ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION. T-11-3, P-3b-172. P. Croüail 1, T. Schneider 1, A. Sugier 2 1 CEPN BP n 48, Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex France 2
|
|
- Alexandrina Long
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Evaluation of the Impact and Inter-Generation Risk Transfers Related to the Release and Disposal of Radioactive Waste from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: A Methodological Exercise P. Croüail 1, T. Schneider 1, A. Sugier 2 1 CEPN BP n 48, Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex France 2 IPSN BP n 6, Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex France ABSTRACT Reflections about the consequences of decisions involving the long term raise various theoretical and complex issues related to the validity of the quantitative assessment of what could be future risks, but also to the ethical position we are adopting towards future generations. In this perspective, decision-making in the field of radioactive waste management, with a view to maintaining present and future radiation exposures as low as reasonably achievable, implies being able to discriminate among alternative options, i.e., being in a position to evaluate the differences in terms of radiological impacts between the options. Because of the complex and multidimensional nature of the distant future consequences of waste management options, their comparison involves expressing these impacts using various aggregated or disaggregated indicators, taking into account the time during which radionuclides remain in the environment and their local, regional, or world-wide dispersion. This paper is an attempt to contribute to the development of such a framework. It is mainly focused on the risk transfer dimension inherent to waste disposal management. Any decision to protect people now against the potential impacts of radioactive releases into the environment leads inevitably to the exposure of current generations and potentially of future generations. In this perspective, one of the key questions related to waste management is to decide on the best compromise between present dilution-dispersion into the environment or concentration in surface or underground disposal sites. The objective of this paper is to illustrate, the relative impact of different waste management options, focusing especially on inter-generational risk transfers. For the sake of the exercise, calculations have been performed for six particular radionuclides and for the current waste management options combining underground disposal and releases as well as for extreme alternative waste management options, which have never been implemented or envisaged as such in reality: i.e. underground disposal of C-14, Kr-85 and I-129 or, total release, either in the sea or in the atmosphere, of Cs-137, Pu-239 and Np-237. As the alternative waste management options analysed are of a one-off nature, it leads to some extremely high exposures such as for the integral release of Cs-137. But between total disposal and total release, many options are available, which have to be evaluated in an ALARA perspective. Based on these evaluations, the indicators characterising the radiological impacts are discussed taking into account the time and space dimensions. Individual and collective doses associated with the present and future generations are presented for the different options and their usefulness for evaluating these options is considered. In this perspective, this kind of time and space presentation provides useful information for helping decisionmaking processes and facilitating the communication with non-specialists. INTRODUCTION Reflections about the consequences of decisions involving the long term raise various theoretical and complex issues related to the validity of the quantitative assessment of what could be future risks, but also to the ethical position we are adopting towards future generations. However, from a practical point of view, a responsible attitude implies using as best we can all available information on the possible consequences of our present actions, even if this information does reflect the lack of knowledge in the assessment of consequences far in the future. In this perspective, decision-making in the field of radioactive waste management with a view to maintaining present and future radiation exposures as low as reasonably achievable implies being able to discriminate among alternative options, i.e., being in a position to evaluate the differential impacts of potential consequences. Because of the complex and multi-dimensional nature of the distant future consequences of waste management options, their comparison involves expressing this impact using various aggregated or disaggregated indicators, taking into account the time during which radionuclides remain in the environment and their local, regional, or world-wide dispersion. Two types of arguments have been raised [1] against the use of the collective dose to assess the impact of 1
2 waste management options: - the aggregation on huge populations of extremely low individual doses such as those resulting from waste management, which leads to significant collective doses, together with the use of the linear, no threshold dose-effect relationship to assess the corresponding potential health impact, - the existence of increasing uncertainties, especially with time, which weaken the relevance of estimating impacts in the distant future. These criticisms are highly valid, although any responsible decision-making process on waste management options cannot avoid taking into account, for each option, the magnitude of radionuclide releases into the environment, the time during which these radionuclides remain a source of exposure and how widely they are dispersed geographically, i.e., how large is the size of the exposed population. In view of these difficulties, the evaluation of impacts can be performed either qualitatively by describing, in the most detailed way, the various aspects presented above, or partly quantitatively. Quantification must rely on the best current scientific knowledge of the various mechanisms involved in the radionuclides dispersion and exposure of human beings, as well as the best guess as to the behaviour and size of future generations. So far, the use of the individual dose concept remains the most appropriate performance indicator to assess whether any waste management option is likely to put people in danger (deterministic effects) or keep them at a tolerable level of exposure. The collective dose concept allows evaluating whether these options have a significant impact on public health (stochastic effects). The problem is less the accuracy of these concepts than the difficulty of using them in an adequate and comprehensive decision-aiding framework. Any approach relying on the cut-off of collective exposure either in time, space, or individual level of exposure is misleading in terms of understanding and communication with the public. For example a cut-off at 30 µsv for the individual effective dose, will lead to the impossibility of discriminating options of disposal for which dose in normal situation are very lower. Thus, even if health effects can be considered as uncertain at this level, the individual dose concept remains a simple and useful indicator in the decision-making process. This paper presents a preliminary work, mainly focused on the risk transfer dimension inherent to waste disposal management. Decisions to protect