Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A review of the features, events, and processes and scenario development for Korean risk assessment of a deep geological repository for high-level radioactive waste

  • Received : 2023.04.27
  • Accepted : 2023.07.23
  • Published : 2023.11.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Currently, various research institutes in Korea are conducting research to develop a safety case for deep geological repository for high-level radioactive waste (HLW). In the past, low and intermediate-level waste (LILW) was approved by a regulatory body by performing a post-closure safety assessment, but HLW has different disposal characteristics and safety objectives are different. Therefore, in the case of HLW, safety assessment should be performed based on these changed conditions, and specific procedures are also under development. In this paper, the regulatory status of prior research institutes, feature, event and process (FEP) and scenario development cases were investigated for well-organized FEP and scenario development methodologies. In addition, through the results of these surveys, the requirements and procedures necessary for the FEP and scenario development stage during the safety assessment of repository for HLW were presented. These review results are expected to be used to identify the overall status of previous studies in conducting post-closure risk assessment for HLW repository, starting with identifying regulatory requirements, the most basic element.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Institute for Korea Spent Nuclear Fuel(iKSNF) and Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning(KETEP) grant funded by the Korea government (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy(MOTIE)) (No. 2021040101003C).

References

  1. IAEA, Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Specific safety requirements No, SSR 5 (2011).
  2. IAEA, Geological disposal facilities for radioactive waste, specific safety Guide No, SSG 14 (2011).
  3. IAEA, The safety case and safety assessment for the disposal of radioactive waste, specific safety Guide No, SSG- 23 (2011).
  4. Nuclear Safety & Security Committee (NSSC), A General Guideline for the Deep Geological Disposal System for the HLW in Korea, 2021.
  5. U.S., Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Survey of National Programs for Managing High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: 2022 Update, 2022.
  6. OECD/NEA, Features, Events and Processes (FEPs) for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste, 2000.
  7. OECD/NEA, Updating the NEA International FEP List an Integration Group for the Safety Case (IGSC) Technical Note 1, vol. 7, NEA/RWM/R, 2014, 2013.
  8. OECD/NEA, Updating the NEA International FEP List an Integration Group for the Safety Case (IGSC) Technical Note 2, vol. 8, NEA/RWM/R, 2014, 2013.
  9. OECD/NEA, International Features, Events and Processes (IFEP) List for the Deep Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste, vol. 1, NEA/RWM/R, 2019, p. 2019.
  10. IAEA, Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection 2018 Edition, 2018.
  11. Kang Chul-Hyung, Jong-Tae Jeong, Jong-Won Choi, A study on the development of the FEP and scenario for the HLW disposal in Korea, J. Nucl. Fuel Cycle Waste Technol. (JNFCWT) 10 (3) (2012) 133-141. https://doi.org/10.7733/jkrws.2012.10.3.133
  12. K.-S. Kim, et al., A Safety Case of the Conceptual Disposal System for Pyro-Processing High-Level Waste Based on the KURT Site (AKRS-16): Safety Case Synthesis Report, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute Report, 2016. KAERI/TR-6726/2016.
  13. POSIVA, Safety case for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel at Olkiluoto - synthesis 2012, Posiva 2012-12 (2012).
  14. POSIVA, Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - Features, Events and Processes 2012, 2012. POSIVA 2012-07.
  15. POSIVA, Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto - FEP Screening and Processing, 2014. POSIVA 2014-03.
  16. T.F. Ehrhorn, R. Jarek, Features, Events, and Processes for the Total System Performance Assessment: Analysis. ANL-WIS. MD-000027, REV 0. Las Vegas, NV, Sandia National Laboratories, USA, 2008.
  17. C. Axness, K. Turnham, Features, Events, and Processes for the Total System Performance Assessment: Methods. ANL-WIS. MD-000026, REV 0. Las Vegas, NV, Sandia National Laboratories, USA, 2008.
  18. P.N. Swift, C.W. Hansen, J.C. Helton, R.L. Howard, M.K. Knowles, R.J. MacKinnon, S.D. Sevougian, Summary discussion of the 2008 performance assessment for the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 122 (2014) 449-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.06.009
  19. F. Garisto, Seventh Case Study: Features, Events and Processes, 2018. NWMO-TR-2018-15. Canada.
  20. Radioactive Waste Management, Geological Disposal Generic Post-closure Performance Modelling. NDA Report No, NDA/RWM/138, UK, 2016.
  21. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., Stockholm (Sweden), Longterm Safety for the Final Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel at Forsmark Main Report of the SR-Site Project (SKB-TR-11-01(v2)). Sweden, 2011.
  22. Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., Stockholm (Sweden), FEP Report for the Safety Assessment SR-Site (SKB-TR-10-45). Sweden, 2010.
