacy waste package characterisation is done in projects such as MICADO.

All other gaps are in the work program, but limitations due to time and budget may apply.

Consequences

WP7 recommends adapting the work plan to address (where possible) identified gaps:

 WP7, T7.3: The list of the parameters to be measured by embedded and externally attached sensors
should be appended with “internal corrosion” (of a metallic container)” and “external corrosion (of a
metallic container)” as well as “pressure within a waste package, potentially damaging the container”.
These parameters can potentially be measured by the RFID systems to be developed by VTT/BAM.

Page 34/68
Gap Analysis

 WP7, T7.3: The parameter “condensation” should be added to the external RFID sensing system
(UNIPI), at least in a sense that the potential of adding an appropriate sensing module is explored.

 WP7, T7.4: The work program of the digital twin technology should take the potential of measured
data into account, which will be delivered by systems such as those developed in CHANCE, MICADO
as well as data, coming from commercially available sensing systems

 WP7, T7.5: The database should include a prototype of additional (non-PREDIS) sensing systems

 WP7, T7.6: The demonstration task should explore the possibility of joint demonstrations of certain
sensing systems from MICADO, CHANCE and PREDIS (e.g. muon imaging). The potential of
robotic/mobile deployment of technologies should be assessed.

WP7 recommends adding the following points to the strategic research agenda:

 WP7 will provide several prototypes of measuring / monitoring systems (up to TRL7) for some typical
waste package types. The SRA includes the extended time (3 years) for demonstration of a fully
functioning system at a working facility.

 A full commercial analysis should be performed using the results of this demonstration.

7 Summary
7.1 Key Takeaways
The pre-proposal preparations in 2019 gathered inputs from industry via IGD-TP and Nugenia (now SNETP),
which lead to focusing the project on four specific waste streams having highest urgency and importance from
many Member States. These topics were also identified as areas where co-financing investment could be
obtained for the consortium partners in-line with the joint program expectations. The identified gaps were also
in accordance with topics identified in existing SRAs of EURAD and Nugenia and identified in JOPRAD. Later
in-session polling during webinars of spring 2021 also reinforced that the focus topics were in-line with the
audiences’ priorities.

The more comprehensive second phase Gap Analysis conducted over the first eight months of the PREDIS
project has provided further insights to the industry and other end-users needs, challenges and priorities. A
variety of methods were successfully applied to gain insight from a wider group of interested stakeholders.
There was a high level of engagement and reach, worldwide, especially with the free live public webinars. In
general, the Gap Analysis has shown that the scope of the PREDIS project is accurate, aligning with the most
urgent topics for technical RD&D focus and investment, benefiting a wide number of Member States. The
weighting between the four work packages and their relevant tasks was supported. Based on the Gap Analysis,
minor re-tailoring or adjustments of the technical scope can be implemented to the existing PREDIS work
packages and tasks.

Of the gaps identified on the basis of the defined objectives (Chapter 3) and processes (Chapters 4 and 5)
outlined above, most (58 %) are already in the scope of the PREDIS technical work packages. Another portion
of topics can be considered for inclusion by modification of the existing work package tasks. More specifically:

 77 gap topics/issues were categorised as being already in-scope of the PREDIS project,
 14 gap topics/issues were categorised as being not in-scope, but could be relevant to the PREDIS
project,
 34 gap topics/issues were categorised as being not in-scope and can’t be, but could be promoted
to the SRA of the PREDIS project,
 7 gap topics/issues were categorised as being not in-scope and shouldn’t be considered further by
the PREDIS project.

Page 35/68
Gap Analysis

It can be concluded that the project was originally well-designed based on the steps taken during the
background preparation phase (Chapter 3). Only 10% of the gap analysis identified topics are well outside the
scope of PREDIS, yet all gap analysis topics/issues can be considered for inclusion to the future Strategic
Research Agenda.

7.2 Actions and Recommendations

The PREDIS Management Team expects that the majority of outcomes from the Gap Analysis (Chapter 6) will
be accounted for in the update of the Description of Action, with regard to the RD&D activities of the tasks
within the different work packages 4-7. Such adjustments may require re-adjustment of work effort and budget
between tasks and partners. These will be described during the first periodic reporting (at Month 12, September
2021) to the European Commission. Overall, the allocation of total budget per work package (of roughly 20%
of the total project budget to each WP4-7) is not expected to vary based on the second phase gap analysis
outcomes. After the first-year review and feedback by the European Commission, the Management Team will
provide a revised Description of Action by Month 18 (Milestone M3, by February 2022). Many of the topics
that are flagged in the Gap Analysis can also be integrated to the future Strategic Research Agenda to be
produced by PREDIS as a public Deliverable D2.4 due at Month 44 (April 2024).