people now against the potential impacts of radioactive releases into the environment leads to the exposure of current generations and potentially of future generations. In this perspective, one of the key questions related to waste management is to decide on the best compromise between present dilution-dispersion into the environment or concentration in surface or underground disposal sites. The objective of this paper is to discuss the use of the indicators related to individual exposure, focusing especially on inter-generation risk transfers. For the sake of the sensitivity assessment, the evolution of the indicators has been explored for the current waste management option of the French nuclear fuel cycle, combining underground disposal and releases, as well as for extreme alternative waste management options, which have never been implemented or envisaged as such in reality. THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The nuclear fuel cycle consists of a succession of stages, which may differ depending on the type of reactor (PWR, GCR, CANDU, etc.) and the various options that exist for fuel management (with or without reprocessing of spent fuel, recycling of fissile matter, etc). Each of the stages produces radioactive waste in liquid, gaseous or solid forms. The methods of managing this radioactive waste can vary considerably from one facility to another, with the choice of a waste management option depending mainly on the characteristics of the waste being considered. The waste produced is composed of a group of radionuclides, each of which having its own particular characteristics, in terms of both chemical and physical properties (radioactive half-life, mode of disintegration, environmental behaviour, chemical form, radiological impact). As a result, the management of radioactive waste necessarily implies specific management for each radionuclide, or family of radionuclides. Figure 1 illustrates schematically [2] the different management methods for waste produced by the nuclear fuel cycle. Most of the waste is submitted to an initial processing phase. This processing can differ considerably depending on the radionuclide concerned: it may be partial elimination as a result of radioactive decay or various physical and chemical processes. 2
3 Following this processing, a portion of the radioactive waste can be directly released into the environment in the form of liquid or gaseous effluents ( dilute and disperse principle). In this case, the radionuclides are immediately dispersed into the biosphere, the extent of this dispersion differing according to the geographical characteristics of the site. Waste which is not released into the environment is immobilized with a view to disposal ( concentrate and retain principle). This disposal can be envisaged either on the surface for low level waste (LLW) or intermediate level waste (ILW), or underground for high level waste (HLW). The radioactivity contained in the confined waste is held for a period which can stretch from some hundreds to some hundreds of thousands of years, during which time part of this activity is eliminated as a result of radioactive decay. Then, following this retention phase, there is a gradual release into the biosphere of the remaining radionuclides (delayed dilution/dispersion), usually via underground water. Nuclear fuel cycle Treatment Wastes Dilute/Disperse ENVIRONMENT Early or Immediate releases - atmospheric - liquid Concentrate / Retain Disposal - LLW/ILW surface - HLW underground Dilute/Disperse Delayed releases Figure 1 : Dilute-Disperse and Concentrate-Retain Principles Both strategies are not exclusive, and the current management is mixing the dilution and concentration principles for most of the radionuclides (see Table 1), with a very few exception (for example, krypton 85). In order to illustrate the sensitivity of impact indicators associated with the waste management strategy (dilution or concentration), calculations have been performed for six particular radionuclides and for the current waste management options combining underground disposal and releases as well as for extreme alternative waste management options: underground disposal of C-14, Kr-85 and I-129; total release, either in the sea or in the atmosphere, of Cs-137, Pu-239 and Np-237. As these alternative waste management options analysed are of a one-off nature, it leads to some extremely high exposures such as for the integral release of Cs-137. Nevertheless, between total disposal and total release, many options are available, which have to be evaluated in an ALARA perspective. 3
4 Current management C-14 Kr-85 I-129 Gaseous releases 37.4 % 100 % 1.6 % Liquid releases 12.5 % 0 % 86.7 % Surface disposal 49.9 % 0 % 7.4 % Underground disposal 0.2 % 0 % 4.2 % Cs-137 Pu-239 Np-237 Gaseous releases < % < % 0 % Liquid releases < % 0.01 % 0.05 % Surface disposal < % 5.9 % 0.2 % Underground disposal % 94 % 99.7 % These numbers are very typical of the present French nuclear cycle, operating during 60 years, and considering that an underground disposal site in granite is available. Table 1. Distribution of the activities involved in the current management of nuclear cycle RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA APPLIED TO SCENARIOS IN NORMAL SITUATIONS Different questions arise from Table 1: Is the current management optimised? On what considerations is it based? If another one is envisaged, what are the useful indicators to decide to change? For some of the radionuclides, the answers are evident, for example there are technical difficulties, even impossibilities, to trap, retain or confine a radionuclide due to its physical and chemical properties. Toxicity and radiotoxicity are also worth considering: for example, Table 2a shows that the maximum individual doses from hypothetical let s say unreasonable - cycles, for which all activities of Cs-137, Pu-239 and Np-237 are diluted or dispersed into atmosphere or in the sea (!). In this case, the calculated individual doses are quite obviously unacceptable, from some msv to several Sv per annum Radionuclide Cs-137 Pu-239 Current management (mainly disposal) Hypothetical management Atmosph. Release Hypothetical management Marine releases (sea releases, reprocessing) > (sea releases, reprocessing) Np (atm. releases, reprocessing) Table 2a. Individual doses to the reference group (msv/year) associated with waste management options for a hypothetical cycle However, the comparison of individual doses related to optional management with doses corresponding to the current practices is not always so trivial. Table 2b shows that the potential of individual dose reduction (from C-14, Kr-85 and I-129) is between one and two orders of magnitude when going from the present management to hypothetical ones, that would allow to completely trap these three radionuclides 4
