radioactive waste management - publications | iaea€¦ · radioactive waste management status and...

Radioactive Waste Management

Status and Trends – Issue #2

September 2002

IAEA/WMDB/ST/2

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Last Updated: September 9, 2002 IAEA-WMDB-ST-2

Table of Contents

FOREWORD ...............................................................................................................7

1 DOCUMENT OVERVIEW .........................................................................................8

2 NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ................10 2.1 TOPICAL ISSUE - UPDATE: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE ................. 13 2.2 TOPICAL ISSUE: SECURITY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ............................................. 17

3 THE CLASSIFICATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE.............................................20 3.1 EXCLUSION, EXEMPTION AND CLEARANCE..................................................................................... 20 3.2 RADIOACTIVE WASTE CLASSIFICATION AT THE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS ......... 23 3.3 CLASSIFICATION OF SPENT FUEL ..................................................................................................... 25 3.4 NON-RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS ....................................................................................................... 25

4 SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE .................................................................27 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION / URANIUM MINING AND MILL TAILINGS MANAGEMENT........ 28 4.2 NORM AND TE-NORM ................................................................................................................... 32

5 DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES ................................................34 5.1 FACTORS RELEVANT TO SELECTING A DECOMMISSIONING STRATEGY......................................... 34

5.1.1 Legislative and Regulatory Requirements..................................................................................... 35 5.1.2 Waste Arisings and National Waste Management Strategy .......................................................... 36 5.1.3 Spent Fuel Management Strategies............................................................................................... 37 5.1.4 Physical Conditions of the Reactor ............................................................................................... 37 5.1.5 Owner's Interest, Including Planned Use of the Site..................................................................... 37 5.1.6 Availability of Technology and Other Resources .......................................................................... 38 5.1.7 Social Considerations ................................................................................................................... 38 5.1.8 Decommissioning Cost and Funding ............................................................................................ 39

5.1.8.1 Example Costing with the US NRC Methodology .............................................................................. 39 5.1.8.2 Example Costing Based on Costs Incurred at Existing Facilities ........................................................ 40

5.1.9 Radiological Exposures................................................................................................................. 41 5.2 DECOMMISSIONING STRATEGIES WORLDWIDE............................................................................... 42 5.3 IN SITU DISPOSAL............................................................................................................................... 44 5.4 RECENT DECOMMISSIONING EXPERIENCE ...................................................................................... 44 5.5 CONCLUSIONS (FOR POWER PLANT DECOMMISSIONING)............................................................... 46 5.6 TOPICAL ISSUE: PRELIMINARY SCOPING OF THE DECOMMISSIONING OF SMALL NUCLEAR

FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................................ 47

6 LOW AND INTERMEDIATE LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................54

6.1 WASTE MINIMIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 54 6.2 WASTE PROCESSING ......................................................................................................................... 56 6.3 TOPICAL ISSUE – MINIMIZATION OF WASTE ARISINGS FROM THE DECOMMISSIONING OF

NUCLEAR FACILITIES....................................................................................................................... 56 6.4 TOPICAL ISSUE - INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN THE PROCESSING OF LOW AND

INTERMEDIATE LEVEL WASTES ...................................................................................................... 59

of 153


7 RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE .......................................................................68 7.1 STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL ................................................................................................................. 72

7.1.1 Wet Storage of Spent Fuel............................................................................................................. 72 7.1.2 Dry Storage of Spent Fuel............................................................................................................. 72 7.1.3 Conditioning of Spent Fuel ........................................................................................................... 73

7.2 REPROCESSING WASTE..................................................................................................................... 73 7.2.1 Storage of Liquid HLW ................................................................................................................. 74 7.2.2 Conditioning (Vitrification) of Liquid HLW.................................................................................. 74

7.3 COMPILATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES..................................................... 75

8 RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL ......................................................................78 8.1 EXAMPLES OF PROGRESS TOWARDS DISPOSAL AND DELAYS IN DISPOSAL PROGRAMME

IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................ 82 8.2 TOPICAL ISSUE: INDEFINITE STORAGE VERSUS RETRIEVABILITY FOR DISPOSAL......................... 86

9 THE MANAGEMENT OF SPENT/DISUSED SEALED RADIOACTIVE SOURCES...............................................................................................................92

9.1 TOPICAL ISSUE - UPDATE: THE BOREHOLE DISPOSAL CONCEPT ................................................. 93

10 MANAGING THE CONSEQUENCES OF PAST PRACTICES...............................95 10.1 UPDATE OF THE STATUS OF THE DOUNREAY SHAFT AND SILO REMEDIATION .............................. 98

11 DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING .............................................................102 11.1 SCORECARD FOR NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT..................... 102 11.2 COMPILATION OF A CONSOLIDATED RADIOACTIVE WASTE INVENTORY IN IAEA MEMBER

STATES ............................................................................................................................................ 111 11.3 GUIDANCE FOR RECORD KEEPING AND RECORD MANAGEMENT................................................. 117

12 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WORK OF THE IAEA AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (2000 – 2001)...........................................121

12.1 UPDATE ON THE DIRECTORY OF RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED SITES (DRCS) ................... 121 12.2 THE REVISED ACTION PLAN ON THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF RADIATION SOURCES ............. 122 12.3 CONFERENCE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE FROM NON-POWER

APPLICATIONS, NOVEMBER 2001, MALTA.................................................................................... 125 12.4 INTERNATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE (WATEC)............................ 128 12.5 UPDATE ON THE CONTACT EXPERTS GROUP ................................................................................ 129 12.6 UPDATE ON INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION WITH UNDERGROUND RESEARCH FACILITIES .... 130 12.7 INTERNATIONAL PROJECT ON INNOVATIVE NUCLEAR REACTORS AND FUEL CYCLES

(INPRO) ......................................................................................................................................... 131 12.8 UPDATE ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EC........................................................................................ 135 12.9 UPDATE ON THE ACTIVITIES OF OECD/NEA................................................................................ 138 12.10 UPDATE ON THE ACTIVITIES OF ICRP ........................................................................................... 142

13 ASSESSMENT OF ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES................................144

14 ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS & EXPRESSIONS........................149

15 CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT ..................................................................153

of 153


Index of Tables

Table 3-I: The IAEA's Proposed Waste Classification Scheme 24

Table 5-I: Radioactive Waste Management Principles Relevant to Selecting a Decommissioning Strategy 35

Table 5-II: Specific Arguments for Greifswald to go to Immediate Dismantling 39

Table 5-III: Principal Decision Making Criteria for Decommissioning 42

Table 5-IV: Strategy for Decommissioning Reactors in the USA 44

Table 5-V: Decommissioning Forecasts for Small Nuclear Facilities Worldwide 52

Table 6-I: Summary of As-Generated Liquid Radioactive Waste Types, Treatment and Conditioning Technologies 60

Table 7-I: Predictions of Spent Fuel Stored in World Regions (kilo tonnes of heavy metal) 72

Table 7-II: Examples of Storage Systems in Some European Countries 75

Table 11-I: Responses to “General Information” Policy Questions (NEWMDB) 104

Table 12-I: Main Database Sections in the DRCS 122

Table 12-II: Main Underground Research Facilities 131

of 153


Index of Figures

Figure 2-1: Basic Steps in Radioactive Waste Management 13

Figure 2-2: Simplified Schematic of Waste Volumes at Major Life Cycle Points 16

Figure 4-1: Distribution, by Volume, of Waste in the European Union 27

Figure 4-2: Uranium Sites in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada 31

Figure 5-1: BONUS Reactor (an Old Entombment Project) 45

Figure 5-2: Removal of Heat Exchanger from the Windscale AGR 47

Figure 7-1: Reduction in radioactivity and decay heat over time 70

Figure 7-2: MACSTOR dry storage facility (Canada) 73

Figure 7-3: Facility Attributes Screen (NEWMDB) 76

Figure 7-4: Waste Inventory Input Screen for Storage Facilities (NEWMDB) 76

Figure 8-1: Retrieval of a HLW Package 89

Figure 10-1: Location of Uranium Mining and Milling in Thuringa and Saxony 98

Figure 11-1: Waste Class Matrix for the USA’s Department of Energy Waste 112

Figure 11-2: Waste Class Matrix for the USA’s Commercial Waste 112

Figure 11-3: The Waste Management Information Chain 118

Figure 12-1: Screenshot of the Welcome Page for the DRCS 123

Figure 12-2: Login Screen for Data Submission 123

of 153


Notice of Disclaimer

The information in this report is provided as a public service by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The information presented herein does not necessarily reflect the views of the IAEA or the governments of IAEA Member States and as such is not an official record.

