The Comparison of Alternative Waste Management Strategies for Long-lived Waste (COMPAS) Mark Dutton.

The Comparison of Alternative Waste Management Strategies for Long-lived Waste (COMPAS)

Mark Dutton

COMPAS Countries

Partners

Countries represented Partner organisation Participant(s)

Finland Posiva OY Timo Seppälä

France Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA)

Rose Marie Macias

Germany Gesellschaft fur Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS)

Klaus-Jürgen Röhlig

Netherlands Nuclear Research and consultancy Group (NRG)

Benno HaverkatePatrick J O’Sullivan

Slovak Republic and other CEECs

VUJE Trnava Inc. (VUJE) assisted DECOM Slovakia Ltd (1)

Adela Mrskova

(1) Jozef Prítrský

Spain Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA (ENRESA)

Jesús Alonso Díaz-TeránJose Miguel Valdivieso Ramos

Sweden Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB)

Lena Morén

Switzerland National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste (Nagra)

Markus HugiPiet Zuidema

UK United Kingdom Nirex Limited (Nirex)

Samantha KingBrendan Breen

Invited Experts

Countries represented Invited expert organisations Participant(s)

Bulgaria Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant

Georgi Gyoshev

Czech Republic Radioactive Waste Repository Authority (RAWRA)

Miroslav Kucerka

Hungary Public Agency for Radwaste Management (PURAM)

Peter Ormai

TS Enercon Kfs Ferenc Takats

Italy National Agency for New Technologies Energy and Environment (ENEA)

Giampiero SantanrossaDaniel Taccarello

Romania National Commission for Nuclear Activities Control (CNCAN)

Alexandru Rodna

Slovenia Agency for Radwaste Management

Nadja Zeleznik

- Hungarian Academy of Science

Anna Vari

The Project

The wastes

The strategy influencing issues

The generic strategies which have been adopted or are being considered

The important issues for stakeholder acceptance of waste management options

National Waste Categories Considered

Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF)

High-level waste from reprocessing (HLW)

Long-lived low and intermediate level waste (LL-LILW) that exceeds alpha limitation for short-lived waste but where heat generation is low enough for the waste not to require cooling.

Where Does the Waste Come From?

Civil nuclear power programmes

– Uranium mining and milling, enrichment plants, NPPs, reprocessing plants

- 164 operating reactors, 50 shutdown reactors

Research programmes

Defence programmes

Industrial (including NORM industries), research and medical activities

Reprocessing its status and impact

Total SNF that will be discharged ~ 170 000 tonnes of Heavy Metal

STATUS: No contracts in seven countries Subject to government review in four In Hungary there is currently no reprocessing End date set in Germany and in the UK there

is an assumed end date In the Netherlands they will continue with

their existing contract

Current Position on Reprocessing in Terms of SNF Discharged (Tonnes of Heavy Metal)

Includes past and projected discharges of SNF

(E) Enriched fuels including PWR, BWR, and UK AGR fuel;

(M) Non-enriched fuel, principally including UK Magnox fuel, and French Gas-cooled reactor fuel;

(C) Non- enriched CANDU reactor spent fuel, which is produced solely in Romania.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Not reprocessed Reprocessed Undecided

M

E E E

C

Issues Affecting Strategy Selection (1)

International requirements- Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and Radioactive Waste

Management

- Export and import of radioactive waste (Lome and Bamako Conventions, EC

Directive 92/3/EURATOM)

- Disposal at sea (London Dumping and OSPAR Conventions)

- Safeguards (Non-proliferation Treaty)


Safety and environmental issues

- Safety (Joint Convention)

- Environmental regulatory issues (EIA, SEA, the Aarhus Treaty)


Technical and economic issues

- Heat output

- Cost


Ethical and social issues

- Intergenerational equity

- Intragenerational equity

- Sustainable development

- The precautionary principle

Decision Tree for SNF Strategy Selection

Reprocessing – waste returned to country of origin No Reprocessing

P & T No P & T

Partitioning

Products suitable for transmutation

Transmutation

SNF

Interim storage

Pyro-processing

Products unsuitable for transmutation

Liquid HLW U and Pu from reprocessing

WasteResource

Re-use

Interim storage for future use

UO2 or MOX fuel

SNF

Indefinite storage

HLW

Decision Node

Pu to P&T, Transmutation (A)

Pu from reprocessing (A)

Local interim storage

National interim storage

Local at reactor storage

National away from reactor

storage

Disposal under ice

sheets

Disposal in offshore deep sea sediments

Disposal in subduction

zones

Disposal in outer space

Disposal at sea

Encapsulation for disposal/long-term

storage

Land-based geological disposal

Reprocessing abroad with no return of waste to country of origin

1

2

6

5

4

7

9

3OtherVitrification

Encapsulation

Options for reprocessing

Treatment of reprocessed materials

Encapsulation

Options for interim storage facilities

Disposal strategy

Local away from reactor

storage

8


P & T No P & T

Partitioning


Transmutation

SNF

Interim storage

Pyro-processing



WasteResource

Re-use


UO2 or MOX fuel

SNF

Indefinite storage

HLW

Decision Node





Local at reactor storage


storage

Disposal under ice

sheets



zones


Disposal at sea


storage



1

2

6

5

4

7

9

3OtherVitrification

Encapsulation



Encapsulation


Disposal strategy


P & T No P & T

Partitioning


Transmutation

SNF

Interim storage

Pyro-processing



WasteResource

Re-use


UO2 or MOX fuel

SNF

Indefinite storage

HLW

Decision Node





Local at reactor storage Local at reactor storage


storage

Disposal under ice

sheets



zones


Disposal at sea


storage



1

2

6

5

4

7

9

3OtherVitrification

Encapsulation



Encapsulation


Disposal strategy

Local away from reactor

storage

8

Reprocessing

Reprocessing – waste returned to country of origin

No Reprocessing

SNF

Reprocessing abroad with no return of waste

to country of origin


Reprocessing – waste returned to country of origin

No Reprocessing

SNF

Reprocessing abroad with no return of waste

to country of origin


Main issues:

