The 13th International Conference on Environmental ... - Events

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Abstracts 4) 40290 – <strong>The</strong> Outline of Decommissioning Plan for Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Unit-1 and Unit-2 Yoshifusa Fukuoka, Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc. (Japan) Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station's Unit-1 and Unit-2 ended their operation on January 30, 2009. <strong>The</strong> Unit-1 and 2 will be dismantled and removed, and doing this requires establishing a nuclear reactor facility decommissioning plan, and getting the approval of the national government. <strong>The</strong>ir decommissioning procedure commenced after the submission of the "Application for the approval of the decommissioning plan for Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Unit-1 and 2" to the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry on June 1, 2009 , and subsequent approval for the application on November 18, 2009. ?<strong>The</strong> application includes an overall plan for dismantling reactor facilities safely and surely, a description of tasks to be performed during the period Chubu Electric is preparing to dismantle the facilities in the coming years and safety assurance measures, among other information. ?According to the plan, the decommissioning of Unit-1 and Unit-2 is to be completed by the end of FY2036. <strong>The</strong> 28-year schedule is divided into four phases. ?Phase 1?Preparation Stage, FY2009 ? FY2014 Transporting and transferring nuclear fuel out of the plants, investigating the status of contamination, conducting system decontamination, and dismantling / removing facilities and equipment outside RCA ?Phase 2?Dismantling and Removal Stage for Reactor Zone Peripheral Facilities, FY2015 ? FY2022 Dismantling / removing reactor zone peripheral facilities, safely storing dismantlement debris, and installing facilities for processing dismantlement debris ? Phase 3?Dismantling and Removal Stage for Reactor Zones, FY2023 ? FY2029 Dismantling and removing the reactor zone (covering the reactor vessel, core support structures, and radiation shields surrounding the reactor vessel) ?Phase 4?Dismantling and Removal Stage for Building Structures, FY2030 ? FY2036 Removing radioactive materials inside plant buildings, and dismantling / removing the buildings. Of waste to be generated in decommissioning work at Unit-1 and Unit-2, low-level radioactive waste accounts for approx. 17,000 tons . Low-level radioactive waste is sorted according to the types of radioactive substances contained or the level of radiation based on laws and regulations, and appropriately put to underground disposal based on the classifications. Specific methods for disposal, including the disposal site, will be decided before the start of dismantlement work on reactor zone's peripheral facilities, and reflected to the decommissioning plan for approval. <strong>The</strong> decommissioning plan for Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Unit-1 and Unit-2 represents Japan's first decommissioning of a commercial light-water nuclear power plant. <strong>The</strong> priority is given to safety to steadily implement the decommissioning plan with transparency on Hamaoka NPS, and to acquisition of the trust from everyone concerned. 5) 40015 – Study on Influence of Nuclear Fuel Material Management and Transfer Scenarios on Decommissioning Kazuma Mizukoshi, Nuclear Engineering, Ltd. (Japan) 1. Summary <strong>The</strong> Japanese electric utilities are required to prepare plans to transfer its nuclear fuel material by the end of the decommissioning period. <strong>The</strong>re can be several scenarios regarding the management and transfer of nuclear fuel material. It is necessary to fully understand the characteristics of individual scenarios so that the most suitable method can be selected according to the conditions specific to each plant. We have examined how the nuclear fuel material management and transfer scenarios cause influences on the decommissioning and evaluated the characteristics (advantages and disadvantages) of each scenario. We expect that the result of this study will be useful for a nuclear power station which plans decommissioning to choose a suitable and effective scenario for the nuclear fuel material management and transfer. 2. Method We collected information about methods of nuclear fuel material management and transfer and extracted several scenarios as shown below: Scenario A? Spent fuel (SF) is transported to a reprocessing plant after storing it in the same SFP as it was stored during the in-service period. Scenario B? SF is transported to an another unit of the same power station to transfer the management of the SF to the unit. ?<strong>The</strong> transportation between units.? Scenario C? SF is transported to an interim storage facility to transfer the management of SF to the interim storage facility. Scenario D: SF is transported to a reprocessing plant after storing it in a SFP which is isolated by replacing existing system components with temporarily installed components. Scenario E?SF is transported to an interim storage facility after storing it in a SFP which is isolated by replacing existing system components with temporarily installed components, and its management is transferred to the interim storage facility. Regarding the scenarios mentioned above, we examined the influence on decommissioning conditions (dismantling / storage areas, and so on), decommissioning process, and costs. 