139,99 €
The classification of radioactive waste varies from state to state. This results in different management procedures for each country, while following IAEA and OECD/NEA recommendations. Radioactive waste comes from numerous sources. The largest volumes are generated by the decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear facilities. Long-lived, medium- and high-activity waste - categorized as the most hazardous types of waste - are in fact largely produced by nuclear power reactors, spent fuel reprocessing plants and nuclear accidents. Final disposal of very low-activity, low-activity and very short-lived waste is well controlled. However, final solutions for certain categories, including long-lived waste, sorted waste and spent graphite waste, are not yet in place. Management of Radioactive Waste reviews all the possible solutions and presents those chosen by the various states, including a chapter detailing policy on radioactive waste management, taking France as an example.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 456
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Preface
Acknowledgments
1 Classifications and Origins of Radioactive Waste
1.1. Introduction
1.2. What is radioactive waste?
1.3. Classifications of nuclear waste
1.4. Origins of nuclear waste
1.5. The global radioactive waste balance
1.6. Conclusions
2 Nuclear Waste Disposal Methods
2.1. Introduction. How do we get rid of nuclear waste? What solutions are there for nuclear waste in the future?
2.2. Nuclear waste management
2.3. The special case of long-lived radioactive waste management
2.4. Conclusions
3 Management of Historic Radioactive Waste and Low-level Waste Around the World
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Management of historical radioactive waste
3.3. International recommendations of the IAEA and NEA
3.4. Some examples of radioactive waste management
3.5. Radioactive waste outside the nuclear fuel cycle
3.6. Conclusions
4 Management of Intermediate- and High-level Nuclear Waste
4.1. Introduction
4.2. International recommendations of the IAEA and NEA
4.3. High-level radioactive waste management and the public
4.4. Alternative solutions
4.5. Management of high-level radioactive waste by the various States
4.6. Conclusions
5 Nuclear Waste Management in France
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Direct discharges into the environment
5.3. The inventory of nuclear waste in France
5.4. Nuclear waste management in France
5.5. The organization of storage for identified waste
5.6. The management of specific waste and waste without a channel
5.7. French challenges to the radioactive waste management policy
5.8. Conclusions
6 General Conclusions
6.1. Introduction
6.2. The main problems concerning radioactive waste
6.3. Innovations in radioactive waste management
List of Acronyms
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1. Proposed IAEA classification of radioactive waste (source: [IAE 09a]...
Figure 1.2. Diagram of the origins of radioactive waste (source: [OJO 14]). HLW:...
Figure 1.3. The various stages of the nuclear fuel cycles in open and closed ver...
Figure 1.4. Summary of global inventories of solid radioactive waste in storage ...
Figure 1.5. Global origins of radioactive waste in 2013 for A) storage and B) fi...
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. Diagram of two basic barriers of a multi-barrier system in a nuclear...
Figure 2.2. Model of a subsurface migration scenario across a fault fracture (so...
Figure 2.3.
Destruction by fission of a heavy nucleus
(X: symbol of the element;...
Figure 2.4. The various solutions for managing radioactive waste and spent nucle...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1. Application of the management system and the process of interaction ...
Figure 3.2. Aspects included in the safety assessment (source: [IAE 12b]). For a...
Figure 3.3. The four Japanese radioactive waste disposal projects (source: [NII ...
Figure 3.4. Artificial barriers for subsurface storage of radioactive waste (sou...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1. Various stages in the management of low- and intermediate-level radi...
Figure 4.2. Four stages of the normal evolution of the disposal system proposed ...
Figure 4.3. Complementary safety assessment models and corresponding reference v...
Figure 4.4. Illustration of how the integrated site description called the SKB a...
Figure 4.5. Diagram for the theory of contradictory values (source: [QUI 83]). F...
Figure 4.6. Type of message in relation to the context (A) and classification of...
Figure 4.7. Stages in the site selection process in the United Kingdom (source: ...
Figure 4.8. Diagram of the copper container selected by Sweden to store spent fu...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1. Schematic representation of the radioactive waste management chain (...
Figure 5.2. The main actors and the various spheres involved in radioactive wast...
Figure 5.3. Evolution of the ease of retrieval (recoverability) and passivity (s...
Chapter 1
Table 1.1. French classification of radioactive waste and storage sites in opera...
Table 1.2. Excerpt from the US NRC classification of radioactive waste based on ...
Table 1.3. The British nuclear waste classification system (source: [OJO 14, RAH...
Table 1.4. Practical classification of radioactive waste in Russia (source: [OJO...
Table 1.5. Comparison of IAEA ([IAE 09a], GSG-1) and NRC ([NRC 15]) classificati...
Table 1.6. Comparison of radioactive waste classifications in Belgium, France an...
Table 1.7. Examples of the use of the IAEA classification for disused sealed rad...
Table 1.8. Quantities of radioactive waste (m3.GW-1) and spent fuel (t.GW-1.yr-1...
Table 1.9. Radioactive waste dumped in the Kara Sea in the Arctic Ocean in 1993-...
Table 1.10. Quantities of radioactive waste generated during the decommissioning...
Table 1.11.
Typical waste during reactor shutdown (source: [OJO 14])
Table 1.12. Global estimate of the global radioactive waste inventory in 2011 (s...
Table 1.13. Quantities of discharged spent fuel (in ton) at the end of 2013 (sou...
Table 1.14. Quantities of solid waste (in m3) at the end of 2013 (source: [IAE 1...
Table 1.15. Radioactive waste in temporary storage globally at the end of 2013 (...
Table 1.16. Radioactive waste in final storage globally at the end of 2013 (in m...
