Guidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems

Transcription

1 IAEA-TECDOC-1575 Rev. 1 Guidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems INPRO Manual Waste Management Volume 4 of the Final Report of Phase 1 of the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO November 2008

2 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Power Technology Development Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria GUIDANCE FOR THE APPLICATION OF AN ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS INPRO MANUAL WASTE MANAGEMENT VOLUME 4 IAEA, VIENNA, 2008 IAEA-TECDOC-1575 Rev. 1 ISBN ISSN IAEA, 2008 Printed by the IAEA in Austria November 2008

3 FOREWORD The International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) was launched in the year 2000, based on resolutions of the IAEA General Conference (GC(44)/RES/21). INPRO intends to help to ensure that nuclear energy is available in the 21 st century in a sustainable manner, and seeks to bring together all interested Member States, both technology holders and technology users, to consider, jointly, actions to achieve desired innovations. INPRO is proceeding in steps. In its first step, referred to as Phase 1A, INPRO developed a set of basic principles, user requirements and criteria together with an assessment method, which taken together, comprise the INPRO methodology, for the evaluation of innovative nuclear energy systems. The results of Phase 1A were documented in IAEA-TECDOC-1362, published in June In its second step, referred to as Phase 1B (first part), Member States and individual experts performed 14 case studies with the objective of testing and validating the INPRO methodology. Based on the feedback from these case studies and numerous consultancies the INPRO methodology was revised, as documented in IAEA-TECDOC-1434, published in December In its third step, referred to as Phase 1B (second part), INPRO was requested to provide additional guidance in using the INPRO methodology to assess the sustainability of an INS in the form of an INPRO assessment manual. The resulting INPRO manual is comprised of an overview volume (No. 1), and eight additional volumes covering the areas of economics (Volume 2), infrastructure (Volume 3), waste management (laid out in this volume), proliferation resistance (Volume 5), physical protection (Volume 6), environment (Volume 7), safety of nuclear reactors (Volume 8), and safety of nuclear fuel cycle facilities (Volume 9). The first draft of this volume was created by E. Ivanov (Russian Federation). Based on recommendations from participants in an IAEA consultancy meeting the second draft volume was prepared by C.J. Allan (Canada). The IAEA highly appreciates the contributions made by the INPRO International Coordination Group (ICG) members and the participants of the consultancies, and the valuable guidance and advice provided by the Steering Committee. The IAEA would also like to express its thanks to F. Depisch (Germany) for editing the manuscript. Phase 1B (second part) of the INPRO project was implemented under the IAEA Project Manager Y. A. Sokolov and the Project Coordinators, A. Omoto, A. Rao, J. Kupitz, I. Facer, and T. Ganguly of the Department of Nuclear Energy. As of December 2006, INPRO has 27 Member States (and the EC) supporting the project. Based on a decision of the 9th INPRO steering committee in July 2006, INPRO has entered into Phase 2. This phase has three main directions of activity: methodology improvement, infrastructure/ institutional aspects and collaborative projects.the ongoing and future activities of INPRO are expected to lead to further improvements in the INPRO methodology, based on the feedback received from Member States in light of their experience in applying the methodology.

4 EDITORIAL NOTE The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.

5 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION General goals of this manual Objectives and scope of an INPRO assessment Outline of this volume... 2 CHAPTER 2 INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PERFORM AN INPRO ASSESSMENT Description of an innovative nuclear energy system (INS) Overview of waste management steps and strategies Sources of information for an INPRO assessor in the area of WM An assessment within a country having experience with operating nuclear power plants An assessment for a country planning for its first nuclear power plant Summary of sources of information CHAPTER 3 BASIC PRINCIPLES, USER REQUIEMENTS AND CRITERIA INPRO Basic principles and IAEA fundamental principles Basic principle BP1 Waste minimization User requirement UR1.1 Reduction of waste at the source Criterion CR1.1.1 waste characteristics Criterion CR1.1.2 minimization study Basic principle BP2 Protection of human health and the environment User requirement UR2.1 Protection of human health Criteria CR2.1.1, CR2.1.2 and CR2.1.3 of user requirement UR User requirement UR2.2 Protection of the environment Criteria CR2.2.1 and CR2.2.2 of user requirement UR Nuclear safety and environmental aspects related to WM facilities Basic principle BP3 Burden on future generations User requirement UR3.1 End state Criterion CR3.1.1 technology Criterion CR3.1.2 time for technology development Criterion CR3.1.3 resources Criterion CR3.1.4 safety Criterion CR3.1.5 time for end state User requirement UR3.2 Attribution of waste management costs Criterion CR3.2.1 costs Basic principle BP4 Waste optimization User requirement UR4.1 Waste classification Criterion CR4.1.1 classification User requirement UR4.2 Pre-disposal waste management Criterion CR4.2.1 time for waste form production Criterion CR4.2.2 technical measures Criterion CR4.2.3 process descriptions CHAPTER 4 EXAMPLE OF AN INPRO ASSESSMENT IN THE AREA OF WASTE MANAGEMENT Introduction and overview of the INS Overview of the waste arisings and responsibilities... 54