  23. ANDRA, Safety evaluation of a geological repository, Dossier (2005), 2005.
  24. National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste (NAGRA), Wettingen (Switzerland), Project Opalinus Clay: FEP Management for Safety Assessment - Demonstration of Disposal Feasibility for Spent Fuel, Vitrified High-Level Waste and Long-Lived Intermediate-Level Waste (Entsorgungsnachweis) (NTB-02-23). Switzerland, 2002.
  25. NUMO, The NUMO Pre-siting SDM-Based Safety Case, NUMO-TR-21-01, 2021.
  26. IAEA, Safety Assessment Methodologies for Near Surface Disposal Facilities, vol. 1, 2004.
  27. OECD/NEA, Safety Assessment of Radioactive Waste Repositories: Systematic Approaches to Scenario Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD, Paris, 1992.
  28. E.J. Bonano, R.G. Baca, Review of Scenario Selection Approaches for Performance Assessment of High-Level Waste Repositories and Related Issues, NUREG/CR-6351, 1995.
  29. M. D'Aiessandro, A. Bonne, Radioactive Waste Disposal into a Plastic Clay Formation. CEC Report EUR7111 (Also by, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1981.
  30. G.V. Last, V.J. Rohay, F.J. Schelling, A.L. Bunn, M.A. Delamare, R.L. Dirkes, R. D. Hildebrand, J.G. Morse, B.A. Napier, R.G. Riley, L. Soler, P.D. Thorne, A Comprehensive and Systematic Approach to Developing and Documenting Conceptual Models of Contaminant Release and Migration at the Hanford Site, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (SERRA), 2004.
  31. M.W. Kozak, M.P. Bergeron, A Hybrid Approach to the Use of Safety Functions with Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) in Performance Assessment, WM2017 Conference, 2017.
  32. Keiichiro Wakasugi, Katsuhiko Ishiguro, Takeshi Ebashi, Hiroyoshi Ueda, Toshihiro Koyama, Hiroshi Shiratsuchi, Shoko Yashio, Hideki Kawamura, A Methodology for Scenario Development Based on Understanding of Long-Term Evolution of Geological Disposal Systems, Nuclear Science and Technology, 2012.
  33. R.D. Wilmot, M.B. Crawford, A Review of Expert Judgement and Treatment of Probability in SR 97, n.d., Galson Sciences Ltd., 2000.
  34. S.H. Lee, Y.S. Hwang, An Approach to PID Method, KAERI, 2009.
  35. KAERI, An External Review of FEP&Scenario, KAERI, 2007.
  36. D.W. Lee, C.L. Kim, J.W. Park, Development of Reference Scenarios Based on FEPS and Interaction Matrix, Nuclear Science and Technology, 2001.
  37. Y.S. Hwang, C.H. Kang, E.J. Seo, Development of the KAERI FEP, scenario, and assessment method database for permanent disposal of HLW in Korea, Prog. Nucl. Energy 48 (2) (2006) 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2005.09.008
  38. NEA, Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Review of Safety Assessment Methods, NEA, 1991.
  39. R.D. Wilmot, D.A. Galson, Expert Judgement in Performance Assessment, SKI, 2000.
  40. NEA, International Experiences in Safety Cases for Geological Repositories, NEA, 2009.
  41. E. Devonec, S.D. Sevougian, P.D. Mattie, J.A. Mcneish, S. Mishra, Methodology Used for Total System Performance Assessment of the Potential Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain (USA), Department of Energy, 2001.
  42. NEA, Methods for Safety Assessment of Geological Disposal Facilities for Radioactive Waste, NEA, 2012.
  43. KEARI, Normal Scenario Development on the Radionuclide Release and its Transfer and Transport from a Repository, KAERI, 1997.
  44. D.A. Galson, P.J. Richardson, Performance Assessment Methodologies in Application to Guide the Development of the Safety Case, PAMINA, 2011.
  45. J.E. Campbell, R.M. Cranwell, Performance Assessment of Radioactive Waste Repositories, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1988.
  46. R.V. Guzowski, Preliminary Identification of Scenarios that May Affect the Escape and Transport of Radionuclides from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Southeastern New Mexico, Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States), 1990.
  47. W.J. Roberds, R.J. Plum, P.J. Visca, Proposed Methodology for Completion of Scenario Analysis for the Basalt Waste Isolation Project, Department of Energy, 1984.
  48. E.J. Bonano, R.G. Baca, Review of Scenario Selection Approaches for Performance Assessment of High-Level Waste Repositories and Related Issues, Southwest Research Institute, 1995.
  49. R.M. Cranwell, R.W. Guzowski, J.E. Campbell, N.R. Ortiz, Risk Methodology for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Sandia National Labs, 1990.