Page 36/68
Gap Analysis

A PPENDIX 1: A GENDA FOR TA5 SESSION OF THE N UGENIA F ORUM

Date: Friday March 15, 2019, at 14.00-17.00

Place: Nugenia Forum, Cite Internationale Universitaire de Paris, Paris, France. +Skype for Business

Invited: TA5 members, EURAD-Science, SHARE-Decommissioning, interested parties

Objective: EURATOM call NFRP-9 (decommissioning) and NFRP-10 (predisposal radwaste) preparations

14.00 OPENING, objectives, meeting procedures – Anthony Banford (chairperson, NNL)

14.10 NFRP09 - DECOMMISSIONING

14.10 IT-tools:
01 CEA (Christine) – 3D digitally enhanced decommissioning (3 min)
02 VTT (Erika) digital twins (1 min)
DISCUSSION (5 min)
14.20 Characterisation
03 HZDR (T) – Combining calculations & experimental determination of inventory (3 min)
04 FMTC (Laurynas) – C-14 measuring prototype (1 min)
05 VTT (Erika) – Optical in-situ characterisation (1 min)
DISCUSSION (5 min)
14.30 Decontamination
06 CVUT (Jan) – Advanced methods (3 min)
07 NNL (Matt) – Novel methods (1 min)
DISCUSSION (5 min)
14.40 Dismantling technologies
08 EDF (Nicolas) – Graphite retrieval (presented 14.3 session already)
09 ONET (Julien) – laser cutting technologies (3 min)
10 NNL (Matt) – robotics (3 min)
11 NNL (Matti) - PPE for people protection (3 min)
11b GSL (Dan) – End state (3 min)
DISCUSSION (5 min)

15.00 NFRP10 - HORIZONTAL ACTIVITIES

12 CVRez (Lumir) - Preliminary waste acceptance criteria (3 min)
13 UJVRez (Josef) – Management of legacy wastes (3 min)
14 FMTC (Laurynas) – Waste management for wastes lacking solutions (3 min)
15 NCSRD (Savidou) – Treatment of small inventories (3 min)
DISCUSSIOIN (5 min)

15.20 COFFEE BREAK

Page 37/68
Gap Analysis

15.30 NFRP10- RADWASTE PRE-DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES

15.30 Thermal Conditioning
16 GSL (Dan) – Alternative waste conditioning and treatment (3 min)
17 SCK-CEN (Christophe) – Chemical stability of slabs - plasma torch treatment (3 min)
18 CVR (Jan) – New types of matrices – stabilisation, vaporisation, combustion (3 min)
19 RATEN (Crina/video) – Oxidative method for spent ion exchange resins (1 min)
DISCUSSION (5 min)
15.45 Graphite & Metallic waste handling
20 SCK-CEN (Christophe) – Irradiated graphite conditioning and treatment (3 min)
21 FZJulich (G) – Handling metallic waste and irradiated graphite (1 min)
22 EDF (Jeremy) – Minimisation and recycling very low activity metallic materials (1 min)
23-24 RATEN (Crina) – Irradiated graphite & aluminium conditioning and treatment (1 min)
DISCUSSION (5 min)
16.00 Waste Immobilisation
25 CEA (Frederic) – Innovation conditioning methods and technologies (3 min)
26 VTT (Erika) – Geopolymers for immobilisation (1 min)
26b SIPT (Sergey Kharkov) – Waste treatment
27 SCK-CEN (Christophe) – Durability of geopolymers (1 min)
DISCUSSION (5 min)
16.15 Monitoring of pre-disposal packages
28 PSI (Sergey) – Modelling & experiments on cemented material degradation (3m)
29 GSL (Dan) – Monitoring waste package performance in long-term storage (3 min)
30 SCK-CEN (Christophe) – Characterisation of radiological content (3 min)
DISCUSSION (5 min)
16.30 WAY FORWARD DISCUSSION (lead by Anthony & Christine)
Knowledge Management Activities
Consortium building, joint-program (EURAD links)
Schedule/next steps towards submission

17.00 ADJOURN

Page 38/68
Gap Analysis

A PPENDIX 2: P RE - PROJECT S URVEY

Review template #1 for possible Technical Work packages to NFRP-10 Proposal on Pre-
disposal Radioactive Waste Management call - May 2019

Please return this survey to Erika Holt ([email protected]) and Maria Oksa ([email protected]) by
Thursday May 9.

Organisation

 Please give the contact details of your organisation (including email address of contact person
who completed or coordinated this review)

 Indicate in which category your organisation falls:

  waste owner/producer,

  waste management organisation,

  regulatory body/TSO or

  other __________________________________________

Waste type prioritisation

The NFRP-10 project will target in its Technical Work Packages several waste types. Please indicate
in the following table: 1) which waste types are relevant for (i.e., produced and/or managed by) your
organisation (mark with an X); 2) which waste type (relevant for your organisation, and therefore
marked by an X in the previous column) should receive highest priority (please rank from 1 (high) to
6 (low) from highest to lowest priority, respectively). There is an additional column for commenting.
Please use this column if you want to specify certain attention points for a waste type.

Waste Type Relevant? Priority Comment

Liquid organic waste
Solid bituminised waste,
organic polymerised waste;
waste
resins
consumables,
others
Metallic Reactive metals
L&ILW Contaminated steel
Activated steel
Others
Graphite
Cemented waste

Evaluation per Work Package

Please give your assessment per Work Package on :

 The clarity, pertinence and outlook on the achievability of the stated objectives (based on your
insights) of the WP;

 The innovative character of the work proposed, and if the WP would contribute sufficiently to
the increase of scientific and technical knowledge (beyond state of the art);

Page 39/68
Gap Analysis

 The relevance of the end results for your organisation, the share of your inventory that can
benefit from the WP results, and the added value that is created by the WP;

 An estimation at what point in the future do you hope to gain benefit from the outcome of the
WP and how;
 Other needs you think are missing if any.
(If a particular WP is not relevant for your organisation, based on the table above, there is no need to
answer these questions).

Target length per WP assessment is a few bullets to half page (short, concise is appreciated).