The IAEA makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information since much of the information is derived from third parties. The IAEA does not warrant that use of the information is free of any claims of copyright infringement.

Extracts from IAEA material contained in this report may be freely used elsewhere provided acknowledgement of the source is made. If the attribution indicates that the information is from a source or site external to the IAEA, permission for reuse must be sought from the originating organization.

The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgment by the IAEA as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.

of 153


FOREWORD

A 1998 European Commission survey indicated that few people in Europe thought they were well informed about radioactive waste. Only one in eight realized that shallow burial was a common technique for waste disposal - even in European Union Member States such as the United Kingdom and France, which operate near surface radioactive waste disposal facilities at Drigg and Centre de l'Aube, respectively. A high percentage of European Union citizens believe that radioactive waste is still dumped at sea even though a voluntary moratorium on the disposal of radioactive waste into the sea came into effect in 1985.

Clearly, an information gap exists. This second edition of the report “Radioactive Waste Management Status and Trends” aims to make at least a small contribution towards diminishing this information gap.

The purpose of this report is to compile and disseminate information about the status of and trends in radioactive waste management in IAEA Member States in a timely manner. The report is suitable for radioactive waste managers and regulators, decision making organizations in both governmental and private sectors, and for IAEA Departments, in both the regular and Technical Co-operation programmes. Currently, the report is targeted at readers with a good knowledge of radioactive waste management. The plan is to have the document evolve to serve a broader audience using easy-to-understand graphical and tabular data.

The preparation of this (currently) annual report involves (a) a meeting with a team of consultants from a variety of government and industrial organizations to compile a first draft, (b) the optional issuance of special service contracts to polish and supplement the first draft, (c) review by IAEA staff and external contributors to the report and (d) final review and approval by the Director of the Nuclear Energy and Waste Technology Division, Nuclear Energy Department, in the IAEA.

Comments concerning the current report and suggestions for future reports can be sent to the IAEA as follows:

Radioactive Waste Management Status and Trends c/o NEWMDB Programme Officer International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse 5, P.O. Box 100 A-1400, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected]

Subject: Status and Trends

of 153

mailto:[email protected]


1 DOCUMENT OVERVIEW

In its current format, this report is intended for persons directly involved in radioactive waste management and regulation as well as members of the general public who are relatively familiar with the nuclear industry and/or radioactive waste management. An annual review process has been established to enable the systematic presentation of information and the tracking of trends. As more quantitative data become available (see Section 11), the intent of the report is provide information in both the format that appears in the current issue and, additionally, in tabular, statistical and graphical formats. As such, over time, this report should become more and more suitable as an information source for persons with a limited knowledge of the nuclear industry and/or radioactive waste management.

Comments and suggestions for making this report (or parts of it) more suitable for digestion by the general public can be sent to the Responsible Officer at the address indicated in the Foreword.

The current issue is not directly suitable for decision makers due to an inadequate level of quantitative data and the amount of information contained in the document. However, typically high-level decision makers rely on technical experts to review extended information and to condense it down into a more manageable format for easy digestion. As such, the current issue is indirectly suitable for decision makers.

The document is subdivided into Sections, covering all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, as follows:

National Systems for Radioactive Waste Management The Classification of Radioactive Waste Sources (origins) of Radioactive Waste Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Management Radioactive Waste Storage Radioactive Waste Disposal The Management of Spent/Disused Sealed Radioactive Sources Managing the Consequences of Past Practices Data Collection and Reporting Highlights of the Work of the IAEA and Other International Organizations (2000-2001)

The various Sections in the report were developed within the context of the following questions:

• What are the end points to be achieved in the identified subject areas? • What is the current global situation with respect to reaching those end points? • What is the basis for understanding the current situation? • What are the gaps between the current situation and what is to be achieved? • Are there changing directions and/or trends to achieve the end points? • What events have lead to any changes in directions and/or trends?

of 153


Under each Section heading there is a declared purpose for the Section. In addition, there may be some general remarks explaining the breakdown of the Section into specific topic areas.

The beginning of a Section may also contain a brief summary of the information presented in the previous issue of the Status and Trends report, thereby minimizing the need to refer back to the previous report. This summary may include minor repetition or paraphrasing of text from the previous issue of the report.

Each Section of the report describes a subject area in radioactive waste management where work is ongoing. Part of the Section’s text will discuss the status of the subject area. In addition, questions will be addressed such as “Are there any unresolved or controversial issues?”, “What noteworthy events or activities took place since the last Status and Trends report?”, and “What trend(s) can be assessed?”.

In one or more subject areas, there may not yet be any emerging trends, only an ongoing work programme. As an example, security has recently emerged as a key topic area within Waste Management Systems and there is currently much activity. However, until that activity has matured to the point where a clear trend has emerged, for example in the design of new storage facilities, this Status and Trends report will only be able to inform the reader of the current status of ongoing work.

Each Section may contain one or more subsections. Subsections without “Topical Issue” included in their titles are meant to cover specific subject areas that are likely to be discussed over a number of issues of the Status and Trends report. These are subjects with anticipated “on going” interest. Subsections with “Topical Issue” included in their titles are meant to cover information and subject areas that are considered to be noteworthy. These subjects may not be discussed in subsequent issues of the Status and Trends report (i.e., they are “newsworthy” or “sensitive” topics).

Subsections could include either “Topical Issue” or “Topical Issue – Update” in their titles. If “Update” is not included in the subsection title, the subsection introduces a new topical issue into the Status and Trends report. If “Update” is included in the subsection title, the subsection provides an update of a topical issue that was discussed in a previous issue (or issues) of the Status and Trends report. The relevant issue(s) is (are) cited within the body of the subsection. Since the current issue is only the second Status and Trends report, clearly any updates are relative to the first issue.

Most Sections of this report include a list of reference documents. As additional issues are published over time, this Status and Trends report will serve as a valuable reference tool for understanding radioactive waste management in IAEA Member States.

of 153


2 NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

This Section looks at the development of systems necessary for the safe management of radioactive waste, at the attempts to establish consistent approaches between Member States and the issues that currently impact upon these attempts. The subject area is covered by the following sub-headings:

• The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management

• Establishment of National Systems for Radioactive Waste Management • Ongoing Initiatives between Member States • Non-Technical Factors Affecting Decision Making for Radioactive Waste

Management

The following Topical Issues subsections are included to reflect current trends: 1. Sustainable Development and Radioactive Waste (update) 2. Security for Waste Management Facilities

The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management

Radioactive waste management is viewed as a critical factor that helped decide the direction of the nuclear industry in some Member States and it could help decide the direction of the nuclear industry in others. It has evolved over the last five decades from a situation where little attention was paid to the effect of industries on the environment to the stage where “sustainable development” is now the order of the day.

This evolution took place in a rapidly changing legislative and regulatory framework for environmental protection in general. The fundamental shift in thinking from “waste is something left over at the end of the day” to policies that waste management must be considered as an activity that is integrated with waste generation is not unique to the nuclear industry. However, the challenges associated with the abandonment of sea dumping on one end of the spectrum to the implementation of geological repositories that must isolate and contain wastes for geological time periods on the other end of the spectrum is unique to the nuclear industry.

A significant recent event is entry into force of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management [2.1]. The “Joint Convention” is the first international legal instrument specifically dealing with spent fuel and radioactive waste management. It was adopted on 5 September 1997 and opened for signature on 29 September 1997. Pursuant to Article 40.1, it entered into force 18 June 2001.

Contracting Parties are legally bound to meet specific obligations with respect to spent fuel and radioactive waste management. As such, the Joint Convention represents an historical “milestone” in the evolution of global radioactive waste management.

The Joint Convention recognizes and reinforces the internationally held view that radioactive waste management is an issue of national concern. However, the Joint Convention also

of 153


recognizes and reinforces the view that the development, implementation and maintenance of national programmes for radioactive waste management must be carried out with “due regard to internationally endorsed criteria and standards”.

A preparatory meeting of the Contracting Parties was held in Vienna from 10 to 14 December 2001. At the preparatory meeting, the Contracting Parties fixed the date of the first Review Meeting (3 to 14 November 2003), the date of the associated Organizational Meeting (7 to 11 April 2003) and the deadline for the submission of National Reports (5 May 2003). The meeting also adopted the Rules of Procedure and Financial Rules, and established guidelines on the form and structure of national reports, and on the process for reviewing the national reports.

