Ds 2011:35
Sweden’s fourth national report under the
Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and on the safety of radioactive waste management
Swedish implementation of the obligations of the Joint Convention
This page is intentionally left blank
Ds 2011:35
Sweden’s fourth national report
under the Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and the safety of radioactive waste management
Swedish implementation of the obligations of the Joint Convention
Ministry of the Environment
This report is on sale in Stockholm at Fritzes Customer Service,
which sells reports in the series Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU) and in the Ministry Publications Series (Ds).
Address: Fritzes, Customer Service
Sweden
Fax: 08 598 191 91 (national) +46 8 598 191 91 (international)
Telephone: 08 598 191 90 (national) +46 8 598 191 90 (international)
Printed by Elanders Sverige AB
Stockholm 2011
ISBN
ISSN
Contents
List of Tables and Figures |
5 |
|
Foreword |
7 |
|
Section A - Introduction |
9 |
|
A.1 |
Purpose and structure of this report |
9 |
A.2 |
Summary results from the previous review |
10 |
A.3 |
Summary of developments since previous report |
12 |
A.4 |
Developments as regards the legal and regulatory infrastructure |
14 |
A.5 |
General overview and context |
17 |
A.6 |
The management system for spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste |
30 |
A.7 |
Swedish participation in international activities to enhance safety |
|
|
and radiation protection |
42 |
Section B - Policies and Practices |
45 |
|
B.1 |
Article 32.1: REPORTING |
45 |
Section C - Scope of Application |
49 |
|
C.1 |
Article 3: SCOPE OF APPLICATION |
49 |
Section D - Inventories and Lists |
51 |
|
D.1 |
Article 32.2: REPORTING |
51 |
Section E - Legislative and Regulatory System |
69 |
|
E.1 |
Article 18: IMPLEMENTING MEASURES |
69 |
E.2 |
Article 19: LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK |
69 |
E.3 |
Article 20: REGULATORY BODY |
99 |
Section F - Other General Safety Provisions |
113 |
|
F.1 |
Article 21: RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LICENCE HOLDER |
113 |
F.2 |
Article 22: HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES |
116 |
F.3 Article 23: QUALITY ASSURANCE |
119 |
|
F.4 Article 24: OPERATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION |
123 |
|
F.5 Article 25: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS |
130 |
|
F.6 |
Article 26: DECOMMISSIONING |
139 |
Section G - Safety of Spent Fuel Management |
145 |
|
G.1 |
Article 4: GENERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS |
145 |
G.2 |
Article 5: EXISTING FACILITIES |
151 |
G.3 |
Article 6: SITING OF PROPOSED FACILITIES |
152 |
G.4 |
Article 7: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES |
157 |
G.5 |
Article 8: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY OF FACILITIES |
169 |
G.6 |
Article 9: OPERATION OF FACILITIES |
176 |
G.7 |
Article 10: DISPOSAL OF SPENT FUEL |
184 |
3
Section H - Safety of Radioactive Waste Management |
185 |
|
H.1 Article 11: GENERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS |
185 |
|
H.2 Article 12: EXISTING FACILITIES AND PAST PRACTICES |
192 |
|
H.3 Article 13: SITING OF PROPOSED FACILITIES |
194 |
|
H.4 Article 14: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES |
198 |
|
H.5 Article 15: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY OF FACILITIES |
201 |
|
H.6 Article 16: OPERATION OF FACILITIES |
207 |
|
H.7 Article 17: INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES AFTER CLOSURE |
216 |
|
Section I - Transboundary Movement |
219 |
|
I.1 Article 27: TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT |
219 |
|
Section J - Disused Sealed Sources |
223 |
|
J.1 Article 28: DISUSED SEALED SOURCES |
223 |
|
Section K - Planned Activities to Improve Safety |
229 |
|
K.1 |
Review of the license application for an encapsulation plant |
229 |
K.2 |
Review of the license application for disposal of spent nuclear fuel |
229 |
K.3 |
License application for a disposal facility for decommissioning waste |
229 |
K.4 |
Development of waste acceptance criteria for |
229 |
K.5 |
Effects from the Fukushima accident |
230 |
K.6 |
Updated decommissioning plans |
230 |
List of abbreviations |
231 |
4
List of Tables and Figures
Table A1 |
Joint Convention Reporting Provisions |
Table A2 |
Updated Overview Matrix |
Figure A1 |
Legal & regulatory framework - organizational structure |
Figure A2 |
Licensing system basic principles |
Figure A3 |
Basic requirements and general obligations |
Figure A4 |
Flow of funds in the financing system as regards nuclear |
|
power utilities |
Figure A5 |
Flow of funds according to the Studsvik Act |
Figure A6 |
Nuclear facilities in Sweden |
Figure A7 |
Management system for spent fuel and nuclear waste |
Figure A8 |
The Clab facility |
Figure A9 |
The SFR facility |
Figure A10 |
Planned extension of disposal facility for |
|
intermediate level waste (SFR) |
Figure A11 |
The reference method |
Figure A12 |
The encapsulation process for spent nuclear fuel |
Figure A13 |
Time table for establishment of the spent fuel disposal facility and Clink |
Figure A14 |
The Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory |
Figure A15 |
The Canister Laboratory´s equipment for development of friction |
|
stir welding |
Figure A16 |
Stacking tests performed at the Bentonite Laboratory on Äspö |
Figure A17 |
Time table for the LILW management programme |
Table D1 |
Inventory of spent fuel in NPP pools |
Table D2 |
Spent fuel from the research reactor R1 temporarily stored in Studsvik |
Table D3 |
Principal data for Clab |
Table D4 |
Inventory of spent fuel stored in Clab |
Figure D1 |
Standard packages for |
Table D5 |
Waste treatment methods at the Nuclear Power Plants |
Table D6 |
Inventory of disposed radioactive waste in AM |
Table D7 |
Principal data for SFR |
Table D8 |
Inventories of disposed radioactive waste in SFR |
Figure D2 |
Activity content in SFR |
Figure D3 |
Principle section of shallow land burial at OKG |
Figure D4 |
The shallow land burial at OKG |
Table D9 |
Inventories of disposed waste in shallow land burials |
Figure E1 |
Licensing procedure for the |
Figure E2 |
SSM organisation |
Table E1 |
Educational background of SSM staff |
Figure E3 |
The SSM management system process scheme |
Table E2 |
Budget of SSM in kSEK |
Table E3 |
Breakdown of the 2010 research budget allocated for research related |
|
to spent fuel and radioactive waste management at SSM |
5
Figure F1 |
Work doses to the personnel at Clab |
Figure F2 |
Estimated radiation doses from releases of radioactive substances at |
|
Swedish nuclear facilities in the period |
Figure F3 |
Division of responsibilities during decommissioning |
Figure G1 |
Workmethology during construction of a spent fuel repository |
Figure G2 |
A presentation of the ingoing document for the license applications |
Figure G3 |
The structure of the documentation of the |
|
assessment |
Table J1 |
Registration and Deregistration of Radioactive Sources |
Table J2 |
Inventory of disused sealed sources stored by Studsvik Nuclear AB |
Table J3 |
Inventory of radioactive waste stored by Studsvik Nuclear AB |
6
Foreword
Sweden has been active for many years in the international effort to enhance nuclear safety and radiation protection with regard to the operation of nuclear reactors as well as the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. The
Convention on Nuclear Safety was an important first step to deal with the most immediate safety issues, i.e. the safety of operation of commercial nuclear power reactors. The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management constitutes another important step by promoting the safe handling and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
The areas covered by the Joint Convention have been incorporated in the Swe- dish system for spent fuel and radioactive waste management for a long time. The Swedish Government considered at the time of signing the Joint Convention that the safety philosophy, legislation and the safety work conducted by the licensees and the authorities in Sweden complied with the obligations of the Convention.
A summary of highlights and issues raised about Sweden during the third review meeting May 11 to 20, 2009 can be found in section A.2. This section also includes an overview of those issues Sweden was asked to report about in its fourth national report (i.e. the present report). A summary of developments since the last national report can be found in section A.3.
This report has been produced by a working group with representatives from, the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) and the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB). It constitutes an
7
This page is intentionally left blank
Section A – Introduction
A.1 Purpose and structure of this report
Sweden signed Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (Joint Convention) September 29,
1997. Sweden ratified the Joint Convention about two years later and is a Cont- racting Party to the Joint Convention since July 29, 1999. The Joint Convention entered into force on June 18, 2001.
Each member nation having ratified the Joint Convention (Contracting Party) is obligated to prepare a National Report covering the scope of the Joint Conven- tion and subject it to review by other Contracting Parties at Review Meetings held in Vienna, Austria. Sweden participated in the First Review Meeting in November 2003, the Second Review Meeting in May 2006 and the Third Review Meeting in May 2009. This report is the fourth Swedish National Report under the Joint Convention.
This report satisfies the requirements of the Joint Convention for reporting on the status of safety at spent fuel and radioactive waste management facilities within Sweden. It constitutes an updated document with basically the same struc- ture as the previous national reports under the terms of the Joint Convention and reflects developments in Sweden through December 2010. It will be subject to re- view at the Fourth Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties in Vienna, Austria, in May 2012.
The report format and content follow the revised guidelines for structure and content of the report, as agreed at the Second Review Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Joint Convention in May 2005. Chapters in this report have the same titles as in these guidelines, facilitating review by other Contracting Parties. Table
A1 provides a
National Report Section |
Joint Convention Section |
|
|
A. Introduction |
|
|
|
B. Policic and Practices |
Article 32, Paragraph 1 |
|
|
C. Scope of Application |
Article 3 |
|
|
D. Inventories and Lists |
Article 32, Paragraph 2 |
|
|
E. Legislative and Regulatory Systems |
Article 18; Article 19; and Article 20 |
|
|
F. General Safety Provisions |
Articles |
|
|
G. Safety of spent Fuel Management |
Articles |
|
|
H. Safety of Radioactive Waste Management |
Articles |
|
|
I. Transbounddary Movement |
Article 27 |
|
|
J. Disused Sealed Sources |
Article 28 |
|
|
K. Planned Activities to Improve Safety |
Multiple Articles |
|
|
L. Annexes |
Multiple Articles |
|
|
Table A1: Joint Convention Reporting Provisions
Section A.2 provides for a summary of highlights and issues raised about Sweden during the third review meeting. This section also includes an overview of those issues Sweden was asked to report about in its fourth national report (the present report).
9
Section A – Introduction
Section A.3 contains a summary of developments since the previous national report.
Section A.4 provides information about the new regulatory authority, the Swedish
Radiation Safety Authority, as well as on the Committee of Inquiry on harmoni- sing the Swedish acts regulating activities in the field of nuclear technology and radiation protection.
Section A.5 provides some basic information about the development of a natio- nal strategy and its transformation into a national programme for management of spent fuel and nuclear waste.
Section A.6 presents an overview of the existing management system for spent fuel and nuclear waste.
Section A.7 contains an account for Swedish participation in international activities.
Section B provides information on policies and practices according to Article 32.1 of the Convention.
Section C addresses scope of the report according to Article 3 of the Convention.
Section D provides information on inventories and lists according to Article 32.2 of the Convention.
Section E presents the legislative and regulatory system according to Articles 18,19 and 20 of the Convention.
Sections F to J include facts and information to substantiate compliance with the obligations of the Convention. Every chapter in these sections corresponds to one Article of the Convention. The chapters in sections F to J have a similar structure where information is provided about the regulatory requirements related to the re- spective Article. In addition, information is provided about measures taken by the licence holders to comply with the regulatory requirements as well as own safety initiatives. Finally, information is provided about the means used by the regulatory bodies to supervise the measures taken by the licence holders. Taken together this will provide evidence for meeting the obligations of the Convention.
A.2 Summary results from the previous review
During the period before the third review meeting, Sweden received in total 132 questions on the report from 21 countries. The questions touched several articles of the Joint Convention and were mostly requests for clarifications, additional information and reports on experiences with specific practices.All questions were answered on the Joint Convention website and commented in a general sense at the review meeting.
During the discussion at the review meeting it was agreed that Sweden seems to comply well with the obligations of the Joint Convention. It was concluded that a comprehensive regulatory framework is in place focusing on targets rather
10
Section A – Introduction
than prescriptive requirements. Sweden has made good progress in realisation of repository projects and the existing policy of transparency and openness has con- tributed to a high level of acceptance in the public with regard to these projects.
Another conclusion was that the financing system for decommissioning and dis- posal is designed to provide funding for the implementation of the Swedish waste management concept.
The meeting emphasized that Sweden is in the forefront of several aspects of spent fuel and radioactive waste management, and expressed a desire for Sweden to provide information on developments in these areas in the next report.
It was noted that Sweden demonstrated good practices with regards to:
• responsibilities for spent fuel and waste safety is clearly defined in the legal framework
• arrangements in place to finance all items related to spent fuel and radioactive waste management as well as decommissioning
• funding mechanism is available for costs for orphan sources and other legacy waste
• long term strategy is in place for disposal of spent fuel and nuclear waste
• provisions for transparency of nuclear activities in legislation
• extensive public consultation in the decision making process
• constructive relationship between regulatory bodies and licensees
The following challenges were identified for the future development as regards management of spent fuel and radioactive waste:
• Continued implementation of the long term strategy to complement the exis- ting management system for spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, i.e. siting and licensing of new facilities (e.g. an encapsulation plant and a spent fuel disposal facility). Development in this regard is found in sectionA.6..3.2.
• Implementation of improvements to the system of management of
• Integration of organisations and regulatory practices after merging the pre- viously existing regulatory authorities (the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspec- torate, SKI, and the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, SSI). Develop- ment in this regard is found in section A.4.1
• Development of strategies and approaches for assuring adequate human re- sources for SSM. Development in this regard is found in section A.4.1.
Sweden was asked to report at the next review meeting in particular on the fol- lowing planned measures to improve safety:
• License application for the repository for spent nuclear fuel planned for mid- 2010. Development in this regard is found in sectionsA.6.3.2.
• License application for the extension of the SFR for both operational and de- commissioning waste planned for 2013. Development in this regard is found in sections A.6.3.3.
• Development of waste acceptance criteria for
• Development of a strategic National Waste Management Plan addressing both nuclear and
11
Section A – Introduction
A.3 Summary of developments since previous report
In order to provide continuity from the second review meeting, the rapporteur’s matrix has been revised and supplemented with references to explanatory sections of the report, in table 1.
TYPE OF |
FUNDING OF LIABILITIES |
CURRENT PRACTICE / |
PLANNED FACILITIES |
|
LIABILITY |
MANAGEMENT |
|
FACILITIES |
|
|
POLICY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SPENT |
NPP licensees jointly |
Funded by fees on produc- |
Stored on site initially, then trans- |
Licence application for spent fuel |
FUEL |
responsible. |
tion of nuclear energy |
ferred to central interim storage |
disposal facility under review |
|
|
collected in segregated funds |
facility (Clab) |
|
|
Strategy in place for |
(Nuclear Waste Fund) |
|
|
|
disposal |
|
|
|
See section |
A.5.1, A.5.2, A.5.2.4, |
A.5.2.6, E.2.2.5, F.2.1.2 |
A.6.2, A.6.2.1, B.1.2, D.1.2.3 |
A.6.5.3, E.2.2.1, G.4.2.42 |
|
B.1.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUCLEAR |
NPP licensees jointly |
Funded by fees on produc- |
Preliminary plans for disposal |
|
FUEL CYCLE |
responsible. |
tion of nuclear energy collec- |
existing repository (SFR); |
facility for |
WASTES |
|
ted in Nuclear Waste Fund |
|
License application expected |
|
Strategy in place for |
|
Shallow land burial sites for |
2030 |
|
disposal |
Disposal of |
VLLW |
|
|
|
operational LILW waste (SFR) |
NPP sites |
|
|
|
from NPPs paid for directly |
|
|
|
|
by owners |
|
|
See section |
A.5.1, A.5.2, A.5.2.4, |
A.5.2.6, E.2.2.5, F.2.1.2 |
A.6.2, A.6.2.2, B.1.4 |
A.6.3.3, H.5.2 |
|
B.1.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strategy in place for |
Funded by producers/ ow- |
To be disposed of in planned dis- |
||
WASTES |
disposal – |
ners of waste |
ting facilities for nuclear fuel cycle |
posal facility for |
|
|
|
waste (SFR) when appropriate; |
nuclear fuel cycle waste (SFL) |
|
Further actions |
Government funding available |
|
|
|
|
for legacy wastes |
|
|
|
|
|
storage pending disposal in |
|
|
|
|
facility for |
|
|
|
|
fuel cycle waste (SFL) |
|
See section |
A.5.3 |
J.1.2 |
D.1.4.2 |
J.1.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
DECOMMIS- |
Licensee is responsible |
Funded by producers/owners |
Preliminary plans for decommis- |
|
SIONING |
|
of waste |
sioning exist; |
of in extension to existing SFR |
LIABILITIES |
|
|
|
facility License application for |
|
|
|
Reviews of the adequacy of |
extension expected in 2013 |
|
|
|
funding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
disposed of in planned disposal |
|
|
|
|
facility for |
|
|
|
|
fuel cycle waste (SFL) |
See section |
A.5.2.4 |
A.5.2.6, E.2.2.5, F.2.1.2 |
F.6.2, G.6.2.7 |
A.6.3.3, H.5.2, K.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
DISUSED |
Returned to manufac- |
Funded by producers/ |
Returned to manufacturer, |
To be disposed of in disposal fa- |
SEALED |
turer |
owners of waste |
disposed of in SFR, or in interim |
cilities for nuclear fuel cycle was- |
SOURCES |
|
|
storage pending disposal in |
tes (SFR, SFL) as appropriate |
|
|
Government funding available |
facility for |
|
|
|
for orphan sources |
fuel cycle waste (SFL) |
|
See section |
J.1 |
E.2.2.5, J.1 |
J.1 |
J.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Table A2: Revised overview of the Swedish programme for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
12
Section A – Introduction
The main elements in progress made since the third review meeting is summarized below:
• The Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) and the Swedish Radiation
Protection Authority (SSI) were merged into a joint organization, the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, July 1, 2008.
• Regulations from the former regulatory authorities have been reissued as
Swedish Radiation Safety Authority regulations.
• On January 1, 2011 the previous ban on constructing new reactors was re- moved through amendments to the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities and the Environmental Code, i.e. old reactors in Sweden may be replaced by new ones.
• A Committee of Inquiry on merging the provisions of the Act on Nuclear Activities and the radiation Protection Act (1988:220) has submitted its final report to the Government (SOU 2011:18).
• By a new Ordinance on Supervision under the Environmental Code SSM on
March 31, 2011 took over the supervisory authority for matters relating to radiation safety under the Code from the County Administrative Boards.
• The Parliament has approved a Government Bill containing a proposal to extend the obligation to pay fees under the StudsvikAct until December 31, 2017.
• The arrangement for financial support to
• SKB has since July 1, 2009, taken over the operation of the disposal facility for
• SKB in September 2010 submitted the
• SKB in January 2011 submitted updated cost estimates to be used for the de- termination of fees to be paid by the nuclear power plant owners organization to the Nuclear Waste Fund for the years 2012 through 2014.
• SKB in November 2009 submitted supplementary material to the license app- lication for an encapsulation plant. The regulatory review of the application will be
• SKB in March 2011 submitted a license application to site and construct a disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel, at Forsmark in the municipality of Öst- hammar. The regulatory review of the application will be
• SKB has initiated a process of regular consultation meetings with SSM on the planned extension of the disposal facility for
• SSM in June 2009 submitted a national waste management plan to the Go- vernment on the management and disposal of radioactive waste generated outside of the nuclear fuel cycle.
• By a government decision, AB SVAFO in December 2010 obtained the nu-
13
Section A – Introduction
|
clear license for R2 and |
|
This meansAB SVAFO will now be responsible for the further decommissio- |
• |
ning work. |
As a |
|
|
SSM, on May 25 2011, decided that the NPP licensees and SKB shall redo the |
|
safety assessments for the NPPs and for the interim storage for spent nuclear |
|
fuel at Clab at Oskarshamn. |
A.4 Developments as regards the legal and regulatory infrastructure
A.4.1 The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) was formed on July 1, 2008, in a merger between the former authorities the Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) and the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI). The motives for this change were:
• A general ambition by the Government to reduce the number of authorities and make the Swedish civil service more efficient
• Amore efficient use of common resources for the supervision of nuclear faci- lities – where inspections will benefit from an integrated perspective
• An integrated competence within nuclear safety and radiation protection that will lead to a reinforced supervision of both nuclear and
• It will be easier for the licensees and other stakeholders to deal with one regu- latory body, the risk for contradictory rules and decisions will be eliminated
SSM has been in operation as a regulatory authority for three years. The
Some of the difficulties encountered, some common to organisational change in general, were/are:
• The differences in “work culture” of the earlier authorities were overcome by active efforts in which all staff was involved in establishing the work methods, vision and core values of the new authority. In addition, the rapidly increasing number of new employees has been a positive challenge in forming the new authority.
• The different terminology used in the radiation protection field and the nuclear safety area (safety, justification, optimisation, protection, graded approach etc.) has created some practical problems in communication and regulatory work. This will partly be resolved by the Government suggested new legisla- tion which will include definitions on basic key terms.
• The objective of reinforcing the supervision in the nuclear field and towards hospitals is under way but the initial judgment of needed resources was un- derestimated. An initial loss of some experienced inspectors took
• The creation of a new authority automatically resulted in many work hours being allocated to
14
Section A – Introduction
priorities were set in such a way that the prime safety and radiation protection functions of the SSM (e.g. emergency preparedness, major safety inspections and controls, licensing of high activity sources) was never negatively affected by the internal activities during the
Some of the observed positive results are:
• SSM is better prepared (than the two earlier authorities) to assess applications from the nuclear industry and in particular the recent application for a spent nuclear fuel disposal facility.
• The merged resources have created better conditions for development of an effective management system, modernization of the authority work and admi- nistrative procedures, including the investment in documentation systems and new electronic technologies .
• The new authority can use its research resources in a more effective way, es- pecially in areas where the former SKI and SSI had shared responsibilities.
• The common competences are used more efficiently, e.g. the expertise in the area of human factors of the former authority SKI is now used in other super- vision areas.
• Inspection models have been shared between the different supervision fields.
As examples, the concept of “special supervision” has been applied to hospi- tals and “rapid investigations” were performed at a fuel factory and in connec- tion with an accident with
• SSM is better prepared to handle nuclear emergencies and radiological crises, which was evident in the authority taking a central role in the Swedish re- sponse to the recent Fukushima
More information on the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority is found in section E.3.1.2 and on the SSM
A.4.2 Legislative amendments and proposals in the nuclear field
A.4.2.1 Amendments
Controlled generational shifts in the Swedish stock of nuclear power facilities
The parliament has decided to abolish the Nuclear Power
Sweden is that the new reactor replaces one of the older reactors and that the older reactor is permanently shut down. The legal definition of a permanently shut down reactor is as follows; ” a reactor where the production of electricity has ceased and will not be restarted, or a reactor that has not supplied electricity to the grid for the last five years”. The new nuclear power reactors may only be constructed on one of the sites where present reactors that are in operation are located. These changes entered into force 1 January 2011.
15
Section A – Introduction
Requirement of a regular overall assessment of reactor safety and the impact on security of supply in the area of electricity generation
The requirement in SSM:s general safety regulations SSMFS 2008:1, that nuclear plants shall conduct a unified analysis and overall assessment of safety at each nuclear power reactor at least every ten years, has been transferred to the Act on Nuclear Activities to emphasise its importance as a safety principle. The amend- ment entered into force 1 August 2010.
Extension of obligation for reactor operators to pay a fee to the Studsvik Act
In June 2011 the Parliament approved a Government Bill containing a proposal to extend the obligation to pay fees under the StudsvikAct until December 31, 2017.
The reformed legislation will enter into force on 1 January 2012.
A.4.2.2 Proposals
Inquiry on Coordinated Regulation in the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Field
The Head of the Ministry of the Environment on 11 December 2008 appointed a Committee of Inquiry on harmonising the rules concerning activities in the field of nuclear technology and radiation protection.
The Inquiry’s final report (SOU 2011:18) was submitted to the Government
February 2011. The report is currently sent out to a large number of referral re- spondents, including SSM.
The Inquiry suggests that the provisions in the Act on Nuclear Activities and the Radiation Protection Act are integrated in their entirety into the Environmental Code. No substantive material changes to the legislation are proposed.
The Inquiry suggests the introduction of the term “Radiation safety” which should be used as a collective designation for:
a) radiation protection: the protection of people and the environment against the harmful effects of radiation, through justification of use, optimisation of protective measures and the limitation of radiation doses and exposure risks, b) safety: protection against the harmful effects of radiation by taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent defects in equipment, equipment failure, wrong handling or other circumstances that may lead to accidents, and to facilitate the combating of breakdowns and the limitation or delay of emissions should
an accident nevertheless occur,
c) physical protection: protection of operations, facilities and equipment against incursions, unauthorised use, theft, sabotage or other action liable to cause harm through radiation.
d)
At the earliest the proposed legislative changes could enter into force during 2013 or 2014.
16
Section A – Introduction
A.5 General overview and context
A.5.1 Development of a National Strategy
Past practices
No formal requirements for the management of spent fuel and nuclear waste were established in Sweden until the late 1970’s. Therefore, a study was initiated in the
The study focused on the management of radioactive waste containing plutonium from research activities. Activities that generated
Early activities that generated most of the spent fuel and radioactive waste in Swe- den were:
• The research reactor R1 (the first research reactor,
• The Studsvik site (a research institute established 1958 for the Swedish nu- clear programme, with research reactors in operation
• The Ågesta district heating nuclear power reactor (the first power reactor in
Sweden, in operation
Historical wastes are often varying with regards to categorization, measurements accuracy and conditioning. Such wastes are connected to the early research and development of the Swedish nuclear programme. These wastes are with very few exceptions managed at the Studsvik facilities, situated 100 km south of Stock- holm, outside Nyköping. The treatment and conditioning of these wastes have been managed on a
The option of a nuclear weapons programme
As early as in August 1945, Sweden decided to evaluate the then new situation regarding atomic weapons. The main aim of the research was to find out how
Sweden could best protect itself against a nuclear weapon attack. However, from the outset there was an interest in investigating the possibilities of manufacturing nuclear weapons. In 1968, the Swedish government signed the
Reprocessing
Swedish policy was originally based on the assumption that reprocessing and plutonium recycling would form attractive and desirable elements of the nuclear fuel cycle. However, the construction of a reprocessing plant in Sweden was not envisaged. As commercial nuclear power plants were built in the early 70’s,
17
Section A – Introduction
arrangements were made therefore to send the spent nuclear fuel abroad for reprocessing.
During the late 1970’s attitudes changed, and reprocessing was, for various reasons (including
In 1969 the Swedish nuclear power company, OKG, signed a contract with the United Kingdom. Atomic Energy Agency, which was later taken over by The British Nuclear Fuel Limited (BNFL), for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from OKG in Windscale (later Sellafield). In all 140 tons of fuel was shipped to Sellafield between 1972 and 1982. The fuel was reprocessed in 1997 and resulted in 136 tons of uranium and 833 kilograms of plutonium. OKG plans to manufac- ture and use the recovered plutonium in about 80
Between 1978 and 1982 an agreement was made between the Swedish Nu- clear Fuel Supply Company (SKBF, later renamed SKB) and Compagnie Géné- rale des Matières Nucléaires (COGEMA) regarding the reprocessing of 672 tons of spent nuclear fuel from the Barsebäck, Ringhals and Forsmark NPPs.
A total of 55 tons was shipped to La Hague before the contracts were cancel- led. The fuel was then exchanged for 24 tons of used
The exchange meant that Sweden did not have to build a disposal facility for vitrified waste and Germany did not have to build a disposal facility for used
The 1973 Committee on Radioactive Waste (The
In 1973 the Government appointed a committee (the Committee on Radioactive Waste) to investigate the problem of handling
• Reprocessing of spent fuel was recommended, with disposal of glass or cera- mic solidification of the
• Responsibilities of licensees should be more clearly defined in the regulatory framework
• A research- and development programme should be established, subject to regulatory approval
• Afinancing system to cover costs for treatment, transport and disposal as well as research and development should be established
• A central storage facility for spent fuel should be established.
• Acentral disposal facility for low- and medium level radioactive waste should be established.
18
Section A – Introduction
A.5.2 Development of a National Programme
A.5.2.1 Fundamental principles
Principles for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste have evolved over the years and have been discussed by the Swedish parliament. The allocation of responsibilities is reflected in the Swedish legislation, and is further described in section E.2. The principles can be summarised:
1. The expenses for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste are to be covered by revenues from the production of energy that has resulted in these expenses.
2. The reactor owners are to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.
3. The state has the ultimate responsibility for spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The
4. Each country is to be responsible for the spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste generated in that country. The disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste from nuclear activities in another country may not occur in Sweden other than in an exceptional case.
A.5.2.2 Legal & regulatory framework – an overview
The management of spent fuel and nuclear waste is regulated by a series of statu- tory provisions, of which the three main legislative instruments are:
• The Act on Nuclear Activities (1984:3), which defines the licensing require- ments for the construction and operation of nuclear facilities and for handling or using nuclear materials (including radioactive waste).
• The Radiation ProtectionAct (1988:220), which defines the licensing require- ments for radiation protection and for radiological work.
• The Act on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities (2006:647) which deals with the main financial as- pects, and defines the responsibilities pertaining to the management and dis- posal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
These are the basic principles for the structure of the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Ac- tivities. They are also contained in the Act (2006:647) on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities.
Under the Act on Nuclear Activities the holder of a licence to operate a nu- clear reactor is primarily responsible for the safe handling and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste produced by the reactor. In addition the holder is re- sponsible - under the Radiation Protection Act - to take all measures and precau- tions necessary to prevent or counteract injury to human health and the environ- ment by radiation.
19
Section A – Introduction
The Act on the Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities is an essential part of the Swedish nuclear waste mana- gement system since it lays down the principles for the financing of expenses for decommissioning and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.
The Environmental Code (1998:808) is also of importance, in particular for the siting and construction of new facilities since amongst other things it regulates the environmental impact statement that must accompany a licence application. Any new nuclear facility must be licensed according to both the Act on Nuclear Activities and the Environmental Code. In both cases the Government grants the licence on the basis of recommendations and reviews of the competent authority.
Parliament
Government
The National Council |
Ministry of the |
|
Environment |
||
for Nuclear Waste |
||
|
Swedish Radiation Safety Authority
(SSM)
Regulatory review and supervision
Acts
§
Ordi- nances
§
Regula- tions
§
Licensees
Figure A1: Legal & regulatory framework - organizational structure
A.5.2.3 Licensing system basic principles
On important element in the legal and regulatory framework is the clearly defined step wise licensing process for nuclear facilities. Each decision to grant a license/ authorization to move from one phase to the next is founded on the regulatory review of an application from the implementer, based on an appropriate collection of arguments and evidence to justify the decision.
The safety analysis report (SAR) is central in the overall process. The SAR should provide an overall view of how the safety of the facility is arranged in order to protect human health and the environment against nuclear accidents. The report shall reflect the facility as built, analyzed and verified, as well as show how the requirements on its design, function, organization and activities are met. A preli- minary safety report shall be complied before a facility may be constructed. The safety report shall be updated before trial operation of the facility may be started.
The safety report shall be supplemented before the facility is subsequently taken into operation. The safety report shall subsequently be kept
In addition, and as appropriate, SSM examines the organizational, human and
20
Section A – Introduction
administrative capacity to cary out works to the extent and the quality required as well as preliminary plans for decommissioning of the facility.
The step wise licensing process is schematically illustrated in figure A2 and summarized below.
Nuclear Legislative And Regulatory Framework - Licensing Process
Licence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
- Construct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exemption from |
|||||
- Possess |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
responsibilities |
|||||
- Operate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authorisation |
|
Authorisation |
|
Authorisation |
|
|
|
Authorisation |
|
|
Authorisation |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Construction |
|
Trial |
|
Routine |
|
|
|
Continued |
|
|
Decommis- |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
Operation |
|
Operation |
|
|
|
Operation |
|
|
sioning |
|
|
||||
|
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIMELINE |
|
|
SAR |
AS BUILT , ANALYSED AND VERIFIED |
|
TO BE KEPT |
||
|
IMPLEMENTER |
Application |
Application |
|
Application |
|
Application |
|
|
PSR |
|
Application |
Application |
||
- Construct |
Construct. |
|
Operation |
|
Operation |
|
|
(Periodic |
|
Decomm. & |
Excemption |
|||
- Possess |
Prel. |
|
Renewed |
|
|
|
|
|
Safety Review) |
|
Dismantl. |
from |
||
|
|
Supplemented |
|
|
|
|
Responsibilies |
|||||||
- Operate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
SAR |
|
SAR |
|
SAR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure A2: Licensing system basic principles
1.Government license to construct, possess and operate (including decom missioning)
The license covers the lifecycle of the facility until the licensee is exempted from responsibilities as regards the facility/site. General obligations as regards management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste remains un- til disposal facilities are sealed and closed. Review activities according to the Act on Nuclear Activities focus on feasibility to establish the activities and the facility at the proposed site. A parallel licensing process according to the Environmental Code focuses on permissibility and the site selection process.
2.Regulatory authorization to start construction
The authorization is based on a regulatory review of the preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR). Review activities focus on that the preliminary design is compatible with legal and regulatory requirements and according to license conditions.
3.Regulatory authorization to start trial operation
The authorization is based on a regulatory review of a renewed SAR. Review
21
Section A – Introduction
activities focus on that the facility as built is in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and according to license conditions.
