- •Preface
- •Acronyms
- •Introduction
- •Background and objectives
- •Content, format and presentation
- •Radioactive waste management in context
- •Waste sources and classification
- •Introduction
- •Radioactive waste
- •Waste classification
- •Origins of radioactive waste
- •Nuclear fuel cycle
- •Mining
- •Fuel production
- •Reactor operation
- •Reprocessing
- •Reactor decommissioning
- •Medicine, industry and research
- •Medicine
- •Industry
- •Research
- •Military wastes
- •Conditioning of radioactive wastes
- •Treatment
- •Compaction
- •Incineration
- •Conditioning
- •Cementation
- •Bituminisation
- •Resin
- •Vitrification
- •Spent fuel
- •Process qualification/product quality
- •Volumes of waste
- •Inventories
- •Inventory types
- •Types of data recorded
- •Radiological data
- •Chemical data
- •Physical data
- •Secondary data
- •Radionuclides occurring in the nuclear fuel cycle
- •Simplifying the number of waste types
- •Radionuclide inventory priorities
- •Material priorities
- •Inventory evolution
- •Assumptions
- •Errors
- •Uncertainties
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •Development of geological disposal concepts
- •Introduction
- •Historical evolution of geological disposal concepts
- •Geological disposal
- •Definitions and comparison with near-surface disposal
- •Development of geological disposal concepts
- •Roles of the geosphere in disposal options
- •Physical stability
- •Hydrogeology
- •Geochemistry
- •Overview
- •Alternatives to geological disposal
- •Introduction
- •Politically blocked options: sub-seabed and Antarctic icecap disposal
- •Sea dumping and sub-seabed disposal
- •Antarctic icesheet disposal
- •Technically impractical options; partitioning and transmutation, space disposal and icesheet disposal
- •Partitioning and Transmutation
- •Space disposal
- •Icesheets and permafrost
- •Non-options; long-term surface storage
- •Alternatives to conventional repositories
- •Introduction
- •Alternative geological disposal concepts
- •Utilising existing underground facilities
- •Extended storage options (CARE)
- •Injection into deep aquifers and caverns
- •Deep boreholes
- •Rock melting
- •The international option: technical aspects
- •Alternative concepts: fitting the management option to future boundary conditions
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Site selection and characterisation
- •Introduction
- •Prescriptive/geologically led
- •Sophisticated/advocacy led
- •Pragmatic/technically led
- •Centralised/geologically led
- •Conclusions to be drawn
- •Lessons to be learned (see Table 4.2)
- •Site characterisation
- •Can we define the natural environment sufficiently thoroughly?
- •Sedimentary environments
- •Hydrogeology
- •The regional hydrogeological model
- •More local hydrogeological model(s)
- •Crystalline rock environments
- •Lithology and structure
- •Hydrogeology
- •Hydrogeochemistry
- •Any geological environment
- •References
- •Repository design
- •Introduction: general framework of the design process
- •Identification of design requirements/constraints
- •Concept development
- •Major components of the disposal system and safety functions
- •A structured approach for concept development
- •Detailed design/specifications of subsystems
- •Near-field processes and design issues
- •Design approach and methodologies
- •Design confirmation and demonstration
- •Interaction with PA/SA
- •Demonstration and QA
- •Repository management
- •Future perspectives
- •References
- •Assessment of the safety and performance of a radioactive waste repository
- •Introduction
- •The role of SA and the safety case in decision-making
- •SA tasks
- •System description
- •Identification of scenarios and cases for analysis
- •Consequence analysis
- •Timescales for evaluation
- •Constructing and presenting a safety case
- •References
- •Repository implementation
- •Legal and regulatory framework; organisational structures
- •Waste management strategies
- •The need for a clear policy and strategy
- •Timetables vary widely
- •Activities in development of a geological repository
- •Concept development
- •Siting
- •Repository design
- •Licensing
- •Construction
- •Operation
- •Monitoring
- •Research and development
- •The staging process
- •Attributes of adaptive staging
- •The decision-making process
- •Status of geological disposal programmes
- •Overview
- •Status of geological disposal projects in selected countries
- •International repositories
- •Costs and financing
- •Cost estimates
- •Financing
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •Research and development infrastructure
- •Introduction: Management of research and development
- •Drivers for research and development
- •Organisation of R&D
- •R&D in specialised (nuclear) facilities
- •Introduction
- •Inventory
- •Release of radionuclides from waste forms
- •Solubility and sorption
- •Waste form dissolution
- •Colloids
- •Organic degradation products
- •Gas generation
- •Conventional R&D
- •Engineered barriers
- •Corrosion
- •Buffer and backfill materials