Chapter 2
Table 2.1. Attenuation factors for high-level waste deposited on the seafloor ba...
Table 2.2. Deep geologic formations for radioactive waste management (source: [O...
Table 2.3. Excerpt from the IAEA hierarchy of safety indicators (source: [GRI 02...
Table 2.4. The various indicators that can be used in the different compartments...
Chapter 3
Table 3.1. Typical activities of solid mine waste and thorium mining treatments ...
Table 3.2. Typical activities of solid mine wastes after chemical treatments for...
Table 3.3. Typical activities of liquid mine wastes during uranium extraction se...
Table 3.4. Characteristics of liquid mining waste from monazite and thorium ore ...
Table 3.5. The distribution of radioactivity of submerged wastes in various geog...
Table 3.6. Immersions in the Northeast Atlantic from 1949 to 1966 (source: [IAE ...
Table 3.7. Coordinated immersions at the 1967 NEA site (400 km from Galicia, Spa...
Table 3.8. Coordinated immersions at the 1969 NEA site (900 km from Brittany, Fr...
Table 3.9. Coordinated immersions at the NEA site between 1971 and 1982 (Bay of ...
Table 3.10. Activity distribution (TBq) for different types of wastes dumped in ...
Table 3.11. Example screening matrix for initial identification of feasible disp...
Table 3.12. Waiting and processing times for a nuclear fuel cycle for a thermal ...
Table 3.13. Quantities of radioactive waste and spent fuel in the European Union...
Table 3.14. Examples of near-surface disposal facilities (NSDFs) (source: [OJO 1...
Chapter 4
Table 4.1.
List of waste agencies in various states (source: [PNG 10])
Table 4.2. Design features that contribute to maximizing the value added to a co...
Table 4.3. Spent nuclear fuel (SNF) waste conditioning in various countries (sou...
Table 4.4. Conditioning of high-level waste (HLW) in various countries (source: ...
Table 4.5. Matrix and container functions in various deep geological repository ...
Table 4.6. High-level waste that was in storage in the United States in 2010 and...
Table 4.7. Mass activity limits per ton of waste for various radionuclides chara...
Table 4.8.
UK waste inventory excluding LLW (source: [MAC 15])
Chapter 5
Table 5.1. Liquid releases (in GBq) in 2018 at the Cadarache CEN (source: [CEA 1...
Table 5.2. Gaseous releases (in GBq) in 2018 at the Cadarache CEN (source: [CEA ...
Table 5.3. Liquid releases (transferred to the STEP EI) and gaseous releases (in...
Table 5.4. Liquid and gaseous discharges from the principal radionuclides from t...
Table 5.5. Liquid and gaseous releases for 2002 from the La Hague reprocessing p...
Table 5.6. Radioactive waste of various categories (volumes expressed in m3) (so...
Table 5.7. Waste in various categories by volume (m3) and percentage of total at...
Table 5.8. Radioactivity levels of various categories of radioactive waste in TB...
Table 5.9. Waste of various categories by volume (m3) stored at waste generator ...
Table 5.10. Distribution of radioactive waste by sector at the end of 2016 (in p...
Table 5.11. Distribution of the total volume (m3) of waste by economic sector an...
Table 5.12. Distribution of the total mass of radioactive material by economic s...
Table 5.13. Summary of the radioactive waste from the nuclear power sector (sour...
Table 5.14.
Volume of waste from Orano’s Malvési plant (source: [AND 18c])
Table 5.15. Summary of research sector radioactive waste volumes at the end of 2...
Table 5.16. Summary of defense sector radioactive waste volumes at the end of 20...
Table 5.17. Summary of radioactive waste volumes from the non-electricity indust...
Table 5.18. Annual change in the volume generation (m3) of waste in 2017 and 201...
Table 5.19. Quantities of radioactive waste at completion estimated in volumes (...
Table 5.20. Characteristics of long-lived radionuclides in a spent fuel assembly...
Table 5.21. Summary of the cost of providing storage containers (source: [AND 14...
Table 5.22. Summary of the operating costs of the Cigéo Center (source: [AND 14b...
Table 5.23. Summary of annual costs and financing after closure of the Cigéo Cen...
Table 5.24. Quantity of foreign spent fuel delivered after June 30, 2006, number...
Table 5.25.
Tritiated waste inventory (source: modified from [FRO 11])
Table 5.26. The principal storage sites (more than 1 million tons) for uranium o...
Table 5.27. Amounts (in millions of euros) of operator contributions for the yea...
Chapter 6
Table 6.1. Functions and limitations of some radioactive waste storage options (...
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Preface
Acknowledgments
Begin Reading
List of Acronyms
References
Index
Other titles from iSTE in Ecological Science
End User License Agreement
v
iii
iv
xi
xii
xiii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
251
252
253
254
255
256
Radioactive Risk Set
coordinated byJean-Claude Amiard
Volume 5
Jean-Claude Amiard
First published 2021 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2021
The rights of Jean-Claude Amiard to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021940534
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78630-722-4
The use of nuclear energy for military or civilian purposes inevitably leads to the production of radioactive waste. The management of this waste is one of the most serious problems facing industrialized nations.
As with all other wastes, radioactive waste can be disposed of in one of two ways: dilution or containment. A third method exists for radioactive waste with a very short physical life, less than 100 days, which is to wait, under safe conditions, for natural physical decay.
Dilution consists of reducing the radioactive risk by dispersing the radionuclides in vast compartments of the environment such as the lithosphere, the atmosphere or the hydrosphere. This can only be done for very low-level radioactive waste, even though it has been practiced more widely in the past.
