DECOMMISSIONING AND THE NATIONAL REPOSITORY - Some learning from Europe and elsewhere

Transcription

1 DECOMMISSIONING AND THE NATIONAL REPOSITORY - Some learning from Europe and elsewhere GIORNATA DI STUDIO AIN 2012 Claudio Pescatore, PhD Principal Adminstrator for RWM and Decom 1

2 FUKUSHIMA? 2

3 Presentation to NDC 3

4 Presentation to NDC 4

5 Additional waste types, besides LLW Additional waste management practices, besides disposal (clearance, recycle and reuse) Additional types of disposal facilities Selective packaging based on several criteria Requests for variance Role of regulatory SYSTEM (technical, policy, politics) Vis-à-vis the road map, consider 5

6 Important to recognize that besides (and below) LLW, there exist VLLW and/or clearance standards and/or recycling and reuse VLLW goes in deposits that are licensed by the nuclear safety authority but not necessarily under the full nuclear safety regime Expect a lot of VLLW from decommissioning Much waste may also be cleared 6

7 Percentage by volume and (radio)activity (France) by 2050 Total volume : m 3 (VLLW : m 3 ) Short-lived waste Long-lived waste Very low level Volume : 46,8% Centre Activity: de 0,000 Morvilliers 006 % (waste from dismantling operations) Low level Intermediate level High level No SF Volume : 46 % Activity: < 0,017% (86.5%) Volume : 0,24 % Activity: 97,65% (0.44%) Volume : 4,95 % Activity: 0,005% (9.3%) Volume : 1,96 % Activity: 2,3% (3.7%) 7 7

8 Sweden: Percentage by volume (over lifetime of nuclear park) Total volume : m 3 (VLLW: m 3 ) Short-lived waste Long-lived waste Very low level Centre de 39,6% Morvilliers (waste from dismantling operations) Low level 52,4% (86.7%) 2,2% (3.6%) Intermediate level SF No High level 5,8% (9.6%) 8 8

9 Percentage by volume (Germany) by 2080 Total volume : m 3 Short-lived waste Long-lived waste Very low level Clearance and also Centre recycle de Morvilliers and reuse (waste from dismantling operations) Low level 92 % Intermediate level High level and SF 8 % 9 9

10 For Fukushima Dai-chi given all types of generated waste there will be Need for all types of final repositories, including at intermediate depth and geological 10

11 Likely, one may find that there are many more waste streams than expected and select packaging may have to become the norm. At TMI-2 Demineralizer process vessel was not acceptable for commercial LLW disposal (too active!) Composition of the water changed getting closer to the fuel (more Sr-90). Because of new regulation, different waste streams had to be developed depending on location and ratio of Cs-137 to Sr-90. Also, supercompaction could not be used as it would change the waste class. Selective packaging had also to be made in order to account for the low Sr-90 acceptance for LSA transportation determination 11

12 one may also find that there will be waste streams that nobody may want at least for some time, e.g., until regulations are clearer and/or the local political changes Barnwell and Nevada Test Site examples for TMI-2 [reasons also technical: fear of filling the TRU quotas, at Barnwell] 12

13 Expect also to have to request variance to normal practices E.g., for being allowed to ship Special Nuclear Materials without gram accountability of Pu and U. At TMI-2 The NRC granted an exception to gram accountability before shipment.. This will require courage on many actors. 13

14 Important policy issues -1 what is radioactive waste? Define waste categories [and allow for special Fukushima ones] how much waste? what kinds? how to condition? what waste goes where? how does it get there? 14

15 Important policy issues - 2 Who are the actors on each issue? Are they ready? Also to cooperate? Do they have the good policy frameworks and regulatory guidelines? Have they identified the good questions? 15

16 Note Delays, hesitations have a cost both in terms of money and in terms of confidence and these feedback to one another. 16

17 PIÙ VICINO A NOI 17

18 The Centre de l Aube for LILW - SL Operated since 1992 Planned for 60 years operation 1 million m 3 capacity (about 1.5 millions now projected) Impact: µsv/year Challenge: minimize waste production, recycle and reuse 18

19 Commissioned in 2003 Planned for 30 years operation 630,000 m3 capacity (3 times as much now projected ) Challenge: recycle and reuse 19 VLLW Waste: the Morvilliers Disposal Facility

20 IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL INVENTORY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE WASTE Many types of waste and of many origins Some countries do have an inventory that they update regularly Necessary instrument to support national plans and to gain public confidence: what goes where? When? who is doing what? When? who pays for what? When? National Plan is now a REQUIREMENT OF THE EC Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom [Compliance with the Directive in 2013; First notification of the National Plans in 2015 at the latest] EU Waste Directive requires also a participation and transparency plan 20

