Practical Implementation of National Clearance Levels at Dounreay

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul McClelland ◽  
Frank Dennis ◽  
Mark Liddiard
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Radioactive Wastes ◽  
Nuclear Industry ◽  
Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽  
Radioactive Material ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Nuclear Site ◽  
Regulatory Controls

Clearance is a very important part of any effective waste management strategy for both operating and decommissioning nuclear facilities. Radioactive waste disposal capacity is becoming an increasingly valuable resource and costs for disposal of radioactive wastes continue to dramatically rise. Considerable cost savings may be realised by efficient segregation of essentially non-radioactive material from radioactive wastes. The release of these materials from licensed nuclear sites for disposal, reuse or recycle without further regulatory controls is commonly referred to by the nuclear industry as “clearance”. Although much effort has been directed at establishing national clearance levels, below which, materials may be released without further regulatory controls, there is little practical guidance regarding implementation into local waste management programmes. Compliance with regulatory clearance limits is a relatively straightforward technical exercise involving appropriate management control and monitoring of the material. Whilst this is sufficient to avoid prosecution for breach of regulatory requirements, it is not sufficient to avoid a myriad of political and public relations land mines. When material is unconditionally released, unless additional attention is given to management of its future destination off-site, it may end up anywhere. The worst nightmare for a waste manager at a nuclear site is headlines in local and national newspapers such as, “RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSED IN LOCAL MUNICIPAL LANDFILL,” or, “RADIOACTIVE WASTE USED AS CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL FOR CHILDRENS PLAYGROUND,” etc. Even if the material were released legally, the cost of recovering from such a situation is potentially very large, and such public relations disasters could threaten to end the clearance programme at the given site, if not nationally. This paper describes how national regulatory clearance levels have been implemented for the decommissioning of the Dounreay nuclear site in the far north of Scotland. It specifically focuses on the management of public relations aspects of clearance in order to limit the exposure to non-regulatory pressures and liabilities associated with clearance programmes from nuclear sites. The issues are put into context for uncontaminated wastes, trace contaminated wastes and management of contaminated land.

Radioactive Waste Disposal and Protection of the Future Public

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-95
Author(s):  
John Tauxe
Keyword(s):  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Radioactive Wastes ◽  
Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽  
Radioactive Waste Management ◽  
Natural Processes ◽  
Social Actions ◽  
The Future ◽  
Waste Management Practices

Much of humanity's solid waste will outlast the human race, and the waste generated by one generation must be endured and managed by future societies. Radioactive wastes are unique in that their regulation explicitly considers the protection of future generations. But radioactive waste management faces a serious quandary: how to balance the substantial expense of waste isolation against the uncertain mitigation of risks to hypothetical future humans. Most of this uncertainty stems not from natural processes, or from the projected performance of engineered materials, but rather from social actions and human behaviors. Given that these uncertainties become overwhelming when consider the future only a few centuries from now, how far into the future is it useful for us to attempt to assess risks? Government regulators are currently grappling with this question as they rewrite regulations in order to accommodate radioactive wastes that have the potential for unacceptable and perpetual human health risks. This paper discusses the issues surrounding the period of performance expected from radioactive waste management practices, and outlines central conditions for soundly addressing controversial problems.

The Government of Canada’s Programs for Radioactive Waste Cleanup and Long-Term Management

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave McCauley ◽  
Douglas Metcalfe ◽  
Marcia Blanchette ◽  
Tom Calvert
Keyword(s):  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Radioactive Wastes ◽  
Nuclear Industry ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Uranium Mine ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Of Canada ◽  
Term Management

