Correlation between potential radiation-induced carcinogenic risks associated with WWER-1000 spent nuclear fuel and BREST-1200 radiation waste in case of annual generation of 1 GW of electricity. Part 2. Radiological migration equivalence

«Radiation and Risk», 2022, vol. 31, No. 2, pp.5-20

DOI: 10.21870/0131-3878-2022-31-2-5-20

Authors

Ivanov V.K. – Scientific Advisor of NRER, Chief Radioecologist of Project PRORYV, Chairman of RSCRP, Corresponding Member of RAS, D. Sc., Tech.
Menyajlo A.N. – Lead. Researcher, C. Sc., Biol.
Chekin S.Yu. – Head of Lab. Contacts: 4 Korolyov str., Obninsk, Kaluga region, Russia, 249035. Tel.: (484) 399-30-79; e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Korelo A.M. – Senior Researcher
Tumanov K.А. – Head of Lab., C. Sc., Biol. A. Tsyb MRRC.
Spirin E.V. – Chief Researcher of the Dep. of the Chief Radioecologist, Project PRORYV, D. Sc., Biol.
Lopatkin A.V. – Research Advisor for RE, D. Sc., Tech.
Solomatin V.M. – Head of Dep. of the Chief Radioecologist, Project PRORYV, C. Sc., Biol. JSC PRORYV.
1 A. Tsyb MRRC, Obninsk
2 Joint Stock Company PRORYV, Moscow

Abstract

Currently it is acknowledged that the problem of disposal of radioactive waste (RW) from the nuclear reactors largely depends on the use of fast neutron reactors (fast reactors) in nuclear power industry. These reactors are able to burn and transmutate long-lived radionuclides in closed nuclear fuel cycle (NFC). In an open NFC with thermal neutron reactors (thermal reactors), unprocessed spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is buried. In a closed NFC with fast reactors the reprocessed SNF is disposed. In this paper, the feasibility and possibility of closing the NFC in a two-component nuclear power industry with thermal and fast reactors are studied. Potential biological hazard (PBH) to the public from un-processed SNF from the thermal reactor WWER-1000 and reprocessed SNF from the fast reactor BR-1200, were evaluated with account of relevant radionuclides migration from the deep disposal to the earth surface. PBH values were expressed in terms of committed effective dose and lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of malignant neoplasms, normalized to 1 GW of generated electricity. PBH of RW from BR-1200 is about 100 times lower than risk from unprocessed SNF from WWER-1000. Comparative evaluation of PBH from BR-1200 and unprocessed SNF from WWER-1000 demon-strated that the committed effective doses from the dwell-water used by the public from the time of radionuclides appearance at the earth surface are 0.7 μSv and 80 μSv/year respectively, and LAR values are 6∙10-9 and 7.74∙10-6 respectively. At the same time, PBH of reprocessed SNF from WWER-1000, from the time of radionuclides appearance on the earth’s surface is an order less than PBH of RW from BR-1200. In accordance with the principle of radiological equivalence of RW disposal, it was established that the RW from BR-1200 satisfies the time limit for achievement of the equality with the PBH of the equivalent mass of uranium raw material will be within the range of 300 years. If PBH is expressed in terms of LAR the radiological migration equivalence is achieved even earlier. Thus, when reprocessing SNF from thermal reactors and operating thermal reactors with simultaneous construction and operation of fast reactors (in a two-component nuclear power industry), it is advisable to use a closed NFC and dispose of RW, considering the principle of radiation-migration equivalence.

Key words
open nuclear fuel cycle, closed nuclear fuel cycle, thermal neutron reactor, fast neutron reactor, spent nuclear fuel, radioactive waste, deep disposal, potential biological hazard, committed effective dose, lifetime attributable risk, radiological migration equivalence.

References

1. Adamov E.O., Ganev I.Kh. Environmentally pure nuclear power. Moscow, N. Dollezhal PERDI, 2007. 145 p. (In Russian).

2. Adamov E.O., Ganev I.Kh., Lopatkin A.D., Muratov V.G., Orlov V.V. High-level waste management in the development, operation and decommissioning of large-scale nuclear power plants in Russia. Preprint of NIKIET ET-97/35. Moscow, NIKIET, 1997. 64 p. (In Russian).

3. Kochkin B.T. Safety assessment of geological HLW and SNF storage facilities: international experience in the application to the Yenisei project. Radioaktivnyye otkhody – Radioactive Waste, 2018, no. 2 (3), pp. 18-29. (In Russian).

4. Adamov E.O., Ganev I.H., Lopatkin A.V., Muratov V.G., Orlov V.V. Transmutation fuel cycle in large-scale nuclear power engineering of Russia. Moscow, GUP NIKIET, 1999. 252 p. (In Russian).

5. Adamov E.O., Gabaraev B.A., Ganev I.H., Lopatkin A.V., Muratov V.G., Orlov V.V. The development potential and the possibility of achieving radiation equivalence of uranium and waste in the scenarios of the development of prospective nuclear power. Preprint of FSUE NIKIET ET-04/68. Moscow, NIKIET, 2004. 22 p. (In Russian).

6. Lopatkin A.V., Velichkin V.I., Nekipelov B.V., Poluektov P.P. Radiation equivalence and naturalness in radioactive waste management. Atomnaya energiya – Atomic Energy, 2002, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 308-317. (In Russian).

7. Lopatkin A.V. Fuel cycle of large-scale nuclear power in Russia based on the principles of fuel and radiation balance and nonproliferation. Autoref. dis. Dr. Tech. Sci. Moscow, JSC "NIKIET", 2013. 45 p. (In Russian).