6 Uranium mining and milling Uranium refining and conversion Enrichment by SNFC Manufacturing of LWR fuel by SNFC LWR operational and decommissioning waste Conversion of spent LWR fuel to CANDU fuel CANDU operational and decommissioning waste Spent DUPIC CANDU fuel Assessment of compliance with INPRO basic principles, user requirements and criteria Basic principle BP1, user requirement UR1.1, and criteria waste minimization Basic principle BP2, user requirements UR2.1 and UR2.2, and criteria protection of human health and the environment Basic principle BP3, user requirements UR3.1 and UR3.2, and criteria burden on future generations User requirement UR3.1 and criteria User requirement UR3.2 and criterion Basic principle BP4, user requirements UR4.1 and UR4.2, and criteria waste optimization User requirement UR4.1 and UR4.2 and related criteria Concluding remarks ANNEX A CHECKLIST FOR ASSESSMENT ANNEX B IDEAS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INPRO METHODOLOGY IN THE AREA OF WM ANNEX C RECOMMENDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REFERENCES ABBREVIATIONS... 91

7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The present work provides guidance on the procedure to be followed to assess an innovative nuclear energy system (INS) in the INPRO area of Waste Management. This document follows the guidelines of the INPRO report Methodology for the assessment of innovative nuclear reactors and fuel cycles, IAEA-TECDOC-1434 (2004), Ref. [1], together with its previous report Guidance for the evaluation for innovative nuclear reactors and fuel cycles, IAEA- TECDOC-1362 (2003), Ref. [2] General goals of this manual The goal of this volume of the INPRO manual is to enable an informed assessor to either perform a quantitative assessment of an INS using the INPRO Methodology, described in Chapter 4 of Ref. [3] or to review such an assessment. The main step of the INPRO assessment method consists of determining the value of the INPRO indicators for a given criterion, and comparing these values with the corresponding INPRO acceptance limits specified for the criterion to determine if the criteria are met and hence whether the INPRO user requirements and INPRO basic principles are satisfied. As stated above, this volume of the INPRO manual is intended to be used by an informed assessor. Thus, the assessor should be familiar with the INPRO methodology, as set out in Ref. [3], and with the general subject area of radioactive waste management. The assessor may not, however, be a specialist in waste management, albeit that he should be sufficiently familiar with the subject area to be able to decide whether or not a given criterion has been satisfied. Thus, the manual has been written to meet the requirements of such an assessor. It does not, however, provide guidance on implementing waste management activities. Rather, the intention is to decide whether such activities and processes are or can be implemented to meet the INPRO criteria, and hence the user requirements and basic principles for waste management. It is recognized that a given Member State may adopt other indicators and acceptance limits that are more relevant to its circumstances, so the information presented in Chapter 3 and 4 should be considered to be guidance. For a State, which is considering for the first time to install a nuclear power program, it might be impossible to confirm that all INPRO criteria for waste management have been fulfilled in time to make the decision concerning the viability of a nuclear energy system. The INPRO assessment for any such criteria must at least come to the conclusion that the assessment did not reveal any evidence that the respective acceptance limit could not be met at a later time. Every effort should be made to meet the respective acceptance limit as soon as possible, at latest prior to commissioning of the first INS component Objectives and scope of an INPRO assessment INPRO assessments may be carried out by different assessors with different objectives. Some examples are listed below: 1) The assessor may be a utility wishing to acquire new generating capacity and considering a nuclear power plant as a potential generating option. Such an assessor may be primarily concerned with the waste that will arise from its plant; however, INPRO requires that the utility also considers the waste that arises in the production of the fuel for the reactor (mining, milling, conversion, etc.) and the steps to be taken following the discharge of the fuel from the reactor 1

8 (including reprocessing if that is intended) through to the end state, as well as other radioactive wastes from the power plant. 2) The assessor may be an R&D organization that is investigating an INS that uses a novel fuel, such as a uranium nitride fuel. In this case, the focus of the INPRO assessment may be on how using a nitride, as opposed to UO 2, impacts on waste production and management in fuel manufacturing, reprocessing, if that is part of the INS, and the suitability of the end state for the spent fuel (direct disposal) or HLW (from reprocessing). 3) The assessor may be an energy analyst that is looking at energy options with a view to assessing the potential role(s) of INS in meeting a range of plausible global energy demand scenarios. In this case, the assessor may be most interested in efficient utilization of uranium resources and economics but none-the-less the assessor would have to consider the other areas of INPRO, in addition to waste management and would need assurances that the INPRO criteria would be met in these areas as well as in the area of his prime concern. Thus, depending on his interest an assessor may devote more time and effort to a subset of INPRO criteria, within the area of waste management, and across INPRO areas of interest but all criteria must be considered and all components of the INS must be taken into account to satisfy the INPRO methodology that requires a holistic approach Outline of this volume General information that needs to be assembled to perform an INPRO assessment in the area of waste management and related background information is set out in Chapter 2 while guidance on assessing compliance with the waste management criteria (CR) and hence the user requirements and basic principles is presented in Chapter 3. Explanatory notes on the INPRO basic principles (BP) and user requirements (UR) in the area of waste management, taken from Chapter 7 of Ref. [1], are reproduced in Chapter 3 to provide context for the assessor. An assessment of a hypothetical INS is presented in Chapter 4 as an example of an INPRO assessment in the area of waste management. This example is an integral part of the manual. The example clarifies the guidance presented in Chapter 3 which tends to be of a more general nature. Annex A provides a table that could be used by the INPRO assessor to summarize the results of his assessment. Annex B lists some ideas how to further develop the INPRO methodology in the area of waste management. Annex C provides a table (reproduced from Section 7.4 of Ref. [1]) defining recommended research in the area of WM. It is recommended that the first time reader of this volume review first Volume 1 of the INPRO manual (Ref. [3]) to obtain an overview of the INPRO methodology and then the material presented in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 to obtain an overview of what is required to perform a waste management assessment. Once such an overview has been obtained the reader should then review the example presented in Chapter 4 to improve his/her understanding of the material presented in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. In the following tables an overview of the INPRO BPs, URs, and CRs in the area of WM is presented. 2