The Government of Canada’s 1996 Policy Framework for Radioactive Waste Management establishes that waste owners are responsible for the management of their radioactive wastes. This includes the planning, funding, and implementation of long-term waste management initiatives. Within this context, the Government has established three separate programs aimed at addressing the long-term management of radioactive waste for which it has accepted responsibility. The largest of these programs is the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program (NLLP). The objective of the NLLP is to address radioactive waste and decommissioning liabilities resulting from 60 years of nuclear research and development at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) sites in Canada. In 2005, the Government increased the value of this liability in its Public Accounts based on a new, 70-year long-term strategy and, in 2006, it implemented a $520 million 5-year work plan to initiate the strategy. The cost of implementing the full strategy is estimated at about $7 billion (current-day dollars). Canada’s Historic Waste Program is a second program that is designed to address low-level radioactive wastes across Canada that are not managed in an appropriate manner for the long-term and for which the current owner can not reasonably be held responsible. These wastes mainly emanate from the refining and use of radium in the 1930s and the very early days of the nuclear industry in Canada when radioactive ores were mined and transported long distances for processing. While the Historic Waste Program has been in place since 1982, the Government of Canada launched the Port Hope Area Initiative in 2001 to deal with the bulk of the waste. Finally, the Government of Canada has entered into two agreements with Canadian provincial governments on roles and responsibilities relating to the decommissioning of uranium mine and mill tailings sites. These agreements, one with the Province of Ontario and one with the Province of Saskatchewan, establish the responsibilities of each level of government to address circumstances where further decommissioning work is required and the producer can no longer be held responsible. The paper will provide an overview of these environmental remediation programs for radioactive waste and will describe recent progress and future challenges.

NORM inventory forecast for Australian offshore oil and gas decommissioned assets and radioactive waste disposal pathways

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Scott McKay ◽  
Stuart A. Higgins ◽  
Peter Baker
Keyword(s):  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Disposal ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Gas Production ◽  
Radioactive Wastes ◽  
Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽  
Radioactive Material ◽  
Offshore Oil And Gas ◽  
Offshore Oil

This research establishes a decommissioning timeline for the existing oil and gas facilities across all of the Australian offshore oil and gas production basins. Minimal data exist in the public domain to estimate these decommissioning timelines and, more importantly, the significant waste volumes generated; including potentially hazardous wastes such as naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). At this time there is no approved onshore radioactive waste disposal pathway in Australia to accommodate this material. Applying an estimation methodology, based on Norwegian decommissioning data with regional activity factors, allows a NORM waste forecast to be established for the decommissioning of Australian oil and gas offshore infrastructure. The total NORM disposal burden is estimated to be in the range of 223–1674 tonnes for decommissioning activity to 2060, with over 68% of this material generated between 2018 and 2025. Due to the sparsity of public domain data this forecast is deemed to be uncertain and excludes the NORM contamination anticipated to be present in subsea export pipelines, trunklines and well production tubing. Current regulations governing the categorisation and disposal of radioactive wastes across Australia are complex and regionally dependent. This regional variation makes the implementation of a national radioactive waste disposal facility more difficult, and encourages the export of radioactive wastes overseas for final disposal. Exporting of radioactive wastes potentially presents a higher risk compared with in-country disposal and is likely not an effective long-term proposition. A comprehensive NORM data collection and quantification assessment programme, spanning all onshore and offshore oil and gas infrastructure, needs to implemented to drive and verify a NORM waste management strategy for the wave of facility decommissioning projects that are fast approaching.

Iron-Enriched Basalt and its Application to Three-Mile Island Radioactive Waste Disposal

1981 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. V. Kelsey ◽  
R. P. Schuman ◽  
J. M. Welch ◽  
D. E. Owen ◽  
J. E. Flinn
Keyword(s):  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Disposal ◽  
Deionized Water ◽  
Radioactive Wastes ◽  
Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽  
Leaching Tests ◽  
Type 304

ABSTRACTDemonstration tests were performed on iron-enriched basalt (IEB), a dissolution and immobilization medium for TMI radioactive wastes. Zeolite of the type used for cesium and strontium decontamination of TMI containment water was mixed with 20 wt% additives and melted at 1500°C to form IEB. Cesium volatility from the IEB melts was low. Leaching tests in 90°C deionized water showed leach rates of 6 μg/cm2 d for both cesium and strontium. IEB melts were used to dissolve Type 304 SS pellets and UO2 pellets clad with zircaloy in order to simulate immobilization of TMI core debris. Bubbling air through the melts greatly enhanced the dissolution of these components.

The Overview of Radioactive Waste Management Technology

2013 ◽  
Vol 448-453 ◽  
pp. 199-203
Author(s):  
Guo Hua Qiu
Keyword(s):  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Waste Disposal ◽  
Reference Value ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽  
Radioactive Waste Management ◽  
Management Technology ◽  
Waste Classification

The Radioactive waste management technology is briefly introduced in this article based on related standards, guidelines and documents from IAEA. The radioactive waste management technology (RWM) includes related international standards and conventions, predisposal radioactive waste management, RWM for radioactive waste disposal, RWM for remediation, NORM and mining/milling waste. These management methods and valuable experience have important reference value to waste classification, waste disposal and management and related work in China.