Work package 1: Treatment and recycling of metallic materials and waste

Work package 2: Graphite materials treatment and conditioning

Work package 3: Liquid organic waste

Work package 4: Solid organic waste

Work package 5: Cemented waste and packages

Work package 6: Qualification and acceptance of waste

Involvement as End User

Please indicate by answering the following questions:

 If your organisation wants to be involved in the project as end-user and specify on which WP
(indication only, exact role can be defined later)
 If your organisation wants to be involved in the project as (active) participant or partner

 If you consider that your organisation may want to (co-)finance certain Work Packages and/or
participants within the project (and if so, which Work Packages)

 If you would like to be removed from the mailing list, or have a different person in your
organisation who should be included in the future.

Additional comments

Feel free to provide additional comments, if appropriate

Page 40/68
Gap Analysis

A PPENDIX 3: SCOPE OF PREDIS W ORK PACKAGES 4-7

WP4 Metallic material treatment and conditioning
Total effort: 534 PM (person-months), among 23 partners
Lead: Bernd GRAMBOW, IMT-Atlantique (France)

Tasks (lead partner):

 T4.1 WP management (IMTA)
 T4.2 Defining Europe-wide Needs and Opportunities for Management of Metallic Waste Streams
(GSL)
 T4.3 Development and optimisation of decontamination processes (IMTA)
 T4.4 Optimisation of metallic waste characterisation and procedures for waste minimisation and
recycling (NCSRD)
 T4.5 Encapsulation of reactive metals in magnesium phosphate cement-based matrices (CNRS)
 T4.6 Dissemination (IMTA)

Innovations:
 Develop innovative conditioning matrices for reactive metallic wastes.
 Develop innovative and optimised characterisation techniques for metallic wastes.
 Demonstrate innovative techniques to decontaminate metallic wastes to quantify the efficiency of
decontamination processes and allow more effective application of the waste hierarchy.
 Develop treatment techniques for secondary waste streams after decontamination.

WP5 Liquid Organic waste treatment and conditioning

Total effort = 618 PM, among 21 partners
Lead: Maxime Fournier, CEA (France)

Tasks (lead partner):

 Task 5.1 WP5 Management (CEA)
 Task 5.2 Collection & review of waste, regulatory, scientific & technical data (GSL)
 Task 5.3 Study of direct conditioning process (RATEN & SOGIN)
 Task 5.4 Study of conditioning matrix performances (ECL & USFD)
 Task 5.5 Preliminary technical, economic and environmental analysis (GSL)
 Task 5.6 Implementation & dissemination (UNIPI)

Innovations:
 Study of innovative materials (geopolymers) and their interactions with ROLW
 Development of direct conditioning solutions for RLOW based on geopolymer from TRL3 to TRL6
including validation tests with real waste and feasibility scale-up tests.
 Optimisation of geopolymers options and formulations to optimise ROLW encapsulation, especially
incorporation rates and matrix performance.
 Process robustness regarding waste, raw materials and process variability including study definition
and execution of non-standard tests to verify the stability and durability of the final waste form.
 Disposability assessment from the study of matrix performances and long-term behavior including
“technical standard tests” related to WAC when available and scientific approaches for deeper
physico-chemical understanding including the development of methodologies to evaluate parameters
important for disposability assessment.

WP6 Solid Organic waste treatment and conditioning

Total: effort509 PM, among 14 partners.
Lead: Thierry Mennecart, SCK CEN (Belgium)

Tasks (lead partner):

 Task 6.1 Work package management (SCK CEN)
 Task 6.2 Database on solid organic waste forms and their final state and value assessment analysis
(GSL)
 Task 6.3 Thermal treatment of the radioactive waste forms and characterisation of the treated /
conditioned wastes (CEA)

Page 41/68
Gap Analysis

 Task 6.4 Immobilisation of the treat wastes by geopolymer or cement-based materials encapsulation
or by molten glass coating (CVRez)
 Task 6.5 Densification (USFD)
 Task 6.6 Physico-chemical characterisation of conditioned waste form and stability testing (VTT)
 Task 6.7 Economic and Environment impact - Implementation (GSL)
 Task 6.8 Dissemination and Reporting (SCK CEN)

Innovations:
 Closing the cycle for treatment of solid organic wastes by proposing, developing, testing and
verifying suitable matrices for conditioning of residues and secondary wastes stemming from
(thermal) treatment options (like those investigated within the earlier THERAMIN project).
 Development of geopolymers as alternative binder material to ordinary cement-based systems for
conditioning of residues and secondary wastes.
 Demonstrate robustness of full treatment cycle for selected solid organic waste streams.
 Assessment of full treatment cycle in terms of technology and economical assessment, achieved
volume reduction factor, final conditioned matrix performance and related WAC for different primary
waste stream physico-chemical characteristics.