• Maintaining a secure supply of nuclear fuel for energy production

• Safety and environmental considerations

• The prospect of a future nuclear power programme involving an advanced nuclear fuel cycle

• Economics

• Safeguards

• Technical issues

• Military requirements

Long-term Management Options

Indefinite storage

Disposal under

ice sheets


Disposal in

subduction zones


Disposal at sea


9

Disposal strategy

Indefinite storage

Disposal under

ice sheets


Disposal in

subduction zones


Disposal at sea


9

Disposal strategy

Main issues

• Safety of future generations

• Preservation of the environment

• The precautionary principle

• Intergenerational equity and

• Sustainability

Spent nuclear fuel discharged from reactors

Storage at nuclear power plants at least until heat generation is low enough for transporting

Prolonged storage (over 50 yrs)

France (100 to 300 yrs is an option) , Italy (Option), Netherlands (At least 100 yrs), Spain (Option), UK (Option)

Deep geological disposal (>300m depth).

National repository (most countries). Multinational repository (option in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland).

Shipment to Russia/USA (option for research reactor fuel in Romania, Slovenia and Hungary and for SNF in Slovakia and Hungary)

Retrievable disposal required in Finland and the Netherlands. In Switzerland, retrievability is required during the observational phase. In Romania, a pre-closure phase of 100 yrs is required. In Sweden the repository is designed to allow retrieval of deposited canisters.

Encapsulation

Interim storage (for cooling and other technical reasons)

Bulgaria, Czech Republic (at least 50 yrs), Finland (at least 20 yrs), France (unspecified period), Germany (30 - 40 yrs), Hungary (50 yrs is an option) Romania (at least 50 yrs), Slovenia (~30 yrs), Slovakia (50 yrs), Spain (unspecified period), Sweden (30-40yrs), Switzerland (~ 40 yrs), UK (at least 50 yrs)

Note: The time periods referred to above are proposed/possible storage times currently considered and are not specified by regulation.

Generic Strategy for SNF – Direct Disposal in a Deep Geological Repository

Multi-step Process to Implementation of a Waste Management Facility

Decision on the use of nuclear energy

Development of a strategy on radioactive waste management

Siting radioactive waste management facilities

Decisions on facility design, community benefits, oversight, etc

Construction

Emplacement

ClosureRetrieval, if necessary

Another optionRetreatment

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)





Construction

Emplacement



(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)





Construction

Emplacement



(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Who are the stakeholders

Who are the decision makers?

- Government

- Regional government

- Special Courts

- Local Municipality

- The public

Factors in Achieving Acceptance (1)

An acceptance of the strategy Finland decided to pursue deep geological

disposal in 1994

Knowledge of the issues Liaison and independent expert groups

Ownership of the solution A recognition of the problem and their part in

the solution


Net benefit to the community Enhancement/maintenance of the local

economy

Enhancement of the local infrastructure

Direct financial benefits

Loss of reputation – house prices, tourism

Loss of revenue from consumables


The structure of the industry Transparency and clarity of roles

Trust in the regulatory process

Independent expert groups Expert Group on Disposal Concepts for

radioactive waste, EKRA (Switzerland)

Consistency with strategies abroad


Avoiding irreversible decisions Stepwise approach

Retrievability

Funding Polluter pays

Restriction on the waste to be managed Finland – capacity restricted to waste from

existing reactors

An Example of a Staged Decision Process

The Implementation Process (1)

The basic requirements for the implementation of a waste management strategy:

The existence of a legal framework

Identifying the stakeholders that shall take

part

Defining the role of the stakeholders

The Implementation Process (2)

The decision making process must be: Clear and phased

Have been developed in consultation with all

stakeholders

Have clear decision points

Explains how decisions have been made

Provides the opportunity for stakeholders to

meaningfully contribute

1984 KBS-3-program

• general guidelines

• possible alternatives to KBS-3

1986

1989

1992

1994

• KBS-3 reference alternative

• plan for implementation

• investigation of alternatives

• SR 91 - importance of geological characteristics

• siting criteria

• stepwise implementation

• development of KBS-3

• siting studies

• research on alternatives

1995

1998 • motivation of KBS-3 as main alternative

• goals - siting, safety analysis, design

2000

2001

• integrated account of method, site selection and programme prior to site investigation phase

• remaining questions - high priority research areas

• design premises - design

An Example of a Staged R & D Programme

The Process (1)

The Process (2)

Conclusions (1)

The main source of SNF and radioactive waste is the civil nuclear power plants.

In any scheme for the management of SNF and HLW a period of storage is required.

P & T is currently not seen as a practical option for the management of wastes.

Conclusions (2)

The long-term management of SNF and long-lived wastes requires addressing both scientific and social issues – research on which is continuing in all countries

Nearly all countries are pursuing land-based deep geological disposal as the preferred long-term option for SNF, HLW and long-lived wastes

Conclusions (3)

The implementation of deep geological disposal has been opposed in many countries. Perceptions of urgency vary and depend on

National policies

Social

Logistical and

Economic Issues.

Conclusions (4)

There are four important aspects to gaining acceptance for a disposal facility: An open, inclusive and transparent process

A stepwise process

Well defined roles for process participants

Ensuring that there are net benefits to the

host community

The Comparison of Alternative Waste Management Strategies for Long-lived Waste (COMPAS) Mark Dutton.

Documents

Transcript of The Comparison of Alternative Waste Management Strategies for Long-lived Waste (COMPAS) Mark Dutton.