Transcript Multinational Initiatives for Long-Term Spent Fuel Management - an update on current international projects Neil Chapman & Charles McCombie Arius Association, Switzerland Ewoud Verhoef COVRA,

Multinational Initiatives for Long-Term
Spent Fuel Management
- an update on current international projects Neil Chapman & Charles McCombie
Arius Association, Switzerland
Ewoud Verhoef
COVRA, Netherlands
IAEA: Spent Fuel Management from Power Reactors, Vienna, June 2010
45
USSR, then Russia
40
UK
USA
France
Power Reactor
Commissioning
35
Germany
C anada
Rest of Europe
30
Japan
(data from WNA reactor database)
India
25
Pakistan
Rep. of Korea
20
Taiwan
C hina
15
Other
10
5
2020
2017
2014
2011
2008
2005
2002
1999
1996
1993
1990
1987
1984
1981
1978
1975
1972
1969
1966
1963
1960
1957
1954
0
Amount of SF worldwide: tHM x 1000
350
Heading for half
a million....
300
250
Generated
Spent
fuel generated
200
Reprocessed
Spent
fuel reprocessed
150
In store
Spent
fuel in storage
expecting decision
100
50
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
Operational Dates: Spent Fuel & HLW Repositories ....?
.
Belgium: after 2025
Bulgaria: open
China: after 2040
Czech Republic: c.2065
Finland: c.2020
France: c.2025
Germany: open
Hungary: 2047
Italy: open
Japan: c.2035
Lithuania: open
Netherlands: after 2100
Romania 2049
Slovakia: 2037
Slovenia: 2066
Spain: open
Rep. of Korea: open
Sweden: c.2020
Switzerland: c.2040
United Kingdom: c.2070
USA: open
The situation, the problem .....and one
element of a solution
Storage capacity is filling up in many countries
Numerous new NPPs are proposed worldwide
Number and distribution of SF storage locations could increase
markedly over next 30 years
Take-back of SF appears not to be a working option: major global
fuel cycle initiatives remain largely just initiatives
Large-scale recycling is a long way off ...if ever?
Disposal is expensive and hard to implement
Sharing disposal regionally would help to move timescales
forwards
Topics
Siting a multinational repository - how?
Europe - the ERDO and its working group
Adapting the ERDO model for other regions?
Shared SF Disposal - the Siting Problem
“But which country will be the host?
..you will never find that a country is willing to
host a repository for other people’s waste”
...but there is a way forward, modelled on the best
international practice being pursued today
Prerequisites to identification of
potential host sites or countries
1.
Recognition of a common need for a repository
2.
Transparent specification of ALL requirements to be
fulfilled
3.
Establish, document and discuss pros and cons of
hosting a facility
4.
Establish TRUST in the potential implementing
organisation
Siting an international repository will face the same
problems as a national repository – in both cases it is NOT
something you do at the start of a programme…..
A host and its neighbours....
HOST
Community
County
Region
Country
NEIGHBOUR
Community
County
Region
Country
...a matter of scale - not principle, nor process
Nuclear Engineering International, May 2008
...a bottom-up, volunteer approach from communities
An approach to siting... bottom-up,
staged, volunteer-based
staged volunteer model incorporating stakeholder involvement at all stages
technically guided at start - but only to exclude clearly unsuitable regions
incorporates flexibility to evaluate objectively any proposals that might
emerge from volunteer communities, or regions, or countries
underpinning: any location not obviously unsuitable on basis of existing
knowledge is worth considering on its merits (UK, Japan)
many different geological environments can provide acceptable isolation and
containment conditions; different repository concepts have been designed to
take advantage of this range
volunteer location might be rejected after only limited investigations, if
too difficult to make a reliable safety case or too costly to adapt designs
to site conditions
essential element: maintain flexibility, not exclude interested communities
if there is a realistic likelihood that they could prove suitable
Sensitive questions......
What is the appropriate community/region level of volunteering?
Must volunteer
communities?
countries
already
have
identified
potential
host
Does government of a country have to volunteer actively or, more
passively, simply agree not to block any local volunteers?
Can local communities volunteer before national agreements are reached?
At which of the above levels is consent to volunteer required?
How does one define sufficient acceptance at each of the levels?
Who has veto or withdrawal rights and at which project stages can these
be exercised?
Who negotiates levels and distribution of benefits for volunteers?
How would it work in practice?