  50. Specific Design Principles for Deep Geological Repositories and Requirements for the Safety Case.
  51. Nuclear Safety & Security Committee (NSSC), Radiation Hazard Prevention Standards for the Disposal Facility for the LILW in Korea, 2017.
  52. B. Ross, Scenarios for Repository Safety Analysis, Elsevier Science Publisher, 1989.
  53. E. Tosoni, A. Salo, E. Zio, Scenario Analysis for the Safety Assessment of Nuclear Waste Repositories: A Critical Review, Society for Risk Analysis, 2017.
  54. J.J. van Blerk, Scenario Development and Justification for Near-Surface Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities, IAEA, 2002.
  55. D.A. Galson, P.N. Swift, Scenario Development for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Sandia National Labs, 1994.
  56. K.L. Kuhlman, J. Bartol, A. Carter, A. Lommerzheim, J. Wolf, Scenario Development in Safety Assessment, Sandia National Labs, 2022.
  57. T. Eng, J. Hudson, O. Stephansson, K. Skagius, M. Wiborgh, Scenario Development Methodologies, SKB, 2007.
  58. J.W. Park, C.L. Kim, K.M. Chang, M.J. Song, SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF NEAR-SURFACE LILW REPOSITORY BASED ON FEPS AND INTERACTION MATRIX APPROACH, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, 2002.
  59. OECD, NEA, Scenario Development Methods and Practice, OECD, 2001. May 1999.
  60. NEA, Systematic Approaches to Scenario Development, NEA, 1992.
  61. C.H. Kang, Y.S. Hwang, THE APPROACH FOR THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FOR A HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY IN KOREA, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2001.
  62. J. Andersson, T. Carlsson, T. Eng, F. Kautsky, E. Soderman, S. Wingefors, The Joint SKI/SKB Scenario Development Project, SKB, 1989.
  63. IAEA, The Safety Case and Safety Assessment for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste, IAEA, 2012.
  64. Yucca Mountain Project, Las Vegas, NV, Total System Performance Assessment for the Site Recommendation, DOE, 2000.
  65. M.L. Wilson, J.H. Gauthier, R.W. Barnard, G.E. Barr, H.A. Dockery, E. Dunn, R. R. Eaton, D.C. Guerin, N. Lu, M.J. Martinez, R. Nilson, C.A. Rautman, T.H. Robey, B. Ross, E.E. Ryder, A.R. Schenker, S.A. Shannon, L.H. Skinner, W.G. Halsey, J. D. Gansemer, L.C. Lewis, A.D. Lament, l.R. Triay, A. Meijer, D.E. Morris, Total- System Performance Assessment for Yucca Mountain, Sandia National Laboratories, 1994.
  66. S.D. Sevougian, G.A. Freeze, M.B. Gross, J. Lee, C.D. Leigh, P. Mariner, R. J. MacKinnon, P. Vaughn, TSPA Model Development and Sensitivity Analysis of Processes Affecting Performance of a Salt Repository for Disposal of Heat Generating Nuclear Waste, DOE, 2012.
  67. Eun-Jin Seo, Chan-Woo Jeong, Seichi Sato, An integrated approach to risk-based post-closure safety evaluation of complex radiation exposure situations in radioactive waste disposal, J. Radiat. Protect. Res. 35 (1) (2010) 6-11.
  68. Seo Eun Jin, Chan Woo Jeong, Seichi Sato, Application of risk-based approach to post-closure safety assessment in radioactive waste disposal: an integration of complex radiation exposure situations, Ann. Nucl. Energy 49 (2012) 96-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2012.06.016
  69. C.W. Jeong, E.J. Seo, J.W. Park, H.S. Jeong, J.H. Bang, A Compatibility Evaluation Method for the Risk Criteria of Deep Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste, Korean Radioactive Waste Society, 2016 (in Korean).
  70. C.W. Jeong, J.W. Park, E.J. Seo, D.J. Lee, Background and Application of Radiation Safety Standards for Deep Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste, Korean Radioactive Waste Society, 2016 (in Korean).
  71. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part063/full-text.html.
  72. https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/acts-and-regulations/regulatory-documents/published/html/regdoc2-11-1-vol1/index.cfm.
  73. Marie-Valentine Florin, Stephanie Danielle Parker, Involving Stakeholders in the Risk Governance Process. No. REP_WORK, EPFL International Risk Governance Center, 2020.
  74. P. Robinson, The issue of risk dilution in risk assessments, in: Management of Uncertainty in Safety Cases and the Role of Risk Workshop Proceedings, Stockholm, NEA/RWM/IGSC, 2003, 2003.