4.Regulatory authorization to start routine operation
The authorization is based on a regulatory review of a supplemented SAR taking into account the experience gained from trial operation. Review activi- ties focus on experiences from the trial operation period and that the operation of the facility is in compliance with the operational Limits and Conditions (OLC) and according to license conditions.
5.Periodic Safety Review (at least every ten years)
The authorization is based on a regulatory review an integrated analysis and overall assessment of the safety of the facility, concerning the way in which the facility at the time of analysis complies with the valid safety requirements as well as whether the necessary conditions exist to operate the facility in a safe manner until the next review occasion.
6.Regulatory authorization to start decommissioning
The authorization is based on a regulatory review of that the decommissio- ning plan has been properly supplemented and incorporated into the facility’s safety report.
7.Exemption from responsibilities (for the facility) by the Government
The regulatory review focuses on verifying that the licensee has carried out all duties according to the legal and regulatory requirements and according license conditions. General responsibilities for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste remains until all spent fuel and waste is disposed of and disposal facilities are sealed and closed.
22
Section A – Introduction
A.5.2.4 Basic requirements and general obligations
Another important element in the legal and regulatory framework is the general obligations in the Act on Nuclear Activities, requiring
As regards costs for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nu- clear waste, the licensee for a nuclear power reactor is – in
The licensee responsibilities are schematically illustrated in figure A3 and summarized below.
|
Nuclear power |
|
plant |
Licensee |
|
Basic requirements safety |
|
of operations |
m/s Sigyn |
3
2 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPP Licensee |
Transport |
Treatment, Storage |
Transport |
Disposal Facility |
|||
|
Licensee |
Facility Licensee |
Licensee |
Licensee |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Licensee
General Obligations Safe
Management and Disposal
of SF&RW
Funding Of Costs
For Management and
Disposal of SF&RW
NPP Licensees In Cooperation
NPP Licensees In Cooperation
Figure A3: Licensee basic requirements and general obligations
Licensee is responsible for safe construction, operation and decommissioning – facility perspective
Licensees are also responsible for general obligations as regards management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste – management perspective, i.e.
•NPP licensees must in
•NPP licensees must in
23
Section A – Introduction
A.5.2.5 The research, development and demonstration programme (RD&D)
In the
As a result of the ”Conditional Act” the nuclear industry initiated a joint pro- ject on nuclear fuel safety (KBS). This included a
The formal requirement for a
Company (SKB) has produced nine RD&D programmes with
24
Section A – Introduction
A.5.2.6 The financing system to cover the costs for management and disposal
General
During the 1970’s the nuclear power utilities established their own internal funds for future waste management expenses. These funds were transferred to a new fi- nancing system, under regulatory supervision, established in 1981 when the Swe- dish Parliament passed the Act on the Financing of Future Expenses for Spent Nuclear Fuel etc. Since 1981 the legislation has been revised a number of times, and various changes have been implemented. However, the basic principles have remained the same. The most recent commission of inquiry1 on the financing sys- tem submitted its report to the Government in December 2004. As a result of the inquiry theAct (1992:1537) as well as the Ordinance (1981:671) on the Financing of Future Expenses on Spent Nuclear Fuel etc. was replaced by the Act (2006:647) and the Ordinance (2008:715) on Financial Measures for the Management of Re- sidual Products from Nuclear Activities.
The main changes to the legislation are:
• A licensee has to submit cost estimates every three years. Previously the cost estimates had to be submitted by reactor owners on an annual basis.
• Also licensees other than licensees of nuclear power reactor must pay fees to the Nuclear Waste Fund.
• The licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall base costs estimates on 40 years of operation with a minimum remaining operating time of 6 years (previously the cost estimates were based on 25 years of operation).
• The licensee of nuclear facilities other than nuclear power reactors shall base cost estimates and the buildup of adequate financial resources on the expected remaining period of operation.
• Also the licensee of nuclear facilities other than nuclear power reactors shall provide a guarantee to cover the discrepancy between funded means and esti- mated costs.
• Extended liability for the nuclear industry. If there is insufficient money in the funds, the nuclear industry will still be liable.
The primary purpose of the Swedish financing system is to secure the financing of the licensees’ costs to manage and dispose of the spent nuclear fuel and nu- clear waste, decommission and dismantle the nuclear facilities and to carry out the needed research and development activities, but also to minimise the State’s risk of being forced to bear the costs which is considered to be the licensee’s liability.
Payments to the Fund
The licensee of a nuclear facility which generate or has generated residual pro- ducts must pay a nuclear waste fee, to cover the licensee’s share of the total costs.
1 As a consequence of the energy policy decision in 1997, which indicated that 2010 is no longer the final year for operation of Swedish nuclear power plants, a Governmental committee was appointed to review possible improvements to the financing system.
25
Section A – Introduction
For licensees, other than a licensee for a nuclear power reactor, it is possible to al- low exemption to the obligation to pay a nuclear waste fee if the licensee provides a guarantee to cover its costs.
The licensee of a nuclear power reactor must pay a nuclear waste fee per delivered
The average fee is currently SEK 0.01 per
Regulatory control
The regulatory authority appointed by the Government reviews the nuclear power utilities’ cost estimates as well as the size of the guarantees that nuclear power utilities must make available. After its review, the authority submits a proposal for the size of the fees, and of the size of the guarantees required, to the Government.
Based on this proposal, the Government sets the fees and guarantees. The fees are set for a three year period and are individual for each utility.
The management of the Nuclear Waste Fund is the responsibility of a separate government agency, the Nuclear Waste Fund.
The Swedish National Debt Office administrates and manages the guarantees.
Current cost estimates
The estimated total future cost, from 2012 onwards is approximately SEK 92 bil- lion (equivalent to approx. €9,7 billion). The sum of the future expenses and of those already accrued on various nuclear waste projects, are approximately SEK
115 billion (equivalent to approx. €12,1 billion).
To date, the Nuclear Waste Fund has covered the expenses for:
• The Central Interim Storage for Spent Nuclear Fuel (Clab);
• the transport system, i.e., the ship Sigyn, containers, special trucks, etc;
• the Canister Laboratory, the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory, the Bentonite Labo- ratory; and
• SKB’s research and development costs, including siting activities.
The Nuclear Waste Fund will eventually cover expenses for:
• the encapsulation of spent nuclear fuel;
• the repositories for spent nuclear fuel and
• the decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear power plants;
• the disposal facility for decommissioning waste;
• continuing research and development work; and
• the expenses for regulatory control and supervision after closure of the reactors.
Costs for the management of operational waste are paid for directly by the nuclear power utilities. The disposal facility for radioactive operational waste (SFR) has therefore been paid for by the nuclear power utilities and not by the Fund.
26
Section A – Introduction
Disbursements from the Fund
The licensees are entitled to disbursements, on a continuous basis, for expenses which they have already incurred for measures to achieve the decommissioning, handling and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the re- search needed for these activities.
Municipalities where there are site investigations of the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel, or where a facility for such a disposal facility is planned or being built, are entitled to compensation from the Nuclear Waste Fund for their information to the public. Disbursements may be determined to no more than 5 million per municipality and
Also
The regulatory authority decides on the disbursement of funds to the nuclear licensees, the municipalities and the
|
|
|
Government sets |
|||||
|
|
|
fees based on SSM’s |
|||||
|
|
|
recommendation |
|||||
Nuclear power |
|
|
|
Nuclear Waste |
||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
companies |
|
|
|
Fund |
||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
SSM approves |
|||||
|
|
|
reimbursement |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
from the Fund |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SKB
Decommissioning |
|
Central interim storage |
Final repository |
|
|
facility for spent nuclear fuel |
|
Encapsulation plant |
Transportation |
|
|
|
Research and |
|
development |
Figure A4: Flow of funds in the financing system as regards nuclear power utilities.
Agency costs etc.
A.5.2.7 Costs for waste from past practices
As of 1989, a special fee has been levied on the nuclear power utilities according to a special law, the Act (1988:1597) on Financing of Certain Radioactive Waste etc. (the Studsvik Act). This fee is intended to cover expenses for the management of nuclear waste from older experimental facilities, in particular the facilities at
Studsvik, the Ågesta reactor and the uranium mine in Ranstad, and for decommis- sioning and dismantling these facilities.
According to current cost estimates, SEK 1.8 billion (equivalent to approx. € 120 million) will be needed up to the year 2045 to meet these expenses.The spe- cial fee is the same for all operating nuclear power utilities, currently SEK 0.003 per
27
Section A – Introduction
In conjunction with the decision by the Swedish Parliament on new legisla- tion for the financing of the
(1984:3) on Nuclear Activities, the Parliament also decided that the Studsvik Act should be cancelled by December 31, 2009. During the reassessment of the fee le- vel in 2008 it became evident that remaining year of payments into the fund would not be sufficient to cover estimated costs. Therefore the Government decided to prolong the time period for contributions to the fund according to the Studsvik Act to January 1, 2012.
In 2009 the Government commissioned SSM to investigate future costs, un- certainties and responsibilities, and to evaluate
SSM submitted its report to Government in March 2010. The SSM assessment resulted in the conclusion that the combined impacts of the uncertainties, that have been identified, are expected to lead to a future need of funds higher than indi- cated in the current cost estimates. Furthermore, if the contributions to the fund according to the Studsvik Act would cease, the economic risk of the state would increase. The assessment of SSM is that the Studsvik Act should remain in force until further notice. If payments under thisAct are to cease, the quality of the cost estimates must improve significantly.
The Government submitted a Bill (2010/2011: 126) to the Parliament in April
2011 containing a proposal to extend the obligation to pay the Studsvik fee to De- cember 31, 2017. In June 2011 the Parliament approved the government bill and the reformed legislation will enter into force on 1 January 2012.
|
Parliament sets fee after recommendation |
|
|
from the Government. SSM notifies |
|
|
the Government if the fee amount |
|
|
needs to be changed |
|
Nuclear power |
|
Nuclear Waste |
|
||
companies |
|
Fund |
SSM approves reimbursement from the Fund
Reimbursement- entitled licensee*
Decommissioning
Management and disposal of nuclear waste, other nuclear materials and other radioactive waste
Remediation of land following nuclear activities
Management and final disposal of nuclear fuel
*Refers to licensees for facilities covered by the Studsvik Act. At present these are AB SVAFO, Studsvik Nuclear AB, Vattenfall AB (50% of the Ågesta CHP plant), Ranstad Industricentrum AB and Uppsala University.
Figure A5: Flow of funds according to the Studsvik Act.
28
Section A – Introduction
A.5.3 Supplementary national planning for
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority2 was assigned by the government to compile an integrated account for all spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste generated both within and outside the nuclear fuel cycle, to identify and propose any improvement to the management and disposal activities. The assignment was reported back to the Government 30 June 2009.
The report confirms that management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste (i.e. radioactive waste from the nuclear fuel cycle) is satisfactory.
No specific action is needed in addition to already existing practices according to existing legal and regulatory framework, i.e. the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Ac- tivities, the Act (2006:647) and the Ordinance (2008:715) on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities and the Act (1988:1597) on Financing of Certain Radioactive Waste etc. (the Studsvik Act).
In order to improve the situation, the report proposes actions within the following areas:
• Interim storage and disposal of radioactive waste for radioactive waste gene- rated outside the nuclear fuel cycle
• Action plans for radioactive material (outside the nuclear fuel cycle) which unintentionally ends up adrift without regulatory control
• Clarification of responsibilities in the legislation
• Preservation of information as regards waste disposal facilities
The report3 can be downloaded from SSM’s web site4.
2The assignment was given to the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) in 2008 and taken over by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) when established.
3Swedish national plan for the management of all radioactive waste, SSM Report 2009:29e
4www.ssm.se
29
Forsmark NPP
Forsmark Kraftgrupp AB
|
Capacity |
In operation since |
Forsmark 1 |
1 022 MW |
1980 |
Forsmark 2 |
1 035 MW |
1981 |
Forsmark 3 |
1 229 MW |
1985 |
SFR
Swedish Nuclear Fuel Waste
Management Co (SKB)
Final repository for radioactive operational waste
Vattenfall AB
Ågesta district heating nuclear reactor
Westinghouse Electric
Studsvik
Studsvik Nuclear AB, AB SVAFO
Facilities for fuel and materials testing, waste manegement and storage
|
Capacity |
In operation |
CLAB |
|
|
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and |
|||
Barsebäck 1 |
615 MW |
|||
Waste Management Co (SKB) |
||||
Barsebäck 2 |
615 MW |
|||
|
Central interim storage facility for spent fuel
Figure A6: Nuclear facilities in Sweden.
Oskarshamns NPP
OKG AB
|
Capacity |
In operation |
|
|
|
since |
|
Oskarshamn 1 |
492 MW |
1972 |
|
Oskarshamn 2 |
661 MW |
1975 |
|
Oskarshamn 3 |
1 450 MW |
1985 |
sgb/info |
|
|
|
30
Section A – Introduction
A.6.2 System overview |
power |
reactors in operation at three si- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Sweden has today 10 nuclear |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
tes giving rise to nuclear waste and |
spent nuclear fuel. In addition nu- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
clear waste is produced at the Studsvik site |
(closed |
research |
reactor, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Electric Sweden AB’s fuel fabrication plant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
In total the Swedish nuclear power programme will generate approximately |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
20 000 m3 |
spent fuel, 60 000 m3 |
low and intermediate level waste (LILW), and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
150 000 m3 |
decommissioning waste (based on |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Ringhals and Forsmark and 60 years ope- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
ration for the reactors in Oskarshamn). The |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
typical total annual production of LILW at |
|
Cleared waste |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
operational waste 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
very |
|||||||||||||||||
the nuclear facilities is 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear power |
waste 4 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Spent nuclear fuel is transported to an |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
interim storage facility (Clab). Radioactive |
Industry, research and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
operational waste from nuclear reactors, |
|
|
|
|
medical care |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
medical and research institutions and indu- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation |
Decommissioning |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
strial radioactive waste is disposed of in an |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
underground disposal facility in crystalline |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
bedrock (SFR). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interim storage |
|
|
|
|
||||||
All transportation of spent nuclear fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
facility |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
m/s Sigyn |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
and nuclear waste is by sea, since all the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Long |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
nuclear facilities are situated on the coast. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clab and |
encapsulation |
|
|
1 |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
The transportation system has been in ope- |
|
|
|
|
|
lived |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plant |
(Clink) |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Longlived- |
|
|
1 |
|
lived- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
livedLong- |
|
|
|
||||||||
ration since 1982 and consists of the ship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
M/S Sigyn, transport casks and containers, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
and terminal vehicles for loading and un- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation |
|
Decommissioning |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
loading. M/S Sigyn will be replaced with a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
new ship in 2013. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facilities that remain to be realised |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
are an encapsulation plant for spent fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and repositories for spent fuel, |
2 |
|
|
low and intermediate level waste, and for |
|
decommissioning waste. SKB:s R&D pro- |
|
grammes are focused on these matters. |
|
Final repository for
1 If SFR is closed before SFL, |
Final repository for |
|
waste – SFL |
||
the dashed line to SFL. |
||
|
2Interim storage of
in Clab and at Studsvik. Interim storage of
3There are
Spent
Fuel Repository
4 Possible alternative for very
Figure A7: Management system for spent fuel and nuclear waste as presented in
31
Section A – Introduction
A.6.2.1 Existing Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Practices
Management practices at the NPP sites
Spent nuclear fuel from the nuclear power reactors is temporarily stored in water- filled fuel pools for at least nine months, before being transported to the central interim storage for spent nuclear fuel (Clab), where it will be stored for at least another 30 years before being encapsulated and deposited in a disposal facility.
The central interim storage for spent fuel, Clab |
|
|
The spent nuclear fuel from all Swedish nuclear power reactors is stored in a |
||
central interim storage (Clab) situated adjacent to the Oskarshamn nuclear power |
||
plant. The facility consists of two parts, one building above ground for unloading |
||
spent fuel assemblies from trans- |
|
|
port casks, and one underground |
Clab – Central interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel |
|
part for storage with a rock cover |
||
of about |
Spent nuclear fuel needs to spend between |
|
30 and 40 years in interim storage. |
|
|
part consists of two caverns ap- |
|
|
The fuel is stored in deep |
|
|
proximately 120 metres long, each |
pools about 30 meters below the |
|
ground surface. The water |
|
|
containing five storage pools. |
provides radiation shielding |
|
Construction started in 1980 and |
and cooling. |
|
|
|
|
the facility was taken into opera- |
|
|
tion in 1985 with a storage capacity |
|
|
of 5 000 tonnes of spent fuel. The |
|
|
current total storage capacity is ap- |
|
|
proximately 8 000 tonnes of spent |
|
|
fuel, and 5 222 tonnes were being |
Forsmark/SFR |
|
stored at the end of 2010. |
Clab |
|
The facility is schematically |
|
|
Ringhals |
|
|
illustrated in figure A8. Princi- |
Oskarshamn |
|
pal data as well as information on |
Barsebäck |
|
inventories are found in section |
|
|
D.1.2.3. |
|
|
|
|
In the unloading pool the fuel assemblies are |
|
32 m |
lifted out and placed in a storage canister. |
|
Clab |
|
2 |
Figure A8: The Clab facility. |
Clab 2 increase the capacity from |
|
5,000 to 8,000 tonnes. |
|
Source: SKB |
Clab |
1 |
Facts Clab 1 |
Personnel:
Cost of construction:
Encapsulation plant
An encapsulation plant where the spent fuel can be encapsulated before
to the plans be built in direct
adjacent to Clab.
100
Fuel storage: 4,200 tonnes
Pool temperature: approx. 36°C under normal conditions
Receiving capacity: |
300 tonnes/year |
Annual operating cost: |
approx. SEK 100 million |
|
Graphic: Mats Jerndahl |
32
Section A – Introduction
A.6.2.2 Existing Radioactive Waste Management Practices
Management practices at the nuclear sites
Most of the LILW are conditioned (solidified, compacted, etc.) at the point of origin, i.e. at the reactor sites. Some wastes are sent to Studsvik’s waste treatment facilities for incineration or melting.
Disposal facility for radioactive operational waste, SFR |
|
||
SFR is designed for the disposal of |
|
||
tive waste from the Swedish nuclear power plants Clab, and for similar waste |
|
||
from other industry, research and medical usage. SFR is situated approximately |
|
||
140 kilometers north of Stockholm, close to the Forsmark nuclear power plant. |
|
||
Approximately 25 people work at the facility. |
|
||
SFR consists of four rock caverns |
|
|
|
and a silo. The facility is situated in |
SFR – Final repository for radioactive operational waste |
||
crystalline bedrock, |
approximately |
Operational waste from nuclear power plants and similar waste from the industrial, health care |
|
50 m below the seabed at a depth of |
and research sectors have a low or intermediate level of radioactivity and are stored in SFR. |
||
The waste is packaged in metal or concrete containers and stored at a depth of |
|||
5 m. Construction started in 1983 and |
metres in rock vaults that are kept under surveillance. |
|
|
it was taken into operation in 1988. |
The silo |
|
|
The total capacity is 63 000 m3 and |
Most of the radioactive substances are in the silo. Mainly it is |
||
33 871 m3 had been used by 31 De- |
replaced filters which collect the radioactive substances in the |
||
reactor water. All handling in |
|
||
cember, 2010. |
|
the silo is automated and |
|
schematically |
remote- |
|
|
The facility is |
controlled. |
50 m |
|
illustrated in figureA9. Principal data |
|
|
|
as well as information on inventories |
3 |
|
|
are found in section D.1.4.3. |
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
Facts SFR |
|
Bentonite clay |
|
|
Start of operation: |
1988 |
|
|
|
Disposal capacity: |
63,000 m3 |
|
|
|
Receiving |
The vaults |
|
||
capacity: |
m3/year |
|
||
Personnel: |
20 |
Rock vault, divided into pits, for |
|
|
Cost of |
|
|
||
SEK 740 million |
|
|||
construction: |
Handling in this |
|||
filled, concrete lids are placed on them. |
||||
Cost of operation: |
approx. SEK 40 |
|
vault is done by a |
|
|
million/year |
|
||
|
|
|
overhead crane. |
Low level waste in ordinary freight containers.
SFR
Forsmark
Ringhals |
Oskars- |
|
|
||
|
hamn |
|
Barsebäck |
Intermediate level waste |
|
in concrete containers. |
||
|
Figure A9: The SFR facility |
Source: SKB |
|
160 m |
1 |
2 |
|
Graphic: Mats Jerndahl
33
Section A – Introduction
SKB is planning an extension of SFR in order to dispose of additional operatio- nal waste and waste from future decommissioning of nuclear power plants. SKB intends to submit a license application in 2013 and operation is planned to com- mence in 2020.
Figure A10: Planned extension of SFR (blue parts). The final design of the extension is not yet established.
Shallow land burials
The nuclear power plants at Ringhals, Forsmark and Oskarshamn as well as the
Studsvik site have shallow land burials for solid
Clearance
Material may be cleared for unrestricted use or for disposal as conventional non- radioactive waste. For example in 2004 approximately 600 tonnes were cleared for disposal at municipal landfills. In addition 764 tonnes of melted metal (<500 Bq/kg) were cleared for recycling in 2010.
34
Section A – Introduction
A.6.3 Planned facilities and siting
A.6.3.1 General
Four major facilities remain to be designed, sited, constructed and licensed; a plant for the encapsulation of spent nuclear fuel, a disposal facility for spent fuel, a disposal facility for
A.6.3.2 The Spent Nuclear Fuel Programme
The main alternative for disposal of spent fuel,
Cladding tube |
Spent nuclear fuel |
Bentonite clay |
Surface portion of final repository |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500 m
Fuel pellet of |
Copper canister |
Crystalline |
Underground portion of |
Uranium dioxide |
with cast iron insert |
bedrock |
final repository |
Figure A11: The reference method
SKB’s planning for the future management of spent nuclear fuel, from interim storage in Clab via encapsulation to disposal, takes place within the framework of SKB’s Nuclear Fuel Programme. The programme includes licensing, design, con- struction and commissioning of the encapsulation plant and the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel.
On March 16, 2011, SKB’s applications for a permit to build a disposal faci- lity system were submitted to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) and the Environmental Court in Stockholm. The company is applying for a permit to build a nuclear fuel disposal facility in Forsmark and an encapsulation plant in Os- karshamn. SKB also has to apply for a new permit for the Interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel (Clab) in accordance with Sweden’s Environmental Code.
35
Section A – Introduction
Encapsulation plant for spent nuclear fuel
The encapsulation plant will be built directly adjacent to Clab. Prior to operation the facilities will be interconnected to a single unit, called Clink. Their operation will then be integrated. FigureA12 illustrates the handling sequence for the fuel, from the storage pools in Clab via encapsulation to delivery of the filled and sealed canister.
An application under the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities for a licence to build the encapsulation plant and a licence to own and operate it as an integrated facility with Clab was submitted in 2006. Supplements were promised in the app- lication and in 2007, after the initial review, SKB received a number of demands for supplementary information. SKB has responded to these demands, and a supp- lement was submitted in 2009.
The time schedule for encapsulation of the spent nuclear fuel has been developed by SKB, and the following sequence of events is proposed (see also figure A13):
Examination of application including review of SSM and Envi |
|
ronmental court, government decision and finalisation of PSAR |
|
Construction and commissioning |
|
2024 |
Submission of application for trial operation |
Trial operation |
|
2026 |
Submission of application for operation |
2027 |
Operation |
|
|
3 |
Handling cell. |
|
|
|
|
Drying and transfer of fuel |
|
|
|
|
to copper canister. |
|
8 |
Canister handling machine. |
|||
|
Canister is taken to measurement |
|||
|
and decontamination inspection, |
|||
|
after which canister is |
|
||
|
placed in transport |
|
||
|
cask for shipment. |
|
||
|
Shipping hall. |
|
||
|
|
|
4 |
Station for sealing of insert. |
|
|
|
|
Insert is sealed and canister |
|
|
|
|
is provided with lid. |
|
9 |
Terminal building. |
||
|
|
Temporary storage |
of canister.
To final repository
10
2Handling hall and pools.
Transfer of fuel to transfer canisters.
5Welding station.
Friction stir welding
of lid to canister.
Encapsulation plant
nondestructive testing.
Inspection of weld before and after machining.
7Station for machining.
Machining of canister.
Storage s
Figure A12: The encapsulation process for spent nuclear fuel.
36
Section A – Introduction
Disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel
In the early 1990’s SKB initiated a programme for siting a spent nuclear fuel disposal facility. SKB’s time schedule for performed and coming activities for the disposal of the spent nuclear fuel is (see also figureA7):
SKB selected Forsmark as the site for a disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel
SKB submitted license applications for siting and construction of the facility
Examination of application including review of SSM and Envi ronmental court, government decision and finalization of PSAR
Construction and commissioning
Submission of application for trial operation
Trial operation
Submission of application for operation
Operation
Main phases, Nuclear Fuel Programme
Licensing Construction Commissioning Operation
Nuclear Fuel Repository
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
2026 |
2027 |
Milestones |
|
|
|
|
Start of |
|
|
Start of |
Start of |
|
Start |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
construction |
|
construction |
construction |
integrated |
|
Start of |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
accesses |
|
central area |
deposition area |
testing |
|
operation |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Above ground
Infrastructure, establishment
Preparations, operations area
Buildings
Entrance and geology
Shafts and rock handling
Other buildings
Under ground
Skip shaft
Other shafts
Ramp
Central area
Deposition area – first part
Integrated |
testing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposition |
area – continued buildout |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Clink |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
|
|
|
|
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
|
2024 |
|
|
|
2026 |
2027 |
|
|||||
2016 |
|
|
2025 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Milestones |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Start of |
|
|
|
|
Interconnection |
|
|
Start |
|
|
|
|
Start of |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
construction |
|
|
|
|
Clab and Inka |
integrated |
testing |
|
operation |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facilities/activities
Clab, Alterations
Inka, Rock excavation works
Inka, Building
Inka, Installations
Clink, Finishing
Integrated testing
Figure A13: Time table for establishment of the spent fuel disposal facility and Clink.
37
Section A – Introduction
Research and demonstration facilities
The Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory
The Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory (HRL), which was built during the period 1990– 1995, is situated on Äspö north of the Oskarshamn Nuclear Power Plant. The underground laboratory consists of a tunnel from the Simpevarp Peninsula, where the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant is located, to the southern part of Äspö. On Äspö the main tunnel descends in two spiral turns to a depth of 460 metres. The various experiments are conducted in niches in the short tunnels that branch out from the main tunnel. An illustration of the HRL is shown in Figure A14.
The laboratory is used to investigate how the barriers in the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel (canister, buffer, backfill, closure and rock) prevent the radi- onuclides in the fuel from reaching the ground surface.
Figure A14: The Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory.
38
Section A – Introduction
The Canister Laboratory
The Canister Laboratory, situated in the harbour area at Oskarshamn, was built during the period
There are stations in the Canister Laboratory for testing different welding techni- ques and different methods for nondestructive testing. The goal is to develop methods that meet the stipulated quality requirements and have sufficiently high reliability to be used in Clink. The most important items of equipment in the la- boratory are a friction welder, an electron beam welder, and equipment for radio- graphic and ultrasonic testing.
Figure A15: The Canister Laboratory´s equipment for development of friction stir welding.
The Bentonite Laboratory
SKB has been conducting research and development in the Bentonite Laboratory in Oskarshamn since 2007. The facility is situated adjacent to the Äspö HRL and supplements the experiments being conducted there.
In the Bentonite Laboratory the properties of the bentonite is tested by, for ex- ample, simulating water conditions in a controlled manner. Here SKB is also de- veloping methods for backfilling the disposal facility’s tunnels and building plugs to seal the deposition tunnels.
Figure A16: Stacking tests performed at the
Bentonite Laboratory on Äspö.
39
Section A – Introduction
A.6.3.3 The Low- and Intermediate Level Waste (LILW) Programme
Disposal facility for
SKB plans to dispose of waste from the future decommissioning of the nuclear power plants in an extension to SFR. The planned extension entails an increase of the facility’s storage capacity by an estimated 140,000 m3 from today’s capacity of 63 000 m3. SKB intends to submit a license application in 2013 and operation is planned to commence in 2020.
Disposal facility for
According to current plans, a license application to build a disposal facility for
Dry interim storage of
Earlier plans of interim storage in BFA (rock cavern for waste) of
A new waste container, called ATB 1T, will be developed in order to transport the
Main milestones for the
2013 Application for extension of SFR to accommodate decommissioning waste
2013 Concept study for SFL to be finalized
2017 Start of construction works for extension of SFR
2020 Start of operation extended SFR
2035 Start of construction works to establish SFL
2045 Start of operation of SFL
40
.programme LILW the for table Time A17: Figure
41
LILW programme
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
2030 |
203 |
2040 |
|||||||
Applications, notifications and reports |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
||||||||
Application |
|
|
|
Application |
|
Application trial |
|
|
|
|
Application |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
licensing |
|
|
|
extended SFR |
|
|
operation of |
|
|
|
routine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
transport cask |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
extended SFR |
|
|
|
operation SFR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RD&D 2010 |
|
|
|
RD&D 2013 |
|
|
RD&D 2016 |
|
ASAR |
|
SFR |
|
|
|
|
Application SFL |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Final disposal, operational and decommissioning waste (SFR)
|
|
Operation in existing plant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Routine operation extended SFR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
Design, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Detailed |
|
|
Construction |
|
|
|
|
Trial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Periodical continued extension |
|||||||||||||
|
|
application documents |
design |
|
|
|
|
phase |
|
|
|
|
|
operation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Interim storage, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
Existing interim storage in Clab and at nuclear power plants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interim storage in SFR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Licensing and production |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
of transport casks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Final disposal, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design, application |
|
Construction phase |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Safety assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site investigations |
|
|
|
documents and |
|
and trial operation |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
detailed design |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Important milestones |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site |
|
|
Safety |
Start of |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Safety |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Concept study |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
selection |
|
assessment construction |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
decommissioning |
|
|
|
assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SFL |
|
|
SFL |
SFL |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
studies |
|
|
|
|
SFL |
|
|
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Start |
Trial |
|
|
|
|
|
Routine operation |
|
|
|
|
|
Safety |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
operation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
investigation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
construction |
|
|
extended |
extended |
|
|
|
|
|
assessment |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
SFR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SFR |
|
|
|
SFR |
SFR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SFR |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Decommissioning acivities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
Studsvik’s research reactors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B1, B2, Ågesta |
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1, R2 |
|
F1, F2, F3, O1, O2, R3, R4 |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
203 |
|
203 |
204 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
5 |
0 |
|||
|
|
Clab |
|
Central interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel |
|
ASAR |
|
|
|
B1 |
|
Barsebäck 1 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Clink |
Facility for central interim storage and encapsulation |
|
SFL |
|
Final repository for low- and |
|
|
|
B2 |
|
Barsebäck 2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
of spent nuclear fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
RD&D |
Research, development and demonstration |
|
|
|
|
SFR |
|
Final repository for radioactive operational waste |
|
|
|
2045 |
2050 |
2055 |
2060 |
2065 |
2070 |
2075 |
Operation
Operation
SFL
|
|
O3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204 |
|
205 |
|
2055 |
2060 |
|
2065 |
2070 |
2075 |
|
5 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F1 |
Forsmark 1 |
O1 |
Oskarshamn 1 |
R1 |
Ringhals 1 |
|
|
|||
F2 |
Forsmark 2 |
O2 |
Oskarshamn 2 |
R2 |
Ringhals 2 |
|
|
|||
F3 |
Forsmark 3 |
O3 |
Oskarshamn 3 |
R3 |
Ringhals 3 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R4 |
Ringhals 4 |
|
|
Introduction – A Section
Section A – Introduction
A.7 Swedish participation in international activities to enhance safety and radiation protection
A.7.1 The regulatory authority
The international nuclear safety cooperation is substantial; SSM is involved in about 150 international groups. The majority of groups are related to nuclear sa- fety and radiation protection issues. The cooperation takes place within the fram- eworks of IAEA, OECD/NEA and EU, but also in connection with the internatio- nal conventions ratified by Sweden and in
In addition to multilateral collaboration, SSM has bilateral agreements with nine countries to exchange information and to cooperate on agreed issues (e.g. nuclear safety, emergency preparedness, occupational exposure, environmental radiological protection and radioactive waste management). These are Australia,
Canada, Germany, Japan, Lithuania Ukraine, Russia, SouthAfrica, and USA.Ad- ditionally Sweden has special agreements with the Nordic Countries (Denmark,
Finland, Iceland and Norway) regarding emergency preparedness and information exchange on the technical design of nuclear facilities.
SSM contributed significantly to WENRA’s benchmarking project which made a systematic comparison of national reactor safety requirements and their implementation against jointly agreed reference levels5. SSM participates actively in ENSREG (European Nuclear Safety Regulators’ Group), an expert body of se- nior officials from national regulatory or nuclear safety authorities from all 27 EU member states. Through ENSREG and its working groups SSM has been active in the preparations for the directives on establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations (2009/71/EURATOM) and a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste (2011/70/EURATOM).
SSM was active in the work of the International Commission on Radiologi- cal Protection (ICRP); both chair and secretary were until recently from Sweden. SSM contributes to the work performed within the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
NEA and IAEA (International BSS).
Apart from the regulatory issues, SSM is engaged in research projects, mostly within the
5 Report by the WENRA Reactor Harmonisation Working Group, January 2006 and WENRA Reactor Safety Reference Levels, January 2008 are available at: www.wenra.org.
