Status and Plans for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities in Norway

Similar documents
SANITATION COUNTRY PROFILE NORWAY

International Action Plan On The Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities

Safely delivering excellence in decommissioning, waste management and reprocessing

Estimation of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost and Accident Risk Cost (Statement)

DRAFT Milestones and Recommendations: Fuel Cycle OECD/IEA 2010

Onkalo: Recent policies on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland

Guide to nuclear decommissioning

RC-17. Alejandro V. Nader National Regulatory Authority Montevideo - Uruguay

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

Management of spent fuel and radioactive waste in Finland national programme in accordance with Article 12 of the Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING IN FINLAND

Japan s current Nuclear Energy Policy

IAEA Safety Standards for Regulatory Activities

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMES IN OECD/NEA MEMBER COUNTRIES MEXICO [2005] NATIONAL NUCLEAR ENERGY CONTEXT

NRC s Program for Remediating Polluted Sites J.T. Greeves, D.A. Orlando, J.T. Buckley, G.N. Gnugnoli, R.L. Johnson US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Outlook for RWE s nuclear operations. Prof. Dr. Gerd Jäger London, 16 January 2012

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY WAGRAMERSTRASSE 5, P.O. BOX 100, A-1400 VIENNA, AUSTRIA FACSIMILE: (+43 1) 26007, TELEPHONE: (+43 1) 2600

TVO and Nuclear Waste Management at Olkiluoto. Corporate Adviser

International Symposium on Nuclear Security

Licensing Process for New Nuclear Power Plants in Canada. INFO-0756 (Revision 1)

New legislation in the nuclear field in Sweden

Human Resource Management in Nuclear Safety

Nuclear Waste A Guide to Understanding Where We've Been and Where We're Going

Technical Meeting on the Implications of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident on the Safety of Fuel Cycle Facilities. IAEA Headquarters Vienna, Austria

ASTM C26 LONG RANGE PLAN Committee on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

DEMONSTRATION ACCELERATOR DRIVEN COMPLEX FOR EFFECTIVE INCINERATION OF 99 Tc AND 129 I

Cost Comparison of Spent Fuel Storage and Deep Geological Disposal

Preservation of Primary Information Related to Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety in the Argentine Nuclear Regulatory Authority. Chahab, M.

Office for Nuclear Regulation

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities in Sweden

INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH REACTORS (INSARR) MISSION. Halden, Norway

Government Degree on the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants 717/2013

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMES IN OECD/NEA MEMBER COUNTRIES AUSTRALIA NATIONAL NUCLEAR ENERGY CONTEXT

Training in Emergency Preparedness and Response

Spanish Scenario for Spent Fuel Management

Final Report. Comparison among different decommissioning funds methodologies for nuclear installations. Country Report Slovenia

Replacement of steam generators at Ringhals nuclear power plant.

July 30, 2012 Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters Government-TEPCO Med-and-long Term Response Council

Nuclear Waste Management in Finland

APPENDIX CC NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE

Anhörung Rückholung/Rückholbarkeit hoch radioaktiver Abfälle aus einem Endlager, Reversibilität von Entscheidungen

Role and tasks of Arpa Piemonte in controlling and monitoring of ionizing and non ionizing radiation. G.. d Amored

July 2015 Options for the Consolidated Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Nuclear Education & Training in France. Support to Newcomer and Expanding Countries

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Management of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel, Balance of Reprocessing

Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and on the safety of radioactive waste management

THE DECOMMISSIONING OF COMMERCIAL MAGNOX GAS XA COOLED REACTOR POWER STATIONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Implementation of the IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources and its supplementary Import/Export Guidance

Status, responsibilities and missions of ANDRA (France)

Chemical Decontamination and Fluid Handling Services

EUROPEAN COMMISSION NUCLEAR SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT. Recycling and Reuse of radioactive Material in the Controlled Nuclear Sector.

Constraints to Implementing Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation in IAEA Member States MAIN OUTCOMES

Chapter 4 Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Examination of National and International Impacts of Adoption of ICRP Recommendations

UQ Student Energy Network

Part 1 General and Administrative Information. Part 3 Applicant s Environmental Report Combined License Stage

GAO. NUCLEAR REGULATION Regulatory and Cultural Changes Challenge NRC. Testimony

The Comparison of Alternative Waste Management Strategies for Long-lived Radioactive Wastes (COMPAS)

THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE UK NUCLEAR INDUSTRY S FACILITIES

NUCLEAR POWER OVERALL GOOD FOR THE SOCIETY Finnish German Energy Day, 7th November 2012

Decommissioning situation of Nuclear Power Plant in Japan

Liquid Effluent Treatment Plant (LETP) Land Clean-Up

Incoming Letter. 01/10/1994 Final No Comments 8/18/00. 01/01/1994 Final No Comments 10/25/ /15/1994 Final No Comments 08/18/2000