3. Result A study on the influence of the scenarios of nuclear fuel material management and transfer on decommissioning has clarified the characteristics (advantages and disadvantages) of individual scenarios and which scenario is suitable to specific conditions. 4. Conclusion We could fully understand the characteristics of the scenarios of nuclear fuel material management and transfer. We expect the result obtained from this study will be useful for a nuclear power plant to choose a suitable scenario of nuclear fuel material management and transfer. 6) 40100 – Dose Assessment for setting of EPZ in Emergency Plan for Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plant Hirokazu Minato, Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy (Japan); Takatoshi Hattori, CRIEPI (Japan); Toshihiko Higashi,<strong>The</strong> Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. (Japan); Takehiro Iwata, JAPC (Japan) In emergency plan for a nuclear power plant, taking enough measures in EPZ boundary (Emergency Planning Zone) 64
Abstracts is one of priority matters, to have protection against the release of radioactive materials in accident efficiently and quickly to minimize environmental impacts. EPZ is set as the zone which emergency plans should be mainly prepared on emergency conditions. <strong>The</strong> criteria of EPZ is that dose value in the area between plant and EPZ boundary have to be less than 10mSv, even if very conservative release mechanisms and path are supposed. <strong>The</strong> released amount of radioactive material from a nuclear power plant is calculated to the accident scenario were supposed with the each phase of decommissioning. Moreover, the dose value is calculated as the evaluation of environmental impacts, using atmospheric diffusion parameters are determined by the plume concentration gaussian type distribution model at steady state, and annual meteorological data of the reference plants. Both of 'the spent fuel storage phase' and 'the safe maintenance and dismantling phase' on each of the expected accident scenario, the dose value in EPZ boundary is much less than safety criteria (10mSv), and there is no need to plan offsite emergency plan, such as the Sheltering and Escape for a reference plant. This result is agreeing with the opinion of Waste and decommission working group 2006 of Western European Nuclear Regulator's Association (WENRA). 7) 40044 – Decommissioning of Ignalina NPP Karolis Zemkajus, Algirdas Vaidotas, Radioactive Waste Management Agency in Lithuania (Lithuania) <strong>The</strong> paper describes the preparation for the decommissioning and implementation of the Programme on Ignalina NPP decommissioning. Emphasis is given to the Final Decommissioning Plan, the whole INPP decommissioning process, Radiation Protection Programme, waste to be processed and disposed. Ignalina NPP was designed and constructed (Unit 1 was commissioned in 1983, Unit 2 was commissioned in 1987) at the time when safety culture was not the issue addressed in a special way. <strong>The</strong> opinion of the international community was very important to Lithuania as it was striving for the membership of the European Union and NATO. Thus, Lithuania, respecting the opinion of the international community, and pursuant to the Nuclear Safety Account Grant Agreement, envisaged shutdown of Unit 1of Ignalina NPP by year 2005 in the National energy strategy ratified by the Seimas in 1999, considering the long-term and essential financial assistance conditions ensured by the EU, G-7 countries and other international institutions. <strong>The</strong> National energy strategy updated in year 2002 states that having in mind that the European Union countries acknowledged INPP decommissioning to be an exceptional financial burden for Lithuania, as well as a process which exceeds current financial perspectives of the country, Unit 2 will be shutdown in 2009 if sufficient financial resources supported by agreements with the EU institutions and other donors are in place. Regarding the preparation for the decommissioning and implementation of the Programme on INPP Unit 1 decommissioning during the period 2001-2004 Ignalina NPP developed and the Ministry of Economy approved the Final Decommissioning Plan (FDP) in 2005. This Plan covers the whole INPP decommissioning process (both Units, auxiliary facilities and eventually the interim spent fuel and waste storage facilities). Decommissioning activities and projects are planned on the basis of the herein proposed strategy. Generally, FDP describes principles, methods and techniques and the overall plans and schedules required to ensure radiological safe, environmental friendly and economic decommissioning of the INPP. In summary, the following information is provided in FDP: • applied regulatory framework; • adopted dismantling strategy; • plan and schedule of decommissioning; • radioactive and hazardous material inventories; • decommissioning activities; • decontamination