42
Section A – Introduction
SSM constantly prioritise its international engagement and work due to limi- ted staff resources. A classification system of the different international work has been introduced and a policy for international work has been developed as part of the SSM integrated,
A.7.2 SSM’s international support programmes
Swedish authorities have since 1992 been engaged in providing assistance to sta- tes of the former Soviet Union in the area of nuclear safety and security as well as radiation protection. Since 2008, this work is carried out by the Swedish radiation Safety Authority, SSM, The aims of the bilateral assistance are:
• to improve reactor safety and minimise the risk of a nuclear accident with uncontrolled radioactive releases at the facilities in question;
• to improve conditions so that radioactive waste, including spent nuclear fuel, shall be handled and stored in a manner that is acceptable from the point of view of safety and radiation protection, regarding personnel, the public and environment;
• to impede the mismanagement of nuclear and radioactive materials and to strengthen the
• to improve the national preparedness and awareness as concern radiation pro- tection for people and the environment.
• to strengthen the legislation and exercising of authority in connection with nuclear facilities and handling of radioactive waste; and
• to contribute to the development and strengthening of the countries’ autho- rities and organisations within the national emergency preparedness and to establish
Currently the cooperation partners for Sweden are: Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and
Georgia. Earlier on, Sweden has had similar cooperation programmes with Ar- menia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Eastonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In 2010, the funding allocated by the Swedish Government for these purposes amounted to 7 million Euro.
A.7.3 SKB
In being the responsible entity for all handling, transportation and storage of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes outside the Swedish nuclear power plants, SKB gives international
The main aim for SKB’s international activities is to follow the research and development work conducted in other countries and to participate in international projects within the field of nuclear waste management. Furthermore, the interna- tional work provides perspective to the domestic programme and contributes to maintaining
SKB actively participates in several IAEA, EU and OECD/NEA committees and working groups. SKB is also engaged in a large number of research projects within these international organizations. SKB also runs the Secretariat of the “Implemen- ting Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform
43
Section A – Introduction
in which eleven waste management organizations
The cooperation with Posiva in Finland is the most extensive and comprises projects in the fields of disposal facility technology, site investigation and encap- sulation techniques.
One important example of SKB’s international research
Japan, Spain, Switzerland, Canada and the Czech Republic are (or have been) carrying out joint studies.
44
Section B – Policies and practices
B.1 Article 32.1: REPORTING
1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30, each Contract- ing Party shall submit a national report to each review meeting of Contracting Parties. This report shall address the measures taken to implement each of the obligations of the Convention.
For each Contracting Party the report shall also address its:
(i) spent fuel management policy; (ii) spent fuel management practices;
(iii) radioactive waste management policy; (iv) radioactive waste management practices
(v) criteria used to define and categorize radioactive waste.
The present report constitutes the fourth Swedish report issued in compliance with Article 32.
B.1.1 Spent fuel management policy
The Swedish spent fuel policy is not explicitly expressed in single document. The rationales for the management system for spent fuel and nuclear waste are based on basic principles that have been derived from extensive discussions in the Swe- dish parliament.
Thus, the national policy and strategy for the management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste has been expressed and supported by the parliament by means of four basic principles:
1. The expenses for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste are to be covered by revenues from the production of energy that has resulted in these expenses.
2. The reactor owners are to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.
3. The state has the ultimate responsibility for spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The
4. Each country is to be responsible for the spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste generated in that country. The disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste from nuclear activities in another country may not occur in Sweden other than in an exceptional case.
Another basic prerequisite as regards spent fuel management is that reprocessing will not take place. Thus, spent nuclear fuel is in practice considered as, and trea- ted as, waste, although it is not legally defined as waste until disposed of in a re- pository.
45
Section B – Policies and practices
B.1.2 Spent fuel management practices
At the nuclear power plants, the spent nuclear fuel is stored in the fuel pools for about a year before it is transported to the central interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel (Clab). The safety and security measures taken at the NPPs do not differentiate between spent or partially spent fuel. The process of loading spent fuel into transport containers (weight: 80 tonnes, thickness: 32 cm of steel, length: 6.15 m, diameter: 1.95 m, capacity: 17
SSM supervises the management of spent nuclear fuel at the NPPs during the ordinary inspections of safety and security. These procedures fall under the general management of safety. The issues of contamination of spent nuclear fuel containers, however, were/are the responsibility of radiation protection and trans- port safety.
The capacity of the interim storage for spent nuclear fuel (Clab) was increased in 2008 and the storage capacity is now sufficient to provide for storage of all spent fuel to be produced in Swedish NPP’s, i.e.
According to current plans, fuel elements after a storage period in Clab of about
The siting process for the disposal facility ended in June 2009, as described in the introduction in section A, when the board of SKB decided to choose Forsmark as the site for the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel. In March 2011 SKB submitted a license application for siting and construction of the disposal facility, which is expected to commence operation in 2025.
B.1.3 Radioactive waste management policy
As is the case for management of spent fuel, the Swedish spent fuel policy is not explicitly expressed in single document. The Swedish Parliament has on several occasions declared that Sweden supports and will follow the principle of each country’s responsibility to take care of and dispose of radioactive waste produced within the country. Disposal, as well as interim storage, of foreign radioactive waste in Sweden is prohibited.
46
Section B – Policies and practices
B.1.4 Radioactive waste management practices
Very low level
• disposed of in shallow land burials that are licensed according to the Act on
Nuclear Activities; or
• subject to clearance according to the regulatory authority’s requirements and decisions, and either
• released for unrestricted use;
• disposed of in municipal landfills; or
• incinerated using specific furnaces (only applicable on contaminated oil).
Waste arising outside of the nuclear fuel cycle may – when needed and if app- ropriate – be disposed in disposal facilities for nuclear fuel cycle wastes.
B.1.5 Criteria to define and categorize radioactive waste
B.1.5.1 Definitions
The definition of nuclear waste according to the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activi- ties is:
• spent nuclear fuel that has been placed in a disposal facility,
• a radioactive substance formed in a nuclear plant and which has not been pro- duced or removed from the plant to be used for education or research, or for medical, agricultural or commercial purposes,
• materials, or other items, that have belonged to a nuclear plant and become contaminated with radioactivity, and are no longer to be used in that plant, or
• radioactive parts of a nuclear plant that is being decommissioned.
In the Radiation Protection Act (1988:220) the term ”radioactive waste” is used. The term includes radioactive waste from nuclear activities, as well as from non- nuclear activities (medical use, use of sealed sources, research institutions, consu- mer products, etc). The legal definitions are discussed further in section E.2.1, and section D, in which the disposal routes for different waste streams are presented.
47
Section B – Policies and practices
B.1.5.2 Categorisation
There is no legally defined waste classification system in Sweden for nuclear or radioactive waste. There are, however, established waste acceptance criteria for different disposal routes of nuclear and radioactive waste. These disposal routes differ between activities within the nuclear fuel cycle and outside the nuclear fuel cycle depending both on the different types of material being handled and also on which of the different routes that have been established by taking repositories into operation. For the established disposal routes, including clearance, waste ac- ceptance criteria have been set up, expressed as dose rate limits and activity con- centration.
Criteria for waste being disposed as very
Criteria for low and intermediate level waste being disposed in the repository for radioactive operational waste (SFR), are given in section D.1.4.3. A separate permit is needed for each category of waste before disposal is allowed. The permit is based on a waste type description (WTD) comprising detailed specifications on waste treatment, composition and conditioning, etc. Furthermore, for each subsys- tem, such as the different rock caverns of the SFR facility, dose rate criteria have been established. In addition, total dose and/or nuclide specific activity limits have also been established for the different disposal facilities as a whole or for each section of the facility.
Thus, a
It is of course possible to classify waste according to any standard based on this procedure since each available or planned disposal option corresponds to dif- ferent classes of, e.g. the IAEA classification standards.
48
Section C – Scope of Application
C.1 Article 3: SCOPE OF APPLICATION
•This Convention shall apply to the safety of spent fuel manage- ment when the spent fuel results from the operation of civilian nuclear reactors. Spent fuel held at reprocessing facilities as part of a reprocessing activity is not covered in the scope of this Convention unless the Contracting Party declares reprocessing to be part of spent fuel management.
•This Convention shall also apply to the safety of radioactive waste management when the radioactive waste results from civilian applications. However, this Convention shall not apply to waste that contains only naturally occurring radioactive ma- terials and that does not originate from the nuclear fuel cycle, unless it constitutes a disused sealed source or it is declared as radioactive waste for the purposes of this Convention by the Contracting Party.
•This Convention shall not apply to the safety of management of spent fuel or radioactive waste within military or defence pro- grammes, unless declared as spent fuel or radioactive waste for the purposes of this Convention by the Contracting Party. How- ever, this Convention shall apply to the safety of management of spent fuel and radioactive waste from military or defence programmes if and when such materials are transferred perma- nently to and managed within exclusively civilian programmes.
C.1.1 Reprocessing and military or defence programmes
Reprocessing is not part of the nuclear fuel cycle in Sweden. There is no reproces- sing facility in Sweden and spent fuel from nuclear power reactors is not sent for reprocessing in other countries. Reprocessing agreements were made with United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency (now the British Nuclear Fuel Limited, BNFL) in 1969 and Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (COGEMA) for re- processing spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear power plants. Only a small number of fuel elements were in fact shipped for reprocessing and the agreements were terminated in the early 1980’s. These past practices are also discussed in Section A.5.1.
Sweden terminated all research activities related to military or defence program- mes in 1970, and all radioactive residues from activities involving nuclear tech- nology are since then part of the civilian sector. Radioactive waste from research activities related to military or defence programmes, before 1970, has been perma- nently transferred to the management programme for civilian radioactive waste. These past practices are also discussed in SectionA.5.1.
Sweden declares all spent fuel and all radioactive waste originating from the nu- clear fuel cycle for the purpose of the Joint Convention, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1 and 3.
49
Section C – Scope of Application
C.1.2 Naturally occurring radioactive materials
Sweden does not declare waste that contains only naturally occurring radioactive material and that does not originate from the nuclear fuel cycle as radioactive waste for the purpose of the Joint Convention, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 2.
50
Section D – Inventories and Lists
D.1 |
Article 32.2: REPORTING |
|
|
2. |
This report shall also include: |
(i) |
a list of the spent fuel management facilities subject to this |
(ii) |
Convention, their location, main purpose and essential features; |
an inventory of spent fuel that is subject to this Convention and |
|
|
that is being held in storage and of that which has been disposed |
|
of. This inventory shall contain a description of the material and, |
|
if available, give information on its mass and its total activity; |
(iii) a list of the radioactive waste management facilities subject |
|
|
to this Convention, their location, main purpose and essential |
|
features; |
(iv) an inventory of radioactive waste that is subject to this Con- |
|
|
vention that: (a) is being held in storage at radioactive waste |
(b) |
management and nuclear fuel cycle facilities; |
has been disposed of; or |
|
(c) has resulted from past practices. |
|
|
This inventory shall contain a description of the material and |
|
other appropriate information available, such as volume or |
(v) |
mass, activity and specific radionuclides; |
a list of nuclear facilities in the process of being decommis- |
|
|
sioned and the status of decommissioning activities at those |
|
facilities. |
|
|
D.1.1 Management of spent nuclear fuel
Most spent nuclear fuel in Sweden emanates from commercial nuclear power plants at the Barsebäck (which was finally shut down 31 May 2005), Forsmark,
Oskarshamn and Ringhals sites. Small amounts of spent nuclear fuel originate from the research reactors in Studsvik (which were finally shut down 15 June 2005). In addition, some spent nuclear fuel from the decommissioned research reactor R1 and from the closed Ågesta reactor must be managed.
Spent nuclear fuel from the NPPs is temporarily stored in fuel pools, befo- re being transported to the central interim storage for spent nuclear fuel (Clab), where it will be stored for at least another 30 years before being encapsulated and deposited in a disposal facility.
Spent nuclear fuel elements from the closed research reactors R2 and
Studsvik have been exported to the United States.
All spent fuel from the Ågesta district heating power reactor has been transfer- red to Clab. Spent fuel from the R1 research reactor consists of rods of metallic uranium enclosed in an aluminum alloy casing. This type of fuel is not suitable for disposal in accordance with the
51
Section D – Inventories and Lists
red to
The corroded parts of the
No spent nuclear fuel is currently disposed of in Sweden.
D.1.2 Spent nuclear fuel facilities and inventories
D.1.2.1 Interim storage at the nuclear power plants
Each NPP unit has a fuel pool, close to the reactor vessel, in which spent fuel is stored temporarily for at least nine months before being transported to Clab. The fuel pools constitute integrated parts of the reactor facilities, and are for the pur- pose of the Joint Convention not considered to be separate spent fuel management facilities. The amount of spent fuel stored in pools at the nuclear power stations as of
|
Fuel pool at NPP |
Pool capacity |
Spent nuclear fuel stored |
|
|
|
(no of fuel |
(no of assemblies) |
(tonnes*) |
|
|
assembly positions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oskarshamn 1 |
908 |
366 |
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oskarshamn 2 |
1022 |
271 |
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oskarshamn 3 |
1040 |
328 |
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Forsmark 1 |
614 |
402 |
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forsmark 2 |
493 |
367 |
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forsmark 3 |
340 |
262 |
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ringhals 1 |
1426 |
283 |
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ringhals 2 |
432 |
114 |
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ringhals 3 |
381 |
195 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ringhals 4 |
364 |
165 |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
*uranium weight
Table D1: Inventory of spent fuel in NPP pools.
52
Section D – Inventories and Lists
D.1.2.2 Spent nuclear fuel facilities and inventories at Studsvik
As described above, remaining waste from the reprocessing of the intact parts of the
Spent nuclear fuel in storage |
|
|
origin |
no of assemblies |
kg* |
|
|
|
R1** |
12+3*** |
82,3**** |
*uranium weight
**The corroded parts of the R1 fuel
***12 steel cans and 3 steel canisters
****Consists mostly of uranium dioxide (uo2)
Table D2: Spent fuel from the research reactor R1 temporarily stored in Studsvik.
D.1.2.3 The central interim storage for spent nuclear fuel, Clab
Spent fuel assemblies will, as mentioned above, be stored at the Clab facility for at least 30 years. The main reason is to let the heat generation decay by about 90 %, before encapsulation and disposal. Other highly radioactive components such as control rods from reactors are also stored in Clab awaiting disposal.
After being removed from the cask in an unloading pool, the spent fuel as- semblies are transferred to storage canisters for subsequent transport and storage.
A
Approximately 100 people work at the facility, a third of them with the
The water, which circulates in a closed system, acts both as coolant and as an effective radiation shield, and no additional radiation protection equipment is needed. The water is circulated through filters to keep it clean before being retur- ned to the pools. The heat is removed in heat exchangers, cooled by seawater, in an intermediate cooling system. There are
The central interim storage for spent nuclear fuel, Clab is shown in figureA8.
Principal data and inventories are listed below.
53
Section D – Inventories and Lists
Principial data for Clab
|
Owner and license holder: |
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB) |
|
|
|
|
Operation and maintenance: |
SKB |
|
|
|
|
Start of construction: |
1980 |
|
|
|
|
Start of operation: |
1985 |
|
|
|
|
Number of staff: |
Approximately 100 |
|
|
|
|
Storage capacity: |
8 000 tonnes of uranium |
|
|
|
|
Receiving capacity: |
300 tonnes uranium per year |
|
|
|
|
Number of storage pools: |
8 + 2 in reserve |
|
|
|
|
Pool temperature (normal conditions): |
Maximum 36°C |
|
|
|
|
Cooling capacity: |
8.5 MW |
|
|
|
Table D3: Principal data for Clab |
|
|
Specification |
Spent nuclear fuel stored |
|
|
|
(no of assemblies) |
(tonnes) |
|
|
|
|
|
BWR fuel |
23 230 |
3 937 |
|
|
|
|
|
PWR fuel |
2 877 |
1 240 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel from Ågesta district heating nuclear |
|
|
|
power reactor |
222 |
20,2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel from Studsvik |
19 |
2,5 |
|
|
|
|
|
German |
|
|
|
Swedish fuel reprocessed in France) |
217 |
22,5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
26 565 |
5 222 |
|
|
|
|
|
Storage capacity |
|
8 000 |
|
|
|
|
Table D4: Inventory of spent fuel stored in Clab
54
Section D – Inventories and Lists
D.1.3 management of radioactive waste nuclear power plants
Waste management at the NPP sites is fully integrated into the operations at each site. Fulfillment of the requirements in SSM’s general regulation is accomplished and verified through regulatory review and inspection activities at the nuclear po- wer plants, as reported in the Swedish reports under the Convention on Nuclear Safety. Temporary storage of radioactive waste at the nuclear power plant sites is in practice an integrated part of the site.
Waste with very low activity (VLLW) is disposed of in shallow land burials on site, except for Barsebäck. VLLW from Barsebäck is disposed of in SFR.
Figure D1: Standard packages for
55
Section D – Inventories and Lists
The waste is treated differently at the different nuclear power plants. The table below describes methods and packages for operational waste produced at the nu- clear power plants.
Type of waste |
Ringhals |
Barsebäck |
Oskarshamn |
Forsmark |
|
|
|
|
|
Ion exchange resins |
Solidified in concrete, |
Solidified in concrete |
Solidified in concrete |
Solidified in bitumen |
|
packed in concrete |
and packed in steel |
and packed in |
and packed in |
|
moduls and steel |
drums. |
concrete drums. |
steel moulds. |
|
moulds. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dewatered and |
Dewatered and |
Dewatered and |
|
|
packed in concrete |
packed in concrete |
packed in concrete |
|
|
tanks. |
tanks. |
tanks. |
Metal scrap and residues |
Casted in concrete and |
Packed in standard |
Casted in concrete and |
Packed in steel |
|
packed in concrete |
ISO containers. |
packed in concrete |
moulds. |
|
moulds. |
|
moulds. |
Packed in standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Packed in standard |
|
|
ISO containers. |
|
ISO containers. |
|
|
|
Sludges |
Solidified in concrete, |
|
|
|
|
packed in |
|
|
|
|
concrete moulds. |
|
|
|
Table D5: Waste treatment methods at the NPPs (no more operational waste is currently produced at the Barsebäck site after the closure of the plant).
D.1.4 Radioactive waste facilities and inventories
D.1.4.1 Radioactive waste treatment facilities and inventories
At the OKG site, the interim storage for low and intermediate level waste is built in a rock cavern. At the other nuclear power plants sites, there are special buildings for interim storage of conditioned operational waste located on the nuclear plant site. Safety reports exist for all facilities where radioactive waste is handled and stored. The safety reports describe the facility and the waste handling activities, the content of radioactive substances, supervising activities and include a safety analysis.As waste packages from the NPPsites are transported to SFR on a regular basis it is not relevant for the purpose of the Joint Convention to present a list of the inventories for the interim storage at the sites.
56
Section D – Inventories and Lists
D.1.4.2 Radioactive waste management facilities at Studsvik
Hot cell laboratory, HCL
The Hot Cell Laboratory, built in the late 1950’s, is primarily used to investigate irradiated nuclear fuel, although it is also used for studies of other types of irra- diated materials. In addition, the laboratory is used for the conditioning, treatment and encapsulation of spent fuel fragments in packages suitable for interim storage in other facilities. The Laboratory has seven cells with thick concrete walls, and lead windows, to protect the personnel from ionising radiation. All waste is remo- ved from the laboratory after conditioning.
The incineration facility, HA
The facility is used for incineration of solid
Ashes are stabilized in concrete for disposal or, if the waste comes from overseas, returned to the origin for further management. The current license permits the treatment of 600 tons of combustible waste annually.
The melting facility, SMA
The melting facility in Studsvik is used for volume reduction of contaminated metal. After melting and radiological measurement, the material may be exempted from regulatory control or returned to the source for further management. The cur- rent license permits the treatment of 5 000 tons of metal annually.
Treatment facility for intermediate waste, HM
The facility is used for the treatment of intermediate solid and liquid waste from other facilities in Studsvik. Treatment of solid waste comprises sorting, volume reduction (compaction), packing and conditioning by means of stabilization with concrete. Treatment of liquid waste comprises sedimentation and solidification by means of stabilization with concrete.
Interim storage for low and intermediate waste, AM
The AM facility was constructed in the 1980s for the interim storage of condi- tioned waste from other treatment facilities from the Studsvik site. The storage is constructed in a cavern in crystalline bedrock with a rock cover of at least 20 meters. The rock mass is grouted with concrete, the walls are reinforced by means of rendering concrete, and special arrangements have been made to drain the rock.
57
Section D – Inventories and Lists
The storage facility is dimensioned to receive waste until about the year 2045. The storage area is divided into two parts; one part is used for waste that requires shiel- ding and the other is used for waste for which shielding is not necessary. The shiel- ded part of theAM storage has a capacity of about 4 000 m3, corresponding to 1632 moulds and 1020
The following types of waste originating from the Studsvik facilities are currently being stored at AM:
• operational waste from the research reactor R2 and the tests that were perfor- med in the reactor,
• irradiated and contaminated material from the production of isotopes,
• irradiated and contaminated material from the fuel testing laboratory, and
• start sources from an old research reactor and- operational waste from the waste handling facilities.
Externally produced types of waste currently being stored at AM are:
• rest products from incinerated waste from nuclear power plants, hospitals and industry,
• rest products from the use of isotopes in industry and hospitals,
• decommissioning waste from old nuclear facilities and
• waste from treatment of steam generators from Ringhals
Number of packages |
Volume (m3)* |
Mass |
(tonnes)* |
Activity (Bq) |
|
|
|
|
|
3 854 |
2 168 |
3 |
795 |
8,63*1015 |
*including packaging |
|
|
|
|
Table D6: Inventory of disposed radioactive waste in AM
Storage facility for solid intermediate waste, AT
The facility, which was built for the purpose of the temporary storage of interme- diate and high level solid waste from the reactor R2, is 44 meters long, 9 meters wide and comprises a concrete slab with circular and rectangular storage posi- tions. The walls and roof are constructed of sheet metal on a steel structure. The facility is heated by means of air conditioning and the outgoing air is filtered. The facility is nowadays used for temporary storage and for various project activities.
The storage facility, FA
This facility, which contains three water pools, was built in 1965 for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel from the Ågesta reactor. As all fuel from Ågesta has been transferred to Clab the facility may be used for other purposes such as storage of spent fuel from other reactors, or for storage of other radioactive materials.
The facility comprises a main building and an extension. The main activities are carried out in the main building. There are three pools which can be used for
58
Section D – Inventories and Lists
loading/unloading of transport casks, two of the pools are equipped with storage racks for the storage of spent fuel assemblies and other radioactive material.
The storage pools are built in reinforced concrete and lined with stainless steel. They have a depth of 8.2 m, and a diameter of 3.8 m. The basement contains service areas and equipment for management of the piping and water systems. The ventilation and drainage systems are monitored for any radioactive substances. The extension comprises a
Storage facility for radioactive waste, AU
The AU facility is an interim storage for conditioned
The waste will be disposed of in the disposal facility for other
Treatment facilities for radioactive
Disused sealed sources and radioactive waste from medical use, research and in- dustry are mainly managed in the two facilities
Monitoring at Studsvik facilities
Whenever there is risk for airborne emissions, ventilation and/or exhaust systems are monitored for any radioactive substances. Likewise, to avoid contamination from waste water, common drainage systems are monitored for any radioactive substances before the water is released to the recipient.
D.1.4.3 Disposal facility for
General information
The capacity of SFR is approximately 63 000 m3, and 33 871 m3 of waste had been disposed of by
The disposal facility is designed to isolate the waste from the biosphere in
59
Section D – Inventories and Lists
order to avoid harmful consequences to man and the environment both during operation and after closure. This is accomplished by emplacement in rock under the seabed, and by the technical barriers surrounding the waste. SFR consists of the Silo, the rock vault for intermediate level waste (BMA), two rock vaults for concrete tanks (1BTF, 2BTF) and the rock vault for low level waste (BLA). The storage vaults are located in the bedrock, approximately 60 m below the seabed, 1 km from the shore. The underground part of the disposal facility is accessed through two tunnels.
The Silo
The main part of the radioactivity in the waste designated for SFR is intended for disposal in the Silo. This waste comes from many different waste streams, but the most important one comprises ion exchange resins from the nuclear power plants in a concrete or bitumen matrix. Other waste like metal components of different origins is also disposed of in the Silo. The amount of organic material is kept to a minimum. The maximum surface dose rate permitted on a package is 500 mSv/h.
All handling of waste packages is performed using remote control equipment. The dominant nuclides are
The Silo consists of a cylindrical concrete construction with shafts of different sizes for waste packages. The concrete cylinder is approximately 50 m high, with a diameter of approximately 30 m, and the largest shafts measure 2.5 m by 2.5 m.
The waste packages are placed in the shafts, normally in layers of four moulds or
16 drums. The spaces between the waste packages are gradually
According to present plans a 1 m thick concrete lid will cover the top of the Silo. The lid will after closure be covered with a thin layer of sand, a 1.5 m thick layer of sand/bentonite mixture (90/10) and the remaining space will be filled with sand, gravel or sand stabilized with cement.
The rock vault for intermediate level waste (BMA)
The radioactivity in the waste that is disposed of in BMA is generally lower than in the waste in the Silo. The waste in BMA comes from many different waste streams. The most important one is
The maximum dose rate permitted on packages is 100 mSv/h, and the radi- onuclide content is fairly low. BMA has been designed to handle approximately
6% of the radionuclides in SFR. The dominant nuclides are
The waste packages are of the same type as in the Silo, i.e. moulds and drums.
The rock vault is approximately 160 m long, 19.5 m wide with a height of 16.5 m. Inside the cavern a concrete construction has been raised such that the vault is divided into 15 compartments. The waste, moulds and drums, are placed in the compartments using remote controlled equipment.
The waste is piled on top of the concrete floor in such a way that the concrete moulds act as support for prefabricated concrete slabs, put in position as soon as the compartments are filled. It is also possible to
60
Section D – Inventories and Lists
waste packages in a compartment. Finally a layer of concrete will be cast on top of the lid. Between the concrete structure and the rock wall there is a 2 m wide space, which will be filled with sand before closure. The space above the concrete structure may be left unfilled, but could also be backfilled. Plugs will be placed in the two entrances to the vault when the disposal facility is closed.
The rock vaults for concrete tanks (BTF)
In SFR there are two rock vaults for concrete tanks, 1BTF and 2BTF. The waste in 1BTF mainly consists of drums containing ash and concrete tanks containing ion- exchange resins and filter parts, whereas the waste in 2BTF consists of only the latter. Moreover, some large components of metal e.g. steam separators or reactor vessel lids may be disposed of in the caverns.
The maximum dose rate permitted on packages is 10 mSv/h. The radionuclide content is fairly low, and the dominant nuclides are
The rock vault for low level waste (BLA)
The waste that is disposed of in BLA -
Themaximumdoseratepermittedonthesurfaceofthewastepackagesis2mSv/h. The radionuclide levels are low, and the dominant nuclide is
The rock vault cavern is approximately 160 m long, 15 m wide with a height of 12.5 m. The cavern is very simple in design, basically there is only a concrete floor on which containers are placed. During the operational phase a ceiling has been placed above the waste in order to minimize water dripping onto the waste. This inner roof will be dismantled before the disposal facility is closed.
The containers are piled three high in rows of two. Most of the containers are half height allowing six to a pile. No backfilling is planned.
The SFR facility is shown in figure A9. Principal data and inventories are listed below.
61
Section D – Inventories and Lists
Principal data for SFR
|
Owner and license holder: |
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB) |
|
|
|
|
Operation and maintenance: |
SKB |
|
|
|
|
Start of construction: |
1983 |
|
|
|
|
Start of operation: |
1988 |
|
|
|
|
Number of staff: |
Approximately 25 |
|
|
|
|
Storage capacity: |
63 000 m3 |
|
Silo |
Short lived LILW, max dose rate 500 mSv/h |
|
|
|
|
BMA |
Short lived LILW, max dose rate 100 mSv/h |
|
|
|
|
1 BTF |
Short lived LILW, max dose rate 10 mSv/h |
|
|
|
|
2 BTF |
Short lived LILW, max dose rate 10 mSv/h |
|
|
|
|
BLA |
Short lived LILW, max dose rate 2 mSv/h |
|
|
|
|
Disposal capacity |
6 000 m3/year |
|
Current disposal rate |
1 000 – 1 500 m3/year |
|
|
|
Table D7: Principal data for SFR |
|
|
Waste disposed of in SFR |
|
|
|
|
|
Storage section |
Volume (m3) |
Activity (Bq) * |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silo 5 265 |
5,1E14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BMA9 087 |
2,6E14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
BTF |
2 309 |
2,1E12 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
BTF including steam separators** |
7 010 |
1,5E13 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLA10 |
5,5E11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SFR total |
33 871 |
7,9E14 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Activity values per
**18 packages
Table D8: Inventories of disposed radioactive waste in SFR
62
Section D – Inventories and Lists
1,00E+15
1,00E+14
1,00E+13
1,00E+12
Bq
1,00E+11
1,00E+10
1,00E+09
1,00E+08
Zr93
U238
U235
Tc99
Sr90
Sm151
Se79
Sb125
Ru106
Pu241
Pu240
Pu239
Pu238
Pm147
Pd107
Ni63
Ni59
Nb94
Nb93m
Mo93
I129
Ho166m
H3
Fe55
Eu155
Eu154
Eu152
Cs137
Cs135
Cs134
Co60
Cm244
Cm243
Cl36
Cd113m
C14 oorg
C14 org
Ba133
Am243
Am242m
Am241
Ag108m
Figure D2: Activity content in SFR. The numbers are for the situation in
D.1.4.4 Shallow land burial
The nuclear power plants at Ringhals, Forsmark and Oskarshamn as well as the
Studsvik site have shallow land burial facilities for very
The design and layout of the shallow land burial facilities differs but all fa- cilities have a top sealing layer to reduce the infiltration of water. The design of the top sealing layer differs between the different facilities; both bentonite liners, plastic membranes and massive layers of glacial clay have been used, as well as mixed designs. The closed burial facilities are finally covered with a protective layer of e.g. soil, approximately 1 metre thick. At the newer installations in Ring- hals and Oskarshamn a geological barrier has been installed
63
Section D – Inventories and Lists
Protective layer |
|
Drainage layer |
|
Drainage material |
Infiltration bed |
Bentonite and |
Drainage material |
plastic liner |
|
Bentonite liner |
|
Figure D3: Principle section of shallow land burial at OKG.
The waste disposed of at the three nuclear power plants consists of
At the shallow land burial in Studsvik also waste from the decommissioning of various old nuclear installations and operational waste from the Studsvik faci- lities has been disposed of, dominated by the following nuclides:
Figure D4: The shallow land burial at OKG.
64
Section D – Inventories and Lists
In the older licenses the total activity concentration was limited to 300 kBq/kg for radionuclides with a
The Regulations on the Protection of Human Health and the Environment in connection with Final Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Nuclear Waste (SSMFS 2008:37) does not include shallow land burial facilities for
|
License conditions |
Waste disposed of |
|||||
|
Licence |
Volume |
|
Max activity/max |
Mass |
Volume |
Activity/alpha |
Site |
period |
(m3) |
|
alpha activity (GBq) |
(ton) |
(m3) |
(GBq) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forsmark |
2 040 |
17 000 |
|
200/0.2 |
3 415 |
5 231 |
35/0.0004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oskarshamn |
2 075 |
10 000 |
|
200/0.2 |
3 768 |
7 346 |
38/0.0028 * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ringhals |
2 030 |
10 000 |
|
1100/0.1 |
3 640 |
5 942 |
181/0.046 *** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Studsvik (SVAFO) |
2 010 |
1 540 |
** |
100/0.1 |
1 151 |
1 140 |
39/0.055 * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Valid
**The license for further disposition has not been renewed by SSM. The license volume can therefore not be used to its full extension.
***Valid
Table D9: Inventories of disposed waste in shallow land burials.
In addition to the above mentioned limits the following applies to the shallow land burials. For Ringhals a maximum of 2 GBq
D.1.4.5 Waste from fuel fabrication
Westinghouse Electric Sweden AB operates a factory for the fabrication of nuclear fuel in Västerås (approximately 100 km west of Stockholm), which has been ma- nufacturing fuel since the
The manufacturing process generates some slightly uranium contaminated waste in the form of sludge, filters, protective clothing, etc. Westinghouse dispo- ses of small amounts of waste with very low uranium content, typically filters, at municipal landfills as permitted by the regulatory authority. Most of the uranium in the waste is however first extracted through special recovery processes in the
Västerås plant. Also, new processes are currently being developed together with partners such as Studsvik, to further decrease the amount of uranium in the waste. A minor part of the remaining waste can be considered for a future storage in a disposal facility.
65
Section D – Inventories and Lists
D.1.5 Nuclear facilities under decommissioning
D.1.5.1 Experiences from past decommissioning activities
Sweden has limited experience from decommissioning of nuclear facilities. It is limited to the decommissioning of the R1 research reactor and laboratories in
Stockholm as well as some smaller test facilities and laboratories in Studsvik. The most relevant decommissioned facilities are listed below.
The research reactor R1, which was in operation between 1954 and 1970, was situated in a rock cavern in central Stockholm and was used for research and isotope production.The reactor was decommissioned between 1981 and 1983, and the site was released for unrestricted use in 1985. Virtually all waste was shipped to Studsvik. Exceptions were electric motors, handrails, stairways, etc, from non- classified areas that were released for unrestricted use. All waste and salvageable material produced at R1 was measured and registered. The measurements were
The research reactor R0, a ”zero power” reactor in Studsvik, was a low power reactor, which was in operation between 1959 and 1968. The normal operational power was about 1 W, and the maximum power was 50 W. The reactor vessel was transferred to R2 (another reactor in Studsvik) for alternate usage. Some parts could not be decontaminated and were packed and stored in Studsvik. The concre- te elements from the radiation shield were disposed of in a refuse disposal facility in Studsvik, since no activity could be measured.
