Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
WasteManagementRadioactive 0 Study A Background FILE
COPY
Type: (MIS) Report No. :11342 Title: RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEV -NT Author: 0 Room: Dept.: Ext.: JUNE 1991
June1991
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
PAPER WORKING ANDENERGYDEPARTMENT INDUSTRY SERIESPAPERNo.36 ENERGY
PRE andEnergyDepartment, TheWorldBankIndustry
RADIOACTIVEWASTE MANAGEMENTA Background Study
by Achilles 0. Adamantades (EMTIE) and Spyros Trafforos, SAT Consultants, Washington, D.C.
June 1991
Copyright (0) 1991 The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC, 20433 USA
Thi Is onoof a seris issuedby fe Indusryand En guice
of World Bank stf.
Douptmnt for th inormon and
The paper may not be pubUshed or quoted as repes
V the
vews te WorldBunkGroup,nordoesthe BankGroupacooept responsibiliy for aisaccuracy
n oompieness
BSTACTG
The objective of this report ls to provide background information to the World Bank staff on the issue of management of radioactivewastes generated by nuclear power plants and related facilities. This information is useful in electric power sector reviews of countrles with nuclear power programs. The report discusses the sources and classifiLation of radioactive wastes originating in various stages of the nucslear fuel cycle, as well as their current and projected quantities. The technlcal means for handling (treating, packaging, transporting, and storing) and disposing of low, intermediate and high level wastes, including spent fuel are addressed. Information on both developed and developing countries is provided. The report addresses also the major technical and institutional issues related to radioactlve waste management. Finally, a discussion of special problems, encountered or expected, in developing countries is presented.
.
LL -
ABBREVIATIONS
AFR AIPG AR BUWR CFR CMEA
-
DOE or USDOE DOT EPA FRG HLW IAEA ICRP ILW ISFSI LL MRS mt or MT MW.or MW NASA NWF NEA U
-
NPT NRC or USNRC
NUPA NWPAA PHUR PFR TNI TRU U-235 U-238 UK U.S. or U.S.A. USSR WIPP
-
-
, -
-
-
-
-
AWAYFROMREACTOR AMERICANINSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONALGEOLOGISTS AT REACTOR BOILINGWATER REACTOR CODEOF FEDERALREGULATIONS(USA) AS COUNCILFOR MUTUALECONOMICASS STANCE(ALSO KNOWN COMECON) OF ENERGY(It.S.A.) DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION(U.S.A.) ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY (U.S.A.) FEDERAL REaPULICOF GERMANY HIGH LEVEL WASTE INTERNATIONALATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY COMMITTEEON RADIOLOGICALPROTECTION INTERNATIONAL WASTE LEVEL INTERMEDIATE INDEPENDENTSPENT FUEL STORAGEINSTALLATION LOWLEVEL WASTE RETRIEVABLESTORAGE(FACILITY) MONITORED METRIC TON - ELECTRIC KEGAWATTS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION NATIONALAERONAUTICS FUND WASTE NUCLEAR FOR NUCLEARENERGYAGENCY,AN ARM OF THE ORGANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICCOOPERATION TREATY NUCLEARNON-PROLIFERATION NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION (U.S.A.) NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT ACT NUCLEARWASTEPOLICY AMENDMENTS PRESSURIZEDHEAVY WATERREACTOR PRESSURIZEDWATER REACTOR THREE MILE ISLAND (POWER PLANT) TRANSURANICWASTES URANIUM - 235 (ISOTOPE) URANIUM - 238 (ISOTOPE) UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALISTICREPUBLICS WASTE ISOLATIONPILOT PLANT
K iii
-
RADIQAC= VE.WST NANAGEMEN Tab}e of Contents
PagLeNo. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vii
1.0
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2.0
DEFINITION ANDORIGIN OF RADIOACTIVEVASTE 2.1 Sources of RadioactiveWaste . . . . . 2.2 Radiation Hazards . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Classificationof RadioactiveWastes . 2.4 Quantitiesof RadioactiveWaste in the United States . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Estimatesof World RadioactiveWastes
. . . .
4 4 6 7
. . . . . . .. . . . .
7 8
. . . .
3.0 LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVEWASTES (LLW) . . . . . 3.1 Sources and ProductionRates of LLW . . 3.2 Processingof LLW . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Packaging and Transportationof LLW . . 3.4 Storage of LLW in the U.S. . . .. . . 3.5 Overview of Country LLWPrograms . . . . 3.6 Cost Estimates of AlternativeLW Disposal in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 HIGH 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods . . . . .
LEVEL RADIOACTIVEWASTE (HILW) . . . . . . . . Sources and ProductionRates of HLW . . . . . Storage of HLW from Reprocessingof Spent Fuel Spent Fuel Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel Reprocessing and Its Effect on WasteManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Processingof HLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Packaging and Transportation of HLW . . . . . 4.7 Permanent Disposal of HLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4.8 Safety Assessment 4.9 Overview of Country HLWPrograms . . . . . . . 4.10 Cost Estimates of HLWin the U.S. . . . . . .
5.0
. . . .
10 10 11
12 13 15 17
. . . .
. . . .
19 19 19 20
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
21 22 23 23 27 27 28
ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . RADIOACTIVEWASTEMANAGEMENT Issues . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 5.1 Technical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Institutional
30 30 32
'
6.0
iv
SPECIALPROBLEMS FORDEMELPINGCOUTISES ...... 6.1 6.2
Low Leel Vstes HighLevelWastes
. .
AN ES
.
.
.
.
.
.
........
RZIIRNCES .......
BIIJ..IOGRA.PtIT . ..
.
.
.
.* *
*
. .* * .
.
. .
.....
. . ........ . *
.
*. .
.
..
. . . .
36 36 36
.38
....
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
LS OF TIE
PA82 No.-
2.1 2.2 3.1
U.S. Actual and ProjectedCumulativeVolume of RadioactiveWvtes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
World Actual and ProjectedAnnual Volume of RadioactiveWastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Estimates of Low and IntermediateLevel Waste Volumes from Reactor Operations and Decomissioning
.
11
3.2
U.S. CommercialLW Disposal Sites and Volumes . . . . .
14
3.3
Costs of AlternativeLUN Disposal Methods . . . . . . .
18
4.1
High Level Waste Storage in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . .
20
.
-
vi
-
LIST OF A '.
NuclearPowr Reactorsin Operationand Under Construction at the End of 1989
2.
Sourcesof Fuel CycleWastes
3.
Estimatesof TotalSpent-Fueland VasteArisinpsfrom NuclearFower Plants
4.
Low- gad Intermediate-Level Wasr, Handiingand DisposalPractices
5.
NationalPlansfor Disposalof High-LevelWaste and/orSpentFuel
6.
High-LevelWaste/Spent FuelDisposalResearchand Development Programs
7.
International Spent-FuelStorageManagementStrategies- A Summaryby country
-
vit
i
Since its lntroductionin the mid-1950's,nuclear power has become a substantialcomponent of electricgeneratingsystems in many developed countries.At the end of 1989, 318,271NW of nuclear installedcapacity produced about 1,855 TVh or 172 of total world generation.One of the main concerns of nuclear power ls the handling and disposal of radioactivewastes energy. The management of electrical produced in the process of generating these wastes is a complex and difficult interdieciplinary task involving different sources and categories of wastes at different levels of radioactivity and hazard, extended over long periods of time, methods of and a number of technical transportation, interim storage, packaging, are cempounded by for disposal. The tecbuical questions alternatives considerations which have often institutional, political and socioeconomic report represents an attempt to proved intractable. This technical comprehensively organixe and present extant information on nuclear waste wastes is on radioactive management. Although the emphasis in the report from other uses of nuclear from nuclear power, wastes generated generated are addressed. This and medical applications including industrial material power for Bank staff involved in electric report provides background material sector reviews of countries with a nuclear power component. Depending on their origin, type, and level of radioactivity, the highas uranium mill tailings, wastes can be classified various radioactive waste, low-level waste (LLW), level waste (HLW), spent fual, transuranic The waste and mixed-waste. naturally occurring and accelerator-produced fuel cycle that generate radioactive various stages of the commercial nuclear and wastes are mining and milling of uranium ore, uranium conversion of reactor operation, and reprocessing enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, spent fuel. Radioactive wastes are hazardous because they emit alpha And beta and gamma rays which may cause damage to the cells of living particles organisms.In certain countries large quantities of radioactive wastes were and are still being generated from defense programs. The projected worldwide quantitiesof radioactivewastes goneratedby nuclear power indicate that there will be a 5X annual increase in all forms of radioactivewaste over the next five years. LLW is producedby nuclear activitiesIn industry,medicine, research,nuclear power operatlons,and defense facilities.LLW may include items such as packaged gloves, rags, glass, small tools, paper, and filters which have been contaminated by radioactive material. Normally, prior to storage, LLW undergoes processing consisting of "volume reduction" and "conditioning." Volume reduction minimizes the requirement for burial land. Conditioning consists of a variety of methods to imbed the waste in a solid matrix (cement, bitumen, etc) in order to minimize interaction with the surroundings (soil, water) and the chance of release of radioactivity to the environment. The processed LLW is then packaged and transported to the disposal site. Shallow land burial is the preferredmethod of disposal. reactors
HLW arises from the reprocessing (and defense facilities) through
of spent fuel from nuclear which uranium and plutonium
power can be
-
Vili -
recovered for re-use. Volume reductionof the spent fuel, which is small anyway due to limited fuel requirementsof the nuclear power plants, is a secondary goal of reprocessing.These wastes contain transuranicelements and fission products that are highly radioactive,heat generatingand long-lived. In preparationfor long-termstorage or disposal the HLW is immobilizedinto a monolithicsolid form which is in turn stored in corrosion-resistant containers.The predominant immobilizationtechnique is solidificationin borosilicateglass, a process called vitrification.Surface storage of HLW is practiced today but disposal in a geologicrepository is being consideredby many countries.Reprocessingof spent fuel is currently pursued by a limited number of countries (France,UK, Soviet Union and to a limited extent Japan). In the U.S. the stored HLW comes almost exclusivelyfrom the defense programs since only limited reprocessingwas performed in the past. The unreprocessed spent fuel is also considereda form of HLW. Storage of spent fuel consists of short-termstorage at the spent fuel pool and interim storage either at reactor or away from reactor in speciallyconstructedvaults. As with the other forms of IMM,disposalof spent fuel in a geologic repository,after encasing it in corrosion-resistant containers,is being consideredby many countries. The existence of radioactivewastes, especiallyHLI, entails a risk to the environmentand human health. Radioectivewaste material could, under certain circumstancesand in sufficientlylo-: time scale, escape from its capsule and location, interactwith the surruiidingsoil and groundwaterand eventuallybe released to the biosphere.Risk assissmentshave been conducted for HLW disposal sites to estimate the ausociatedrisk from a variety of scenarios (severe earthquake,canisterfailure,water ingress, future accidetital drillingfor natural resources,etc), taking also into account the physical and chemicalpropertiesof the materials, surroundingsoils, etc. The risk assessmentmodels have been benchmarkedthrough testing and comparisons with real life events (e.g. the Oklo, Africa, phenomenonof a natural nuclear reactor)and a good deal of confidencein their validity has been gained. Naturally, the ability to predict accidents&ad physical sequenceshundreds of tholtsands of years in the future is open to question.However, by that time, the risk is insignificantdue to the decay of radioactivity.In summary, it is widely acceptedby the scientificand engineeringcommunitiesthtr the risk associatedwith the geologicrepositoryis acceptablylow when comparedwith the risk of other hazards. Another concern of HLW management is that of material accountability and safeguards. The concern arises from the existence of plutonium in spent fuel; separated from the fuel, plutonium could be the raw material for the constructionof nuclear explosives.A strict trackingsystem must exist to ensure that the RW material is safeguardedto discourageor prevent illicit uses either by governmentsor terroristgroups. The history of RW managementsuggeststhat political considerations may yet prove the most critical element in arriving at a widely acceptable solution. For example, in the U.S. there is a history of local government interferencewith the system'soperation,by forbiddingthe transportationof radioactivematerial through the boundary of their jurisdiction.Also,
-
ix
-
although the technical comounlty has reached broad agreement on the technical waste, ther.3 is much less agreement basis for the safe disposal of radioactive plans mainly because the about the development and implementation of disposal level: Witness the slow paea debate is conducted on an lntenwely politieLzed in establishing LLWregional compacts and the opposition of local governments to the HML repositoryin the U.S. Public supportis also a necessaryconditionfor the effective resolution of the radioactive waste managementproblem.Leery of the secrecy and perceivedgovernment mismanagement of the defensewaste in the past, the public expects that the debate on this issue ust take place in an atmosphere of facts. of openness, transparency and full disclosure Another concern is that of equity: Who enjoys the benefits and who bears the risks of nuclear technology is always a relevant and often on RV managementthis is known as the NI BY contentious question. Specifically (not in my back yard) syndrome. An additional issue of equity arises from the distribution of risk. Ethical questions have been raised inter-generational from the transfer of risks by the present generation which enjoys the benefits of using nuclear power to future generations which will have to live with a potentially dangerous legacy of RV. Developingcountriesface specialproblem in theireffortto waste m sa t program.Main concernsincludethe establisha radioactive regulatory framework for the long-term operation infrastructure and requlred as the cost associated with NMU repositories of LLWand HLI repositories; related to the size of the nuclear power program and therefore the need for special arrangemnts with the fuel supplier and possible regioanl solutions; findingan appropriate site in countries with high population density; and the safeguarding of the radioactive waste material. The IAEAhas established extensive programs to assist developing countries resolve these problems.
