Substantiation of the ecological and economic advantages of a radequivalent approach to radioactive waste management in the framework of the development of a two-component model of nuclear energy

«Radiation and Risk», 2025, vol. 34, No. 3, pp.5-17

DOI: 10.21870/0131-3878-2025-34-3-5-17

Authors

Ivanov V.K. – Scientific Advisor of NRER, Chief Radioecologist of Project PRORYV, Chairman of RSCRP, Corresponding Member of RAS, D. Sc., Tech., Prof.
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. .
Menyajlo A.N. – Lead. Researcher, C. Sc., Biol. A. Tsyb MRRC.
Adamov E.O. – Research Advisor, Project “Proryv”, D. Sc., Tech., Prof.
Lopatkin A.V. – Research Advisor for RE, D. Sc., Tech.
Rachkov V.I. – Research Advisor of R&D work, Project PRORYV, Corresponding Member of RAS, D. Sc., Tech., Prof.
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

The Energy Strategy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2035, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated June 9, 2020 No. 1523-r, emphasizes that "the main problems and risks of the development of nuclear energy are associated with relatively high costs of ensuring nuclear and radiation safety and the need to handle spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste with taking into account the requirements of environmental safety". The paper considers the ecolog-ical and economic advantages of a radequivalent approach to radioactive waste management within the framework of a two-component nuclear power industry. The potential radiotoxicity of the VVER-1000 and BREST-1200 reactors is compared. It is assumed that in a closed fuel cycle, radioactive waste from spent nuclear fuel processing is sent to burial, consisting of 0.1% of Sr, Cs, Tc, I, U, Np, Pu, Am, Cm from their content in spent nuclear fuel and all other radionuclides. It has been established that the potential carcinogenic risks of VVER-1000 spent nuclear fuel are 2.7 times higher than the same indicator for natural uranium. This means that when the spent nuclear fuel of the VVER-1000 reactor is disposed of without achieving the effect of radiological equivalence, economic losses will amount to 19.9 billion rubles by increasing the frequency of carcinogenesis.

Key words
radequivalent approach to radioactive waste management, VVER-1000 and BREST-1200 reactors, potential biological hazard, level of carcinogenic risk, magnitude of economic losses without achieving the effect of radiological equivalence.

References

1. Technological and organizational aspects of radioactive waste management. Training course series No. 27. Vienna, IAEA, 2005. 221 p. (In Russian).

2. The Russian government. The official website. The Energy Strategy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2035. Available at: http://static.government.ru/media/files/w4sigFOiDjGVDYT4IgsApssm6mZRb7wx.pdf (Accessed 07.04.2025). (In Russian).

3. Gabaraev B.A., Ganev I.Kh., Lopatkin A.V. Potential biological hazard of uranium used in the nuclear fuel cycle. Atomnaya energiya – Atomic Energy, 2004, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 462-468. (In Russian).

4. 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.

5. Preston D.L., Ron E., Tokuoka S., Funamoto S., Nishi N., Soda M., Mabuchi K., Kodama K. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998. Radiat. Res., 2007, vol. 168, no. 1, pp. 1-64.

6. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (morbidity and mortality). Eds.: A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskiy, G.V. Pe-trova. Moscow, Р. Hertsen MORI, 2018. 250 p. (In Russian).

7. Adamov E.O., Asmolov V.G., Bolshov L.A., Ivanov V.K. Two-component nuclear power engineering. Vestnik Rossiyskoy akademii nauk – Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2021, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 450-458. (In Russian).

8. Ivanov V.K., Lopatkin A.V., Tolstoukhov D.A., Panov S.A., Chekin S.Yu., Menyajlo A.N., Solomatin V.M., Spirin E.V., Kashirsky A.A. Justification of the economic and radiological advantages of a closed nuclear cycle with fast neutron reactors in view of IAEA radiation safety standards and equalization of carcinogenicity of the radioactive waste and natural uranium raw materials. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2023, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 5-13. (In Russian).

9. New generation nuclear power: radiological viability and environmental benefits. Eds.: V.K. Ivanov, E.O. Ada-mov. Moscow, Pero, 2019. 379 p. (In Russian).

10. Swift P.N., Sassani D.C. Impacts of nuclear fuel cycle choices on permanent disposal of high-activity radio-active wastes. Management of spent fuel from nuclear power reactors. Learning from the past, enabling the future. Proceedings of an International Conference, Vienna, Austria, 24-28 June 2019. Vienna, IAEA, 2020, pp. 209-216.

11. Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: International basic safety standards. General safety re-quirements. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3. Vienna, IAEA, 2015. 520 p. (In Russian).

12. Kenigsberg Ya.E., Kryuk Yu.E. Estimation of averted damage through mitigating the consequences of the Chernobyl accident in the Republic of Belarus. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2007, vol. 16, no. 2-4, pp. 27-31. (In Russian).

13. Average income by country. Available at: https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php (Accessed 07.04.2025).

14. Mortality from all causes per 1,000 population. Unified interdepartmental information and statistical system. The official website. Available at: https://www.fedstat.ru/indicator/33534 (Accessed 07.04.2025).

15. Ivanov V.K., Spirin E.V., Lopatkin A.V., Menyajlo A.N., Chekin S.Yu., Solomatin V.M., Korelo A.M., Tumanov K.A. 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. Radiatsiya i risk – Radiation and Risk, 2022, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 5-20. (In Russian).

Full-text article (in Russian)