30 years of Research into Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal - Euratom perspective

Transcription

1 30 years of Research into Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal - Euratom perspective DG RTD (Research and Tech. Develop.) Unit J2 Nuclear Fission Christophe Davies Nuclear 2010, Piteşti, România, May 2010

2 OVERVIEW 1. Radioactive waste: Origin & Categories Waste Management policies & practices 2. Research in geological disposal: Status of knowledge: Euratom Framework Programme contribution 3. Discussion: Spent fuel management policy options 4. Conclusions/recommendations Strategy for success

3 1. Radioactive waste: Origin & Categories

4 Where do radioactive wastes come from? Nuclear Power One third of our electricity in the EU 0.05% of our total electric power production waste volume Medicine diagnosis & treatment use isotopes & sealed sources Industrial Testing sealed radiation sources Research physics, chemistry, engineering We have been generating these wastes for c.50 years but only some of the less hazardous have been disposed of Military nuclear weapons nations Mining phosphates, oil pipe scales, uranium mining & processing

5 Used (Spent) Fuel High Level Waste (HLW) Reprocessing Wastes: ILW-LL Operating Wastes: LILW-SL Operating and Demolition Wastes: VLLW Decommissioning Wastes: LILW-SL & LL

6 Radioactive waste categories, in France (data end of 2007) In Volume By level of radioactivity

7 Radioactive waste: Waste Management policies & practices

8 What happens to radioactive wastes now? Spent fuel & HLW ILW - Long-lived ILW - Short-lived LLW VLLW stored mostly stored some stored, some disposed in surface or near-surface repositories most disposed of in near-surface repositories some goes to ordinary landfills

9 Aube Manche

10 LILW disposal in silos

11 Spent fuel management policy options? SF Direct disposal Interim storage Reprocessing Advanced reprocessing (Partitioning) Transmutation HLW ILW-LL Geological Disposal

12 Waste Containers: SF, HLW & ILW-LL Spent fuel in copper canister (5m): SE & FI ILW in cement in 500 litre stainless steel drum (1m) Vitrified HLW in stainless steel canister (1m) ILW drums in disposal package: FR

13 France: HLW Disposal in Clay

14 Belgium: HLW & LILW-LL repository concept in plastic clay

15 2. Research in geological disposal: Status of knowledge: Contribution of Euratom Framework Programmes

16 Objectives of Geological Disposal PREVENT any releases reaching people and the environment in harmful concentrations ISOLATE radioactivity from people by deep burial in rock CONTAIN radioactivity for many thousands of years until 99.9% has decayed typically, m PROVIDE a stable geological environment for engineered containment system for hundreds of thousands of years Image: SKB, Sweden

17 Research plan to build a safety case Field tests System understanding URL experiments Conceptual model Natural Analogues Laboratory studies Technical feasibility Performance/Safety Assessments Confidence building Key role of URLs for testing of concepts

18 Euratom research ( ) Eight programmes on «Management and disposal of radioactive waste» Total EC contributions: m 300 All fields of R&D covered Basic understanding of processes Modelling tools and methodologies incl. PA/SA Sites characterisation, URL developments, in situ testing & demonstration of technologies Waste management strategies Public attitude and involvement

19 Forms & evolution of Euratom support Shared cost R&D projects and full financing of coordination/support activities From basic research on key phenomena to integrated multidisciplinary & implementation oriented projects incl. remaining uncertainties for the safety case Networking, exchange & dissemination of results: publications, workshops & conferences Steady increase in cooperative effort Single partner projects up to mid 80 s Large multipartner projects in FP6 (2003 to 2009) Implementation oriented research in FP7 since 2007 & IGD-TP Joint effort to develop knowledge & know-how in the Member States

20 IGD-TP (Implementing Geological Disposal of radioactive waste Technology platform) Vision and objectives: To foster, promote and accelerate implementation of GD (1st repository operating by 2025), Build confidence in safety of disposal within EU citizens and decision makers, Support national waste management programmes for disposal with longer timeframes, Facilitate access to expertise and technology, interact with stakeholders, communicate results and maintain competences in GD. Platform launched in November 2009 by WMOs, Secretariat support by Euratom: 2 years, Jan Activities: 1 - Development of a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA), in Deployment: RD&D topic orientated projects 3 - Education and training and knowledge management Schedules: SRA seminar on 16 June 2010, in Brussels, Consultation on draft SRA, summer 2010, Publication of SRA, end of Participation: contact secretariat

21 Research and demonstration in Underground Research Laboratories: An integral part of the Safety Case for: Confirmation of the system understanding, Testing & demontration of the repository concept, Confidence building,

22 CLUSTER Euratom FP5 Bure Tournemire Mol Onkalo Äspö Asse/Gorleben Mt. Terri Grimsel CLub of Underground Storage TEsting and Research facilities

23 Sat ur at i o n d eg re e T h er ma l con du ctivi t y ( W/m K ) FEBEX: a full-scale EB experiment in crystalline rock (Grimsel CH) 1 IN SITU TEST 1,6 3 LAB TESTS 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 S r Clay barrier Rock 0 days 45 days 150 days 365 days 1095 days MOCK-UP TEST MODELLING Distance to axis (m)