5 Table 2b. Radionuclide C-14 Kr-85 Current management (mainly disposal) (sea releases, reprocessing) (atm. releases, reprocessing) Underground disposal (excluding intrusion) I-129 (surface disposal) Individual doses to the reference group (msv/year) associated with waste management options for a hypothetical cycle 0 The previous tables shows that the maximum annual individual doses related to current waste management remain well below the limit of 1 msv/year set for the members of the public by the ICRP in its Publication 60. It is also below individual source-related dose constraint: from recent discussions in non gouvernemental bodies, it appears that the dose constraint should be about 0.3 msv per year. The same applies for the management option which consists in trapping and storing C-14, Kr-85 and I-129. For the carbon-14, the evolution in time of the maximum individual exposure is illustrated in Figure 2a (current management) and Figure 2b (hypothetical management), together with the populations concerned (local reference group RG- or world population GP-). 1,00E-02 1,00E-03 Total natural dose GP 1,00E-04 Maximum individual dose Sv/y 1,00E-05 1,00E-06 1,00E-07 1,00E-08 1,00E-09 1,00E-10 RG: reference group GP: global population Direct releases RG GP Direct releases Current management of C-14 Surface disposal Underground disposal RG RG Time Figure 2a. Maximum Individual Dose (msv/year) associated with the current management of carbon-14 5
6 1,00E-02 1,00E-03 Total natural dose GP 1,00E-04 Maximum individual dose Sv/y 1,00E-05 1,00E-06 1,00E-07 1,00E-08 1,00E-09 Alternative management of C-14 (underground disposal) RG 1,00E RG: reference group GP: global population Time Figure 2b. Maximum Individual Dose (msv/year) associated with a hypothetical management of carbon-14 (delayed release after trapping during the operational phase) Beyond the direct comparison of maximum individual doses, an important parameter is the moment when these doses are received. Here again, the retention of the underground disposal site leads to a considerable postponement of these doses: this is clearly illustrated in comparing Figure 2a with Figure 2b, where the maximum individual dose is delayed by 9000 years (300 human generations) for C-14. This illustrates the risk of a transfer between present and future generations that can arise due to the choice of waste management. DOSES AND RISKS TRANSFERS This question of possible risk transfers is a keypoint of the decision-making process. Whatever the option selected, waste management leads to a radiological impact. Depending on the radionuclide concerned and the management option, the most exposed population group can be either the workers or the public, in the short, medium or long term. With respect to the different options related to the cycle, the transfer of risks between these different categories of population has to be examined, as well as between these different time frames. These risk transfers may occur at three levels: - Between the public and workers: for example, choosing to trap and store a radionuclide which is usually released into the environment would lead to a reduction in public exposure, but would increase the exposure of workers by creating new operations for processing this radionuclide, hence transferring the risk from the public to the workers. - Between generations: as previously pointed out, storing a radionuclide postpones its release into the environment, except for the fraction eliminated through radioactive decay during the retention period. In this case, choosing disposal rather than immediate release implies transferring risks from current to future generations. - Between local and global populations: here again choosing to store and therefore concentrate a radionuclide, rather than disperse it early into the environment, can lead to a transfer of part of the risk from global to local populations (particularly as regards the risk of intrusion in a disposal site, see further). RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA APPLIED TO HUMAN INTRUSION For the entire nuclear fuel cycle, the doses related to the additional disposal option of the radionuclides reduces the maximum individual doses to the reference group by deferring them. However, this option gives rise 6
7 to the risk of intrusion within the disposal site, with the possibility for the individuals concerned of receiving higher individual doses. The maximum individual doses linked to intrusion scenarios for an underground disposal site are shown in the following table for current waste management, as well as for the additional options examined. The intrusion scenarios considered are the drilling of a well near the disposal site (one at 610 m from the high-level vitrified waste and the other at 1230 m from the medium-level waste). The doses are expressed for the entire disposal site as defined in the Everest study. Probabilities of intrusion are not considered here. It should also be pointed out that these doses are deferred for a considerable length of time, from several thousands to several millions of years. Table 3. C-14 I-129 Current management Hypothetical management Maximum individual doses linked to intrusion scenarios for underground disposal (msv/year) These maximum individual doses are, on the whole, several orders of magnitude above exposures linked to the normal evolution of the disposal site alone. As regards I-129 in particular, doses can reach levels of several msv/year for the site as a whole, both for current waste management and the additional options envisaged. Potential scenarios have to be considered in order to appreciate the possibility of reduction of the likelihood of human intrusion or to limit its consequences (disaggregated dose/likelihood approach). THE USE OF DIFFERENT RISK INDICATORS The individual dose is a very comprehensive indicator, it is accompanied with high uncertainties especially if the assessment focuses on the long-term consequences: the size of the population concerned, the human behaviour (diet, living conditions, hobbies) and actions (economic crisis, wars, voluntary or inadvertent intrusion ), the evolution of the geologic setting, of the biosphere, and engineered barriers over the long term All these dimensions are not so easily predictable. Proof that the disposal system will always satisfy individual dose criteria cannot be absolute because of these inherent uncertainties. The compliance with constraints should not be considered as sufficient to accept an option of disposal, and conversely, a numerical excess of constraints should not necessarily oblige the decision maker to reject an option, but this must be considered as a startingpoint to determine if additional measures would result in improved protection. In conclusion, the quantification provides only a basis for judgements. Thus, the possibility to strengthen a site specific assessment of a disposal using other indicators than the individual dose should be inevitably envisaged. It should be useful, maybe necessary, to produce other indicators on which uncertainty is lower. From this viewpoint, it would be necessary to give an assessment of the expected activity levels in some of the biosphere and geosphere receptors [3], or the residual radiotoxicity of the potential long-term releases. It should allow to compare and discriminate different options of disposal. In the case of the distant future evaluation, all these indicators - including the individual dose - have not to be considered as an accurate, direct or indirect measurement of the health detriment. They are only simple decision-aiding tools, to be used in the comparison of concepts of storage sites or strategies of disposal. The collective dose which is a further input into optimisation of protection is of limited use in the context of the disposal of long-lived radioactive waste. However, consideration of the number of people potentially exposed and the distribution of individual dose in time can be of fruitful help. CONCLUSION This paper is an attempt to contribute to the development of a framework for the evaluation of the impact and inter-generational risks transfers associated with waste management. Any option envisaged either to dilute/disperse or to concentrate and confine must be evaluated taking into account dose transfers between exposed groups in space and time. For this purpose, the individual dose criterion should be considered as an evolutive indicator. 7