The
The
The Van de Graaff laboratory in Studsvik was used for neutron physics expe- riments between 1962 and 1989. The building was not classified as a nuclear faci- lity but later it was found to be contaminated with tritium. An extensive measuring program was performed to identify the contaminated material and surfaces. After decontamination the building was released from regulatory control and demolis- hed in 1999. Three drums and one steel box with tritium contaminated waste are now stored in the interim storage AM in Studsvik.
The central active laboratory (ACL) in Studsvik was built between 1959 and 1963 with the purpose to be used as a research facility for reprocessing spent fuel. The activities in the laboratory ended in 1997, and involved for example research
66
Section D – Inventories and Lists
on plutonium enriched fuel, plutonium analyses, material testing and test fabrica- tion of rods with
A general observation concerning the above activities is that - despite the lack of regulations regarding decommissioning - the activities were performed without any accidents, due to the knowledge about regulations on transport and handling, and experience from radiological work of the people involved.
D.1.5.2 Nuclear facilities currently under decommissioning
The nuclear power units Barsebäck 1 and Barsebäck 2, which were closed in No- vember 1999 and in May 2005, respectively, were the first commercial nuclear power units to be permanently taken out of operation in Sweden. The Government decided that the reactors should be shut down as part of the policy to phase out nuclear power in Sweden. All spent fuel has been transferred to the central interim storage for spent fuel (Clab). Already before the units were shut down the regula- tory authorities increased their control and review activities at the site to ensure that there would be no decline in the safety work. An overall decommissioning plan for the units has been submitted to, and approved of, by the regulatory authorities.
A revised version is under way and is planned to be submitted during 2012. The decommissioning work has commenced to a certain degree. After the spent fuel was transported to Clab the units went into service operation on 1 December 2006, i.e. only the most necessary systems are running, such as ventilation, monitoring of activity etc. Some equipment has also been disposed of. According to current plans, large scale dismantling and demolishing work will begin not sooner than 2020.
The Ågesta district heating nuclear power reactor (heavy water) was operated between 1964 and 1974 supplying parts of the Stockholm suburb Farsta with hea- ted water. The reactor is now shut down in such a manner that it is not possible to start it up again. The fuel from the reactor has been transferred to Clab for interim storage. The heavy water has been removed and two, out of four, steam generators have been dismantled, but otherwise the facility is more or less intact. Detailed planning for its decommissioning is underway and is being closely monitored by the regulatory bodies.
The tank and silo facility (TS) in Studsvik was constructed at an early stage, with the purpose of storing liquid and
The research reactors R2 and
States in 2007. The remaining part of the fuel was returned to the United States in 2008. The reactor building and reactor pool has since June 2005 been emptied on some of the loose equipment. Dismantling of fixed equipment has not yet begun. By a government decision, AB SVAFO obtained the nuclear license for R2 and
67
This page is intentionally left blank
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
E.1 Article 18: IMPLEMENTING MEASURES
Each Contracting Party shall take, within the framework of its national law, the legislative, regulatory and administrative mea- sures and other steps necessary for implementing its obligations under this Convention.
The legislative, regulatory and other measures to fulfill the obligations of the Joint
Convention are discussed in this report.
E.2 Article 19: LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
1. Each Contracting Party shall establish and maintain a legisla- tive and regulatory framework to govern the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management.
2. This legislative and regulatory framework shall provide for:
(i) the establishment of applicable national safety require- ments and regulations for radiation safety;
(ii) a system of licensing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management activities; (iii) a system of prohibition of the operation of a spent fuel or radioactive waste management facility without a licence;
(iv) a system of appropriate institutional control, regulatory inspection and documentation and reporting;
(v) the enforcement of applicable regulations and of the terms of the licences;
(vi) a clear allocation of responsibilities of the bodies involved in the different steps of spent fuel and of radioactive waste management.
3.When considering whether to regulate radioactive materials as radioactive waste, Contracting Parties shall take due account of the objectives of this Convention.
Summary of developments since the last national report
• SSMhasreissuedformerSKIandSSIregulationsinitsCodeofStatutes,SSMFS.
• On January 1 2011 the previous ban on constructing new reactors was removed through amendments to the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities and the Environ- mental Code. The ten (10) current reactors in Sweden may be replaced with new, provided that they are erected on the same site as the existing.
• The SSM has updated the regulatory requirements on the content and use of Safety Analysis Reports (SAR) in the Regulations concerning Safety in Nu- clear Facilities (SSMFS 2008:1).
69
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
•A Committee of Inquiry on merging the provisions of the Act on Nuclear Activities and the radiation Protection Act (1988:220) has submitted its final report to the Government (SOU 2011:18). Harmonization with the provisions of the Environmental code is suggested. The report is presently subject to referral consultation with the SSM and other relevant stakeholders. Potential changes of the legal framework, in response to the Committee’s proposals, can at the earliest be decided 2013/2014.
•By a new Ordinance on Supervision under the Environmental Code SSM be- came on Mars 31 2011 the supervisory authority for matters relating to radia- tion safety under the Code.
This section is divided into three parts. The first part (E.2.1) presents basic prere- quisites for the legal and regulatory framework. The second apart (E.2.2) contains basic information concerning definitions within the Swedish legislative system, and presents an overview of the relevant acts. The third part (E.2.3) describes the implementation of the requirements in the regulatory review activities. Special emphasis is placed on the licensing system, prohibition, institutional control, re- gulatory inspection, documentation and reporting, enforcement of regulations and terms of a licence, and a description on the allocation of responsibilities of the bodies involved.
E.2.1 Basic prerequisites for the legal & regulatory framework
E.2.1.1 Fundamental principles for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste
The rationales for the management system for spent fuel and radioactive waste are established on basic principles that have been derived from extensive discus- sions in the Swedish parliament during the 80’s and 90’s. The Swedish parliament has supported four basic principles for the management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste (bill 1980/81:90, Appendix 1, p. 319, bill 1983/84:60, p. 38, bill 1997/98:145, p. 381, bill 1992/93:98, p. 29 as well as the final reports of the Stan- ding Committee on Industry and Trade, 1988/89:NU31 and 1989/90:NU24):
1.The expenses for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste are to be covered by revenues from the production of energy that has resulted in these expenses.
2.The reactor owners are to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.
3.The state has the ultimate responsibility for spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The
4.Each country is to be responsible for the spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste
70
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
generated in that country. The disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste from nuclear activities in another country may not occur in Sweden other than in an exceptional case.
These are the basic principles for the structure of the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Ac- tivities. They are also contained in the Act (2006:647) on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from NuclearActivities.
The first principle has been wholly incorporated into the Financing Act. The second principle has been regulated in
Act on Nuclear Activities.
Another basic prerequisite for the actual management of spent fuel is that reprocessing will not take place. Thus, spent nuclear fuel is in practice considered as, and treated as, waste, although it is not legally defined as waste until disposed of in a disposal facility.
E.2.1.2 Nuclear and radioactive waste
In the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities, radioactive waste produced by nuclear activities is defined as ”nuclear waste”. The precise definition according to the act is presented in the next section.
In the Radiation Protection Act (1988:220) the term ”radioactive waste” is used.
The term includes radioactive waste from nuclear activities as well as from non- nuclear activities (medical use, use of sealed sources, research institutions, consu- mer products, etc.).
E.2.2 Legislative framework
The framework of Sweden’s legislation in the field of waste management, nuclear sa- fety and radiation protection, is to be found in fiveActs with associated Ordinances:
• the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities;
• the Radiation ProtectionAct (1988:220);
• the Environmental Code (1998:808);
• the Act (2006:647) on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual
Products from Nuclear Activities; and
• parts of the Act (2000:1064) on the Control of Dual- use Items and Technical
Assistance.
E.2.2.1 The Act on Nuclear activities
TheAct (1984:3) on NuclearActivities is the basic law regulating nuclear safety. It contains basic provisions concerning safety in connection with nuclear activities, and applies to the handling of nuclear material and nuclear waste as well as to the operation of nuclear plants.
The Swedish Parliament has on several occasions declared that Sweden sup- ports and will follow the principle of each country’s responsibility to take care of and dispose of spent fuel and radioactive waste produced within the country.
71
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Disposal, as well as interim storage, of foreign spent fuel and nuclear waste in Sweden is prohibited.
A special licence may however be granted by the Government in special ca- ses, to allow for very small amounts of foreign spent fuel or radioactive waste to be disposed of in Sweden, provided that it does not hinder the
The Act does not contain provisions concerning radiation protection. This is re- gulated in a separate act, the Radiation ProtectionAct (see section E.2.2.2).As far as nuclear activities are concerned, the Radiation ProtectionAct and theAct on Nuclear
Activities should be applied in parallel and in close association with each other.
Definitions
The handling, transport or other dealings with nuclear waste are defined as nuclear activity. The precise definition of nuclear waste is:
• spent nuclear fuel that has been placed in a disposal facility
• radioactive material that has been generated in a nuclear facility and that has not been produced or taken from the facility to be used for educational or research purposes or for medical, agricultural engineering or commercial purposes
• material or other item that has belonged to a nuclear facility and become conta- minated by radioactivity and which shall no longer be used in such facility, and
• radioactive parts of a nuclear facility that is being decommissioned.
Basic requirements on safety
Nuclear activities shall be conducted so as to meet safety requirements and fulfil the obligations pursuant to Sweden’s agreements for the purpose of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and unauthorised dealing with nuclear material and spent nuclear fuel.
Safety in nuclear activities shall be maintained by taking all measures requi- red to prevent errors in or defective functioning of equipment, to prevent incorrect handling or any other circumstances that may result in a radiological accident, and to prevent unlawful dealings with nuclear material or nuclear waste. The Go- vernment or the authority appointed by the Government may issue more detailed provisions concerning these matters. As mentioned above SSM is mandated to impose detailed regulations.
Licensing
In principle, all activities with nuclear material or nuclear waste constitute nuclear activity for which a licence is required. However, nuclear waste and nuclear ma- terial with a very low level of radiation can be released from regulatory control.
General obligations of licensees and licence conditions
The
• maintaining safety, with reference to the nature of the activities and the condi- tions under which they are conducted;
• ensuring the safe handling and disposal of nuclear waste arising from the ac- tivities or nuclear material arising therein that is not reused; and
• the safe decommissioning and dismantling of plants in which nuclear activi- ties are no longer to be conducted.
72
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
The holder of a licence for a nuclear activity has to ensure that all measures are taken, that are needed to maintain safety. These general requirements are supple- mented by more detailed regulations issued by the SSM (see below) and if needed license conditions that the authority may issue in individual cases. The licensing conditions are imposed when a licence is issued. Licensing conditions can also be imposed during the period of validity of a licence.
Environmental impact assessment and general rules of consideration
Licensing of nuclear activities requires that an EIA (Environmental Impact As- sessment) is submitted in connection with the application. Closer regulations on how the EIA should be carried out and what it should contain is given in the En- vironmental Code. In addition, the applicant must also show compliance with the general rules of consideration in the Environmental Code (see section E.2.2.4).
Safe management and disposal of nuclear waste
The holder of a licence for nuclear activities is responsible for the management and disposal of the waste produced and for decommissioning. The holder of a li- cence for the operation of a nuclear power reactor shall – in
After the review SSM forwards the
Supervision
Compliance with the Act on Nuclear Activities and of conditions or regulations imposed pursuant to the Act is supervised by a regulatory body assigned by the
Government. That body is SSM. A
• submit all information and documentation necessary to perform the supervi- sion; and
• provide access to a nuclear installation, or site for nuclear activities, investiga- tions and taking of samples to the extent necessary to exercise
SSM may decide on any measures, conditions and prohibitions necessary in indi- vidual cases to implement the Act on Nuclear Activities, or regulations or condi- tions issued as a consequence of the Act.
Inspections
See section E.2.3.3
Documentation and reporting
See section E.2.3.3
73
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Revocation and prohibition
A licence to conduct nuclear activities may be revoked by the authority issuing the permit if:
• conditions have not been complied with in some essential respect;
• the licensee has not fulfilled its obligations concerning research and develop- ment work on waste management and decommissioning, and there are very specific reasons from the viewpoint of safety to revoke the licence; or
• there are any other very specific reasons for revocation, from the viewpoint of safety.
This means that a revocation of a licence may be decided in cases of severe miscon- duct by the operator or otherwise for exceptional safety reasons. If the licence to operate a nuclear power plant is revoked, the licence holder remains responsible for waste management and decommissioning.
Sanctions
The Act on Nuclear Activities also contains provisions for safeguards, sanctions, etc. Anyone who conducts nuclear activities without a licence, or disregards con- ditions or regulations shall be sentenced to pay a fine, or to imprisonment for a maximum of two years. If the crime is intentional and aggravated, he shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum of six months and a maximum of four years. Liability shall not be adjudged if responsibility for the offence may be as- signed under the Penal Code or the Act on Penalties for Smuggling (2000:1225) or if the crime is trivial.
Regulations on civil liability for radiological damage are contained in theAto- mic Liability Act (1968:45). The act is largely based on the contents of the Paris Convention on Nuclear Third Party Liability from 1960 and the Brussels Supple- mentary Convention from 1963, which Sweden has acceded.
Public insight
It is considered very important to give the public insight into and information on nuclear activities. In municipalities where major nuclear facilities are loca- ted (power reactors, research reactors, and facilities for manufacturing, handling, storage or disposal of nuclear material or nuclear waste) it is particularly important that the residents are given correct and reliable information. For this purpose so- called local safety boards have been established in the municipalities of Kävlinge (Barsebäck NPP), Oskarshamn (Oskarshamn NPP), Nyköping (Studsvik research facility), Varberg (Ringhals NPP) and Östhammar (Forsmark NPP).
The
• give the board information of the facts available and allow the board to study relevant documents; and
• give the board access to plants and sites.
The function of the boards is to obtain insight into safety and radiation protection matters and to inform the public about these. It is therefore important to point out that the board is not supposed to impose requirements on or to prescribe safety-
74
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
enhancing or other measures for nuclear plants. These functions rest exclusively with the regulatory authorities.
The Ordinance (1984:14) on Nuclear Activities
The Ordinance contains detailed provisions on such matters as definitions, appli- cations for licences, reviewing, evaluations and inspections.
The Ordinance also specifies that the regulatory authority assigned by the Govern- ment (SSM) is authorised to issue permits for transportation of nuclear materials and nuclear waste. The authority is in addition authorised to impose licence condi- tions and to issue general regulations concerning measures to maintain the safety of nuclear activities.
E.2.2.2 The Radiation Protection Act
The framework for all radiation protection is defined in the Radiation Protection Act (1988:220) and in the Radiation Protection Ordinance (1988:293). The pre- sentAct and the Ordinance entered into force in 1988. The purpose of theAct is to protect people, animals and the environment against the harmful effects of radia- tion. Persons engaged in activities involving radiation are obliged to take the re- quisite precautionary measures. They are also responsible for the proper handling and disposal of the radioactive waste produced, which includes covering the costs associated with both the handling and disposal of the waste.
Definitions
TheAct applies to all activities involving radiation and these are defined to include all activities involving radioactive substances or technical devices capable of ge- nerating radiation.
Consequently the Act applies to radiation from nuclear activities and to harmful radiation, ionising as well as
The Government or the responsible authority may, in so far it does not conflict with the purpose of the act, prescribe exemptions or certain provisions concerning radioactive substances or technical devises capable of generating radiation.
Basic requirements on radiation protection
The radiation protection in Sweden is based on the International Radiation Protec- tion Commission’s (ICRP) internationally recognised principles. These are:
• Justification
No activity is to be introduced until it has been shown to provide greater advan- tages than disadvantages to society. The basic principle of justification with re- gard to the management of nuclear and
• Optimisation
All radiation doses to individuals, the number of exposed individuals as well as
75
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
the probability of receiving doses must be kept as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and social factors. This is often called the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)
• Dose limitation
The individual exposure to radiation (dose) must not exceed the established limits for the particular circumstances. The dose limit or dose constraint can be seen as a limit for optimization; thus, the individual doses must not exceed the established limits, even if the collective dose would be reduced as a result.
The Government or the authority assigned by the Government may also issue further regulations as required for protection against, or control of, radiation in the respects specified in the Act.
Licensing
According to the Radiation ProtectionAct a licence is required for the following.
• The manufacture, import, transport, sale, transfer, leasing, acquisition, posses- sion, use, depositing or recycling of radioactive substances.
• The manufacture, import, sale, transfer, leasing, acquisition, possession, use, installation or maintenance of a technical device capable of and intended for emitting ionising radiation, or a part of such a device that is of substantial importance from the viewpoint of radiation protection.
• The manufacture, import, sale, transfer, leasing, acquisition, possession, use, installation or maintenance of technical devices, other than those referred to in the previous
• The export of radioactive substances if a licence is not granted according to the
Act (2000:1064) on the Control of
A licence according to the Radiation Protection Act is not required for activities licensed according to the Act on Nuclear Activities.
General obligations of licensees and licence conditions
Any person who conducts activities involving radiation shall, according to the nature of the activities and the conditions under which they are conducted:
• take the measures and precautions necessary to prevent or counteract injury to people and animals and damage to the environment;
• supervise and maintain the radiation protection at the site, on the premises and in other areas where radiation occurs; and
• maintain the technical devices and the measuring and radiation protection equipment used in the activities correctly.
The provision implies that all measures should be taken to improve radiation pro- tection; it is not sufficient only to follow regulations or conditions issued by the responsible authority.
The Government or the authority assigned by the Government may also issue any further regulations required for protection against, or control of, radiation in the respects specified in the act.
76
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
When a licence is, or has been, issued according to the Radiation Protection
Act the responsible authority may impose conditions needed for radiological pro- tection. Such conditions can also be imposed on activities licensed within the legal frame of the Act on Nuclear Activities.
Environmental impact assessment
The Government or an authority appointed by the Government may, in licensing cases, prescribe that the implementer prepares an EIA(Environmental ImpactAs- sessment) before consent is given. Such an EIA shall be made in accordance with the rules in the Environmental Code (see section E.2.2.4).
Supervision
The Government assigns a regulatory body to supervise compliance with the Ra- diation Protection Act and licences and conditions issued in accordance with the
Act. This body is the SSM. The SSM may decide on all measures necessary and all conditions and prohibitions required in individual cases to implement the Act, or regulations or conditions issued as a consequence of the Act.
At the request of the SSM, anyone who conducts activities involving radia- tion shall submit the information and provide the documents required for its su- pervision. SSM should also be given access to the installation or site where the activities are conducted, for investigations and sampling, to the extent required for its supervision.
Inspections
See section E.2.3.3
Documentation and reporting
See section E.2.3.3
Revocation and prohibition
A licence under the Radiation Protection Act may be revoked if regulations or conditions imposed pursuant to the Act have been violated in a significant respect or there are otherwise very strong reasons for revocation. Furthermore the Go- vernment, or the authority appointed by the Government, may issue prohibitions against e.g. the manufacture, sale, acquisition, possession or use of materials con- taining radioactive substances.
Sanctions
The Government and the responsible authority decide upon matters regarding li- cences under the Radiation Protection Act. A licence under this Act may be re- voked if specific regulations or conditions have not been complied with in any significant respect, or if there are other very specific reasons.
Liability under the Act is not adjudged if responsibility for the offence may be assigned under the Penal Code or theAct on penalties for Smuggling (2000:1225).
Nor is liability adjudged in the instance of a minor offence to be a trivial case. The police authority shall provide the necessary assistance for supervision.
77
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Public information about radiation protection
One of the authority’s missions is to inform the society about radiation protection issues. An education centre was established in 2004, which teaches courses in the area of radiation protection.
The Ordinance (1988:293) on Radiation Protection
The Ordinance contains detailed provisions pursuant to authorisation under the Radiation ProtectionAct. It stipulates that the regulatory authority assigned by the
Government may issue regulations regarding further provisions concerning gene- ral obligations, radioactive waste and prohibitions against activities with certain materials, etc.
The Ordinance on Radiation Protection also stipulates that certain provisions in the Act do not apply to very
E.2.2.3 SSM Regulations on Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection
With reference to its legal mandate, the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM), issues legally binding safety and radiation protection regulations for nu- clear facilities in its Code of Statutes SSMFS. SSM has reissued all earlier regu- lations previously issued by SKI and SSI in the SSMFS series. In the following, regulations with relevance to the safety and radiation protection at nuclear instal- lations, as defined by the Convention, are addressed.
In addition, general advice on the interpretation of most of the safety re- gulations is issued. The general advice is not legally binding per se. Measu- res should be taken according to the general advice or, alternatively, methods justified to be equal from the safety point of view should be implemented.
The regulations and the general advice, listed below, all entered into force on
February 1, 2009.
SSM’s regulations also implement binding EU legislation and international obligations. In preparing SSM’s regulations, IAEA safety standards, international recommendations, industrial standards and norms, and the
Swedish authorities are considered. The SSM regulations are issued according to an established management procedure which stipulates technical and legal re- views of the draft. In accordance with governmental rules, a review of the final draft by authorities, licensees, various stakeholders, and industrial and environme- ntal organizations is performed.
Regulations and General Advice Concerning Safety in Certain Nuclear Fa- cilities (SSMFS 2008:1)
These general regulations is primarily written to apply to nuclear power reactors but is applicable in a graded way on all licensed nuclear facilities, no matter size or type of facility, i.e. research or materials testing reactors, fuel fabrication plants, facilities for handling and storage of spent nuclear fuel and facilities for handling, storage or disposal of nuclear waste.
The regulations aim at specifying measures needed for preventing and mitigating radiological accidents, preventing illegal handling of nuclear material and nuclear
78
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
waste and for conducting an efficient supervision. The regulations cover the fol- lowing areas:
• Application of multiple barriers and
• Handling of detected deficiencies in barriers and the
• Organisation, management and control of safety significant activities
• Actions and resources for maintaining and development of safety
• Physical protection and emergency preparedness
• Basic design principles
• Assessment, review and reporting of safety
• Operations of the facility
•
• Reporting to SSM of deficiencies, incidents and accidents
• Documentation and archiving of safety documentation
• Final closure and decommissioning
General recommendations on the interpretation of the requirements are issued for most of the requirements.
Regulations concerning Safety in connection with the Disposal of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Waste (SSMFS 2008:21)
These regulations, in force since 2002, contain specific requirements on design, construction, safety analysis and safety report for disposal facilities, in view of the period after closure of the facility. For the period before closure, the general safety regulations (SSMFS 2008:1) apply.
The regulations, concerning the
• Qualitative requirements on the barrier system.
• Scenario definitions and classifications.
• Time scales for the safety assessment (as long as barrier functions are needed to isolate and/or to retard dispersion of radionuclides, but for at least 10 000 years).
• Topics to be covered in the safety report.
Regulations on exemption from the requirement on approval of contractors (SSMFS 2008:7)
The general rule is that a licensee cannot contract out an activity included in the nuclear licence without a permit by the Government or the SSM. For certain ac- tivities the permit procedure can be replaced by a notification to the regulatory body. SSM is to specify the prerequisites for such exemptions.
The regulations list activities that can be contracted out without a permit, e.g. building and construction work, decommissioning work, maintenance and inspec- tion work, training, qualified expert tasks that cannot reasonably be done with own staff, and archiving of safety documentation. It is pointed out that the exempted activities shall only be parts of what has to be done under the licence and not all or major parts. Furthermore, exempted activities can not include security measures and activities for storage and disposal of nuclear material or waste.
79
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Regulations on Physical Protection of Nuclear Facilities (SSMFS 2008:12)
These regulations contain requirements on organisation of physical protection, clearance of staff, tasks for the security staff, central alarm station, perimeter pro- tection, protection of buildings, protection of compartments vital for safety, ac- cess control for persons and vehicles, protection of control rooms, communication equipment, search for illegal items, handling of information about the physical protection and
Regulations and General Advice on the handling of Ashes Contaminated by
These regulations are applicable for the production of energy by forest bio fuels in incineration facilities that produce a yearly volume of 30 tons of ashes or more.
The regulations contain precautionary provisions regarding the handling of as- hes for different options, such as returning the ashes to the forests for nutrition, spreading the ashes on agricultural and grazing lands for nutrition, reusing the ashes as road- or landfill and for the design of the waste disposal site if the ashes are deposited.
Regulations on the Planning Before and During Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (SSMFS 2008:19)
These regulations contain provisions concerning decommissioning planning and other administrative measures, e.g. documentation before and during decommis- sioning and reporting to the regulatory authority at different stages of a facility’s life cycle.
Regulations on the Handling of Radioactive Waste and Nuclear Waste at Nuclear Facilities (SSMFS 2008:22)
These regulations contain provisions on predisposal management, e.g. on plan- ning and quality assurance of radioactive waste management, on documentation and registration of radioactive wastes, and also for reporting to the SSM.
Regulations on the Protection of Human Health and the Environment from Discharges of Radioactive Substances from certain Nuclear Facilities (SSMFS 2008:23)
These regulations contain provisions for releases of radioactive substances from nuclear facilities during normal operation, based on optimization of radiation pro- tection and shall be achieved by using the best available technique (BAT). The optimization of radiation protection shall include all facilities located within the same geographically delimited area. The effective dose to an individual in the cri- tical group of one year of releases of radioactive substances to air and water from all facilities located in the same geographically delimited area shall not exceed 0.1 millisievert (mSv).
Regulations on Radiation Protection Manager at Nuclear Plants (SSMFS 2008:24)
According to these regulations a licence holder shall appoint a radiation protection manager at the facility in order to implement and look after radiation protection conditions issued by the authorities.
80
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Regulations on Radiation Protection of Workers Exposed to Ionising Radia- tion at Nuclear Plants (SSMFS 2008:26)
These regulations contain provisions on limitation of exposures as far as reasona- bly achievable, social and economic factors taken into account. For this purpose the
Regulations and General Advice on the Protection of Human Health and the Environment in connection with the Final Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Nuclear Waste (SSMFS 2008:37)
These regulations apply to disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. They are not applicable for
Sweden’s borders may not be more severe than those accepted in Sweden. The re- gulations contain provisions on e.g. BAT and optimization, risk criterion and most exposed group, time periods for the risk analysis and, compliance demonstration for different time periods.
Regulations on Filing at Nuclear Plants (SSMFS 2008:38)
These regulations apply to the filing of documentation that is drawn up or received in connection with the operation of nuclear plants. Certain documentation has to be filed. If the practice ceases, the archives shall be transferred to the National Archives of Sweden.
Regulations on Clearance of Goods and Oil from Nuclear Facilities (SSMFS 2008:39)
These regulations contain provisions for clearance of contaminated goods and oil for unrestricted use or for disposal as conventional
Regulations on Basic Provisions for the Protection of Workers and the Public in Connection with Work with Ionising Radiation (SSMFS 2008:51)
These regulations are general and apply to the exposure of workers and the pu- blic in both planned and emergency exposure situations. They are based on Euro- pean provisions in the EU BSS1. They contain fundamental requirements on the licensee/operator for justification of the activities, optimisation of the radiation protection and limitation of individual doses (dose limits). They address the cate- gorisation of workers and work places; stipulate Swedish dose limits for workers
(including apprentices) and the public, and address the required information and protection of pregnant or
The regulations address
1 Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionis- ing radiation [O. J.
81
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
They contain provisions on medical surveillance, classification and medical re- cords of workers as well as on rules for the accreditation of laboratories for indi- vidual dose monitoring and performance requirements of individual dose meters. The regulations refer to the European technical recommendations for monitoring individuals exposed to external radiation (EUR 14852 EN, 1994).
Regulations on Outside Workers at Work with Ionising Radiation (SSMFS 2008:52)
These regulations apply to outside workers of category A, working within control- led areas in Sweden and when Swedish workers of category A perform similar tasks in other countries. The regulations put obligations on both the licensee (e.g. operator of a nuclear facility) and the outside workers undertaking. The regula- tions contain provisions on procedures to be followed by SSM for issuing indivi- dual radiological monitoring documents to outside workers in accordance with the
EU Directive (90/641/Euratom).
Regulations on Radioactive Waste Not Associated with Nuclear Energy (SSMFS 2010:2)
These regulations apply to the handling of solid and liquid wastes from medical care, laboratories and science.
E.2.2.4 The Environmental Code
The objective of the Environmental Code is to promote a sustainable development and thereby ensure a healthy environment for current and future generations. The Code includes general provisions on environmental protection. The Code is nuclear activities and activities involving radiation and shall be applied in parallel with the
Act on Nuclear Activities and the Radiation Protection Act. The Code is supple- mented by a number of ordinances, which are laid down by the Government.
Definitions
In the Code environmentally hazardous activities are defined as:
• the discharge of wastewater, solid matter or gas from land, buildings or struc- tures onto land or into water areas or groundwater;
• any use of land, buildings or structures that entails a risk detrimental to human health or the environment due to discharges or emissions other than those referred to in above bullet or to pollution of land, air, water areas or ground- water; or
• any use of land, buildings or structures that may be detrimental to the sur- roundings due to noise, vibration, light, ionising or
General rules of consideration
The general rules of consideration assert some important principles that the imple- menter has to comply with, e.g.:
• The
• The precautionary and the BATprinciples mean that the implementer shall put
82
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
into practice protective measures, comply with restrictions, and take any other precautions that are necessary in order to prevent, hinder or combat damage, or detriment to human health, or the environment as a result of the activity.
For the same reason, the best available technology shall be used in connection with professional activities
• The most suitable
• The
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
The Swedish EIA legislation is in accordance with the Council Directive 85/337/ EEC of 27 June 1985, amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March and by Directive 2003/35/EC of 26 May 2003, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.An EIAshall be submitted together with an application for a permit for environmentally hazardous activities. An EIA shall also be submitted at the prospect of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities.
The purpose of an EIA is to establish and describe the direct and indirect im- pacts of a planned activity, or measure, on people, animals, plants, land, water, the air, the climate, the landscape and the cultural environment, on the management of land, water and the physical environment in general, and on the management of materials, raw materials and energy. Another purpose is to enable an overall as- sessment to be made of this impact on human health and the environment.
An environmental impact statement shall contain the following information:
• a description of the activity or measure including details of its location, design and scope;
• a description of the measures being planned with a view to avoiding, mitiga- ting or remedying adverse effects, for example action to prevent the activity or measure leading to an infringement of an environmental quality standard;
• the information that is needed to establish and assess the main impact on hu- man health, the environment and management of land, water and other resour- ces that the activity or measure is likely to have;
• a description of possible alternative sites and alternative designs, together with a statement of the reasons why a specific alternative was chosen and a descrip- tion of the consequences if the activity or measure is not implemented; and
• a
Local consultation
In the EIA process the implementer shall consult the county administrative board at an early stage. They shall also consult private individuals who are likely to be
83
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
affected by the planned activity, and must do so in good time and to an appro- priate extent before submitting an application for a permit and preparing the en- vironmental impact statement. Prior to consultation, the implementer shall submit information about the location, extent, and nature of the planned activity and its anticipated environmental impact to the county administrative board and to any private individuals affected.
If the county administrative board decides that the activity or measure is likely to have a significant environmental impact, an environmental impact assessment proce- dure shall be performed. In such a procedure the person who intends to undertake the activity or measure shall consult the other government agencies, the municipalities, the citizens and the organisations that are likely to be affected. The consultation shall relate to the location, scope, design and environmental impact of the activity or mea- sure and the content and structure of the environmental impact statement.
Consultation with other countries
If an activity is likely to have a significant environmental impact in another coun- try, the responsible authority as designated by the Government shall inform the responsible authority in that country about the planned activity. This is to give the country concerned and the citizens who are affected the opportunity to take part in a consultation procedure concerning the application and the environmental impact assessment. Such information shall also be supplied when another country that is likely to be exposed to a significant environmental impact so requests.
Licensing and licensing conditions
According to the Environmental Code, a permit is required for environmentally ha- zardous activities. The Government has in the Ordinance (1998:899) on Environ- mentally Hazardous Activities and Health Protection stipulated that facilities for the treatment, storage or disposal of spent fuel, nuclear waste or radioactive waste need a permit. A permit is also needed for the decommissioning of nuclear reactors.
The Environmental Court is the first instance for the hearing of cases concer- ning such activities. In addition the Government has to consider the permissibility of nuclear activities, e.g. the disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
The Environmental Court’s judgement when granting a permit for an activity may include provisions concerning supervision, inspections and checks, safety and technical design of the activity and conditions that are necessary to prevent or limit any harmful or other detrimental impact.
Supervision
The purpose of supervision shall be to ensure compliance with the objectives of this Code and rules issued in pursuance thereof. For this purpose the supervisory authority shall supervise compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Code and rules, judgements and other decisions issued in pursuance thereof and take any measures that are necessary to ensure that faults are corrected. The SSM supervise radiation safety issues under the Code.
Sanctions
The supervisory authority may issue any injunctions and prohibitions that are neces- sary in individual cases to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Environ- mental Code and rules, judgements and other decisions issued in pursuance thereof.
84
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
E.2.2.5 The Act (2006:647) on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities
The Swedish Parliament has decided on a revised legislation for the financing of the
Activities. The Act (1992:1537) on the Financing of Future Expenses on Spent Nuclear Fuel etc. is replaced since January 1 2008 by theAct (2006:647) on Finan- cial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from NuclearActivities.
