multinational initiatives for long-term spent fuel management - an update on current international...
TRANSCRIPT
Multinational Initiatives for Long-Term Multinational Initiatives for Long-Term Spent Fuel ManagementSpent Fuel Management
- an update on current international projects -- an update on current international projects -
Neil Chapman & Charles McCombieArius Association, Switzerland
Ewoud VerhoefCOVRA, Netherlands
IAEA: Spent Fuel Management from Power Reactors, Vienna, June 2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
451
95
4
19
57
19
60
19
63
19
66
19
69
19
72
19
75
19
78
19
81
19
84
19
87
19
90
19
93
19
96
19
99
20
02
20
05
20
08
20
11
20
14
20
17
20
20
USSR, then Russia
USA
UK
France
Germany
Canada
Rest of Europe
Japan
India
Pakistan
Rep. of Korea
Taiwan
China
Other
Power Reactor Power Reactor CommissioningCommissioning
(data from WNA reactor database)(data from WNA reactor database)
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 The situation, the problem .....and one element of a solutionelement 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
TopicsTopics
Siting a multinational repository - how?
Europe - the ERDO and its working group
Adapting the ERDO model for other regions?
Shared SF Disposal - the Siting ProblemShared SF Disposal - the Siting Problem
...but there is a way forward, modelled on the best international practice being pursued today
““But which country will be the host? But which country will be the host?
..you will never find that a country is willing ..you will never find that a country is willing to host a repository for other people’s to host a repository for other people’s
waste”waste”
Prerequisites to identification of Prerequisites to identification of potential host sites or countriespotential 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....A host and its neighbours....
NEIGHBOURCommunity
CountyRegionCountry
HOSTCommunity
CountyRegionCountry
...a matter of scale - not principle, nor process
An approach to siting... bottom-up, An approach to siting... bottom-up, staged, volunteer-basedstaged, 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......Sensitive questions......
What is the appropriate community/region level of volunteering?
Must volunteer countries already have identified potential host communities?
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?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 benefitsannounce 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 itnational governments free to solicit specific volunteer communities that might have particular interest or particularly favourable characteristics
Degrees of CommitmentDegrees 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 firstPutting 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 StatementERDO-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 EROERDO-WG, ERDO and ERO
ERDO
European Repository Development Organisation
ERDO-WG
Working Group to lay the
foundations for the ERDO
ERO
European Repository
Organisation
2009 2011 2020-25
Investigation of Sites
Preferred Site: trigger for ERO
Binding host agreements
times uncertain/flexible
State of DevelopmentState 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 ModelSome Key Elements of ERDO ModelCo-operative, operating solely for benefit of member countries on a not-for-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
National Government
Strategic plan for radioactive waste management
National Implementer
Agency
ERDO GDF Siting and R&D programme
National GDF siting and R&D
programme
National long-lived waste & SF store(s)
ERDO
National LLW repository siting and R&D
programme
National LLW repository
ERDO interim storage facilities
Model A
Countries with Nuclear Power
....a model also exists for non-nuclear power
member countries
National GDFERDO GDFs
ENSREG
National Regulatory Authorities
Funding Funding
National GDF might be an ERDO GDF
Shared R&D and technology
Requirements
Transfer if needed
ERDO end-pointERDO end-pointDevelop 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?
Sources: IAEA, NEA, WNA, IEA, et. al., 2008Sources: IAEA, NEA, WNA, IEA, et. al., 2008
from www.ncitd.org
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
Central and
South America
N. Africa
Arabian Gulf
S.E. Asia
ERDO
ERDO-WG OutreachERDO-WG OutreachLondon
‘Times’, March 2010
“Eastern Europe to host
EU nuclear waste storage
facility”
“Collective storage of radioactive wastes will
slash industry costs”
ConclusionsConclusions
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