Evaluering av Internship-ordningen ved Universitetet i Tromsø. Asbjørn Kårstein Tone Cecilie Carlsten

Decommissioning of CANDU Nuclear Power Stations. by G.N. Unsworth

SECTION TWO PACKAGING, TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

Standardised Decommissioning Cost Estimating of WWER-440 Nuclear Power Plants (SCE)

Hazard Classification of the Remote Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility

Chapter 6 Impact of Fukushima Daiichi Accident on Japan s Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Spent Fuel Management

Radioactive Waste Management the French case

centre for radiation protection

TECHNICAL MEETING ON IN-PILE TESTING AND INSTRUMENTATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GENERATION-IV FUELS AND STRUCTURAL MATERIALS

Institute for Science and International Security

The company is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX code: ILU) and employs approximately 850 people, the majority in Australia.

Licence condition handbook

ANTEP 2015 Needs from China (NNSA)

10 Nuclear Power Reactors Figure 10.1

Nuclear power plant systems, structures and components and their safety classification. 1 General 3. 2 Safety classes 3. 3 Classification criteria 3

Radioactive waste managment in Estonia past, present and future

System/activ. ity of interest Comment Priority. Referenc. Id Category Text. Waste management Establish waste classification 5 Romuald Duperrier Waste

Håkan Lorentz Barsebäck Kraft AB Box 524, SE Löddeköpinge, Sweden

Nuclear Energy of Ukraine - History

IMPLEMENTATION OF A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR OPERATING ORGANIZATIONS OF RESEARCH REACTORS

Section 4 RADIATION SAFETY RULES AND REGULATIONS

How To Decommission A Nuclear Plant

Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste

Nuclear Education at UCLan

Final Report. Comparison among different decommissioning funds methodologies for nuclear installations. Country Report Bulgaria

Waste management. The failure of the rational waste management policy

IAEA INTERNATIONAL FACT FINDING EXPERT MISSION OF THE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT FOLLOWING THE GREAT EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI

MISSION REPORT ON THE INTEGRATED NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW (INIR)

APPLICATION FOR LICENCE UNDER THE NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES ACT

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING IN THE NETHERLANDS 1. NATIONAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Acta Holding ASA. Agenda. 3rd quarter presentation CEO Geir Inge Solberg CFO Christian Tunge. 28th October 2009

IAEA Recommendations on a Decommissioning Plan (DP)

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

Andreeva Bay Facilities for SNF Management. CEG IAEA Workshop - February 2010

Introductions: Dr. Stephen P. Schultz

Radioactive Waste Management at Paks NPP

Transcription:

Status and Plans for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities in Norway Håkan Mattsson Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority 1. Introduction Norway has currently two research reactors in operation. The oldest one, the Halden Boiling Water Reactor (HBWR), is more than 50 years old and decommissioning has therefore become a highly relevant issue. This article gives an overview of the status and plans for decommissioning of nuclear facilities in Norway, including waste and spent fuel handling and financing. 2. Relevant Actors and Facilities in Norway 2.1. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) is the competent national authority in the area of radiation protection and nuclear safety in Norway. It was established in 1993 through the consolidation of the former Nuclear Energy Safety Authority (Statens atomtilsyn) with the National institute of Radiation Hygiene (Statens institutt for strålehygiene). NRPA is operated under the ministry of Health and Care Services and provides assistance to all ministries on matters dealing with radiation, radiation protection and nuclear safety. NRPA employs around 100 people in Oslo, Tromsø and Svanhovd. NRPA is responsible for implementing the Nuclear Energy Activities Act and the Radiation Protection Act, each with its regulations: Act 12 May 1972 nr.28: the Nuclear Energy Activities Act o Regulation of 2 November 1984 No. 1809 on physical protection of nuclear material and nuclear facilities o Regulation 12 of 12 May 2000 No. 433 on the Possession, Trade and Transport of Nuclear Material and Dual-Use Goods Act 12 May 2000 nr 36: Regulations on Radiation Protection and the Use of Radiation (Radiation Protection Act) o Regulation of 21 November 2003 No. 1362 on Radiation and the Use of Radiation (Radiation Protection Regulations) o Regulation of 6 December 1996 No. 1127 on Systematic Health, Environment and Safety Work in the Workplace (the Internal Control Regulation) 2.2. Institute for Energy Technology Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) was established in 1948 under the name Institute for Atomic Energy (IFA) for the purpose of carrying out research in the use of nuclear energy. 1