WP7 Cemented waste handling and pre-disposal storage

Total effort: 408 PM, among 17 partners
Lead: Ernst Niederleithinger, BAM (Germany)
Tasks (lead partner):
 Task 7.1 WP management (BAM)
 Task 7.2 State of the art in packaging, storage, and monitoring of cemented wastes (GSL)
 Task 7.3 Innovative integrity testing and monitoring techniques (BAM)
 Task 7.4 Digital Twin (PSI)
 Task 7.5 Data handling, processing and fusion (VTT)
 Task 7.6 Demonstration and implementation of monitoring, maintenance, and
automation/digitalisation techniques (Orano)
 Task 7.7 Dissemination and Reporting (GSL)

Innovations:
 Innovative NDE tools for evaluation of package integrity, including, but not limited to visual methods,
muon tomography and ultrasonic techniques
 Innovative sensor technologies for instrumented packages, including, but not limited to fiber optical
techniques and methods for wireless power supply and data transmission
 An approach for developing and maintaining digital twins of packages, including a package evolution
model based on inventory data, chemical and mineralogical characterisation data, data from
chemical modelling, and monitoring data
 Application of machine-learning algorithms, trained on digital datasets, to produce a fast and
accurate description of the geochemical evolution and the geo- and thermo-mechanical integrity of
radioactive waste packages during pre-disposal
 A digital twin of a radioactive waste package based on machine-learning algorithms that can offer
advanced information for waste package inspection protocols and, thus, contribute to safety of
storage facilities
 Large digital database to train the machine-learning algorithms
 A decision framework model that is based on existing knowledge, data from measurements and
predictions from digital twins
 Advancement of the overall TRL for data handling, processing and fusion in the context of
intermediate radioactive waste storage from 4 to 6
 Reports on treatment options for existing packages, potential improvements in package design and
recommendations for store automation concepts

Page 42/68
Gap Analysis

A PPENDIX 4: WP4-R ELATED G AP A NALYSIS R ESULTS

EUG On-line Feedback Survey

Note: Only those questions with gap analysis implications are included here; question numbers correspond
exactly to those in the original survey.

Question 13: What are the primary interests of your organisation related to metallic waste treatment?

Question 13a: If other, please specify

Topic Categorisation Notes

minimising surface/mass and gas

already in-scope
production
decommissioning wastes already in-scope
characterisation of mixed,
unknown intermediate level already in-scope
wastes

Page 43/68
Gap Analysis

Question 16: Are there any challenges/needs your organisation would like specifically to be addressed
in this Work Package or any specific topics/ideas/gaps that were missed?
Topic Categorisation Notes

establishing the trade-off not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
between reduction of gas could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original project
generation and cost; providing a proposal for this WP
sound method for decision
making
characterisation of not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
heterogeneous items or could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original project
containers proposal for this WP
extraction of metals from mixed not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
metal/non-metal wastes; could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original project
ILW/LLW separation proposal for this WP
alpha contaminated aluminium
and beryllium matrices for which
to date no long-term already in-scope
management scenario is defined
yet
decontamination; free release
measurements after already in-scope
decontamination
conditioning of metallic actinide
already in-scope
waste forms
decontamination of small
already in-scope
diameter piping
disposal of reactive metals not (entirely) in-scope and can’t WP4 addresses conditioning of Al
be, but could be promoted to the and Be wastes but not disposal
SRA per se
finding routes for cleared metal not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
waste, e.g., national limits permit could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original project
release but scrap metal handlers proposal for this WP
refuse receipt
optimisation of cement
formulations with respect to
already in-scope
environmentally toxic substances;
workability during cementation
methods of solidification or
grouting for metallic scrap waste
already in-scope
which will have be disposed in
DGR
use of various binders for
cementing LRW; effect of the
already in-scope
characteristics of binders on the
properties of cemented products

Page 44/68
Gap Analysis

Question 17: What methods, processes, technologies and/or demonstrations would be most useful for
your organisation from this Work Package?
Topic Categorisation Notes

(effective) characterisation of
surfaces or surface/mass ratios, already in-scope
e.g., during decommissioning
coupling gamma spectrometry not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
and tomography could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original project
proposal for this WP
cementation already in-scope
demonstrating pre-condition not (entirely) in-scope and can’t WP4 addresses measuring DTM
information and final package be, but could be promoted to the radionuclides under some
information regarding difficult or SRA conditions
even impossible to measure
nuclides; efficient metal type
recognition in hot cell-conditions;
decontamination of ILW metals
and characterisation for discard
decontamination and super- not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
pressing could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original project
proposal for this WP
disposal routes for reactive not (entirely) in-scope and can’t WP4 addresses conditioning of Al
metals (beryllium, aluminium) be, but could be promoted to the and Be wastes but not disposal
SRA per se
handling of large, highly active not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
components; decontamination in could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original project
harsh conditions proposal for this WP

Page 45/68
Gap Analysis

WP4 Technical Webinar

WP4 - Categorised Webinar Takeaways

Topic/Issue Categorisation Notes

management of secondary wastes already in-scope

from chemical decontamination
reduction in costs of metallic waste already in-scope
management
radiological characterisation already in-scope
methods
gamma camera technology not in-scope and can’t be, but could this topic was not planned or
be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original
project proposal; the
necessary competence to
carry out such work was not
assembled within the
consortium
uncertainty reduction in neutron not in-scope, but could be such validation of the
activation calculations calculations can be
performed without extra
budget because it would be
an extension of the MCNPX
simulations which are
foreseen in the budget
understanding hydrogen production already in-scope
in the geologic disposal of metallic
wastes
waste loading in conditioning not in-scope, but could be
matrices for metallic wastes
performance of conditioning already in-scope
matrices for metallic wastes
reduction in costs for magnesium already in-scope
phosphate encapsulation
mobile waste treatment not in-scope and can’t be, but could this topic was not planned or
be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original
project proposal; the
necessary competence to
carry out such work was not
assembled within the
consortium
segregation and characterisation of already in-scope
metallic wastes
recycling and reuse in metallic already in-scope
waste management