A group of countries (e.g. ERDO) comes together to explore possibility
of sharing a geological repository
wide publicity to project
explain national and community benefits
announce launch of a volunteer process
Involve wide range of national and international stakeholders to
establish common set of technically based exclusion criteria
national databases play central role and national agencies (e.g. geological
surveys) pivotal in applying the factors
Communities in non-excluded areas in all countries invited to express
interest (on non-committing basis) in possibility of being a host
national governments agree not to stand in the way of this process – some
may actively encourage it
national governments free to solicit specific volunteer communities that
might have particular interest or particularly favourable characteristics
Degrees of Commitment
Up to pre-defined ‘point of commitment’ (e.g. after several years of site
investigations) interested communities & national governments free to
withdraw
Partner countries might enter the project at different stages.
can’t make realistic estimate of costs or scale of benefits and impacts to
host country and community until largest partners are known
illustrates that too early a commitment on hosting could be inappropriate
Essence of model: takes some of the burden of leadership of a very
sensitive project off national governments that may be reluctant to be
in the vanguard of such a programme
Requires only that national government acknowledges and supports
democratic decision powers of local communities
Putting local communities first
....act in an international arena
....consider themselves as potential contributors, not just to
meeting a national challenge, but to solving a regional or
multinational problem
relatively new in planning and decision-making, although elements
of such a process are already visible in the EU
farsightedness and economic and societal benefits that would
accrue may make siting a shared repository considerably less
difficult than critics of multinational solutions assert
ERDO-WG Mission Statement
.......work together to address common challenges of safely
managing the long-lived radioactive wastes in our countries.
.......investigate feasibility of establishing a formal, joint European
waste management organization.
.......carry out all necessary groundwork to enable establishment of
a European Repository Development Organization as a working
entity and present a consensus proposal to our governments.
....if sufficiently broad consensus is achieved by our governments
or their representatives, ERDO will be established at the end of
this process.
ERDO-WG, ERDO and ERO
2009
2011
2020-25
ERDO
ERDO-WG
Working
Group to lay
the
foundations
for the ERDO
Europe
an
Reposit
ory
Develop
ment
Organis
ation
Investigation of Sites
ERO
Europ
ean
Repo
sitor
y
Orga
nisati
Preferred Site: trigger for ERO
on
Binding host agreements
times uncertain/flexible
State of Development
Four meetings since January 2009
Terms of Reference for ERDO-WG
Draft Operating Guidelines for ERDO
Draft Model Constitution for ERDO
Draft Cost Sharing Model for ERDO
Outline Approach to Siting for ERDO
Some Key Elements of ERDO Model
Co-operative, operating solely for benefit of member countries on a notfor-profit, shared risk basis
Member countries must have national strategic plan for RWM that
meets their obligations (Joint Convention & any EC Directives)
Member countries with active or past nuclear power programmes
expected to have active, parallel national programme for geological
disposal on own territory to fulfil international obligations
Members fund agreed programme of work proportionate to an estimate
of their inventory of wastes for geological disposal (cash; in-kind
contributions)
Work does not interfere with or adversely affect any national waste
management plans (member and other countries) – expected to work
symbiotically with national programmes to share R&D and technologies
and produce cost-benefits
EU Directives on radioactive
waste management
IAEA Joint Convention
Requirements
National Government
Strategic plan for radioactive
waste management
Funding
ERDO
ERDO GDF Siting and
R&D programme
ERDO interim storage
facilities
E
N
S
R
E
G
Funding
National long-lived
waste & SF store(s)
National GDF
National GDF might be
an ERDO GDF
....a model also
exists for nonnuclear power
member countries
National GDF siting
and R&D programme
Transfer if needed
ERDO GDFs
Countries with
Nuclear Power
National
Implementer
Agency
National
Regulatory
Authorities
Shared R&D and
technology
Model A
National LLW repository
siting and R&D programme
National LLW
repository
ERDO end-point
Develop repository operational plan (including any associated storage
and other facilities) making safe and secure disposal available at
minimum cost to member countries
Ensure transparent oversight and use of most appropriate technologies
and internationally recognised safety standards: ERDO may submit its
work to:
technical audit by IAEA
to regulatory overview by European Nuclear Safety Regulator Group
(ENSREG) or representatives & regulatory authorities of host country
At an agreed time, ERDO will transition to a European Repository
Organization (ERO).
expected before repository enters licensing process, so license applicant
will be the eventual operator of the facility
ERDO member countries guaranteed access to ERO facilities at charges
agreed before transition takes place
Existing and potential new nuclear power nations: can the ERDO
model be adapted for use in other regions?
ERDO
N. Africa
S.E. Asia
Arabian
Gulf
Central and
South
America
from www.ncitd.org
Sources: IAEA, NEA, WNA, IEA, et. al., 2008
Arius is starting a pilot project, supported by US
charitable foundations, to explore the potential interest
and adaptability of the concept in some of these regions
London
‘Times’, March
2010
“Eastern
Europe to host
EU nuclear
waste storage
facility”
“Collective
storage of
radioactive
wastes will
slash industry
costs”
ERDO-WG Outreach
Conclusions
Sharing disposal is a possible way of enhancing global
safety & security by ensuring earlier access of all nuclear
nations to appropriate storage & disposal facilities
There is a sensible approach to siting a shared repository
ERDO represents a major step forward in Europe
It may be attractive & adaptable to other regions
It is not easy!
The IAEA has an absolutely central role in encouraging
and facilitating progress