Establishment of National Systems for Radioactive Waste Management

“The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management” [2.2] cited in the Preamble of the Joint Convention states:

“The timely creation of an effective national legal and associated organizational structure provides the basis for appropriate management of radioactive waste”.

In this context, the IAEA document [1] “Establishing a National System for Radioactive Waste Management” [2.3] sets forth the elements for establishing a national system that provides for the safe management of materials defined to be radioactive waste by appropriate national authorities. The document defines the end point to be achieved - the international implementation of safe and effective radioactive waste management that is based upon national legal and associated organizational infrastructures.

The establishment and implementation of national systems for radioactive waste management has, historically, been different in each Member State. While some mechanisms exist to document national activities [2.4] to [2.6], until recently there has been no formal, systematic mechanism to assess international progress in establishing national systems for radioactive waste management in accordance with Reference [2.3]. This is not meant to imply, in any way, that significant progress has not been made in the implementation of national waste management systems in many Member States. Of note, major progress has taken place in Central and Eastern Europe in recent years [2.7]. A mechanism to report this progress in a concise manner, which would be easy to digest by policy and decision makers, has been implemented by the IAEA (see subsection 11.1).

Ongoing Initiatives between Member States

Various European Union (EU) programmes are in place to assist non-EU countries. Nuclear safety is a major part of the EU Enlargement process and the EU has a strategy for improving nuclear safety in Central European Countries (CEC) and former members of the Soviet Union, the Newly Independent States (NIS). Two EU Programmes that provide assistance to non-EU states are:

1 The cited IAEA document has been superseded by IAEA Safety Standard GS-R-1, “Legal and Governmental

Infrastructure for Nuclear, Radiation, Radioactive Waste and Transport Safety” (2000), however, it is referenced here because the guidance it provided was used as the basis for part of the IAEA’s newly developed Net-Enabled Waste Management Database (see Section 11).

of 153


• PHARE to assist the CEC: PHARE started in Poland and Hungary after the break up of the Soviet Union in 1989 and was very quickly extended to the other CEC countries. The PHARE nuclear safety programme has the following main priorities:

• on-site assistance and operational safety, • design safety, • regulatory authorities and their technical support organizations, • waste management, and • off-site emergency preparedness.

• TACIS, to assist the NIS: The European Union, together with its Member States, is the largest provider of technical assistance to NIS countries: € 4,226 million were committed through the TACIS programme between 1991 and 1999, an additional € 3,138 million in TACIS budget will be committed for the period 2000-2006. The NIS countries are listed next:

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan

The TACIS nuclear safety programme has focused on the following main areas: • Control of nuclear materials, • Conversion of nuclear military scientists, and • Chernobyl closure and sarcophagus.

Information about the current status of the PHARE and TACIS programmes was available at the following Internet page at time of writing:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/nuclear_safety/intro/phare_tacis_implementation.htm

Non-Technical Factors Affecting Decision Making for Radioactive Waste Management

Within the IAEA, a technical document entitled, “Non-technical factors impacting on the decision making processes in environmental remediation” was recently published [2.8].

In response to the request made of it by the General Conference in resolution GC(44)/RES/12, the Secretariat has assessed the implications for the Agency’s programme of work of the Summary Observations, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Córdoba Conference (GOV/INF/2000/8-GC(44)/INF/5). A “Report on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management ” was approved at the 45th General Conference in 2001.

The report contains seven proposed actions, which were approved for implementation (GC(45)/RES/10). Action 7 is, “Develop a step-by-step programme of work aimed at addressing the broader societal dimensions of radioactive waste management, including an appropriate mechanism to advise on such a programme and assess its suitability and progress.” The Waste Safety Section (WSS) of the Department of Nuclear Safety is currently working the various actions. Information about the WSS is available at:

http://www.iaea.org/ns/rasanet/programme/wastesafety.htm

of 153


2.1 Topical Issue - Update: Sustainable Development and Radioactive Waste

Indicator of Sustainable Development for the Management of Radioactive Waste

A significant event that should promote the development of mechanisms to implement effective radioactive waste management is Agenda 21, the Action Plan prepared by the governments participating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 [2.9]. Agenda 21 includes several chapters related to waste management. Chapter 22 is devoted specifically to radioactive waste management. Two general themes are the need to:

• reduce the amount of all types of wastes being generated, and • manage all waste in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

The effective management of radioactive waste considers the basic steps of the management process, see Figure 2-1, as parts of a total system, from generation through disposal. Because decisions made in one step may foreclose certain alternatives in another step, the IAEA’s Radioactive Waste Safety programme emphasizes the importance of taking into account interdependencies among all steps during planning, design, construction, operation and decommissioning of radioactive waste management facilities [2.2].

Exemptwaste

and Material

Radioactivematerial (forreuse/recycle)

Waste and materials

Pretreatment

Treatment

Conditioning

Disposal

Figure 2-1: Basic Steps in Radioactive Waste Management

Characterization, storage and transportation of waste and materials may take place between and within the basic radioactive waste management steps. The applicability of these steps will vary depending on the types of radioactive waste.

The following describes a newly developed indicator that provides a measure of both the current status of radioactive waste management at any point in time and the progress made over time towards the sustainability of radioactive waste management (worse, the same, better).

The Indicator - Development Summary

As a follow up to UNCED in 1992, the IAEA was assigned the responsibility to develop one or more indicators of sustainable development (ISD) for radioactive waste (RW) management, in accordance with Chapter 22 of Agenda 21 and the UN-wide indicators

of 153


development work programme. As of 1999, the IAEA had proposed a set of nine ISD-RW. However, in late 1999 the Department for Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), the UN agency responsible for ISD, began a process to consolidate the various ISD that had been developed and, to varying degrees, subjected to country testing. The result was that experts chosen by DESA selected a single ISD-RW to remain in the DESA list of ISD [2.10]. However, this ISD-RW was reviewed by the IAEA’s experts, who concluded that an alternative ISD-RW was required. The ISD-RW selected by DESA:

• does not derive or use a baseline against which progress can be judged, • does not acknowledge waste that is under management control, • makes no distinction between wastes from different activities (e.g. Fuel Cycle,

medical use etc.), • makes no attempt to discriminate between the relative hazards of waste types (e.g.

low-level waste (LLW) and high-level waste (HLW), • uses a metric (volume) that is dominated by low risk waste (LLW), • appears to penalize the Fuel Cycle nations even if they manage their wastes in a

sustainable manner (since the only metric is volume), • has no clear definition of an end point (when is sustainability reached?), • fails to distinguish between wastes with and without a defined disposition, and • uses an unproven supposition that the volume of waste is linked to environmental

impact and human health.

The ISD-RW, which is described below, was developed during an IAEA consultants’ meeting held September 24-28, 2001 and refined as the result of a consultants’ meeting held February 11-13, 2002 . The ISD-RW satisfies the following constraints:

• a single indicator, per DESA requirements, • national in scale and scope, • relevant to assessing progress towards sustainable development, • understandable, that is to say, clear, simple and unambiguous, • realizable within the capacities of national Governments, • conceptually well founded, • open-ended and adaptable to future development, • dependent on data that are readily available or available at a reasonable cost

benefit ratio, adequately documented, of known quality and updated at regular intervals, and

• developed independently of the activities that generate radioactive waste (this was a key UN requirement).

The nine indicators that had initially been proposed by the IAEA were divided into two groups based on management options for radioactive waste: (1) confine and contain and (2) dilute and disperse. The ISD-RW only considers the confine and contain option (managed waste as opposed to released waste). The dilute and disperse option was not factored in because:

of 153


• no method could be found to develop a single ISD-RW that included both options (the IAEA was restricted to developing a single ISD-RW for DESA), and

• development of an indicator for waste discharged to the environment is clouded by issues such as The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic ("OSPAR Convention"), which states that “The Contracting Parties shall take, individually and jointly, all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution from land-based sources”. The elimination of discharges may not be linked to sustainability since some level of discharge may represent a sustainable condition.

The ISD-RW developed by the IAEA does not require countries to base reporting of the indicator on (1) historic waste (except as a recognized component of a backlog of waste), (2) contaminated sites or (3) NORM [2]

waste; however, these waste may be factored in on a voluntary basis.

The Indicator - Overview

The ISD-RW provides a measure of both the current status of radioactive waste management at any point in time and the progress made over time towards the overall sustainability of radioactive waste management (worse, the same, better). This measure can be at the national level for a country or it can be at sectoral levels, such as nuclear applications (e.g., medical and industrial applications).

