LLW challenges and developments FINAL pptx

International Atomic Energy Agency
LLW disposal:
trends, developments and
challenges
P. Ormai
IAEA, Waste Technology Section
International Workshop on the Safe Disposal of Low Level Radioactive Waste, 3-5 Febr. 2015, Montrouge, France

Topics
• Introductory remarks
• Trends in LLW disposal
• Latest developments
• LLW disposal challenges
• IAEA’ involvement

Source of information
• DISPONET network (meetings,
web site)
• WES projects (ISAM, ASAM,
PRISM, PRISMA, HIDRA)
• TC national, regional, inter-
regional projects
• Document preparation
• Member States reporting (Joint
Convention)
• IAEA data bases
IAEA activities
WES: Waste and Environmental Safety Section
DISPONET: International Network for the Disposal of Low-level Radioactive Waste
ISAM: Improvement of Safety Assessment Methodologies for Near‐surface Disposal Facilities
ASAM: Application of Safety Assessment Methodologies for Near Surface Waste Disposal Facilities
PRISM: Practical Illustration and Use of the Safety Case Concept in the Management of Near-Surface Disposal
PRISMA: Application of the Practical Illustration and Use of the Safety Case Concept in the Management of Near-Surface Disposal
HIDRA: Human Intrusion in the context of Disposal of Radioactive Waste

1. TRENDS
Long road from the beginning to the current disposal practices
What makes the differences?
Not only the looks!
Several disposal facilities were entered into operation before current
regulatory standards took effect and IAEA requirements and guidance,
SA methodologies and recommendations for QM systems became available.
Tumble tipping

LLW disposal by now is a matured practice
• Coherent safety regime
• The safety principles and safety requirements to be applied in all
RWM activities including disposal are established (SF-1, GSR Part 5,
SSR-5)
• There is a great deal of experience in LLW
disposal
• Good operation records
• more than 100 LLW repositories are in operation all over the world
• some of them have already been safely closed down
• Commensurate with the diverse range of wastes, a diverse range of
disposal solutions have been implemented and proposed for the
broad range of LLW

• Many ways to design disposal facility: different geometries,
different configurations, different materials
• Different disposal systems have been developed, but no
unique design – several types suitable for different
conditions
• Repository type/design depends on:
• overall disposal strategy in the country (how many facilities?)
• political decisions
• legislative restrictions
• waste inventories
• nature of the site (host media) and its surroundings
• social acceptance
• climate

Trench type disposal facilities
NTS - Area 5 (USA)
Peña Blanca (USA)
Richland (USA)
Ezeiza (Argentina)
Vaalputs (South Africa)
L’Aube (France)
El Cabril (Spain)
7
Australia

Engineered near-surface disposal concepts
La Manche, France El Cabril, Spain Mochovce, Slovakia
L’Aube (CSA), France
Rokkasho, Japan
Beilong, China
NorthWest, USA
Dukovany, Czech
8
Drigg, UK

Subsurface facilities, geologic repository
SFR, Sweden Olkiluoto, Finland
Bátaapáti, Hungary
Morsleben, Germany
9
LOVIISA - Finland
HIMDALEN - Norway

• There is no “best” design for a LLW disposal facility
• The design should reflect the circumstances and the level
of hazard or risk
• Technical options based on compliance with national
policies, available funding and public sensitivities.
• Appropriate selection and optimization of technical options is
important in terms of safety, economics and efficiency
• Available technologies must be assessed.
Lessons learnt on disposal option selection

Evolving recognitions (1)
• Adaptive approach is preferred
• Meeting safety requirements should be commensurate with the hazard
associated with the waste and the longevity of the hazard (graded approach).
• Disposal facilities adapted to particular waste streams (VLLW, LLW, ILW,
DSRS, NORM).
• Safety case, safety assessment
• SA cannot, itself, adequately demonstrate the safety of the disposal system
• A holistic view is needed, with a broader range of arguments and activities to
justify disposal of RW (safety case)
• Decision making at different stages in the facility lifecycle, using the Safety
Case
• Understand the processes (colloids, complexing agent, corrosion, gas
generation, sorption of nuclides onto barrier materials)

