USED FUEL MANAGEMENT:

A KEY MANDATE OF NRWDI

National Radioactive Waste Disposal InstitutePresenter: Alan Carolissen

Date: 14th December 2016

Contents

▪ Governance Framework for Radioactive Waste Management▪ Functional mandate of NRWDI▪ Disposal of Low Level Waste▪ Used Fuel Management Options ▪ Used Fuel Management Strategies▪ Outcomes of Used Fuel Management Strategies▪ Key drivers for the CISF▪ Challenges and solutions w.r.t CISF▪ Financial Resources Required▪ Concluding Remarks

2

GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK FOR RADWASTE MANAGEMENT

National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute

Governance Framework for Radwaste Management

FUNCTIONAL MANDATE OF NRWDI

National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute

FUNCTIONAL MANDATE OF NRWDI

▪ Manage radioactive waste disposal on a national basis;

▪ Operation of the Vaalputs repository;

▪ Develop criteria for accepting and disposing radioactive waste;

▪ Manage, operate and monitor operational radioactive waste disposal facilities

▪ Site, design and construct new disposal and related facilities as required;

▪ Define and conduct research and development aimed at finding solutions for long-term radioactive waste management;

▪ Maintain a national radioactive waste database;

▪ Manage ownerless radioactive waste on behalf of the Government; and

▪ Implement any assignments or directives from the Minister regarding radioactive waste management.

USED FUEL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES

National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute

Used Fuel Management Options

● Off-site above ground Centralized Interim Storage Facility

● Reprocessing, conditioning & recycling

● Direct disposal

● Transmutation

● Fuel take-back

Used Fuel Strategies

▪ At reactor storage + off-site storage ▪ At reactor storage+ off-site storage+ direct disposal

▪ At reactor storage+ reprocessing/recycling + disposal▪ At reactor storage+ off-site storage+

reprocessing/recycling + disposal

OUTCOMES OF UF STRATEGIES

▪ Regardless of the chosen UF Strategy, the following technical outcomes are inescapable:

▪ Centralized Long Term Off-site Storage Facility is required (2025)

▪ Deep Geological Repository is required (2065)

Off-site Centralized Interim Storage Facility

Deep Geological Repository

Fuel pellet ofuranium dioxide

Spent nuclear

fuel

Cladding tube

Copper canister with cast-iron

insert

Bedrock

Bentonite clay

Geological repositoryfor spent nuclear fuel

Source: SKB IC, 2008

Repository Planning Framework

Activities TimeframeSiting criteria and Potential Siting Areas 2017Short listing of PSA and preliminary field investigations

2017

Detailed site investigation 2018Site selection 2020Interim storage facility 2025Deep geological repository 2065

Key Drivers for CISF

▪ Many countries have adopted dry cask UF storage as an interim strategy in the absence of a deep geological repository.

▪ Recent Fukushima event heightened public concern about long term onsite storage in pools / dry casks.

▪ UF storage space at Koeberg NPP to be exhausted by 2020

▪ Economies of scale and scope (eliminate duplication)

Eskom’s Spent Fuel Management Timelines

15

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS WITH REGARD TO CISF

National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute

Site Selection and SitingThe features of Vaalputs that will make it an outstanding candidate site during the alternative site verification process of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for a CISF is as follows:

▪ It is an existing and licensed nuclear facility on a large Necsa owned property.

▪ It has been selected according to criteria that are also beneficial for the establishment of a CISF for used nuclear fuel. Vaalputs is e.g. remote, has low rainfall, low seismic hazard, low population density and low potential for industrial and agricultural growth.

▪ Previous investigations have shown many options exist for a CISF site in the vicinity of the current disposal facility.

▪ None of these site options should effect the current or expected future operations or nuclear licenses for low and intermediate level waste disposal.

▪ The potential areas for a CISF site on Vaalputs have been well characterized in terms of its geological, geotechnical and seismic characteristics and many decades of environmental monitoring data are available.

Project overruns

▪ Many projects do not deliver on time or within budget or has limited development impact

▪ Reasons: red tape lack of coordination across the three spheres silos between national departments lack of integration between infrastructure systems slow actions by bureaucrats and sitting on decisions for long periods litigation by lobbyists that slows down implementation corruption in tenders that increases costs limited focus on localisation and jobs

Solutions: Classify CISF as a Strategic Infrastructure Project (SIP)

▪ Invoke the provisions of INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ACT 23 OF 2014 to classify the CISF as a Strategic Infrastructure Project (SIP)

▪ The Act has three schedules namely:

Schedule 1 defines the scope of the Act, essentially comprising major kinds of infrastructure.

Schedule 2 provides timeframes for SIP planning and public consultation.

Schedule 3 lists the current SIPs to ensure they are maintained when the Act comes into force.

Schedule 1: Public installations, structures, facilities, systems, services or processes in respect of which projects may be designated as strategic integrated projects

National and international airports

Communication and information technology installations

Education institutions

Electricity transmission and distribution

Health care facilities

Human settlements and related infrastructure and facilities

Economic facilities

Mines

Oil or gas pipelines, refineries or other installations

Ports and harbours

Power stations or installations for harnessing any source of energy

Productive rural and agricultural infrastructure

Public roads

Public transport

Railways

Sewage works and sanitation

Waste infrastructure

Water works and water infrastructure

Schedule 2: Process and periods of time

Period for submitting application and project plan measured from approval by steering committee of

project plan.

7 days

Period for public consultation on the application and project plan. 30 days

Period for application and project plan to be amended and submitted to the relevant authority for

consideration and approval.

52 days

Period for submission to the relevant authority of detailed development and mitigation plan based on

an approved project plan

60 days

Period for public consultation on the development and mitigation plan and review by relevant

authority.

44 days

Period for relevant authority to consider and assess development and mitigation plan and make final

regulatory decision.

57 days

CONCLUDING REMARKS

National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute

Concluding Remarks

▪ Regardless of the chosen UF Strategy, the following technical outcomes are inescapable: Centralized Long Term Off-site Storage Facility is required (2025) Deep Geological Repository is required (2065)

▪ The Vaalputs site is a candidate site for the establishment of the above ground off-site centralised interim dry storage facility for used fuel as well as for hosting the deep geological repository.

▪ Classification of CISF as a SIP is imperative to obtain timeously regulatory approvals (RoD & NIL)

▪ NRWDI is ready to provide waste generators with safe, technically sound and economic feasible radwaste disposal and related services that meet our exceed their expectations.

Thank You!Name : Alan Carolissen Title : Chief Operating Officer (COO) Cell : 082 809 7750Email : alan.carolissen@nrwdi.org.za 24