The general obligations stated in the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities are app- licable on all nuclear activities that require a license and the reasoning behind the new Financing Act is that all licensees should secure the financing of these obligations. The primary purpose of the Swedish financing system is to secure the financing of the licensees’ costs to handle and dispose the residual products, decommission and dismantle the nuclear facilities and to carry out the needed research and development activities, but also to minimise the State’s risk of being forced to bear the costs which is considered to be the licensee’s liability.
The revised legislation is in essential parts the same for all licensees and is binding until the obligations stated in the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities have been fulfilled or exemption from them has been granted.
Definitions
The definitions of nuclear facility, nuclear reactor, nuclear material and nuclear waste are those according to the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities. For the pur- pose of the act:
Residual product is defined as:
• nuclear materials that will not be used again
• nuclear waste which is not operational waste
Nuclear waste fee is defined as the fee for:
• the licensees costs for safe handling and disposal of residual products,
• the licensees costs for safe decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear facilities,
• the licensees costs for research and development needed for these activities,
• the State’s costs for research and development needed to review these measures,
• the State’s costs for administration of funded means and review of measures taken according to the financing act,
• the State’s costs for supervision of safe decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear facilities,
• the State’s costs for review of issues relating to disposal ,and surveillance and control of a disposal,
• the licensees, States’ and municipalities costs for information to the public concerning handling and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste,
• the costs for economical support to
85
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Obligation to pay the nuclear waste fee and provide guarantees
The licensee of a nuclear facility which generate or has generated residual pro- ducts shall pay a nuclear waste fee. The fee shall cover the licensee’s share of the total costs.
The licensee of a nuclear power reactor must pay a nuclear waste fee. For other licensees there is a possibility to allow exemption to the obligation to pay a nuclear waste fee if the licensee provides a guarantee to cover its costs.
In addition to the obligation to pay a nuclear waste fee, the licensees shall also provide guarantees. The purpose of the guarantees is to ensure adequate reserves for future financing if funded means should be proven inadequate.
The obligation to pay the nuclear waste fee and provide guarantees will end when the licensee have accomplished its obligations according to the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities or been given deliverance from them.
Administration of funds
The fees are collected in a fund, the NuclearWaste Fund. The NuclearWaste Fund is an external and governmentally controlled and administered fund.
The financial risk of the State
If it is needed, to serve the purpose of this Act, the financial risk of the State shall be established.
Obligation to pay a risk fee
If a financial risk has been established a risk fee may, in addition to the obligation to pay the nuclear waste fee, be imposed on the licensee. The risk fee shall not be set higher than what is necessary to protect the State from its financial risk.
Usage of funds and guarantees
The accumulated funds shall be used solely to reimburse for the costs which the nuclear waste fee is intended to cover. If the Nuclear Waste Fund is proven inade- quate the guarantees shall be used to cover the costs.
If Fund assets remain for a
Supervision
A licensee is obligated to submit cost estimates and other information which might be required to fulfill the purpose of the financing act.
Sanctions
A licensee who intentionally or with grave negligence disregards its obligations by submitting incorrect information will be ordered to pay a fine, unless the action is punishable under the Penal Code.
86
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
The Ordinance (2008:715) on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities
Cost estimates
The legislation requires the licensees to submit, every three years, estimates of all future costs for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, and decommissioning. The licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall base their costs estimates on 40 years of operation with a minimum remaining operating time of 6 years. The licensee of a nuclear facility other than a nuclear power reactor shall base their cost estimates on the expected remaining period of operation.
The cost estimates are submitted to SSM where they are reviewed. SSM shall for each of the reactor licensees prepares a proposal of the nuclear waste fee the reactor licensee shall pay the following three calendar years.
SSM shall prepare the proposal:
• based on the cost estimates,
• taking into account the total added cost2, and
• so that all expected costs, after taking into account what has already been paid, is expected to be covered by the fees that the reactor licensee will pay during the remaining operating period of the reactor.
SSM may order a license holder, if there are special reasons, to submit a cost es- timate earlier than within three years or to submit an additional cost estimate. If a supplementary cost estimate has been submitted or if there are special reasons for doing so, the SSM may propose nuclear waste fees for a period of less than three years. For licensees of a nuclear facility other than a reactor the SSM may decide on nuclear waste fees for a period of less than three years.
Guarantees
In addition to pay a fee on nuclear energy generation to the Nuclear Waste Fund the nuclear power reactor licensees must provide two forms of guarantees. One guarantee shall cover the discrepancy between funded means and estimated costs. The other type of guarantee shall cover unforeseen contingencies and be available until all reactors have been decommissioned and all nuclear waste has been dis- posed of in a disposal facility. This guarantee will be used if expenses for future costs become higher than expected, if these expenses have to be met earlier than expected, or if the actual amount in the fund is lower than estimated.
Also the licensee of nuclear facilities other than nuclear power reactors shall pro- vide a guarantee to cover the discrepancy between accumulated funds and estima- ted costs.
Management of fees
The assets in the Nuclear Waste Fund shall be managed to ensure a good return and satisfactory liquidity. The Nuclear Waste Fund’s assets shall be deposited in an
2 The added costs are the cost of the State, municipalities and
87
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Risk assessment and risk fee
The Swedish National Debt Office shall every three years establish the State’s credit risk for the provided guarantees. The National Debt Office may decide that a licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall pay a risk fee corresponding to the
State’s credit risk if the credit rating of the provided guarantees is assessed to be below the recommended level. The risk fee shall be paid to the Swedish National Debt Office.
Disbursements to licensees
The licensees are entitled to disbursements, on a continuous basis, for expenses which they have already incurred for measures to achieve the decommissioning, handling and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, including the re- search needed for these activities. The remainder of the funds is accumulated for future needs. The financial resources should only be used for the purpose they have been established and managed.
Disbursement to municipalities
Municipalities where there are site investigations of the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel, or where a facility for such a disposal facility is planned or being built, are entitled to compensation from the Nuclear Waste Fund for their informa- tion to the public. Disbursements may be determined to no more than 5 million per municipality and
Disbursement to
According to the Government’s bill (2003/04:116) the issue of disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste is one of the most complex issues in our time where science and technology meets social science and humanistic issues. The bill con- cludes that the complexity of the issue requires comprehensive evaluation as a basis for future decisions involving all stakeholders in the society. In 2004 the Parliament therefore approved new regulations in the Financing Act, which made it possible for non-
To get financing the
The
Supervision of the overall system
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority reviews the cost estimates according to the Act (2006:647) on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Pro- ducts from Nuclear Activities. The Government sets the fees and guarantees for the licensees of nuclear power reactors. The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority sets fees and guarantees for the licensees of nuclear facilities other than nuclear power reactors.
88
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
The Swedish Nuclear Waste Fund (former known as the Board of the Swedish Nuclear Waste Fund) administrates and manages the collected fees.
The Swedish National Debt Office administrates and manages the guarantees. The Swedish Radiation SafetyAuthority decides on the disbursement of funds to the nuclear licensees, the municipalities and the
tions. However, certain minor amounts are decided by the Government. Furthermore, the Swedish Radiation SafetyAuthority is responsible to control that the nuclear utilities have made their payments to the Fund and also to audit the disbursements.
E.2.2.6 The Act (1988:1597) on Financing of Certain Radioactive Waste etc. (the Studsvik Act)
As of 1989, a special fee has been levied on the nuclear power utilities according to a special law, theAct (1988:1597) on Financing of Certain Radioactive Waste etc. This fee is intended to cover expenses for the management of nuclear waste from older experimental facilities.
InconjunctionwiththedecisionbytheSwedishParliamentonnewlegislationfor the financing of the
In 2009 the Government commissioned SSM to investigate future costs, uncer- tainties and responsibilities, and to evaluate
SSM submitted its report to Government in March 2010.The SSM assessment resulted in the conclusion that the combined impacts of the uncertainties, that have been identified, are expected to lead to a future need of funds higher than indi- cated in the current cost estimates. Furthermore, if the contributions to the fund according to the Studsvik Act would cease, the economic risk of the state would increase. The assessment of SSM is that the Studsvik Act should remain in force until further notice. If payments under thisAct are to cease, the quality of the cost estimates must improve significantly.
In June 2011 the Parliament approved a Government Bill (2010/2011:126) containing a proposal to extend the obligation to pay fees under the Studsvik Act until December 31, 2017. The reformed legislation will enter into force on 1 Ja- nuary 2012.
Obligation to pay a fee according to the Studsvik Act
Afee shall be paid to the State as a contribution to costs of the following measures:
• decontamination and decommissioning of the research reactors R2 and
• decontamination and decommissioning of the district heating nuclear power reactor in Ågesta,
• decontamination and decommissioning of the central active laboratory (ACL
89
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
& ACF), hot cell laboratory (HCL), van der Graaf laboratory, incinerator fa- cility (HA), treatment facility for intermediate level waste (HM), storage fa- cility (FA), storage facility for intermediate level waste (rock cavity) (AM), dry storage facility for solid intermediate waste (AT), facility for liquid waste treatment (TS), waste storage facility (AU), waste storage facility (UF), waste storage facility (AS
• management and disposal of nuclear waste, nuclear and other radioactive waste which has been generated by 30 June 1991 as a result of nuclear activi- ties or stored at the nuclear facilities referred to above,
• management and disposal of nuclear fuel from research reactor R1 in Stock- holm and district heating nuclear power reactor in Ågesta and the fuel ele- ments from research reactor R2 in Studsvik on 30 June 1991, there were adja- cent to the reactor,
• restoration of the plant in Ranstad a result of past conducted nuclear activities, and
• radiation protection measures which by law is necessary as a result of the activities referred to above.
Licensee who operates a nuclear reactor is liable to pay a fee according to the
Studsvik Act. The fee is 0.003 SEK per kWh of electricity generated by nuclear power. The fees are collected in a fund, the Studsvik Fund. The Nuclear Waste Fund administers the Studsvik Fund and the fund is managed together with the funds accumulated according to the FinancingAct.
Cost estimates
An entity who is licensed under the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities to the acti- vities governed by this law - or with the consent of SSM other entity - shall submit an estimate of the costs.
The estimated costs shall include both an estimate of the costs of all the measures that can be considered to be necessary, and a breakdown of the costs of the action to be taken within the next three years. The cost estimate shall be updated annually and submitted to SSM annually.
Disbursements
Fee paid under this Act may only be used to reimburse costs for activities listed. The remainder of the funds is accumulated for future needs. The Swedish Radia- tion Safety Authority decides on the disbursement of funds.
If there are any excess of funds as the last activity is completed, the surplus Studs- vik fees in the Fund go to the state.
Supervision and Sanctions
The licensee of a nuclear power reactor and the licensee obligated to estimates costs shall at the request of SSM provide the information and the documents ne- cessary for SSMs activities under this Act.
A licensee who intentionally or negligently provides incorrect information or otherwise act contrary to their obligations will be ordered to pay a fine, unless the act is punishable under the Penal Code.
90
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
E.2.2.7 Other Relevant Acts
The Act (2000:1064) on the Control of
The export of nuclear material and equipment is governed by the Act on the Con- trol of Export of Dual- use Products and TechnicalAssistance, as well as by Coun- cil Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of
The Civil Protection Act (2003:778)
The Civil Protection Act contains provisions as to how the community rescue ser- vices shall be organised and operated. According to the act, the County Adminis- trative Board is responsible for the rescue operations in cases where the public needs protection from a radioactive release from a nuclear installation or in cases where such release seems imminent. The Act also stipulates that a rescue comman- der with a specified competence, with
The Civil Protection Ordinance (2003:779) contains general provisions con- cerning emergency planning.The CountyAdministrative Board is obliged to make a radiological emergency response plan. The Swedish Rescue Services is respon- sible, at the national level, for the
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (1977:1160)
The Occupational Safety and Health Act contain requirements about the work environment and provisions on protection from accidents caused by technical equipment, dangerous materials or other work conditions. The Act also contains detailed rules concerning responsibility and authority with respect to occupational safety issues.
The Act on Transportation of Hazardous goods (206:263)
The Act concerning the Transportation of Hazardous goods and the Ordinance (2006:311) on the Transportation of Hazardous goods contains provisions in order to prevent, hinder and limit the damage caused by transport of dangerous goods.
91
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
E 2.3 National Safety Requirements and Regulations
This section describes the legislative and regulatory system that has been esta- blished in Sweden comprising a system for licensing, the possibility to revoke a licence, prohibit activities, institutional control, regulatory inspection, documenta- tion and reporting, enforcement of regulations, the terms of a licence and the clear allocation of responsibilities of the bodies involved.
E.2.3.1 Licensing
This section describes the licensing system for the treatment and disposal of spent fuel, radioactive waste, very low radioactive waste and
Facilities for the management and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste
General
The licensing is issued in accordance to several acts with different purposes and involves a number of authorities. A general permissibility consideration has to be made as to whether to grant a permit for the activity or not. Furthermore the activity shall be approved according to aspects of radiation safety, and the protec- tion of human health and the environment. Finally licensing conditions are set up according to the various acts by the responsible authorities.
An important instrument during the licensing process is the Environmental Im- pact Assessment (EIA). Early consultation with private individuals likely to be af- fected, and with government agencies, the municipalities, and the organisations con- cerned, is emphasised in the Swedish EIA legislation. The consultations shall relate to the location, scope, design and the environmental impact of the activity and to the content and structure of the environmental impact statement (EIS). If an activity or measure is likely to have a significant environmental impact in another country, the responsible authority designated by the Government shall inform the responsible authority in that country about the planned activity or measure and give the country concerned and the citizens who are affected the opportunity to take part in a consulta- tion procedure concerning the application and the environmental impact assessment.
Permissibility
According to the Environmental Code (1998:808) the Government shall consider the permissibility of certain activities such as interim storage or the disposal of spent fuel or waste. An environmental impact statement shall be submitted for the permissibility assessment. The Environmental Court reviews an application on permissibility, which thereafter is handed over to the Government for the final consideration.
According to the Environmental Code the Government may decide on the per- missibility only if the concerned Municipality Council agrees that the activities may be located in the municipality (municipal veto). But without prejudice to the munici- pal approval the Government may permit an activity that involves interim storage or disposal of spent fuel or waste, if the activity is of the utmost importance with regard to the national interest. However, this shall not apply where another site is conside- red to be more appropriate for the activity, or if an appropriate site has been desig- nated for the activity in another municipality that is likely to approve the activity.
92
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Licensing approval
If the Government grants permissibility according, licensing approval has to be issued for the nuclear activity according to the Act on Nuclear Activities and the environmentally hazardous activity according to the Environmental Code. The
Government (or the authority appointed by the Government) grants a licence. in accordance with the Act on Nuclear Activities. The application is reviewed by the regulatory authority assigned by the Government and thereafter handed over for the
Government’s decision.Apermit under the Radiation ProtectionAct is not required for activities covered by theAct. Finally the Environmental Court grants the licen- ce on environmentally hazardous activities according to the Environmental Code.
SKB
prepares and submits an application for a licence under the Nuclear Activities Act for the encapsulation plant and Clab
SKB
prepares and submits an application for a licence under the Nuclear Activities Act for the final repository and an application for a permit under the Environmental Code for the final repository system
SKB
initiates planning on the part of the municipality
The municipality
prepares a detailed development plan under the Planning and Building Act
The Environmental Court
•processes the application under the Environmental Code and holds a main hearing
•assesses the application under the Environmental Code (results in a statement of comment)
Coor- dination
SSM
processes the licence application under the Nuclear Activities Act for the final repository and the encapsulation plant/Clab and submits its statement to the Government
Municipality
the municipal council supports or rejects the activities
The Government
declares the final |
grants a licence under |
repository system |
the Nuclear Activities Act |
permissible under |
for the final repository |
the Environmental |
and the encapsulation |
Code |
plant/Clab |
|
|
Municipality
the municipal council adopts the detailed development plan for land use
The Environmental Court
•holds a new main hearing (if necessary)
•grants a permit and issues conditions under the Environmental Code
SSM
issue conditions under the Nuclear Activities Act and the Radiation Protection Act in stages
SKB
applies for a building permit
The municipality
grants a building permit
Figure E1: Licensing procedure for the
93
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Shallow land burials
General
Shallow land burial for very
Licensing approvals
In the Act on Nuclear Activities shallow land burial for very
Licensing conditions
Licensing conditions can be issued under the Act on Nuclear Activities, the Ra- diation Protection Act and the Environmental Code. This means that the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority and the Environmental Court can issue the conditions necessary from specific aspects concerning nuclear safety, radiation protection and environmental protection respectively. The conditions could be issued in connec- tion with such approvals or during the period of validity of the permits.
Radioactive waste from medical use, research and industry
For radioactive waste from medical use, research and industry a licence is requi- red according to the Radiation ProtectionAct and the Environmental Code.
Release
Release of nuclear materials or nuclear waste must be in accordance with the Act on Nuclear Activities as well as with the Radiation Protection Act, and approved by the regulatory authority. Material may be cleared for unrestricted use, or for disposal as conventional
E.2.3.2 Prohibition
It is prohibited to carry out nuclear activities or activities involving radiation wit- hout a permit. Any person who deliberately, or through negligence, operates an activity without the necessary permits shall be fined or sentenced to not more than two years imprisonment. The same penalty (for unauthorised environmental acti- vity) applies according to the Environmental Code.
94
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
E.2.3.3 Institutional control, regulatory inspection and documentation and reporting
Institutional control
According to regulations on radiation protection3 the
The regulations are applicable to facilities in operation, but will be amended in due time to deal with the period following closure of a disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
The regulatory authority has also issued conditions regarding institutional control of existing shallow land disposal facilities. The regulations stipulate that institutional control shall continue until the radioactivity no longer is a ”signifi- cant” hazard to public health and the environment. The municipalities’ detailed development plans are also of importance, by providing conditions concerning the use of the land. All nuclear facilities, including shallow land disposals are within areas where detailed development plans have been established.
Regulatory inspection
In accordance with legal authorisation and the mandate defined by the
Government4, the regulatory authority conduct regular inspections and assess- ments of the Swedish nuclear facilities to ascertain compliance with regulations and licence conditions.
The supervision of the compliance with the Act on Nuclear Activities and the
Radiation Protection Act, as well as conditions or regulations imposed under the acts, is executed by the regulatory authority assigned by the Government, which is SSM. SSM also fulfils supervision of the compliance with the Environmental
Code and conditions or regulations imposed by the Code for questions concerning radiation safety. For other areas covered by the Code the County Administrative Board conduct supervision.
On request the implementer shall submit to the authority information and pro- vide the documentation required for its supervision. The authority shall also be given access to the installation or site where the activities are conducted, for in- vestigations and sampling, to the extent required for supervision (see also sections E.2.2.1 and E.2.2.2).
3Regulations on the Protection of Human Health and the Environment from Discharges of Radioactive Substances from certain Nuclear Facilities (SSMFS 2008:23)
4Ordinance (2008:715) on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities.
95
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
SSM practices
SSM has since the authority was established developed its supervision methods in several projects. A first phase was completed at the end of 2009. Policies for in- spections and new routines, as part of the general SSM management system, were gradually established during 2009. In a second phase, which started during 2010, harmonization between procedures in different supervision areas, as well as further development of the supervision procedures will take place. The following list ex- emplifies (not complete) relevant documents from the SSM management system:
1. |
Supervision policy |
|
2. |
To inspect |
|
3. |
To conduct minor inspections |
|
4. |
Access rules to facility’s under the authority’s supervision |
|
5. |
Integrated safety assessments |
|
6. |
Sanctions related to the SSM supervision and control |
|
7. |
To control nuclear power plant environmental |
|
|
monitoring programme |
|
The following describes the SSM supervision practice (for nuclear installations) during 2008 and 2009, after the Swedish Radiation SafetyAuthority was establis- hed.
In total 17 areas are defined for which the corresponding requirements are found in regulations, licensing conditions and to some extent in regulatory decisions. The ambition is to successively cover these areas in a basic inspection programme and to document the inspection findings. Moreover, the same 17 areas are used in the annual assessments of the licensees (SSM integrated safety assessments, see below) as well as in the periodic,
The idea is to use the regulatory information and knowledge in a more efficient way. In order to further guide inspections and safety assessments there is also a
1.Design and construction of facilities, including modifications
2.Organisation, management and control of the nuclear activity
3.Competence and staffing of the nuclear activity
4.Operations, including handling of deficiencies in barriers and the
5.Core and fuel issues and criticality issues
6.Emergency preparedness
7.Maintenance, including materials- and control issues with special considera- tion of degradation due to ageing
8.Primary and independent safety review, including the quality of notifications to SSM
9.Investigation of events, experience feedback and external reporting
10.Physical protection
11.Safety analyses and safety analysis report
12.Safety programme
96
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
13.Archiving, handling of plant documentation
14.Management of nuclear material and radioactive waste
15.Nuclear
16.
17.Radiation protection of general public and the environment
As a result of assessments within these areas, safety conclusions can be drawn in terms of the integrity of the physical barriers and the functioning of the five levels of the
Documentation and reporting
According to the annual letters of appropriation, government decisions, acts and ordinances, regulatory authorities are required to submit the following reports concerning regulatory activities to the Government on a regular basis:
• In an Annual Activity Report, the authority is required to summarise results, effects and costs of the regulatory activities, in accordance with general regu- lations issued by the Government and the Swedish National Audit Office for such annual reports issued by all government authorities.
• An annual Report on the Status of Safety and Radiation Protection at the Swe- dish nuclear power plants. The central interim storage for spent nuclear fuel
(Clab) and the disposal facility for operational waste (SFR) are included in the report. The report summarises important findings and conclusions from ope- rational experience and regulatory inspections and reviews, both with regard to the technical safety status of the plants and the quality of the safety work at the plants, as well as on occupational and environmental doses and other radiological data.
• At least once in every ten years, licensees are required to perform a periodic safety review (PSR), i.e. an integrated analysis and assessment of the safety of a facility. The periodic safety reviews are submitted to the regulatory aut- hority, which makes a comprehensive review and assessment of the submitted review and its references, which is documented in a review report. In the case of nuclear power reactors, the report is submitted to the Government.
• Every three years, the regulatory authority is required to submit a Review Report on the Nuclear Industry Research, Development and Demonstration Programme on Disposal of Spent Fuel and NuclearWaste and the Dismantling and Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations (the SKB
• Every three years, the regulatory authority appointed by the Government is required to submit a proposal for the nuclear waste fees to be paid by the li- censees of nuclear power reactors to cover the costs for the disposal of spent fuel and nuclear waste and the dismantling and decommissioning of nuclear
97
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
installations. The regulatory authority also includes a review report on the cost estimates provided by the licensees.
• The regulatory authority assigned by the Government shall on an annual basis report to the Government on the licences granted concerning export, import or the transit of nuclear waste and the erection, possession or operation of shal- low land burial sites.
• The regulatory authority, also issues reports to a number of organisations, such as UNSCEAR, OECD, IAEA, etc. on a regular basis, in agreement with international conventions. The major part of that reporting is within the envi- ronmental radiation protection area but some parts also consider occupational radiation protection.
In addition to the
The regulatory authority also issues reports where R&D results and important regulatory assessments are published. All reports published by the regulatory aut- hority are open to the media and the public.
E.2.3.4 Enforcement of regulations and terms of licences
The authorities have extensive legal regulatory and enforcement power. As de- scribed in section E.2.3.2 concerning prohibition, a licence may be revoked for activities that do not fulfil the obligations set out in the legislation. If there is an
If a person fails to carry out a measure incumbent upon him under the Acts, Ordinances, regulations or conditions issued pursuant to the Acts, or under the supervisory authority’s injunction, the authority may arrange for the measure to be taken at his expense.
E.2.3.5 Clear allocations of responsibilities of the bodies involved
The Swedish legal framework allocates a clear division of responsibilities bet- ween the bodies involved. As already mentioned, the producer of spent fuel and radioactive waste has the responsibility to safely handle and dispose of the waste produced. All necessary measures and precautions should be taken by the waste producer. The authorities independently supervise, regulate and review existing or planned activities with spent fuel and radioactive waste.
The ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety of spent fuel and radioac- tive waste rests with the State.According to a Government statement, the ultimate responsibility of the State ”is a matter of course” and does not need to be imple- mented in the legislation.
E.2.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations ofArticle 19.
98
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
E.3 Article 20: REGULATORY BODY
1.Each Contracting Party shall establish or designate a regulatory body entrusted with the implementation of the legislative and regulatory framework referred to in Article 19, and provided with adequate authority, competence and financial and human resources to fulfil its assigned responsibilities.
2.Each Contracting Party, in accordance with its legislative and regulatory framework, shall take the appropriate steps to ensure the effective independence of the regulatory functions from other functions where organizations are involved in both spent fuel or radioactive waste management and in their regulation
Summary of developments since the last national report
• The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) was formed in July 2008 in a merger between the Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) and the Swedish Ra- diation Protection Authority (SSI).
• The Swedish Civil ContingenciesAgency (MSB) was formed in January 2009 in a merger between the Swedish Emergency Management Agency (KBM) and the Swedish Rescue Services Agency (SRV).
• SSM competence needs were investigated and reported to the Government in March 2011.
• Increase in SSM staff since 2009 with about 10 % (274 as compared to 246).
E.3.1 Regulatory bodies and their mandates
E.3.1.1 General
The legal basis for the regulatory activities in Sweden is given in a number of legal documents of various types: laws, governmental ordinances, annual government letters of appropriation, and specific governmental decisions, including specific licensing decisions. Through government ordinances and specific decisions, the Government delegates to the regulatory body specific parts of the legal authority given to the Government by the Parliament through legislation.
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) is a central administrative authority under the auspices of the Ministry of the Environment. SSM is the re- gulatory body in Sweden authorized to supervise spent fuel management and ra- dioactive waste management according to the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities
(SFS 1984:3) and the Radiation Protection Act (SFS 1988:220). According to the Swedish constitution, the administrative authorities are quite independent within the legislation and statutes given by the Government. An individual minister can- not interfere in a specific case handled by an administrative authority.
99
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
The Government ministries are small units, by comparison with ministries in most other countries. Their main responsibilities are:
(1) Preparing the Government’s bills to Parliament on budget appropriations and laws;
(2) Issuing laws and regulations and general rules for the administrative authorities;
(3) International relations;
(4) Appointment of higher officials in the administration; and
(5) Certain appeals from individuals which are addressed to the Government.
The Cabinet of ministers as a whole is responsible for all governmental decisions. Although in practice a large number of routine matters are decided upon by indi- vidual ministers, and only formally confirmed by the Government, the principle of collective responsibility is reflected in all forms of governmental work.
The Director General of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority is appointed by the Government, normally for a period of six years.As all Swedish authorities, the SSM issues an annual activity report to the Government summarizing major results, effects, revenues and costs. The Government carries out
The requirements on SSM and other Swedish authorities for openness and provision of information services to the public, politicians and media are very high. Swedish official documents are public unless a decision is made to clas- sify them according to the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (SFS 2009:400). The reasons for secrecy could be those of national security, interna- tional relations, commercial relations, or the individual right to privacy.
E.3.1.2 The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM)
SSM was established on July 1, 2008, and is the national regulatory authority responsibility within the areas of nuclear safety, radiation protection and nuclear
The SSM missions and tasks are defined in the Ordinance (SFS 2008:452) with instruction for the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority and in the annual let- ter of appropriation. The Ordinance declares that SSM is the administrative aut- hority for protection of people and the environment against harmful effects of ionising and
100
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
SSM shall actively and preventively work for high levels of nuclear safety and radiation protection in the society and through its activities act to:
(1) Prevent radiological accidents and ensure safe operations and safe waste ma- nagement at the nuclear facilities;
(2) Minimize risks and optimise the effects of radiation in medical applications;
(3) Minimize radiation risks in the use of products and services, or which arise as a
(4) Minimize the risks with exposure to naturally occurring radiation; and
(5) Contribute to an enhanced level of nuclear safety and radiation protection, internationally.
SSM shall ensure that regulations and work routines are
SSM shall handle financial issues connected with the management of ra- dioactive wastes from nuclear activities. The Authority shall inform the Nuclear
Waste Fund about the size of payments and disbursements from the fund, planned or forecasted, by each reactor operator or other relevant licensee, and of SSM’s own activities regarding financing issues, so that the Nuclear Waste Fund can ful- fil its tasks5. SSM is in charge of the Swedish metrology institute for ionising radiation. SSM shall operate a national dose register and, as appropriate, issue national individual dose passports.
SSM shall furthermore:
• Carry out Swedish obligations according to conventions,
• Supervise that nuclear material and equipment is used as declared and in agre- ement with international commitments;
• Carry out international cooperation work with national and multinational or- ganisations;
• Follow and contribute to the progress of international standards and recom- mendations;
• Coordinate activities needed to prevent, identify and detect nuclear or radio- logical events. The SSM shall organise and lead the national organisation for expert advice to authorities involved in, or leading, rescue operations;
• Contribute to the national competence development within the authority’s field of activities;
• Provide data for radiation protection assessments and maintain the compe- tence to predict and manage evolving issues; and
• Ensure public insight into all the authority’s activities.
The SSM publishes reports to inform interested parties and stakeholders.The SSM website is used for information on current events and authority decisions. In the SSM report series,
5 The Nuclear Waste Fund is a government authority which manages the fees paid by the power companies and the owners of other nuclear facilities in Sweden.
101
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
All reports issued by SSM can be ordered. Most of them are available for down- load from the SSM website. Since June 2010 SSM issues the periodical “Strålsä- kert” (Radiation Safe).
SSM maintains a function on duty “around the clock” to respond to incidents and other urgent matters. In case of severe events, the emergency staff will be mobilised. SSM also has one employee available for press contacts and IT support during outside office hours.
The annual appropriation letter focuses on
Authority activities. In the appropriation letter for the fiscal year 2011, from December 2010, SSM was for example given the assignment to:
• At latest February 1, 2011 report on how a licensing procedure of new Swe- dish nuclear power reactors could be formed; in line with the Governments intent to create the requisites for controlled generational shifts of the Swedish nuclear power.
• Identify and report, before April 30, 2011, current safety and radiation safety issues which could be of importance during
• Report on the level of safety at the Swedish nuclear power plants latest 31 May 2011.
The SSM work can be divided into supervision of the safety and radiation protec- tion work connected with ionising and
Figure E2: displays the present organisation of SSM. The international de- velopment cooperation work is managed by the Secretariat for International
With regards to the supervision of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste ma- nagement, the tasks subject to this report are to a large extent carried out by the
Department of Radioactive Materials. However this work is
Department of Radiation protection (radioactive waste and disused sources from
The Director General is exclusively responsible for the authority activities and reports directly to the Government. The authority has an advisory council with a maximum of ten members which are appointed by the Government. Those are usu- ally members of the parliament, agency officials or independent experts. The fun- ctions of the council are to advise the Director General and to ensure public trans- parency (insight) in the authority’s activities but it has no
The Delegation for Financial Issues Connected with the Management of Rest
102
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organisational chart 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director General |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administration |
|
|
Communication |
|
DG Staff |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
Human Resources |
|
|
|
|
Legal Services |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
Finance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and International |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
IT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Power |
Radioactive |
|
|
Radiation |
Secretariat for |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
Plant Safety |
Materials |
|
|
Protection |
International |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation and Decom- |
|
|
|
|
Development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation and |
|
missioning of Nuclear |
|
|
|
Medical Exposures |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facilities |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Radiation Protection |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reactor Technology |
|
Control and Protection |
|
|
|
Occupational Practices |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Structural Integrity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear |
|
|
|
and Work Activities |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
System Assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emergency Preparedness |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disposal of |
|
|
|
and Response |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Radioactive Waste |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man Technology |
|
Financial Control |
|
|
|
Environmental Assessment |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organisation |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure E2: SSM organisation
Products fromAct (1984:3) on NuclearActivitiess as SSM’s advisory body in sug- gesting the fees, and the basis for calculating the fees, to the Nuclear Waste Fund. SSM also proposes the sizes of the supplementary guarantees the utilities must have available. The delegation is led by the Director General and has at most eight other members appointed by the Government which represent other authorities and independent institutions with relevant competence.
SSM also has permanent advisory committees on reactor safety, radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel management, and research and development, as well as in other fields such as UV, EM fields, and the use of ionising radiation in on- cology.
E.3.1.3 The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency
On January 1, 2009 the Swedish Civil ContingenciesAgency (MSB) was formed, merging three earlier central authorities with emergency preparedness, and civil defence responsibilities. The task of the MSB is to enhance and support socie- tal capacities for preparedness for and prevention of emergencies and crisis. The
MSB coordinates emergency preparedness funding,
103
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
E.3.1.4 The Swedish Work Environment Authority
The Swedish Work Environment Authority (AV) was established in 2001. The
AV’s paramount objective is to reduce the risks of
E.3.1.5 The Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste
The Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste was established in 1985, and is an independent committee attached to the Ministry of the Environment. The
Council’s mandate is to study issues relating to nuclear waste, the decommissio- ning of nuclear facilities, and to advise the Government and certain authorities on these issues. The Government has authorised the Minister of the Environment to appoint the chairman and up to ten other members. The budget of the Council is decided by the Government and The Council activities are financed through the Nuclear Waste Fund. Members of the Council are independent experts within different areas of importance for the disposal of radioactive waste, not only in technology and science, but also in areas such as ethics and social sciences.
