1 / 36

The Comparison of Alternative Waste Management Strategies for Long-lived Waste (COMPAS)

The Comparison of Alternative Waste Management Strategies for Long-lived Waste (COMPAS) Mark Dutton. COMPAS Countries. Countries represented. Partner organisation. Participant(s). Partners. Finland. Posiva OY. Timo Seppälä. France. Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA).

ulfah
Download Presentation

The Comparison of Alternative Waste Management Strategies for Long-lived Waste (COMPAS)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Comparison of Alternative Waste Management Strategies for Long-lived Waste (COMPAS) Mark Dutton

  2. COMPAS Countries

  3. Countries represented Partner organisation Participant(s) Partners Finland Posiva OY Timo Seppälä France Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) Rose Marie Macias Germany Gesellschaft fur Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) Klaus-Jürgen Röhlig Netherlands Nuclear Research and consultancy Group (NRG) Benno Haverkate Patrick J O’Sullivan Slovak Republic and other CEECs VUJE Trnava Inc. (VUJE) assisted DECOM Slovakia Ltd (1) Adela Mrskova (1) Jozef Prítrský Spain Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA (ENRESA) Jesús Alonso Díaz-Terán Jose Miguel Valdivieso Ramos Sweden Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB) Lena Morén Switzerland National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste (Nagra) Markus Hugi Piet Zuidema UK United Kingdom Nirex Limited (Nirex) Samantha King Brendan Breen

  4. Countries represented Invited expert organisations Participant(s) Invited Experts Bulgaria Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant Georgi Gyoshev Czech Republic Radioactive Waste Repository Authority (RAWRA) Miroslav Kucerka Hungary Public Agency for Radwaste Management (PURAM) Peter Ormai TS Enercon Kfs Ferenc Takats Italy National Agency for New Technologies Energy and Environment (ENEA) Giampiero Santanrossa Daniel Taccarello Romania National Commission for Nuclear Activities Control (CNCAN) Alexandru Rodna Slovenia Agency for Radwaste Management Nadja Zeleznik - Hungarian Academy of Science Anna Vari

  5. The Project • The wastes • The strategy influencing issues • The generic strategies which have been adopted or are being considered • The important issues for stakeholder acceptance of waste management options

  6. National Waste Categories Considered • Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) • High-level waste from reprocessing (HLW) • Long-lived low and intermediate level waste (LL-LILW) that exceeds alpha limitation for short-lived waste but where heat generation is low enough for the waste not to require cooling.

  7. Where Does the Waste Come From? • Civil nuclear power programmes – Uranium mining and milling, enrichment plants, NPPs, reprocessing plants - 164 operating reactors, 50 shutdown reactors • Research programmes • Defence programmes • Industrial (including NORM industries), research and medical activities

  8. Reprocessing its status and impact • Total SNF that will be discharged ~ 170 000 tonnes of Heavy Metal STATUS: • No contracts in seven countries • Subject to government review in four • In Hungary there is currently no reprocessing • End date set in Germany and in the UK there is an assumed end date • In the Netherlands they will continue with their existing contract

  9. Current Position on Reprocessing in Terms of SNF Discharged (Tonnes of Heavy Metal) Includes past and projected discharges of SNF (E) Enriched fuels including PWR, BWR, and UK AGR fuel; (M) Non-enriched fuel, principally including UK Magnox fuel, and French Gas-cooled reactor fuel; (C) Non- enriched CANDU reactor spent fuel, which is produced solely in Romania.

  10. Issues Affecting Strategy Selection (1) • International requirements - Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and Radioactive Waste Management - Export and import of radioactive waste (Lome and Bamako Conventions, EC Directive 92/3/EURATOM) - Disposal at sea (London Dumping and OSPAR Conventions) - Safeguards (Non-proliferation Treaty)

  11. Issues Affecting Strategy Selection (2) • Safety and environmental issues - Safety (Joint Convention) - Environmental regulatory issues (EIA, SEA, the Aarhus Treaty)

  12. Issues Affecting Strategy Selection (3) • Technical and economic issues - Heat output - Cost

  13. Issues Affecting Strategy Selection (4) • Ethical and social issues - Intergenerational equity - Intragenerational equity - Sustainable development - The precautionary principle