1.0 In the mid 1950s,nuclearpowerhas become Since its Introduction a substantialcomponentof electric generatingsystems In many developed countries.At the end of 1989,318,271MB of nuclear Lnstalled capacity produced the In several countries, about 1,855 TWh or 17X of total world generation. or reached has generation annual to total plants nuc'sar of contribution the xn inroads considerable made surpassed 301 11 .1/ Nuclear power has generationsystems of the developingworld; at the end of 1989 about 16 nuclear power programs, with a total net developing countries had substantial capacity of about i9,000MU in operation and about 26,000 NWunder installed in operation and listing of nuclear power reactors A detailed construction. 1]. 1 Annex f is given in under construction Although the developmentof nuclear power has been quite rapid (iydro,coal,oil, etc.' its compared to the development of othertechnologies costs and growing public escalating by growth has been stunted in many countries posed to the environment threats concerns created from the perception of serious These were reinforced by the March 1979 accident and public health and safety. at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 in the U.S. and by the severe accident at the Chernobyl plant of the Soviet Unlon ln April 1986. of nuclear power the viability One of th, main concerns affecting wastes (often called radwastes) is the handling and dlsposal of radioactive Owing to the energy. electrical produced in the process of generating its Cadioactiva some of of long life to the and wastes of these radioactivity and institutional technical including program, components, a sound waste disposal provisions, has become a necessity for the aortinued operatior. of existing plants and an important condition for the continued expansion of nuclear power as well. attention in the initial the requisite Although the subject did not attract pioneering onthusiasm which a stages of nuclear power development, during technology without due for the promotion of the new "promising prevailed mucb work has been to its wastes and their long-term effects, consideration performed in many countries in the last decade to address the complex technical problem of radioactive wastes. and institutional The management of these wastes is a complex and difficult sources and categories of wastes at task involving different interdlsciplinary andhazard, extended over long periods of time, different levels of radioactivity interim storag. and a number of technical methods of packaging, transportation, The technical questions are compounded by for terminal storage. alternatives which have often and socioeconomic considerations political, institutional, of the technical problem an urderstanding Nevertheless. proved intractable. France, 751; Belgium, 611; Hungary, 50X; Republic of Korea, 501; Sweden, 451; Switzorland,422; Spain, 381; Taiwan, China, 351; Finland, 35X; FederalRepublicof Germany,342; and Bulgaria, 331.
-2and solutions, the respectiverisksand theirdistribution, both regionally and effectsand ways for theirmitigation temporally, and the manifoldsocioeconomic processregardingboth the operationof are paramountto the decision-making existing and the planningof futurenuclearplants. This technical report represents an attempt to organize and present extant information on nuclear waste management in a comprehensive, albeit concise power sector way, as background material for Bank staff involved in electric reviews in countries with a nuclear power component. The approach taken was one of an objective exposd of the present status of the technology and of the major questions and socioeconomic impacts, without making assessments institutional or of the technologies or effectiveness or value judgmonts as to the viability Thus, the report is based on the premise that a clear programs discussed. of a description of statistics, of terminology, presentation explanation of present and future programs will raise the techniques, and a highlighting cognition level of Bank staff in the subject and will provide needed background for the formationof judgmentson power sector developmentand generation programs in specific countries. Section 2 of this report provides background material on radioactive an introduction to wastes in general, including its sources and classlfication, U.S. and world of present and projected radiation hazards, and quantities of low level wastes. Section 3 is devoted to the subject radioactive sources and information on their wastes (LLU) and includes (radioactive) methods of processing and volume reduction, production rates, the available and a review of LLW programs in various countries.V packaging and transportation A brief section is provided on cost estimates for the disposal of LU. It must low, their volume is be noted that although the hazards from LW are relatively hospitals, industrial laboratories, and their sources are varied: substantial etc., in addition to nuclear power plants that may exist in the installations, Therefore, a method and system for their appropriate and safe country. packaging, transportation, storage or disposal is needed even in the proessing, absonen of nuclear power plants. and more intractas,le problem Section 4 focuses on the more dlfficult wastes (HLI)with similar information as that ia of high-level (radioactive) Section 3 but with emphasis on the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel which is projected to be the dominant form of nuclear waste from power generation in the future. The alternative of processing spent fuel, retrieving the remaining useful fuel material and incorporating the wastes in a glass matrix or other solid form is also discussed. A review of country programs in both Lii and HLI is also given. The main issues in nuclear waste managemnt, including technical but focusing on Lnstitutional and socLopolLtical lssues which have proven harder to address than technical problems, are discussed in Section 5. Rather than 2/
Often, a separata. category of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW)ls defined. Usually it is subsumed by the UL category.
- 3 analyzingthem in depth or indicatingsolutions,this Section attempts to highlightthe most prominentamong them, and to point out their importancein the overallsolutionto the waste managementproblem. Flnally,Section6 is devoted to special problems encountered presently or to be faced in the future in developing countries.
.4
2.0 2.1
DEFINTIOtgNOF0
Sources of Radloactive Radioactive
or R
A&AC WASF
Basre of sources.
The main
and industrial
and medical
uses
for electric
pover generstion;
wastes are produced from a variety
sources are: facilities;
(a)
nuclear weapons production
(b)
laboratory radiation;
facilities
(c)
the nuclear
fuel cycle,
(d)
the decommissioning of nuclear
of
and
facilities.
This report addresses the production, treatment and disposal of the wastes with special emphasis on radioactive wastes generated in the comercial nuclear fuel cycle. The commercial nuclear fuel cycle is defined as the succession of activities related to the production of electric power from nuclear fuel starting with the mining of uranium and including the production of nuclear fuel, its in the reactor, and the handling of the produced (or induced) utilization radioactive wastes. Syr" and in the nlsar_il fel as *radioactiveo owing to the radioactivity that is present in them. The various stages of the co=_ercial nuclear fuel cycle that generate radioactive wastes are as follows: The wastes
generated
danm.iasi.tLng are characterized
(a)
NIntnu of uranium ore. Uranium Is a naturally occurring radioactive material, producing, through decay, a chain of radioactive elements, including radloactive radon gas. Mining dust and release to the air operations generate radioactive radon gas, a lung cancer hazard mainly to uranium miners. Approximately 20,000metrictons of uranium ore are mined daily in the United States (mostly Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming), and three to four tims this amount outside the U.S..
(b)
Milligg
(c)
ConversIon arK enrichment. The uranium of the yellowcake contains 0.7X U-235, the isotope used for fissioning in thenmal
of uranLu= orS. The uranium ore is ground and chemically concentrated Into uranium oxide (UA), a substance called 'uranium yellowcbke'. Assuming that typically 0.2X of the ore becomes yelloweake (the amount depends on the quality which of the ore). 99.82 of the ore becomes mill tailings consist of both radioactive and non-radioactive solid residues and the *ssociated liquids remaining after uranium extraction fro&s the o:e.
reactors(fissilematerial),with the remainingbeingmostly which U-238whichis not fLssile. Sincelightwaterreactors, constitutethe large majority of reactors currentlyin aroundtheworld,need uraniumenrichedto about3-4X operation in U-235, an enrichmentstage must follow. This is accomplishedby first convertingthe yellowcakeinto gas (uraniumhexafluoride)and then by submittingit to an enrichmentprocess(the gaseousdiffusion"or "centrifuge' In the first method, the gas enrichment methods are used). is forced through a porous ceramic medium which allows the lighter U-235 to pass through it more easily than slightly U-238. Repeated thousands of times, thisprocessgradually the U-235 to 3-4X. Low-levelwaste (enriches) concentrates is generated in thisprocess. (d)
The enriched gas is cownerted into Nuclear fuel Jfabricatio. solidpelletsof uraniumdioxide(UO,)having the size of a These finger tip (about 1 cm in diameter by 1.5 cm in length). the fuel pellets are loaded into long tubes which constitute fuel rods are Bunches of the resulting fuel cladding. bracketed and hold together by rigid square grids thus forming These assemblies (each weighing up to the fuel assemblies. one metric
ton)
fuel fabrication (e)
are loaded
into
the reactor
produces low-level
Nuclear fuel in the reactor. radioactive waste is generated
vessel.
radioactive
Nuclear
waste.
When the reactor operates, via the following processes:
Mi)
"fission into about thirty different U-235 fissions At the most of which are radioactive. fragments, and gama rays, beta particles, moment of fission, neutrons are also generated.
(iL)
absorbs neutrons to form U-238 which is not fissioned, many of which are heavier elements called transuranic, The generated plutonium. including radioactive plutonium itself fissions into fission fragments, most of which are radioactive.
(ili)
The neutrons produced in the fission process can be such as iron and material absorbed by structural cobalt, producing radioactive elements. This is called and constitutes waste that must "induced radioactivity" be properly handled at plant decommissioning [21.
Each year, about one-third of the fuel rods are considered "spent", Overall, are removed from the reactor core and become waste. the fuel in waste radioactive significant most reactors produce the cycle.
(f)
RBaRoeesiingof sgent fuel. It i8 possible to recover U-235 and plutonium for making now fuel rods. non-fissioned of high-level quantities This process results in substantial of spent fuel is waste. Presentlyin the U.S. reprocessing performed only ln themilitaryprograms.A ban on _eprocessing by was instituted of spent fuel from commercial reactors by Although the ban was lifted President Ford in 1975. President Carter in 1981, no such activity has been undertaken commerciallyin the U.S.A to this date becauseof lack of of spentfuel is currently economicincentives.Reprocessing performed in France, the United Kingdom (UK), and the USSR.
Decontamination of various areas of nuclear power plants to lower waste. levels in them also generates low level radioactive the radioactivity waste generated during power plant This is considered as part of radioactive waste from the militarynuclearfuel cycle originates operation.Radioactive fromthreedifferenttypesof reactors:(i) plutoniumproduction reactors;(ii) Finally, reactors. and submarine) reactors; and (iii)naval(surface experimental (TRU) or some laboratoryrefuse is contaminated with traces of transuranic Most TRU alpha-bearing elements such as plutonium, neptunium, americium, etc. per unit volume but are generated in large wastes have fairly low radioactivity The sources of fuel cycle has long half-lives. and the radiation quantities wastes by country are given in &UD3L2 131. 2.2
RadiationHkards
they emit Nuclear wastes are hazardous becaure they are radioactive; or pure enerw/ radiation in the form of gamma either alpha or beta particles theycan cause or rays are energetic, rays. Because these radioactive particles The biological damage is damage to cells by breaking up molecular bonds. as either somatic (in which the non-genetic materialof the cell is classified or genetic (in which damage to the genetic material of the cell can affected), genes). Eventually,and if the be transmitted to progeny through defective damage is large enough, organs or the entire living organism may be affected. The nature and severity of the damage depend on what cells are struck, on the (exposure) that strikes the body or specific organs or amount of radiation of the struck cell. Therefore, the basic tissues, and on the sensitivity requirement of a nuclear waste management program is to prevent this potential damage to living organisms by isolating the radioactive wastes to limit or prevent their release into the environment until they have decayed to low levels The to human health. forms that pose little or no threat or stable quantification of risk from radioactive substances and specifically from radioactive wastes is a large subject and is beyond the scope of this study (see bibliography for further reading).
2.3
Wastes of Radioactive Classification
and level of Dependingon their origin, type of radioactivity, activity per unit mass or volume, the various radioactivewastes can be in the followingcategories: classified (a)
uraniummill tailLngs;
(b)
spent fuel; this is nuclear fuel that has been used up through it is a form of high level waste. fission in the reactor.
(c)
high-level waste (MM); This is radioactive waste which arises from the reprocessing of spent fuel from nuclear power reactors through which uranium and plutonium (and defense facilities) can be recovered for re-use. These wastes contain transuranic elements, and fission products that are highly radioactive, heat generating and long-lived;
(d)
transuranic waste, produced primarily in reprocessing of spent of fuel and from the use of plutonium in the fabrication nuclear weapons; it includes waste that is contaminated with nuclides to make disposal alpha-emitting enough long-lived, at a sballow land burial site unacceptable;
(e)
wastes not low-level waste (LN)n, ineludLag all radioactive This waste is produced by included in the above categories. in industry, medicine, research, nuclear nuclear activities Such waste may and defense facilities. power operations, include items such as packaged gloves, rags, glass, small which have been contaminated by tools, paper, and filters radioactive material.
(f)
naturally material;
(g)
mixed waste; thls is defined chemical compounds.
occurring
and
accelerator-produced as LLU which contains
radioactive hazardous
prevails ln the U.S., similar classifications Although the above classification in other countries with established nuclear programs. The have been instituted term "Intermediate or MediumLAvol Vastew (MLR) ls still being used occasionally a category of wastes that requires shielding but do not generate to characterize of radioactive waste is one based on their physical heat. Another classification form. Thus, radioactive wast can come in solid, liquid, and gaseous forms. 2.4
Raactive
Waste In the UnitedJtat _of
of radioactive waste, A summaryof the 1987and projected quantities and military programs in the United including spent fuel, for both comercial States is given in Table 2.1.
- 8 -
Table Li US ACoul
agd Prolecged Radioactie
Cumulative yglume Wastes A/
of
End of Calendar Year Source and Tvpe
A. DefenseProgram - Liquid,in InterimStorage,1000a' - Glassified, 1000uP - Transuranic, Buried,1000a' - Transuranic, Stored, 1000a' - Low Level Wastes,1000a? B.
Commercial - Unreprocessed SpentFuels U. Tons k/ S/ 4/ - Low Level Wastes, 1000 UP - Future Decommissioning, 1000 a' * Kill Tailings 4/, 1000 UP
1987
2000
2020
380 0 190 60 2,380
330 2 190 100 4,340
340 4 190 N/A 6,780
15,900 1,260 0 116,200
40,400 1,980 0 124,100
77,400 3,000 750 N/A
4/
Source: ORNLt4]. Historically, spent fuel has been measured in units of metric tons of heavy metal. The actual weight of the spent fuel could be about 162 higher than the figure in the table. Based on the assumption that there will be no new orders of comercial nuclear reactors in the U.S.. Assuming no reprocessing.