9 Table 1.1. Overview on BPs, URs, and CRs of waste management Waste management basic principle BP1 Waste minimization: Generation of radioactive waste in an INS shall be kept to the minimum practicable. User requirement (UR) UR1.1 Reduction of waste at the source: The INS should be designed to minimize the generation of waste at all stages, with emphasis on waste containing long-lived toxic components that would be mobile in a repository environment. Indicators (IN) Criteria (CR) CR1.1.1 waste characteristics IN1.1.1: Technical indicators: - Alpha-emitters and other longlived radio-nuclides per GWa. - Total activity per GWa. - Mass per GWa. - Volume per GWa. - Chemically toxic elements that would become part of the radioactive waste per GWa. CR1.1.2 minimization study 1 IN1.1.2: A waste minimization study has been preformed, leading to a waste minimization strategy and plan for each component of the INS. Acceptance limits (AL) AL1.1.1: ALARP AL1.1.2: The study, strategies and plans are available. 1 In comparison to Ref. [1] this criterion CR1.1.2 has been added. 3

10 Table 1.1. Overview on BPs, URs, and CRs of waste management (continued) Waste management basic principle BP2 Protection of human health and the environment: Radioactive waste in an INS shall be managed in such a way as to secure an acceptable level of protection for human health and the environment, regardless of the time or place at which impacts may occur. User requirements (UR) UR2.1 Protection of human health: Exposure of humans to radiation and chemicals from INS waste management systems should be below currently accepted levels and protection of human health from exposure to radiation and chemically toxic substances should be optimized. UR2.2 Protection of the environment: The cumulative releases of radio-nuclides and chemical toxins from waste management components of the INS should be optimized. Indicators (IN) CR2.1.1 public dose IN2.1.1: Estimated dose rate to an individual of the critical group. CR2.1.2 occupational dose IN2.1.2: Radiological exposure of workers. CR2.1.3 chemical toxins IN2.1.3: Estimated concentrations of chemical toxins in working areas. Criteria (CR) Acceptance limits (AL) AL2.1.1: Meets regulatory standards of specific Member State 2. AL2.1.2: Meets regulatory standards of specific Member State. AL2.1.3: Meet regulatory standards of specific Member State. CR2.2.1 release from WM facilities IN2.2.1: Estimated releases of radio-nuclides and chemical toxins from waste management facilities. AL2.2.1: Meet regulatory standards of specific Member State. CR release from all other INS facilities IN2.2.2: Estimated releases of radio-nuclides and chemical toxins from all other INS facilities. AL2.2.2: Meet regulatory standards of specific Member State. 2 In all cases when the regulatory requirement of a Member State is indicated, any available international guidance should be taken into account as well. 3 In comparison to Ref. [1] this criterion CR2.2.2 has been added. 4

11 Table 1.1. Overview on BPs, URs, and CRs of waste management (continued) Waste management basic principle BP3 Burden on future generations: Radioactive waste in an INS shall be managed in such a way that it will not impose undue burdens on future generations. User requirements (UR) UR3.1 End state: An achievable end state should be specified for each class of waste, which provides permanent safety without further modification. The planned energy system should be such that the waste is brought to this end state as soon as reasonably practicable. The end state should be such that any release of hazardous materials to the environment will be below that which is acceptable today. Indicators (IN) CR3.1.1 technology IN3.1.1: Availability of technology. Criteria (CR) Acceptance limits (AL) AL3.1.1: All required technology is currently available 4 or reasonably expected to be available on a schedule compatible with the schedule for introducing the proposed innovative fuel cycle. CR3.1.2 time for technology development IN3.1.2: Time required. AL3.1.2: Any time required to bring the technology to the industrial scale must be less than the time specified to achieve the end state. CR3.1.3 resources IN3.1.3: Availability of resources. CR3.1.4 safety IN3.1.4: Safety of the end state (long-term expected dose to an individual of the critical group). CR3.1.5 time for end state IN3.1.5: Time to reach the end state. AL3.1.3: Resources (funding, space, capacity, etc.) available for achieving the end state compatible with the size and growth rate of the energy system. AL3.1.4: Meet regulatory standards of specific Member State. AL3.1.5: As short as reasonably practicable. 4 The word currently is used in this document to refer to the time at which the acceptability of a nuclear energy system is being evaluated. The criterion is explicitly intended to allow innovative methods of waste management, such as partitioning and transmutation or advanced waste forms, to be investigated. 5