Page 46/68
Gap Analysis

Summary Table from WP4 Internal Gap Analysis Report

WP4 Internal Gap Analysis Issue Categorisation

Technology PREDIS
No. Identified Gap Source Classification Phase Priority
Level Relevant

literature
review,
interaction
with end
optimisation of chemical treatment
1 users, metallic waste high near yes
decontamination (decontamination)
technical
webinar,
project
workshop
literature
review,
treatment
technical
2 management of secondary wastes metallic waste (decontamination) high near yes
webinar,
and conditioning
project
workshop
technical
webinar,
3 mobile waste treatment all treatment medium near no
project
workshop
radiological characterisation and literature
4 metallic waste characterisation high near yes
segregation review
validation of neutron activation technical metallic waste characterisation high partway yes
5
calculations webinar
6 validation of scaling factors end users metallic waste characterisation high partway yes
7 gamma camera technology end users metallic waste characterisation medium partway no

Page 47/68
Gap Analysis

literature metallic waste conditioning high near yes

8 optimisation of the MPC formulation
review
literature metallic waste conditioning high near yes
review,
technical
9 characterisation of the MPC
webinar,
project
workshop
10 optimisation of the MPC cost end users metallic waste conditioning high partway yes
literature
study of the Al and Be reactivity in
review, end
MPC, determination of the hydrogen
11 users, metallic waste conditioning high near yes
volume produced by corrosion in the
technical
package.
webinar

Page 48/68
Gap Analysis

A PPENDIX 5: WP5- RELATED GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS

EUG On-line Feedback Survey

Note: Only those questions with gap analysis implications are included here; question numbers correspond
exactly to those in the survey.

Question 24: What are the primary interests of your organisation related to liquid organic waste
treatment?

Question 24a: If other, please specify

Topic Categorisation Notes

clearance of very lightly

already in-scope
contaminated liquids

Question 25: Are there any challenges/needs your organisation would like specifically to be addressed
in this Work Package or any specific topics/ideas/gaps that were missed?
Topic Categorisation Notes

demonstration of the durability of already in-scope

waste forms from new
conditioning methods
development of LOW already in-scope
immobilisation matrices in cases
where incineration is not
available
issues related to WAC and not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
complexing agents could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original project
proposal for this WP
alpha measurement on liquids not in-scope and can’t be, but the work of this WP is focused on
(oils); solutions for fluorinated oil could be promoted to the SRA highest priority and largest
(from high vacuum systems); volume RLOW waste streams
organic waste with unacceptably
high levels of Cl and F to meet
current waste acceptance criteria
treatment of 3H and 14C not in-scope and can’t be, but the work of this WP is focused on
containing organic solutions; could be promoted to the SRA highest priority and largest
volume RLOW waste streams

Page 49/68
Gap Analysis

treatment of biological wastes

(e.g., carcasses)
optimisation of cement already in-scope
formulations with respect to
environmentally toxic substances;
workability during cementation
use of various binders for already in-scope
cementing LRW; effect of the
characteristics of binders on the
properties of cemented products

Question 26: What methods, processes, technologies and/or demonstrations would be most useful for
your organisation from this Work Package?
Topic Categorisation Notes

incineration and cement not in-scope and can’t be, but completely out of scope for WP5
immobilisation of products could be promoted to the SRA which focuses on direct
immobilisation of LOWs, but
could be promoted to the SRA for
future efforts in liquid organic
waste conditioning for
problematic wastes, i.e., those
not amenable or approved for
direct conditioning
radiological characterisation not in-scope and can’t be, but completely out of scope for WP5
(alpha measurements); Cl and F could be promoted to the SRA which focuses on direct
removal from organic waste immobilisation of LOWs, but
streams; development of could be promoted to the SRA for
implementable treatment and future efforts in liquid organic
disposal routes for organic waste waste conditioning for
streams problematic wastes, i.e., those
not amenable or approved for
direct conditioning
cost effective treatment already in-scope
technologies for low volume
organic waste streams

Page 50/68
Gap Analysis

Question 27: Does your organisation have any radioactive liquid organic wastes that could benefit
from direct conditioning in a geopolymer-type matrix? If yes, please specify.
Topic Categorisation Notes

resins (mentioned repeatedly) not in-scope, and shouldn’t be completely out of scope for WP5
and sludges which focuses on LOWs; see
WP6
oils, scintillation liquids, organic already in-scope
liquids from steam generator
cleaning

Question 28: Is your organisation facing waste acceptance criteria issues for liquid organic wastes or
geopolymers containing liquid organics? If yes, please specify.
Topic Categorisation Notes

quantity limits on LOW in cement already in-scope

matrices
incomplete WAC not in-scope and can’t be, but WAC development is outside the
could be promoted to the SRA scope of WP5; information
regarding conditioning matrix
performances and behaviour in
relation with certain disposal,
transport and prolonged storage
requirements and specifications
will be obtained
water soluble chlorides not not in-scope and can’t be, but the work of this WP is focused on
allowed in treated or conditioned could be promoted to the SRA highest priority and largest
wastes volume RLOW waste streams
limiting chelating and complexing already in-scope this issue will be examined in the
agent content, determination of formulation of matrices designed
organic/inorganic ratio for 14C to limit surfactant content