Containment consists of immobilizing the waste as long as it remains radioactive. This is relatively easy for short-lived radionuclides, i.e. with a physical half-life of less than 30 years. On the contrary, it is much more difficult to ensure for long-lived radionuclides, for some of which the physical half-life is counted in millions of years. Currently, the only realistic and practicable solution found is the multiplication of physical barriers between the radioactive waste and the environment and the biosphere, the last barrier being geologically stable and impermeable layers of the lithosphere.
The classification of radioactive waste has been the subject of IAEA recommendations, but this has not prevented the multiplication of classifications in different states, which complicates possible comparisons. These classifications are based on a combination of two parameters: the waste’s level of activity and the half-life of the radionuclides constituting the waste.
A major difference in classification divides nations into two categories depending on whether they practice an open or closed nuclear fuel cycle. In the latter case, a portion of the radioactive waste is removed from this classification and is considered as usable nuclear material. However, the number of states using the closed cycle is steadily decreasing, which makes it necessary to review the quantities of radioactive waste to be actually managed.
The management of radioactive waste is specific to each state. The majority of nations manage short-lived radioactive waste in surface storage facilities and a minority in underground facilities.
On the contrary, for long-lived radioactive waste, few states have definitive solutions. This is due to the fact that the containment of the radionuclide must be guaranteed for thousands of years. For low-level waste, most countries opt for dry interim storage. For intermediate- and high-level waste, the solution generally envisaged is deep geological disposal, with some countries favoring deep geological drilling.
In the field of radioactive waste management, research is very active and innovations are numerous. This does not prevent gaps in our knowledge, uncertainties about the nature of the disposal to be adopted for certain categories of waste and often a negative opinion of the public to the proposed solutions.
June 2021
Jean-Claude Zerbib, former CEA Senior Expert, radiation protection engineer, had the difficult task of proofreading, annotating and criticizing this manuscript. He also provided me with precious documents to complete the abundant literature that was used in the writing of this book. I would like to thank him very much for this.
Professor Philip Rainbow (former Keeper of Zoology, Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom) has done the same for the English version. I warmly thank them both for their time and efforts.
I would also like to thank the members of the Scientific Council of the ANCCLI who helped me in the understanding of certain subjects. The same goes for all the members of the Groupe Radioécologie Nord Cotentin (GRNC), a pluralist group, for the remarkable work done together and with every courtesy.
Compared to other categories of waste, the quantity of radioactive waste is relatively small. In France, nuclear waste represents 2 kg per year per inhabitant [AND 17a], compared to 580 kg of household waste, 900 kg of non-construction waste and 3.4 tons of industrial waste [ADE 20]. But these residues represent an immense problem because some of them are extremely radioactive and remain harmful over excessively long time scales, for some hundreds of thousands or millions of years, that humanity cannot control.
What can we do with this radioactive waste? In the past, the ocean has served as a dumping ground for nuclear powers, which have immersed tens of thousands of radioactive drums. This time is fortunately over. Some eccentric people have suggested dropping them into space. Fortunately, the idea was not pursued. The solution now being considered for the most dangerous waste is to bury it in deep layers of clay, granite, salt or tuff, hoping that nature and geology will compensate for the weaknesses of human technology [AMI 13]. Sweden was the first nation to choose an underground storage site. All other countries, faced with the concerns of their populations and the vagaries of political changes, have postponed their decisions. On the contrary, in the United States, the suspension of the Yucca Mountain storage project in Nevada, which was ready to open, is a sign of the American administration’s desire to listen to the public. However, the State must find a new solution.
Since no alternative solution is yet mature, we must take our time in making a decision that will commit humanity for a long time. France, like Canada, Switzerland and Japan, has made the principle of reversibility central to its doctrine. On the contrary, Sweden and Finland do not require it, and the United Kingdom is still considering it. It is not only a question of being able to recover radioactive packages, but of leaving the decision-making process open and giving it back to the political institutions. Parliament has once again become the master of nuclear waste management and future generations have the guarantee that nothing will be decided inescapably. The approach is virtuous. Let us hope that it is not an admission of powerlessness in the face of an insoluble puzzle [AMI 13]. It should also be emphasized that this postponement amounts in practice to leaving to future generations the care to manage and pay for the waste produced by the present generation.
Those responsible for the civilian and especially the military use of nuclear energy have in the past been very unaware of the seriousness with which the problem of nuclear waste is treated today. For example, the Hanford site in the United States was heavily polluted by unauthorized dumping during intensive plutonium production after World War II. Recently, six underground tanks leaked. In the former Soviet Union (USSR), waste in the form of highly active liquid solutions was injected directly into deep storage [MAC 96]. The United Kingdom in particular, but also other countries, and even France, have thrown drums of waste into international waters, a practice that is now prohibited [CAS 02].
Nuclear energy has been questioned almost since its inception and one of the main problems concerning its social acceptability in the world is the management of nuclear waste [ROD 17]. It is therefore imperative that nuclear nations manage radioactive waste in an exemplary way.
A few definitions should be kept in mind. Radioactive waste is radioactive material for which no further use is planned or envisaged. Ultimately radioactive waste is radioactive waste that can no longer be treated under current technical and economic conditions, in particular by extracting its recoverable part or by reducing its polluting or dangerous nature (French Environmental Code, article L 542.1-1). Conversely, if a radioactive material also contains radionuclides, it has a potential future use. This is the case for depleted uranium or spent nuclear fuel that can eventually be reused.
A radioactive substance is a substance that contains radionuclides, natural or artificial, whose activity or concentration justifies radiation protection control. The radionuclides contained in radioactive waste can be of artificial origin, such as cesium-137, or natural origin, such as radium-226.