The first reactor facility, JEEP I, was put into operation in 1951. IFA later built other reactors, the Halden Boiling Heavy Water Reactor in Halden in 1959, NORA at Kjeller in 1961 and JEEP II at Kjeller in 1966. At the beginning of the1960s, it was apparent that JEEP I had become obsolete, therefore it was shut down in 1967 and later decommissioned. A year later, in 1968, NORA was also shut down and decommissioned. IFA operated a pilot facility to reprocess uranium fuel from 1961 to 1968. This facility has also been decommissioned and since then its premises are occupied by IFE s facility to process and store radioactive waste (The Radwaste facility). Today IFE operates all nuclear facilities in Norway, located in Halden and Kjeller. It currently holds the operating licenses for their nuclear facilities, which are valid until 2014 and 2018, respectively (Table 1). IFE also operates the storage facility for low and intermediate level radioactive waste in Himdalen. Table 1: Nuclear facilities in Norway Facility Operating licence Halden The research reactor HBWR 2009-2014 Fuel storage 2009-2018 Instrument workshop 2009-2018 Kjeller The research reactor JEEP II 2009-2018 Metallurgy laboratory I 2009-2018 Metallurgy laboratory II 2009-2018 Storage for spent fuel 2009-2018 Storage for fresh fuel 2009-2018 The Radwaste facility 2009-2018 3. IFE s plans for decommissioning 3.1. Overview NRPA received the first decommissioning plan from IFE in 1996. NRPA has also received updated versions of this plan in 2004 and 2007. NRPA has requested that IFE submits an updated decommissioning plan before the end of 2010. The first plan is an initial plan while the following are on-going plans using IAEA s terminology [1]. A final plan will be developed after the decision to permanently shutdown the facilities has been taken. No formal decision of the decommissioning options will be taken before the final plan is approved. 3.2. Time frame, organization and end-point Table 2 gives an overview of the time plan for the decommissioning of IFE s nuclear facilities. It can be seen that the whole decommissioning process is planned to take15 years. According to IFE s plan and the operating license, the decommissioning is planned to start 2

immediately after the decision to shut-down the facilities has been taken. This takes advantage of the competence of the personnel and their detailed knowledge of the facilities. Table 2: Time plan for decommissioning of IFEs nuclear facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Halden HBWR Instrument workshop Kjeller JEEP II Metallurgy laboratory I Metallurgy laboratory II Storage for spent fuel JEEP I fuel storage Storage for fresh fuel The Radwaste facility There are several possibilities how to organize the decommissioning work. A new company could be formed or the work could be performed under the existing organization. IFE has in its decommissioning plan chosen the latter option and a new department responsible for the decommissioning is planned to be established. As soon as the decommissioning process is initiated, relevant personnel will be transferred to this new department. As shown in Table 2, the current plan assumes that the decommissioning of all facilities start at the same time. When this plan was made, all IFE s facilities had the same operating license period. After the new license was issued in 2009, the HBWR now has an operating license for 6 years while all the other facilities have 10 years. The next decommissioning plan has to take this into account. Greenfield is the suggested end-point at this stage. It is planned that buildings should not necessarily be demolished but may be used for other purposes. Another issue is whether IFE s facilities have museum value. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage in Norway (Riksantikvaren) has assessed that the two research reactors have a cultural-historical value, especially the HBWR. The museum value will depend on how much equipment that has to be removed to reach acceptable radiation levels. For JEEP II this seems to be feasible but for HBWR it seems to be more difficult to achieve. 3.3. Cost and financing IFE s cost estimate of the decommissioning is shown in Table 3. It can be seen that the total cost is estimated to be 1.2 billion NOK (150 M ). About 75% of the costs will be used for decommissioning of the Halden reactor, assuming the structures inside the mountain hall shall be removed. Table 3: Estimate of cost, time and dose during the decommissioning. The estimated costs are in 2007 kroner. The cost of salaries assumes that IFE does the decommissioning themselves. Halden HBWR + Halden fuel storage Salary [knok] Direct costs [knok] Total [knok] Estimated time Dose [Man-Sv] 561 000 352 000 913 000 ~ 12 years 3 900 3