N/A:
Not Available.
j/
b/ S/
The defensewastesare mentioned here for completeness but shouldnot in any way, be confusedwith thoseof the power sectorindustry. The commercialwastes are differentin nature and radioactivity levelsfromtho defensewastes. Presently, liquidwastesaremostlyfromdefense programsand have relativelylow radioacti-Aty levels,while the commercial wastes are dominated by the spent fuel lnventory which is expected to grow dramatically (almost by a factor of five) in the next 30 years. It is also lnteresting to note that the defense program in the U.S. dominates the lowlevel waste inventory. 2.5
EstLmates
of
oldg Radioactive
Wess$s
At the end of 1987,the cumulativeamountof high-level radioactive waste, including spent fuel, was about 14,300 a' in the OECDcountriesand about 3,600 a' in the developing countries. The intermediate. and low-level cumulative wastevolumeswere 271,000a' and 54,200 aP respectively, as can be seenin Table
. 92.2. The high-level wastes shown in the table do not includewastefrommilitary production programs and represent mostly vaste In the fom of spent fuel, stored In cooling water pools at reactor sites. Considering the generating capacity from which this volume of wastes wa produced, the total volume is a small fraction of wastes generated at coal-burning generating stations. The hazard from this volume must, of course, be assessed in terms of its contained radio-ctivity and the chances of Its release to the environment rather than on the basis of volume alone. It must also be observed that developing countries contributed About 201 of total HLW and 17X of total LLW in 1987. These contributions are expectedto rlse to 32.32 and 32.11 respectively in 1995, reflecting a growing share of nuclear generation In developing countries compared to the countries of OECD. Estimates of total spent fuel and waste arisings from country nuclear power programs are given in Amex 3 (11. Table2. WorldActualand krojected Annual Volume of Radiactive Wastes M/
(thousand cubicmeters) OECDCountries 1987 1995 Spent Fuel i High-Level, Other than Spent Fuel Intermediate and Low-Level
/ /
DevelopingCo_Wries 1987 1995
12.0
14.5
3.0
7.0
15.0
21.5
2.3
2.9
0.6
1.3
2.9
4.2
271.0
327.0
54.2
154.3
325.2
481.3
As of the end of the Calendar Year. To convert cubic moters to metric tons, multiply
Source:
Total 1987 1995
by 2.17.
lANA [51.
The quoted figures include radwaste generated from commercial plant decommissioning. These wastes are primarily LLU, since almost 99X of the radioactivity in a reactor at shutdown is contained in the spent fuel elements which are removed from the reactor vessel at decomuissioning and do not constitute part of the decommission wastes, The decommissioning of nuclear facilities was covered in a companion reportof the Working Group on Nuclear Power Issues(21.
-
3.0
3A1
Sources and Production
10
*
R
IiCI/
WLOVLKL ASTE
Rates og tIM
Low and interediate level wastes produced in U.S. and In the world were presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. Althoughthe wastes produced in military production programs are not included in the scope of this study, they were included in the tables to indicate that their existing and projected volumes are more than doublethe volume of the commercial LLWin the U.S. In 1987, the total annual amount of LLWproduced in the world was about 325,200 m? of which about 54,200 a?, (16.6X), was generatedin developing countries. Of the total amount produced, about one half was produced in power generating stations and one half in non-powerfacilities.Presently, developingcountriesare primarily concerned withnuclearwastesproducedat medicalcenters,researchinstitutions, field laboratories, industrialfacilities,mining operationsand research reactors. As of the end of 1987 there were 59 research reactors operating in 40 developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Mediterranean region and another 25 were being built or planned, according to IAEA'sResearch Reactor Database. Part of the low level wastes are the "tailLgs or residues from mining and milling uranium ore. Several developing countries - CentralAfrican Republic,Gabon, India, Zambia, and Niger, have uraniummining and milling operations, a process that produces large amounts of mill taillngs, a waste that contains only small concentrations of natural radionuclides. The tailings are usually sent to an artificial pond near the mill, which, when full, is closed off to forma repository. There are two sourcesof LLU from power reactors: (i) wastes produced in norml operationduringthe lifeof the plant (fluidsfromvarious decontamination processes, contaminated clothing, gloves, and rags, demineralizer resins, etc.) and (li) wastes produced from plant decommissioning at the end of the plant's useful life. The amounts of waste vary within broad ranges, depending on the type of reactor, operational procedures and practices and methods of LL treatment and volume reduction, which vary from country to country,utilityto utilityand reactorto reactor. Table 3.1 givesestimated rangesof volumesof low- and intermediate-level wastesproducedfrom reactor operation and decommissionLig in four countrieswith substantialnuclear programs.
-
11
-
Table 3.1
Estimatesof Low ad Intermediate LsvelWasteVolumes from Reactor OperatLons (thousand cubic
and Decommissioning meters) A/ Decommissioning
25-YearOperation Canada,4 x 515 MW, PHWR FRG 800 MW, BiR
6.9-27.5 6.0-20.0
Wastes 10.0 12.4 6.9
Total 16.9-37.5 18.4-32.4
1,200 MW, PUR
6.1-11.0
Sweden
1,000KW, BWR 900 MW,PWR
7.5 6.3
US
1,000 MW, BWR
40.0
16.3
56.3
1,000NW, PWR
21.7
15.2
36.9
15.0 7.0
13.0-17.9
22.5 13.3
Source: NEA [6]. A/ 1 cubicmeter- 35.31cu.ft. The tableindicates that,evenwithinthe samecountryand for the sametypeof reactor theremay exista wide uncertainty (up to more thana factorof three) as to the totalwastesto be generatedfrom lifetimeoperationof a reactor; second,LLW from the operationof a PWR are generallylower than thosefrom a BWR of comparablesize; and third,decommissioning wastes are comparablein volume to the wastes from lifetimeoperation. Differencesalso exist from country to country than double that
(the total LLW volume from a 1,000-MW PiR in the U.S. is more of the high range of a 1,200-MW PWR in FRG), indicating
differences in reactoroperationand LLW practiceand management. 3.2
ProcessiTg
of LLW
The processingof LLW consistsof reductionand conditioning.The reductionof low levelwastehas the advantageof reducingthe requirements for burialland. (Shallowlandburialhas been the preferreddisposalmethodsince the early 1940s). The conditioning of LLW providesthe necessarysolid-waste matrix to preventearly releaseof radionuclides to the environment when the resultingsolidifiedwaste productsare disposedof in engineeredstorage facilities.
-
12 -
Two approaches are currently beLng pursued to reduce the amount of LLVthat has to be disposed of. T.hesare source reductiSn and volume rgdsg r. Source reduction, i.e.,the reduction of the amount of waste that is currently generated, is accomplished through the following techniques: (a)
replacement of disposable types;
(b)
segregation, waste;
(c)
reduction
(d)
facillty clothing
protective
at the plant, of leaks
of clean
(and therefore
clothing
with launderable
waste
from radioactive
radwaste);
decontamination that reduces and equipment, etc.
and
the need for protective
Volusm reduction, i.e., the reduction of the quantity of waste after it is generated, is implemented through means which vary depending on the physical form of the waste. Evaporation, ion exchagpe and chemical precipitation are used for liquid wastes. Reduction factors between 10 and 100 can be achLeved. Compaction (reduction factors between S 4uad10) and incineration (redt'ction factors of 20 or higher) are used in the treatment of solid wastes. Regarding condltioning or imobilization of Lu', the well-established technology of cementation has been used for manyyears but other immobilization matrices, such as bitumen and polymers are beLaggiven an active consideration. Country practlces used for summarized in Amux 4 (21.
3.3
treating
SIM and ZrAnorration
low-
and
intermediate-level
wastes
are
of
A safe and relLable system for transporting nuclear wastes is cruclal to any nuclear waste management program. In the U.S. both the Departmnt of Transportation (DOT) (through regulations 49CFR 100-178) and the Nuclear Regulatory CoiaiasLon (NRC) (through regulations 10CFR71)are responsible for regulating the transportation of radLoactive waste. The maLn issues assoclated with the transportation of nuclear wastes are the packaging and routing of the wastes. The packaging e4sign for transportation primary insurane against the relese of radioactlve DOTand NRCregulations are based on: (a)
the degree shlpped;
(b)
the quantity
(C)
the form of the radloactive
of hazard
of nuclear wastes is the contents during shipment.
posed by specific
of radionuclides;
and material.
radionuclides
to be
* 13 In the U.S.A, the route of a radioactive material shipment depends on the type of material in the shipment, Its size, the distance lt mat travel. and federal, state, and local regulations. Siilar considerations exist In other developed and developing countries. It should be noted that LU packaging, transportation, and disposal exist with no major nuclear facilltles since these medical centers. Industrial installations institutions. An adquate plan to address sound way mst exst even In the absence of 3.4
and their associated problems in in a large number of countries even wastes can be produced in hospitals, and educational and research the prot le in an environmentally a nuclear power program.
Stor ggof lUmJLXbU.S.
During the period 1945-1970, LLW in the U.S. was either buried in shallow land or packaged In steel drums and dumped in the sea. Approximately 47,000 55-gallon drums (12.800 cubic yards W) of zonmercial and government LLW have been dumped in the Pacific Ocean off the San Francisco Bay, while 28,000 drums (7.625 cubic yards) have been dumped off the coasts of Massachusetts and Delaware (7]. Since there has beon a general recognitlon that this was a poor method of disposing of the wastes, ocean dumping was abandoned in 1970; and since
that
radioactive
earth
in
structural
tim
only
shallw-land
Sallow-land waste in
trenches,
burial or witind
holes
integrity
and
or
burial is the
other
a barrier
has
been
defined as upper thirty
excavations to
the
allowed. the emplacement of low-level msters of the surface of the
ln which
migration
of
wate away from such excavatio. Slx sites were originally U.S. for the shallow land burial of commercial LLW. Their and annual disposal is given In Table 3.2.
t/
To convert
cubic
yards
to cubic meters multiply
only
low-lvel.
soil
provides
radioactive
established In the inventory as of 1982
by 0.765.
* 14
-
Table3_2 U.S. Comercial Lo Diaepeal Sites (cubic meters)
DisposalSite Barnwell,S.C. Beatty,Nevada Richland,Washington Sheffield, Illinois Maxey Flats,KY West Valley,NY
Cumulative/ 1982
198S
390,022 94,122 141,986 88,311 134,952 66,52D.
34,389 1,389 40,131 0 0 O
and Volumesl
a/
Annual
TOTAL
1986
1987
29,594 2,666 18,821 0 0 .0 O
52,220 9,407 15,712 0 0 . O
$5
7J.339
l5,909
ml Source: NuclearNews, 1988 f8). h/ Source:
American Institute
of Professional Geologists(7].
Of the above six sites, only the first three are currently in operation. Reasons for closing down the last three include: earth erosion; subsidence of trench covers; and degradation of waste packaging. The sites that are currently in operation have not experienced any significant problems during the period of their operation of up to 25 years. (The licensing requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste in the U.S. is governed by Part 10 of the code of Federal Regulations, Article 61.) The U.S. 1985 Low-Level Waste PollcyAmendments Act established requirewments for dlsposal sites and deadlines for implementation. State reactions to the Act have been diverse. Some states have chosen to deal with the problem indpendently, some have not indicated their intentions while other states have formed organized regional compacts, in which concerted action would provide the best balance of costs and benefits for the p .rticipating states. The politlcalstructurein the U.S. favors a diverse approachto regionalproblems.Thismodel could serve as a paradigm for developing countries with a federal system such as India and Brsuil. It could also offer a model for regional arrangements among small states which would prefer to address the problem in a regional pattern. The states of the U.S. can be classified as follows with respect to LLWdisposal: (a)
states
forming copacts
(b)
states
actively
and the host states
developing
or intending
of disposal
sites;
to develop sites;
-
15 apparently
states
to develop their
planning
(c)
unaffiliated sites;
(4)
presentlylicenseddisposalsites;and
(e)
regions expected
to Include candidate
own
sites.
The problems experienced with LLWdisposal stemmed mainly from the past dumping of wastes in the ocean and the reluctance of states to accept wastes packaging, and when poor labeling, from out-of state sources. particularly However, because of the pressing nature monitoring practices were exhibited. considerable of the problem, and with the advancement of the technology, progress has been made by individual states or by groups of states towards its resolution.
Developing
countries
with or without
nuclear
power but using sources
Technical solutions willhaveto solvethisproblemsatisfactorily. of radiation site, such as choosing a burial difficulties exist but the institutional obtaining public for monitoring and safeguarding, determining responsibilLty of governments to find and and the like may hamper the ability acceptance, implement solutions in a timely fashion. There LUS is also generated from defense and government research. are approximately 14 burial sites of defense LUL in the U.S. run by the USDOE. This As of 1987, 2,380,000 cubic metors of LLU were buried at these sites. LLU (Table 2.1). volume is twice the volume of buried comercial 3.5
OVervivw of Coitr,
Lii
Prorsam_
waste was In the early years of nuclear technology, radioactive such as Lssue while the other fuel cycle activities, considered a peripheral in were given a high priority conversion and enrichment, uranium extraction, research and development. Low and intermediate level wast was usually disposed of in shallow land burial grounds with i_ttle treatment or conditioning of the waste
while
some countries
disposed
of
it
In
the
sea.