21 The exploratory studies started in 1985, away from nuclear zones On 16 January 1998, the Federal Council of Ministers decided to opt for a disposal solution (either on the surface or in a deep geological layer) Five integrated disposal projects were developed for potential sites, located at existing nuclear zones and where the local authorities showed an interest (Pre- Project Phase). On 23 June 2006, the Council of Ministers decided that surface disposal of the waste should be carried out within the territory of the municipality of Dessel and taking the STOLA-Dessel preliminary design ( T0 design ). Based on this 2006 decision, ONDRAF/NIRAS launched the project with the objective to obtain the license of construction and operation from the regulatory body FANC. The collaboration with the municipalities of Dessel and Mol through partnerships continues. Pre-license phase studied also with FANC International peer review (2012) Belgian Surface Disposal Programme for LLW License application to FANC later this year (2012) 21

22 Belgian Surface Disposal Programme for LLW MAIN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS TO THE PROGRAMME: (1) Governmental decisions of 16 January 1998 and 23 June 2006: Participatory approach through partnerships with interested municipalities; Selection of site in Dessel municipality; Repository design based on STOLA preliminary design (2005 STOLA report) (2) FANC regulatory framework and guidance developed in parallel; (3) International legislation, guidelines and recommendations. 22

23 Disposal of Very Low Level Waste Repositories in operation in several EU MS Very low level waste repository, Morvilliers,, France

24 Disposal of Low and Intermediate Level Waste. Low Level Waste / Short Lived : Repositories in operation in 8 of 16 EU MS with nuclear power plants By 2020 almost all NPP MS will have repositories Several repositories for waste from radioisotope applications. Long Lived Waste / Intermediate Level Waste: Konrad,, Germany - planned commissioning in 2019 Centre de l Aube,, France

25 LLW-SL Near-surface disposal industrial maturity Centre de la Manche, France Low level waste repository near Drigg, Cumbria, UK El Cabril, Spain Low and intermediate level waste repository

26 LLW disposal at depth industrial maturity SFR, Forsmark, Sweden VLJ, Olkiluoto,, Finland El Cabril, Spain Bataapati repository, Hungary

27 Alternative di stoccaggio temporaneo sui siti Ref: IAEA draft document on modular design of processing and storage facilities for L&IL waste including DSS

28 Esempi di stoccaggi temporanei HABOG (Olanda): Un deposito temporaneo per il combustibile irraggiato ma anche di rifuti tossici e a lunga vita

29 Esempi di stoccaggi temporanei Piscina per combustibile esaurito (Spagna) Piscina per combustibile esaurito (La Hague, Francia) Stoccaggio a secco di combustibile irraggiato (USA e Canada)

30 The necessary goal of siting is continuous ownership of the facility It implies creating conscious, constructive and durable relationships between the (more affected) communities and the waste. It rests on people feeling Comfortable about safety That they are not condoning a dubious practice, but one that is in the broader interest of society That the facility will contribute to the quality of life of the community and region across generations All of the above is necessary, and it takes time 5/11/

31 There is no recipe.for successfully siting a hazardous waste facility - or not siting a facility - but some of the critical ingredients are known: (Linnerooth- Bayer & E. Löfstedt, 1995) A facility should certainly not be sited if it is not needed, or if it is not perceived as acceptably safe. Even for a facility for which a consensus exists that it is needed, it will not be "siteable" if a process is not in place that is viewed as fair and trustworthy. Since the public holds different and conflicting notions of what is fair, it will be necessary to negotiate a process design that appeals to all or most of the interested parties. The notion of "taking responsibility for ones own wastes," whether by the individual generator, a region or a country, appears to be an important element of a fair outcome. 5/11/

32 International Perspective Many countries dispose of their LLW-SL routinely. The latter constitute 90 % by volume of «true» radioactive waste. No real technical difficulties; only different technical solutions. Disposal of LILW-LL is only partially developed. The exception is the WIPP geological disposal facility in the USA and the Konrad repository in Germany. The latter is already licensed, but industry is waiting. 32

33 International Perspective Projects take long time to start and be operational. Good planning at several levels is needed In all countries any constructive development is linked to the participation and support of the local, regional and national public. There will be no future unless decision-making and development processes are transparent and participative on a continual basis. 33

34 GRAZIE DELL ATTENZIONE 5/11/