Instrument 700-700 < 1 year < 0.1 workshop Kjeller JEEP II 44 500 25 500 70 000 ~ 5 years 50 Metallurgy 90 15 105 < 1 year 1 laboratory I Metallurgy 94 000 48 000 142 000 < 11 years 750 laboratory II Storage for fresh 1 100 150 1 250 < 1 year 5 fuel Storage for spent 38 300 11 200 49 500 ~ 3 years 220 fuel JEEP I fuel storage 5 800 6 000 11 800 < 1 years 5 The Radwaste 14 000 4 500 18 500 ~ 2 years 120 facility Himdalen Transport costs 2 100 250 2 350 Kjeller-Himdalen Total 761 590 447 615 1 209 205 The question of how the costs for decommissioning should be financed has been discussed for several years but no formal decision has yet been taken. IFE is the owner of the nuclear facilities and the spent fuel and has therefore the formal responsibility. Accordingly, in the operating license IFE is requested to establish a plan for financing the decommissioning before the end of this year. However, IFE has requested that the government has to take the responsibility for the costs since the reactors were originally built and financed by the government. In addition, of the four research reactors built in Norway, two have been decommissioned (JEEP I and NORA). These decommissioning costs were covered by the government and IFE therefore claims that the same principle should be used for the other two reactors. IFE is an independent entity (non-profit foundation) and has no allocated resources dedicated for covering the decommissioning costs. IFE has estimated that the collected value of their resources (including buildings, land area, equipment etc) will cover less than 20 % of the total decommissioning cost. 3.4. Waste All low and intermediate level radioactive waste generated in Norway is currently shipped to the waste storage facility in Himdalen. Himdalen is owned by the state company Statbygg and presently operated by IFE. Low and intermediate level radioactive waste generated during the decommissioning of IFE s nuclear facilities, currently estimated to be 3000 canisters with each canister containing 220 litres, will be disposed in Himdalen. However, Himdalen is not licensed for spent nuclear fuel and it is not decided where it should be deposited. Currently all spent nuclear fuel generated in Norway is stored at the two reactor sites. Several Norwegian governmental commissions have since 1999 been working on how to handle the spent nuclear fuel. The work of these commissions is described below. The first commission was appointed in 1999 to develop a national strategy for the spent nuclear fuel from IFE. The commission presented its report in 2001 [2] where it was 4

recommended that a national intermediate storage facility should be established. In this the spent nuclear fuel and long-lived radioactive waste will be stored for 50-100 years in order to wait for cooling and to make plans for a final disposal. Following these recommendations, another governmental commission, the Phase 1 Commission, was appointed in the beginning of 2004 and it presented its report in mid-2004 [3]. The mandate of this commission was to survey Norway s storage need for long-lived radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The commission also investigated technical solutions for the intermediate storage facility. It concluded that Norway in 2004 had approximately 16 tonnes and 8 m 3 of spent nuclear fuel, which is increasing by about 200 kg/year. It was also pointed out that about 12 tonnes of this is metallic uranium or aluminium clad fuel, which constitutes a challenge for long-term storage and disposal. The commission recommended building a dry-storage facility for the spent nuclear fuel in a concrete structure or transportable storage containers. The construction time for such a facility was estimated to be 2-2.5 years and costing approximately 100 MNOK. In January 2009, two new commissions were appointed to continue the work on a more detailed level. The mandate of the main commission, the Phase 2 Commission, is to work to find the most suitable technical solution and localization for the intermediate storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and long-lived radioactive waste. This commission will present its result in 2011 [4]. A technical commission was appointed at the same time as the Phase 2 Commission. The mandate of this commission was to investigate how to handle the 12 tonnes of metallic or aluminium-clad fuel, currently stored at IFE. The commission presented its report in January 2010. The main recommendation was to consider commercial reprocessing options to render the fuel stable for long-term storage. 4. Summary This article has given an overview of the status and plans for decommissioning of nuclear facilities in Norway. The decommissioning plans of IFE are well developed and describe the time and costs for the decommissioning, though not how it should be financed. The financing issue has been discussed for several years but no formal decision has yet been taken. It is also not decided what to do with the spent nuclear fuel and Norway is currently in a process to identify the options. The current proposal is to build an intermediate deposit where the fuel can be stored for 50-100 years. 5. References 1. Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants and Research Reactors, IAEA Safety Guide No. WS-G-2.1, Vienna, 1999 2. Vurdering av strategier for sluttlagring av høyaktivt reaktorbrensel (NOU 2001:30), 2001, http://www.regjeringen.no/rpub/nou/20012001/030/pdfa/nou200120010030000dd DPDFA.pdf (in Norwegian) 3. Etablering av nytt mellomlager for høyaktivt avfall Lagringsbehov, alternative tekniske løsninger og momenter for valg av teknisk løsning og lokalisering, Fase-1 utvalget, 2004, 5

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/nhd/rap/2004/0028/ddd/pdfv/220783- mellomlagerrapportjuli04.pdf (in Norwegian) 4. Recommendations for the Conditioning of Spent Metallic Uranium Fuel and Aluminium Clad Fuel for Interim Storage and Disposal - A report prepared by the Technical Committee on Storage and Disposal of Metallic Uranium Fuel and Al-clad Fuels for Nærings- og handelsdepartementet, 2010, http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/nhd/vedlegg/rapporter_2010/tekniskutvalgsrapport20 10.pdf 6