Radiological
and
concerns in the esrly 1970* led many countries to pursu R&Dand environmntal develop national program in radwaste management. Amex. 4 [121 summarizes the of low-level and in the treatment and conditioning country activities waste. This Annex also summarizes the country practices used intermediate-level for disposal of LLi and ILW. The Annex shows that ocean dumping has been abandonedand that the most widely used methods today aro surface storage and Disposal in geologicalrepositoriesmay have long-ter shallow burial. advantages and ls beingpracticedby severalcountries. We providehere a few highlightsof a few successfullow- and have designed and programs. SedmnA'spower authorities lntermediate-wasto m central LW and IL repository at the Foremark nuclear power constructed plant to accon>date all wastes from Sweden's 12 nuclearstations. Sweden's final repository for reactor wastes (SFR) includes surface facilities and It took 430,000 meof excavation to provide storage for 60,000 UP of waste. about three years to construct and it cost SKr 740 million (US$125 million). Additional space for 30,000 m3 of storage way be undertaken around the year 2000. It has been estimated that the second construction stage, 25 years of operation,
- 16
-
and final sealing of the repositorycould cost an additional SKr 660 million (1987 US$112 million). Safety assessments,performed on the basis of a fully expanded repository containing a total of 101 Bequsrel of radioactivity, estimated that the maximum doses that might arise after 500-1000 years for individuals in a critical group would be well below limits set by the InternationalComaissionon RadiologicalProtection (ICRP).- The repository, built at 60 m below sea level, consists of four horizontal rock caverns 160 m long and 14-18 m wide and of a very large concrete silo, 50 a deep and 25 m in diameter, built inside a rock chamber. Remote facilities are provided for unloading waste packages from transport containers, transporting them above the silo and placing them in vertical shafts. Finld has begun, in 1988, the construction of two LLW/ILW repositories,one at each of its two power stations. At the TVO site, with two 700-MWeboiling water reactors,a repositoryis planned in granitebedrock,with two vertical silos similar to the Swedish SPR design. At Loviisa, where the state-ownedIVO utility operates two 440-We Soviet-designedpressurizedwater reactors, a second repository is planned, in granite bedrock but with two horizontal chambers again similar to those at SFR. The constructionof two repositoriesfor two power stationsmay seem economicallyunjustified. However, Finnish authoritiesmaintain that the cost of the repositories(US$20 million and USS15 million respectivelyin 1988 US$) is reasonablefor a scheme that has received general public acceptance. The a and France have operated shallow land burial facilitiesfor many years at Drigg and La Manche respectively. These facilities,located near these countries' reprocessing sites, take advantage of an existing layer of impermeableclay, underlyingthe disposal trenches. At La Manche, packages of short-lived, intermediate-levelwaste are incorporated in concrete-walled monoliths in the trenches;containersof low-levelwaste are stacked on top of the monolithsand coveredwith a thick laycr of clay forminglarge tumuli rising slightly above the original ground level. At the Drigg site,past practicewas to disposeof the low-levelwaste directlyonto the clay trencheswhich were then backfilledand capped with clay. The policy, however, has been changed and in the future, concrete-linedvaults will be used which will eventuallybe covered with clay in an arrangementsimilar to the French tumuli. French auth.ities selected a site in the southeast of Paris, for a second LLW/ILW repository. Licensing authoritiesissued a constructionpermit in 1987 and excavationwork started at the site in early 1988. This repository,with a capacity of about 1 million in, is larger than the first and is s:cheduled to receivepackagedwaste by late 1990 or early 1991. Shallowland burial is also being consideredby Belgium,Japan, USSR, Czechoslovakiaand Spain among the developedcountries and by Brazil and China among the developingcountries.
i/
fMaximumdoses were estimatedat 0.002 mSv/yr during the "seawaterperiod" and 0.08 mSv/yr during the *inland period" as compared with 1 mSv/yr recommended as a limit by the ICRP.
-
17 -
Deep geological disposal for LLW/ILWis also beLng considered. First, it offers (i) better prospects for gaining public acceptance and (it) the possibility of single repositories for both short- and long-lived intermediate level waste as well as low-level wastes. The UK is considering a deep disposal facility to supplement the Drigg facility, by the end of the 1990s. The most advanced deep disposal project is the one plannd at the former iron mIne at Konrad in the EIG. The mine, consisting of a series of galleries at a depth of 1000 to 1200 m has a thick overburden of clay and Is very dry; it is planned for an eventual capacity of about 0.5 million m' of waste, and is expected to be ready for operation in the early part of the 1990s. The FRG has conducted a great deal of pioneering work on deep geologic disposal of waste at the Asse salt mine located in one of the many large underground salt domes that are found ln abundance in the geology of central Europe. The work at the Asse mine is considered experimental and its results are to be used for the establishment of a future planned waste repository at the much larger salt dome of Gorieben which is being considered a site for all types of radioactive wste. The experience (technical, economic and institutional), gained in developed countries in the design, construction, and operation of low and intermediate level waste repositories could be very valuable in establishing similar programs in developing countries. The IAEAhas played an important role in training and technology transfer programs in the past and could continue to fill a vital role in this respect in the future. 3.6
Cgst
tims
of Alternativ
DLWbgoalMethods in the US.
The cost of disposing of LUS is a component of the electricity unit cost (Q/kVh). To obtain this figure the cost of constructing and operating a LW faeility must be obtained. Estimated costs are summarized ln Table 3.3. The projected costs, based on experience and projections for the planned state compacts in the U.S., indicated that the costs vary depending on the technology used. the least expensive is shallow land disposal with an estimated construction cost of US$21 million and a unit disposal cost of US$39/fe, while the earth-mounded concrete bunker, is the most expensive. Using an anrual volume of 252 ii (8,900 fte) of LW and ILWfor a 900-MU PURin Sweden (see Table 3.1). the total annual cost for shallow land disposal is estimated at about US$350,000.
1s -
Costs
Method
of Altaattn
LiW DiSnosal
Prooperating
Cost
(US$ million)
Shallow Land Disposal Intermediate Depth Disposal Below Ground Vault AboveGround Vault Modular Concrete Canister Disposal Earth Mounded Concrete Bunker
21 21 24 27 29 35
Methods A/
Life Cycle
Noinal
Cost .Coat
(US milllon)
196 201 294 395 300 434
Disposal
(US$/ft)
39 41 56 65 57 76
Source. NuclearNews,August 1988 (9). &/ In 1986US$, iLcludinginterestduringconstruction, based on a volumeof 235,000ft'/yrfor 30 yearsof operation.
* 19 ^
4.0
HIGHLEVELRADIGACTVEWASTE (HLUf
This sectionaddressesall formsof HLW includingspent fuel,HLI generatedby reprocessing of spent fuel, as well as Transuranic(TRU)waste generated from defense and commercialapplications. 4.1
Sources and Production
Rates of HLE
Table 2.1 presented existing and projected HLM in the U.S. and Table 2.2 in the world. The dominantform of high levelwaste is at present spent fuel from lightwaterreactors, since the chemicalreprocessing of spent fuel is performed onlyin a limited numberof countries(France, UK, Soviet Union and to a limited extent, Japan). Spent fuel generation rate for a 1,000 RWe plantis about25 at per year for a PIR and 40 at per year for a BWR, or a weighted average of about 30 at per year per 1,000-NUeplant(Table3.1). With a worldnuclearcapacity(at the end of 1989)of about 318,271EWe (1),the annualspentfuelproductionis about 9,500mt. At the end of 1987 the totalspent fuelworldwide was about 32,000mt (Table2.2). With only a few more plants scheduledto came on-line and lLsited new orders, total world wide spent fuel is expected to grow at slightly higher annual rates,about 10,000 at per year. An= 3, vhich has already been mentioned in the LLWSection, presents estimates of total spent fuel wastes
4.2
from country
StorA
nuclear
power programs.
of HEXfrom RL=rocessin
of Snent FueL
In the U.S., HLW from reprocessing of spent fuel is stored at four sites as liquid, salt cake, and sludge, in near-surface tanks or as cal,dnated solids in underground bins. Table 4.1 shows the stored inventories of HLl at the four designated sites. Whereas the first three storage sites contain HLl from defense programs, the last one (West Valley) contains HLW from commercial fuel reprocessing in the period 1966-72 when this treatmnt was thought to be the prime method of handling fuel from commercial power reactors. The data in Table 4.1 are as of end-1982 for defense and 1980 for commercial sites, but littlehas changed since that time in the commercial category since the activity in this area has boon limited.
-
20 -
Tabl.
4.1
High Lvl1 Wast. Storagein the Ul. A/ Inventory(a')
Site
182,740 11,470 114,690 2,290
Washington HanfordReservation, IdahoNat. Eng. Lab., Idaho SavannahRiver Plant,S. C. West Valley,New York A/
Source: AIPG [7].
4.3 4.3.1
SnoentuEMlSt rAge I teSn hot-term Stor1e 1
Fuel Pool
Spent fuel is removedfrom the reoator core during refuelling. usuallYtakingplace once a year or every 18 months. Thlsspentfuel is stored for thispurpose at designedand constructed poolsspecifically in water-filled the reactor sites. Originally,the purpose of these pools was to provide temporary storage of spent fuel for a period of time until its radiation decreased below a certain level at which time the spent fuel would be shipped to anothersite for processing.Slnceno such processing is currentlytaking placein most countries,spentfuelpoolsar used for the interim"storageof spentfuel,as will be furtherexplainedbelow. 4.3.2
Itrim
Storag2
(un f& the nlamt lifel
In the U.S., according to the Nuclear wasteManagement Policy Act, to teae the spent fuel as amended, the Federal Government has the reponsibility Howaver, with the technical and legal fee per unit weight. at a certain the U.S Government is encountering, the date of acceptance of spent difficulties set for 1998 has now been delayed beyond the year 2000 and the fuel originally Having to rely on have had to reevaluate their spent fuel strategy. utilities have the U.S. nuclear utilities resources, or collective their own individual for the lnterim storage of the ever resorted to the following alternatives of spent fuel: increasing quantities (a)
Iuel Pool At Reaetor (Anl~. The Storanein the Snant Interim most widely used technique is the "reracking" of the spent fuel pool to allow a denser arrangement of the fuel assemblies in An their holding capaclty. the pools and to increae method is the consolidation of th spent fuel rods. alternative in the demonstration stage, This technique which is still involves the removal of the fuel rods from fuel assembly
- 21 -
hardware and their placement in either another grid with closer spacing or in a close-packed array in a canister without a spacer grid. The experience to date indicates that consolidation to half the original fuel volume is feasLble. This technique would allow the storage of about twice the amount of fuel in the same fuel cooling pool as originally envisaged. (b)
Interim Storage Awy from Reac AlFt This solution envisions regional, central storage facilities ln which fuel from a number of reactors would be accommodated. One technical solution in this mode would be 'dry-cask storage", according to which the spent fuel assembly is placed in a metal dry cask and stored in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). This approach is currently being pursued in the U.S. Anothersolutionto the spentfuel interiastorageproblemis the "dry-vault storage".This is similarin principleto the 'dry-cask storage" but the dry vault incorporates a concrete module.
Spentfuelmanagement differsfromcountryto country.As mentioned already, France and the UK take spent fuel to reprocessing facilities afterthe initial cooling .)eriod. Several countries, including the FRG,Japan, Italy and Spain, etc., have contracted with the French for the reprocessing of their fuel (they must take back, however, the produced plutonium and Classified high-level wastes). The Soviet Union has agreed to take back all the fuel it provides for use in Eastern European countries with Soviet-design reactors. While this arrangement solvesthe problemof spent fuels for these countries,the Soviet Union is burdened with the storage,processingand ultimate disposal of the waste. Details of Soviet policy on spent fueland reprocessing are not available as theyprobably are overlapping with defense programs. 4.3.3
ed
StraXAL (byond
slant
1ife
As the dateof the U.S.Government readinessto takespentfuelfrom U.S. utilitiesrecedes into the future, the specter of the inabilityto accommodate the amountof dischargedfuel fromreactorshauntsutilityplanners. To allevlate this problem, a Monitored Retrievable Storage (HRS) facilLty has been proposed and authorized in the U.S. for storing HLW, mostly spent fuel, until a repository for their permanent disposal is sited and constructed. Further discussion on the development and states of thls concept is given in Section 4.7.2. 4.4
Fuel Renrocessing
and Its
Effect
on Waste Management
The purpose of fuel reprocessing is to recover, for further use as fuel, the unfissioned uranium and plutonium imbedded In spenc fuel. After the extraction of the useful elements, the waste is imbedded in a glass matrix (glassification). Reprocessing has not been commercialized in the U.S. although the ban on reprocessing was lifted in 1981. Reprocessing is currently pursued in France, the UK, the USSR, and to some limited degree, Japan. France in
* 22 particular has been successfully pursuing reprocessing and selling its services to countries with nuclear programs but without reprocessing facilities sueh as Japan and FRO. From a waste management point of view, reprocessing has advantages and disadvantages.Someof the advantages of reprocessing for waste management are: (i) the removal of the remaining plutonium and uranium produces a less hazardouswaste product;(ii)since the HLU is glassified, betterand saferdisposaltechnologies are applicable; and (iii)smallervolumesof HLI are produced. Some of the disadvantages of reprocessing for waste management are: (i) generationof additional. radioactive waste streams;and (ii)introduction of new operational risks. The cost of fuel reprocessingis quite high. Even with credit allowedfor uraniumand plutoniumrecoveredfromthe spent fuel, the economics of reprocessing are not favorableunless the nuclearprogram is large, the extractedplutoniumcan be used in breederreactors,and the uraniummarket favors the seller. For these reasonscommercialreprocessing is not being pursuedin the U.S. Proposalsto establishprogramsfor the reprocessing of spentnuclearfuelin developing countries mustraiseseriousquestions regarding, efficiency and economy(seealso Section6.2.2). Another serious concern about reprocessing is the separation of plutonium from the wastes, and the attendant risks of diversion of the separated material for the manufacture of explosive devices. Although the quality of the separated plutonium from reactor fuel is quite low (owing to the presence of higher isotopes that make it Odirty and quite unusable), the strong concern for the proliferation of nuclearexplosiveshave effectively stopped all prospects for the installation of reprocessing units in countries that do not now possess themwith the only possibleexceptionof Japan (seealso Section6.2.4). 4.5
Processin of HLW-
The reprocessing of spent fuel consistsof a complexseries of mechanical and chemical steps. After the unfissioned uranium and plutonium and gaseous fission products are removed, the remaining HLI is immobilized into a monolithic solid form. Materials considered as suitable matrices for the solidification of HLI are denitrated calcines, crystalline ceramics or synthetic rock (SYNROC)and glasses. Class appears to offer the best compromise between desirable waste form properties, ease of fabrication, and long history of material experience. Borosilicate glass in particular has emerged as the standard. The process of immobilizing the HLI into this glass is called vitrification. Original work was done in the U.S. but France was the country that coumercialized the process successfully in the La Hague and Rarcoule laboratories. The UK (Sellafield), and to a limited degree the U.S. (West Valley) are using this technique. Soma desirable features of vitrification include low volume, stable chemical form, and low leachability, all of which are favorable for the long-term, safe disposal of the waste and for minimizing present and future risks of accidents.