  14. Decision Tree for SNF Strategy Selection

  15. Reprocessing • Main issues: • Maintaining a secure supply of nuclear fuel for energy production • Safety and environmental considerations • The prospect of a future nuclear power programme involving an advanced nuclear fuel cycle • Economics • Safeguards • Technical issues • Military requirements

  16. Long-term Management Options • Main issues • Safety of future generations • Preservation of the environment • The precautionary principle • Intergenerational equity and • Sustainability

  17. Generic Strategy for SNF – Direct Disposal in a Deep Geological Repository Spent nuclear fuel discharged from reactors Storage at nuclear power plants at least until heat generation is low enough for transporting Prolonged storage (over 50 yrs) France (100 to 300 yrs is an option) , Italy (Option), Netherlands (At least 100 yrs), Spain (Option), UK (Option) Interim storage (for cooling and other technical reasons) Bulgaria, Czech Republic (at least 50 yrs), Finland (at least 20 yrs), France (unspecified period), Germany (30 - 40 yrs), Hungary (50 yrs is an option) Romania (at least 50 yrs), Slovenia (~30 yrs), Slovakia (50 yrs), Spain (unspecified period), Sweden (30-40yrs), Switzerland (~ 40 yrs), UK (at least 50 yrs) Encapsulation Deep geological disposal (>300m depth). National repository (most countries). Multinational repository (option in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia and Switzerland). Shipment to Russia/USA (option for research reactor fuel in Romania, Slovenia and Hungary and for SNF in Slovakia and Hungary) Retrievable disposal required in Finland and the Netherlands. In Switzerland, retrievability is required during the observational phase. In Romania, a pre-closure phase of 100 yrs is required. In Sweden the repository is designed to allow retrieval of deposited canisters. Note: The time periods referred to above are proposed/possible storage times currently considered and are not specified by regulation.

  18. Multi-step Process to Implementation of a Waste Management Facility

  19. Who are the stakeholders

  20. Who are the decision makers? - Government - Regional government - Special Courts - Local Municipality - The public

  21. Factors in Achieving Acceptance (1) • An acceptance of the strategy • Finland decided to pursue deep geological disposal in 1994 • Knowledge of the issues • Liaison and independent expert groups • Ownership of the solution • A recognition of the problem and their part in the solution

  22. Factors in Achieving Acceptance (2) • Net benefit to the community • Enhancement/maintenance of the local economy • Enhancement of the local infrastructure • Direct financial benefits • Loss of reputation – house prices, tourism • Loss of revenue from consumables

  23. Factors in Achieving Acceptance (3) • The structure of the industry • Transparency and clarity of roles • Trust in the regulatory process • Independent expert groups • Expert Group on Disposal Concepts for radioactive waste, EKRA (Switzerland) • Consistency with strategies abroad

  24. Factors in Achieving Acceptance (4) • Avoiding irreversible decisions • Stepwise approach • Retrievability • Funding • Polluter pays • Restriction on the waste to be managed • Finland – capacity restricted to waste from existing reactors

  25. An Example of a Staged Decision Process

  26. The Implementation Process (1) • The basic requirements for the implementation of a waste management strategy: • The existence of a legal framework • Identifying the stakeholders that shall take part • Defining the role of the stakeholders

  27. The Implementation Process (2) • The decision making process must be: • Clear and phased • Have been developed in consultation with all stakeholders • Have clear decision points • Explains how decisions have been made • Provides the opportunity for stakeholders to meaningfully contribute

  28. An Example of a Staged R & D Programme

  29. The Process (1)

  30. The Process (2)

  31. Conclusions (1) • The main source of SNF and radioactive waste is the civil nuclear power plants. • In any scheme for the management of SNF and HLW a period of storage is required. • P & T is currently not seen as a practical option for the management of wastes.

  32. Conclusions (2) • The long-term management of SNF and long-lived wastes requires addressing both scientific and social issues – research on which is continuing in all countries • Nearly all countries are pursuing land-based deep geological disposal as the preferred long-term option for SNF, HLW and long-lived wastes

  33. Conclusions (3) • The implementation of deep geological disposal has been opposed in many countries. • Perceptions of urgency vary and depend on • National policies • Social • Logistical and • Economic Issues.

  34. Conclusions (4) • There are four important aspects to gaining acceptance for a disposal facility: • An open, inclusive and transparent process • A stepwise process • Well defined roles for process participants • Ensuring that there are net benefits to the host community

More Related