- •Container fabrication
- •Natural barriers
- •Geochemistry and groundwater flow
- •Gas transport and two-phase flow
- •Biosphere
- •Radionuclide concentration and dispersion in the biosphere
- •Climate change
- •Landscape change
- •Underground rock laboratories
- •URLs in sediments
- •Nature’s laboratories: studies of the natural environment
- •General
- •Corrosion
- •Cement
- •Clay materials
- •Degradation of organic materials
- •Glass corrosion
- •Radionuclide migration
- •Model and database development
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Building confidence in the safe disposal of radioactive waste
- •Growing nuclear concerns
- •Communication systems in waste management programmes
- •The Swiss programme
- •The Japanese programme
- •Examples of communication styles in other countries
- •Finland
- •Sweden
- •France
- •United Kingdom
- •Comparisons between communication styles in Finland, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom
- •Lessons for the future
- •What is the way forward?
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •A look to the future
- •Introduction
- •Current trends in repository programmes
- •Priorities for future efforts
- •Waste characterisation
- •Operational safety
- •Emplacement technologies
- •Knowledge management
- •Alternative designs and optimisation processes
- •Materials technology
- •Novel construction/immobilisation materials: the example of low pH cement
- •Future SA code development
- •Implications for environmental protection: disposal of other wastes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Index
Repository implementation |
191 |
for long-term management of SF and HLW are to be recovered from the producers, there will be a question of the allocation of these costs. The objective is to find a mechanism that ensures all costs are covered, is simple to operate and is fair to all participants. Various approaches have been proposed ranging from simple dependence on energy produced, through mechanisms depending on volumes or masses of spent fuel, to complex proposals accounting for specific radionuclide contents. These are all solvable problems, however, and the main points to be stressed with respect to the costs of disposal is that they do not make nuclear power uneconomic and that they are already internalised in most major nuclear countries. For small nuclear programmes, however, the costs of national deep geological repositories could be prohibitive and joint solutions are economically attractive.
7.7. Conclusions
This overview of the challenges of repository implementation and on the status of repository projects worldwide allows some key conclusions to be drawn. These are summarised in the following bullet points:
Effective repository implementation programmes can be undertaken only when clear organisational structures have been established – in particular when responsibilities for all aspects of implementing and regulating have been allocated.
The science and technology needed to implement geological repositories is available today (as noted in Chapter 8). This does not imply that refinement of engineering practices and of safety analyses will not continue; it does mean that repositories could be implemented immediately.
The repositories that are being designed today and the siting requirements that are recognised as essential would also ensure a high level of public safety now and at all times into the future. Thus there are – at least for the scientific and technical communities – no credible safety arguments preventing implementation.
Despite the arguments to the contrary that are often put by nuclear opponents, the costs of deep repositories, although high, are also not an insuperable obstacle to early implementation by large nuclear programmes.
The real stumbling block on the way to repository implementation has been the inability of the technical community to win sufficient trust from the general public (see also comments in Chapters 9 and 10). This becomes most obvious at the siting stage and projects without sites are truly only ‘‘castles in the air’’. This implies that waste disposal experts must continue to work on improving public communication and consultation.
A look at the situation in national programmes reveals that there are hopeful signs. In Finland, Sweden, Canada and South Korea, local communities have agreed to host repositories. It is the belief of many that once some national deep disposal facilities are implemented and operating safely, the resistance to further developments will lessen. Unfortunately, the example of LLW surface disposal sites illustrates that this need not be the case. Countries without such a site (e.g., Switzerland, Australia, Slovenia, Austria, etc.) have not found that the existence of decades-old sites in other countries has eased their own siting problems. Therefore, continuing efforts to develop demonstrably safe deep repositories and to transparently explain the safety of these are essential if progress towards a solution is to be made.