* 23 -
4.6
pa
gkaging and TransuortAtion
of aLH
In the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for regulating the packag4- and transport of radioactive wastes (Regulations 10 CFR 71). The Departmencof Transportation (DOT) regulations elso apply in the transportof radioactivewastes (49 CFR 170-189). Requirements include package approval standards such as: (i) radiation level on external surface not to exceed 200 urea/hr at any point; (li) under hypothetical accident conditions escape of Kr-85 to be less than 10,000 curios in a week; and (iii) special requirements for plutonium treatments. The regulations also stipulate package tests, operating controls and procedures, and quality assurance methods. To date, most accidents and leakages in transit have involved low-level wastes and have been minor in nature. If and when the Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) Facility for the extended storage of HLW is established in the U.S., large amounts of spentfuel will have to be transported and the numberof shipments of HLW will increaseaccordingly. 4.7
IMaen
snsal Di
of MR
Becauseof the long life of some elementsin the HLW, and their toxicity, a secure permanent repositoryis considerednecessary. The subject has been the focus of intenswive investigations, policy analyses, legislative action and public controversy. In the effort to identify possible technical solutions to the problem, the following options have been proposed and examined: (a)
Surface
storage;
(b)
Seabed disposal;
(c)
Polarice cap disposal;
(d)
Transmutation into shorter-lived
(e)
Rocketing wastesintospace;
(f)
Geologic disposal in deep, stable rock layers such as salt bed, salt dome, tuff, granite, shale, etc.
isotopes;
Surface stOrs X has been proposed (and practiced) as an acceptable, safe way of storing HLW for fifty years or longer. In the method, spent fuel rods or canlsters of solidified HLU could be kept in water pools or stored aboveground In air-cooled casks or vaults under continuous surveillance untll the radioactivity and heat produced decreased to more manageable levels. In about three hundred years, the temperature of these wastes would approach that of their surroundlngs. Sweden and France have made long-term surface storage psrt of their waste disposal plans. The adoption of such a pla would buy more time for the development of a consensus on a permanent repository. Critics of the USDOE past record in radwaste management claim that this would be a delaying tactic and stress the need for the selection of a permanent solutionnow,beforefurther commitment to nuclear power is made.
- 24 Submeahed diagoal is the only alternative (besides geologic disposal) actively being considered. A multi-national programwas launched ln 1973 to investigate the feasibility of burying wastes deep under the ocean floor. The areas considered most suitable were more than two hundred miles from shore in the Western North Pacific and the North Atlantic whero ocean depth is 36005000 meters, the ocean floor is flat, and thick and uniform layers of sediment exist over large areas. Additional advantages are the area's geologic stability, virtual absence of life, and near-perfect isolation from other areas of the earth. The concept appears to have considerable technical merit but the legal and institutional hurdles are significant. The suggestion
to place canisters
of HLW in the Antarctic gl g ice of ice cap stability over the thousands of years required for radioactive decay. RekWetin *t En sOace, which was declared technically feasible by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the early 1970s, is now considered impractical due to considerations of cost and risk of accidents. The XfaLueaaz. of nuclear wastes into shorter-livedor less harmful elements has not made considerableheadway; existing fission reactors are not very capable of transmuting cesium-137or strontium-90, two of the principaland mosthazardous wastecomponents, and the technical complexity of separating thevariousnuelides for treatment is too great for practicality. Thus, of the technologies mentioned above, geologlc dlsposal in deep rock layers appears to be the most viable option, and will be discussed in the following.
cia has been abandoned because of the uncertainty
Permanent disposal is also required for transuranic (TRU) or alpha-bearing wastes. These wastes are generated mairly by reprocessing of spent fuel from defense nuclear activities. Interim disposal of treated and conditioned alpha-bearing wastes at or near surface is the current practice. In the future it is expected that alpha-bearing wastes that exceed the limits for surface burial will be disposed of in deep geological repositories, such as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. Move on the subject of permanentdisposalof HLW and TRU wastesis discussedin Section4.8 on country HLW programs. 4.7.1
Ge1oaglc
oaitoXX R"MtX1gn=
An acceptable geologic repository should isolate HLU from humans and the biosphere for thousands of years. As presently envisioned,a geologic repository will be a large mine, approximately 300-1000 meter deep. The repository will have above-ground areas for receiving wastes, packaging them, and lowering them into the mined area. Since the most likely mode of radioactive material escape is through transport in ground water, an acceptable repository should be free of water and preclude any future access of water to the waste. host proposed studies would entomb nuclear wastes in rock salt. Salt is attractive because it indlcates absence of water for long geologic times, is relatively dry and free of cracks. TrLs constitutes a major advantage for the disposalof waste in salt formationsincethe principal meansfor the escapeof radionuclides is throughwater thatflowsthroughcracks,eitherto the surface or intothe groundwater.An additional advantageof salt is its abilityto keep (or flow) under heat and pressuro. Thus, any fracturesin the formation
- 25 resulting existence
from tectonic of
salt
activity
deposits
for
find to heal themselves with time. over
200 million
years
Also, the
demonstrates
their
stabilLty. The establishment of a repository is predicated, among other things, upon thorough understanding of the geochemistry of rocks, ground water, barrier materials,
knowledge
of how rocks
and ground water
will
react
to stresses
from
mining and heat from radioactive decay, stabilLty of the water table and rocks, and confidence that geologic uplift or subsidence is unlikely. Although considerable work has been done in these areas, it is difficult to predict with a high degree of certainty the behavior of a repository under various conditions and stresses for long times into the future. This difficulty is being addressed through redundancy in the engineering design of the repository system. 4.7.2
History of
ELU Disnosal
in the U.S.
High LevelWastesfrom FuelRerocessinag The historyof high- and low-levelwastes goes back to the early 1940swhen first in the U.S. and then in the othernuclearweaponscountries, fuel rodswere irradiated in reactorsand thenremovedand processedto recover uranium,plutonium, and tritiumneededin themanufacture of weapons. The liquid wasteproducedin thisprocesswas firststoredin underground tankswithsingle walls made of carbon steel built at the Hanford Reservationin Richland, Washington. A seriesof problems and subsequent efforts to correct them was experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. The first leak of high-level waste was detected in 1956 at the Hanfordreservation.The waste was absorbedby the surrounding soil and no serious groundwater contamination has been observed to date. However, a leak of 100 gallonsof HLW fromone tankat anothermajorU.S. weapons complex, the Savannah River Laboratory,did contaminatesome nearby groundwater.The U.S. Governmenttook severalstepsto stop the leaksand to process the waste to reduce the hazard. These efforts included the building of double-walled rather than single-walled tanks, and a processto solidifythe stored liquid wastes, stabilize them and reduce their volume. The first commercial reprocessing plant in the U.S. was built at West Valley, NewYork, in the 1960s with improved methods of storing the waste. About 600,000 gallons of HLU have been produced there, mostly from the reprocessing of comercial spent fuel. The reprocessing of commercial spent fuel was stopped in the U.S. but the Governmaenthas been left with large quantities of wastes in various llquid or solid forms. A vigorous program has been put in place and is being implemented to gradually solidify these HLW in gla"s form which can be ultimately stored in a geologic repository. The program to accomplish this goal is still going strong and will takemany years. Criticssay that the recordof the U.S.Government in managingtheirnuclearwasteshas beendisal. Defenders would argu that given the large amountof wasteshandled,the.fractionthat -leaked is very small (lessthan 1 percent),and that failuresoccurredmostly at Hanford,Washingtonunder high wartimepressuresand shortagesof materials (e.g., of stainless steel). It is important to point out that past mistakes,
leaks and mismanageentof HLU have involvedmostlywaste from defense,not commercialuses of nuclearpower.
e 26
-
It can easily be surmised that similar leaks and other mishaps have occurred in the waste management program of other countries (also involving mostly defense-produced wastes). The 1957 accident at Chelyabinsk, near the Soviet city of Sverdlovsk, apparently involved a large-scale accident in a waste storage facility resulting in large-scale contamination of soil, lakes, and rivers over many square kilometers. SpentFuel The original plans of utilities were to store spent fuel at reactor sites for cooling only temporarily, and then ship them for reprocessing. Two sites were initially used for this purpose: West Valley, New York and Morris, Illinois. About 515 mt were shipped and stored in water pools at these sites which were originally intended as sites for reprocessing of commercial spent fuel. Some fuel was in fact reprocessed at West Valley, as mentioned above, until the sitewas closedin 1972and the spent fuel stored at WestValleywas returnedto the reactorsof theirorigin. The Morrisplant neveroperatedas a reprocessing facility becauseof problemsin its operation.Insteadit became a convenientsite for the storageof spentfuelbut its capacityof about 720 mt was quicklyutilized. Todayspentfuel is beingstoredin poolsat reactor sites. FederalLerislation The currentHLU programhas its origin and base in the Nuclear Waste PolicyAct (NWPA)of 1982. ThisAct madethe USDOEresponsible for ensuring that U.S. utilitieswouldnot have to shut theirreactorsdown for lackof storage capacityfor spentfuel. The Act set guidelines and schedules for the repository siteselection process,alongwithprovisions for the program'sfunding(Nuclear Waste Fund) through an assessmentof one mill per kilowatt-houron all electricity generatedby commercial nuclearplants. A major controversy aroseover the site selectionprocessfor the firstrepository, with DOE surveysinvolvinga numberof states,all of which vigorouslysoughtto avoid selection.A secondmajor controversy came over a requirement in NWPA that the DOE selecta site east of the Mississippi River for a secondrepository.No statewantedto establishsuchas site. Considering the uncertainty of establishing a permanentrepository, the construction of a MonitoredRetrievable Storage(MRS)Facility,to be limitedto no more than1900 mt of spentfuelto holdHLW untila repository becomesavailable, was proposed. However,DOE'sdecisionto constructan MRS on the federallyownedClinchRiver BreederReactorsite near Oak Ridge,Tennesseewas opposedby the Tennessee congressional delegation. To makethe legislation workable, and preventa threatened moratorium on the acceptance of HLW by DOE,the NWPAwas amendedin 1987throughthe Nuclear WastePolicyAmendments Act (NWPAA).Subsequently, Yuccamountain,Nevada,was selectedconditionally as the firstpermanentrepository, pendingtestingas the site. An MRS was authorizedand site selectionis pending. In spite of the amendmentsto the Act, the stalemate between the USDOEand local governments continues. Even Nevada, the singleselectedstate, and the site of DOE's
^ 27
*
countless underground nuclear bomb tests and consequent massive underground contamination, opposes the establishment of the permanent repository in this state. Almost all political leaders are strongly resisting the efforts of DOE to proceed with detailed geologic testing of the site and the matter is, at this time,in litigation.Similarly, the sitingof the MRS in the stateof Tennessee is in the courtsdue to strong local opposition. 4.8
SafeyL Assessment
To assess the safety of the various designs for a permanent repository of nuclearwastes,the probability of the escape of the radioactive materials in it to the biosphere and the chance of radiation exposure of human beings in the vicinity must be evaluated. National and international standards have set limits of exposure for the critical population groups that the exposure mustnot exceedfor the acceptability of the design. In order to provide a high degree of assurance of the isolation of the radioactive elements in the repository over a long period of timA the various proposed designs utilize the Nmultibarrier* concept. Thus failure of one barrier still leaves additional barriers as effective means of contairment. The barriers include the waste matrix itself, the packaging of the waste, various materials of backfillilng around the packwges, the concrete walls of the repositories, and the surrounding geological formation. The detailed characteristics of these barriers and their ability to contain the waste vary from one design to another. However, detailed safety assessments, that are based on conservative assumptions regarding possible leakage scenarios and the behavior of materials and of the waste over hundreds or thousands of years, all seem to risult in estimates of possible exposures to critical groups of the public that are orders of magnitude lower than tolerable limits set by the International Committee for Radiation Protection (ICRP). 4.9
Overview of Country HLVProgrm_
The programs of various countries In fuel and waste strategies are intertwined. Concerns of proliferation of nuclear explosives from the plutonium contained in spent fuel affected U.S. policy concerning nuclear exports. In the past this policy required that in all cases of export of nuclear technology and supplies to other eountries, the U.S. must clear the disposition of spent fuel from the reactor to which the supplies apply. Originally, it was assumed that all spent fuel would return to the U.S. for storage, a policy which has been practicedby the USSRand its CMEApartners. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. has modified this policy and has granted approval to several countries to reprocess the fuel rather than to return it to the U.S.. Small amounts of spent fuel from foreign research and test reactors are still being returned for storage at Idaho Falls, Idaho and Savannah Rliver, South Carolina. Several countries, includLng a few developing ones, have established programs for the processing of HL, mostlythroi.gh thevitrification process,assumingthatspent fuelwillbe reprocessed.However,it has becomeclearthatboth developed and developing countrieswillbe increasingly relying on the services of France and the UK which have already establishedfacilitiesand have acquired long experience in this process.
- 26
*
In the early developmnt of nuclear technology. radioactive waste wa considered a secondary issue and little attention was devotedto it. Host research and development resources were allocated to other aspects of the fuel cycle. However, radiological and environmental cc..crns in the early 1970. led many countries to purnue research and to develop their own radvasto programs. Anp"^ (121 summarizes national activities for several countries in the processing of HlV. All of them base their program on the conmersion of the waste into ceramic or glass solid. The Australians, who are not depicted in Annex 5, have invented and proposed a process of synthetic rock which is purported to be superior to glass, but consideration of practicality and cost have preventod its wide adoption. Two developing countries (Argentina and India) have or are planAing to have vitrification activities for liquid wastes derived from fuel reprocessing. Uhether processed or unprocessed, spnt fuel must be storod in a secure place for a very long time. The current strategies of the various countries for managing of their spent fuel and/or HLV are also summarized in Annex 5. This Annex shows that a variety of geologic formations will be used as permanentrepositories of HLW. They includegranite,clay,cystallInerock, and salt. &MM fi112)depicts the research and development programs currently undrvway in many eountries to establish the viability of HLV repositories. This Annex indicates that all the listed countries have or aro planning to establish permanent waste repositories in some kiad of geologic formation. Although the Indicated facilities show that the waste maagement problem is taken seriously by the respective countries, some facilities may not be on schedule and difficulties in obtaining consent from local populations have arisen, threatening the establisbent of the planned facilities. Countries obtaining their reactors (or reactor designs) from the Soviet Union rely on the take-back policy of this supplier. In turn, the USSRhas a program of fuel reprocessing, conversion to gass and permanent storage in salt and cystalline rock. Finally, the interested reader may find in Annex 7 [12] more details on spent fuel storage management strategies country by country. This Annex suarizes the major industrial waste management facilities, existing or planned, in countrie with nuclear power programs. The number of years between discharge from the reactor and permanent storage ranges from 10 to 100. 4.10
Cost Estimates
of
WLVin the U.S.