Radioactive waste has three main characteristics, the type of radionuclide, the activity and the half-life. The type of radionuclide contained is related to the radiation emitted (alpha, beta, gamma). The activity is the number of atomic nuclei that spontaneously disintegrate per unit of time; it is expressed in becquerels (Bq). The half-life is the time required for the activity of a radionuclide in a sample to decrease by half [IRS 13a, IRS 13b].
Waste classification is not unique. Indeed, while the IAEA has provided broad guidelines for defining and classifying radioactive waste, each state is free to use its own nomenclature.
As regards the classification of radioactive waste, there are two main approaches: one by a waste management channel and the other by a waste production channel. The latter approach is partly inherited from the historical concept of radiation protection.
The management pathway approach often combines the activity and lifetime parameters of the radionuclides constituting the waste. This classification was recommended by the IAEA in the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. This classification is used in France, Belgium and Spain. Sometimes this approach is based only on activity. In Canada, for example, there are only three main categories of radioactive waste (ILW, HLW and spent fuel), except for the specific management of waste from mines. In the Netherlands, the classification has a larger number of categories, but no distinction is made between short- and long-lived waste and consequently there are no plans for surface disposal. In Germany, the classification is based mainly on the exothermic character of the waste.
The production chain approach leads to a more complex classification, with specific chains for certain types of waste, and combining activity and lifespan. This is the approach of the United States, Japan and Sweden (in fact in Sweden, the two types of approach coexist). In Finland, a category is sometimes added for waste from hospitals, universities, etc.
There are also national specificities, as in Belgium, which treats 50% of the radium sources used in the world (the result of uranium mining in the Congo, which is historically Belgian), or in Canada, which has large uranium mines. Similarly, in France, it should be noted that there is no release threshold for waste containing, or likely to contain, only very small quantities of radioactive elements [AMI 13].
The IAEA proposes dividing radioactive waste into five categories, in addition to the category of waste considered as released (EW, Exempt Waste), according to two criteria, the amount of activity and the half-life of the radionuclide (Figure 1.1). These categories are very short-lived waste (VSLW), very low-level waste (VLLW), low-level waste (LLW), intermediate-level waste (ILW) and high-level waste (HLW) [IAE 09a].
In certain circumstances, such as acceptance into a radioactive waste disposal facility, Waste Acceptance Criteria (WACs) may be established for certain radionuclides. WACs are quantitative or qualitative criteria that may include, for example, restrictions on the activity concentration or total activity of particular radionuclides (or types of radionuclides) in the waste, or requirements regarding the form or packaging of the waste.
Figure 1.1.Proposed IAEA classification of radioactive waste (source: [IAE 09a]). EW: exempt waste; HLW: high-level waste; ILW: intermediate-level waste; LLW: low-level waste; VLLW: very low-level waste; VSLW: very short-lived waste. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/amiard/radioactive.zip
The details of the French classification are as follows. Radioactive waste is classified according to two criteria: mass activity and physical half-life. The “mass activity” criterion divides waste into four groups: déchets de très faible activité, called TFA or very low-level waste (VLLW), déchets de faible activité, FA or low-level waste (LLW), déchets de moyenne activité, MA or intermediate-level waste (ILW) and déchets de haute activité, high-level waste (HLW). The “life” criterion is divided into three classes to distinguish between déchets à vie courte, short-lived waste (SLW), déchets à vie moyenne, medium-lived waste (MLL) and déchets à vie longue, long-lived waste (LLW). The combination of the two criteria makes it possible to classify the waste into 12 categories (Table 1.1) [PNG 10].
Table 1.1.French classification of radioactive waste and storage sites in operation in France (source: modified from [PNG 10, MTE 18]). For a color version of this table, see www.iste.co.uk/amiard/radioactive.zip
Radioactive waste management simplifies these subdivisions by grouping certain categories to manage them together. In the end, in France, by combining the four levels of activity with the three ranges of radioactive periods, six categories of waste are distinguished, defined by an order of April 4, 2014. In addition, this decree defines the nature of the information that nuclear activity managers and companies are required to establish, maintain and periodically transmit to ANDRA.
At present, only two categories have well-defined channels: VLA-SL at Morvilliers and LA-SL and AA-SL at Soulaines in the Aube region (and previously in the commune of La Hague, at the Centre de stockage de la Manche-CSM, 1969–1994). The other channels are still being studied, as are certain specific wastes such as tritiated waste, mining waste, sealed sources and graphite waste (see Chapter 5).
Based on their activity levels, nuclear waste can be classified into the following six categories:
– Very short-lived waste (VSL) is managed by allowing it to decay on site and then it is disposed of in conventional channels. It is therefore not sent to a storage facility dedicated to radioactive waste.
– Very low-level waste (VLLW) comes from the operation of nuclear power plants and research centers, from fuel cycle facilities and research centers. The activity level of this waste is generally less than 100 Bq.g
-1
. However, the management of this waste justifies radiation protection monitoring.
– Low-level and intermediate-level short-lived waste (LL/IL-SLW) come from the operation and dismantling of nuclear power plants and research centers and, for a small part, from biomedical research activities. The activity of this waste is between a few hundred Bq.g
-1
and 1 million Bq.g
-1
.
– Long-lived low-level waste (LL-LLW) consists mainly of graphite waste and radium-bearing waste. Graphite waste has an activity of between 10,000 and 100,000 Bq.g
-1
, essentially long-lived beta emitting radionuclides. It comes from the dismantling of first-generation nuclear power plants (UNGG). Radium-bearing waste, mostly from non-nuclear industrial activities, is mainly composed of long-lived alpha-emitting radionuclides and has an activity of between a few tens of Bq.g
-1
and a few thousand Bq.g
-1
.