In this context, sustainability is taken to be the state where the inventory of waste requiring disposal is not increasing (at point C and beyond in Figure 2-2). Currently, there is an international debate about whether or not disposal is the end point for waste management - some have proposed alternatives such as long-term storage (see additional discussion on Page 69). Disposal in the context of the ISD-RW, therefore, implies any internationally acknowledged end point that is an alternative to disposal. Additionally, sustainability also implies that waste awaiting disposal is in the final form required for disposal and is being safely stored.

The ISD-RW is based upon two factors that are applied to each of the waste classes used and reported by a country. Each factor has 4 states that indicate progress by way of milestones. The use of these two factors results in the ISD-RW being expressed as a dimensionless number between 0 and 100 with 0 being the least sustainable condition and 100 being the most sustainable condition. Details of the methodology to calculate the indicator are expected to be published in a contributed paper for an upcoming IAEA sponsored conference [2.11]. The details may also be obtained by e-mailing the ISD-RW contact point at the IAEA ([email protected]).

Since radioactive waste is a product of widely varying activities for both the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Nuclear Applications (medicine, industry, research), the IAEA’s experts concluded that the volume of waste, by itself, is a poor representation of sustainability. The ISD-RW selected by DESA, which is a volume based indicator (the Generation of Radioactive Waste), does not recognize the benefits of effective waste management – it is merely an indicator of

2 Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material

of 153

mailto:ISD�[email protected]


quantities of waste. The ISD-RW developed by the IAEA considers the most important aspect of sustainability - is the waste effectively, safely and properly managed or not.

Internationally, a wide variety of waste classification schemes (or systems) are in use (see Section 3 for a more detailed discussion of this issue). Both the IAEA and the European Commission (EC) have recognized this diversity in their respective Member States and both have proposed common classification schemes (or systems) to be used when their Member States report on their radioactive waste management inventories and programmes to national authorities and/or international organizations [2.12], [2.13]. The IAEA’s proposed classification scheme and the EC’s recommended classification system have been developed to facilitate communication and information exchange among Member States and to eliminate some of the ambiguity that now exists in waste classification schemes for radioactive waste.

vol

time

A B C D E

A: waste generation begins, B: disposal begins but rate of generation exceeds rate of disposal,C: rate of disposal = rate of generation, D: inventory reduction begins (elimination of backlog),E: inventory minimized and rate of disposal = rate of generation, F: generation ends, disposal completed

The amount of waste in storage awaiting disposal should depend only upon operational considerations suchas decay storage to reduce heat generation prior to processing and should not include a backlog due to aninability (technical, financial, organizational, etc.) to reduce the backlog.

inventoryminimized

waste is stored according to internationally recognized guidelines

F

Figure 2-2: Simplified Schematic of Waste Volumes at Major Life Cycle Points

The ISD-RW developed by the IAEA takes the diversity of waste classification fully into consideration. The ISD-RW methodology specifies that nations are to compute the indicator for each class of waste that is in use within the nation. The computed values for each waste class can be averaged into a single ISD-RW; however, the aggregated ISD-RW, although indirectly indicative of changes in the management of radioactive waste, might not be a meaningful measure of risks to human health or environmental impacts. The ISD-RW computed for individual waste classes does indicate a reduction in health risks and environmental impacts associated with waste management as the dimensionless indicator shifts from its minimum value (0) to its maximum value (100).

The next steps planned for the implementation of the ISD-RW are (a) the IAEA will send a letter to UN DESA with the recommendation to replace the existing indicator in its list with the one described here and (b) the IAEA will hold at least one additional consultancy to further test the indicator based upon nationally-based waste management information.

of 153


2.2 Topical Issue: Security for Waste Management Facilities The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks alerted the world to the potential of nuclear terrorism - making it "far more likely" that terrorists could target nuclear facilities, nuclear material and radioactive sources worldwide. In a press conference at the time of the November 2001 IAEA Board of Governors meeting, IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei stated, “We need to urgently identify the most vulnerable locations and see they get the necessary security upgrades” and “In the long term, we need to ensure all countries have a stringent nuclear security framework in place — with high standards to abide by, state-of-the art equipment, and people trained in security”.

Past security efforts focused mainly on the diversion of nuclear material by States for non-peaceful purposes, without the same degree focus on malicious activities by sub national groups — thus creating a gap between the risk of nuclear terrorism and existing response capabilities.

Experts at the IAEA point to the need for reducing three categories of risks from nuclear terrorism. As outlined in an IAEA press release, they pertain to:

• Nuclear Facilities: The primary risks associated with nuclear facilities would involve the theft or diversion of nuclear material from the facility, or a physical attack or act of sabotage designed to cause an uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the surrounding environment.

• Nuclear Material: According to IAEA experts, terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons would be the most devastating scenario. While the possibility cannot be excluded, it is highly unlikely terrorists could use diverted nuclear material to manufacture and successfully detonate a nuclear bomb, in the view of IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.

• Radioactive Sources: Experts are concerned that terrorists could develop a crude radiological dispersal device (a so-called “dirty bomb”) using radioactive sources commonly used in every day life. The number of radioactive sources around the world is vast: those used in radiotherapy alone are in the order of ten thousand. There is also a number of radioactive sources, many of them abandoned, others are simply "orphaned" that are outside of any regulatory control.

In regard to radioactive waste management facilities, the associated primary risks would involve the theft or diversion of nuclear material from the facility, or a physical attack or act of sabotage designed to cause an uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the surrounding environment. The extent of damage that could be caused by the intentional crash of a large, fully fuelled jetliner into waste management facilities is still a matter for analysis.

In many States, nuclear material and radioactive waste at nuclear power plants and associated waste management facilities have traditionally been subjected to extensive national protection measures. To prevent theft of nuclear material, these facilities employ a range of protection measures, including site security forces, site access control, employee screening and co-ordination with local and national security authorities. In some States, national security forces provide back-up to facility security. However, not all States employ the same level of security. In addition, outside of the nuclear power industry, the security of radioactive materials and radioactive waste at facilities such as small research centres is not as well organized.

of 153


The IAEA plans to significantly expand its advisory services and help States upgrade protection of their nuclear materials.

As a first priority, the IAEA plans to increase the number and scope of its International Physical Protection Advisory Service (IPPAS) missions as well as its workshops designed to help States to assess possible threats to nuclear activities. The IAEA also proposes to expand its programme aimed at increasing the capabilities of Member States to detect and respond to theft, illicit trafficking, and other malicious use or threatened use of nuclear material and other radioactive materials.

There are currently no comprehensive binding international standards for the physical protection of nuclear material. As an urgent measure, the IAEA has been seeking to broaden the scope of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material to cover the security of additional activities.

“Controlling Radioactive Sources” Control of radioactive sources worldwide is inadequate, the IAEA says, and bringing the global inventory of radioactive material under proper controls will require a sustained and concerted effort. Source: http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/P_release/2002/prn0209.shtml, June 25, 2002

References for Section 2

2.1 “The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management”, International Atomic Energy Agency Information Circular INFCIRC/56, 24 December 1997.

2.2 “The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management”, International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Fundamentals, Safety Series 111-F, IAEA, Vienna, 1995.

2.3 “Establishing a National System for Radioactive Waste Management”, International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standard, Safety Series 111-S-1, IAEA, Vienna, 1995.

2.4 “International Waste Management: A Compendium of Programs and Standards”, prepared by Golder Associates Incorporated, published by WM Symposia Incorporated, February 1997.

2.5 “Nuclear Waste Bulletin - Update on Waste Management Policies and Programmes”, No 14, Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, 2000 Edition.

2.6 Internet home page of the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of the Nuclear Energy Agency, http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/.

2.7 “Radioactive Waste Management Profiles - Compilation of Data from the Waste Management Database, No. 3”, International Atomic Energy Agency Report IAEA/WMDB/3, Vienna, April 2000 (available from http://www-newmdb.iaea.org/reports.asp?)

of 153

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/P_release/2002/prn0209.shtml

http://www-newmdb.iaea.org/reports.asp


2.8 "Non-technical factors impacting on the decision making processes in environmental remediation", International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Document, IAEA-TECDOC-1279, IAEA, Vienna, April 2002.

2.9 The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992, International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference Information note, GC(XXXVI)/INF/130, September 10, 1992.

2.10 “Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies”, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Second Edition, September 2001.

2.11 "The Net Enabled Waste Management Database (NEWMDB) in the Context of an Indicator of Sustainable Development for Radioactive Waste Management", a proposed contributed paper for submission to the International Conference on Issues and Trends in Radioactive Waste Management, Vienna, Austria, 9 - 13 December 2002.

