Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower Activity Levels: Strategies and Methodologies

Transcription

1 Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower Activity Levels: Strategies and Methodologies Michele Laraia WTS D&D UL WATEC Meeting, 5 April 2006, Vienna, Austria L.7 (3.L.4) Technologies for the Decommissioning of Installations and Remediation of Sites Management of Decommissioning Waste Following the publication of the IAEA Safety Guide RS-G-1.7 on the Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance, in 2004 The topic of exemption and clearance level was discussed and it was noted that the Waste Safety Section had issued advice. WATEC suggested WTS might wish to take a view of the technical impact of these levels, e.g. advise Member States on how to implement these clearance levels, what could be the technical tools for such implementation (WATEC Chairman s 2004 letter) 2 1

2 (L.4.0.4) Technologies for the Decommissioning of Installations and Remediation of Sites Management of Decommissioning Waste (cont d) Following comments by WATEC and others, IAEA-WTS embarked on a new activity on this subject Consultants meeting convened in April 2005 (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Spain (2), Switzerland) Inception of a new technical report on Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower Activity Levels: Strategies and Methodologies Consultants meeting convened 27 Feb 3 Mar 2006 (Canada, France, Switzerland, UK and USA) to review/revise the draft 3 Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower Activity Levels: Strategies and Methodologies Background: recently promulgated clearance levels present a problematic solution to the disposition of large amounts of decom materials/wastes. Disposal as LLW is costly or even unavailable in several countries. Intermediate options between generic unrestricted use and radioactive waste disposal are not in common use, and yet developments are underway in several countries Following comments by WATEC and others (Canada), IAEA-NEFW-WTS embarked on preparation of a TRS on this subject 4 2

3 Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower Scope: To review all dispositioning strategies available worldwide for decom materials/waste (nuclear and conventional recycle/reuse, disposal as unconditionally exempt waste, hazardous waste, VLLW and LLW, storage for decay, melting, site-, material-, and use-specific release modes etc.) and related influential factors; and define characterization/monitoring methodologies for various release routes Objective: provide the broadest flexibility to decom implementers and provide guidance on selection of an optimized release route 5 Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower Influential factors ( selection) Materials/waste amounts Technical infrastructure and feasibility Economics Release criteria National policies /regulations Public acceptance Legal liabilities Hazards Ethical aspects QA, administration and docs Human factors and technical staff Site end state 6 3

4 Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower History and prospects Revision by the Secretariat (by July 2005) Submitted to consultants for review and contribution of project/national annexes (July- October 2005) Revised draft available (November 2005) Second CM ( 27 Feb 3 Mar 2006) Submission for publication in 2006* * According to P&B, the completion date was 2007 following a third CM in early The acceleration is due to new staff assisting with this and other tasks. 7 Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower Additional elements for consideration IAEA clearance levels are expressed in mass concentrations only. In most cases clearance levels in surface concentrations are more difficult to achieve; Decommissioning experience to date shows that decommissioning projects were successfully accomplished using similar clearance levels; The technical literature shows little indication of serious difficulties or prohibitive costs- to achieve and measure clearance levels; it appears that regulatory flexibility plays a major role in decommissioning ( e.g. through the acceptance of statistical approaches); The OECD-NEA currently works on a similar subject. Practicality of current clearance levels will also be addressed. See next slide. 8 4

5 Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower NEA s new WPDD task on Release of Materials and Buildings (as circulated at WPDD-6, 16 November, 2005). TERMS of Reference. Introduction Basis for clearance» The radiological concept for clearance» Differences between clearance of materials and clearance of buildings» Factors affecting the decision for clearance (technical, economic, regulatory, social) 9 Dispositioning of Large Amounts of Decom Materials at Lower Derivation of clearance levels» Radiological modelling» Clearance options and clearance levels» The case of natural radionuclides Implementation of the clearance process» Initial characterization» Determination of nuclide vectors» Clearance measurements» Compliance with regulatory measurements» How to handle cases with natural radionuclides (fuel cycle facilities) Alternatives to clearance (recycling, disposal as VLLW, interim storage)» Technical, economic and social factors» Comparison with clearance Conclusions N.B. Draft to be reviewed at WPDD-7, Nov Sections highlighted in yellow and others should include a discussion of practicality/costs of meeting current clearance levels, as agreed-upon with the main drafter, S. Thierfeldt. 10 5