Page 51/68
Gap Analysis

WP5 Technical Webinar

WP5 - Categorised Webinar Takeaways

Topic/Issue Categorisation Notes

demonstration of geopolymer already in-scope can be done when WAC are

conditioned waste compliance with available, which is not
waste acceptance criteria frequent
analysis of natural analogue not in-scope and can’t be, but could this topic was not planned or
evidence in WAC compliance be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original
demonstration for geopolymer project proposal; the
conditioned wastes necessary competence to
carry out such work was not
assembled within the
consortium
immobilisation of liquids in already in-scope
geopolymer matrices over
disposal-relevant timescales
evolution of geopolymer structures already in-scope
(e.g., secondary phase formation,
changes in porosity) and entrapped
liquids over time
the use of geopolymers for not in-scope and can’t be, but could completely out of scope for
conditioning reactive metal wastes be promoted to the SRA WP5 which focuses on
LOWs, but could be
promoted to the SRA for
future efforts in metallic
waste conditioning
application of geopolymers to already in-scope
cases or conditions where
established cements do not
perform suitably
establishing geopolymer material already in-scope
standards (for use in waste
conditioning)
performance of geopolymers already in-scope
compared to Nochar products
Increase of waste loadings in already in-scope
geopolymers in order to reduce the
volume of material to be disposed.
Security of supply of raw materials already in-scope
for geopolymers manufacturing
through the use of locally sourced
raw materials

Page 52/68
Gap Analysis

Summary Table from WP5 Internal Gap Analysis Report

WP5 Internal Gap Analysis Issue Categorisation

Technology PREDIS
No. Identified Gap Source Classification Phase Priority
Level Relevant

comparison of geopolymer
waste liquid organic
1 conditioning to other/existing conditioning high near yes
generators waste
solutions
waste liquid organic
2 optimisation of waste loading conditioning high partway yes
generators waste
waste liquid organic
3 applicability of conditioning methods conditioning high partway yes
generators waste
waste liquid organic
4 upscaling of conditioning methods conditioning medium partway yes
generators waste
use of locally sourced formulation internal WP liquid organic
5 conditioning medium partway yes
materials waste
use of recycled formulation internal WP liquid organic
6 conditioning medium far yes
materials waste
liquid organic
7 wasteform performance WMOs storage, disposal high partway yes
waste

Page 53/68
Gap Analysis

A PPENDIX 6: WP6-R ELATED G AP A NALYSIS R ESULTS

EUG On-line Feedback Survey

Note: Only those questions with gap analysis implications are included here; question numbers correspond
exactly to those in the survey.

Question 31: What are the primary interests of your organisation related to solid organic waste
treatment?

Question 31a: If other, please specify

Topic Categorisation Notes

waste acceptance not in-scope and can’t be, but WAC development or specific
could be promoted to the SRA compliance is outside the scope
of WP6; information regarding
waste form performance and
behaviour will be obtained

Question 32: Are there any challenges/needs your organisation would like specifically to be addressed
in this Work Package or any specific topics/ideas/gaps that were missed?
Topic Categorisation Notes

increase the amount of resins per already in-scope for resins amenable to the
package degradation processes under
development in WP6, optimised
loading of the waste residues in
immobilisation matrices will be
investigated
WAC relating to complexing not in-scope and can’t be, but WAC development or specific
agents could be promoted to the SRA compliance is outside the scope
of WP6; information regarding
waste form performance and
behaviour will be obtained
basis for limiting organic material not in-scope, but could be treatment schemes under
content in waste packages as development in WP6 should lead
part of waste acceptance criteria to complete decomposition of
organic material; product
residues could be analysed for
organic compounds

Page 54/68
Gap Analysis

optimisation of cement already in-scope

formulations with respect to
environmentally toxic substances;
workability during cementation
use of various binders for already in-scope
cementing LRW; effect of the
characteristics of binders on the
properties of cemented products

Question 33: What methods, processes, technologies and/or demonstrations would be most useful for
your organisation from this Work Package?
Topic Categorisation Notes

incorporation of resins in not in-scope and shouldn’t be direct conditioning is not the aim
geopolymers of WP6; the primary focus is
volume reduction by thermal or
other degradation treatment
techniques which have a broad already in-scope
applicability in terms of
acceptable waste streams as the
sometimes relatively small
volumes of separate waste
streams do not justify the
investigation and development of
a separate scheme for each

Question 35: Is your organisation facing waste acceptance criteria issues for solid organic wastes or
geopolymers containing solid organic wastes? If yes, please specify.
Topic Categorisation Notes

further development of WAC not in-scope and can’t be, but WAC development is outside the
could be promoted to the SRA scope of WP6; information
regarding waste form
performance and behaviour will
be obtained
WAC for disposal incomplete or not in-scope and can’t be, but WAC development is outside the
unavailable could be promoted to the SRA scope of WP6; information
regarding waste form
performance and behaviour will
be obtained