Externalities and Internalisation of Radioactive Waste Producing Activities: The Analogy With Environmental Practices

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre L. Kunsch
Keyword(s):  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Carbon Tax ◽  
Radioactive Material ◽  
Electricity Production ◽  
Radioactive Waste Management ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Polluter Pays Principle

Abstract All human activities generate negative externalities, in particular the use of radioactive material for electricity production and radioisotope applications. Both activities produce radioactive waste, which can, therefore, be considered as being specific externalities. The purpose of the paper is to investigate these externalities and to identify appropriate internalisation instruments. Analogue cases in environmental management are discussed. In general the nuclear externalities are not internalised in the management costs charged by Radioactive Waste agencies (RAWA). The paper explores the possibility of having an internalisation of all costs as requested by the strict application of the Polluter Pays Principle. In the case of electricity production a comparison is made between the externalities attributed to nuclear waste and those in relation with CO2-emissions from the combustion of fossil fuel. A brief overview is given on the evaluation approach in ExternE (“Externalities of Energy”). The evaluations are the basis for the design of a carbon tax applicable to fossil fuels for reducing CO2-emissions. A similar tax could be charged on radioactive waste management. Beyond the internalisation objective, the tax proceeds could finance the technological R&D for improving the conditions of storage and disposal, and provide compensations to local residents in the vicinity of nuclear waste management facilities. The management of spent radioisotope equipment in medicine, research, or industry is shown to have similar features to the management of packages, spent electrical appliances, and the disposal of batteries. In general the price of management of the spent material is not included in the purchase price. In case of spent radioisotope equipment, the externality mainly represents the risk of this material becoming a hazard for the public health. It is recommended to internalise the full costs of management to eliminate this risk. Moreover spent material should be registered and RAWA should maintain detailed inventories on their national territories. In order to induce the free return of spent material to the RAWA, deposit refund systems could be set in place as in the package or battery market. A surcharge is paid by purchase, which is refunded to the buyers when they return the product for recycling or proper disposal. The paper concludes by describing lessons and possible implications of the previously discussed environmental tax or surcharge systems on the way the Polluter-Pays Principle is applied in radioactive waste management.

Optimization Features in Management of Salaspils Research Reactor Decommissioning Waste

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Dreimanis
Keyword(s):  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Research Reactor ◽  
Optimal Solution ◽  
Environmental Safety ◽  
Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽  
Disposal Site ◽  
Radioactive Waste Management ◽  
Safety Control ◽  
Simplified Approach

Management of decommissioning waste is considered as complex task of seeking for optimal solution in the environment of various competing technical, safety and socio-economical factors. If from the formal mathematics viewpoint it is a multi-parameter optimization task, then for real conditions simplified approach for such problem should be applied. We propose to decompose this task into the set of optimization analysis for particular steps, and then in each step it is easier to find optimum. For the real case of management of radioactive waste arising from dismantling and decommissioning of Salaspils Research Reactor (SRR) we consider following main optimization steps: 1) the choice of the decommissioning concept — among three elaborated versions — with estimation of the foreseen radioactive waste amount for disposal, recycling and free release, taking into account also potential exposures and financial resources; 2) establishment of national radioactive waste management agency “RAPA” Ltd., ensuring common administration and maintenance of the shutdown SRR and radioactive waste (RW) disposal site — RAPA manages some decommissioning activities of SRR and shall actively participate together with envisaged decommissioning operator in this process also in future, but in all stages will keep full responsibility of waste management; 3) optimization of radioactive waste transportation: i) organizational aspects (packing, transportation time, schedule, route, etc.), ii) environmental safety control; 4) optimization arrangement of space for radioactive waste disposal: i) choice of the best strategy to ensure a new space, ii) optimization of the vault size — to be able accommodate decommissioning waste without being oversized; 5) strategy of treatment, conditioning and packing of solid decommissioning waste; 6) optimization of liquid decommissioning waste management — its conditioning together with the solid radioactive waste; 7) socio-economical optimization features: i) existing infrastructure for RW disposal, ii) financial compensation for local municipality, iii) international cooperation, technical and financial assistance by EU, IAEA, Sweden. The proposed optimization features used in the developing of Concept for radioactive waste management in Latvia for the period 2003–2010 (which corresponds to the approved decommissioning period of SRR) supplement existing separate optimization aspects of decommissioning waste management and could be considered as simplified integral set of factors for elaboration of optimal strategy for decommissioning waste management.