Sincethe treatment and storageof HLM variesfromcountryto country and sincethe long-termsolutionto thisproblemis stillunder consideration or design, it is dlfficultto arrive at estimateswith a hlgh degree of confidence. However, estimatesexist and will be summarized in this section. Firstwe dealwith the capitalcostrequiredfor storagefacilities.The total undiscounted costs of constructing and operatinga 1,000-mtstoragefacilityat a reactorsitehave been estimated (10 to rangefrom US$82million(forcasks containing consolidated fueland storedat the reactorbasitn), to US$260million (forunconsolidated fuelin a dry vmult). The comparAble undiscounted costfor a centraldry-storagefacilitywith a 48,000-mtcapacityis in the range of US$2.4billion(forsurfacedry wells and tunnelracks)to US$5.3billion(for tunneldrywells). For comparison with storageat reactorsite,the aboverange corresponds to a rangeof US$50milLionto US$110millionper 1,000-mtstorage.
- 29
-
The Rlear Vste Policy Mt of 1982 estabished the Nuclea VUaste Fuad (NUF) to finne the program for disposal of 1LV and spent fuel. The main sOUw¢eof revenu for tho NW Ls a US$0.001/k9h fee charged to nuclear reactors. Because of unortainties im tie cost of permanent disposal of spent fuel, utilities in the U.S. allocate up to seeral mills per kIh which are placed in a sinking fund dedicated to defray all future cost of high level radioactive waste managemt, including the storage in a U.S. Government permanent repository.
- 30 -
5.
RIOACTIVE WASTE
TisS
There is wide consensusthat the contined operationof existing reactors (and operation of those under construction) requires the existence of a *sound" and *safe plan to manage the radioactive wastes from the nuclear fuel cycle. Indeed, the pgreentlv existina aount of wastes both from reprocessing of fuel and unreprocessed spent fuel, would require a technically and institutionally robust system of handling and disposal. Most countries have been working at establishing sound and viable radioactive waste management programs. In this section the major issues of radioactive waste management are briefly discussed. The satisfactory resolutlon of these issues in the eyes oi the public will dacisevely determine public acceptance of nuelear power. 5.1 5.1.1
Technical
Issue.
Technical
Maeo=a of a Geologg Rganotor!
First, there exist technical issue. Although design, analysis and testing have provided a good deal of confidence in the soundness of the proposed solutions (packaging of radioactive waste, constructlon of a permanent repository in a suitable geologic formation, emplacement of the waste, monitoring and eventual sealing of the facility) technical questions exist as to the predictability of long-tern behavior of the geologic repository. Ground water movement and volcanic activity over long periods of time, on the order of a thousand years, are major questions. For example. although salt is considered advantageous (Section4.7.1) it is known that groundwater ba in some cases penetrated and alteredsome salt formations. These phenomenaare difficultto detect from the surface and not fully understood. Also, both salt beds and domes have been found to include very smll (often microscopic) pockets of brine. If enough heat were generated by the waste, the brine inclusions could rupture and come in contact with the waste packages causing corrosion. Another related lssue would be the possible proximity of the salt formation to other underground natural resources such as oil, gas and gypsum. Future human activity for the exploration and recovery of some natural resource thought to be in the vicinity of the repository, could re'aase radicactivity to the environment and expose workersand nearbypopulationa.Therefore,practically all sitingguidelines and proceduresestablishedby various countriesexploringthe alternative geologic formations and disposalmethods,have made provisionsto decreasethe risk of such events. 5.1.2
Lanast of Tim Reuied i
for Storaga
The technical debate also involves the ngMgLn of time over which the isolation of the wastes is necessary. Some analysts propose an isolation tlmeof three to flve hundred years after which the radioactivity of the wast falls to very low level. and is indeed comparable to the radioacti-ity of the original uranLum ore. Others refer to thousands of years o- to a million year waste-disposal problem. The different perspectives stem from the different level of "acceptable risk" (for a glven benefit) chosen by the participants in the nuclear debate. The main parameter in these calculation is the half lives
- 31 is isotopes which Ls the time over which the radioactivity of the radioactive Two of the most important fission products reduced to 501 through decay. and cesium-137) have half lives of about thirty years while the (strontium-90 much less abundantplutoniumhas a half life of 24,000years. Therefore,if one a4lows for a periodof about300 years(tentimesthe half livesof strontium and hencethehazardfrom the mainfissionproducts and cesium)the radioactivity ls reduced to about one thousandth of the original.For wastescontaininglongit is appropriate to use the half life of the transuranic lived radionuclides, element plutonium and hence calculate a muck longer time period required from disappearance of the hazard. the practical 5.1.3
Rskis fromgeologji
Storage of HIM
system there is always a finite In any engineered (or natural) In the of events leading to an accident or failure of some kind. probability case of the permanent storage of HLW the bottom line question is: what are the burieddeep in the geologicformationmight substances chances that radioactive This can happen in a escape into the biosphere in hazardous concentrations? the most importantis the leaching of the scenarios; number of possible Most studies performed to date suggest that in a substances into groundwater. the odds are very low. properly designed and constructed underground repository, A study conductedby the U.S. National Academy of Sciences 1111, concluded that it is possibLe to identify geologic formations for a permanent waste repository such that it would take aeveral thousands to millions of years for a drop of water to travel from the reposltory to the biosphere; this time is long enough for adequate containment in the geologic material and decay of most radioactive The "Okl"o phenomenon is often cited as materials to innocuous levels. places for convincing evidence that stable geologic formations are suitable It is deducted from physical obsorvations that about permanent waste storage. two billion years ago, a combination of natural conditions (natural uranium with a high context of uranium-235, water moderator, etc.) led to natural nuclear elements that produced fission products and transuranic reactions fission (plutonium, etc.) similar to those contained in man-madenuclear waste. Studies conducted near the village of Oklo,in what is now Gabon, Africa, have shown that including all the transuranics, most of the fission products and virtually from their point of formation, 1,900 million plutonium, have moved very little years ago. This evidence suggests that natural phenomena, including absorption provide addltional by the ground elements, of radionuclides and retention against any as barriers assurance of the adequacy of geologic repositories elements to the migration and eventual release of radioactive significant biosphere. wastes is often amplified by public The risk from radioactive A German study presented at an perception far beyond its actual dimensions. IAEA symposium in 1988 estimated that out of an overallvolum of 285 million domestic, and mining wastes produced in West Germany, metrictons of industrial, wase*4 Of this,98.5X as special jazaiedous about5 million tons were classified This number was hazardouscheaical waste and only 1.51 was radioactive waste. includesboth the small volume of high-levelwaste and the largevolumesof waste by any non-noxious low-level waste. Nor is the radioactive relatively scale of hazard, there are several On a relatively meansthe most hazardous.
* 32
*
chmical waste products that are 100 to 1000 times more lethal than high-level radioactive wastes and a large nusber of chemicals that are comparable with intermediate level wastes (91. 5.1.4
Acegnabilitv_aterigl ad S
Since spent fuel contains fissile plutonium which could be diverted and used (albeit with great difficulty because of its contamination with higher isotopes) for the manufacture of nuclearexplosives,a strict trackingand material accountability system must exist to ensure that the material is safeguarded from illicit uses either by governments or by terrorist groups. The Internatdonal Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has established and is conducting an international program of spent fuel monitoring and safeguarding. However, the voluntary nature of participation in this program and the lack of IAEAauthority to enforce compliance or to impose penalties are matters of concern. Any interim storage facility of spent fuel would have to be vigilantly monitored and guarded. A permanent storage facility would also have to be guarded at least until the timeof permanentsealing. But the questionremains: how reliablecan such a guardingsystembe over long periodsof time duringwhich many unforeseenand perhapsradicalphysicaland political changes ean occur? 5.2
InstltutlnalIssuem
5.2.1
The Need for xultipartv
Consent
The effectiveand safe managementof radioactive waste dependson a complex system of facilities, networks and arrangements that require a high degree of coordination. Storage at reactor site, possibly combined with compaction or consolidation of spent fuel, transportation to an interim central storage facility, encapsulation in appropriately engineered canisters, transportation to a permanent geologic repository, and careful monitoring and safeguarding of all these steps form a complex web of responsibilities and jurisdictions that require a high degree of cooperation among various levels of government. In federal countries such as the U.S., Brazil and India, tederal, state, and local authorities, (not to mention Indian tribes in the U.S. and Brazil) must reach agreaments on respective responsibilities and liabilities to prevent transportation bottlenecks and other problem that would interfere with the functioning of the radioactive waste management system. In the U.S. at least, there is a history of local government Interference with the system's operation, for example by forbiddlig the transportation of radioactive materials through the boundaries of their jurisdiction. In a democratic system of governrent the requirement for multi-party consent may present a serious impediment to integrated solutions to the waste managementproblem.
5.2.2
Dnhl4i. A
u
The task of radioactive waste management is so large and frau&bt with natlonal security and safety risks that It must be undertaken by the central goverrment (at leastfor high-level wastes)assistedby largebusinessconcerns. Both theseentitiesare oftenthe object of deep distrust by the citizenry. In the U.S. where the program is longestand where failureshave been highly
- 33 outright falsehoods a culture of government secrocy and soetimes publieized, regardLig the defense nuclear program have had their iUpact on the commercial at As an example, events of massive releases of radioiodine nuclear program. the Hanford reservationIn the early 1940s are comlng to light in 1990. Therefore,many doubt that the governmentcan be trustedto reveal the truth the repeatedfailures of the governmentsuch as the aboutrisks. Furthermore, leaksfromthe Hanfordtanksand the early1970.debacleln the selection of the at Lyons, Kansas, have cast deep doubts as first site as permanent repository of the government to properly implement a waste management to the ability toward the do not have a better attitude utilities The electric program. policy and to pursue the government as its failure to formulate a consistent implementation of an effective and timely program has led to deep anmieties that toward the SimLlar distrust the coumitmnts made to them will not be kept. where In Eastern Europe, in particular, government exists in other countries. is publlc sentiment has been suppressed and ignored for decades, this distrust now eruptlng with explosive force. Can the governments of the various countries convince their people that they have a safe solution for the waste management problem and can they obtain adequate public support to proceed with its execution? If public support is to be a MsLnequa non" for radloactive wasto management programs, (and also for the expansion of nuclear power) full Ln an atmosphere of openness and transparency mut take disclosure of facts, of manycountries as required by the legislation place. Public participation, (e.g., by the U.S. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as amnded in 1987) is now on As an example, public debate is now flourishing being encouraged widely. reestablished the nuclear issues in Eastern European countries with the newly in such debates A problem with public participatLon democratic principles. could be a low level of technical knowledge or outright misinformation in the public. The dissemination of technical or other information on such progrms since the process of decislon-making can benefit from an would be beneficlal informed citlzenry. 5.2.3
Ousations
of Eaugg
The development of energ facilitLes and their assoclated Who enjoys the produce both beneflts and costs (or risks). installatLons beneflts and who bears the risks, is always a relevant and often contentious questlon.Speciflcally on wastemanagement, nobodyseemsto be willing to accept Ma garbagedump ln hls backyard". This ls the conclusionfrom the flerce opposition to the sitiug of waste managementreposLtories in severalcountries. It appears that the questLon of a fair distrlbution of rLsk is dlfficult to resolve. Some countries have been more successful than others in establishing erhaps because of better acceptance for the need of wasto disposal facilitLes, The compensation public lnformation programs and/or compensation packages. provided ln the NWPA(called "impact mitigation funds") is apparently not adequate to produce acceptance of the associated risk. Creative schemes for the development of adequate compensation criteria and packages have yet to be thoroughly explored. Technical and socioeconomic considerations must be encompassed in such exploration.
- 34
-
issue of equity arises from the inter-generational An additional of Ethical questions have been raised on the transfer of risk. distribution risks by the present generation which enjoys the benefits of the energy produced, to future generations which will have to live with a long and potentially This issue is not unique to nuclear dangerous legacy of radioactive wastes. apply to the depletion of resources and power; similar ethical considerations Clearly, if discounting is applied to to the contamination of the environment. any flows beyond a few decades are vanishingly small, future costs or benefits, is highly of such reasoning to long term effects but the applicability The more plausible argument for the transfer of nuclear waste risk questionable. is quite to future generations is that the risk, as calculated by most analysts, small, for present or future generations and hence, in the view of the present generation, acceptable in view of the slhort- and long-term benefits. 5.2.4
Political
Dynamics
The technical community has reached broad agreement on the technical basis for the safe disposal of radioactive waste; there is much less agreement about the development and implementation of disposal plans mainly because the The main players in the level. debate is conducted on an intensely politicized tug of war are the central (federal) government and the states and political of state and the prerogatives The rights of public participation, localities. of the central government to overturn local local governments, the ability decisions and the compensation packages have become highly contested issues that oftenovershadow the technical merits (or demerits)of the proposed solutions. incentives, Political leaders worldwide, who tend to act on their own political are keenly aware of public and local government reactions and are often unable This situation has led many observers to to provide the required leadership. not a waste management problem is a political, claim that the radioactive
technical
ne.
decisions about how to provide for permanent In federal countries, either singly or in disposal of low-level wastes lie mainly with the states, should be chosen The question of which state or locality regional groupings. disposal site, what states should have the for the low- and intermediate-level and what should be a fair price for disposal services, right to use the facility, have a desire to settle Federal and state officials are still keenly debated. the issue quickly without continual reopening of the debate by anxious citizens. Of to keep the debate open indefinitely. Other parties may have incentives in the debate on a serious matter that participate rightfully course, citizens, effect on their lives. has a potential for harmful impacts and for a significant has to be selected However, a suitable solution for LLU and ILW by necessity, research and medical and agreed upon; without it a wide range of industrial, activities in addition to nuclear power, would be seriously affected. Political wisdom and compromise, coupled with appropriate safety measures and incentives will be required to arrive at negotiated solutions. oweing more intractable is politically The high-level waste nroblem The fact that the waste to its size, potential impact, and centralized nature. reduces the number is produced exclusively by the power and defense industries for of political constituencies and hence the pressure applied on politicians
-
35 -
its solution.In the U.S., the NuclearWaste PolicyAct of 1982,as axendedin 1987,set a frameworkin radioactive wastemanagementfor the respective roles of various parties (federal, state and local governrent,Indiantribes,and citizen groups), the role of regulatory agencies and a financing schem to cover the framework has present and future costs. However, despite strenuous efforts, been unsuccessful in fostering compromise in the selection of the firstpermanent repository for HLW. Whenthe USD0Eselected YuccaMountain,Nevada,as its site, leaders of this state virtually unanimously opposed the proposal the political and the matter lingers in the courts, casting a long shadow over the prospects of eventual resolution. One would objectively think that the state of Nevada in which numrous nuclear weapons tests have been and are still being conducted underground,
would be rather
open
to
a proposal
to
install
an underground,
engineered repository in which multiple engineered barriers are designed to safely contain the waste as opposed to uncontainedfissicr products from Yet, despite the existing compensation package and other underground explosions. direct or indlrect economic benefits to the state, the pollticaldynamicshave The exaple of the proven potently hostile to the acceptance of the repository. U.S. has been repeatedto some extent,in West Germany, and to a lesser extent in other democratic countries. The history of waste management in these considerations may yet prove the most critical countries suggests that political element in arriving at a widely acceptable solution.