2.12 “Classification of Radioactive Wastes”, International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Guide, Safety Series 111-G-1.1, IAEA, Vienna, 1994.

2.13 "Commission Recommendation of 15 September 1999 on a classification system for solid radioactive waste" (SEC(1999) 1302 final), Official Journal of the European Communities, L265 Volume 42, 13 October 1999).

of 153


3 THE CLASSIFICATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Historically, IAEA Member States have developed and currently use a variety of waste classification schemes for their radioactive waste. These classifications are based on both qualitative and quantitative criteria in which wastes are commonly grouped according to their origin, radioactivity content, radiotoxicity and thermal power. There is often a substantial overlap between the various waste classes. Waste classification schemes have been developed for practices [3.1] and usually they do not address naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) or technologically enhanced NORM (TE-NORM) where concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides have been increased.

The purpose of this Section is to raise international awareness of a number of issues related to the classification of radioactive waste. These issues are discussed in the following subsections:

• Exclusion, Exception and Clearance, • Radioactive Waste Classification at the International and National Levels, • Classification of Spent Fuel, and • Non-Radiological Hazards.

3.1 Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance Note: the following is a significant update of Section 3.1 from the previous issue of this Status and Trends report.

In September 2000, in resolution GC(44)/RES/15, the IAEA’s General Conference requested the Secretariat “to develop, using the Agency’s radiation protection advisory mechanisms and in collaboration with the competent organs of the United Nations and with the specialized agencies concerned, during the next two years and within available resources, radiological criteria for long-lived radionuclides in commodities, particularly foodstuffs and wood, and to submit them to the Board of Governors for its approval” and requested the Director General to report to it at its forty-fifth (2001) regular session on the implementation of the resolution.

The request made of the Secretariat by the General Conference in resolution GC(44)/RES/15 implies the development of a set of intervention exemption levels relating to commodities — namely, a set of long lived radionuclide activity concentrations in certain commodities such that any of those commodities with radioactivity levels lower than those specified in the set may be traded without intervention on radiation safety grounds [3].

The International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources (the BSS) [3.1] have already established, for a large number of radionuclides, a set of activity concentrations for the purpose of exemption (of prospective practices and of radiation sources within prospective practices) from their own requirements;

3 The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has recommended the use of intervention

exemption levels to indicate a line of demarcation between, on one hand, freely permitted exports or imports and, on the other, imports or exports that should be the subject of special decisions.

of 153


such activity concentrations are referred to as exemption levels [4]. The BSS have also established, for cases of emergency exposure, generic action levels for radionuclides in foodstuffs, which are expressed in terms of activity concentrations of certain radionuclides in certain foodstuffs. In addition, the BSS have established the concept of clearance of regulated radiation sources with a view to their release from regulatory control [5].

Clearance levels, also expressed in terms of activity concentration, have been and are continuing to be recommended [6]. (It should be noted that the established exemption levels and generic action levels differ numerically from the clearance levels recommended so far.) Moreover, as stated in the preamble paragraph (f) of resolution GC(44)/RES/15, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had already recommended generic intervention exemption levels for commodities; it has also recommended that “… relevant international organizations should derive … radionuclide-specific intervention exemption levels for individual commodities …”. The development of radiological criteria as requested in resolution GC(44)/RES/15 may well result in a further set of activity concentrations for purposes of exemption from regulatory control. The existence of such a further set of activity concentrations would almost certainly be a cause of confusion.

Action by the IAEA Secretariat

Development of the radiological criteria requested in resolution GC(44)/RES/15 has, because of the complex situation described in the preceding paragraph, proven to be technically difficult and controversial. Since the forty-fourth regular session of the General Conference,

4 Intervention exemption levels differ from the exemption levels established in the International Basic Safety

Standards as follows: intervention exemption levels relate to the need to intervene (or not) with control measures in an already existing situation (for example, a situation where there are long lived radionuclides in a commodity), whereas the exemption levels are intended to be applied prospectively to radiation sources that are being introduced and may (or may not) require regulatory control through notification, authorization and inspection (for example, radioactive substances — or devices containing such substances — which are intended for medical, industrial, veterinary or agricultural use).

5 The International Basic Safety Standards have established a number of concepts aimed at defining the scope of the regulatory control of radiation exposure, as follows: exclusion from regulatory control of radiation exposure that is not amenable to such control; exemption from regulatory control of practices (and sources within practices) for which such control is unwarranted under specified conditions (and quantitative exemption levels in terms of activity and activity concentration); clearance from further unwarranted control of radioactive materials within a regulated practice; and generic action levels for foodstuffs in emergency exposure situations. The exemption concept is based on an international consensus built up jointly by the IAEA and OECD/NEA and reflected in a document issued by the IAEA as Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from Regulatory Control, Safety Series No. 89, IAEA, Vienna (1988).

6 The IAEA has published a safety guide and a number of technical documents (TECDOCs) containing recommended clearance levels; see, for instance: Application of Exemption Principles to the Recycle and Reuse of Materials from Nuclear Facilities, Safety Series No. 111-P-1.1, IAEA, Vienna (1992); Clearance Levels for Radionuclides in Solid Materials, Application of exemption principles, IAEA-TECDOC-855, IAEA, Vienna (1996); and Clearance of Materials resulting from the use of Radionuclides in Medicine, Industry and Research, IAEA-TECDOC-1000, IAEA, Vienna (1998). However, the International Basic Safety Standards did not formally establish quantitative clearance levels. The European Commission has also issued recommendations on clearance levels; see, for instance: Practical use of the concepts of clearance and exemption, Part I — Guidance on general clearance levels for practices, Radiation Protection 122, EC, Luxembourg (2001); Recommended radiological protection criteria for the recycling of metals and from the dismantling of nuclear installations, Radiation Protection 89, EC, Luxembourg (1998); Recommended radiological protection criteria for the clearance of buildings and building rubble from the dismantling of nuclear installations, Radiation Protection 113, EC, Luxembourg (2000).

of 153


the Secretariat has accordingly been engaged in a lengthy consultation process, which is summarized below.

In November 2000, the Secretariat convened a group of consultants who developed, for a number of commodities, some criteria and quantitative proposals for intervention exemption levels that were numerically different from the exemption levels established in the BSS and the clearance levels that had been recommended within the context of the IAEA and the European Commission. In view of the confusion that might arise from this diversity of levels, the Secretariat considered that an attempt at rationalization was necessary and that the process might also help in responding to the request made of it in resolution GC(44)/RES/15. Consequently, in February 2001 it convened a meeting of senior experts at the Headquarters of the United Kingdom’s National Radiological Protection Board with a view to obtaining advice on a strategy for unequivocally determining the scope of regulatory control of radiation exposure. The senior experts concluded that it would be sensible to use a single set of radionuclide-specific activity concentration levels for the purpose of defining the scope of regulatory control of radiation exposure. Moreover, they recommended an approach that could be adopted in developing this set of values, which would automatically serve for responding to the request made of the Secretariat in resolution GC(44)/RES/15.

Meanwhile, the Secretariat had convened, for later in February 2001, a Technical Committee to continue work on the specific issue of radiological criteria for long lived radionuclides in commodities. The Technical Committee discussed the intervention exemption levels for commodities vis-à-vis both the established exemption levels and the recommended clearance levels for materials and, specifically, intervention exemption levels for foodstuffs vis-à-vis the established generic action levels for foodstuffs (for example, the guideline levels for radionuclides in food moving in international trade established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and the guideline values for drinking water established by WHO).

The advice received by the Secretariat from the various bodies that it had convened was considered by the IAEA’s Radiation Safety Standards Committee (RASSC) and Waste Safety Standards Committee (WASSC) at a joint meeting in April 2001. RASSC and WASSC endorsed the idea of rationalizing the definition of the scope of the regulatory control of radiation exposure and thereby clarifying the scope of the BSS. In addition, they confirmed the dose criteria on which to base the calculation of appropriate levels of activity concentration and recommended that particular consideration be given to radionuclides of natural origin because of their ubiquity. They stressed that regulatory authorities should continue to have the power to exempt practices (and sources within practices) involving levels that exceeded those used in defining the scope of the BSS. They recommended that the Secretariat engage in further consultations with the objective of making proposals for the definition of the scope of the regulatory control of radiation exposure. The outcome of the RASSC and WASSC discussions was considered by the IAEA’s Commission on Safety Standards (CSS) in May 2001. Immediately after the CSS meeting, the Secretariat, pursuant to the recommendation of RASSC and WASSC, convened a group of consultants that developed, for a number of radionuclides, a set of activity concentrations that could be used in defining the scope of regulatory control of radiation exposure and therefore in dealing with the issue of intervention exemption levels for international trade in commodities.

