Nicolas Solente:


Published on

Intervento di

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Nicolas Solente:

  1. 1. Low Level Nuclear Waste Management in France<br />Strategy and industrialization<br />Nicolas Solente<br /> International Division, ANDRA, France<br /><br />
  2. 2. Contents<br />The general approach to waste management<br />Keys for a successful management strategy<br />Available solutions for low- and intermediate-level short-lived radioactive waste<br />
  3. 3. The general approach to waste management<br />
  4. 4. General Framework<br />Generation of radioactive waste<br /><ul><li>Multiple origins, wasteforms and packaging
  5. 5. Disposal options require flexibility</li></ul>Example of the French situation, end of 2007<br />
  6. 6. Main waste streams: operations<br />Waste from day-to-day operations<br />
  7. 7. Wastestreams: dismantling<br />Waste from decommissioning and dismantling<br />
  8. 8. The main pillars of the approach<br />Radioactive waste management concerns all citizens<br /><ul><li> Waste management is a national issue (France: Waste Act 19891, Planning Act 2006, TSN Act 2006)</li></ul>The national framework defines clearly<br /><ul><li> who does what ? The whole scope of radwaste management must be addressed
  9. 9. liabilities, funding;
  10. 10. guarantees of transparency & information (eg for public awareness);
  11. 11. the local level involvement;</li></ul>Knowledge of the waste inventory and its forecast;<br /> Safety is the priority.<br />No “wait & see” policy<br />
  12. 12. Keys for the management strategy<br />
  13. 13. Strategy for disposal<br />300 years for surface disposal<br />Some 105 years for geological disposal<br />Limit transfer and/or amount of long lived activity<br />Contain and Isolate<br />differentwaste types, same objective<br />Activity<br />Time<br />
  14. 14. Priorities & agendas<br />Short-lived waste<br />Period ≤ 31 years<br />Long-lived waste<br />Period > 31 years<br />Very low level<br />Waste from dismantling operations (CSTFA in France since 2003)<br />Centre de Morvilliers<br />(waste from dismantling operations)<br />Graphite, radium-bearing waste<br />(Studies stage in France)<br />Waste mainly from day-to-day operation of NPPs<br />(CSFMA in France since 1992) <br />Low level<br />Waste from SF reprocessing plants<br /> (Geological disposal facility in France to be commissioned in 2025)<br />Intermediate level<br />High level<br />HL vitrified waste : after reprocessing & cooling,<br />
  15. 15. Basis for a NPP waste management strategy <br />To be disposed of as from reactor commissioning<br /> Operation & maintenance (LIL waste)<br />To be disposed of beyond some 40 years<br />To be disposed of after some 60 years<br />SF reprocessing<br />(HL waste)<br />CIGEO (geological repository in Meuse/Haute-Marne districts)<br />CSTFA & CSFMA (Aube district)<br />CSFMA (Aube district)<br /><ul><li>Dismantling: 12000 m3</li></li></ul><li>LIL waste disposal as from reactor commissioning time<br />To prevent future problems as recovering of degraded packages<br /><ul><li>100m3/year and by reactor = 25000 m3 in 50 years for 5 reactors</li></ul>Opportunity to implement simultaneously a solution for radioactive waste produced by non-electronuclear activities: <br /><ul><li>Small-scale nuclear activities (R&D, hospitals, universities, industry, control & testing, etc);
  16. 16. Water treatment and mining tails</li></li></ul><li>Available solutions for low- and intermediate-level short-lived radioactive waste<br />
  17. 17. Centre de stockage FMA de l’Aube<br /><ul><li>Low and intermediate level short lived waste</li></ul>Area : 95 ha (total)<br />30 ha (disposal)<br />Capacity : 1,000,000 m3 waste packages<br />Commissioning: 1992<br />Disposed volume : 231,000 m3 <br /> (end of 2009)<br />
  18. 18. Design of "centre de l'aube" disposalfacility<br />A turn out in the way to operatedisposalfacilities<br />The design of the centre de l’Aube has been improved by the experiencegainedduring 40 years of waste management and operations on 3 differentdisposal sites<br /><ul><li>From prototype to industrial process
  19. 19. Adjusting operational tools to waste generators needs
  20. 20. Long-term issues as a daily concern
  21. 21. Building the experience of the closure of a facility
  22. 22. Obtaining and maintaining confidence of the public