12 Table 1.1. Overview on BPs, URs, and CRs of waste management (continued) Waste management basic principle BP3 Burden on future generations (continued): Radioactive waste in an INS shall be managed in such a way that it will not impose undue burdens on future generations. User requirements (UR) UR3.2 Attribution of waste management costs: The costs of managing all waste in the life cycle should be included in the estimated cost of energy from the INS, in such a way as to cover the accumulated liability at any stage of the life cycle. Indicators (IN) IN3.2.1: Specific line item in the cost estimate. Criteria (CR) Acceptance limits (AL) CR3.2.1 cost AL3.2.1: Included. 6

13 Table 1.1. Overview on BPs, URs, and CRs of waste management (continued) Waste Management Basic Principle BP4 Waste optimization: Interactions and relationships among all waste generation and management steps shall be accounted for in the design of the INS, such that overall operational and long-term safety is optimized. User requirements (UR) UR4.1 Waste Classification: The radioactive waste arising from the INS should be classified to facilitate waste management in all parts of the INS. UR4.2 Pre-disposal Waste Management: Intermediate steps between generation of the waste and the end state should be taken as early as reasonably practicable. The design of the steps should ensure that all-important technical issues (e.g., heat removal, criticality control, confinement of radioactive material) are addressed. The processes should not inhibit or complicate the achievement of the end state. Indicators (IN) IN4.1.1: Classification scheme. Criteria (CR) CR4.1.1 classification Acceptance limits (AL) AL4.1.1: The scheme permits unambiguous, practical segregation and measurement of waste arisings. CR4.2.1 time for waste form production IN4.2.1: Time to produce the waste form specified for the end state. AL4.2.1: As short as reasonably practicable. CR4.2.2 technical measures IN4.2.2: Technical indicators, e.g., - Criticality compliance. - Heat removal provisions. - Radioactive emission control measures. - Radiation protection measures (shielding etc.). - Volume / activity reduction measures. - Waste forms. AL4.2.2: Criteria as prescribed by regulatory bodies of specific Member States. IN4.2.3: Process descriptions that encompass the entire waste life cycle. CR4.2.3 process descriptions AL4.2.3: Complete chain of processes from generation to final end state and sufficiently detailed to make evident the feasibility of all steps. 7

14 CHAPTER 2 INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PERFORM AN INPRO ASSESSMENT 2.1. Description of an innovative nuclear energy system (INS) Generally, an INPRO assessment is carried our for a specific innovative nuclear energy system (INS) or systems that have been proposed to meet, in part, the energy demand, as function of time, of a specific energy scenario (see Chapter 5 of Ref. [3]). For assessing compliance with the basic principles and user requirements in the area of waste management the details of the energy scenario are of secondary importance, but the assessment must take into account the complete INS and its components so that an adequate estimate of waste arising from the entire system, including those from decommissioning of the different components of the INS, can be obtained. Thus, the waste arising from a number of activities need to be taken into account in the assessment, including those from: Mining and milling; Uranium refining, conversion and enrichment; Fuel fabrication; Reactor operation; Fuel reprocessing; Waste processing; Decommissioning; and Transportation. A number of activities may be common to a variety of INS, such as mining and milling, uranium conversion and enrichment, and for the majority of activities there already exists extensive experience with managing the associated wastes, including their final disposition. This experience needs to be referenced in performing any assessment of an INS. Given this experience base, the emphasis of a given assessment may, in many cases, be focused on one or two components that represent a significant departure from past experience Overview of waste management steps and strategies In general, waste management involves a number of steps, as illustrated schematically in Figure 2.1, leading to final disposition of the waste, namely placing it into its end state. As noted in Chapter 7 of Ref. [1], the end state should be such that, ideally, long-term safety is assured without the need for institutional control. This does not mean that, once waste has been placed into such a passively safe end-state, society would not seek to maintain institutional control, but rather that safety would be assured even if such controls were not maintained in the long term. As can be seen from Figure 2.1, a number of intermediate steps may be taken prior to placing the waste in its end state including, e.g., treating the waste to ensure that it will be chemically stable in its end state (one factor contributing to passive safety), processing liquid wastes to remove the radioactive components so that the purified liquid can be discharged or managed as a nonradioactive material. For a given waste stream or type of waste, a waste management strategy will have been (or will need to be) specified so that it is safely managed through a variety of intermediate steps leading to its end state. For the most part passively safe end states are achieved using a process of concentration and confinement, but for some wastes, particularly 8