24

25

26 Mont Terri Project Mont Terri rock laboratory Since 1996 organized as an International Project

27

28

29 A few outcomes 1- Feasibility of construction and emplacement of EB and of canisters proven in crystalline formations (CF); 2- Excavation Damaged Zone controlled and no impact on system performance; 3-Highly hepful information obtained on: Manufacturing and handling bentonite blocks, Procedures, equipment & instrumentation. 4- Numerical codes for THM reproduce the experimental results; 5- Issue of management of any water inflow and buffer piping & erosion in CF; Optimisation work on-going; 6- In indurated clay formations: Issue of long-term performance of the EB and near-field.

30 Is it safe? Science will never give absolute certainty - and there is no such thing as zero-risk! but we do understand the uncertainties and we can bound them The actual risks, even into the distant future, are well-constrained by scientific analysis and are well within any limits set by regulators

31 Results of Performance/Safety Assessment projects indicate that the dose to exposed public in normal evolution scenarios would be well below regulatory limits e.g. PAGIS (82-89), PACOMA (89-91) everest (92-96), spa (96-98) spin & benipa pamina etc

32 Radionuclide release from a nuclear waste repository PA calculations Spent Fuel High level vitrified waste Opalinus Project, NAGRA Report, 2002, NTB 02-05

33 Containment: how long are we talking about..? Relative radio toxicity MA + FP Plutonium recycling Pu + MA + FP Spent Fuel No reprocesisng Uranium Ore (mine) FP P&T of MA Time (years)

34 Natural Analogues In support of the Safety Case Analogies with nature give us great confidence in our forecasts that, over both short and very long time periods, systems behave as we expect them to that repositories will have no significant impact on our natural radiation environment

35 Cigar Lake Uranium Deposit, Canada ~100,000 tonnes uranium no surface radiological signature

36

37 Dunarobba, Italy: a forest preserved in impermeable clay million years old

38 3. Discussion: Spent fuel management policy options

39 DO NOTHING: store for ever safe? secure? ethical? WAIT and SEE: store and avoid decision on disposal to see results of e.g.: PARTITION & TRANSMUTATION: Can improve repository safety in the first few thousand years by removing selected minor actinides, Can reduce the size & cost of the repository by removing heat bearing elements, But does not remove all activity, exposes people now, not feasible for many wastes, involves reprocessing, still requires disposal, Requires long-term commitment to nuclear energy as it is general linked to the use of new reactor types (ADS or Fast Reactor), SHARED DISPOSAL FACILITY(IES) Is considered by a number of countries to share effort and costs, Major hurdle would be to find volunteer country/community (NIMBY syndrom), Legal implications, Research and development as knowledge base and for site selection would anyhow have to be performed in most countries interested.

40 DISPOSAL: deep underground repository Disposal is safe without P&T All international committees & stakeholder groups (IAEA, OECD-NEA) conclude that it is the only longterm solution addressing the requirements of safety, security, sustainability and ethics, Scientific knowledge and technology exist, Reversible for decades so allows considerable flexibility, However, research and development needs long timescales: up to 40 to 50 years! Public acceptance and decision making are a major issues

41 4. Conclusions/recommendations Strategy for success

42 Key Points We have more than 30 years of R&D and practical experience behind us today Current research aims addressing key remaining issues and reducing uncertainties for the safety case There have been no major new findings, no big surprises - just progressively increased confidence Our work shows that geological disposal is safe for as long into the future as it is reasonable to forecast - times that are well beyond any human experience Scientists agree that geological disposal is the best technical solution today and for the foreseeable future Several countries are fully advanced and are about to implement geological disposal of our most hazardous wastes we will see the first deep repositories operating in about 15 years time Staged geological disposal increases the security of the waste, compared to indefinite surface storage

43 Its important that each EU Member States (MS) decides on a strategy for the management of its waste A national legislative framework is necessary Irrespective of the national strategy each MS should plan and implement its own research and development programme as national decisions should be supported by its own scientific/technical knowledge A decision making process for siting and construction of an underground repository based on the DAD approach (Decide Announce and Defend) does not work: this is the best way to raise public opposition Transparency and inclusive public participation is highly advisable, National waste management organisations need to establish legitimacy for public accepatnce of solutions It does not seem possible to decide on a geological repository without performing research and demonstration in an underground research facility in the country concerned Collaborative research as part Euratom & international is the best way to make quick progress through mutual help EU MS needs to press forward with repository siting, construction and operation to underpin a secure electricity supply system

44 N of organisations 350 Euratom Framework Programme 6, fission ( ) N of organisations per country in the 286 evaluated proposals Romania: about 1 organisation for every 10 proposals DE FR UK BE ES SE IT NL CZ FI CH HU SK SI BG AT RO PL GR NO RU DK UA LT PT IE US CY LU BY YU EE LV CA CN KR JP AM AR AU BR GE KZ TR ZA MT Country

45

46 Thank you for your attention