– Long-lived intermediate-level waste (LL-ILW) comes mainly from spent fuel reprocessing activities. It is technological waste (used tools, equipment, etc.), waste from the treatment of effluents such as bituminous sludge and structural waste, the shells and end caps that make up the nuclear fuel cladding, packaged in cemented or compacted waste packages. The activity of this waste is of the order of 1 million to 1 billion Bq.g
-1
.
– High-level waste (HLW) also consists mainly of vitrified waste packages from the reprocessing of spent fuel. These waste packages concentrate the great majority of radionuclides, whether fission products or minor actinides. The activity level of this waste is of the order of several billion Bq.g
-1
[JOR 14].
As Table 1.1 indicates, not all categories of waste have their storage site yet closed in France. We will detail this aspect later (Chapter 5).
Two important aspects condition the classification of radioactive waste. The first aspect is that there is no single classification criterion for determining a waste class. It is indeed necessary to study the activity of the different radionuclides present in the waste to position it in the classification. However, in the absence of a single criterion, the wastes in each category generally fall within a range of mass activity indicated below.
The second aspect is that a particular type of waste may fall into a defined category but not be accepted in the corresponding management channel because of other characteristics (e.g. its chemical composition or physical nature, such as radium-bearing waste that emits a radioactive gas, radon-222). Consequently, the waste category is not necessarily assimilated to its management channel [AMI 13].
With respect to hospital radioactive effluents, French legislation is very strict and requires the intervention of official institutions, in particular ANDRA, for the conditioning, elimination, transport and storage of this waste [FRE 01, ACR 12]. This statement must be moderated, however, in view of the increase in practices involving radionuclides. The next radionuclides to be used will be beta and especially alpha emitters, which have a limited range in living matter. Recently, research is therefore exploring a number of products under development using isotopes such as lutetium-177, promethium-149, bismuth-212, bismuth-213, astatine-211, radium-223 and polonium-210.
For France, the IRSN [IRS 18b] proposes a methodology and possible criteria for assessing the harmfulness of radioactive materials and waste. In order to make the indicators understandable to a wide audience, the situations are defined to respect a minimum degree of realism. Their choice also aims to cover the main exposure routes and a diversity of contexts.
Four situations are considered, the first two of which involve the presence of an individual in a room containing a package of radioactive waste or radioactive material, whether intact or damaged. The last two situations concern the dispersion of the package in the environment and the impact on an entire local human population or the impact on an aquatic ecosystem.
The report also provides an example of the application of the method for three families of waste (vitrified HA, bituminous MAVL and FAVL 14C). The annual impacts after 100 or 1,000 years are provided and proposals are made for broader deployment, making it possible in the long-term to have an indication of the harmfulness of each of the families defined in the national inventory of radioactive materials and waste [IRS 18b].
The American classification of radioactive waste has three classes (A, B and C) based on the maximum activity of a given radionuclide (Table 1.2).
Table 1.2.Excerpt from the US NRC classification of radioactive waste based on maximum concentrations of radionuclides and expressed in Ci.m-3 (source: [BLA 01]). MC: maximum concentration (no limit for this class)
Radionuclide
Class A
Class B
Class C
3
H
40
MC
MC
14
C
0.8
–
8
60
Co
700
MC
MC
90
Sr
0.04
150
7,000
99
Tc
0.3
–
3
129
I
0.008
–
0.08
137
Cs
1
44
4,600
All radionuclides with half-life <5 years
700
MC
MC
α emitters with a half-life >5 years
10
100
241
Pu
350
3,500
242
Cm
2,000
20,000
The British classification of radioactive waste adopts the IAEA classification into five categories by defining its own criteria for activity levels (Table 1.3).
Table 1.3.The British nuclear waste classification system (source: [OJO 14, RAH 15])
Waste classes
Characteristics of this class
VLLW, small volume
Waste of 0.1 m
3
that can be disposed of with regular garbage if it contains less than 400 kBq of activity, as well as hospital and university waste. For waste containing carbon-14 and tritium, the activity limit is 4,000 kBq
VLLW, large volume
Radioactive waste with an upper limit of 4 MBq per ton (not including tritium) is disposed of in specified landfills. For waste containing tritium, the upper limit is 40 MBq per ton
LLW
Containing radioactive material other than that suitable for disposal with ordinary waste, but not exceeding 4 GBq per ton of waste or 12 GBq per ton of β and γ activity
ILW
Waste with radioactivity levels above the upper limits for LLW, but which does not generate heat
HLW
Wastes in which the temperature can increase significantly due to their radioactivity, so this factor must be taken into account in the design of storage or disposal facilities
The Russian classification of radioactive waste is based on a division into three classes according to the specific activity of various categories of radionuclides (Table 1.4). The limits of the categories are high.
Table 1.4.Practical classification of radioactive waste in Russia (source: [OJO 14])
Category
Specific activity (Bq.g
-1
)
Tritium
Beta (except
3
H)
Alpha (except transuranium elements)
Transuranium elements
Low activity
10
6
–10
7
<10
3
<10
2
<10
Average activity
10
7
–10
11
10
3
–10
7
10
2
–10
6
10–10
5
High activity
>10
11
>10
7
>10
6
>10
5
Various comparisons can be made between the classifications of radioactive waste used by different countries.
The classification recommended by the IAEA and that applied by the United States have no overlap (Table 1.5).