15 gaseous and liquid wastes, the end state may be a controlled release to the environment where they are dispersed and diluted. But, for both the concentrate and confine approach and the dilute and disperse approach, the intermediate steps must be defined taking into account the expected end state (the end state may require specific intermediate steps, particularly waste conditioning and waste packaging) and at the same time the intermediate steps must be consistent with ensuring that the waste is safely managed until the end state is achieved and, in the case of interim storage, represents an interim method of safely isolating the waste until it is placed in its end state. Waste Production Waste Characterization & Segregation Waste Processing, Immobilization & Packaging Waste Storage Waste Disposal Figure 2.1. Steps in radioactive waste management. For a given waste, the characteristics of the wastes (radiological, physical, and chemical) will lead to a given waste management strategy that sets out the various intermediate steps and the end states for that waste. A given facility may generate a number of waste streams and a strategy will need to be defined for each stream. At present, there are a limited number of end states that have been licensed or are being developed for a concentrate and confine type of approach. These include the following: Near surface engineered disposal systems are used as the end state for short-lived (T 1/2 < 30 years), low activity wastes, e.g., from reactor operations, medical wastes. Institutional control and monitoring are used for a period of ~ 100 to 300 years to ensure isolation of the waste. Long term passive safety depends on radioactive decay of short-lived nuclides, and control of wastes to limit the emplacement of significant quantities of long lived (T 1/2> > 30 years) radio nuclides, such as actinides. In the past, near surface trenches were also used for such wastes but the use of trenches is being phased out. Many existing trench facilities will require remedial activities to meet modern requirements for making a case for long-term safety; Rock cavern disposal facilities are also used as the end state for short-lived (T 1/2 < 30 years), low activity wastes, e.g., from reactor operations, medical wastes. The safety cases for such facilities are similar to that for near-surface engineered disposal systems; Deep geological disposal facilities are used or are being considered for a variety of longlived radioactive wastes including so-called high-level waste (spent fuel and the stabilized highly active wastes from reprocessing spent fuel) (HLW), as well as other less active wastes that are 9

16 contaminated with significant quantities of long-lived radio-nuclides from fuel reprocessing facilities and from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities; Facilities for stabilizing uranium mine and milling wastes. These wastes can be distinguished from the waste from other nuclear facilities by their large volumes. While the activity levels may be relatively low, they are contaminated with significant quantities of longlived radio-nuclides, e.g., 226 Ra, and chemically toxic materials such as arsenic. Their large volumes impose constraints on the nature of the end states that can be practically utilized. Above ground mounds, water covers and pits (Refs [4], [5], [6], and [7]) have been used to isolate such wastes but so-called pervious surround techniques (Refs [8], [9], and [10]) are now being used. It is recognized that while barriers can be incorporated into the designs of above grounds mounds to limit the release of contaminants that their proximity to the surface means that human intrusion remains a distinct possibility should institutional controls fail. So, to reduce the impact of such intrusion care should be taken to reduce the concentrations of radioactivity in such facilities. Since pervious surround systems are constructed below the surface, they would seem to be less prone to inadvertent human intrusion although such intrusion still remains a possibility; and Landfill facilities are being considered for large volume, very low activity wastes, socalled very low level wastes. Although terms such as low level, intermediate level, etc. can be used to categorize wastes it is the properties of the waste streams and the designs of end-state facilities and the design elements that contribute to (passive) safety that ultimately decide what wastes end up in which facility. Substantial work may be required to identify and characterize the different waste streams that may arise in a given facility and on-going effort is required to control the make-up of a given waste stream once it has been characterized so that the safety case for a given end state is not compromised. None-the-less, the use of broad classification categories 5 is helpful when discussing waste management plans. The concept of a waste classification system was originally to identify waste generated in nuclear technology environments with sufficiently low activity concentrations that it could be disposed of in near-surface disposal facilities. All other waste would be disposed of in geological disposal facilities with more robust containment and isolation features. The intrinsic trade-off in such an approach to classifying and managing waste is that release/clearance or nearsurface disposal is less costly and difficult. So, there is benefit in segregating waste into those that do not need to be managed as radioactive waste and can cleared from control with regard to radiation safety, those that can be safely disposed in near surface facilities, and those requiring a higher level of containment and isolation. Waste categories can include the following: Exempt Waste (EW) is of such low concentration that it can be exempted from further regulatory control in accordance with clearance levels, as the radiological hazard is negligible. There are no radiological restrictions for disposal; Very Low Level Waste (VLLW) does not comply with clearance criteria and can contain radionuclide levels one to two order of magnitude above these criteria; Very Short Lived Waste (VSLW) is waste containing primarily radio-nuclides that decay to insignificant levels within a period of a few years, and that can be stored for decay and subsequently cleared; 5 A classification of radioactive waste is currently been discussed at the IAEA. 10