8 Furthermore, optimisation of protection is a judgmental process with social and economic factors being taken into account, assessed doses or risks to individuals being important but not unique - input into this process. Final decisions rely on a compromise between the short-term protection of the population and the risk transferred to future generations, a compromise which is essentially of an ethical nature. REFERENCES [1] INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, Radiological Protection Policy for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Publication 77, Annals of the ICRP 27, Supplement 1997, Pergamon Press, 1998, Oxford and New York. [2] TORT V., LOCHARD J., SCHNEIDER T., SUGIER A., Preliminary Evaluation of the impact and intergeneration risk transfers related to the release and disposal of radioactive waste from the nuclear fuel cycle, CEPN Report n 255, December [3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety indicators in different times frames for the safety assessment of underground radioactive waste repositories, IAEA Tecdoc 767, Vienna, October
Entwicklungen im Strahlenschutz
Entwicklungen im Strahlenschutz Dr Annie Sugier Chair, ICRP Committee 4 Dr Jack Valentin Scientific Secretary, ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection What ICRP does and why Waste disposal
More informationSwedish Radiation Safety Authority Regulatory Code
Swedish Radiation Safety Authority Regulatory Code ISSN 2000-0987 SSMFS 2008:37 The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority s Regulations and General Advice Concerning the Protection of Human Health and the
More informationRWMC Regulators' Forum (RWMC-RF)
For Official Use NEA/RWM/RF(2008)3/PROV NEA/RWM/RF(2008)3/PROV For Official Use Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 13-Feb-2008
More informationH. Geckeis, V. Metz Robustness vs. Flexibility and Monitorability in Nuclear Waste Disposal
H. Geckeis, V. Metz Robustness vs. Flexibility and Monitorability in Nuclear Waste Disposal Workshop Technological Monitoring and Long-Term Governance, Karlsruhe, 18. + 19.10.2016 KIT Die Forschungsuniversität
More informationRadiation Protection of the Public and Protection of the Environment
DS432 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS Date: March 2015 for protecting people and the environment Status: Step 8 120 day Member States consultation Deadline for comments: 20 July 2015 Radiation Protection of the
More informationImplementation of International Safety Standards for Radioactive Waste Management into Japanese Regulations
Implementation of International Safety Standards for Radioactive Waste Management into Japanese Regulations Toshiso KOSAKO The University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Engineering, Nuclear Professional
More informationNear-surface Disposal Facilities on Land for Solid Radioactive Wastes
Near-surface Disposal Facilities on Land for Solid Radioactive Wastes Guidance on Requirements for Authorisation February 2009 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY NORTHERN IRELAND ENVIRONMENT AGENCY SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT
More informationIAEA-TECDOC-1372 Safety indicators for the safety assessment of radioactive waste disposal
IAEA-TECDOC-1372 Safety indicators for the safety assessment of radioactive waste disposal Sixth report of the Working Group on Principles and Criteria for Radioactive Waste Disposal September 2003 The
More informationIAEA-TECDOC-560 QUALITATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES
IAEA-TECDOC-560 QUALITATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES TO QUALITATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES TO BE DISPOSED OF IN DEEP GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS IAEA, VIENNA, 1990 IAEA-TECDOC-560
More informationNuclear waste management in Switzerland
Nuclear waste management in Switzerland - Waste management by R. Rometsch* Revised atomic energy legislation has been in force in Switzerland since July 1979. It deals mainly with licensing of nuclear
More informationINPRO TM Towards Nuclear Energy System Sustainability Waste Management and Environmental Stressors
10th GIF-IAEA Interface Meeting IAEA HQs, Vienna, Austria. 11-12 April 2016 INPRO TM Towards Nuclear Energy System Sustainability Waste Management and Environmental Stressors General information 2 Title:
More informationGuidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems
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
More informationIAEA SAFETY STANDARDS for protecting people and the environment. Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities
DS447 Date: 20 February 2015 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS for protecting people and the environment STATUS: SPESS STEP 12 For submission to CSS Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Fuel Cycle
More informationImpact of partitioning and transmutation on nuclear waste management and the associated geological repositories
Impact of partitioning and transmutation on nuclear waste management and the associated geological repositories Enrique M. González-Romero CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain Summary Recent Eurobarometers show that
More informationYucca Mountain. High-level Nuclear Waste Repository
Yucca Mountain High-level Nuclear Waste Repository The purpose of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project is to determine if Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is a suitable site for a spent nuclear fuel
More informationLONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF UNDERGROUND DISPOSAL OF P&T WASTE. G. Volckaert, D. Mallants SCK CEN, Boeretang Mol Belgium
LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF UNDERGROUND DISPOSAL OF P&T WASTE G. Volckaert, D. Mallants SCK CEN, Boeretang 200 2400 Mol Belgium R. Bush AEA-Technology L. Lambers GRS, Schwertnergasse 1 50667 Köln
More informationEnvironmental Radiological Monitoring for Nuclear Power Reactors (Nuclear Facility)
Environmental Radiological Monitoring for Nuclear Power Reactors (Nuclear Facility) Dr. Faraj Ghanbari RMCC Project Leader Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Sixth Annual Radiation Measurements Cross
More informationIAEA-TECDOC Derivation of activity limits for the disposal of radioactive waste in near surface disposal facilities
IAEA-TECDOC-1380 Derivation of activity limits for the disposal of radioactive waste in near surface disposal facilities December 2003 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Waste
More informationIAEA SAFETY STANDARDS for protecting people and the environment. Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste from Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities
DS447 Date: September 2014 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS for protecting people and the environment STATUS: SPESS STEP 11 MS comments incorporated Review Committee Member comments due 31 Oct Predisposal Management
More informationSafety Assessment for Decommissioning of a Nuclear Laboratory
SAFETY ASSESSMENT FOR DECOMMISSIONING Annex I, Part C Safety Assessment for Decommissioning of a Nuclear Laboratory INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1. Background...