Page 55/68
Gap Analysis

WP6 Technical Webinar

WP6 - Categorised Webinar Takeaways

Topic/Issue Categorisation Notes

electrochemical methods for the not in-scope and can’t be, but could this topic was not planned or
degradation of resins be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original
project proposal; the
necessary competence to
carry out such work was not
assembled within the
consortium
optimisation of incineration and already in-scope (task 6.4)
geopolymer immobilisation
techniques for IERs
in-drum pyrolysis of cellulosic waste already in-scope

in-drum pyrolysis of bituminised not in-scope, but (maybe) could be pyrolysis of bituminised
waste waste is of current interest,
but those EUG members
managing such waste made
the strategic decision to
focus on cellulosic wastes; it
is uncertain whether the
processes being tested in
PREDIS would be suitable
for processing this waste,
however, WP6 is looking to
analyse thermally treated
products from a range of
sources including
incineration and plasma
treatment (in Task 6.3), and
as plasma treatment was
identified in THERAMIN as a
good candidate for treating
bitumen, WP6 could look to
analyse existing samples of
plasma glass from treated
bitumen waste, otherwise
this topic could be promoted
to the SRA
sustainability and wider already in-scope (task 6.7)
environmental impact of solid
organic waste treatment and
conditioning
volume reduction of solid organic already in-scope (task 6.2 & 6.7)
waste
cost control and reduction for solid already in-scope (task 6.7)
organic waste treatment and
conditioning
fate of heavy metals in solid organic not in-scope and shouldn’t be if heavy metals refer to U
waste treatment and conditioning and Pu

Page 56/68
Gap Analysis

harmonisation of treatment and not in-scope, but could be to the extent that WAC are
conditioning methods with waste available, they are generally
acceptance criteria not (exactly) the same from
one country to another;
outcomes of WP6 regarding
waste form performance
could be compared to
various WAC by consortium
partners in their national
context
waste loading of geopolymer already in-scope (task 6.4)
matrices for solid organic wastes
viability of treatment technologies already in-scope (task 6.2)
over a wide range of solid organic
waste streams
improvement of thermal plasma not in-scope and can’t be, but could this topic was not planned or
torch lifetimes be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original
project proposal; the
necessary competence to
carry out such work was not
assembled within the
consortium
solid organic waste characterisation not in-scope and shouldn’t be characterisation, especially
of legacy wastes, is not the
aim of WP6 and this topic is
already included in
CHANCE and EURAD-
Routes

Page 57/68
Gap Analysis

Summary Table from WP6 Internal Gap Analysis Report

WP6 Internal Gap Analysis Issue Categorisation

Technology PREDIS
No. Identified Gap Source Classification Phase Priority
Level Relevant

radioactive solid organic waste solid organic yes (as input

1 internal WP characterisation high partway
inventories waste data)
end user
identification of the most suitable /
needs solid organic
2 relevant thermal treatment for treatment high partway yes
(proposal waste
RSOWs
preparation)
selection of the most suitable
THERAMIN
binders / matrices for the solid organic
3 final report; conditioning high partway yes
immobilisation of thermally treated waste
EU review
waste
durability and stability evaluation of end user solid organic disposal high partway yes (under
conditioned wastes under disposal review, 1st waste reference
4 conditions workshop, conditions)
technical
webinar
computational tool for designing end user solid organic conditioning, medium far yes
immobilisation matrices and needs waste packaging,
5
evaluating performance (proposal storage, disposal
preparation)
environmental and economic impact end user solid organic treatment, medium partway yes
of predisposal management scheme review waste conditioning,
6
packaging,
storage
1st workshop, solid organic characterisation high partway yes
8 characterisation of legacy wastes technical waste
webinar

Page 58/68
Gap Analysis

A PPENDIX 7: WP7-R ELATED G AP A NALYSIS R ESULTS

EUG On-line Feedback Survey

Note: Only those questions with gap analysis implications are included here; question numbers correspond
exactly to those in the survey.

Question 38: Are there any challenges/needs your organisation would like specifically to be addressed
in this Work Package or any specific topics/ideas/gaps that were missed?
Topic Categorisation Notes

pH and aging effects not in-scope, but could be

NDT for toxic chemical species not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original project
proposal for this WP; the
necessary competence to carry
out such work was not
assembled within the consortium
long term already in-scope
predictions/confirmation on
stabilising measures, e.g., adding
extra cement to neutralise acid
build-ups.
NDT for physico-chemical not in-scope, but could be
properties, imaging and
radiological characterisation;
WAC overview in other countries;
information on issues/detrimental
chemical reactions encountered
with cemented waste packages
NDT to investigate not in-scope, but could be
heterogeneous waste forms
inside cemented packages;
sampling techniques; applicability
to wide range of waste forms,
e.g., ashes, resins and mixed
scrap & trash

Page 59/68
Gap Analysis

Question 40: What are the main topics, connected with cement waste package degradation that your
organisation would like to see detected and monitored as a priority by instrumentation and controls,
and be considered during demonstration tests?

Question 40a: If other, please specify.

Topic Categorisation Notes

ASR and DEF (expansion already in-scope

processes)
leachability (multiple mentions), not in-scope, but could be
compressive strength, long-term
stability
chemical reactions (ASR) already in-scope

Question 41: Which durability performance indicators are most relevant?