17 incinerable Low Level Waste (LLW) exceeds exemption status, contains primarily short lived radionuclides with limited amounts of long lived radio-nuclides and is generally suitable for disposal in near surface disposal facilities; Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) contains amounts of long-lived waste making it unsuitable for near surface disposal. Disposal at greater depth than near surface facilities is necessary; and High-Level Waste (HLW) is described as that which requires a higher degree of isolation from the environment for long periods of time. These wastes will normally have a heat output greater than 2 kwm -3 and long-lived radionuclide concentrations exceeding the limitations for short-lived low and intermediate level waste. The waste classes identified above are differentiated further to identify particular properties including their sources of generation, their physical form and the quantities generated (see Table 2.1, based on documents under preparation in the IAEA). Those factors are given consideration in selecting waste management and disposal options and would have to be considered in national and facility radioactive waste management strategies. Figure 2.2 summarizes a waste management strategy that has been prepared for Canada s nuclear laboratories at Chalk River, Ontario and Whiteshell, Manitoba. This figure captures the overall planning, but it needs to be recognized that for any given waste stream a safety case needs to be made to justify the proposed end state for that waste. Generation: Historical, Lab Operations, Hospitals, Universities, Isotopes, 1 Characterization: Radioactivity, Physical, and Chemical Properties 2 Processing, Immobilization & Packaging VLLW Very Low Level Waste L&ILW Low & Intermediate Level Waste aqueous Evaporate / Incinerate Filter / Solidify nonincinerable Compact HLW High Level Waste aqueous solids Vitrify Condition 3 Storage IMMOBILIZED PACKAGED WASTE IMMOBILIZED PACKAGED WASTE 4 Disposal EBDS Engineered Bulk EBDS Disposal Engineered System Bulk Disposal System Bunkers or Modular Above-Ground Structure (MAGS) Dry Storage Waste toxic for Waste toxic for < 500 years > 500 years IRUS Geologic Disposal Intrusion Resistant Underground Structure Figure 2.2. AECL waste management strategy for the Chalk River and Whiteshell laboratories. So far in the discussion, wastes from mining and milling, reactor operation, and from fuel reprocessing have been touched upon. Uranium bearing waste materials from uranium refining, conversion, enrichment and fuel manufacturing are extensively re-cycled either in the facility or to another facility for uranium recovery. None-the-less small volumes of waste arise that need to be placed into a safe end state. 11

18 As was noted in Section 2.1, the wastes arising from all components of an INS need to be taken into account in performing a waste management assessment. Given the diversity of the wastes and related waste management strategies, such an assessment will require input from a variety of technical specialists. 12

19 Table 2.1. Generic waste types WASTE TYPE HALF LIFE ACTIVITY EXAMPLE Exempt Waste (EW). Various. Nuclide specific, ranging from fractions of 1 Bq/g. Consumable waste such as laboratory ware, packing, clothing, cleaning materials, plant items and equipment, civil materials, etc. VLLW (Very Low Level Waste). LLW (Low Level Waste). ILW-1 (Long Lived Low and Intermediate Level Waste 1). Various. Typically some 10 Bq/g or lower. < 30 years with limited amounts of long lived activity. - Typically 10 5 to 10 6 Bq/g to 1000 Bq/g in long lived radionuclides. > 30 years. Some 10 8 Bq/g of fission/ activation products, some 10 6 Bq/g of actinides. Operational arisings from nuclear industry, decommissioning waste - concrete rubble, scrap metal, all other material possibly slightly contaminated - Solid waste with vast variety of nature (cellulose, metals, resins, sludges). - Raw waste usually blocked or embedded in concrete. - Waste arising from operation of nuclear industry. - Decommissioning waste. - Ends and hulls embedded in cement or compacted - Bituminized or dried compacted sludge. - Various contaminated equipment (technological waste) arising from processing of spent fuel or treatment of active effluents or from facilities. - Decommissioning waste. 13

20 Table 2.1. Generic waste types (continued) WASTE TYPE HALF LIFE ACTIVITY EXAMPLE Graphite waste from gas cooled reactors. ILW-2 (Long Lived Low and Intermediate Level Waste 2). ILW-3 (Long Lived Low and Intermediate Level Waste 3). > 30 years. Some 10 4 to 10 5 Bq/g, mainly 14 C. > 30 years. Some Bq/g of U contaminated waste. Depleted uranium wastes from operation of enrichment plant and fuel fabrication. Reprocessed uranium stock (at present not considered waste). Waste arising from fuel fabrication or recovered by fuel processing. HLW (High Level Waste). > 30 years. > (Bq/kg). Spent fuel. Vitrified high level waste. 14