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 15.5.2017 COM(2017) 236 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM and
More informationHEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY
HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY Specialists in Radiation Safety Background Information on Guidance for Protective Actions Following a Radiological Terrorist Event Position Statement of the Health Physics Society*
More informationRetrievability in the BAMBUS-II Project. J.B. Grupa. NRG, the Netherlands
Retrievability in the BAMBUS-II Project J.B. Grupa NRG, the Netherlands Summary In the context of radioactive waste disposal retrievability can be defined as the capability of waste package retrieval afforded
More information2007 ANS Topical Meeting on Decommissioning, Decontamination and Reutilization September 2007, Chattanooga, TN, United States of America
2007 ANS Topical Meeting on Decommissioning, Decontamination and Reutilization 16-19 September 2007, Chattanooga, TN, United States of America Safety of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities B. Batandjieva,
More informationSESSION 3c Disposal of Intermediate Level Waste
International Conference on the Safety of Radioactive waste Management SESSION 3c Disposal of Intermediate Level Waste ORAL PRESENTATIONS No. ID Presenter Title of Paper Page 03c 01 64 R. Nakabayashi Japan
More informationNATURE OF WASTE, DISPOSAL PRACTICES, RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS AND THE ASSESSMENT OF RADIATION EXPOSURE
CLEARANCE OF MATERIALS RESULTING FROM THE USE OF RADIONUCLIDES IN MEDICINE, INDUSTRY AND RESEARCH Rastogi, R.C. 1, Linsley, G.S. 1 and Baekelandt, L. 2 ABSTRACT This paper describes methods for applying
More informationRadioactive Waste Disposal. Piero Risoluti
7th edition of the International Summer School on Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Management 14-18 September 2015, JRC Ispra (Italy) Radioactive Waste Disposal Options and Practices Piero Risoluti 1
More informationOperational Decommissioning Experience in France Radioactive Waste Management and Radiation Protection Issues
Operational Decommissioning Experience in France Radioactive Waste Management and Radiation Protection Issues L. Vaillant ISPRA, Italy, 11 th September 2014 Content Dismantling of nuclear facilities in
More informationRepository Perspective
Repository Perspective Peter Swift Sandia National Laboratories DOE Fusion-Fission Hybrid Workshop Gaithersburg, MD October 1, 2009 Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a
More informationSubmission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into The Management of Nuclear Waste
February 1998 Ref: Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into The Management of Nuclear Waste INTRODUCTION 1. The Royal Society welcomes the opportunity to
More informationFrench National Plan. for the management of Radioactive Materials and Waste SUMMARY
French National Plan for the management of Radioactive Materials and Waste 2016 2018 SUMMARY 2 Contents Foreword Introduction 1 Management of radioactive materials and waste: principles and objectives...
More informationDose and Risk Calculations for Decontamination of a Hot Cell
Dose and Risk Calculations for Decontamination of a Hot Cell Amr Abdelhady and T. Mongy Reactors dept., Nuclear Research Center, Atomic Energy Authority, Cairo, Egypt Received: 1 /2/ 2014 Accepted: 6 /3/
More informationGoing Underground: Safe Disposal of Nuclear Waste
Going Underground: Safe Disposal of Nuclear Waste Burton Richter Pigott Professor in the Physical Sciences, Emeritus Stanford Energy Seminar January 23, 2012 Nuclear Energy Issues It is too expensive It
More informationICEM DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENVI SIMULATOR TO ESTIMATE KOREAN SNF FLOW AND ITS COST
Proceedings of the 12 th International Conference on Environmental Remediation And Radioactive Waste Management ICEM 2009 October 11-15, 2009, Liverpool, England, UK ICEM 2009 16060 DEVELOPMENT OF THE
More informationRadioactive Substances Regulations Environmental Permit Application for Hinkley Point C
Radioactive Substances Regulations Environmental Permit Application for Hinkley Point C Summary of the application by NNB Generation Company for a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and
More informationInternational Conference on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
International Conference on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management IAEA Headquarters Vienna, Austria 21 25 November 2016 Ref. No.: IAEA-CN-242 Announcement and Call for Papers A. Introduction The sustainable
More informationEDF DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAMME - A PREREQUISITE FOR THE ERECTION OF NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN FRANCE
EDF DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAMME - A PREREQUISITE FOR THE ERECTION OF NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN FRANCE J.-J. Grenouillet Electricité de France Dismantling, Waste management & Environment Engineering Center
More informationCalorimetry for radioactive waste characterization
Calorimetry for radioactive waste characterization Stéphane Plumeri Ispra - October 12th, 2016 Andra (National radioactive waste management agency) Headquarters Aube disposal facility Manche disposal facility
More informationNuclear Waste Governance in Italy
Forschungszentrum für Umweltpolitik/ Environmental Policy Research Centre Dr. Maria Rosaria Di Nucci dinucci@zedat.fu berlin.de Nuclear Waste Governance in Italy Climate Policy Strategies and Energy Transition
More informationPeer Review of the RPII s Environmental Monitoring Programme Foundation Document. F. Exposure from Natural Sources in Ireland
Peer Review of the RPII s Environmental Monitoring Programme 2009 Foundation Document F. Exposure from Natural Sources in Ireland 1. Introduction The European Commission is currently in the process of
More informationOptimisation of radiological protection applied to the development and implementation of a geological disposal
J. Miksova (CV REZ), F. Bernier (FANC), P. Janssens (BelV), L. Nachmilner (CV REZ), M. Tichauer (IRSN), D. Ilett (EA) Optimisation of radiological protection applied to the development and implementation
More informationGuidance on the Use of Deterministic and Probabilistic Criteria in Decision-making for Class I Nuclear Facilities
DRAFT Regulatory Document RD-152 Guidance on the Use of Deterministic and Probabilistic Criteria in Decision-making for Class I Nuclear Facilities Issued for Public Consultation May 2009 CNSC REGULATORY