Topic Categorisation Notes

post closure pH evolution, not in-scope, but could be

avoidance of adverse chemical
reactions; pressure resistance /
strength for interim storage
changes in compressive strength, not in-scope, but could be
leachability, mechanical,
microbial and radiation stability
indicators that conditioning already in-scope
requirements are met
techniques for visual monitoring already in-scope
and analysis of concrete
durability and chemical reaction not in-scope and (likely) can’t be, collection of this information was
information on samples aged for but could be promoted to the SRA not planned or provided for in the
one year at 38 °C including original project proposal; to the
microscopic data extent it is available elsewhere it
could possibly be used as input
to digital twin simulation
development depending on
progress made there
integrity of outer metal barrel and already in-scope
inner cement mantle

Page 60/68
Gap Analysis

leaching and hardness not in-scope, but could be

durability indicators relating to not in-scope, but could be
final disposal

Question 46: What measurements or analyses are missing from the portfolio of available non-
destructive evaluation techniques / monitoring technologies / instrumentation?
Topic Categorisation Notes

standoff alpha detection not in-scope and shouldn’t be covered elsewhere

active and passive neutron not in-scope and shouldn’t be covered elsewhere
detection (scanner,
neutronography), transmission
and emission tomography,
angular gamma scanning
X-ray for small volumes of not in-scope and shouldn’t be covered elsewhere
cemented waste content
radiological content of waste not in-scope and shouldn’t be covered elsewhere
packages including the more
difficult to measure radionuclides
imaging of cracks if present at the already in-scope
top surface; demonstration of
absence of ASR or other
detrimental chemical reactions
tomographic techniques, gamma already in-scope
camera, neutron spectroscopy
(passive or active); densitometry,
detection of out gassing,
ultrasonic or radar techniques

Page 61/68
Gap Analysis

WP7 Technical Webinar

WP7 - Categorised Webinar Takeaways

Topic/Issue Categorisation Notes

monitoring of waste package already in-scope

degradation
application of new developments in already in-scope
monitoring and characterisation
technologies to WAC issues
monitoring of internal waste not in-scope, but could be
package pressure
cost benefit analysis of already in-scope
implementing new technologies
efficiency of introducing new not in-scope and can’t be, but this topic was not planned or
monitoring technologies into could be promoted to the SRA provided for in the original
existing facilities versus designing project proposal; the
and constructing new facilities necessary competence to
carry out such work was not
assembled within the
consortium
development of specific already in-scope
information on the capabilities of
digital twin simulations for waste
package monitoring and storage
monitoring needs for short-term already in-scope
storage versus monitoring needs
for long-term storage.
development of resources, already in-scope
information, publications, good
practices, training and knowledge
transfer networks that can be used
to improve organisational
capabilities related to waste
package monitoring and storage
with emphasis on monitoring
options that can be implemented
today versus those that require
ongoing R&D.

Page 62/68
Gap Analysis

Summary Table from WP7 Internal Gap Analysis Report

WP7 SOTA Report Gap Analysis Issue Categorisation

Technology PREDIS
No. Identified Gap Source Classification Phase Priority
Level Relevant

WP7 SOTA/ cement

monitoring internal pressure of
1 End User conditioned storage medium partway yes
waste packages
need waste streams

WP7 SOTA / cement

monitoring variation of waste
2 End User conditioned storage, transport medium near yes
package dimensions
need waste streams

WP7 SOTA / cement

monitoring external and internal
3 End User conditioned storage, transport high partway yes
corrosion
need waste streams

WP7 SOTA / cement

monitoring degradation and cracks
4 End User conditioned storage high partway yes
in cement matrices
need waste streams

relevant sensor
technology
WP7 SOTA / cement already exists,
5 monitoring leakage End User conditioned storage, transport high partway could be
need waste streams integrated to
open interface
platform
WP7 SOTA / cement
waste package monitored data
6 End User conditioned storage medium partway yes
handling
need waste streams

WP7 cement yes (using data

7 monitoring fissile content SOTA/End conditioned storage low partway from MICADO
User need waste streams project)

Page 63/68
Gap Analysis

WP7 SOTA / cement

prediction of chemical reactions and
8 End User conditioned storage medium partway yes
gas generation
need waste streams

relevant sensor
technology
WP7 SOTA / cement already exists,
9 monitoring condensation End User conditioned storage low partway could be
need waste streams integrated to
open interface
platform
WP7 SOTA / cement yes (using data
10 monitoring gas emissions End User conditioned storage, transport low partway from CHANCE
need waste streams project)

WP7 SOTA / cement yes (using data

conditioning,
11 monitoring dose rates End User conditioned low partway from MICADO
storage, transport
need waste streams project)

WP7 SOTA / cement

monitoring internal wasteform conditioning,
12 End User conditioned low partway yes
conditions storage, transport
need waste streams

WP7 SOTA / cement

conditioning,
13 mobile monitoring systems End User conditioned medium far yes
storage, transport
need waste streams

WP7 SOTA / cement

characterisation of cemented legacy conditioning, yes (for model
14 End User conditioned medium partway
wastes for content and integrity storage validation)
need waste streams

establish qualitative links between WP7 SOTA / cement

conditioning,
15 wasteform chemical behaviour and End User conditioned medium partway yes
storage
package integrity need waste streams

Page 64/68
Gap Analysis

WP7 Internal Gap Analysis Issue Categorisation

Technology PREDIS
No. Identified Gap Source Classification Phase Priority
Level Relevant

provide user-friendly tool for end-

users to predict the behaviour of
cemented waste packages during cement
conditioning,
1 interim storage based upon initial end user need conditioned medium partway yes
storage
content/composition to evaluate wastes
alternative packaging options and
the effect of repackaging.
define key performance indicators of
cement
waste package integrity that could conditioning,
2 end user need conditioned high partway yes
be used to design the monitoring storage
wastes
strategy and modelling approach

Page 65/68
Gap Analysis

A PPENDIX 8: L IVE -P OLLING R ESULTS , EURAD AND SNETP E VENTS

Page 66/68
Gap Analysis

Page 67/68
Gap Analysis

Page 68/68