21 2.3. Sources of information for an INPRO assessor in the area of WM The basic principles and user requirements in the area of waste management call for: Waste to be minimized (basic principle BP1 and user requirement UR1.1); Waste to be managed so as to protect the human health and the environment, by meeting regulatory standards (BP2 and UR2.1 and UR2.2); Waste to managed so that an undue burden is not imposed on future generations (BP3) by specifying end states for the waste and moving wastes to the end states as soon as practicable (UR3.1) and by including the cost of waste management activities in the estimated cost of energy from the INS (UR3.2); and Waste to be managed so that wastes are classified to facilitate waste management and that all steps in the waste management process are taken into account (BP4 and UR4.1 and UR4.2). Thus, the basic task facing an INPRO assessor in the area of waste management is to determine, for each of the facilities that comprise the INS, whether: There is evidence of waste minimization; End states have been defined for all wastes and there is evidence that wastes are being moved to the specified end states as soon as practicable; Waste management costs are included in the cost of energy from the INS; Wastes have been classified; and All steps in the waste management process have been taken into account. As discussed in Section 2.2, a waste management strategy needs to be defined for a given waste that describes how the waste is to be managed from its creation to the placing of the waste in its end state. Thus, the assessor needs to a description of the waste management strategies being followed (or proposed to be followed) for the wastes generated in each of the facilities comprising the INS that is being assessed. These strategies should provide the information needed by the assessor and they should be provided to the assessor, at his request, by the appropriate organization. In many Member States, waste management activities are carried out by two different organizations/entities, namely the owner/operator of the facility in which the waste originates, and the owner/operator of the end state facility. In some cases these may be the different operating divisions of the same entity, but often they are different entities. Thus, the owner/operator of the facility in which the waste is generated will classify and segregate the wastes from the facility, possibly process the waste to some extent, provide interim storage, and then transfer the waste to the owner/operator of the end state facility for disposal. The owner/operator of the end state facility would take the responsibility for siting, constructing, licensing, and operating the end state facility and then decommissioning it and placing it in its final configuration (called closure). The owner/operator of the end state facility will define acceptance criteria for wastes, based on the safety case for the end state facility, with which the owner/operator of the facility, in which the waste arises, will have to comply. In some cases, the operator of the end state facility may process wastes received, e.g., to package it. In any case, the waste management strategy, for the wastes from a given facility, will be comprised of two parts, the activities carried out at the facility, in which the waste originates, 15

22 and those performed by the operator of the end state facility. Thus, the assessor will need information from both types of organization. In general, the costs of waste management are included in the price of the product that gives rise to the waste. Thus, the cost of uranium from a given mine, would be expected to include the costs that the mine owner incurs to manage the mine wastes. Similarly, the price that a fuel manufacturer charges, would be expected to include the cost that the manufacturer incurs in managing the associated wastes. Where end state facilities exist and wastes are being transferred to these facilities the costs for waste management will reflect actual costs. In some situations end state facilities may not yet be operating, most notably end state facilities for spent fuel (open fuel cycle) and high level and long lived wastes from the reprocessing of spent fuel (closed fuel cycle). In such situations, the operator of the facility in which the waste originates, working with the entity responsible for establishing the end state facility, must estimate, with appropriate contingencies, the costs for placing the wastes in the end state, including the cost of establishing and operating the end state facility, and include this cost in the price of his product. Thus a utility, operating a power reactor on an open fuel cycle must include the cost of disposing of the spent fuel (as well as of its interim storage prior to disposal), in the price of electricity produced by the reactor. Similarly, the operator of a reprocessing facility must include, one way or another, the cost of disposing of the associated wastes in the price charged. Today, reprocessing contracts normally require that the resulting high level waste be returned to the customer, i.e. the utility that contracted for the reprocessing, so that the utility bears the cost of disposal for these waste directly. On the other hand the waste processing company normally retains the longlive low and intermediate level wastes and so includes the cost of disposing of this waste in the price charged to the utility for reprocessing. Thus, the utility incurs the cost as an in-direct cost. Regardless of the details, the price of electricity from a nuclear power plant will normally include a financial provision for the costs of managing its used fuel and/or reprocessing wastes, and will also include, indirectly, the costs of managing wastes from the front end of the fuel cycle, as a fuel expense. Thus, an assessor needs to obtain from the various organizations involved in the fuel cycle (mine operators, fuel manufacturers, power plant operator) how waste management costs are determined for each facility in the INS and whether they are reflected in the price of the associated products to ensure that the all costs have been accounted for. So, far in the discussion, basic principle BP2 and its related user requirements have not been discussed. This is because, as discussed in more detail in Section 3.3, this basic principle and related user requirements overlap with user requirements in the INPRO areas of safety and environment. Thus, they should be considered within those areas. The INPRO assessor dealing with WM should only ensure that the user requirements have been considered in INPRO assessments in those areas An assessment within a country having experience with operating nuclear power plants If an assessment is being carried out for an INS within a country that is already operating nuclear power plants, it would generally be expected that such a country would have a well developed set of waste management processes and facilities in place for each of the type of facilities already operating in that country, such as mining, fuel manufacturing, nuclear power plants, etc., including end state facilities for short lived wastes. As well, it would be expected 16