Table 1.5.Comparison of IAEA ([IAE 09a], GSG-1) and NRC ([NRC 15]) classifications (source: [NEA 16a])
NRC
Class A
Class B
Class C
Excess C or GTCC
IAEA
VLLW
LLW
ILW
HLW
In Belgium, class A waste has a specific destination and class B and C waste are managed together. In France, the VLLW and LLW-SL categories are managed together, the AA-LL and HALL categories are managed together, while the FA-VL category is managed independently. For the three states, a distinction is made between current waste and historical waste [PAR 18].
Table 1.6.Comparison of radioactive waste classifications in Belgium, France and Canada (source: [PAR 18]). In brackets, the equivalences with the IAEA classification from 2009 [IAE 09a]
Belgium
France
Canada
Number of categories
3
5
4
Classification by lifespan and activity level
A (LLW)B (ILW)C (HLW)
TFA (VSLW)FMA-VC (LLW)FA-VL (VLLW)MA-VL (ILW)HA-VL (HLW)
LLW (LLW)ILW (ILW)HLW (HLW + spent fuel)Mining waste
Other more vague categories
NORM, T-NORMRadiferWaste from future sanitationSpent fuelSpent MOX fuel
Waste without a channelFuel and MOX
For sealed sources, the IAEA [IAE 09a] recommends the classifications reported in Table 1.7.
Table 1.7.Examples of the use of the IAEA classification for disused sealed radioactive sources (source: [IAE 09a])
Type
Half-life
Activity
Volume
Examples
VSLW
<100 days
100 MBq
Small
90
Y,
198
Au (brachytherapy)
VSLW
<100 days
5 TBq
Small
192
Ir (brachytherapy)
LLW
<15 years
<10 MBq
Small
3
H,
60
Co,
85
Kr
ILW
<15 years
<100 TBq
Small
60
Co (irradiators)
LLW
<30 years
<1 MBq
Small
137
Cs (brachytherapy)
ILW
<30 years
<1 PBq
Small
90
Sr (thickness gauges, thermoelectric generators),
137
Cs (irradiators)
ILW
>30 years
<40 MBq
Small but with a large number of sources
Pu, Am, Ra (static eliminators)
ILW
>30 years
<10 GBq
226
Ra,
241
Am (gauges)
Radioactive waste has multiple origins, which can be subdivided into three main sources: waste from the fuel cycle contributing to nuclear electricity (NFC, Nuclear Fuel Cycle), waste from other very varied origins (medicine, research, etc.) and waste resulting from a nuclear accident. Fuel cycle waste differs according to whether it comes from upstream or downstream plants or from nuclear power reactors in operation (Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2.Diagram of the origins of radioactive waste (source: [OJO 14]). HLW: high-level waste; ILW: intermediate-level waste; LLW: low-level waste; NFC: nuclear fuel cycle; SRS: sealed radioactive sources. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/amiard/radioactive.zip
The principal radionuclides in radioactive waste are very varied and can be classified into four categories. These are fission products (H, Se, Br, Kr, Rb, Sr, Y, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Te, I, Xe, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb and Dy), activation products (C, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni) and heavy nuclei (U, Nb and Zr), those that are both fission and activation products (Zr and Nb), heavy nuclei (U, Np, Pu, Am and Cm) and some elements with long-lived radioactive isotopes (C, Zr, Tc, Pd, Sn, I, Cs and Sm) to which are added the five heavy nuclei elements.
A distinction should be made between two fuel cycles, the so-called open NFC and the closed NFC, the latter reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in order to reuse the extracted by-products (uranium and plutonium) in other reactors, whereas in the case of the open NFC, the spent fuel is considered as radioactive waste and therefore disposed of. A representation of the two types of fuel cycle is shown in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3.The various stages of the nuclear fuel cycles in open and closed versions (source: [OJO 14]). HLW: high-level waste; MOX: mixed oxide; NFC: nuclear fuel cycle; Pu: plutonium; SNF: spent nuclear fuel; U: uranium; UF6: uranium hexafluoride. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/amiard/radioactive.zip
The number of states reprocessing civilian spent fuel in 2013 was still six (China, France, India, Japan, the United Kingdom and Russia) with a theoretical annual reprocessing capacity of 5,900 tons to be increased to 6,700 tons [OJO 14]. In 2020, the United Kingdom gave up reprocessing and Japan has had its plants shut down for many years.
The chemical and radioactive composition of HLW varies greatly from state to state. Thus, for transuranium elements, the quantities present in HLW, expressed in g.L-1, are 2.0 for the British Magnox reactors, 5.1 for the waste from the La Hague reprocessing plant in France, 7.6 for the WIP (Waste Immobilization Plant) in India, 12.6 for the waste from the Tokai reprocessing plant in Japan and <0.1 for American Hanford waste. Similarly for fission products, the quantities expressed in g.L-1 are 87.0 at La Hague, 1.1 at the Indian WIP, 49.0 for the Japanese Tokai plant and <2.5 for the Hanford waste. This can be explained by the characteristics of the reactors and nuclear fuels used, as well as by the cooling methods used and the reprocessing technologies [OJO 14].
About 90% of radioactive waste comes from electricity generation. This waste is of three types. The first category includes waste of various origins (also called type A waste); these are chemical products, work clothes, tools, etc., generally of low radioactivity (18,000 t.yr-1 in France). The second group contains technological waste related to the atomic fission process (also called type B waste); this is fairly highly radioactive waste, consisting in particular of metal structures and zircaloy “shells” (an alloy of zirconium and tin, about 1,800 t.yr-1 in France). The last group includes waste resulting directly from the fission process of the atom itself (also called type C waste); these are fission products and actinides (approximately 63 t.yr-1 and 1.9 t.yr-1, respectively, in France), i.e. volumes of 100–240 m3.yr-1. Still for France, each year the nuclear industry produces more than 1,000 tons of spent fuel that is sent to the Orano (previously Areva) plant at La Hague. A portion is processed each year to extract the plutonium (1%) and uranium (95%) and to condition the residue (4%). This is the stage that produces by far the most radioactive waste [AMI 13]. The plutonium is reused in the manufacturing of new fuels (MOX), which are composed of a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides. There are currently 2,140 tons of irradiated MOX fuel, while 424 tons are loaded into 900 MW reactors [AND 20c].