What Opinions Do People Have Through the Understanding Concerning High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Project?

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Kimura ◽  
Masashi Furukawa ◽  
Daisuke Sugiyama ◽  
Taiji Chida
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽  
High Level Radioactive Waste ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Lay Persons ◽  
The Face ◽  
Amount Of Knowledge ◽  
High Level

In Japan, the implementation of the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal is one of urgent issues in the situation that Japan will continue the use of nuclear power. But, the lay people may not have the sufficient amount of information and knowledge about HLW disposal to hold their opinions about this issue. In this research, in order to clarify what opinions they will have with enough information and knowledge, we had the face-to-face dialogues about the HLW disposal with 2 or 3 lay persons. The dialogues were conducted 11 times with different lay persons’ groups. In these dialogues, after the lay participants had a certain amount of knowledge about HLW disposal, they became to talk about their opinions to the HLW disposal program in Japan. These opinions included the doubt against the open solicitation to select the siting area in the HLW disposal program of Japan, the emotion like NIMBY, the indication of lack of public relations about HLW disposal, and so on.

Detecting Sources of Ionizing Radiation in the Waste Stream

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Needham
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ionizing Radiation ◽  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Solid Waste ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Industrial Process ◽  
Control Program ◽  
The United States ◽  
Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽  
Radioactive Material

Why is the detection of radioactive sources important to the solid waste industry?: Radioactive material is used extensively in the United States in research, medicine, education, and industry for the benefit of society (e.g. smoke detectors, industrial process gauges, medical diagnosis/treatment). Generally speaking, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state governments regulate the use and disposal of radioactive materials. Licensed radioactive waste disposal facilities receive the bulk of the waste generated in the United States with exceptions for low-level waste (e.g. medical patient waste) that may be disposed of as municipal waste. According to the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc (CRCPD)., there has been an increasing number of incidence involving the detection of prohibited radioactive wastes at solid waste management facilities. While the CRCPD acknowledges that the increased incidence may be partially attributed to the growing number of solid waste facilities that have detection systems, undetected sources of ionizing radiation can harm the environment, have a negative impact on employee health and safety, and result in significant remedial actions. Implementing an effective detection/response plan can aid in the proper management of radioactive waste and serve to minimize the potential for negative outcomes.

scholarly journals A tentative useful-for-all definition of “safety” in the context of radioactive waste disposal

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 195-196
Author(s):  
Stephan Hotzel
Keyword(s):  
Radioactive Waste ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Waste Disposal ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽  
National Programmes ◽  
Geological Repository ◽  
Safety Case ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract. Most, if not all, national programmes for radioactive waste management pledge their overall commitment to safety or – in the case of radioactive waste disposal – to long-term safety. Therefore, it may be somewhat surprising to find that the term “safety” is hardly defined in these programs. The same holds for some of the core international guidance literature on the deep geological repository (DGR) “safety case” concept. With respect to stakeholder concern over the safety of geological disposal, it seems, however, advisable to seek common ground in the understanding of the idea of “safety”. Hotzel and Schröder (2018) reviewed the most relevant international guidance literature for explicitly or implicitly provided definitions of “safety” in the context of radioactive waste disposal. Based on this study – and on the finding that a practical, useful-for-all definition of “safety” is not provided in the scanned literature – they developed a tentative dictionary-style definition of “safety” that is suitable for everyday use in the DGR context. In the current contribution I embed, expand and update the 2018 study at both ends: As an enhanced introduction to the 2018 study, I lay out a basic concept of “sound” glossary definitions, namely glossary definitions being both practical and correct (and what this means). The thesis is that sound glossary definitions can facilitate mutual understanding between different stakeholder groups. As an update to the actual proposal for the definition of “safety” from the Hotzel and Schröder (2018) paper, that was presented and discussed at the Waste Management Conference 2018, I review the latest international guidance literature and the stakeholder concerns raised at the 2018 conference in order to present a revised definition. As a seed of discussion, it may help to eventually expose possible mismatches in the base assumptions of safety experts and other stakeholders and thereby support meaningful communication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document