Following the lengthy consultation process summarized above, the Secretariat convened, for 23-26 July 2001, a Technical Committee that arrived at recommendations to the Secretariat

of 153


regarding the main direction for responding to the request made of the Secretariat in resolution GC(44)/RES/15. The report of the Technical Committee was transmitted to Member States under cover of Note by the Secretariat 2001/Note 16, dated 1 August 2001 [7].

The main conclusions of the Technical Committee are summarized below: The Secretariat should complete the work currently in progress on specifying general clearance levels and activity concentration levels for use in international trade in commodities, particularly foodstuffs and wood. The resulting report(s) should be published for critical review and comment as soon as possible. They could serve as interim guidance in meeting the objectives of the General Conference. It is a matter of concern that several different sets of values, each intended to define the scope of some aspects of regulatory control, will exist at the international level. Their existence could lead to confusion and contradiction in the implementation and enforcement of regulations. The Technical Committee therefore proposed an approach for rationalization through a re-examination of the bases for exclusion, exemption and clearance and for international trade in commodities. The relevant radiological protection criteria are currently described in IAEA publication Safety Series No. 89 (1988) [3.2], ICRP publication No. 60 (1991) [3.3] and the BSS (1996), somewhat differently in each. The inconsistencies should be addressed. The objective should be to establish a coherent system of radionuclide-specific levels (expressed in terms of total activity and of activity concentration) for defining the scope of regulatory standards. Schedule I of the BSS would then be superseded. Natural radionuclides should be included; a basis for exemption and clearance has been suggested by the Technical Committee.

3.2 Radioactive Waste Classification at the International and National Levels

Table 3-I illustrates the classification scheme proposed by the IAEA in Section 3 of IAEA Safety Guide 111-G-1.1, “Classification of Radioactive Waste” [2.12]. The proposed classification scheme is based only on quantitative criteria, in which wastes are grouped according to the safety aspects of their management, especially disposal options.

The scheme shown in Table 3-I was "suggested" by the IAEA to serve as "a general system for classifying radioactive waste that will facilitate communication and information exchange among Member States, and eliminate some of the ambiguity that now exists in waste classification schemes for radioactive waste". The proposed scheme was part of the Safety Guide's objective to "recommend a method of deriving a classification system".

As it currently exists, the IAEA's proposed scheme is not a comprehensive waste classification scheme that supports the full life cycle management of radioactive waste. While the proposed scheme can, to some extent, support decision making on the pre-disposal

7 Also available on the IAEA’s web site: http://www.iaea.org/ns/rasanet/programme/radiationsafety/radiationprotection/scopeofregcntrl.htm

of 153


management of radioactive wastes, it is principally a disposal-based waste classification scheme.

Table 3-I: The IAEA's Proposed Waste Classification Scheme

Waste classes Typical characteristics Disposal options

1. Exempt waste (EW) Activity levels at or below clearance levels… …based on an annual dose to members of the public of less than 0.01 mSv

No radiological restrictions

2. Low and intermediate level waste (LILW)

Activity levels above clearance levels… …and thermal power below about 2kW/m3

2.1. Short lived waste (LILW-SL)

Restricted long lived radionuclide concentrations (limitation of long lived alpha emitting radionuclides to 4000 Bq/g in individual waste packages and to an overall average of 400 Bq/g per waste package)

Near surface or geological disposal facility

2.2. Long lived waste (LILW-LL)

Long lived radionuclide concentrations exceeding limitations for short lived waste

Geological disposal facility

3. High level waste (HLW)

Thermal power above about 2kW/m3 and long lived radionuclide concentrations exceeding limitations for short lived waste

Geological disposal facility

In 1999, the European Commission (EC) recommended “... a common classification system of radioactive waste for national and international communication purposes as well as to facilitate information management in this field... ” for European Union Member States [3.4]. The recommendation stated that "...this classification system should be used for providing information concerning solid radioactive waste to the public, the national and international institutions and the non-governmental organizations. It would not replace technical criteria where required for specific safety considerations such as licensing of facilities or other operations...“. The EC system is a modified version of the IAEA’s proposed scheme.

The EC recommendation explicitly states that its system was not meant to replace national waste classification systems that had been developed and implemented to support the management of radioactive wastes.

The preceding text indicates that, currently, at the international level there is no comprehensive waste classification scheme that (a) supports the full life cycle management of radioactive waste and (b) is based upon the quantities and half lives of radionuclides in the waste. Currently, at the international level there are two waste classifications schemes (also called systems), one suggested and proposed by the IAEA and one recommended by the EC, that have been specified as communication tools - they have not been recommended as complete, comprehensive schemes (systems) for adoption at the national level in support of the full life cycle management of radioactive waste.

Information collected during the first data collection cycle with the IAEA’s newly implemented Net Enabled Waste Management Database (NEWMDB, see Section 11.2) has indicated that some IAEA Member States have established, or are planning to establish, laws and/or regulations that specify that the IAEA's proposed waste classification scheme, or one similar to the IAEA’s proposed scheme, will be used within their countries. The information collected does not, however, indicate whether or not the laws/regulations that have been or

of 153


that are planned to be implemented specify that the use of the IAEA's proposed scheme is limited to a communication tool for reporting wastes at the national and international level. This issue needs to be clarified with the relevant Member States.

IAEA Member States that have incorporated or referenced the IAEA classification scheme (or a very similar scheme, such as that recommended by the EC) into national laws and/or regulations should consider the fact that the IAEA's proposed scheme represents a basis for developing comprehensive, quantitative waste classification schemes and that Member States may have to consider developing and implementing additional, more comprehensive waste classification schemes that would also be specified in future laws and/or regulations.

3.3 Classification of Spent Fuel Some IAEA Member States have a policy of direct disposal, where spent nuclear fuel is discharged from reactors, cooled, and then stored while waiting for the implementation of disposal facilities [3.5]. With direct disposal, spent nuclear fuel is considered to be radioactive waste. This is the open, once through fuel cycle model.

Other IAEA Member States have a policy to reprocess their spent nuclear fuel. With reprocessing, spent nuclear fuel is considered to be a resource. This is the closed fuel cycle.

Originally reprocessing was the only management option considered for spent fuel. Later on direct disposal was recognized as an attractive alternative for various reasons, in particular the proliferation aspects of, the market for and the safety concerns over separated plutonium.

Currently, the IAEA is not requesting information about spent fuel inventories as part of its data collection with the NEWMDB. The NEWMDB is a “waste management” database and since some IAEA Member States classify spent fuel as a resource, not as waste, these Member States have chosen in the past to not report spent fuel to a “waste” database. The proposed approach to report on spent fuel that is declared to be waste is described in subsection 11.2, “Compilation of a Consolidated Radioactive Waste Inventory in IAEA Member States”.

3.4 Non-Radiological Hazards This subsection merely provides a brief summary of information presented in the previous issue of the status and trends report. From an IAEA perspective, nothing of great significance transpired for reporting in the current issue of this report.

As already noted Member States have developed and used a variety of waste classification schemes for their radioactive waste. The situation is far more complex with regards to the classification of wastes according to their biological and other non-radiological hazards. In addition, since the diversity of non-radiological hazards far exceeds radiological hazards, the treatment, conditioning and other management activities for non-radiological hazards can also far exceed the corresponding activities for radiological hazards.

Many Member States, see reference [3.7] for an example, specify that wastes containing both radiological hazards and non-radiological hazards are subject to all applicable laws, rules and/or regulations for both radioactive materials and non-radiologically hazardous materials. The Joint Convention also covers the issue. Typically, waste receivers include acceptance criteria that specify that waste generators must treat and/or condition their wastes in accordance with specified requirements to mitigate non-radiological hazards. Examples

of 153


include the deactivation of pathogens, the destruction of organic liquids and the chemical immobilization of heavy metals.

References for Section 3.

3.1 “International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Labour Organization, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Series No. 115, Vienna, Austria, 1996.

3.2 “Principles for the Exemption of Radiation Sources and Practices from Regulatory Control”, International Atomic Energy Safety Report, Safety Series No. 89, IAEA, Vienna, 1988.

3.3 “Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection”, ICRP Publication No. 60, Pergamon Press, Oxford and New York, 1991.