More informationPaper MANAGEMENT OF SPENT SEALED RADIATION SOURCES
Paper MANAGEMENT OF SPENT SEALED RADIATION SOURCES Roberto Vicente, Gian-Maria Sordi, and Goro Hiromoto* Abstract Spent or disused sealed radiation sources no longer needed sources may represent a risk
More informationGeological Disposal Generic Design Assessment: Summary of Disposability Assessment for Wastes and Spent Fuel arising from Operation of the UK EPR
NDA Technical Note no. 11261814 Geological Disposal Generic Design Assessment: Summary of Disposability Assessment for Wastes and Spent Fuel arising from Operation of the UK EPR October 2009 NDA Technical
More informationInternational Expert Panel Views on the Ontario Power Generation Response to the Request of the Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change
International Expert Panel Views on the Ontario Power Generation Response to the Request of the Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change for Assessment of Alternate Locations for the Deep Geologic
More informationINES The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale
INES The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User s Manual 2008 Edition Co sponsored by the IAEA and OECD/NEA INES THE INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL EVENT SCALE USER S MANUAL 2008
More informationDraft Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation, Revision 1
Draft Branch Technical Position on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation, Revision 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs May
More informationEnergy from nuclear fission
Energy from nuclear fission M. Ripani INFN Genova, Italy Joint EPS-SIF International School on Energy 2014 Plan Figures about nuclear energy worldwide Safety Reaction products Radioactive waste production
More informationReactor Technology: Materials, Fuel and Safety. Dr. Tony Williams
Reactor Technology: Materials, Fuel and Safety Dr. Tony Williams Course Structure Unit 1: Reactor materials Unit 2. Reactor types Unit 3: Health physics, Dosimetry Unit 4: Reactor safety Unit 5: Nuclear
More informationANICCA CODE AND THE BELGIAN NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
ANICCA CODE AND THE BELGIAN NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE TECHNICAL WORKSHOP : DYNAMIC NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 06-08 July, 2016 Ivan Merino Rodriguez Contents ANICCA Introduction Structure General Input The Belgian Nuclear
More informationDEPARTMENT OF MINERALS AND ENERGY RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
DEPARTMENT OF MINERALS AND ENERGY RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: JULY 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS VISION...4 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT...4
More informationEnvironmental Regulator's RWA Syllabus mapped to PHE's RPTS courses. RPTS coverage EA. No
Environmental Regulator's mapped to PHE's RPTS courses EA. No RPTS Sylalbus/Course RPA Reference requirement 1 Basic atomic and nuclear physics Atomic structure and composition of the nucleus Yes F DU
More informationThe GRS Emergency Centre during the Fukushima NPS Accident: Communicating Radiological Information to the Public
The GRS Emergency Centre during the Fukushima NPS Accident: Communicating Radiological Information to the Public F.-N. Sentuc, S. Dokter Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbh Schwertnergasse
More informationManagement of Radioactive Waste The third priority of nuclear industry
Management of Radioactive Waste The third priority of nuclear industry Andras Toth Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority Zoltan Kiss Independent Investment Consultant IAEA TM on Safety Goals Framework for
More informationRadioactive Waste Management and Environmental Surveillance at KANUPP. Khawaja Ghulam Qasim Sr. Manager (KANUPP)
Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental Surveillance at KANUPP Khawaja Ghulam Qasim Sr. Manager (KANUPP) PAEC Nuclear Power Program K-1 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 K-2/K-3 1972 2000 2011 Sep.2016 2017 2021
More informationJoint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and on the safety of radioactive waste management
Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and on the safety of radioactive waste management First national report on the implementation by France of the obligations of the Convention English
More informationC. Kennes - C. Mommaert - M. Van haesendonck (Bel V) H. Libon - A. De Backer (Belgonucleaire) Decommissioning of Belgonucleaire MOX plant
C. Kennes - C. Mommaert - M. Van haesendonck (Bel V) H. Libon - A. De Backer (Belgonucleaire) Decommissioning of Belgonucleaire MOX plant Content Regulatory framework Strategy Status of the project Role
More informationHAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT Nuclear Waste Management - L. de Saint-Georges, P. De Boever and G. Collard
NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT L. de Saint-Georges (1), P. De Boever (2) and G. Collard (2) Department of Radioprotection (1) & Radioactive Waste & Cleanup Division (2) The Belgian Nuclear Research Center (CEN/SCK),
More informationOPERA SAFETY CASE. Date: 20 December 2017 Compilers: Ewoud Verhoef, Erika Neeft, Neil Chapman, Charles McCombie.
OPERA SAFETY CASE Date: 20 December 2017 Compilers: Ewoud Verhoef, Erika Neeft, Neil Chapman, Charles McCombie www.covra.nl Contents Foreword... 7 Summary... 8 Introduction... 9 How much waste is destined
More informationKVU - Handling of Norwegian Spent Fuel and other Radioactive Waste
KVU - Handling of Norwegian Spent Fuel and other Radioactive Waste Task 5: Protection of the Environment, Natural Resources and Society Alan Paulley James Penfold Richard Metcalfe QRS-1669A-2 Version 1.0
More informationTechnical Review of the 2011 ESC for the LLWR near Drigg. Issue Resolution Form ESC-TQ-ASO-009 TECHNICAL QUERY
Content Title Date raised 12/07/2013 Acknowledgment required by 17/07/2013 Response required by 30/08/2013 Related issue numbers Originated by Current owner Review group Approved by Reply to LLWR s response
More informationNuclear Waste Policy: A New Start? Part I: Nuclear Waste 101
Nuclear Waste Policy: A New Start? Part I: Nuclear Waste 101 Eric Loewen, Ph.D. President American Nuclear Society 2011 Charlotte Engineering Conference November 9, 2011 Charlotte, NC Return to the Jungle
More informationDismantling of nuclear facilities in France: what is at stake?