According to its latest Government instructions from April 8, 2009 (Dir.2009:31) the Council shall:
• Assess the research and development programme of the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB), license applications and other reports of relevance to the disposal of nuclear waste;
• At latest 9 months after that SKB, according to the 12 Section of the Act on Nuclear Activities (SFS 1984:3), has reported on its
• The Council shall during the month of February report on its activities during the preceding year and give its independent assessment of the situation within the nuclear waste management area.
• The Council shall investigate and illuminate important issues within the nu- clear waste management area, inter alia by seminars and public hearings, and create the prerequisites for creating as good foundation as possible for its advice to the Government;
• The Council shall follow the development of other countries disposal pro- grams for spent nuclear fuel and radioactive nuclear waste. The Council should also follow, and when necessary participate in, the work of internatio- nal organisations as regarding disposal of radioactive nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel.
E.3.1.6 The County Administrative Boards
The County Administrative Boards exercise supervision according to the Civil Protection Act (SFS 2003:778) and Ordinance (SFS 2003:789), responsible for
104
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
planning and implementing rescue operations in cases where the public needs pro- tection from a radioactive release from a nuclear installation or in cases where such release seems imminent.
E.3.2 The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority – human and financial resources
E.3.2.1 Human resources and management system
SSM at the end of 2010 had a staff of 274 persons, an increase with 10 % from 2009. The average age is 47 years and 44 % are women. Of the staff, 24 % were younger than 40 years, 31% between 41 and 50 years, and 44 % older than 50 years. About 15 % of the SSM employees will retire (65 years) within 5 years but some opt to work until the age of 67. Ten persons were older than 65 years at the end of 2010.
During 2010, 42 persons were employed (20 women and 22 men). The staff turnover rate during 2010 was 4 % or 3 % if retirements are excluded. SSM works with a
2011. In March 2011 SSM reported to the Government on the competence situa- tion in the disciplines of importance to the authority; taking into account both the internal and the national needs.
The “steering and supportive sections” of SSM totally accounts for about 45 persons. This includes the DG staff (with legal services), the communication unit, the administrative unit (including human resources unit), the finance unit, and the unit for IT issues.
The educational background of SSM staff in April 2011 is shown in Table E1:
Education |
Percentage |
|
|
Post graduate degree |
20 |
|
|
Bachelor/master |
63 |
|
|
Secondary high school |
15 |
|
|
Other |
2 |
|
|
Total |
100 |
|
|
Table E1: Educational background of the SSM staff
Compared with many other authorities, the SSM staff has on average a rather high educational level. This is a result of the many specialist areas covered by the aut- hority, and to some extent the fact that there is no technical support organisation
(TSO) in Sweden to support the regulatory body with specialist knowledge. Comparing internationally, the number of regulatory staff in Sweden is small
for the size of the nuclear programme. Many staff members are typically involved in several tasks, such as inspections, regulatory reviews and approval tasks, revi- sion of regulations, handling research contracts, and participation in public infor- mation activities, each activity requiring his or her expertise. When comparing the sizes of staff between different countries, it is however important not only to count the staff members per reactor, but also to consider the types of legal obligations put on the licensees and the different oversight practices.
105
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
Since a couple of years SSM experiences a high workload depending on the safety modernizations of the Swedish reactors, upgrading of the physical protec- tion of the plants, as well as applications to
SSM performs internal staff training, organized by the human resources unit. During 2010 about 1700 days – nearly 6 days per employee - were used for such competence development.
During spring 2009 a development program for the management group was finished.
The program has contributed to a common view of the authority’s tasks and objecti- ves and an increased understanding of the manager position. A new
The SSM has launched a development program on leadership where 10 mo- tivated and suitable
Introductory training is mandatory for new employees as well as emergency preparedness training for the emergency staff, among those all inspectors. Except for this, the training programme is tailored to meet specific needs in relations to the competence profile of each position. Newly hired personnel vary in knowledge and experience – from those having a solid knowledge about the nuclear power and radioactive waste to those who come directly from the technical high school/ university. Annual dialogues are held between respective manager and staff to as- sess training and educational needs.
Courses are given on internal processes of the management system, the legal framework for regulatory activities, IT and security routines, project management, inspection methodology, nuclear technology, nuclear power plant- and systems courses, and media training.
About 80 common educational events took place during 2010.Apart from the introductory courses, the following was covered: the use of new administrative tools, communication with media, environment aspects, inspection- and supervi- sion methodology and work environment issues.
The
SSM has a management system which is certified on the issues of environment, quality management and work environment management in accordance with the
ISO standards ISO 14001, 9001 and the Swedish Work Environment Authority re- gulations AFS 2001:1. The management system is integrated and process based. During 2010, the system was supplemented with a section on Information Security following ISO standard 27001. Internal and external revisions are performed yearly.
Before SSM was established, structure and layout of processes and the com- plementing documents of the regulatory body were extensively discussed. Also, at the beginning, the priority was on overall structure, description of the main processes and the main policy and instructions. The system is still under deve-
106
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
lopment. The process map follows an iterative cycle from left to right: Planning process, Implementation process and the
|
|
|
|
Implementation process |
|
Communicate and |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Influence |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emergency |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintain |
|
Preparedness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preparedness |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Secure |
|
|
Supervision |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Develop Regulations |
Intergrated Safety |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
Knowledge and |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
Competence |
|
|
|
|
Assessments |
||||
|
process |
|
|
|
|
Licensing Reviews |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
Investigate, |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Analyse and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assess |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Development |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assignments |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Handling matters and documents |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support Processes |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personnel, work |
|
Communication |
|
Legal Affairs |
|
IT and Internal |
|
Accounting |
|
|
|
|
|
environment and |
|
|
|
and Purchasing |
|
Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
competence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure E3: The SSM management system process scheme
Scope of management system
The management system encompasses:
•
• Mission, shared vision and tasks of the regulatory body
• The management control of the regulatory body (including policy for quality, environment, working environment and information security)
• The authority’s main processes for planning, implementation and follow- up as well as supporting processes
• The organisation, tasks and duties (rules of procedure,
• Analyses (environmental scanning, working environment risk analysis, activities, security protection, information security etc. and environmen- tal aspects) and plans of action
• Description and assessment of external interested parties
• External requirements (Ordinance (2008:452) with instructions for SSM, annual Government letters of appropriation,Acts, etc.)
• Environmental inquiry and environmental action plan
• Procedures for document control
• Internal established steering documents
• Accounting documents
• Program and plans for internal and external reviews
107
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
•Methods for measuring the impact and effect of each process
•Competence management and education plans
•IT based support displaying processes, supporting documents and rela- tion between processes
•IT based activity management system for planning and
Implementation of audits
SSM ensures that annual internal and external audits of the authority’s activities are carried out, in addition to audits of the Swedish National Audit Office. The SSM management system should account for internal and external requirements; the latter such as those of
SSM follows a plan of internal auditing for the period
External audits are carried out two times every year. The auditors control how
SSM follows the requirements of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, the Swedish Work En- vironment Authority regulations AFS 2001, and other relevant requirements. The external auditors are accredited by Swedish Board for Accreditation and Con- formity Assessment, an authority under the Ministries for Foreign Affairs and Enterprise, & Energy and Communications.
In February 2012, on request by the Swedish Government, the IAEA will conduct a
New system for document management
In January 2010 it was decided that SSM should acquire a new document mana- gement system to the authority (largely following ISO 15489). The implementa- tion is gradual during a
Internet or
E.3.2.2 Financial resources
The regulatory activities of SSM are financed over the state budget. The costs are largely recovered from the licensees as fees covering the regulatory activities and the related research. The sizes of the fees are annually proposed by SSM but deci- ded by the Government. Activities connected to the licensing of nuclear waste dis- posal facilities and the financing of the nuclear waste management system are fun-
108
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
ded through the waste management fund. The budgets for 2009, 2010 and 2011, except for the funding of the separately financed international cooperation and development work performed by the Secretariat for International
In addition, some extra resources (at most a few million per year) are fees for reviewing special applications or licensing work, paid directly to the Authority.
Budget Item |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
Funding source |
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear safety, emergency preparedness, |
214,350 |
233,400 |
230,450 |
Mainly fees |
radiation protection (including administration) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scientific research and development work |
90,000 |
96,000 |
79,000 |
Mainly fees |
|
|
|
|
|
Disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste |
6,000 |
28,200 |
70,000 |
Waste management fund |
|
|
|
|
|
Historical wastes etc. |
2,700 |
2,000 |
2,000 |
Tax funded |
|
|
|
|
|
Crisis management6 |
29,000 |
27,000 |
25,000 |
Tax funded |
Total (kSEK) |
342,050 |
386,600 |
404,450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table E2: Budget of SSM in kSEK - 1 SEK is about 0.1 Euro
Regulatory research
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) decided on its research plan for
• Maintain and develop the competence of importance for radiation protection and nuclear safety work.
• Ensure that SSM has the knowledge and tools needed to carry out effective regulatory and supervisory activities.
SSM supports basic and applied research and also development of methods and processes (usually not products). However for development work the intention is that the developed method or process should be used solely by the authority, in support of the authority work. One aspect is the clear separation between research and authority support. The latter is not in the interest of the broader society and must be put out to tender.
In order to contribute to national competence and research capacity, SSM and the nuclear industry support the Swedish Centre of Technology within a
Nuclear safety research is performed within bilateral agreements with Finland but also within NKS (Nordic Nuclear Safety Research) in two programme areas, Reactor safety and Emergency preparedness. The latter area actually includes waste management research.
To fulfil research needs, SSM contracts universities and consulting compa- nies. A dominating share goes to research organizations in Sweden. However,
6 These funds are received via the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)
109
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
since national resources are limited, SSM actively participates in international re- search. SSM cooperates on research conducted by EU and OECD/NEA and takes part in a large number of projects.
In order to maintain continuity in knowledge and competence in connection with the assessment and examination of the deep geological disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel, SSM has financed suitable research and development work within areas such as canister corrosion, biosphere processes, buffer and refilling, geosphere processes, spent fuel andsafety assessment methodology. Such mea- sures has led to that the SSM is well prepared for a trustworthy examination and assessment of the new waste management facilities the licensees plan to build, commission and operate.
In addition SSM has had research projects connected to decommissioning, e.g. applied studies on actual costs and methodologies for decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear facilities.
The research budget SSM allocated to research related to spent fuel and radioac- tive waste management 2010 is shown in Table 3.
Research area |
Expenditures 2010 (kSEK) |
|
|
|
|
Biosphere processes |
|
2 503 |
|
|
|
Buffer and refilling |
|
3 613 |
|
|
|
Canister |
|
2 369 |
|
|
|
Decommissioning |
|
1 249 |
|
|
|
Geosphere processes |
|
3 632 |
|
|
|
Safety assessment methodology |
2 716 |
|
|
|
|
Spent fuel nuclide chemistry |
|
1 697 |
|
|
|
Total (kSEK) |
|
17 779 |
|
|
|
Table E3: Breakdown of the 2010 research budget allocated for research related to spent fuel and radioactive waste management at SSM in kSEK - 1 SEK is about 0.1 Euro
The support to a doctoral candidate position within nuclear chemistry at Chalmers
University of Technology continues with the purpose to strengthen the national competence about how nuclear fuel reacts in the disposal facility environment.
Within the research area of rock mechanical modeling, SSM gives support to the U.S. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In 2010 two long term research projects were initiated at Stockholm University in the areas of glaciation and ra-
During 2010 the SSM continued its preparation for assessing the SKB licence application for a deep geological disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel which was submitted to the authority in March 2011. Issues for assessment of
110
Section E – Legislative and Regulatory System
areas. To exchange experience and information in connection with preparations, for- mal assessment, and supervision of the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel, a co- operation with the Finnish Nuclear and Radiation SafetyAuthority, STUK, started.
E.3.3 Independence of the regulatory function
The de jure and de facto independence from political pressure and promotional interests are well provided for in Sweden. The laws governing SSM concentrate solely on nuclear safety, radiation protection (also security, physical protection, and
E.3.5 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations ofArticle 20.
111
This page is intentionally left blank
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.1 Article 21: RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LICENCE HOLDER
1.Each Contracting Party shall ensure that prime responsibility for the safety of spent fuel or radioactive waste management rests with the holder of the relevant licence and shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that each such licence holder meets its responsibility.
2.If there is no such licence holder or other responsible party, the responsibility rests with the Contracting Party which has juris- diction over the spent fuel or over the radioactive waste.
F.1.1 Regulatory requirements
F.1.1.1 The prime responsibility
According to the Act on Nuclear Activities a party that holds a licence for nuclear activities shall be responsible for ensuring that all the necessary measures are ta- ken for:
• maintaining safety, taking into account the nature of the operation and the circumstances in which it is conducted,
• safe management and disposal of nuclear waste generated by the operation or nuclear material derived from the operation that is not reused, and
• safe decommissioning and dismantling of facilities in which the operation shall be discontinued until such date that all operations at the facilities have ceased and all nuclear material and nuclear waste have been placed in a dispo- sal facility that has been sealed permanently.
According to the Radiation Protection Act, parties conducting activities involving radiation shall, while taking into account the nature of the activity and the condi- tions under which it is conducted
• take the measures and precautions necessary to prevent or counteract injury to people and animals and damage to the environment,
• supervise and maintain the radiation protection at the site, on the premises and in other areas where radiation occurs, and
• properly maintain technical devices and monitoring and radiation protection equipment used in the activity.
In the Governmental Bills to the acts it is also underlined that the licensee shall not only take measures to maintain safety and radiation protection but also measures to improve these protective measures where this is justified.
The SSM Regulations on Safety in Nuclear Facilities (SSMFS 2008:1) specify the responsibility of the licensee through a number of functional requirements on sa- fety management, design and construction, safety analysis and review, operations, nuclear
113
Section F – Other general safety provisions
that safety is maintained and further developed according to valid objectives and strategies.
The required continuously preventive safety work includes reassessments, analysis of events in the own and other facilities, analysis of relevant new safety standards and practices and research results. Any reasonable measure useful for safety shall be taken as a result of this proactive and continuous safety work and be documented in a safety programme that shall be updated annually.
The basic safety documentation (SAR including Operational Limits and Con- ditions, plans for emergency response and physical protection) must be formally approved by SSM. Plant and organizational modifications and changes in the sa- fety documentation are to be notified and SSM can, if needed, impose additional conditions and requirements. All other issues are handled under the licensee self- inspection. SSM examines how this liability is managed.
According to the SSM Regulations on Basic Provisions for the Protection of Workers and the Public in Connection with Work with Ionizing Radiation (SSMFS 2008:51) anyone who conducts activities with ionizing radiation shall ensure that the practice is justified by which is meant that the use of radiation gives a benefit that exceeds the estimated health detriment caused by the radiation. The radiation protection measures shall be optimized and by which is meant that human expo- sures are as low as reasonably achievable, social and economic factors taken into account and no dose limit in these regulations is exceeded. These basic radiation protection principles also apply for waste management and disposal as regulated in SSM Regulations on the Protection of Human Health and the Environment in connection with the Final Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Nuclear Waste (SSMFS 2008:37).
The optimization and use of the best available technique also apply to dischar- ges to the environment during the normal operation of nuclear facilities. This is regulated in Regulations on Protection of Human Health and the Environment in connection with Discharges of Radioactive Substances from certain Nuclear Faci- lities (SSMFS 2008:23)
The SSM shall ensure that regulations and used procedures are cost effective and useful for individuals as well as companies. They must be written and desig- ned so that the regulatory body does not take over the prime responsibility for safety and radiation protection.
The supervision that SSM carries out shall control that the licensees operates the activity in a safe way and with the maintenance of radiation protection.
F.1.1.2 The ultimate responsibility
The State has an overall responsibility for activities regulated in the Act on Nu- clear Activities. However, this ultimate responsibility has not explicitly expressed in the legislation, but through Government statements. Therefore, clarification of the State responsibility has therefore been considered necessary in the legislation.
F.1.2 Measures taken by the license holder
SKB is the licensee for Clab, situated at the Oskarshamn site, and SFR, situated at the Forsmark site. The operation of Clab and SFR was previously contracted out to OKG and FKA respectively. SKB took over the operation of Clab in January 2007
114
Section F – Other general safety provisions
and the operation of SFR in July 2009. The takeover is a natural step in SKB´s development, where the emphasis in the activities is gradually shifting from re- search and development to operation of nuclear facilities. The experience gained from the construction and operation of Clab and SFR is important in the planning of the future facilities.
Spent fuel and waste management at the nuclear power plants, such as waste packaging, waste minimization and interim storage at the sites are the responsi- bility of the nuclear power companies. Inspection of
F.1.3 Regulatory control
SSM takes a number of regulatory actions to make sure that licensees give ade- quate priority to safety and radiation protection. Examples are the following:
• Inspections, major and minor inspections targeted to assess safety and radia- tion protection issues. The inspections, as well as other types of regulatory supervision, can have a wide scope. Examples are inspections of the licensee safety programmes, management of organisational changes, management of safety review, management and assessment of incidents (conservative deci- sion making) as well as
• Reviews of different documents, including safety analysis reports, instruc- tions, licence applications etc.
• Investigations in connections with events (SSM has a special methodology,
RASK, for rapid response inspections) and assessments of event reports.
• The integrated safety assessments (se section E.2.2.3) provide an updated comprehensive regulatory assessment of the safety of the facility. A manage- ment meeting follows each SSM integrated safety assessment.
• Regular top management meetings with the licensees.The Director General of
SSM and the department directors meet with the management group of each nuclear power plant and other major facilities at least once a year to discuss current issues and safety priorities. There are also annual meetings with the corporate executives of the utilities.
• SSM follows the licensees work with safety culture issues mainly through minor inspections. The role of SSM in this context is to ensure that the licen- sees have proactive safety management. SSM expects the licensees to create and maintain a strong safety culture. One important part of this, of great in- terest for SSM, is that the licensees react in a timely manner to indications of deficiencies in their safety culture. If such deficiencies are not corrected, the ability of the operating organisation to handle difficult situations and maintain safety will deteriorate.
F.1.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 21.
115
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.2 Article 22: HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that:
(i) qualified staff are available as needed for
(ii) adequate financial resources are available to support the safety of facilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste management during their operating lifetime and for decommissioning;
(iii) financial provision is made which will enable the appropriate institutional controls and monitoring arrangements to be contin- ued for the period deemed necessary following the closure of a disposal facility.
F.2.1 Regulatory requirements
F.2.1.1 Qualified staff during the operation lifetime
The general safety regulations concerning safety in nuclear facilities (SSMFS
2008:1) are specific about the staffing of the nuclear facilities. Long term planning is required of the licensees in order to ensure that they have enough staff with suf- ficient competence for all
The regulations also contain provisions that the staff must be fit for their du- ties. This implies medical requirements and tests for drugs, etc. Such provisions have not been issued previously. How the licensee manages the fitness for duty issues has, however, been followed through inspections.
F.2.1.2 Adequate human and financial resources
During operation and decommissioning
It is clear from the Swedish Act on Nuclear Activities that in order to obtain a licence, economical resources must be committed in order to manage the safety obligations mentioned in chapter 10 of the Act. Every presumptive licensee must be assessed in this respect during the licensing procedure.
Provision for financial resources during decommissioning is provided by me- ans of investments in government controlled funds. Licensees of nuclear facilities must pay a fee to the Nuclear Waste Fund, according to the Act (2006:647) on
116
Section F – Other general safety provisions
Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Ac- tivities as described in section E.2.2.5. This is to ensure the financing of decom- missioning, handling and disposal of spent fuel and nuclear waste, including the research needed for these activities.
The disposal facility for radioactive operational waste (SFR) has been paid for directly by the nuclear power utilities and not by the Fund. Operational waste is not covered by the Act on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities but is instead paid for by the nuclear power uti- lities at the time the waste is produced. However, disposal in SFR of operational waste from Clab is paid for through the Nuclear Waste Fund, since all of Clab’s operations are financed by this Fund.
Provisions for institutional control and monitoring after closure
As described in chapter F.6.1.1 the holder of a licence for nuclear activities shall be responsible for ensuring that all measures are taken that are needed for the safe decommissioning and dismantling of plants in which nuclear activities are no longer to be conducted. Institutional control and monitoring is not foreseen in the Swedish management system for spent fuel and radioactive waste. It follows that a licensee may be exempted from their responsibilities when decommissioning and dismantling has taken place and financial provisions for institutional control and monitoring after closure are not required.
The State has an overall responsibility for activities regulated in the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities as described in section F.1.1.2. It follows that if the need for institutional control and monitoring were to arise in the future, the State would be responsible for the arrangements and costs.
F.2.2 Measures taken by the license holders
F.2.2.1 Qualified staff during the operation lifetime
In the near future new facilities will be built and put into operation. Therefore SKB needs to ensure and broaden the competence concerning the operation of nuclear facilities. An important step in that direction was taken when SKB took over the operation of Clab in January 2007 and the operation of SFR in July 2009, which was previously contracted out to OKG and FKA, respectively (see also
F.2.2.1 Adequate human and financial resources
As described in the introduction, the nuclear power utilities have formed a jointly owned company, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company
(SKB), to fulfill their obligations regarding nuclear waste management. SKB is assigned by the nuclear utilities to make their cost estimates that form the basis for calculating the nuclear waste fee that the licensees of nuclear power plants must pay to the Nuclear Waste Fund.
The NPP licensees also make two forms of guarantees available to the govern- ment in the event that the Nuclear Waste Fund should prove to be inadequate. The two types of guarantees serve different purposes (see section E.2.2.5).
117
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.2.3 Regulatory control
Qualified staff during operation
The compliance with the requirements on competence assurance was inspected a few years ago at all nuclear power plants. The regulatory authority continued to follow up on these inspections and has now concluded that the required systematic approaches are in place at all nuclear power plants to assure long term staffing and competence of operations staff.
At the time, both Clab and SFR benefited from these improvements as the management systems for operation those facilities were fully integrated with the management systems for the operation of the nuclear power plants at OKG and FKA respectively.
Before SKB was allowed to take over operation of Clab in January 2007, the regulatory authority reviewed and approved the organisational change. The im- plementation of the operation organisation for Clab was a considerable change to the SKB organisation. A key issue in this respect was the establishment of a safety review function, as required by the general regulations (SSMFS 2008:1). Beside the new area of responsibility within the SKB organisation the number of SKB staff increased from about 220 to 300 in total.
Adequate financial resources
The regulatory authority assigned by the Government, SSM, reviews the licensees cost estimates according to the Act on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Products from Nuclear Activities. Furthermore, SSM reviews the size of the guarantee that the licensees must make available to ensure that the financing system will be able to meet future needs. After its review of the nuclear power utilities’ cost estimates, SSM submits a proposal for the size of the fees, and the size of the guarantees required, to the Government. Based on this proposal, the Government sets the fees and guarantees. For licensees of nuclear facilities other than nuclear power reactors, SSM sets the fees and guarantees for the following three years after reviewing cost estimates submitted by the licensee.
F.2.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 22.
118
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.3 Article 23: QUALITY ASSURANCE
Each Contracting Party shall take the necessary steps to ensure that appropriate quality assurance programmes concerning the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management are established and implemented.
F.3.1 Regulatory requirements
The general safety regulations SSMFS 2008:1 (chapter 2, 8 §) require that nu- clear activities: design and construction, operation and decommissioning, shall be managed, controlled, assessed and developed through a management system so designed that requirements on safety will are met. The management system including the needed routines and procedures shall be kept up to date and be do- cumented. This view on quality and safety to be integrated with other business concerns into an integrated management system is in line with the recently issued IAEA Safety Standards Series No.
It is further required in regulations that the application of the management system, its efficiency and effectiveness, shall be systematically and periodically audited by a function having an independent position in relation to the activities being audited. An established audit programme shall exist at the plant.
In the general recommendations to the regulations it is made clear that the management system should cover all nuclear activities at the plant. Furthermo- re, it should be clear from the management system how to audit contractors and vendors, and how to keep results from these audits up to date.
The internal audit function should have a sufficiently strong and independent position in the organisation and report to the highest manager of the plant. The audits should have continuity and auditors have a good knowledge about activities being audited.
Audit intervals should take into account the importance for safety of the dif- ferent activities and special needs that can arise. Normally all audit areas should be covered every four years as a minimum.
The auditing activity itself and the management function of the plant should also periodically be audited.
F.3.2 Measures taken by the license holder
Quality programmes – NPP
In Sweden the general description of the quality and management system is nor- mally regarded as the plant’s most important document, as it gives an overview of the requirements and the way in which the organization is supposed to work in order to meet these demands. The documents are to be kept available for everyone in the plant organization, and also for others who are affected by the information in the documents, for instance contractors, consultants and the regulatory autho-
119
Section F – Other general safety provisions
rities. All documents in the quality and management system are under controlled revision, regularly or when needed, in order to reflect the actual situation at the plant at all times.
Development of quality assurance programmes at the Swedish NPPs began during the late 1970’s. These programmes have since been developed continu- ously over the years, and have, of course, been affected by regulations and ex- pectations from the regulatory body and business associates. In the beginning, the quality manuals of the NPPs were limited to descriptions of routines in a number of functional areas, but they lacked clear statements of the objectives and require- ments. During the 1990s there was considerable development of the concept, and the quality assurance programmes of the Swedish NPPs are today integrated in the total management system of every plant.
The main principles are the same for the quality and management systems of the
Swedish NPPs, with documents on three levels. The first level
• nuclear safety,
• occupational safety,
• economic results,
• confidence from society,
• environmental impact, and
• personnel responsibility
A comprehensive description of the organization with responsibilities for fun- ctions and processes, division of responsibility and management principles are also included in the
The second level documents of the management system contain commitments from the responsible managers on how to work with the tasks delegated by the plant director in the
The third level documents include instructions for specific activities and tasks included in the different areas of responsibility as defined by the second level documents.
In addition to the three levels of documents, there can also be various types of administrative handbooks.
The purpose of the quality and management system is to achieve a unified and consistent control system for all plant activities based on clear policies and measurable objectives. There should be complete traceability from policy to work instruction.
The standard ISO 9001:2000 for quality management systems, lead to more emp- hasis on processes and attempts to implement
120
Section F – Other general safety provisions
Quality programmes – SKB
The management system of SKB consists of a number of steering documents di- vided on overall company level (blue part) and an operational level (beige part).
Below is an explanation of the hierarchy and definitions of policy, guideline, rou- tine and instruction.
Quality system implementation and quality audit programmes
Every Swedish NPP and SKB has developed a quality audit programme, which is used to monitor how well the quality system is implemented and applied in the organization on different levels, as well as the efficiency of the system to ensure quality and safety. Being responsible for the
Quality audits of suppliers
According to the requirements on quality assurance in the general regulations SSMFS 2008:1, all purchases of goods and services which might have an effect, directly or indirectly, on the protection and safety of the environment or personnel, shall be made from suppliers that through quality audits, or in other ways, have shown that they can comply with quality requirements.
SKB Management System
Policy = SKB:s policy is the top steering document in the management system and explains the ambitions and the overall focus for the whole organisation.
Guideline = Steering document with explanations and details on SKB:s policy and overall frames for the work within specific areas.
Routine = Steering document including requirements, responsibility, authorithy and explanations on how to perform tasks.
Instruction = Steering document which in detail explains how to perform certain task. An instruction is always coupled to a routine.
Policy
Guidelines
Routines and Instructions
Routines and Instructions
The ambition of the licensees is not limited to these demands, but also includes suppliers of goods and services, where malfunctioning might cause considerable consequences for the operation. A review of a supplier includes not only a quality audit, but also a technical and commercial evaluation of the equipment or services offered. Since 1998 a review of the supplier’s environmental management system is included in the review. These aspects will, however, not be covered in this report. The purpose of a quality audit of a potential supplier is not only to evaluate whether the supplier has implemented and uses a documented quality system, but also to evaluate the supplier’s capability of providing the correct and expected quality. Quality audits are typically performed by teams of
121
Section F – Other general safety provisions
with competence or experience from the product or service to be reviewed. Thus, there is no formal licensing of audit team leaders and team members for Swedish nuclear facilities.
A quality audit results in a report, which must be accepted by the company reviewed, before being presented to the purchasing organization. If deficiencies are revealed during the audit, the organization under review is requested to describe what measures will be taken to correct the deficiencies, in order to be accepted as a supplier of products or services to the organization. In certain cases a
Approved quality audits accomplished by any of the other Swedish NPPs are normally considered comparable with a plant’s own quality audits and, conse- quently, audit duplications of a given supplier can be avoided. Simplified quality audits or evaluation of previous experience of a supplier are sometimes acceptable, when purchasing goods and services dedicated for use in the lower quality classes.
F.3.3 Regulatory control
SSM’s own quality system has included guidance for
SSM has also made assessments of quality assurance processes when revie- wing large modification plans, for example the recent extension of Clab. The li- censees’ plans for quality audits and the reports from the audits that have been performed have also been subject to review by SSM.
In general SSM has been satisfied with the implementation of quality assu- rance. The development of the integrated approach to quality and management systems has taken several years and considerable effort. In some cases implementa- tion has not been well prepared, and has been slowed down due to insufficient staff resources, or lack of support from all organizational levels. Organizational changes have also affected the implementation work, and made revisions necessary.
The regulatory experience shows the necessity of having a living quality audit programme at the plants, and using the audits to develop quality and safety. This means that the audits should not only investigate compliance with the documented routines, but also the suitability and the efficiency of the routines in line with the concept of a learning organization.
F.3.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 23.
122
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.4 Article 24: OPERATIONAL RADIATION
PROTECTION
1. Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that during the operating lifetime of a spent fuel or radioactiv waste management facility:
(i) the radiation exposure of the workers and the public caused by the facility shall be kept as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken
into account;
(ii) no individual shall be exposed, in normal situations, to radia tion doses which exceed national prescriptions for dose limi tation which have due regard to internationally endorsed standards on radiation protection; and
(iii) measures are taken to prevent unplanned and uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials into the environment.
2. Each Contracting Party shall take appropriate steps to ensure that discharges shall be limited:
(i) to keep exposure to radiation as low as reasonably achiev able, economic and social factors being taken into account; and
(ii) so that no individual shall be exposed, in normal situations, to radiation doses which exceed national prescriptions for dose limitation which have due regard to internation
ally endorsed standards on radiation protection.
3. Each Contracting Party shall take appropriate steps to ensure that during the operating lifetime of a regulated nuclear facility, in the event that an unplanned or uncontrolled release of radioac- tive materials into the environment occurs, appropriate corrective measures are implemented to control the release and mitigate its effects.
F.4.1 Regulatory requirements
In order to regulate, and create a basis for effective supervision of, radiation protection at nuclear facilities, including those for management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, basic radiation protection requirements are laid down in a number of SSM regulations.
F.4.1.1 Regulatory requirements on occupational radiation protection
The Swedish occupational radiation protection requirements aimed at the nuclear facilities are similar to those of other EU Member States since they follow the bin- ding requirements of the Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation. The principal provisions as re-
123
Section F – Other general safety provisions
gards occupational radiation protection are found in the SSM regulations SSMFS 2008:24, SSMFS 2008:26, SSMFS 2008:51, and SSMFS 2008:52, accounted for in section E.2.2.3. The most important provisions in the context of the Joint Con- vention are briefly summarized below.
General Requirements and dose limits
Anyone who conducts an activity with ionising radiation shall ensure:
1. Justification: The activity is justified by which means that the use of radiation gives a benefit to individuals and to the society that exceeds the estimated health detriment caused by radiation.
2. Optimisation: The radiation protection measures are optimised by which is meant that exposures, and the probability and magnitude of potential exposu- res, are as low as reasonably achievable, economic and societal factors taken into account.
3. Dose limitation: The activity is carried out in such a way that no radiation dose limits are exceeded.
Optimisation
Anyone who conducts a practice with ionising radiation shall ensure that the radiation protection measures are optimised, and that no radiation dose limit is exceeded. The licensee shall ensure that documented goals and actions for the optimisation work are established and that the necessary resources are available in order to perform the actions and work towards the established goals.
Dose limits for workers
The limit for a worker regarding effective dose is 50 mSv in a calendar year, with the additional constraint that the integrated effective dose over five consecutive years must not exceed 100 mSv. The equivalent dose limit to the lens of the eye and to skin, hands and feet is 150 mSv and 500 mSv in a year, respectively. Lower limits apply for apprentices and special rights for rearrangements at work apply to
Medical examination
Aworker must each year arrange for a new doctor’s certificate as proof of that he/ she is fit for service. At least every third year this must be based on a full medical examination by a doctor.
Supervised and controlled areas
Zoning of the workplace and a division into supervised and controlled areas is required. Areas shall be marked and radiological information given (dose rates, sources, contamination levels, entrance restrictions, etc.).
If there is a risk for spread of contamination or the annual effective dose could exceed six mSv, the workplace shall be classified as a controlled area. The ac- cess is then more restricted, protective clothing and personal protection equipment could be mandatory, specific information/education is required, and a personal do-
124
Section F – Other general safety provisions
simeter shall be worn. Within a controlled area, premises shall be specially marked and admittance restricted (locked with special keys) if the risk of receiving an annual effective dose of more than 50 mSv is
Visitors
Visitors are allowed if guided by designated persons and a strict,
Information and education
All personnel, permanent staff and contractors, shall be informed about radiation risks and have proper education prior to work within a controlled area. The train- ing shall be adjusted to the scope and type of the work to be performed and to the existing radiological working environment.
The licence holder shall ensure that site specific instructions for radiation protec- tion are established. The licensee shall also appoint a radiation protection expert.
This person shall be approved by SSM and have sufficient competence in matters related to radiation protection to be able to promote active radiation protection work and to check on the implementation of the radiation protection legislation.
Instruments and equipment
All instruments used for radiation protection and the control of radiation doses shall be calibrated and undergo regular functional checks.