-
36 -
Fai DEPUO
6.
COMTIE
in the previous section, to the issues discussed In addition problems in their effort to developing countrLes will face some additional A discussion of waste management program. establish a successful radioactive these problems follows. 6.1
Low-level Wastes
Developing countries will face special problems in their effort to establish a radioactive waste management program. Low-level waste repositories research and will have to be developed to accommodate vastes from industrial, and in countries with nuclear power the establihbment of a medical facllities Given radLoactive waste management program will be a necessary prerequisite. requirements, low technological the low rLsk from these wastes and the relatively country. Extensive can be sited in the respectlve these disposal facllitles programs exist ln the IAEAfor assdstance to developing countries in the design, Proper managemet, includlng and management of such repositories. construction, and assaying the dellvered wastes, observing handling rules and regulations, Since and guarding would be required. proper emplacement, monitoring some concern could be infrastructure is often lacking ln developing countries, Training raised as to the proper long-term operation of such LUKrepodsitories. organizations or donor agencies programs and continued support by international would be required, and thus LU management in developing countries should be a manageable problem with no excessive risks. 6.2 manageent below. 6.2.1
High-level
Wastes
Of more concern than low and intermediate These relevant of HL in developing countries. Scentiflic
and Technica
Infrastrucjur
level waste is the lssues are summarized
and Nanaaeaent
waste is a complicated and technically Disposing of high-level demanding undertaking that may be beyond the reach of many developing countries having or aspiring to have a nuclear power program. It is not unusual to meet with nuclear program officials in developing countrLes who have not given the necessary thought to the final disposal of thelr HIM and who are not fully aware of the difficulties involved. To handle the radloactive wastes and to manage is and techncal lifrastructure sociated risks, an adequate sclentific the required. Satisfactory maagemnt of the program and of the related facilities ust also be available. 6.2.2
Cost of Sall
Waste
Countries wLth small nuclear reactor program. (e.g., 1-4 units) will flad it prohibitively expensive to establish a full-fletiged HL management program of their own and would have to contract wLth the fuel vendor or wlth thLrd parties for the handling and ultlmate disposal of their spent fuel. Such
.
37 -
of the Council for Mutual Economic is already the cae with the countries But the and built nuclear plants. Assistance (CHUA) with Soviet-designed future is of this pollcy by the Soviet Unilon into the indefinite continuation wou'd have to develop alternative These countries to question. subject of a uwlti-country for handling MR, including the ostablishment strategies Such arrangements would ensure higher for spent fuel. regional repository lower unit costs and easier technical standards, compliance with international monitoring and safeguarding of the materials in the repository.
6.2.3
StL"
of Lmoait
n Dene
population (developed as well am developing), In some countries Since density may render the citing of a waste repository highly problematic. (and also a remote location is considered best suited for population protection may offer from population) joint, regional repositories to avoid interference the best solution.
6.2.4 of diversionof waste materialeitherin the form The possibility of liquldsfromfuel reprocessing or spent ftiel, to illicituses, is aggravated of and activities instability, regional conflicts, of political by anxieties groups. Signatories to the Nuclerx Non-ProlLferation Treaty (NIT) and terrorist in the lIAM safeguards pre am have cosmitted to a system of participants and monitoring that offers agsurances material accountability, inspections, Howver, the voluntary nature of complLance with IAEA against proliferation. safeguards rules and the IANI'a lack of authority to impose penalties for treaty Collective violations have weakened confidence In the program's effectiveness. and the opprobrium of the economic penalties, sanctions, international international commuity would have to play a decisive role if and where the lAW'srolefails Collective securityarrangements may yet offerthe strongest disincentlves againstthe proliforation of nuclear explosives. 6.2.5
ruxk Zsalaeorv Fr
A regulatory framwork including the establishment of adequate and enforcement power are necessary to regulations, monitoring capabilitLes, ensure that waste m et activities will be performd with due respect to the environment and public health and safety. Such regulatory arrangments, the enforcement power of the agencies, have sometimes been proven especially in developing countries. They would have to be a prime difficult to establish target of Institution building In any country with a slgnificant nuclear power and wasto mageme_nt program.
- 38 -
1.
*NuclearPower,NuclearFuel Cycleand WasteManagement:Statusand Trends,"IAEA,Vienna,1990.
2.
"J. Gaunt,N. Numarkand A. G. Adamantiadee," Decommissioning of Nuclear PowerFacilities," Industryand EnergyDepartment, EnergySeriesPaper No. 28, World Bank,Washington, D.C.,April 1990.
3.
"Radioactive WasteManagement:A StatusReport,"IAEA,Vienna,1985.
4.
"Integrated Data Base for 1988. SpentFuel and Radioactive Waste preparedby Oak Ridge Inventories, Projections and Characteristics", NationalLaboratory, DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 4, September1988.
5.
IAEA Presentation to the WorldBank,November8, 1988.
6.
"Decomissioningof NuclearFacillites, Feasibility, Needsand Costs," NuclearEnergyAgency,Paris,1986.
7.
Radioactive GeologLsts,
8.
*Waste
Waste Issues and Answers, AmerLcan Instltute September 1984.
ManagementUpdate. NUCLEARNEUSSpecial
Section,
of Professional March 1988.
9.
NUCLEAR NEWS,Vol. 31/No.10, August 1988.
10.
ManagingThe Nation'sCommercial High-LevelRadioactive Waste,Officeof TechnologyAssessment, Congressof The UnitedStates,1985,UNIPUB InfoSource International.
11.
A study of the Isolation System for Geologlc Dlsposal of Radioactive Wate", U. S. National Academy of Sclences,Washlngton, D.C.,1983.
12.
IAEABulletin,
Vol. 31, No. 4, Vienna,
1989.
. 39 -
uLs 1.
WasteManagementand Disposal,Reportof INFC WorkingGroup 7, IAEA, 1980.
2.
The Politicsof NuclearWaste,Editedby E. WilliamColglazier, Jr., An Aspen InstituteBook,PergamonPress,1982.
3.
The NuclearWaste Primer-A Handbookfor Citizens. The Leagueof Women VotersEducationFund. Nick LyonsBooks,1985.
4.
Proceedings of The 1987International Waste Magement Conference, Hong Kong. Sponsored by the Nuclear Engineering Division, ASKS, in cooperation with IAEA. ASKE.
5.
Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the conferenceorganizedby the BritishNuclearEnergySociety,London,27-29November,1984.
6.
Radioactive Waste Management-Technical Hazards and PublicAcceptance, Conference Transcript 5/6th March 1985, London. Oyez Scientific & Technical Services Ltd.
7.
Radioactive Waste: Politics, Technology, and Risk by Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Union of Concerned Scientists, Ballinger Publishing Company Cambridge, Massuchusetts. A Subsidiary of Harper & Row, Publlshers, Inc. 1985.
8.
Nuclear Spert Fuel Management-Experience and Options. A Report by an Expert Group. Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD,Paris 1986.
9.
A Guide to Nuclear Power Technology: A Resource for Decision Making. F. Rahn, A. C. Admantiades, J. S. Kenton and C. Braun. John Wiley and Sons,1984.
10.
Safety Principles and Standards for the Underground Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes, International Atomic Energy Agency, Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle, October 1988.
11.
RadLoactive Waste Manaeent Advisory Programm: An InterregLonal Techical Co-operation Project, IAEA, Vienna, 1986.
12.
The Managemnt of Radioactive
Wastes,LAU, 1981.
- 40 -
13.
Spent Fuel Management: Current Status and Prospects of the IAEA Programme, IAEA-TECDOC-419,ProceedLags of an AdvLsory Croup Moeting on Spent Fuel Management OrganLzed by the IAEA and Held in Vlenna, 11-13 March 1986, Vienna, 1987.
14.
Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Strategies of a Symposium, Vienna, 11-15 May 1987, Jointly NEA (OECD).
15.
Nuclear Waste, IAEABUILETIN, Vol. 28, No. 1, Spring 1986.
16.
Mastering the Present to Assure the Future, Radioactive Waste Management Congress, Sorrento, in Western Europe, XXIstUNIPEDEInternational May/29-June 3, 1988.
17.
to be Decommissioned and Resulting Projections of Facilities Volumes,Sectlon5 of (Tassa).
18.
Socialand EconomicAspects of RadLoactive Waste Disposal, Management National Research Council, Considerations for Institutional National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1984.
19.
The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Energy Agency, OKOD, Paris, 1985.
and Options,ProesedLngs Organized by IAEA and
Waste
ReulatorvDCuIt 20.
Issued and Under USEPARadLoactive Waste Disposal Standards: ANDCHUICALWASTE Development. By W. F. Holcomb et a&. NUCLEAR Vol. 8, pp 3-12, 1988. Printed in the USA. MANAUSEKIT,
21.
lOCFR60,*Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Depositories.
22.
lOCFl6l, Waste".
23.
10CFR71, "Packaging and Transportation
24.
10CF172, Licensing Requiremnts for the Storag of Spent Fuel in an (ISFSI)'. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
25.
lOCF850, Appendix F wPolLcy Relating to the sitLag Plants and Related Waste Management Facllitiesa.
26.
49CFR 100-178, 'Hazardous Materials
27.
Regulatory Strategies For High-Level Radioactive Waste Management In Nine CountrLes,IEAL-R/87-93, FinalReport,Preparedby PacifLiNorthest Laboratoryby International Energy Associates ULmited, December 1987.
"Licensing Requiremnts
Wastes in Geologic
for Land DLsposal of Radloactive of Radioactive
Materal".
of fuel Reprocessing
RegulatLons".
h|dE5LL
- 41,Nudr
Pow
_s
4
C_
to qona
Undg coo_t
Tot
NUmbr01 Numberto capacity . Urdu nts IMWtlc) unust Arontin. lBelgu Bira Bulpna Cou" Chia cuba Czeehoshwakus Finand France Coemfs!Dem. Rep. GenTnany. Fcd.Rbp. Haummry IlnI Ivan.blams.Rep. [tWY Japan Kama.Rep. Mexico Nedurlands Pakitan Rumxana SouthAfrica spain Swi. Swlazland USSR UK USA Yugosdaia Totd
2 7 1 5 IN
93S 55S) 626 2 585 12185
8 4 55 6 24 4 7
3 264 2 310 52 588 2102 22716 1 45 1374
2 39 9 1 2 1
1120 29 30 7 220 654
2 10 12 5 46 39 110 I
1 842 7 544 9 817 2 952 34 230 It 242 98 331 632
426
318271
at gmeEd arts u
Mabu eie8u isupplin 19119
..
Tal
Totty
capacttv TW.h (MW4cs}of
1
692
1 2 4 3 2
1 245 1906 3 524 2 148 816 5 12) I
9 5 1
12245 3024 29
7 2
1 540 2 392
12 2 1
10629 1 900 654
Toualoping
_ ~~expefUlc
Ptorcvm%p(rlc CIUP k
4.6 38.# 1.7 14.6 75.4
11.4 el.# 0.7 32.9 13.6
23 9W N 49 2"4
22.9 18.0 239.0 11.1 141.2 13.0 3.4
27.6 35.4 74.6 10.9 34.3 49.8 1.6
52 43 543 78 303 Is 79
185.8 45.0
27.8 50.2
3.8 0.1
5.4 0.2
432 45 1 38 Is
11.1 53.7 62.8 21.5 212.6 63.4 529.4 4.5
7.4 38.4 45.1 41.6 12.3 21.7 19.1 5.9
10 93 147 74 469 851 1 371 8
so
508 125 5
3 125
26 1 4
'2I,t I 18W 4 284
96
78 7
I 854.5
5 201
Nosws ThetotasincitdedawtforTaiwnt.China wheom at the ent of 1989thereweresx unts witha tout capaciyof 4924MWMe) in operatinn. Thesixuts eneraned 27.1TW'h in 1989.eprmsentang 35.2%of thetotaelctricty eoneaedthee. A totd operating experience of SO eactoryearsJt.id beenyained. '
Sm
ps
am roundedto the neaest moctor.eyr.
UUU I111
-
42 -
otf F"l Cvqe NWi
umrn UNAM Couty
_ZSII
saimt & mdiu
ouset
*
r
Deitun Stam! * Coo"d Ceta Aftlan Republic
Mutt.
Fue fabauos
Fuel ant Fud ro-
uot V01 .U0
to to""g r
c
* r
orssway
P
.
r r
*
TID
chui
*
4
-insd
*p *
Funm.
.
.
Ga. e Rep. .& of Ini
*
*
Italy
4
P
*
Japa Ka
4
e
*
***
Rep.ofD
PaitnP p
SotbsAo
*
Spain
USA
*
P: Iatpe vama p n NID: so be dgtlnAd
SO =. LA
3
P
*
*
ad
nsoda coassaudion.
T*D
Decm.
ceed mg
- 43 R,iDIWACtlMANAAS: A i
.
cm="naImw(e))
WlSWam"infrm mpioommng -iW(e)
to
Undbt
opuganno
Afgunana
93S S480 626 258
Selfirn Brai BtpgaRJ Caiads China Cubm"
1218
CediadwAakwa'
3 264 2 310 52 588
Gommu m. R.RA Geay. Fcd. Rep.