The quantities of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste and the tonnage of spent nuclear fuel generated vary widely among the nuclear technologies (Table 1.8.).
Table 1.8.Quantities of radioactive waste (m3.GW-1) and spent fuel (t.GW-1.yr-1) generated by the various types of nuclear reactors in operation (source: [OJO 14]). LWR: light-water reactor; BWR: boiling water reactor; PWR: pressurized water reactor; WWER: water-water energy reactor; RBMK: Reaktor Bolshoy Moshchnosti Kanalnyi, CANDU: Canadian dioxide uranium; Magnox: magnesium non-oxidizing; AGR: advanced gas-cooled reactor
LWR
BWR
PWR
WWER
RBMK
CANDU
Magnox
AGR
LLW and ILW
100
260
130
320
850
80
1,740
400
Spent fuel
25
22
20
28
42
145
240
29
Nuclear defense facilities, many of which are currently being dismantled, have generated waste in the past that has not been treated. This old waste, stored in the facilities of the time, will have to be taken back and conditioned. The current maintenance of nuclear weapons also generates waste in small quantities. This waste is managed in the same way as waste from the civilian industry.
The radioactive waste, Soviet and then Russian, dumped in the Kara Sea in 1993–1994 is relatively large (Table 1.9) [NYF 03].
Table 1.9.Radioactive waste dumped in the Kara Sea in the Arctic Ocean in 1993-1994 (source: [NYF 03])
Waste category
Material
Number of objects
Total activity (TBq)
High activity
Reactors with fuel or containers
7
4,700
Intermediate activity
Fuel-less reactors
10
20
Low or intermediate activity
Containers
6,508
580
Large objects
154
Vessels
15
Radionuclides have many uses in medicine and biological research. There are about 23 radionuclides that are used as radioactive tracers for various diagnostic purposes. Other radionuclides are present in sealed sources and serve as sources of ionizing radiation for medical, industrial and research applications [AMI 13]. The types of sealed sources are very varied and there are about 52 types of irradiators [IAE 19a].
Various medical and industrial, civilian and military accidents have occurred with abandoned irradiators [AMI 18, AMI 19].
Some industrial activities, such as chemical treatment related to the production of rare earths or the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, lead to the concentration of natural radioactivity in a residue that becomes radioactive waste. This is particularly the case for the Rhodia plant in La Rochelle (Charente Maritime).
Many radioactive sources in sealed form are used in medicine to treat cancer (brachytherapy). They are used in industry to radiograph welds to test their integrity, to measure the water content of soil and for many other applications. They are also used in research or medicine to establish diagnoses (scintigraphy) or to treat certain cancers (thyroid) as radioactive tracers, in liquid form. The quantity of waste generated is small, but there are more than a thousand users scattered over the French territory [AMI 13].
The CEA monograph [CEA 17] details the various processes for treating materials resulting from dismantling. During the clean-up and dismantling of a nuclear installation, the various treatments generate a wide variety of wastes, organic wastes, graphite wastes, magnesian wastes and very special wastes such as mercury wastes. High-level waste in sludge or powder form and tritiated waste are also produced.
The volumes of solid radioactive waste generated during the decommissioning of the various nuclear fuel cycle facilities are very variable, with a clear preponderance from the deconstruction of nuclear power reactors (Table 1.10).
Table 1.10.Quantities of radioactive waste generated during the decommissioning of various nuclear fuel cycle facilities (source: [OJO 14])
Step
Type of waste
Quantity (m
3
.GW
-1
.yr
-1
)
UF
6
conversion
Solid
0.5–1
UF
6
enrichment
Solid
5
UO
2
manufacturing
Solid
1–2
Reactor
Solid
375
Reprocessing
Solid
5
Ojovan and Lee [OJO 14] quantify these various categories of waste from the dismantling of a nuclear power reactor (Table 1.11).
Table 1.11.Typical waste during reactor shutdown (source: [OJO 14])
Step
Type of waste
Quantity (m
3
.GW
-1
.yr
-1
)
Miscellaneous (scrap metal)
Solid
15
Sludge
Solid
0.02
Effluents with tritium
Liquids
70
HLW
Liquids
28
ILW
Liquids
25
LLW
Liquids
15
LLW
Solid
65
The NEA Expert Group on Fukushima Waste Management and Decommissioning Research and Development (EGFWMD) was established in 2014 to advise Japanese authorities on the management of large quantities of on-site waste with complex properties and to share their experiences with the international community [NEA 16a].
Radioactive waste inventory data are an important element in the development of a national radioactive waste management program because they affect the design and selection of final disposal methods.
The inventory data are generally presented as quantities of radioactive waste in different waste classes, according to the waste classification system developed and adopted by the country or national program in question.
The diversity of classification systems among countries has limited the comparability of waste inventories and made it difficult to interpret waste management practices, both nationally and internationally. To help improve this situation, the Nuclear Energy Agency has developed a methodology that ensures consistency in national radioactive waste and spent fuel inventory data when submitted. This report is a follow-up to the 2016 report [NEA 16b] that presented the methodology and layout for spent fuel submission. It now extends this methodology and layout to all types of radioactive waste and the corresponding management strategies [NEA 17d].