Policy in the event of fuel failures
A documented policy with a strategy for avoiding fuel failures and how to manage fuel failures if they occur is mandatory. The aim is to minimize the negative radio- logical impact on radiation doses to workers and the public.
Reporting
Annual reports describing the radiation protection work, the progress and evalua- tion of the optimisation work, and experience from the outages are required. In the case of an accident or events that led or could have led to contamination spread or high doses, rapid communication to the regulatory body is required. Various other reports are required. The radiation protection expert keeps track of the timely and accurate reporting.
F.4.1.2 Regulatory requirements on environmental radiation protection
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority’s regulations (SSMFS 2008:23) con- cerning the protection of human health and the environment from discharges of radioactive substances from certain nuclear facilities apply to nuclear facilities under normal operations as described in section E.2.2.3. The most important pro- visions are described in the following.
Public dose limits, dose constraints and critical group
The effective dose limit for members of the public is 1 mSv per year. A dose con- straint for the discharges of radioactive substances to water and air (authorized
125
Section F – Other general safety provisions
releases) is set to 0.1 mSv per year and site. The dose constraint is subject to com- parison with the calculated dose to the most exposed individual (critical group). The dose models used are approved by the SSM.
The 0.1 mSv dose constraint is compared with the sum of a) the effective dose from the annual external exposure, and b) the committed effective dose resulting from a yearly discharge. A
Discharge limits
The discharge limit is achieved through the restriction of the radiation dose to the critical group. There are no legal
Optimisation and Best Available Technology
Limitation of releases shall be based on optimisation of radiation protection and with the use of the Best Available Technology (BAT).
Release monitoring
The release of radioactive substances shall be measured. All
Releases via the main stacks of nuclear power reactors shall be controlled by continuous
Discharges of radionuclides to water shall be controlled through measure- ments of representative samples from each release pathway. The analyses shall cover
Controls and testing
The function and efficiency of measurement equipment and release limiting sys- tems shall be checked periodically and whenever there are any indications of mal- functions.
Environmental monitoring
Environmental monitoring in the areas surrounding nuclear facilities shall be per- formed according to monitoring programmes determined by SSM. The program- mes specify the type and sampling frequency, sample treatment,
Reporting
The nuclear reactor licensees report annually to SSM adopted or planned measures to limit radioactive releases with the aim of achieving their specified target values.
126
Section F – Other general safety provisions
If established reference values are exceeded, the planned measures to achieve the reference values shall be reported.
Releases of radioactive substances to the air and water as well as results from environmental monitoring shall be reported twice a year to SSM. Events that lead to an increase in releases of radioactive substances from a nuclear facility shall be reported to SSM as soon as possible, together with a description of the actions taken to reduce the releases.
F.4.2 Radiation impact of spent nuclear fuel or radioactive waste management facilities
mmanSv
F.4.2.1 Occupational radiation doses
In general both individual and collective doses from radioactive waste handling at nuclear power plants are low compared to doses from normal operation, and maintenance and service work performed at outages. Nevertheless it is important that the working methods are carefully planned and in compliance with the exis- ting regulatory requirements (see Section F.4.1.1), to make sure that occupational radiation protection is optimized.
In this section, examples of occupational doses received at spent fuel and radioactive waste management facilities are presented. Personnel that work with radioactive waste at the nuclear power plants are exposed to annual doses in the order of a few mSv. The annual collective doses at the nuclear power plants to this category of workers are normally in the order of
At the central interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel (Clab), doses are obtained from the normal operation with receiving, unloading and cleaning the trans- port containers. In addition, maintenance and service of Clab’s internal lift and hand- ling equipment, and the water cleaning system give radiation doses. The work doses to the personnel at Clab reported between 1998 and 2010 are shown in figure F1.
No open radiation sources are handled at the disposal facility for low and intermediate level waste (SFR) and all radioactive waste is conditioned. Thus, the doses to the personnel originate only from external radiation. Contamination of transport casks and waste packages has never occurred to the extent that any airborne radioactivity has been measured or reported. There are some variations depending upon whether waste packages have been covered with cement during the year or not. The yearly doses to the personnel at SFR are very low, so low that they are barely measurable.
60
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
Figure F1: Work doses to the personnel at Clab
127
Section F – Other general safety provisions
Studsvik operates several facilities for treatment of radioactive waste. For 2010 Studsvik reported an annual collective dose of 0.51 manSv and an average indi- vidual effective dose of 3.1 mSv. For staff that works with waste management at Westinghouse Electric Sweden AB fuel factory annual individual doses are below 1 mSv.
F.4.2.2 Radiation doses from releases of radioactive substances
Figure F2 displays the estimated effective dose (in microsievert) to the represen- tative person (“critical group”) from the releases of radioactive substances at the major Swedish nuclear facilities for the years
|
0,60 |
|
|
|
|
dose/microsievert |
0,50 |
|
|
|
|
0,40 |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
0,30 |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
Effective |
|
|
|
|
|
0,20 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,10 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
0,00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ringhals |
Oskarshamn |
Forsmark |
Studsvik |
Barsebäck |
Nuclear Facility
Figure F2: Estimated radiation doses in microsievert (µSv) to the “representative person” from releases of radioactive substances at Swedish nuclear facilities in the period 2005- 2010
Through the installation of new abatement systems and successive
From the available release data it is not possible to single out releases from the radioactive waste management at the NPPs. The releases of radioactive substances from Clab, SFR and Ranstad Mineral are very small. From the closed and partially dismantled Ågesta reactor (PHWR) small amounts of tritium is released through the drainage of the rock chamber where the shutdown reactor is situated.
128
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.4.3 Regulatory control
See section E.2.2.3 for SSM control and inspections
F.4.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 24.
129
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.5 Article 25: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
1.Each Contracting Party shall ensure that before and during operation of a spent fuel or radioactive waste management facility there are appropriate
2.Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps for the preparation and testing of emergency plans for its territory insofar as it is likely to be affected in the event of a radiologi- cal emergency at a spent fuel or radioactive waste management facility in the vicinity of its territory.
Summary of developments since the last national report
•The realization of a single authority, SSM, led to the merger of the emergency preparedness responsibilities of the two former authorities. A new crisis orga- nisation was developed at SSM and regulatory supervision of the emergency planning at the facilities was strengthened. SSM’s regulations on emergency planning and preparedness entered into force on July 1, 2008.
•The Swedish Emergency Management Agency (KBM) and the Swedish Res- cue Services Agency (SRV) were merged into a new agency, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) in 2009. The task of the MSB is to en- hance and support the societal capacities for preparedness for and prevention of emergencies and crises.
•A national
•At all NPP’s the organisation has been strengthened to ensure that key persons are available at an early stage during an unusual event. A third alarm level has been introduced to be used when extra support is needed during events of a lower class than those classified as increased preparedness.
•As a
SSM, on May 25 2011, decided that the NPP licensees and SKB shall redo the safety assessments for the NPPs and for the interim storage for spent nuclear fuel at Clab at Oskarshamn.
F.5.1 Regulatory requirements
The emergency plans for the three operating nuclear power plants and the industry facilities at Studsvik include all the installations for spent fuel and radioactive waste management at these facilities. SKB has an emergency plan for the Clab interim storage for spent nuclear fuel. There is no formal requirement for an emer- gency plan at SFR; however a rescue organisation exists nevertheless. Westing- house Sweden Electric AB operates the fuel fabrication facility in Västerås which also has an emergency plan.
130
Section F – Other general safety provisions
Requirements on
• The Civil Protection Act (SFS 2003:778) regarding protection against acci- dents with serious potential consequences for human health and the environ- ment,
• The Civil Protection Ordinance (SFS 2003:789) regarding protection against accidents with serious potential consequences for human health and the envi- ronment,
• SSM regulations (SSMFS 2008:1) concerning safety in nuclear facilities, and
• SSM regulations (SSMFS 2008:15) concerning emergency preparedness at certain nuclear facilities.
The overarching objective of the Civil Protection Act (2003:778) is the civil pro- tection for the whole country – with consideration given to local conditions – for life, health, property and the environment against all types of incident, accident, emergency, crisis and disaster. The Act requires preventive measures and emer- gency preparedness to be arranged by the owner or operator of a facility with dangerous activities. TheAct further defines the responsibilities for the individual, the local communities, and the state in cases of serious accidents, including radio- logical accidents. The Act contains provisions as to how the community rescue services shall be organized and operated and also stipulates that a rescue com- mander with a specified competence, with
The Civil Protection Ordinance (2003:779) contains general provisions con- cerning emergency planning and is more specific about reporting obligations, in- formation to the public, and the responsibility of the county authority for planning and implementing public protective measures, contents of the
The
• classify the event according to the alarm criteria,
• alert the facility’s emergency preparedness organisation,
• assess the risk for and size of possible releases and time related aspects,
• return the facility to a safe and stable state, and
• inform the responsible authorities.
The actions shall be documented in an emergency preparedness plan which is sub- ject to safety review by the licensee and must be approved by SSM. The plan shall be kept up to date and validated through regular exercises. SSM shall be notified
131
Section F – Other general safety provisions
of changes in the plan. The licensee has to assign staff, provide suitable facilities, technical systems, tools and protective equipment needed to solve the emergency preparedness tasks. The emergency planning should include all design basis acci- dents, as well as beyond design basis events, including severe events, and combina- tions of events, such as fire or sabotage in connection with a radiological accident.
The SSM regulations SSMFS 2008:15 on emergency planning and preparedness have a radiation protection perspective. They are mainly based on the IAEA Sa- fety Standards
•Emergency planning including alarm criteria and alarming
•Emergency rooms/premises/facilities and assembly places
•Training and exercises
•Iodine prophylaxis
•Personal protective equipment
•Evacuation plan
•Contacts with SSM
•Radiation monitoring
•Emergency ventilation
•Collection of meteorological data
Depending on the radiological hazard potential at the facility, the requirements regarding radiation monitoring, emergency ventilation, and collection of meteo- rological data differ.
F.5.2 National monitoring and measuring
The Crisis Management
Nearly all accidents and crisis situations are handled by appointed central or regional authorities who, with their allocated resources, manage these situations. However, if a national crisis with the potential to affect many citizens with (coup- led) large,
Government actions. The Prime Minister’s Office, with the support of the Crisis
Management Secretariat, shall ensure that the necessary cooperation within the
Government Offices and with the relevant authorities is rapidly established.
On January 1, 2009 the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) was for- med, merging three earlier central authorities with emergency preparedness and civil defence responsibilities. MSB
132
Section F – Other general safety provisions
loping procedures for
SSM is taking part in the national planning and development process. Some actual results of these efforts are an enhanced national emergency response centre and a countrywide measurement, sampling and analysis expert organisation for radiological and nuclear accidents and events.
The two national alarm levels for nuclear emergencies: 1) Increased prepared- ness and 2) General emergency were complemented by a third, lower level alarm. This alarm level is to be used when the normal organisation needs extra support during unusual events that are of a lower class than those classified as Increased preparedness.
Two of the nuclear power sites have installed
During recent years, in connection with other development and refurbishment works, the owners of the facilities have improved their emergency facilities.
Relevant meteorological data from the power plants, the sites for the opera- tion of spent fuel or radioactive waste management facilities and for the fuel pro- cessing facility are now electronically transferred directly into SSM’s dispersion modelling database, enabling improved dispersion calculations to be performed.
To improve the flow of external information between all responsible parties involved in a nuclear accident, a new
In order to make the first information transfer faster and more accurate bet- ween the affected plant and the
F.5.3 National monitoring
Sweden has acquired a new, modern gamma monitoring network which presently has 28 permanent gamma stations spread around the country designed to provide warning and rapid information on radiation levels. Each station records the radia- tion level continually and if the integrated
10 %, the officer on duty at SSM will be alerted. A fixed alarm level is currently set at 500 nanosieverts per hour (500 nSv/h) but the alarm level can be changed according to prevailing conditions.
Sweden also has six sensitive permanent air filter stations which sample the air continuously and can reveal the type of plant from which radioactive releases originate. The system is sensitive enough to measure activity levels in the order of tens of microBq/m3 (about 100 atoms per cubic meter) and is therefore also used for environmental monitoring, e.g., for measuring the
133
Section F – Other general safety provisions
The gamma monitoring system is supplemented by radiation level data col- lected by the environmental and health care offices of the local authorities at per- manent measurement points every seventh month in the municipalities, providing a background measurement base (sensitivity of
The Geological Survey of Sweden and the county police force are contrac- ted for the use of aircraft and helicopters for airborne measurements of radiation. More detailed measurements are made to serve as a basis for decisions concerning, for example, declaring pasture land free of contamination for grazing.
SSM has agreements with laboratories around Sweden mostly at universities, under the terms of which they maintain a state of preparedness for making mea- surements and analyses and providing expert advice. SSM has also an agreement with the voluntary organizations of the Armed Forces, e.g. the Women’s Voluntary Defence Service, the Women’s Motor Transport Corps, and the Women’s Auxi- liary Veterinary Corps, for collecting needed field samples.
F.5.4 Medical emergency preparedness
The county administrative board is responsible for medical disaster preparedness. Injured persons are cared and treated
• through qualified medical care in the injury area, or
• in hospitals or at medical health centres.
At the major national hospitals, like Karolinska hospital in Stockholm, more ad- vanced treatment and care can be arranged. Cooperation and sharing of resources also exists between the European hospitals in case of major accidents.
If there is an accident involving nuclear technology, the emergency organisation within SSM is activated. In the next alarm chain, the Swedish National Board of Health (SoS) is activated along with the Nuclear and Radiological Medical Expert Group
To facilitate medical emergency preparedness in Sweden, SoS has established a Centre for Radiation Medicine, located at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Among the tasks of this centre it has to contribute with health care information,
134
Section F – Other general safety provisions
education, and advice and carry out research activities in areas related to medical effects of ionizing radiation. A close collaboration has been established with SSM and various other national and international bodies.
F.5.5 Exercises
A number of emergency preparedness exercises of various sizes are conducted annually in Sweden. These vary in complexity from simple tests of alarm systems to
Every second year a “total” exercise is performed at one of the three nuclear power sites to check the plans and the capability of the
The respective county authority where the plant is located has the responsibi- lity for planning these exercises, often with the assistance of the national agency MSB, which is also responsible for the evaluation and
In addition, a number of more limited
Other exercise scenarios have included physical protection events such as sabotage, armed intrusion, and the taking of hostages in order to exercise coordi- nation between the special police forces and other actors. In the spring of 2011 a large national exercise,
Sweden has a long tradition of participating in international emergency prepa- redness exercises. This allows for testing of aspects related to bilateral and inter- national agreements on early notification and information exchange. Sweden regu- larly participates in the IAEA Convention Exercises (CONVEX) and the OECD/ NEA International Nuclear Emergency Exercises (INEX) and yearly ECURIE exercises.
135
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.5.6 Measures taken to inform neighbouring States
Sweden has ratified the International Convention on Early Notification and the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident. An official natio- nal point of contact has been established, available 24 hours all days. Sweden has bilateral agreements with Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, Ukraine and
Russia regarding early notification and exchange of information in the event of an incident or accident at a Swedish nuclear power plant or abroad. An agreement at the authority level also exists with Lithuania. Sweden uses the ECURIE informa- tion system for information exchange within the European Union and the ENAC/ Emercon system for information exchange between the IAEA member states.
The Nordic authorities involved in radiological emergency planning have agreed to exchange data on a routine basis from the automatic gamma monitoring stations in the respective countries. The five Nordic countries Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway and Sweden have compiled a Nordic Manual describing com- munication and information routines between the countries for an extensive list of scenarios, which has been agreed upon by these five countries.
F.5.7 Nuclear accidents abroad
As demonstrated by the Chernobyl accident 1986, Sweden can be affected by a nuclear accident abroad. Although the foreseeable consequences are such that the use of iodine tablets, sheltering or relocation of people due to
The responsibility of SSM and other authorities to distribute information is strengthened in this situation. The local county administrative boards that are af- fected still have the responsibility to inform and take any protective action in their region according to the earlier mentioned legislation. During the national exercise South Wind in 2008 the responsibilities of national and regional authorities were tested. Ambiguities in allotment of rolls and responsibilities were analysed.
The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, SMHI, performs transport and deposition simulations regularly using the program MATCH (a
Furthermore, the
For a few selected places in Sweden, such backward direction trajectories can be followed for the last 72 hours. Although the nuclear accident at the TEPCO Fukushima
136
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.5.8 New developments in emergency preparedness
The County Administration Boards in the counties that have nuclear plants and the national authorities MSB and SSM have established an action plan including a variety of projects aimed at enhancing a coordinated emergency planning and response for nuclear power plant accidents and incidents. These projects are on- going and have different completion dates, the latest being in 2012. These projects aim at mitigating identified needs in the organisation of education and exercises, coordinating communication, coordinating national and regional measurement and analysis teams, further developments in and coordinating of sanitation proce- dures and creating a national information strategy.
SSM has supported further developments in Sweden’s dispersion modelling capabilities in cooperation with the SMHI and the Swedish Defence Research Agency. The resolution of the dispersion prognosis has been enhanced by using higher resolution weather forecasts. A code for urban dispersion modelling has been developed with special emphasis on wind field modelling in urban environ- ments. This can be applied locally to the topography at the Swedish plants. SSM is currently compiling high resolution topographical data sets for all the Swedish nuclear installations thereby enabling better estimates of the near field dispersion.
This is further enhanced by the new feature of local weather data at each plant being sent electronically directly to the database for the dispersion modelling in real time.
The merging of SSI and SKI into a single regulatory authority, SSM, has resul- ted in a more effective thorough supervision of the nuclear installations in Sweden.
On May 25 2011, as
SSM decided that the licensees of the nuclear power plants and SKB, as licensee of Clab, shall
F.5.9 Regulatory control
After the implementation of the SSI regulations concerning emergency prepared- ness at certain nuclear facilities in 2006, a series of inspections was carried out in 2007 and 2008 at all of the nuclear facilities that were covered by the regulations to insure implementation had been properly carried out. The conclusion was that the licensees complied with the requirements of the regulations. At all sites, howe- ver, aspects for further improvements were identified and SSM has continued to follow up these findings during 2008 - 2011.
The merging in July of 2008 of SSI and SKI into a single authority, SSM, has provided the conditions for a more clear and consistent picture of the requirements that came from the combined regulations of the two earlier authorities. Supervi- sion of emergency preparedness regulations is now concentrated to one national
137
Section F – Other general safety provisions
coordinating authority and the main responsibility for the supervision is organised within one section at that authority, which also provides a basis for a clearer super- visory role at the authority. The various relevant competences within the authority that are needed for the supervisory work are available and can be more effectively integrated in the supervision work than was possible earlier. This has led to more effective developments in the supervisory work as well as an increased number of inspections in a year.
One development which began during 2009 and is currently progressing con- cerns a review of the regulations (SSMFS 2008:15) and (SSMFS 2008:1) which came from the earlier SSI and SKI, respectively, with the intention to combine and harmonize all aspects of regulating emergency preparedness at the licensees, and to use the earlier experiences from the implementation of the regulations to revise the regulations with the expected result of clearer and stronger requirements on the nuclear installations.
F.5.10 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 25.
138
Section F – Other general safety provisions
F.6 Article 26: DECOMMISSIONING
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure the safety of decommissioning of a nuclear facility. Such steps shall ensure that:
(i)qualified staff and adequate financial resources are available;
(ii) the provisions of Article 24 with respect to operational radiation protection, discharges and unplanned and uncontrolled releases are applied;
(iii) the provisions of Article 25 with respect to emergency pre- paredness are applied; and
(iv) records of information important to decommissioning are kept.
F.6.1 Regulatory requirements
According to the Environmental Code prior permission is needed for decommis- sioning and dismantling. As described in Section E.2.2.4 the applicant has to show compliance with a number of principles, e.g. the knowledge principle, the precau- tionary and BAT principles, and the
F.6.1.1 Nuclear safety
According to the Act on Nuclear Activities (SFS 1984:3), the
• maintaining safety, taking into account the nature of the operation and the circumstances in which it is conducted,
• safe management and disposal of nuclear waste generated by the operation or nuclear material derived from the operation that is not reused, and
• safe decommissioning and dismantling of facilities in which the operation shall be discontinued until such date that all operations at the facilities have ceased and all nuclear material and nuclear waste have been placed in a dispo- sal facility that has been sealed permanently.
It follows from the third paragraph that a
• A preliminary plan for the future decommissioning of the facility to be com- piled as before construction of a facility.
• An integrated analysis and assessment of how safety is going to be maintained during the time remaining until closure, to be done as soon as a decision has been taken on final shutdown of a facility.
• The decommissioning plan to be supplemented and incorporated into the facility’s safety report before the dismantling of the facility may be initiated.
139
Section F – Other general safety provisions
The plan shall include measures, which must be implemented to ensure the safe containment of the generated nuclear waste. Thus, the general obligations in the regulations SSMFS 2008:1 and several other regulations (see section F.6.1.2) are applicable for the decommissioning and dismantling activities, regarding:
• the availability of qualified staff and financial resources (as accounted for in section F.2);
• the application of provisions with respect to operational radiation protection, discharges and unplanned and uncontrolled releases (as accounted for in sec- tion F.4);
• the application of provisions with respect to emergency preparedness (as ac- counted for in section F.5); and
• the keeping of records of information important to decommissioning.
F.6.1.2 Radiation protection
Most of the regulations on radiation protection that are applicable at nuclear faci- lities are also valid during decommissioning (see section F.4).
The regulations SSMFS 2008:38 requires filing of documentation at nuclear facilities. The
Planning of radiation protection issues before and during the decommissioning of nuclear plants is regulated in SSMFS 2008:19. The regulations put requirements on planning, both during operation and after final shutdown. The main purpose of the regulations is to ensure that worker doses and releases of radioactivity to the environment during decommissioning are in accordance with ALARA principles and within specified limits, by requiring adequate planning of the decommissioning activities in advance. The contents of the regulations are described below.
Area of application
The regulations SSMFS 2008:19 are intended to be applicable to all nuclear faci- lities, except permanent installations in repositories for radioactive wastes (such parts that will remain after closure).
Definitions
The term ”decommissioning” is used to describe all actions taken by the licence- holder after final shutdown in order to reduce the amount of radioactive substances in the land and building structures to levels that permit release of the site and any buildings left behind.
The term ”release of site” is used to describe a decision by the SSM that, from a radiation protection point of view, there are no further restrictions on the use of land and any remaining buildings.
The term ”finally shutdown facility” is used to describe a facility in which the main operations have ceased with no intention to resuming them.
140
Section F – Other general safety provisions
New or reconstructed facilities
It is required that radiation protection issues of the future decommissioning shall be considered during construction of a new nuclear facility or when an existing facility is reconstructed.
Decommissioning plans
For nuclear facilities in operation, the main requirement of the regulations is that the
Finally shut down facility
When a facility has been finally shut down, the regulations require that the licence- holder present an overall description of the foreseen decommissioning, covering methods,
Dismantling and demolition after final shutdown
The regulations require that the
Basis for site release
After decommissioning, the
Further guidance need to be developed concerning radiological criteria and for free release of a site.
F.6.2 Measures taken by the license holders
The nuclear power companies are responsible for decommissioning of the nuclear power plants. SKB has been assigned the task of conducting general decommissio- ning studies in order to ensure that that overall necessary competence exists and that cost calculations are carried out according to requirements. SKB and the nuclear power companies participates in various international decommissioning studies undertaken by international organizations, and also by direct contact with various decommissioning projects that may be of value for planning activities in Sweden.
Management of decommissioning waste is coordinated through SKB and
141
Section F – Other general safety provisions
SKB has also been tasked with the future disposal of decommissioning waste. For division of responsibility see figure F3.
A method for dry interim storage of core components has since earlier been deve- loped, along with a database system for record keeping. The existing BFA storage facility on the Simpevarp Peninsula, as well as storage facilities at Ringhals and Forsmark power plants and at the Studsvik site are used for interim storage of core components and other long lived waste.
Commercial power plants
As basis for the cost estimates (see section E.2.2.5) cost calculations have been made for two reference NPPs, Oskarshamn 3 (BWR) and Ringhals 2 (PWR) and then transferred to the other NPPs. The cost estimates have during 2010 been up- dated with the results from more recent decommissioning studies of Barsebäck 1 and Barsebäck 2, which were finalised during 2008.
Preliminary decommissioning plans have been developed for all the Swedish nuclear power plants during 2005 and 2006.
The nuclear power reactors Barsebäck 1 and Barsebäck 2 has been adapted to shut down operation. A decommissioning plan for both units has been submit- ted to, and approved of, by the regulatory authorities. All nuclear fuel has been removed and transported to Clab for interim storage. System decontamination has been carried out for both reactors and dismantling is planned to start in 2020. Dis- mantling waste management and transportation will be carried out as an industrial process where low radiation doses are prioritized. Clearance measures will only be carried out when a significant advantage can be seen in anALARAperspective.
142
Section F – Other general safety provisions
Nuclear power |
Conditioning, |
Public |
reactor |
Decontamination |
recycling/landfilling |
Cleared material/waste
Clab |
repository at NPP
Interim storage facility at NPP
SFR
Interim storage facility, SKB
SFL
Responsibility for transportation and management
Limit of responsibility, facilities
Figure F3: Division of responsibility during decommissioning
143
Section F – Other general safety provisions
Research facilities
There are a number of facilities at the Studsvik site that are in the process of be- ing decommissioned and/or dismantled. Plans for the decommissioning and dis- mantling of those facilities have, before actual decommissioning activities started, been prepared by the
SKB facilities
For Clink a preliminary decommissioning plans have been written which con- forms to the requirement of the regulatory authorities. SKB plans to prepare a decommissioning study of Clink focusing on waste volumes and radioactivity content, during 2011 as a basis for extension of SFR.
Planning for an extension of SFR began during 2007. The extension will give opportunity for disposal of decommissioning waste from primarily Barsebäck, and be ready for operation by 2020. Investigations of the bedrock have been per- formed. Work with a preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) and an environ- mental impact statement (EIS) is ongoing. According to the plans, the construction application will be submitted to the regulatory authorities in 2013. SKB has writ- ten a simplified account of how decommissioning for SFR is planned to be carried out. This is due to that the above ground facilities can be regarded as conventional buildings.
A preliminary decommissioning plan have been written for the spent fuel disposal facility and was included in the application under the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities for disposal of spent fuel and under the Environmental Code for the
Investigation of different concepts for the disposal facility for
F.6.3 Regulatory control
Regulatory control is conducted by means of the regulatory review and approval of plans for decommissioning and dismantling, both according to regulations (re- quirements on information and on safety assessments), the Environmental Code (applications for licenses and environmental impact assessments) and the Act on Nuclear Activities
F.6.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 26.
144
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.1 Article 4: GENERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that at all stages of spent fuel management, individuals, society and the environment are adequately protected against radiological haz- ards. In so doing, each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to:
(i) ensure that criticality and removal of residual heat generated during spent fuel management are adequately addressed;
(ii) ensure that the generation of radioactive waste associated with spent fuel management is kept to the minimum practicable, consistent with the type of fuel cycle policy adopted;
(iii) take into account interdependencies among the different steps in spent fuel management;
(iv) provide for effective protection of individuals, society and the environment, by applying at the national level suitable pro- tective methods as approved by the regulatory body, in the framework of its national legislation which has due regard to internationally endorsed criteria and standards;
(v) take into account the biological, chemical and other hazards that may be associated with spent fuel management;
(vi) strive to avoid actions that impose reasonably predictable im- pacts on future generations greater than those permitted for the current generation;
(vi) aim to avoid imposing undue burdens on future generations.
G.1.1 Regulatory requirements
G.1.1.1 The general obligations of
As accounted for in section E.2.2.1, the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities (1984:3) requires that the holder of a licence for the operation of a nuclear power reactor shall – in
Also, as accounted for in section E.2.2.5, the Financing Act (2006:647) re- quires the licensees to submit, every three years, estimates of all future costs for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, and decom- missioning. The licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall base costs estimates on 40 years of operation with a minimum remaining operating time of 6 years. The licensee of nuclear facilities other than nuclear power reactors shall base cost es- timates and the buildup of adequate financial resources on the expected remaining period of operation.
145
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.1.1.2 Basic provisions and license obligations
Basic safety provisions are stipulated in the Act on Nuclear Activities (1984:3).
TherequirementsarefurtherclarifiedinthegeneralsafetyregulationsSSM2008:1.
In the regulations it is stated that, in order to ensure adequate protection at all sta- ges of spent fuel management, the licensee shall:
1. establish documented guidelines for how safety shall be maintained at the facility as well as ensure that the personnel performing duties which are im- portant to safety are well acquainted with the guidelines;
2. ensure that the activities carried out at the facility are controlled and develo- ped with the support of a quality system which covers those activities which are of importance for safety;
3. ensure that decisions on
4. ensure that adequate personnel is available with the necessary competence and suitability on all respects needed for those tasks which are of importance for safety as well as ensure that this is documented;
5. ensure that responsibilities and authority are defined and documented with respect to personnel carrying out work which is important to safety;
6. ensure that the personnel is provided with the necessary conditions to work in a safe manner;
7. ensure that experience from the facility’s own and from similar activities is continuously utilised and communicated to the personnel concerned; and
8. ensure that safety, through these and other measures, is maintained and conti- nuously developed.
In the Radiation Protection Act (1988:220) it is stipulated that radioactive waste shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory from a radiation protection point of view.
There are also regulations on the protection of human health and the environ- ment in connection with the final management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste (SSMFS 2008:37). The purpose of these regulations is to limit the harmful effects on human health and the environment in connection with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.
In addition there are requirements concerning the
G.1.1.3 Criticality and removal of residual heat
The general safety regulations (SSSM 2008:1) state that radiological accidents shall be prevented by the design, construction, operation, monitoring and main- tenance of a facility. It follows that a criticality analysis as well as an analysis of heat generation and removal of residual heat must be included in the safety report
supporting the licence application for any nuclear facility.
146
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.1.1.4 Interdependencies among the different steps in spent fuel management;
The fact that the
The safety report shall also include measures, which need to be taken
G.1.1.5 Protection of individuals, society and the environment
General radiation protection provisions are described in section F.4.1. Radiation protection of the public and the environment in connection with spent fuel ma- nagement is specifically addressed in SSM regulations 2008:37 and 2008:21, see also E.2.2.3). In summary it is required that:
• a disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel shall be designed so that the annual risk of harmful effects after closure does not exceed
• disposal of spent nuclear fuel shall be implemented so that biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological resources are protected, and
• human health and the environment shall be protected during the operation of a nuclear facility as well as in the future.
G.1.1.6 Biological, chemical and other hazards
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be submitted together with an appli- cation for a licence according to the Act on Nuclear Activities and the Radiation Pro- tection Act, as accounted for in section E.2. It is stated in the general considerations in the Environmental Code that due consideration shall be taken to possible effects from chemical, biological and other hazards. It follows that chemical, biological and other hazards during the operation of a nuclear facility must be addressed in the EIS.
G.1.1.7 Strive to avoid actions that impose impacts on future generations
One purpose of SSMFS 2008:22 is to limit the harmful effects of radiation from the waste today and in the future. In SSMFS 2008:23 it is also stated that human health and the environment shall be protected from the harmful effects of ioni- sing radiation during the operation of a nuclear facility as well as in the future.
SSMFS 2008:37 has general requirements stipulating that human health and the environment shall be protected from detrimental effects of ionising radiation, during the time when various stages of the final management of spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste are being implemented as well as in the future. All these regula- tions strive to avoid actions that impose reasonably predictable impacts on future generations greater than those permitted for the current generation.
147
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.1.1.8 Aim to avoid imposing burdens in future generations
As described in section E.2 the practices for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste are governed by principles adopted by the Swedish Parliament. The first governing principle reads ”The expenses for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste are to be covered by revenues from the production of en- ergy that has resulted in these expenses.” The second principle reads”The reactor owners are to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.”
The key words (underlined) imply that burden on future generations should be avoided, especially with regard to the fundamental aspects of safety and costs. The key words also imply that action should be taken without postponement, i.e. the generation that has benefited from the nuclear power generation should also deal with the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
Also, the holder of a licence to operate a nuclear facility is primarily responsible for the safe handling and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, as well as decommissioning and dismantling the facility.
G.1.2 Measures taken by the license holders
G.1.2.1 The general obligations of
Cost calculations
Cost calculations have since the beginning of the 1980’s been submitted by the
Activities.
RD&D Programme 2010
The nuclear industry, through its
148
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.1.2.2 Basic provisions and license obligations
Measures taken by the licensees regarding general safety requirements are to be found in sections G.3.2, G.4.2, G.5.2 and G.6.2.
Central storage for spent nuclear fuel (Clab)
The most important spent fuel facility in Sweden is the interim storage for spent nuclear fuel (Clab) located at the OKG site. SKB is the licensee for Clab. SKB took over the operation of Clab, previously contracted out to OKG, in January 2007. SKB has implemented the requirements in the general regulations SSMFS 2008:1 in its operating organization. The organizational structure of SKB as well as the management system has been amended to reflect this change.
Clab has been in operation since 1985. Prior to the introduction of the general regulations the requirement for a periodic safety review (PSR) was a condition in the NPP licenses. In the general regulations SSMFS 2008:1, the requirement for periodic safety reviews is now mandatory for all nuclear facilities.
The fuel storage pools in Clab were expected to be completely filled early 2004. Therefore in 1996 SKB initiated a project to increase the storage capacity from 5 000 to 8 000 tons of fuel by excavating a new rock cavern to provide ad- ditional storage pools.