3.4 “Commission Recommendation of 15 September 1999 on a classification system for solid radioactive waste” (SEC(1999) 1302 final), Official Journal of the European Communities, L265 Volume 42, 13 October 1999.

3.5 “Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, Nuclear Energy Agency of OECD, Paris 1994.

3.6 Proceedings of the International Symposium on MOX Fuel Cycle Technologies for Medium and Long Term Deployment, International Atomic Energy Agency report IAEA-CSP-3/P, Vienna, June 2000.

3.7 “Radioactive Waste Management Manual”, United States Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, DOE M 435.1-1, US DOE Order O 435.1, July 1999.

of 153


4 SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

The purpose of this Section is to provide an overview of the sources (origins) of radioactive waste. The main body of the section provides a brief summary of radioactive waste from current practices [3.1] from two main areas - nuclear applications (NA) and the nuclear fuel cycle (NFC). Two subsections are included that provide updates of specific subject areas that were discussed in the previous issue of this Status and Trends report:

• Environmental Remediation/Uranium Mining and Mill Tailings (UMMT) Management • Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) waste

UMMT and NORM wastes are addressed because they can represent a very large percentage of the overall volume of waste that is managed in a Member State.

In the previous issue of this report, the sources of radioactive waste were presented in some detail. It was pointed out that low and intermediate level waste (LILW) accounts for almost 99% of the total volume of the radioactive waste in the countries of the European Union, see Figure 4-1 and reference [4.1].

1% HLW and SF

2/3 LILW-SL

1/3 LILW-LL

Figure 4-1: Distribution, by Volume, of Waste in the European Union

Many IAEA Member States only generate LILW in small to moderate quantities. These wastes originate from NA practices such as:

• medical diagnostic methods using radioactive sources; • radiotherapy; • use of radioactive tracers in scientific research; • industrial applications, such as gauges, smoke detectors and illumination;

A limited number of IAEA Member States generate significantly larger volumes of LILW and they also generate high level waste (HLW) from the NFC. In a few cases, HLW originates from other practices such as isotope production, where these isotopes are made by irradiating uranium targets in a nuclear reactor.

of 153


The NFC has three main stages: (a) the front-end, which extends from the mining of uranium ore until the

delivery of fabricated fuel elements to a reactor site, (b) fuel use in the reactor, where fission energy is employed to produce

electricity, and storage of fuel at the reactor site, and (c) the back-end, which includes the shipping of spent fuel to away-from-reactor

storage or to a reprocessing plant and ends with the disposal of waste, which includes LILW, HLW and/or spent fuel.

The wastes generated from the three NFC stages vary a great deal according to their volumes (highest from stage 1) and according to the types and quantities of radionuclides (typically U and Pu only in stage 1 wastes and mixed fission products in stage 2 and 3 wastes).

In addition to waste from current practices, radioactive wastes are associated with and derived from past practices involving radioactive materials, such as:

• medical, industrial and commercial uses of separated radionuclides, such as radium needles and radium painted instruments [4.2] to [4.4].

• closed or abandoned facilities that manufactured products with separated radionuclides, such as radium plants,

• closed and/or abandoned waste management facilities that do not meet current standards for radioactive waste management, and

• defence and military activities.

The following provides details on radioactive wastes derived from environmental remediation and uranium mining and mill tailings management (subsection 4.1) and from non-nuclear industries (subsection 4.2). Waste from facility decommissioning is discussed in Section 5.

4.1 Environmental Remediation / Uranium Mining and Mill Tailings Management

The techniques for remediation of sites with well defined, contained areas of relatively high levels of contaminants are well established thanks to the efforts of nearly two decades of technological development. Cleanup and remediation of disperse and relatively low levels of contamination, however, still constitute a challenge when considering factors such as cost and minimal additional disturbance of the environment. A reasonable balance has to be found between the cost of additional exposure and the cost of the remedial action in order to justify the remediation. Similar deliberations apply to further lowering the residual contamination at larger areas following other remedial measures.

Since a large scale remediation operation can be rather disruptive to agriculture and to natural ecosystems in general, suitable implementation strategies that also take into account socio-economic boundary conditions need to be developed. Much of the early developments took place under the shadow of the Chernobyl accident (see Section 10) and were focused on the planning and execution of emergency response and remediation measures. A wealth of experience in related fields has been gained since and indicates that certain drastic and disruptive measures that may be warranted in an acute emergency situation are not justifiable for the more chronic, long-term contaminations arising from uranium and other mining and milling residues. A main conclusion from this experience is that the answer to the problem should be sought in low-cost, low-intensity, low-maintenance, “passive”, and most likely

of 153


“low-tech” solutions. This aspect is explored in a new TECDOC currently under development at the IAEA [4.5].

The issue of having to deal with residual, low level contamination is intimately linked with the issue of maintaining institutional control and, hence, stewardship issues. Depending on the outcomes of (a) the discussion on exemption and clearance levels (see Section 3.1) and (b) further action on the development of a “common framework” for the safety of waste management, institutional controls may need to be established for large quantities of slightly contaminated geological material. Considerable experience has been gained outside of the nuclear community in setting up stewardship programmes, e.g. for so-called brown-field sites with residual heavy metal or organic chemical contamination. In the near future, the IAEA plans to address the problem of developing sustainable stewardship programmes for low level contaminated sites in order to complement the technical remediation programmes.

In the past, uranium mining and milling had been a major source for radioactively contaminated sites. Following are two examples of uranium mining and milling residue management. The first example describes sites north of the Sierra da Estrela in northern Portugal, which became the subject of an IAEA Technical Cooperation Project. This is an example of remediation required for past operations. The second example is the Cigar Lake site in Saskatchewan, Canada, which illustrates up-front work to avoid future environmental remediation.

Sierra da Estrela, Portugal

In total, there are about 59 mining and milling sites of various sizes and complexities in the region. About half of the mining sites are open cast, following the hydrothermally mineralized veins in the granite of the Sierra da Estrela, or along contacts with gneisses. There are also various deep (up to 500 m) mines, namely in Urgeiriça and south of Guarda. In three cases, a combination of deep and open-cast mining was undertaken. Most of the mines are flooded now. Some of them have not been properly decommissioned yet. Decommissioning of the surface structures, however, is in progress.

Although mining as such has ceased, some milling is still going on, working up stock-piled low-grade ore from Quinta do Bispo. Originally these materials had been dumped back into the open pit, where the acidified waters leached the uranium. The pit had been divided into polders and lined previously. Now leaching ponds have been constructed, into which batches of ore are placed. The residues are backfilled into the open-pit after some neutralization.

The uranium is removed from the sulphuric acid leachant by ion exchange. The ion exchange resins are transferred to the mill at Urgeiriça for further processing, as are ion exchange resins from a variety of mine water treatment plants. In situ leaching is also being carried out on a small scale. Originally, the mill at Urgeiriça consisted of two lines for crushing, grinding and leaching with sulphuric acid in a series of vats. The resulting slurries were pumped into settling tanks for phase separation. The uranium is extracted from the resulting supernate liquor by a solvent extraction process, after which the liquor is neutralized. The uranium is precipitated from the organic phase. The precipitate is then processed as usual into yellowcake. This latter part of the facility is still operational, processing the liquors from the elution of the ion exchange resins from ongoing heap and in situ leaching activities. The front end of the mill is currently being decommissioned and dismantled.

of 153


The tailings were/are pumped to two ponds nearby. One of them has been closed for some time and is now well vegetated. Currently the operator, Empresa Nacional de Urânio (ENU), is surveying this pond, as well as other sites with mining residues, to assess their geotechnical stability. Possible strategies for making safe/remediating this pond are still being discussed. The second tailings pond is still receiving slurries from the mill. For various open cast-mining sites ENU considers backfilling the waste rock.

The advice provided by IAEA experts within the Technical Cooperation Project has been focused on the radiological/environmental assessment with a view to remediation options and on the modelling of impacts with respect to prioritising the planned remediation activities. Such assistance is aimed at fostering the most environmentally acceptable and practical remediation options.

Cigar Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada

This example of uranium mining and milling operations demonstrates the implementation of an up-front strategy for avoiding associated site contamination or, at the very least, for minimizing contamination [4.6].

The Cigar Lake Project is currently the world’s largest, undeveloped, high-grade uranium project with an estimated reserve sufficient to sustain mining for up to 40 years. To date, over $CAD 340 million has been spent on two periods of test mining and extensive environmental assessment. The capital expenditures required to construct the production mine infrastructure and associated milling facilities are estimated at approximately $CAD 350 million.