National radioactive waste management programs require very large amounts of data and information across multiple and disparate disciplines. These programs tend to span a period of several decades, resulting in a serious risk of data and information loss, which in turn can threaten the production and maintenance of robust safety records. The NEA has taken the lead in creating a Radioactive Waste Repository Metadata Management (RepMet) project [NEA 18a].
In 2011, Ojovan and Lee [OJO 14] estimated 68.106 m3 of waste stored and 76,106 m3 of waste disposed (Table 1.12).
At the end of 2013, the quantities of spent fuel discharged from nuclear reactors amounted to 367,600 metric tons, of which about half was stored in wet form, one-third needed to be reprocessed, and the rest was stored in dry form [IAE 18a] (Table 1.13).
Table 1.12.Global estimate of the global radioactive waste inventory in 2011 (source: [OJO 14])
Waste category
Stored waste (m
3
)
Disposed waste (m
3
)
VLLW
153.10
3
113.10
3
LLW
56,663.10
3
64,792.10
3
ILW
8,723.10
3
10,587.10
3
HLW
2,743.10
3
72.10
3
Total volume
~68.10
6
~76.10
6
Table 1.13.Quantities of discharged spent fuel (in ton) at the end of 2013 (source: [IAEA 18a]). NP: not provided
Geographical area
Wet storage
Dry storage
Reprocessing
Total
Africa
850
50
NP
900
Eastern Europe
28,600
7,700
3,200
40,000
Western Europe
37,000
4,600
108,000
154,100
Far East
32,100
5,700
8,600
46,400
North America
79,300
41,900
NP
131,200
Latin America
3,000
2,000
NP
5,000
Grand total
180,800
56,900
120,300
367,600
The storage of spent fuel is carried out for 81% near the producing reactor (59% under water and 22% dry) and for 15% far from this reactor (13% under water and 2% dry), and for the remaining 4% the storage is not known [IAE 18a].
Figure 1.4 highlights the significant quantities of solid radioactive waste worldwide. The less hazardous categories of waste (VLLW and LLW) are larger than the more hazardous ones (ILW and HLW). However, it should be noted that the final solutions are more effective for the former categories compared to the solutions not found for the more hazardous ones.
Figure 1.4.Summary of global inventories of solid radioactive waste in storage and disposal (source: [IAE 18a]). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/amiard/radioactive.zip
The distribution of solid waste at the end of 2013 by major waste categories and by geographical area is presented in Table 1.14.
Table 1.14.Quantities of solid waste (in m3) at the end of 2013 (source: [IAE 18a])
Geographical area
VLLW
LLW
ILW
HLW
Africa
7,000
20,000
1,000
0
Eastern Europe
15,000
2,479,000
101,000
7,000
Western Europe
224,000
355,000
269,000
6,000
Far East
5,000
331,000
4,000
0
North America
2,105,000
248,000
84,000
8,000
Latin America
0
37,000
0
0
Middle East and South Asia
0
3,000
0
0
East Asia and Pacific
0
5,000
1,000
0
Grand total
2,356,600
3,479,000
460,000
22,000
Figure 1.5.Global origins of radioactive waste in 2013 for A) storage and B) final disposal (source: [IAE 18a]). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/amiard/radioactive.zip
Worldwide, the majority of radioactive waste comes from dismantling operations (49% and 66%, respectively, depending on whether the storage is interim or final) (Figure 1.5).
Globally, the volumes of radioactive waste at the end of 2013, both solid and liquid, in interim and final storage, for the various categories are shown in Tables 1.15 and 1.16. LLW is the largest category.
Table 1.15.Radioactive waste in temporary storage globally at the end of 2013 (in m3) (source: [IAE 18a])
Category
Solid
Liquid
Total
VLLW
2,356,000
2,356,000
LLW
3,479,000
53,332,000
56,811,000
ILW
460,000
6,253,000
6,713,000
HLW
22,000
2,786,000
2,808,000
The global waste volumes that are permanently stored are 69% for LLW, 29% for VLLW and only 1.63% for ILW and 0.06% for HLW.
The distribution of total activity is 95% for HLW, 3% for ILW, 1.5% for LLW and 0.5% for VLLW [IAE 18a].
Table 1.16.Radioactive waste in final storage globally at the end of 2013 (in m3) (source: [IAE 18a])
Category
Solid
Liquid
Total
VLLW
7,906,000
7,906,000
LLW
20,451,000
39,584,000
60,035,000
ILW
107,000
8,628,000
8,735,000
HLW
0
68,000
68,000
Radioactive waste is a radioactive substance for which no further use is planned or envisaged. This definition has many implications and divides states into two groups depending on whether their nuclear fuel cycle is open or closed. In the first case, all spent fuel is considered as waste; in the second case, it is radioactive material that can still be used.
The IAEA proposes a classification of radioactive waste based on two criteria: the level of mass activity of the waste and the physical period or half-life of the radionuclide present in the waste. Each state has adopted its own classification, which has a strong influence on the management of radioactive waste.
The origin of radioactive waste is multiple. All activities, whether military or civilian, generate radioactive waste. However, it is the decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear installations that generate the largest volumes. The reprocessing of spent fuel, carried out by a small number of states that have adopted the closure of the nuclear fuel cycle, generates larger volumes of waste, all categories combined, but less high-level waste than the open cycle. Indeed, in the case of an open fuel cycle, the volume of spent fuel is large and this waste is hazardous and difficult to store.
A number of historical nuclear wastes, such as military wastes, mining residues and others, pose difficult conditioning and management problems.