Evolving recognitions (2)
• Effective governance in disposal programmes is vital (transparent
decision making, adaptive, flexible, collaborative approach)
• Public participation in environmental impact assessment (EIA) ensures an open, balanced
process and strengthens the quality and credibility of a project's review.
• Important idea of translation of ‚siting’ to ‚hosting’ a repository whereby a local
community is empowered
• While the safety is the unchallengeable priority, the cost implication of the
disposal has come to the forefront in most of the disposal development
programmes
• Cost (assessment): in relation to optimisation and improved efficiency
• The notion of the best (‚optimal’) disposal solution is elusive
Deciding what would be an optimal solution is complicated by many factors (e.g., policy
constraints, and public acceptance, siting constraints, the specific waste streams,
resources available)
• Continual improvements in disposal are imperative

Continual improvements
• A number of countries have already initiated or planning R&D
studies:
• for increasing knowledge and confidence in safe operation
• enhance and strengthen the plausibility and robustness of disposal safety
case (enhancing confidence in safety case)
• deepen and strengthen stakeholder confidence
• Priorities of a R&D programme
• improve knowledge of waste characteristics
• information on time development of the EB structures
• EB degradation and structural stability
• reduce identified uncertainties
• confirm the assumed performance of the disposal system
• optimise the system by increasing performance and robustness of
performance of the disposal system in cases of failures
• stay abreast of international developments and best practices on SAs and SCs

‚Matured’ disposal
facilities
Facilities in design or
construction phase
Disposal facility need
refurbishment and / or safety
upgrading
2. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Expansion, disposal optimization (driver: cost)
• France
• enable a safe industrial disposal of large components
• filling optimization of cell
• rubble recycling
• UK
• volume reduction program
• disposal of high-volume low activity waste (VLLW) at
appropriately licensed commercial hazardous waste landfill sites
• Sweden
• extension of SFR
• extra tunnel for the RPVs
• Hungary
• Optimizing the tunnel filling
‚Matured’ disposal facilities

Current projects and future plans
Talmessi, Iran
Vrbina, Krško (Slovenia)
Dessel (Belgium)
Wolsong, Korea
Radiana, Bulgaria
Switzerland
Russian Fed., Brasil
Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh
Phillipines, Malaysia, Ghana: plans for borehole disposal is in
progress
Kinkardine,Canada
Konrad, Germany
Saligny, Romania
Lithuania

3. CHALLENGES
A. continuous or recurring
challenges
B. new challenges
C. challenges remained from
the past
• safety
• regulatory
• engineering
• economic
• societal

A. Continuous or recurring challenges
Issues for ‚mature’ disposal facilities:
• maintain safe operation – maintain the public confidence
• optimise management route - integrated view
• re-licensing
• handle new waste streams
• expansion (add new disposal units)
• prepare for closure – demonstration of safety concept
• preserve memory
• Issues for new disposal facilities
• Siting (stakeholder interaction), licensing,…
• ‚Evergreen’ topics for LLW disposal
• Demonstration safety (SA, safety case)
• human intrusion
• managing uncertainties
• managing ‚hotspots’, inhomogeneity (ASAM project)
• Derivation and verification of WAC
• Monitoring / surveillance programme

B. New challenges
• New types of waste, new regulations or guides, new events
• With the expanding nuclear industry and the increased age of nuclear
plants, some categories of waste that were of minor importance in the
past are now becoming significant and require adequate attention.
Examples are:
• LLW from decommissioning and dismantling of old nuclear installations
• radioactive graphite from nuclear reactors, amount to over 3,000 tonnes per
reactor (14C and 36Cl)
• chemotoxic or biotoxic materials possibly present in various types of wastes
• sodium and sodium/potassium alloys, which arise from the
decommissioning of liquid metal fast reactors (LMFR)

END POINT
Decay
storage
Surface
trench
Tailing
dam
Engineered
surface
facility
Intermediate
depth facility
Geologic
repository
BOSS
DSRS
Short-lived
Long-lived
SHARS
B1. Disposal of DSRS
Disposal options for DSRS vary depending on the activity levels and types of
radionuclides in the sources.
Borehole disposal is not a new concept
• In the former USSR: „RADON” facilities
• USA: Greater confinement boreholes (e.g. Nevada test site)
• South Africa – Pelindaba
• Western Australia – Mt Walton “Intractable Waste Facility”
• Russian Federation: large diameter borehole (LDB)