Mining activities typically involve the production of large quantities of waste rock. At Cigar Lake, waste rock is produced as underground workings are excavated to access the ore body to extract the ore. Over the life of the Cigar Lake Project, approximately 1.32 million cubic meters of waste rock will require environmentally appropriate management. Some of this material, if left exposed on the surface indefinitely, may generate acid or release metals at rates that may harm the environment. One effective way of managing this type of waste rock is to place it in an environment similar to that from which it was excavated. That is, surrounded by water and isolated from atmospheric conditions, such as at the bottom of a flooded pit.

The Cigar Lake Project site and the McClean Lake Operation are located near the eastern edge of the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan (see Figure 4-2). The Cigar Lake Project, currently an underground test mine, is located 660 km via air north of Saskatoon. The McClean Lake Operation, a producing uranium mining and milling facility, is located 700 km via air north of Saskatoon. The two project sites are approximately 75 km apart by existing roads.

The Cigar Lake deposit is a high-grade uranium deposit contained within an altered zone, which has confined the high-grade uranium ore body for hundreds of millions of years. Waste rock is produced as underground shafts and tunnels are excavated to access and extract the uranium ore. The uranium content in the waste rock is very low, similar to natural levels in the sandstone and tills typically found in the region. The Cigar Lake waste rock will be transported to the McLean Lake site and disposed of in the “Sue C” pit in two periods (campaigns) at the end of each mining phase. Each campaign will last from one to two years. The first haulage campaign will involve the transport of approximately 410,000 cubic metres of Cigar Lake waste rock to Sue C at the end of Phase 1 mining (about year 2019). The

of 153


second haulage campaign will involve the transport of approximately 910,000 cubic metres of waste rock to Sue C at the end of Phase 2 mining (about year 2045). The recent waste rock testing programs have indicated that weathered material currently stockpiled on surface during the test mine phases did not differ much from fresh material. There was no significant additional accumulation of key elements, and there was no significant acid generation. Temporarily stockpiling the Cigar Lake waste rock between haulage periods is, therefore, a manageable and acceptable approach.

Figure 4-2: Uranium Sites in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada

Campaign hauling and disposal is preferred to the alternative of hauling and disposing continuously throughout the life of the Cigar Lake Project because it minimizes the overall environmental impact related to water treatment at Sue C. The bottom of the Sue C pit is many metres below the natural groundwater level. Therefore, the surrounding groundwater will continually seep into the pit until the water level in the pit approaches the natural groundwater level. The seepage water flow rate into the pit decreases as the flooded pit water level increases. Placing the Cigar Lake waste rock in two short campaigns means that the pit will be fully dewatered for a minimum number of years (approximately 3 years or less).

Therefore, allowing the Sue C pit to naturally flood between waste rock disposal campaigns minimizes the total amount of water that seeps into the Sue C pit. This reduces the amount of water that will require treatment in the Sue C water treatment plant and consequently reduces the potential environmental impacts from the release of the treated water to the surface.

The placement of waste rock from McClean Lake operations will be completed many years prior to the first haulage campaign from Cigar Lake. Therefore, the Sue C pit will be allowed to flood naturally while waiting for the first shipment of Phase 1 waste rock. The pit inflow water will be pumped down prior to placing the waste rock. The pumped water will be treated to meet regulatory limits before being discharged. The pit will be left to flood once again after disposal of the Phase 1 waste rock and pumped down again, with treatment, for Phase 2 waste rock disposal.

of 153


An environmental impact assessment has also shown that during the operational period, there will be an incremental increase in the total quantity of treated effluent (i.e., Sue C water treatment discharge water) that will be released to Collins Creek. This is because the Sue C pit will need to be dewatered longer to allow the placement of the Cigar Lake waste rock. However, there will be no increase in the peak rate of release, and no predicted increase in concentrations of key elements in Collins Creek. The operational impact on Collins Creek water quality will be insignificant because effluent quality will continue to meet licensing and regulatory requirements.

Post operational impacts are also predicted to be negligible. The height of the waste rock placed in the Sue C pit will increase in elevation by only about 13 m. The final elevation of waste rock will still be some 35 m below the crest of the pit and will remain about 30 m below the final surface of the water in the pit. The addition of Cigar Lake waste results in a small increase in groundwater flow through the waste rock, causing a marginal increase in the concentrations of key elements (such as arsenic) in Collins Creek. Detailed modelling (using a previously reviewed and approved model) of the groundwater flow and transport from the Sue C pit to Collins Creek has indicated that the surface water quality will continue to be well within all relevant guidelines. The post operational impacts related to the disposal of Cigar Lake waste rock at Sue C are therefore expected to be negligible.

4.2 NORM and TE-NORM This subsection provides and update of subsection 4.5 from the previous issue of this Status and Trends report.

Probably the most important event in 2001 was the conference NORM III held in Brussels in September 2001 [4.7]. Owing to events in New York on September 11, overseas attendance was rather limited. The meeting sessions covered the topics ‘Regulatory Aspects’, ‘NORM-Industries’, ‘Scrap & Building Materials’, ‘Radon at Work’, ‘Waste Management’, and ‘Environmental Impact’. The overall impression was that the concerns move away from exposure at the workplace and radon in residential housing to waste management and environmental impact issues. The underlying reason, as also expressed in the draft conclusions, is that occupational and residential exposures are controllable with relative ease and limited cost. While this is certainly true for many developed countries, it is still unclear how far reaching this awareness is in less developed countries. Work practices and behavioural patterns and, hence, exposure patterns may also be rather different.

In certain metal industries that use large quantities of recycled scrap, particularly in the steel industry, the awareness of potential radiological contamination, including NORM, is rather high. Radiation monitors are now almost universally installed at reception gates. While this prevents contaminated material from entering the respective material cycles, the problem of decontamination and the management of decontamination wastes remains. Most developed countries require the resultant NORM wastes to be managed in licensed facilities, therefore, they are considered as radioactive waste streams. Volumes, however, are comparatively small.

The situation is different at the front end of the material streams, where large quantities of mining and milling wastes arise, some of which may be radioactively contaminated. The awareness of radioactivity in such residues and wastes is often rather limited. The IAEA is currently developing guidelines on controlling workplace exposures for such front end industries, including the oil and gas industry and the ore mining and processing industry, including thorium ore. The possible environmental contamination and applicable remediation

of 153


measures are being studied in another IAEA project [4.8]. This project highlights the material streams in a variety of industries with a view to identify potential contamination scenarios through understanding waste management and disposal practices. Knowing also that prevention is better than remediation, the project intends to identify socio-economically acceptable changes to processes.

Related to this is the ongoing discussion within the IAEA, the ICRP and other institutions on clearance and exemption levels (see subsection 3.1). The final conclusions will determine which materials can be recycled and reused and which have to enter the waste streams. There are also discussions on a “common framework” to include regulations on radiation levels in commodities as well as in residues and wastes from industry. One of the conclusions from the NORM III conference was that “regulations should be reasonable and fair to the industry, the workers and the public”. It was also noted that regulation should be undertaken with consideration of the potential socio-economic impact, an aspect that is addressed in the IAEA NORM project mentioned [4.8] and has been touched upon in a recent publication [2.8].

The management of NORM and TE-NORM wastes was the subject of much debate at the November 2001 conference on “Management of Radioactive Wastes from Non-Power Applications” (see subsection 12.3, and Reference [12.8]).

References to Section 4

4.1 “Radioactive Waste Management in the European Union”, European Commission Directorate General XI - Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, Brussels, Belgium, CD ROM, June 1999.

4.2 “Nature and magnitude of the problem of spent radiation sources”, International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA-TECDOC-620, IAEA, Vienna, 1991.

4.3 “Conditioning and interim storage of spent radium sources”, International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA-TECDOC-886, IAEA, Vienna, 1996.

4.4 "Public Health Assessment - Michigan Sites of Radium Dial Contamination”, Michigan Department of Community Health, 1997.

4.5 “Remediation of Sites with Low Levels of Disperse Radioactive Contamination”, International Atomic Energy Agency Technical document, IAEA-TECDOC (in preparation).

4.6 “Environmental Impact Statement”, COGEMA Resources Inc. and Cigar Lake Mining Corporation, August 2001.

4.7 Belgian Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, Symposium Book NORM III, Conf. Abstracts, 17-21 September 2001, Brussels, Belgium, 2001.

4.8 “The Extent of Environmental Contamination by Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) and Technological Options for Mitigation”, IAEA TECDOC, Vienna (in preparation).

of 153

radioactive waste management - publications | iaea€¦ · radioactive waste management status and...

Documents