  23. 23. Feed back for existing and planned facilities</li></ul> And international cooperation<br /><ul><li>Centre de l’Aube oftenused as a model for new projects</li></li></ul><li>Waste packages flexibility<br /> All types of waste containers accomodated. No overpackrequired<br />Concretedrum<br />Concrete container <br />Blockedwastedrum<br />Metallicdrumwith/<br />Without compaction<br />Metallic container<br />With/without injection<br />Ingotfrommelting<br />
  24. 24. Large components disposal<br />Larges components are disposed in dedicatedvaults:<br /><ul><li>Vesselheads …
  25. 25. Other items under investigation: neutron shieldingelements, </li></ul> PWR vessels, transportation containers<br />
  26. 26. Disposal design<br />
  27. 27. Waste management optimization<br />The design of the centre de l’Aube has improved its flexibility considering the adjustment of the operational tools to waste generators needs.<br />The main task is to optimize the capacity of the existing disposal to take into account the dismantling forecasted in the next fifty years<br />An increasing involvement in the decisions taken upstream on waste management is followed by Andra according the PNGMDR:<br /><ul><li>Management routes for big components and specific wastes,
  28. 28. Open new disposal routes (asbestos, reactive organic or aqueous liquids, contaminated mercury,…)
  29. 29. Re-use & recycle (metallic boxes for wastes and rebar for disposal vault construction)</li></li></ul><li>A mature disposal system<br />A flexible design<br /><ul><li>Disposal of different package types / uncontainerized waste
  30. 30. Modularity of concept: adapts to variations in inventories/deliveries</li></ul>A robust yet adaptable concept<br /><ul><li>large experience available
  31. 31. Concept duplicated in countrieswith different </li></ul>conditions (waste, quantities, geology, regulations)<br />A continuousimprovementprocess<br /><ul><li>Adapts to waste producers needs
  32. 32. Driven by long term safety
  33. 33. Maintains cost efficiency</li></ul>Spain<br />El Cabril<br />Lithuania<br />
  34. 34. Available solutions for very low short-lived radioactive waste<br />
  35. 35. Theneed for a VLLW disposalfacility<br /> A significant decommissioning program<br /><ul><li>Nuclear research facilities : by 2010 30 dismantling worksites and 15 sites completely decommissioned
  36. 36. Power plants: under 25 years deconstruction of 9 power reactors
  37. 37. Eurodif enrichment plant decommissioning
  38. 38. Early reprocessing plants decommissioning</li></ul> A new regulation being prescribed for nuclear wastes<br /><ul><li>A waste zoning to be implemented in nuclear facilities
  39. 39. Nuclear wastes / conventional wastes
  40. 40. No clearance level for nuclear wastes</li></ul> About 650,000 m3 with a very low specific activity (range = a few Bq/g) or <br />just potentially radioactive to be disposed of till 2030<br /> A need for a safe and cost effective disposal solution<br />
  41. 41. General presentation and design 1/3<br />Commissioned : August 2003<br />Footprint : 45 ha including 28.5 ha for thedisposal zone<br /> Disposal capacity : 650,000 m3<br />26 % of disposal capacity at the end of 2010<br /> Operating lifetime : around 30 years<br /> Initial investment : €40 million<br />
  42. 42. General presentation and design 2/3<br />
  43. 43. General presentation and design 3/3<br />2- Construction<br />3- Operation<br />1 - Preparation<br />4- Implementation<br />of the capping system<br />
  44. 44. VLLW storage: fit-for-purpose<br /> A fit for purpose solution:<br /><ul><li>safe disposal solution well fitted to the radiological hazards
  45. 45. procedures that remain consistent with LIL wastes repositories</li></ul>Built-in flexibility<br /><ul><li>Types of waste forms
  46. 46. Packaging of wastes
  47. 47. Cells sizes modified to increase disposal volume</li></ul>A cost effective disposal option<br /><ul><li>A significant increase of deliveries risk threatens of an anticipated saturation of the facility</li></li></ul><li>Conclusions: Lessonslearnt<br />No deferredsolutions<br /><ul><li>LLW management solutions requiredwith the first produced kWh</li></ul>Safetyis the primaryissue<br /><ul><li>fit-for-purpose solutions</li></ul>Concept must have built-in flexibilities<br /><ul><li>Built for decades, a repository must adapt to wasteproducers’ need</li></ul>The Centre de l’Aube design is a widelyused model<br /><ul><li>Concept backed by 40 years of operations, including the closure of the Centre de la Manche
  48. 48. Succesfullytransposed to other countries, withdifferent local context</li>