192 |
C. McCombie |
7.8. Acknowledgements
Some of the material used in this overview was developed together with Bengt Tveiten in a project financed by NWMO of Canada; other sections lean heavily on work done together with Barbara Pastina and the BRWM Committee on staged repository development.
7.9. References
AECL (1994). Environmental Impact Statement on the Concept for Disposal of Canada’s Nuclear Fuel Waste. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, AECL-10711, COG-93-1.
CEAA (1998). Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept (Seaborn Report). Report of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel. B. Seaborn (chairman), Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ottawa, Canada.
CoRWM (2006). Managing our radioactive waste safely: CoRWM’s recommendations to government. CoRWM report 700 (July, 2006), Defre, London, UK.
EnPA (1982). US Energy Policy Act of 1982: Section 801: Nuclear Waste Disposal. US Senate, Washington DC, USA.
EU (1999). Schemes for financing radioactive waste storage and disposal, EU Report EUR 18185, EU, Luxembourg.
EU (2002). Draft proposal for a ‘‘COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste’’. EU, Luxembourg.
Holling, C.S. (Ed.) (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiles, New York, USA. IAEA (1995). The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management. Safety Series 111-F. IAEA, Vienna, Austria. IAEA (1997a). The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management. GOV/INF/821-GC(41)/INF/12. IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
IAEA (1997b). Establishing a National System for Radioactive Waste Management. Safety Series 111-S-1. IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
IAEA (2000). Retrievability of high level Waste and spent Nuclear Fuel. Proceedings of an international seminar in Saltsjo¨baden, Sweden, IAEA-TECDOC-1187, IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
IAEA (2002). Institutional framework for long-term management of high-level waste and/or spent nuclear fuel, TECDOC 1323, IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
IAEA (2004). Developing and implementing multinational repositories: Infrastructural framework and scenarios of co-operation, IAEA-TECDOC 1413, IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
IAEA (2006). www-ns.iaea.org/conventions/nuclear-safety.htm.
JNC (2000). H12: Project to Establish the Scientific and Technical Basis for HLW Disposal in Japan. Project Overview Report. Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute JNC TN1410 2000-001, JAEA, Tokai, Japan.
KASAM (1988). Ethical Aspects of Nuclear Waste. SKN Report 29, April 1988, SHN Publishing, Stockholm, Sweden.
McCombie, C. (1999). Multinational Repositories – a Win–Win Disposal Strategy, Proceedings of the ENS TOPSEAL99 Conference, 10–14 October 1999, ENS, Antwerp, The Netherlands.
Nagra (1985). Project Gewa¨hr 1985, Nagra Gewa¨hr Report NGB85-09 (English summary), Nagra Wettingen, Switzerland.
Nagra (2002). Project Opalinus Clay, Safety Report, Demonstration of Disposal Feasibility for Spent Fuel, Vitrified High-level Waste and Long-lived Intermediate-level Waste (Entsorgungsnachweis), Nagra Technical Report NTB 02-05, Wettingen Switzerland.
NEA (1993). The Cost of High-Level Waste Disposal in Geological Repositories, OECD/NEA, Paris, France. NEA (1994). The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. OECD/NEA, Paris, France.
NEA (1995). The environmental and ethical basis of the geological disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes. A collective opinion of the Radioactive Waste Management. OECD/NEA, Paris, France.
NRC (2001). Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C, USA.
NRC (2003). One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Repository implementation |
193 |
ONDRAF/NIRAS (2001b). SAFIR 2: SA and Feasibility Interim Report 2, ONDRAF/NIRAS Report NIROND 2001-06 E, Belgium.
SKB (1983). Final Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, KBS-3, Volumes 1 to 4. SKB, Stockholm, Sweden. SAPIERR (2006). EU-SAPIERR project, see www.sapierr.net for details.
Witherspoon, P.A., Bodvarsson, G.S. (Eds.) (2001). Geological challenges in radioactive waste isolation: fourth worldwide review. LBNL Report 49767, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
Witherspoon, P.A., Bodvarsson, G.S. (Eds.) (2006). Geological challenges in radioactive waste isolation: fourth worldwide review. LBNL Report 59808, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, USA.