Decommissioning of nuclear facilities Feedback from France L. Vaillant ISPRA, Italy, 16 th September 2015 Content Dismantling of nuclear facilities in France: what is at stake? Radioactive Waste Management
More informationApplication of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance
DS161: 2004-06-21 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS SERIES Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance DRAFT SAFETY GUIDE DS161 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA June 2004 IAEA SAFETY
More informationRadiation Dose Assessment for the Transport of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Materials INFORMATION PAPER
WNTI W O R L D N U C L E A R T R A N S P O RT I N S T I T U T E INFORMATION PAPER Radiation Dose Assessment for the Transport of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Materials Dedicated to the safe, efficient and reliable
More informationWM2015 Conference, March 15 19, 2015, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Safety Assessment for the Radon-Type Surface Disposal Facility at Saakadze, Georgia 15406 ABSTRACT Bernt Haverkamp *, Heinz Kroeger ** * DBE Technology GmbH ** TÜV NORD EnSys Hannover The Saakadze disposal
More informationINDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2 nd EAN WORKSHOP
INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2 nd EAN WORKSHOP P Shaw (1), P Crouail (2),J Croft (3) and C Lefaure (2) 1. NRPB Northern Centre, Leeds, UK 2. CEPN, Fontenay aux Roses, Paris,
More informationReliability Of Atmospheric Dispersion Models Used In Assessing The Impact Of Radioactive Discharges On Food Safety
Z Ould-Dada Reliability Of Atmospheric Dispersion Models Used In Assessing The Impact Of Radioactive Discharges On Food Safety Zitouni Ould-Dada Food Standards Agency Radiological Protection and Research
More informationAssessment of Doses around Nuclear Installations: For What? C. Ringeard J. Brenot D. Laurier A. Morin
Assessment of Doses around Nuclear Installations: For What? C. Ringeard J. Brenot D. Laurier A. Morin Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire (IRSN) ABSTRACT: There is not one methodology to
More informationIAEA International Conference on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
IAEA International Conference on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management BOREHOLE DISPOSAL OF DSRS IN BRAZIL Laís Alencar de Aguiar laguiar@cnen.gov.br / laguiar@ird.gov.br Institute of Radiation Protection
More informationRADIOACTIVE GRAPHITE MANAGEMENT AT UK MAGNOX NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS. G. HOLT British Nuclear Fuels plc, Berkeley, United Kingdom 1.
RADIOACTIVE GRAPHITE MANAGEMENT AT UK MAGNOX NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS G. HOLT British Nuclear Fuels plc, Berkeley, United Kingdom Abstract. The UK nuclear power industry is predominantly based on gas-cooled,
More informationIAEA Perspective on Management of NORM Waste
IAEA Perspective on Management of NORM Waste Zhiwen FAN Waste and Environmental Safety Section Department of Nuclear Safety and Security Email: z.fan@iaea.org IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Outline
More informationRadioactive Waste Management
Radioactive Waste Management Dr Nick Evans Loughborough University Minerals Engineering Society Conference 2010 Overview Politics Radioactive waste Storage / Deep Disposal Geological considerations Other
More informationNational Inventory of Radioactive Materials and Waste SYNTHESIS REPORT
National Inventory of Radioactive Materials and Waste SYNTHESIS REPORT 2015 EDITORIAL FRANÇOIS-MICHEL GONNOT CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ANDRA PIERRE-MARIE ABADIE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANDRA F or several
More informationDecommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. The Decommissioning Process. Lesson Objectives. Decommissioning. Decontamination. Decommissioning Objective
Lesson Objectives International Atomic Energy Agency Define specific decommissioning terms of Nuclear Facilities The Process Understand the decommissioning process Review the various decommissioning strategies
More informationo u ;9D2 A DEMONSRATION OF DOSEMODELING.'i ":... AT YUCCAMOUNTAIN r.,.. : t; November _,:== = = _ _i_=o::
PNL-SA--20329 DE93 005,._7,_'k_ A DEMONSRATION OF DOSEMODELING.'i ":...,, t'r AT YUCCAMOUNTAIN r.,.. : t; o u ;9D2 _ i_,am -- 0 _,--" o L. O T B. P W Eslinger Q -=,',,I _s_: r', I) ' November 1992 - _,:==
More informationREGULATION ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
Purpose REGULATION ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT Official Gazette Number : 28582 Date of Issue : 09.03.2013 (Unofficial Translation) SECTION ONE Purpose, Scope, Bases and Definitions ARTICLE 1- (1) The
More informationSafety Assessment for Decommissioning of a Nuclear Power Plant
SAFETY ASSESSMENT FOR DECOMMISSIONING Annex I, Part A Safety Assessment for Decommissioning of a Nuclear Power Plant INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1. Background...
More informationRadiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Regulation on the Safety of Disposal of Nuclear Waste Adopted in Helsinki on 22 December 2015
UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION FROM FINNISH. LEGALLY BINDING ONLY IN FINNISH AND SWEDISH. REGULATION STUK Y/4/2016 Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Regulation on the Safety of Disposal of Nuclear Waste Adopted
More informationTHE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Getting to the Core of THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE From the mining of uranium to the disposal of nuclear waste @ Getting to the Core of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle The various activities associated with the production
More informationIAEA-TECDOC-8S5. Clearance levels
IAEA-TECDOC-8S5 Clearance levels The IAEA does The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Waste Management Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse ALL PLEASE BE AWARE
More informationIAEA-TECDOC Categorizing Operational Radioactive Wastes
IAEA-TECDOC-1538 Categorizing Operational Radioactive Wastes April 2007 IAEA-TECDOC-1538 Categorizing Operational Radioactive Wastes April 2007 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was:
More informationKathryn Higley, PhD, CHP Professor, Assistant Department Head. Oregon State University
Environmental Transport Kathryn Higley, PhD, CHP Professor, Assistant Department Head Nuclear Engineering & RadiationHealth Physics Oregon State University Purpose To present an overview of mechanisms
More informationYucca Mountain From 10,000 to 1-Million Year Compliance Period. R.G. Vawter President, ATP Services 8 Gamba Drive Glenwood Springs, CO USA
ABSTRACT Yucca Mountain From 10,000 to 1-Million Year Compliance Period RG Vawter President, ATP Services 8 Gamba Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 USA Two plus years ago a US Federal Court of Appeals (the
More informationAdapting Dismantling and Decommissioning Strategies to a Variety of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities 12237
Adapting Dismantling and Decommissioning Strategies to a Variety of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities 12237 Frédéric CHAMBON, Gilles CLEMENT AREVA ABSTRACT AREVA has accumulated over 20 years of experience
More informationProspective Radiological Environmental Impact Assessment for Facilities and Activities
DS427 Draft Version 8.5 Date: 23 November 2016 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS For protecting people and the environment Status: STEP 13 Endorsed by the CSS For submission to the PC Prospective Radiological Environmental
More informationRADIATION LEVEL IN CHINA AND PROTECTION STANDARDS
RADIATION LEVEL IN CHINA AND PROTECTION STANDARDS PAN ZIQIANG CHINESE SOCIETY OF RADIATION PROTECTION The 5th asian regional conference on the evolution of the system of radiological protection Chiba,
More informationIAEA Generic Review for UK HSE of New Reactor Designs against IAEA Safety Standards EPR
IAEA Generic Review for UK HSE of New Reactor Designs against IAEA Safety Standards EPR IAEA Generic Review for UK HSE of New Reactor Designs against IAEA Safety Standards EPR 3.1 3.7 Graded Approach 3.2
More informationChallenges for nuclear power world-wide
Challenges for nuclear power world-wide wide Simposio Internacional Perspectivas Actuales de la Energia Nuclear Collegio Libre de Emeritos Madrid, 21-22 April 2008 Hans Forsström, Director Division of
More informationPackaging for Transport of the ILW-LL of EDF First Generation Power Plant Dismantling 16517
Packaging for Transport of the ILW-LL of EDF First Generation Power Plant Dismantling 16517 Aurélie Brasch-Serres*, Mathias Chazot** * EDF-DP2D, 154 avenue Thiers, CS 60018, 69458 LYON CEDEX 06, FRANCE
More informationChapter 24 Issues of HLW Disposal in Japan
Chapter 24 Issues of HLW Disposal in Japan Kenji Yamaji Abstract Concerning the disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in Japan, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO) has been
More informationDRAFT FOR CONSULTATION (WEB VERSION)
42/106/05 April 5, 2005 (version 18.1) DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION (WEB VERSION) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION ASSESSING DOSE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE INDIVIDUAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF RADIATION
More informationApplication of the system of radiological protection of the environment in the IAEA Safety Standards a position paper
Application of the system of radiological protection of the environment in the IAEA Safety Standards a position paper D. TELLERIA 1, G. PROEHL 1 *, T. BOAL 1, T. CABIANCA 2 1 : International Atomic Energy
More informationAndrey Guskov. Safety assessment of near surface disposal facilities in Russia
Andrey Guskov Safety assessment of near surface disposal facilities in Russia Agenda Regulatory aspects Historical aspects Assessment aspects Regulatory Pyramid THE LAWS GOVENMENTAL ACTS FEDERAL NORMS
More informationHigh Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: Background and The Canadian Proposal
High Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: Background and The Canadian Proposal Adam McLean March 27, 2001 Outline of Presentation Where does new fuel come from? How is CANDU fuel used? What is high level
More informationSafety Methodology Implementation in the Conceptual Design Phase of a Fusion Reactor
Safety Methodology Implementation in the Conceptual Design Phase of a Fusion Reactor Lina Rodríguez-Rodrigo Joëlle Uzan-Elbez 1 Safety Methodology Implementation in the Conceptual Design Phase of a Fusion
More informationLEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING IN SLOVAK REPUBLIC
LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING IN SLOVAK REPUBLIC ABSTRACT /DGLVODY.RQHþQê-DQD%XUFORYi Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic Trnava Slovak
More informationWM2015 Conference, March 15 19, 2015, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Why Accredit ISO/CEI 17025 a Nuclear Waste Management Laboratory? 15112 Jean Chevillon *, Raphaël Oddou * * CEA, DAM, DIF, Bruyeres-Le-Chatel, F-91297 Arpajon, France ABSTRACT When there is no storage,
More informationGeological disposal of higher-activity radioactive waste. June 2010
Geological disposal of higher-activity radioactive waste June 2010 1 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Delivering the largest environmental clean-up programme in Europe at 19 existing nuclear facilities
More informationDisposal Options for Radioactive Waste
Disposal Options for Radioactive Waste Stefan Mayer, IAEA 8th edition of the International Summer School on Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Management 1st Workshop on Planning R&D towards Geological
More information