Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Enclose them for a certain time period (e.g. the complete primary circuit in the existing and modified concrete structure, the reactor vessel or other large equipment in a specially designed and built enclosure); Ensure that no one can enter the structure and no activated material or contamination can leave the structure; Leave this structure for a certain time period; Foresee a final step, in which the remaining materials are removed from the structure and either released from regulatory control (if decayed to below the prescribed concentrations), or are cut, conditioned and sent to the final disposal facility. The aims pursued by including such a step in the scheme can be manifold, as are the associated risks: Short-lived radionuclides decay during this period so that radiation fields (esp. gamma radiation) during the final step are less relevant. This concerns exclusively short-lived nuclides such as Cobalt-60, i.e. in activated steel structures. Other parts, mainly of the contaminated primary cooling system, are contaminated with fission products (notably Cesium-137) and for these parts decontamination has to be applied. Thus, such an aim only make sense in cases where the material can be finally released from regulatory control or when the final step(s) can be performed under considerably less complex conditions (e.g. without remote cutting) or where the decayed material becomes suitable for 'less reliably isolating' final disposal facilities). There are several risks and obstacles that can turn this aim to its opposite (e.g. materials with low concentrations of nuclides with adverse measuring properties increase necessary measuring efforts and expenses to be made, no nuclear shops able and willing to perform the final tasks are available any more, neither experienced personnel nor regulatory means are available any more, the disposal facilities and their waste acceptance criteria have changed considerably, release criteria have changed to lower and more strict concentrations). The costs for the final steps have to be borne at a later time. This argument is shortsighted if the previously named risks are considered. The total costs over the whole decommissioning scheme, with a long inactive enclosure period in between, can be considerably higher than those for immediate decommissioning (e.g. with extra cost factors such as for re-building personnel, expertise and regulatory administration from the very scratch, setting up specialized shops for performing the final steps, finding/building/operating/closing an extra disposal facility for the then-generated wastes). Similarly, the hope that money spent only years later might reduce overall costs is short-sighted: Only money that is explicitly set aside (as a reserve or fund) for that purpose can generate interests over time, assuming that interest rates remain high enough over the complete time period. Only if the inflation rate is continuously smaller than those interest rates, might a reduction of total costs be achieved. Increases in labor costs, one of the cost factors in decommissioning, can outweigh much or all of the interest. 42
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Only if the money owning entity does not go bankrupt in the meantime is the money still there when later needed. Only if the economy does not experience massive inflation over this time may the money still be available and valuable when it is needed. In view of these conditions, trust in such concepts is in general is misplaced. 2.2.6. Conclusions Based on the exposé above the following conclusions can be drawn: Nuclear reactors have to be decommissioned because the inventory of activated and contaminated radioactive material in the facility is large and, in part, long-lived. The enclosure of this complete inventory in the existing structure cannot be guaranteed over very long times. Leakages and uncontrolled spreading of parts of this inventory can cause environmental risks, so it is necessary to remove the inventory before the facility structures can be dismantled or re-used for other purposes. Decommissioning is the process to allow removal of some or all of the regulatory controls that apply to the nuclear facility by e.g.: Removing all activated and contaminated materials, equipment, items and surfaces from the reactor; Treating selected materials to remove contamination from their surface; Sorting the materials on the basis of their measured degree of activation and contamination; Cutting, solidifying or compacting those materials and to package the materials. Basic strategic decisions, either taken on a national regulatory level or on a project-specific level, that are of relevant influence for decommissioning are: Whether materials from controlled areas shall be released from regulatory control following decontamination, monitoring and control procedures or whether all slightly radioactive materials shall be disposed of in a near-surface disposal facility; Whether decommissioning in steps includes (long) inactive time periods or is performed continuously without longer periods of delay. The risks associated with pre-planned longer time delays are considerable, the expectation to achieve cost reductions is doubtful in the extreme. 43
Page 3 and 4: DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL PO
Page 5 and 6: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 43: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 95 and 96:
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
detailed regulation, should there b
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201:
show all

Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?