activities; • dismantling tools and methods; • INPP waste management strategy; • safety and environmental impact assessment; • Radiation Protection Programme; • INPP organization performing decommissioning; • decommissioning costs and funding; • quality assurance; • final radiation survey and facility and site restoration. From the nuclear safety standpoint, the activities related to potential risk will be performed during the first 10 years following the reactor final shutdown (spent fuel handling, decontamination, systems modifications and isolation etc.). Works will be prepared and carried out by the skilled INPP staff. According the Programme on Ignalina NPP decommissioning the Schedule of Decommissioning: • units final shutdown: unit 1 – 31/12/2004, unit 2 – 31/12/2009; • reactors defuelling: unit 1 – 31/12/2009, unit 2 – 28/02/2012; • pools defuelling: unit 1 – 31/08/2015, unit 2 – 12/01/2016; • start D&D activities: unit 1 – middle 2010, unit 2 – early 2012. FDP describes volumes of unconditioned waste to be considered while preparing for and performing the decommissioning. In summarizing, it could be stated that INPP operation and decommissioning will generate approximately 5 900m3 of spent resins, perlite and sediments and about 130 000m3 of solid radioactive waste. <strong>The</strong> operational stored waste estimates by end 2009: • spent Fuel - 23000 assemblies; • solid Waste - 30000 m3; • bituminized waste - 14000 m3; • waste to be cemented (resins, perlites) - 6000 m3 (retrieval and cementation on-going since 2005). <strong>The</strong> Decommissioning waste estimates: • spent fuel -18000 assemblies; • equipment - 130000 tons of steel; • reactor - 4000 tons of steel, 4000 tons graphite; • buildings - 1000000 m3 of concrete, 200000 tons of steel. This waste will require processing in the new cementation facility and future solid waste management After decontamination of the emptied INPP facilities, final demolition of the building structures will additionally generate some 965000 m3 of concrete and 190000 tons of steel to be free released. SESSION G1 : <strong>International</strong> Collaboration 1) 40118 – Advancing the Use of IAEA Networks in Radioactive Waste Management: Past Successes, Present Challenges and Future Opportunities Paul Degnan, John Kinker, Irena Mele, Paul J. Dinner, Horst Monken Fernandes, Antonio Morales, Lumir Nachmilner, Shaheed Hossain, IAEA 65
Page 1 and 2:
FINAL PROGRAM The
Page 3 and 4:
General Information Objectives and
Page 5 and 6:
Insurance and Liability All partici
Page 7 and 8:
Map around Conference</stro
Page 9 and 10:
ICEM2010 Technical Sessions at a Gl
Page 11 and 12:
ICEM2010 Technical Sessions at a Gl
Page 13 and 14:
Sphiee Robert, Benoit Carpentier, S
Page 15 and 16: 4. 40007 - Chemical Decontamination
Page 17 and 18: 3. 40060 - The Dep
Page 19 and 20: concept for disposal of HLW Lou Are
Page 21 and 22: Materials Corp. (Japan) 7. 40047 -
Page 23: List of Exhibitors The</str
Page 39 and 40: Abstracts OPENING SESSION “Nuclea
Page 41 and 42: Abstracts Centre de l’Aube that t
Page 43 and 44: Abstracts environmental hazard. <st
Page 45 and 46: Abstracts US-Russian Global Threat
Page 47 and 48: Abstracts The pape
Page 49 and 50: Abstracts 4) 40289 - Activities of
Page 51 and 52: Abstracts stability, set times, hea
Page 53 and 54: Abstracts The obje
Page 55 and 56: Abstracts 3) 40292 - GIS-Based Deci
Page 57 and 58: Abstracts dewatered resin waste tog
Page 59 and 60: Abstracts widely used portable assa
Page 61 and 62: Abstracts Nuclear Reactors”, was
Page 63 and 64: Abstracts Onsite activities took pl
Page 65: Abstracts operating plant through d
Page 69 and 70: Abstracts Currently over 25 interna
Page 71 and 72: Abstracts group related to scenario
Page 73 and 74: Abstracts hyperalkaline groundwater
Page 75 and 76: Abstracts precipitation, but have l
Page 77 and 78: Abstracts 4) 40266 - Problems with
Page 79 and 80: Abstracts presented. A possible mec
Page 81 and 82: Abstracts or parametric uncertainty
Page 83 and 84: Abstracts hydrologic structure of t
Page 85 and 86: Abstracts appropriate decommissioni
Page 87 and 88: Abstracts U-238 concentration was i
Page 89 and 90: Abstracts SESSION L7: Storage and D
Page 91 and 92: Abstracts Supercontainer and to pro
Page 93 and 94: Abstracts various percentage satura
Page 95 and 96: Abstracts A critical issue for buil
Page 97 and 98: Abstracts decommissioning program.
Page 99 and 100: Abstracts countries where disposal
Page 101 and 102: Abstracts planned to dispose in geo
Page 103 and 104: Abstracts 12) 40221 - Decontaminati
Page 105 and 106: Abstracts conditions in siliceous m
Page 107 and 108: Abstracts chromatographic separatio
Page 109 and 110: Abstracts 15) 40089 - Sorption Beha
Page 111 and 112: Abstracts 21) 40137 - Development o
Page 113 and 114: Abstracts to develop transportation
Page 115 and 116: Abstracts and its power was 100 kWt
Page 117 and 118:
Abstracts 7) 40193 - Strippable Cor
Page 119 and 120:
Abstracts SESSION M3: EM/PI Poster
Page 121 and 122:
Sohei IKEGAMI Japan Atomic Energy A
Page 123 and 124:
Jin-Seop KIM Korea Atomic Energy Re
Page 125:
ICEM2010 Conference</strong
show all

The 13th International Conference on Environmental ... - Events

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

Delete template?

Save as template?