6 Economic Impacts of Clearance and Exemption Rules on Decommissioning Preliminary Review: Tool employed: EPRI Waste Logic TM Solid and Decommissioning Multi-Site Manager software licensed to nuclear utilities in the USA, UK and France End-to-end cost profiles and VR efficiencies obtained from existing studies as presented at EPRI International Decommissioning Conference, Madrid, ES, Oct 2005 Further analyses performed by IAEA experts Feb 2006 for applicability to Clearance and Exemption impacts Preliminary Results: Range of economic benefits: USA = 3:1 (actual) UK = 20:1 (actual) France = 1300:1 (projected) 11 Comparison of End-to-End Waste Costs: Example UK Decommissioning Facility Waste Type % VR /M3 Overfill (for filling LLW container void spaces) 100% 0 Clean Office Waste (never crossed RCA barrier) 100% 31 Dissolution (dissolvable plastics) 100% 41 Potentially Clean Barrier Waste (Clearance Candidate) 99% 94 Exempt Clean Waste 98% 105 Exempt Diminimus 90% 111 Laundry, Active Direct Metal/Wood Packaging Metal melt Supercomp - Low Density Supercomp - Med Density Soil, VLLW (Disposed as LLW) Supercomp - High Density 98% 63% 100% 44% 45% -(25)% -(59)% Higher Efficiency Equals Lower Cost 815 1,031 1,149 1,807 1, ,309 Supercomp Grit Blast Media -(206)% 8,

7 Comparison of End-to-End Waste Costs: Example UK Decommissioning Facility Supercomp Grit Blast Media Supercomp - High Density Soil, VLLW Supercomp - Med Density Supercomp - Low Density Metal melt Direct Metal Packaging Laundry, Active Exempt Diminimus Exempt Clean Waste Pot. Clean Barrier Waste Dissolution (PVA) Clean Office Waste Overfill Exemption = 108 /M3 (Avg) Clearance = 94 /M3 LLW = 2020 /M3 (Avg) /M3 Generated 13 Comparison of End-to-End Waste Costs: Example French Decommissioning Facility Process Description /M3 Calorifuge (ceramique) Gravats, conventionnels Sodium Cables electriques Incinerables Pulverulents Boue solide + humide Metalliques, autre Metalliques, acier noir Metalliques, acier noir et bois Inox Metalliques, acier noir en beton Metalliques, MA-VL (B) Resines Insulation Conventional Waste Sodium Electrical cables Combustible Hazardous Sludge, dry + wet Metal, other Metal, carbon steel (CS) Metal, CS + wood Metal, stainless steel Metal, CS in cement Metal, French Class B Resin 1,021 * ,489 * 536 5,456 1,271 1,315 * 9,343 * 6,929 * 9,343 * 9,343 * 12,699 * 31,804 * Cost analyses for these wastes were based on direct disposal with no off site processing. 14 7

8 Comparison of End-to-End Waste Costs: Example French Decommissioning Facility Resin Metal, Class B Metal, carbon steel + cement Metal, stainless steel Metal, carbon steel Metal, carbon steel + wood Electrical cables Hazardous Metals, other Sludge, dry and wet Insulation Combustible Sodium Conventional waste Clearance = 4 /M3 LLW = 5447 /M3 (Avg) (Excluding Hazardous) - 8,000 16,000 24,000 32, Typical End-To-End Cost Comparisons ( /M3) LLW Exempt Waste Clearance UK 2969 /M3 159 /M3 138 /M3 France 5447 /M3 Not Evaluated 4 /M3 USA 1906 /M3 847 /M3 635 /M3 16 8

9 Thank you for your attention 9