BDC concept: safety philosophy
‘Borehole facilities offer safe, simple,
economic alternative for all DSRS
Easier’ disposal derives from the small volume
and nature of the waste
No decrease in safety standards, these to be
set by national authorities, backed up by
international guidance, as usual
South Africa Demo

International Atomic Energy Agency International Atomic Energy Agency June 2010 / 22
WAC conformity checking:
Radiological characterization of large size
waste packages
Source: Lucien Pillette-Cousin, AREVA TA
Handling
weight : 100 - 300 tons, diameter: 2- 4 m
height : 15 - 20 m
B2. Management of bulk waste
Criteria for optimizing large component management include safety, technical,
socio-economic, economical issues

• Transport to disposal site
• abnormal load
• special arrangement
• special vehicle
• road logistics

Disposal
• New configuration of the disposal unit
Long term safety aspects:
• avoid ‚’hot spot’
• provide mechanical stability of the cell (grouted with a
cementitious material)
• high pH reduces corrosion rate

Operational shortages
• no WAC
• no QA/QC
• lack of appropriate monitoring
• insufficient inventory record keeping
• lack of expertise
• lack of resources
• lack of safety culture
• handling DSRS
• waste characterisation
facility degradation (erosion, inadequate
cover, deeply rooting plants or burrowing
animals, subsidence)
waste package degradation (corrosion,
effects of gas formation, biodegradation of
certain waste types)
No adequate
infrastructure
Facility evolution
C. Challenges remained from the past
Causes of safety concerns

Requirement 26: Existing disposal facilities
The safety of existing disposal facilities shall be
assessed periodically until termination of the licence.
In the event that any requirements set down in this
Safety Requirements publication are not met, measures
shall be put in place to upgrade the safety of the
facility, economic and social factors being taken into
account.

JC Article 12. EXISTING FACILITIES AND PAST
PRACTICES
„Each Contracting Party shall in due course take the
appropriate steps to review:
…the results of past practices in order to determine whether any
intervention is needed for reasons of radiation protection …”
PAST PRACTICES
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
• Modernisation, refurbishment, infrastructure development
• Change of design (capping system, drainage system, etc.)
• Additional EBs
• Waste retrieval

Some countries still are at the very
beginning of the upgrading
process.
Some countries have successfully
solved their problems and are
assessing the obtained results.
Upgrading of waste disposal facilities
Managing historic LLW sites and
upgrading of waste disposal facilities is
performed or planned in a number of
countries.

Lessons learnt:
To make all reasonable improvements in order to upgrade the
safety of existing facilities may prove to be a much more complex
task than had initially been expected. Some issues remain, mainly
concerning:
• Selection of a solution to achieve safety;
• Long term safety considerations — the existing facilities should be
upgraded so as not to create future problems.
• Technical procedures for safe retrieval and sorting of waste;
BUT it should be and can be done!
29

Guidance for waste management following an accident or incident
Disposal of radioactive
waste resulting from a
nuclear accident
Predisposal Management of
Radioactive Waste in the Aftermath
of Severe Nuclear Accident:
Challenges, issues and lessons learned
Report on environmental
remediation after a nuclear or
radiological accidents: approaches,
tools, techniques, and equipment
A series of reports are being drafte which primarily focus on technical, economic and socio-political aspects of
waste management after emergency situation
Advance planning for waste management in the
aftermath of nuclear accidents
New priority / challenge

IAEA’ Assistance
IAEA adjusts its support to specific Member State needs:
• Support newcomer countries on disposal
• Support non nuclear countries with limited inventory of waste on
disposal
• Support enhancing knowledge on disposal (e-learning, training)
• Peer review on disposal plans
• Support on implementing a borehole disposal for very small inventories
• Demonstration of BDC concept
• Information exchange and research cooperation on any emerging
trends and needs for Member States with advanced programmes
• manage large volumes of waste as may arise after a nuclear accident
• Share experience on post accident related waste disposal

Thank you for your attention

LLW challenges and developments FINAL pptx

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (11)

Similaire à LLW challenges and developments FINAL pptx

Similaire à LLW challenges and developments FINAL pptx (20)

LLW challenges and developments FINAL pptx