8. Considering timescales in the post-closure safety of geological disposal of radioactive waste. NEA N 6424. Paris, OECD, 2009. 163 p.

9. Lee Y.-M., Hwang Y. A GoldSim model for the safety assessment of an HLW repository. Prog. Nucl. Energy, 2009, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 746-759.

10. Choi H.-J., Lee J. Y., Choi J. Development of geological disposal systems for spent fuels and high-level radioactive wastes in Korea. Nucl. Eng. Technol., 2013, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 29-40.

11. Adamov E.O., Aleksakhin R.M., Bolshov L.A., Dedul A.V., Orlov V.V., Pershukov V.A., Rachkov V.I., Tolstoukhov D.A., Troyanov V.M. The PRORYV project is a technological foundation for large-scale nuclear power engineering. Izvestiya RAN. Energetika – News of RAN. Power Engineering, 2015, no. 1, pp. 5-12. (In Russian).

12. Ivanov V.K., Chekin S.Yu., Menyajlo A.N., Maksioutov М.А., Tumanov K.A., Kashcheeva P.V., Lovachev S.S., Spirin E.V., Solomatin V.M. Spent nuclear fuel management: new approaches to evaluating radiotoxicity of long-lived high-level nuclear wastes of fast reactors. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2019, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 8-24. (In Russian).

13. Spirin E.V., Spiridonov S.I., Aleksakhin R.M., Utkin S.S. Radioecological assessment of a uranium deposit to substantiate the radiation-migration balance of long-lived waste. Atomnaya energiya – Atomic Energy, 2013, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 34-39. (In Russian).

14. Spirin E.V., Aleksakhin R.M., Panchenko S.V. Assessment of radioecological safety of a uranium deposit for biota. Atomnaya energiya – Atomic Energy, 2013, vol. 115, no. 11, pp. 279-284. (In Russian).

15. Spirin E.V., Aleksakhin R.M., Vlaskin G.N., Utkin S.S. Radiation balance of spent nuclear fuel of a fast reactor and natural uranium. Atomnaya energiya – Atomic Energy, 2015, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 114-119. (In Russian).

16. Spirin E.V., Aleksakhin R.M., Spiridonov S.I., Mikailova R.A., Anashkin R.S. Radiation balance of spent nuclear fuel of thermal reactors and equivalent mass of uranium for natural organisms. Atomnaya energiya – Atomic Energy, 2014, vol. 116, no. 6, pp. 350-353. (In Russian).

17. Ivanov V.K., Spirin E.V., Menyajlo A.N., Chekin S.Yu., Lovachev S.S., Korelo A.M., Tumanov K.A., Solomatin V.M., Lopatkin A.V., Adamov E.O. Safety of radioactive waste from two-component nuclear energy system disposed in a deep geological repository for permanent storage: radiological migration equivalence. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2020, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 8-32. (In Russian).

18. New generation nuclear power: radiological viability and environmental benefits. Eds.: V.K. Ivanov, E.O. Adamov. Mocsow, Pero, 2019. 379 p. (In Russian).

19. Magill J., Berthou V., Haas D., Galy J., Schenkel R., Wiese H.-W., Heusener G., Tommasi J., Youinou G. Impact limits of partitioning and transmutation scenarios on the radiotoxicity of actinides in radioactive waste. Nucl. Energy, 2003, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 263-277.

20. Ivanov V.K., Lopatkin A.V., Menyajlo A.N., Spirin E.V., Chekin S.Yu., Lovachev S.S., Korelo A.M., Soloma-tin V.M. Achievability of radiological equivalence associated with closed nuclear fuel cycle with fast reactors: impact of uncertainty factors in scenarios of Russian nuclear power development through to 2100. Part 1. Fast and thermal reactors. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2021, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 62-76. (In Russian).

21. Ivanov V.K., Lopatkin A.V., Spirin E.V., Solomatin V.M., Menyajlo A.N., Chekin S.Yu., Lovachev S.S. Achievability of radiological equivalence associated with closed nuclear fuel cycle with fast reactors: impact of uncertainty factors in scenarios of Russian nuclear power development through to 2100. Part 2. Migration of radionuclides. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2021, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 8-20. (In Russian).

22. ICRP, 2012. Compendium of dose coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60. ICRP Publication 119. Ann. ICRP, 2012, vol. 41 (Suppl.), pp. 1-130.

23. Handbook of parameter values for the prediction of radionuclide transfer in temperate environments. Technical Report Series No. 364. Vienna, IAEA, 1994. 87 p.

24. Handbook of parameter values for the prediction of radionuclide transfer in terrestrial and freshwater environ-ments. Technical Report Series No. 472. Vienna, IAEA, 2010. 194 p.

25. ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP, 2007, vol. 37, no. 2-4, pp. 1-332.

26. Matthew B., Fetter S., Holdren J.P., van der Zwaan B. The economics of reprocessing vs. direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Final Report. Cambridge, Mass., Project on Managing the Atom, Harvard University, 2003. 128 p.

27. Choi S., Lee H.J. Ko W.Il. Dynamic analysis of once-through and closed fuel cycle economics using Monte Carlo simulation. Nucl. Eng. Des., 2014, vol. 277, pp. 234-247.

28. Kim S.K., Ko W.I., Youn S.R., Gao R.X. Nuclear fuel cycle cost estimation and sensitivity analysis of unit costs on the basis of an equilibrium model. Nucl. Eng. Technol., 2015, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 306-314.

29. De Roo G., Parsons J.E. A methodology for calculating the levelized cost of electricity in nuclear power systems with fuel recycling. Energy Economics, 2011, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 826-839.

Full-text article (in Russian)