23 that a waste management organization would be in place charged with the responsibility for establishing end state facilities for spent fuel and/or high level wastes from reprocessing and other long lived wastes. Thus, the assessor would seek to obtain from each of the facilities in operation a description of the waste management strategies and practices being followed at present to determine whether they comply with the INPRO requirements or whether they would have to be modified because of differences between currently operating facilities and those for the proposed INS. For example, if current operating reactors are using an open fuel cycle and the strategy is for direct disposal of the spent fuel, and the INS being assessed is based on a closed fuel cycle which would necessitate reprocessing, the existing waste management strategies would have to be modified, to some extent, to take into account the wastes from reprocessing. It would then be up to the designer of the INS to provide information on how the existing waste management strategies and practices would be modified to enable the assessor to complete his assessment. It may be the case that current waste management practices in some countries operating nuclear power plants do not fully comply with the INPRO requirements in waste management. This would become clear as the assessor discussed and reviewed waste management strategies and practices with the operators of the various facilities An assessment for a country planning for its first nuclear power plant For a country planning its first nuclear power plant it is unlikely that waste management strategies and plans will already be in place. Thus, as part of the planning for infrastructure, the issue of waste management will need to be addressed, and, in particular, responsibility will need to be assigned for siting, constructing and operating end state facilities for the waste from the nuclear power plant. This responsibility can be set out in the nuclear law or the government can use some other appropriate mechanism to establish waste management policy. There are a variety of possibilities. One is to assign responsibility to the owner/operator of the nuclear power plant who may then create a dedicated division within its organization or establish a separate company to fulfill this responsibility. Another approach is for the government to retain responsibility for end state waste management facilities and to establish a dedicated government owned organization to discharge this responsibility but to recover the costs of doing so by a fee charged to the owner/operator of the nuclear power plant. In any case, an organization(s) responsible for end state facilities should be brought into existence as planning for a first nuclear power plant proceeds. In due course, the owner/operator of the nuclear power plant will have to establish plans for managing the wastes produced by the power plant on an interim basis until the wastes are transferred to the operator of the end state facilities, and the organization with responsibilities for the end state facilities will have to establish plans for siting, constructing and bringing these facilities into operation. The operators of the nuclear power plant and the operators of the end state facilities will need to co-ordinate their planning. As a rule of thumb end state facilities for short lived wastes from the nuclear power plant should be brought into operation shortly after the nuclear power plant enters into operation within a matter of a few years or so. The time taken to site, license, construct, and bring into operation an end state for spent fuel is relatively long ~ a few 10 s of years and is also relatively costly. Thus, while planning for such a facility should begin early in the process of planning for a first nuclear power plant, significant expenditures on implementing the plan would likely commence only after the first plant had entered into operation and provided a revenue stream to fund the implementation activities. 17

24 As was recommended in Volume 1of the INPRO manual [3], it is recommended that for a first nuclear power plant the INPRO assessment focus, initially, on the waste from the power plant only and that to simplify matters, it should be assumed that an open fuel cycle will be used. Early on in the planning for a first nuclear power plant, it would be expected that evidence that the INPRO requirements in the area of waste management will be met, will not be available. Thus, at such an early stage, the INPRO assessment in the area of waste management will serve primarily to identify gaps in knowledge and planning that will need to be addressed as the nuclear power program proceeds. Subsequent INPRO assessments can be used to track progress. By the time that the first nuclear power plant comes into operation it would be expected that planning for the waste produced by the power plant and implementation of these plans would be sufficiently developed, so that the INPRO requirements would be met, at least for the nuclear power plant. As experience is gained with the INPRO methodology, the scope of the INPPRO assessment would be expanded to cover the other components of the INS, as is required by the INPRO methodology, including, if necessary, reprocessing facilities and the long-lived wastes from reprocessing. As stated before it is assumed that an INPRO assessor in the area of waste management will have a general background in nuclear waste management. For a country that is just starting to plan for a first nuclear power plant, such an expert may not be available within the country. Thus, the country will need to assign responsibility for the INPRO assessment in the area of waste management to some organization, which could very well become the lead organization for establishing end state facilities, and this organization will need to develop its expertise. This manual is not intended to be a manual on waste management per se; rather, it is a manual on how to perform an INPRO assessment in the area of waste management. But, the manual does contain some general information on waste management strategies and planning that should be of some assistance to a neophyte in radioactive waste management. Much useful information can also be obtained from country reports submitted to the IAEA in accordance with the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management Summary of sources of information The task of an INPRO assessor in the area of waste management is largely to assemble information on waste management strategies, plans, and activities from the many different organizations that operate the facilities, including the waste management facilities that comprise the INS being evaluated. Where such facilities exist, the information should be readily available from the facility operators. Where such facilities are under development, the developer of the INS will need to provide the information needed by the assessor and provide assistance to the assessor in carrying out the assessment. As noted in Section 2.1, an INPRO assessment in the area of WM must take into account waste generation and waste management practices in a wide range of facilities. It is doubtful that any single individual will be familiar with all of facilities that need to be considered. Thus, it can be anticipated that information will need to be obtained from a variety of sources. The IAEA has published many reports on waste management practices and safety and these reports may be consulted. IAEA experts in waste management in the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology, Department of Nuclear Energy, and the Division of Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety, Department of Nuclear Safety and Security may be consulted. The Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD has also published, in many cases jointly with the IAEA, reports on waste management. Additional information can be obtained from 18