Hu"91y1 Indi
13694 21 491 1 645 1 154
Iran.loamPAp.
IKCOM Rap
1120 23253 6270
%leiwm Nahiedird0
TulI'3
816 5120 12 245
95273 632 3193S3
LLW ILW
HLW A
yams
to U)
(mJ)
(*mi)
7810
2 i476 63294
39 39 94 330 4S 17 176 49 1371
4028 1375 3 301 65978 1579 600 6 162 1 69 64 33
67
2362
1 520
483 35 61 24 841 151 27 1
16913 1 29 2 142 158 823 299418 5 270 96b 373
3
9*2
1 760 2 392 10931
9000
50
181439 449O 9425 96835 26681 754057
360 204 1202
5 7 7 124 2 170 51 406
87036 111954 34096 456 GM
1833 7689
239 2 162 13
72209 75677 465
158359 1189211 7 300
A4371
1 534
62 21230
451 019
waiw
LW + ILW .IL
'2929 8631
19524 57540
ISO
3 383
22554
194 5 434
3 638 102826
24 25 685 506
36 242
241 616
4 50
3057
1 764 63 039
1 760 420263
0m
5 334
37122
2 426 1 354
647
I
156 460
265 777 1 933 19000 33 657 245 27628 12 936 94 46 239 .1362 82 814 15307 5 867 43
69 .39
to
Alpb
21610 51871
1 444 10164 38 335 2 275
31842 7 519 9 693 2 952 33 823 11921
fiutd
3 432
890 3 300
ReoMatMA
UK USA Yugeulaw
3 524
508 125
p4dand
Swedge Swiwdaud USSR
1 245 3190S
Spin
wnr
It5
1 308
Pakllam
SunihAIrca Spam
692
2143
fibadwb Ftance
ft* loanp
P
4nuucu
.
4 488 u
248 . 321
4 649 62264
30996 415097
1 155
21663
144417
15118 u
43531
2 323 542
Spu S to be retuned to the _uppl. b S pnsl _mrnd to be uIwto th muppir. ' Thetolinds a__a-cap y o(4924MWfte) inpa amTaia Cin. Wsu uhieuae: apa1. 3619tU; LLW+ ILW.56872 Onm: HLW.414 m3:alpha bang wuw. 77,5mJ: LLW + ILWfromr5p1acevAng. St 702mJ. d
S W
LA [11
IIII
I
l~~A X | g
iI
II I{I 0t9lIZ§1
~I
itI 11
IX§IXII l{l{
tIlg Ii ijj' 111]11111
|
I
1 a}X§ I
t
I
I
IhIia.~tII~
-
45 -
-~-
-_
dem UGan"
AOn Sm.
BCom
Rodt mod*
rawl ,wmwe flrm
O_ac
S*flhs'
.U
a_
Ginsle'
GaVs
U
GNs bled's* 0"
a"
ReWndU 0*s francs
U
C4, olay. ans. gratis. m astIR
U
Gee,e Fmn Rep. Gomimer. Fad. NWpof
U
8 sol
U
Gor
*W
PAP.
bled
in
e'
r
U
G~~Cm r ants Gan". a
*
UGINS
l uff
(loan
bAolk U
Gl
eod'
N a-d $Omh
a
Swudm
a
SOLcla. orasilasM Gr*a_t.
dmWMY
amsI.
8~
1
h_ ursafulisus .
..
LA pt)
..
iarsm.ur
spew we inGo" ro'
a
A'
WWdWAVWWAWftSWWMG1SftllZ T I
Ns_MsMnd
GINs5000ks OMspud
Grans
U
_wulad
a
rn e stpuiLW
G_
d
N and
p_d
"NOOfull hi Inam
me esme_R lie.Teie.ldISmd
-
SSm'I
I I
I
~~~~I
a
I~~~~
a~~~~~~~~I0
I
I~~~~~ I
I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
axmeE
II a i I
~~~~~~I
(Ut
aU
-~~~~~I
f
iian a ji
-
p
- 47 -
*WnS[-WASM
_
d~~~~~~~~~~~AMPWV&to* l
wlb_dEdW*_d
~
~
_tElLti4ew
co
St=
bs
I_.=Mf
~
~ -*OMGW
_|_
_usawnosa
__dlVO
I
wmi
dbWe
A1'UWn~oamMmw
SbSpO"Wso A._
Ba
_S
_omm
_ )
o
_sod dSMf wme
bolg
_-W __w CWida -,00
Wlo..Iw
1Wom&i*Lfb
Wld_aJ F_~~~~~~~am
_sbdb 4_~,
1 Iswm
____
_hml
Ia
_si"r
_@__w(CUb
D__"119 VIWUW mml_nM s 'n
omdp"n
wIw_d*=tff
oo
P0=_ ..
-Fl_
M_
UN"fd WWWowdtd(_Z __ _ 0_am _ ^bo&odge-w
KP4
ow"nnatmswm I0|__0 --u-_d
C_,o
~
_
_~y""mf*"*m~
2S-_-wom
0wtrm"t cAsmfl"_
_s
TW
_4
_"__
_bme__maw
IA&w*tt"b_ __tfa
oWoah __
--
_w__"
_baso
1d_Sl*ILWi_dl
liue.
WI
_;e
twt
_._Z_F _mMw_ ^_e_e_~~snofo
b
MmS3b
U* ReUma ~
"
_
_
__i
~~~~| ft=_soe
um*Lom lo"
- 1 'for
_
40Mss__wS"
s
"G=fHWf"P_om
m
a
Saw= Nfwdm* NNU(_
wommna"
lm=-*_wf
_~~~S
__mwsoMml"
dmA"_
wAt=^Rfw_
Z~IP
0aea
_
_%mf
- 48 -
No. 1
EnergyIssuesin he Developing Wadd,Febnuy 1988.
No. 2
Reviewof WorldBak Lgfor
No. 3
SomeConsIderations in Collcdng Daa onHouseholdEnergyConsumpto Mach 1988.
No. 4
mprving PowerSystemEfficencyin theDeveloping Countristdrough Performance Contracting, May 1988.
No. S
ImpactofLowerOilPricesonRenewablEnergyTechnologis,May1988.
No. 6
A ComprisonofLampsforDomesdcLightingin Developing Countries,June 1988.
No. 7
Rcnt Word BankAcdvidesin Energ (RevisedOctober1989).
No. 8
A ViuwdOveiew of th Wol OilMlarkets, July1988.
No. 9
Crntt
ElectricPower,Maih 1988.
GasTradesandPfices,November1988.
No. 10 PromotnglnvesmentforNaturalGasExploration andProductonin DevelopingCouni, January1988. No. 11 TechnologySurveyReporton ElectricPowerSystems,February1989. No. 12 Recen DWlOmen in theU.S.PowerSectorandTheirRevance forthe DevelopingCountries,February1989. No. 13 DomestcEnergy Pricing PoUies,April1989. No. 14 Fimancing of theEnergYSectorinDevelopig Countries,April1989. No. 15 TheFutmeRoleof Hy
owe InDevelopingCountie, Aprfl1989.
No. 16 FuelwoodStumpae: ositifor JUne1989. No. 17
b
ting
Dooping CountryEnerg P
ing,
RiskandUnertaintyin PowerSystemPlanning,June1989.
No. 18 ReviewandEvaluadtonfHstoic Eleccity Fcasting Expedence,(19601985),June 1989. No. 19 WoodUdSupplyandEnvinmental No. 20
ee,
July 1989.
TheMaawi Charw Piject - ExperienceandLessos, Jamny 1990.
No. 21 CalExp fol9O,Pbuy190
for Elctric Powerin dteDeveloping Cowtriesin dte
- 49 -
No. 22 No. 23
A Reviewof Reglon Februay 1990.
of the PowerSecos in DevelopingCounties,
Summay Data Sheetsof 1987Powerand CommercialEnergy Stdstics for 100
Developing Counties, Mach 1990.
No. 24
A Reviewof the 1atmen of EnvirotnmntalApects of BankEnergyProjcs March 1990.
No. 25
The Stas of LiquifiedNaural Gas Woddwide,March 1990.
No. 26
PopulationGrowth,WoodFuels, and ResourceProblemsin Sub-Saharn Afiica,March 1990.
No. 27
The Stats of Nuclea PowerTechnology- An Updat, April 1990.
No.28
DecommIssioningof NuclearPowerFacil,
No. 29
InterfuelSubstitutionandChangesin the Way HouseholdsUse n Cae of Cookingand ghting Behaviorin Urban Java, October1990.
No. 30
Regulaton,Deregulation,or Reregulation-Whatis Neededin LDCsPower Sectr? July 1990.
April 1990. bc
No. 31 Udanding theCostsandScheduleofWoddBankSuported Hydroelectzic Projects,July 1990. No. 32 ReviewofElectty Taiffs inDevelopigCountriesDuringdte 1980s, November1990. No. 33 PrivateSectorParicipationin PowerthmughBOOTSchemes,Dember 1990. No. 34 Identiyn theBasicConditinsforEn ic fro SuiplusBagassein SugarMills,April1991.
of PublcElecicity
No. 35
Prospectsfor GasFueled Combined-CyclePweGeneraion in the Devping Counies, May 1991.
No. 36
Radioaive WasteManagme
Not:
For eta copes of ese paper pleae call PamelaSawhneyon extension33637 FAX No. (202) 477-0560.
-
A Backound Study,June 1991.
-
50 -
DUSTY SEESPAPERS
No. 1
Japanese Direct Foreign Investment: Pattems and Implications for DevelopingCountries,February 1989.
No. 2
EmergingPatterns of InternationalCompetitionin Selected Industrial Product Groups, February 1989.
Na. 3
Changing Fium Boundaries: Analysis of Technology-SharingARiances, February 1989.
No. 4
TechnologicalAdvanceand OrganizationalInnovationin the EngineeringIndustry, March 1989.
No. 5
Export Catalystin Low-IncomeCountries,November 1989.
No. 6
Overviewof Japanese Industial TechnologyDevelopment,March 1989.
No. 7
Reform of Ownershipand ControlMechanismsin Hungary and China, April 1989.
No. 8
The Computer Industryin Idusialized Economies: Lessonsfor the February 1989. Newly Idutralzg,
No. 9
Institutionsand DynamicComparativeAdvantageElectronicsIndustry in South Korea and Taiwan,June 1989.
No. 10
New Environments for Intellectual Property, June 1989.
No. 11
ManagingEntry Into InternationalMarkets: LessonsFrom the East Asian Experience,June 1989.
No. 12
Inpact of TechnologicalChangeon IndustrialProspectsfor the UDCs, June 1989.
No. 13
The Protection of IritellectualPropertyRights and Industrial TechnologyDevelopmentin Bra*l, September 1989.
No. 14
Reonal Integrationand EconomicDevelopment,November 1989.
No. 15
Specaliation, TechnicalChangeand Competitivenessin the Braziian ElectronicsIndustry,November1989.
-
51 -
INDUSTY SERIESPAPERScont'd No. 16
SmallTrading Companiesand a SuccessfulExport Response: Lessons From Hong Kong, December 1989.
No. 17
Flowers: Global SubsectorStudy,December 1989.
No. 18
The Shrimp Industry: Global SubsectorStudy,December 1989.
No. 19
Garments: Global SubsectorStudy,Decemoer 1989.
No. 20
World Bank Lendingfor Smalland Medium Enterprises: Fifteen Yeas of Experience,December 1989.
No. 21
Reputation in ManufacturedGoods Trade, December 1989.
No. 22
Foreign Direct InvestmentFrom the NewlyIndusrialzed December 1989.
No. 23
Buyer-SellerLinks for Export Development,March 1990.
No. 24
TechnologyStrategy& Policyfor IndustrialCompetiveness: A Case Study of Thailand,February 1990.
nomies,
No. 25
Ivestment, Productivityand ComparativeAdvantage,April 1990.
No. 26
Cost Reduction,Product Developmentand the Real ExchangeRate, April 1990.
No. 27
OvercomingPolicy Endogeneity: StrategicRole for Domestic Competitionin IndustrialPolicyReform, April 1990.
No. 28
Conditionaliy in AdjustmentLendingFY80-89: The ALCD Database, May 1990.
No. 29
International Competitiveness:Determinantsand Indicators, March 1990.
No. 30
FY89 Sector ReviewIndustry,Trade and Finance,November1989.
No. 31
The Designof AdjustmentLendingfor Industry: Reviewof CurrentPractice, June 1990.
-
I
1IxzSaERIES PER&E cnt
52 -
'd
No. 32
NationalSystemsSuppordngTechnicalAdvancein Industy. The Brazilan Experience,June 26, 1990.
No. 33
Gbana's SmallEnterpriseSector: Surveyof AdjustmentResponseand Constraints,June 1990.
No. 34
Footwear: GlobalSubsectorStudy,June 1990.
No. 35
Tighteningthe Soft BudgetConstraintin RefomingSocalst Economies, May 1990.
No. 36
Free Trade Zonesin ExportStrategies,December1990.
No. 37
ElectronicsDevelopmentStrategy:The Role of Government,June 1990
No. 38
Export Finance in the Pbilippines: Opportunites and Constraintsfor DevelopingCountrySuppliers,June 1990.
No. 39
The US. AutomotiveAftermarket: Opportunitiesand Constrints for DevelopingCountrySuppliers,June 1990
No. 40
InestmentAsA Determinantof Indusal CompeivenessandComparative Advantage:EvidencefromSx Countries,August1990(not yet publised)
No. 41
Adjustmentand ConstrainedResponse: Malawi at the Thresholdof SustainedGrowth October1990.
No. 42
Export Fhance - Issuesand DirectionsCase Study of the Philippnes, December1990
No. 43
The Basicsof AntitrustPolcy: A Reviewof Ten Nationsand the EEC, Februar 199L
No. 44
Strate in the Economyof Taiwan:Exploig ForeginLinkges Technology and Investingin LocalCapabilit,Januamy1991
No. 45
The Impactof AdjustmentLendingon Industryin AfricanCountries, June 1991.
Ego
For efloracopies of these papers please contactMiss WendyYoungon atenson 33618,RoomS-4101