The construction of the new storage pools (Clab 2) was completed during
2004. SKB submitted an application for a license to take the pools in operation in
December 2004, supported by an updated safety report. The regulatory authority requested amendments to the updated safety report and SKB submitted a new revision of the report in 2005.
In the beginning of 2006 problems with movement joints in a transport chan- nel between the existing and the newly built storage pools were encountered. No storage was permitted in Clab 2 until the problem was solved. SKB developed a new technical solution for the movement joints which was agreed by the regula- tory body in April 2007. Rebuilding work of the transport channel was carried out and Clab 2 was taken in operation
Spent fuel from the research reactor R1 in Studsvik
During 2007 the intact parts of the
Kingdom. The intact parts were reprocessed in 2008. The fissile material from the reprocessing of the
The corroded parts of the
149
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.1.3 Regulatory control
G.1.3.1 The general obligations of
Nuclear waste fees and guarantees for 2010 and 2011
SSM reviewed the cost calculations and submitted a statement with suggestion for the size of fees and guarantees to the Government in October, 2009. The Govern- ment decided in December 2009 on the size of fees and guarantees for 2010 and
2011. SSM is currently reviewing the most recently submitted cost calculations to determine and suggest to the Government the size of fees and guarantees for 2012 through 2014.
Evaluation of the RD&D Programme 2010
SKB submitted in September 2010 the
• The account for the ongoing site investigations and other preparatory work to support a license application for the extension of the disposal facility for short- lived low- and inter mediate level waste could have been more detailed. SSM therefore recommended the Government to require SKB to conduct consulta- tions with SSM, in order to be appropriately informed about the regulatory re- quirements on contents and quality of the collection of arguments and evidence
(“Safety Case”) in support of the application, planned to be submitted in 2013.
• SKB should, in close cooperation with the nuclear power reactor operators, further detail and develop the planning for decommissioning of the reactors as well as the assessments of different categories of waste expected to be gene- rated during decommissioning.
• SKB should in the next
G.1.3.2 Basic provisions and license obligations
Regulatory control of measures taken by the licensees regarding general safety requirements are to be found in G.3.3, G.4.3, G.5.3 and G.6.3.
The licence application for Clab included a criticality analysis as well as an ana- lysis of heat generation. A
The regulatory authority monitored the extension works at Clab closely and approved the start of operation of the Clab2 in December 2007 and the extended part of the facility was taken in operation in the beginning of January 2008. The authorization includes the condition that SKB shall carry out the prepared inspec- tion programme and that the results shall be documented and reported. The inspec- tion programme includes monitoring of pool temperatures, pool movements and dose loads.
G.1.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations ofArticle 4.
150
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.2 Article 5: EXISTING FACILITIES
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to review the safety of any spent fuel management facility existing at the time the Convention enters into force for that Contracting Party and to ensure that, if necessary, all reasonably practicable improvements are made to upgrade the safety of such a facility.
By the time the Joint Convention entered into force for Sweden the situation as regards safety of spent fuel management facilities was satisfactory.
The elements of the Joint Convention are since long implemented as require- ments in the legal and regulatory framework and implemented in the management of spent fuel. Dedicated inspection and review activities carried out in the early
2000’s confirmed that the licensee’s activities were in conformance with the legal and regulatory requirements. This conclusion has been reaffirmed during subse- quent inspection and review activities.
Sweden complies with the obligations ofArticle 5
151
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.3 Article 6: SITING OF PROPOSED FACILITIES
1.Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that procedures are established and implemented for a proposed spent fuel management facility:
(i)to evaluate all relevant
(ii)to evaluate the likely safety impact of such a facility on individuals, society and the environment;
(iii)to make information on the safety of such a facility available to members of the public;
(iv)to consult Contracting Parties in the vicinity of such a facil- ity, insofar as they are likely to be affected by that facility, and provide them, upon their request, with general data relating to the facility to enable them to evaluate the likely safety impact of the facility upon their territory.
2.In so doing, each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that such facilities shall not have unacceptable effects on other Contracting Parties by being sited in accordance with the general safety requirements of Article 4.
G.3.1 Regulatory requirements
G.3.1.1 Assessment of safety and environmental impact
According to the Act on Nuclear Activities a licence is required to construct, pos- sess and operate any nuclear facility. A licence application must contain an EIA.
The procedures for carrying out the EIA, as well as its contents, are specified in the
Environmental Code (see section E.2.2.4). The licensing procedure is described in section E.2.3.1. The EIA must contain the following elements:
• Adescription of the activity or measure with details of its location, design and scope.
• A description of the measures being planned with a view to avoiding, mitiga- ting or remedying adverse effects.
• The information needed to establish and assess the main impacts on human health, the environment and management of land, water and other resources that the activity or measure is likely to have.
• A description of possible alternative sites and alternative designs, together with a statement of the reasons why a specific alternative was chosen and a description of the consequences if the activity or measure is not implemented.
• A
152
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
In addition to the EIA the preliminary safety report for a proposed spent fuel ma- nagement facility is of key importance for licence application. Requirements on the content of the safety report are given in the general regulations concerning safety in certain nuclear facilities (SSMFS 2008:1), and include for example:
• A description of how the site and its surroundings, from the standpoint of safety, can affect the facility.
• A description of the design basis, including the requirements that have deter- mined the design and construction of the facility. Descriptions of facilities for the handling of spent fuel or nuclear waste shall contain requirements that are determined by the description of safety in the particular disposal facility after closure.
• A description of measures taken to ensure adequate protection of workers, the public and the environment from radiation, as required by the Radiation Protection Act and regulations promulgated according to that act.
As described in section E.2.2.1 the operators of nuclear power plants must jointly perform a comprehensive
G.3.1.2 Public information and involvement
There are several procedures that serve the purpose to involve the public in the siting of new spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste facilities. As mentioned above, an EIA must be performed for any new nuclear facility. Swedish legislation em- phasizes the role of the public and other stakeholders in the EIA. The developer must initiate early (long before a licence application is submitted) consultations with those parties that might be affected by a new facility.
Parties that must be consulted include:
• municipalities that may host the facility;
• regulatory authorities, primarily SSM and CountyAdministrative Boards;
• national environmental organisations;
• local interest groups; and
• affected individuals, e.g. those living close to a proposed location.
The County Administration Boards have an important function besides participa- ting in the consultations. They are requested to assist the developer in identifying stakeholders and to facilitate consultations and an exchange of information.
Furthermore, the circulation of the nuclear power plants’joint R&D program- me for comments provides a broad range of concerned parties with information regarding new facilities as well as a possibility to state opinions.
According to the Act (1992:1537) and Ordinance (1981:671) on the Finan- cing of Future Expenses for Spent Nuclear Fuel etc., the municipalities that might host a spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste facility, including a disposal facility, are reimbursed for their own information to the public. Municipalities have been reimbursed for their information activities since the
153
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
nicipalities of Östhammar and Oskarshamn are receiving reimbursement. In 2004 the Parliament approved a new regulation in the Financing Act, which made it pos- sible for
G.3.1.3 Consulting contracting parties
The Environmental Code specifies that if another country is likely to be affected, the responsible authority as designated by the Government shall inform the com- petent authority in that country about the planned activity. The country concerned, and the citizens, who may be affected, should be given the opportunity to take part in the consultation procedure. The Government has designated the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to be responsible for this task. Such informa- tion shall also be supplied when another country, which is likely to be exposed to a significant environmental impact, so requests.
G.3.2 Measures taken by the license holders
G.3.2.1 General
All planned spent fuel and nuclear waste facilities, including repositories, will be sited, constructed and operated by SKB. The supporting
• The
• Consultations and an EIA for the planned encapsulation facility (Clink) and the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel began formally in 2002, but in prac- tice started in the
G.3.2.2 Site selection for the spent fuel disposal facility
A big challenge for SKB has been selecting a site for disposal. The Environmental
Code states that “in the case of an activity or measure for whose purposes a land or water area is used, a site shall be chosen that is suitable in order to achieve the purpo- se with a minimum of damage and detriment to human health and the environment”
The prospects for achieving the purpose of disposal are dependent on the proper- ties of the bedrock. The fundamental requirement on the site that is chosen is there- fore that there is rock at the site that can satisfy the safety requirements. In order for the site to be available and the project to be feasible, there must also be acceptance in the concerned municipality and among nearby residents. These basic requirements have guided SKB’s siting work. In order to find the most suitable site, SKB has con- ducted general siting studies (general and regional compilations and analyses), fea- sibility studies (comprehensive compilations and analyses of siting prospects at the municipal level) and site investigations (comprehensive investigations of bedrock and biosphere on selected sites).
154
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
In various RD&D decisions, the Government has made declarations on the need for background material for site selection. In a decision in May of 1995, the
Government stated that future applications for a licence to build a disposal facility should contain material that shows that
SKB made a selection and wanted to conduct site investigations in three areas situated in the municipalities of Östhammar, Oskarshamn and Tierp. SKB also wanted to conduct additional evaluations of an area in Nyköping Municipality, but the municipal council in Nyköping decided in May 2001 not to participate any longer in SKB’s siting process. Tierp Municipality withdrew in 2002 and was thereby no longer a candidate site. In Östhammar and Oskarshamn, clear majori- ties of each municipal council spoke in favour of the proposed site investigations.
In 2002, after the decisions and agreements with these two municipalities, SKB commenced site investigations in the Forsmark area in Östhammar Municipality and in an area in Oskarshamn Municipality that included the Simpevarp Penin- sula and the Laxemar area. The investigations could gradually be concentrated on a smaller area in Forsmark and on the Laxemar area west of Simpevarp. In the field investigations SKB has conducted in these areas, great resources have been devoted to collecting the data on the properties of the bedrock, the soil layers and the ecosystems that are needed to analyse the prospects for a safe disposal facility. Obtaining the necessary knowledge of the properties of the rock has required dril- ling boreholes to and below disposal facility depth on a large scale. In June 2009, with the support of these investigations, SKB made its selection of a site for a future disposal facility: Forsmark in Östhammar Municipality.
The site was selected after a systematic evaluation and comparison of the two final alternatives, Forsmark and Laxemar. The prospects for
Laxemar when it comes to the prospects of achieving a disposal facility that satis- fies the safety requirements are clear. The main reason is that there are few water conducting fractures in the rock at disposal facility depth, which means that the
* The Governments decision on
155
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
groundwater flow through the disposal facility is greatly limited. This provides great advantages for the
The EIS shows that the activity in the disposal facility will not give rise to unacceptable damage and detriment for human health and the environment. This means that the siting at Forsmark satisfies the requirements of the Environmental
Code.
G.3.3 Regulatory control
SSM reviews SKB’s R&D programme and circulates it for comments to a num- ber of concerned organisations (e.g. universities, government agencies, NGOs and municipalities that might host a spent nuclear fuel facility). When the review is completed the R&D programme together with SSM’s recommendations are sent to the Government for its decision.
SSM have regular consultations with SKB regarding progress in the siting of the planned facilities.
SSM is consulted regarding the EIA. The concerned County Administrative Boards are also consulted regarding the EIA and thus exercise some regulatory control, however not in the fields of nuclear safety and radiation protection.
It should be emphasised that SKB:s decision to choose Forsmark as the loca- tion for a future spent fuel disposal facility is an internal SKB decision.
The selection of Forsmark will not be final until the Government approves SKB:s application in its entirety, i.e. both the choice of site and the chosen method to be implemented at the chosen site.
G.3.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations ofArticle 6.
156
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.4 Article 7: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that:
(i) the design and construction of a spent fuel management facil- ity provide for suitable measures to limit possible radiological impacts on individuals, society and the environment, including those from discharges or uncontrolled releases;
(ii) at the design stage, conceptual plans and, as necessary, techni- cal provisions for the decommissioning of a spent fuel manage- ment facility are taken into account;
(iii) the technologies incorporated in the design and construction of a spent fuel management facility are supported by experience, testing or analysis.
G.4.1 Regulatory requirements
The general safety regulations SSMFS 2008:1, apply to the operation of all types of nuclear installations, including facilities for the treatment, storage and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste. The basic provisions regarding safety assess- ment and review and can be summarised in the following points.
G.4.1.1 measures to limit radiological impact
The requirements for limiting the possible radiological impact on individuals, so- ciety and the environment, including those from discharges or uncontrolled relea- ses, are founded upon the basic provisions stipulated in 4§ first paragraph in the Act on Nuclear Activities (1984:3). This is clarified further in the revised general safety regulations (SSMFS 2008:1) in which it is stated that nuclear accidents shall be prevented through a basic
• the design, construction, operation, monitoring and maintenance of a facility is such that abnormal events, incidents and accidents are prevented;
• multiple devices and measures exist to protect the integrity of the barriers and, if the integrity should be breached, to mitigate the ensuing consequences; and
• any release of radioactive substances, which may still occur as a result of ab- normal events, incidents and accidents, is prevented or, if this is not possible, controlled and mitigated through devices and prepared measures.
G.4.1.2 Conceptual plans and provisions for decommissioning
The Act on Nuclear Activities states that the holder of a licence for nuclear activi- ties is responsible for ensuring that all necessary measures are taken to ensure the
157
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
safe handling and disposal of nuclear waste, or nuclear material that is not reused, as well as the safe decommissioning and the dismantling of facilities.
Chapter 9 of the general regulations concerning safety in nuclear installations
(SSMFS 2008:1) contains requirements on decommissioning plan and a specific operational safety assessment to be carried out as soon as a decision has been ta- ken on final closure of a disposal facility.
The regulations on Planning before and during decommissioning of nuclear facilities (SSMFS 2008:19) comprises requirements for decommissioning with re- spect to documentation, alternative actions and waste management with regards to radiation protection (see section E.2.2.2).
G.4.1.3 Technology provisions for closure of repositories
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) stipulate that analyses of conditions that are of importance for the safety of a fa- cility shall be carried out before a facility is constructed and taken into operation.
This is further specified in the regulations concerning safety in connection with the disposal of nuclear material and nuclear waste (SSMFS 2008:21) where it is stipulated that for repositories, the safety assessments shall also comprise features, events and processes that can lead to the dispersion of radioactive substances after closure. Such safety analyses shall be made before the commencement of disposal facility construction, disposal facility operation and disposal facility closure.
G.4.1.4 Technology supported by experience
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) specify requirements regarding design and construction. It is stated that the design of the facility, with adaptation to the specific conditions of each facility, shall:
• be able to withstand component and system failures;
• have reliability and operational stability;
• be able to withstand such events or conditions which can affect the safety function of the barriers or
• have maintainability, controllability and testability of inherent parts as long as these parts are used for their intended purposes.
Additional requirements related to design and construction are:
• The design principles and design solutions shall be tested under conditions corresponding to those that can occur during the intended application in a facility. If this is not possible or reasonable, they must have been subjected to the necessary testing or evaluation related to safety.
• The design solutions shall be adapted to the personnel’s ability to manage the facility, in a safe manner, under normal conditions as well as during abnormal events, incidents and accidents that might occur.
• Building components, devices, components and systems shall be designed, manufactured, installed, controlled and tested in accordance with require- ments that are adapted for their importance for safety.
158
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.4.2 Measures taken by the license holders
G.4.2.1 Suitable measures to limit radiological impact
The safety philosophy applied in the design of all Swedish nuclear facilities is ba- sed on the principles of
G.4.2.2 Conceptual plans and provisions for decommissioning
Decommissioning studies have been developed by SKB, as part of the basis for the cost calculations (see section E.2.2.5). The final closure of Barsebäck 2 has caused the management of Barsebäck to initiate a more detailed study on the decommis- sioning of the site. A decommissioning plan for Barsebäck 1 and Barsebäck 2 has been submitted to, and approved of, by the regulatory authorities.
G.4.2.3 Technology supported by experience
General
The principle of proven technology is broadly accepted and implemented in the design and construction procedures for the Swedish nuclear facilities. The use of properly environmentally qualified equipment ensures functioning of safety- related systems and components under emergency conditions. A comprehensive programme for environmental qualification has been carried out.
Both the Canister laboratory and the Äspö laboratory have been used for seve- ral years in developing technologies for encapsulation and disposal of spent fuel.
The experience from experiments and tests in these laboratories is and will be used when the encapsulation plant and the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel are designed and constructed.
No major new steps are envisaged in addition to the previous programme, alt- hough research and development continues. In the modernisation work, the speci- fication of all new installations is carefully checked with respect to environmental requirements.
Deliver Control Model for Technical development
Technology development for the encapsulation plant and the spent fuel disposal facility are carried out using the SKB delivery control model. This model has four different phases in where experience and testing gradually increases.
Concept phase: The purpose of the concept phase is to specify the require- ments on the subsystem or the component, make a broad evaluation of conceiva- ble solutions and propose one or more technical solutions to proceed with in the next phase. This entails that a reference design (or several alternative reference designs) is established for the subsystem, that it has been shown how this (these) reference design(s) can be verified against the design premises defined for the concept phase, and that a feasible way to production and an inspection programme has been found.
159
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
Design phase: The purpose of the design phase is to produce a design of the subsystem or component, to verify that it satisfies the requirements, and to for- mulate proposals for production, inspection and maintenance of the subsystem or component. The design phase may be iterative since it may turn out that the pro- posed solution does not satisfy the requirements, cannot be produced, or cannot be inspected in an efficient manner.As a rule, the design phase consists of two stages: initial system design and final detailed design.
Implementation phase: The purpose of the implementation phase is to build up production and inspection systems. This phase also includes the documenta- tion, including any licensing, that is needed for operation of the subsystem or component. The goal of the implementation phase is that the system or component is
Administration phase: The administration phase begins when the system or component has been put into operation. The goal of this phase is to make use of operating experience in a structured way as a basis for possible modifications of both the production apparatus and the product. If and when it is warranted, a change case or project is initiated.
Work methodology during construction
The construction of the encapsulation plant and the spent fuel disposal facility is divided into two processes
• Safety Assessment
• Construction
The processes with constituent components and interrelationships are illustrated in Figure G1. The activities aimed at producing an updated safety analysis report for an application for trial operation are gathered within the main process Safety
Assessment. The starting point is the site description that was prepared after com- pleted site investigation and the safety assessment
Conversely, Safety Assessment can provide guidance in the form of require- ments and restrictions that must be complied with in order for construction to result in a safe disposal facility. All activities needed for the facility to be constructed are gathered within the main process “Construction”. Solid boxes in Figure G1 show the components included during the construction phase. The intention is to apply the same processes during the operating phase, with the addition of components indicated by dashed boxes in the figure.Activity during the construction phase con- sists of investigations including monitoring, modelling, design with predictions for construction, and production in the form of rock excavation, installation etc. Ad- ditional activities during the commissioning phase are facility documentation and organizational preparations for operation. The methodology for the main process Construction according to Figure G1 mainly applies to the hard rock facilities and consists of rock construction in accordance with the Observational Method.
160
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
Safety analysis report
Safety |
Safety |
assessment |
evaluations |
Safety assessment
Information (incl. site description)
Control (requirements
and restrictions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site description |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility |
|
Deposition, backfilling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Investigations |
|
|
documentation |
||||||||
|
and closure |
|
|
|
|
and monitoring |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facility |
|
|
|
|
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Production |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
(rock works and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modelling |
|
|
|
Deposited |
||
|
installations) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
canisters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predictions |
|
|
|
|
Design |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure G1: The main processes Safety Assessment and Construction, with constituent components, work flows and important relationships. Dashed components are added when the disposal facility is put into operation
This method is suitable because the exact rock conditions where the facility parts are to be built cannot be fully determined in advance. A tool is therefore needed to gather information from investigations and actual inspections as well as expe- rience from the construction works. This information must then be interpreted so that it can be translated, via design and construction predictions, into adaptation of the construction technology or the design of the facilities. The purpose of the
Observational Method is to systematize this iterative mode of working. This ma- kes heavy demands on smoothly functioning information and work flows, but also on an ability to interpret and understand the information so that the right measures can be adopted. In daily application, this may mean for example that rock support and sealing measures can be planned with the support of the latest information obtained from the rock excavation works. In the longer term, the same principle is used for stepwise
161
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
The mutual control between the main processes can also be handled to some extent within the application of the Observational Method. If the information war- rants
G.4.2.4 The application for the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel
In March 2011 SKB applied for a permit to build a disposal facility for spent nu- clear fuel and the encapsulation plant where the fuel will be encapsulated before being transported to the disposal facility. Construction of nuclear facilities require permits in accordance with the Swedish Environmental Code and theAct (1984:3) on NuclearActivities. Both laws require that SKB reports the planned operations.
The Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities states that this report must address radia- tion protection and short and
Structure
The motions for the application according to the Environmental Code are for the municipality in Oskarshamn to store nuclear fuel and nuclear waste up to 8000 tonnes in Clab and to in adjacent to Clab build and operate a plant for encapsula- tion of spent nuclear fuel up to 200 canisters per year.
For the municipality of Östhammar (Forsmark) the motions are to build and operate a facility for disposal for spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, all in accordance to the application. The motions for the application according to the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities are in Forsmark to build, possess and operate a facility of disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In the facility possess, manage, transport, finally dispose of and in other aspects manage in one specified material, all in ac- cordance with the application. Since, the motion of the applications are different the supporting documents contain parts that are identical and others parts that dif- fers, se figure G2.
162
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
Submitted |
Submitted 2011 |
Submitted 2011 |
2006/2009 |
approx 2800 pages/approx 600 pages |
approx 6500 pages/approx 4300 pages |
Clink |
Application according to the |
Application under the |
Missiv |
Environmental Code |
Nuclear Activities Act |
•Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
•General Rules of Consideration
•Site Selection Process
•Selection of Disposal Method
•Safety Report Summary
•
Inka 2006 |
• |
||
and |
|||
|
|
||
Clink 2009 |
• Technical Description |
• Plan for Decommissioning |
|
16 binders |
|||
• Environmental Control Program |
• Management and Organization |
||
|
• List of Stakeholders, Land Ownership |
– Site investigation stage |
|
• Management and Organization |
||
• PSAR Clink |
||
– Construction stage |
||
|
Figure G2: A presentation of the ingoing document for the license applications.
Environmental Code – Application Structure
The application consists of a top document. In which the case is summarized and the claims are accounted for. The top document is supported by eleven underlying documents wherein seven are the same as for the license application according to the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities.
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• General Rules for Consideration
• Site Selection Process
• Selection of Disposal Method
• Safety Report Summary
•
•
• Technical Description
• Environmental Control Program
• List of Stakeholders, Land Ownership
• Preliminary Safety Report (PSAR) for Clink
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) and its purpose are described in more detail below. In short the EIS document constitutes the basis for the decision in the permit probation and contains a joint assessment of the affects of the
The General Rules of Consideration presents and motivates how SKB is going to meet the requirements of the general rules of requirements in accordance to the Environmental Code for Clab, the encapsulation plant, the disposal facility facility and the disposal facility of spent nuclear fuel.
163
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
The Site Selection Process document describes and motivates the site selection and is supported by an underlying report consisting of a comparative analysis of safety related site characteristics (Forsmark vs. Oskarshamn).
The Selection of Disposal Method document presents the background and SKB’s motives for selecting the
The Safety Report Summary is supported by two underlying documents;
•
(1984:3) on Nuclear Activities and Radiation Protection Act) for safety and ra- diation protection during operation in the facility for disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
•The
The Technical Description describes the activities and facilities during construc- tion and operation. In particularly the activities/facilities that will impact the envi- ronment. In the Environmental control program SKB presents the plan for surveil- lance and control of environmental unfriendly activities.
The List of Stakeholders, Land Ownership presents whom SKB believes are the sta- keholders in the
The Preliminary Safety Report (PSAR) for Clink will clarify the structure of the integrated safety report for Clab and the encapsulation facility (Clink).
Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities – Application Structure
The application consists of a top document in which the case is summarized and the claims are accounted for. The top document is supported by ten underlying docu- ments.The first seven documents listed below are the same as for the license applica- tion according to the Environmental Code, see explanation of the documents above.
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• General Rules for Consideration
• Site Selection Process
• Selection of Disposal Method
• Safety Report Summary
•
•
• Plan for Decommissioning
• Management and Organization – Site investigation stage
• Management and Organization – Construction stage
* In addition to requirements for licenses under the Act on Nuclear activities and the environmental Code, SKB:s activities must also be subject to licensing according to use of, or impact on, water resources.
164
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
The Preliminary plan for Decommissioning document describes how SKB is plan- ning to meet the requirements for decommissioning of the facility.
Structure of the EIS document |
|
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is drawn up in consultation with |
|
authorities, municipalities, organisations, the general public and individuals who |
|
will be affected. The consultations regarding the disposal facility and the encap- |
|
sulation facility for the spent nuclear fuel were initiated in 2002 and concluded in |
|
May 2010. |
|
|
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes interim storage, encap- |
sulation and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and the facilities that are planned for |
|
this purpose (Clab, encapsulation plant and disposal facility). SKB has developed |
|
an EIS that will be submitted with the applications according to both the Environ- |
|
mental Code and the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities. |
|
|
The EIS document describes the planned activities, the conditions on the sites |
in question and the implications and consequences that may occur to the environ- |
|
ment and human health. Furthermore, measures to prevent, remedy or reduce the |
|
consequences that may arise are described. |
|
|
The examination in accordance the Environmental Code should also consider |
the |
|
and water activities. These are described in the EIS. Examples of activities that |
|
are not included in the EIS are mining of copper and iron for the manufacture of |
|
canisters, canister production and mining of bentonite. The EIS is structured ac- |
|
cording to below: |
|
• |
Background |
• |
Site features |
• Clab (Interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel) |
|
• Clink (Clab and encapsulation plant as an integrated unit) |
|
• Disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel |
|
• |
Zero alternative |
• Combined consequences of the entire system
The Background chapters describe the background, purpose and the method cho- sen for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and provide a description of possible alter- native sites and alternative designs. Furthermore it describes how SKB has carried out the consultations under the Environmental Code.
Chapter Site features describe the conditions at the places where SKB is app- lying to locate the encapsulation plant and the disposal facility for spent nuclear
fuel.The Clab and Clink chapters describe facility design, activities and their im- pact and consequences on human beings and the environment as well as the alter- native locations that were considered.
The chapter Disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel describe facility design,
165
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
activities and their impact and consequences on human beings and the environ- ment, including the
The Zero alternative chapter describe the consequences if the activity or mea- sures are not implemented, that is if the encapsulation plant and the disposal faci- lity are not built.
The Combined consequences of the entire system chapter gives a comprehen- sive of the consequences and measures for the entire system for storage, encapsu- lation and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. It also compares the applied activities and locations with alternatives and with the zero alternative. The cumulative effects, due to existing and anticipated activities, are described for each site.
Structure of the
The purpose of the licence application is to present all the material required to obtain a licence to build, operate and possess a disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel at Forsmark.The
• To investigate whether the
• To provide feedback to design development, to SKB’s R&D programme, to detailed site investigations and to future safety assessment projects.
The safety case is essentially documented in the main report of the safety assess- ment
The
The structure and contents of
Main report
|
|
Main references |
|
|
|
|
FEP report |
Six Production |
|
Fuel and |
Buffer, backfill |
Geosphere |
|
|
reports |
|
canister |
|
and sealing |
process report |
|
|
process report |
process report |
|
||
Climate |
Biosphere |
Model |
Data report |
FHA report |
Radionuclide |
|
report |
synthesis |
summary |
|
|
|
transport |
|
report |
report |
|
|
|
report |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional references
Figure G3: The structure of the
166
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
Sweden.
The
The structure of
However, there is a new chapter 14 concerning additional analyses. In this chapter, a number of additional analyses, required to complete the safety assessment, are carried out and presented. These comprise a sensitivity analyses of the outcome of the scenario analyses, analyses required to demonstrate optimisation and use of best available technique, verification that FEPs omitted in earlier parts of the assessment are negligible in light of the completed scenario and risk analysis, analyses supporting risk discussion for the initial 1,000 years, e.g. “what
Site selection
SKB selected the Forsmark site for a disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel in
June 2009. The selection was based on evaluations of 5 years of surface based site investigations at Forsmark (municipality of Östhammar) and Laxemar (municipa- lity of Oskarshamn) during
The site selection was made by SKB in order to focus the remaining work for the licence application that remains to be reviewed with the licence applica- tion. SKB analyses showed that Forsmark had clear advantages with respect to
The review process – Environmental Code and Nuclear Act
According to the Environmental Code facilities in a coherent system with the aim to store or dispose spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste the hearings can be held in an Environmental Court where one of the planned or existing facilities are going to be situated or already are situated.
The applications will be submitted to the Environmental Court and to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.
The Environmental Court will prepare the case and review it according with the Environmental Code and they will hold a main hearing. They will then give a ruling to the Swedish Government. The Government gives an operation per- missible which the municipalities of Östhammar and Oskarshamn will accept or reject. The municipalities have their veto. If accepted, the Environmental Court will hold a new hearing. Thereafter, the Court will grant permits and stipulate conditions pursuant to the Environmental Code.
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority will prepare the case in accordance with the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities and the Government will give a per- mit. The Government gives the permit to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority that will stipulate the conditions.
167
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.4.3 Regulatory control
During the licensing process the PSAR, SAR and OLC documents are reviewed by the regulatory authority, to ensure compliance with fundamental safety princip- les and criteria. A prerequisite for obtaining a licence is that the regulatory review concludes that the facility is designed according to the provisions in the general regulations (SSM 2008:1).
G.4.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations ofArticle 7.
168
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.5 Article 8: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY OF FACILITIES
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that:
(i) before construction of a spent fuel management facility, a systematic safety assessment and an environmental assessment appropriate to the hazard presented by the facility and covering its operating lifetime shall be carried out;
(ii) before the operation of a spent fuel management facility, updated and detailed versions of the safety assessment and of the environ- mental assessment shall be prepared when deemed necessary to complement the assessments referred to in paragraph (i).
G.5.1 Regulatory requirements
G.5.1.1 Assessment of safety
Requirements on safety assessment, safety review and reporting are listed in the revised general safety regulations (SSMFS 2008:1). Many of these requirements are not new but were posed earlier as licensing conditions for facilities licensed before the regulations came into force. Some of the requirements are, however, more comprehensive compared to earlier conditions, and some are new. The le- gally binding requirements regarding safety assessments are summarised in the following points:
• A comprehensive safety analysis shall be performed before a facility is con- structed and before it is taken into operation. The analysis shall subsequently be kept
• A preliminary safety report shall be prepared before a facility may be con- structed. The safety report shall be updated before trial operation of the faci- lity may be started. The safety reports shall contain information as specified in the regulations The safety report shall be supplemented before the facility is taken into routine operation. The safety report shall subsequently be kept
The general safety regulations SSMFS 2008:1, apply to the operation of all types of nuclear installations, including facilities for treatment, storage and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste. The basic provisions regarding safety assessment and review and can be summarised in the following points:
169
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
Safety Analysis
Analyses of conditions that are of importance for the safety of a facility shall be carried out before a facility is constructed and taken into operation. The analyses shall subsequently be kept
Safety Report
A preliminary safety report shall be prepared before a facility may be constructed. The safety report shall be updated before trial operation of the facility may be star- ted. The safety report shall be supplemented before the facility is taken into routi- ne operation. The safety report shall subsequently be kept
Safety Review
A safety review shall determine or check that the applicable safety related aspects of a specific issue have been taken into account and that SSMFS 2008:1 appropri- ate
Safety Programme
After it is taken into operation, the safety of a facility shall be continuously ana- lysed and assessed in a systematic manner. Any need for improvement regarding safety measures, engineering or organisational issues, which arise as a result of such analyses and assessments, shall be documented in a safety programme. The safety programme shall be updated on an annual basis.
Periodic Safety Review of Facilities
At least once every ten years, a new, integrated analysis and assessment of the safety of a facility shall be performed. The analyses and assessments, as well as the measures proposed on the basis of these shall be documented and submitted to SSM. In the most recent update of the general regulations, the requirements on Periodic Safety Review (PSR) have been made more stringent in order to use
170
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
these reviews for assessment of time limited licensing conditions. This means that the Swedish approach to PSR becomes more in line with the European approach, where PSR is often used in the
Modifications
Asafety review shall be performed for engineering or organisational modifications to a facility, which can affect the conditions specified in the safety report as well as essential modifications to the report. Before the modifications may be included in the report, SSM shall be notified and the Inspectorate can decide that additional or other requirements or conditions shall apply with respect to the modifications.
Post Closure Safety
Additional requirements concerning the
General Advice on the Protection of Human Health and the Environment in con- nection with the Final Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Nuclear Waste (SSMFS 2008:37). According to the regulations, the safety assessment for a dis- posal facility shall also comprise features, events and processes that can lead to the dispersion of radioactive substances after closure. Such safety assessments shall be made before disposal facility construction, before operation and before closure. The safety assessment shall cover as long a time as barrier functions are required, but at least ten thousand years.
G.5.1.2 Environmental assessment
The Act on Nuclear activities also states that an EIA (Environmental Impact As- sessment) shall be made in all licensing cases, and that the Environmental Code regulates the way the EIA shall be carried out as well as the contents of the do- cumentation. Requirements on environmental assessment are laid down in the
Environmental Code (1998:808) as described in Section E.2.2.4. The purpose of an EIA is to establish and describe the direct and indirect impacts of a planned activity or measure as listed below.
An environmental impact statement shall contain the following information:
• a description of the activity or measure with details of its location, design and scope;
• a description of the measures being planned with a view to avoiding, mitiga- ting or remedying adverse effects, for example action to prevent the activity or measure leading to an infringement of an environmental quality standard;
• the information that is needed to establish and assess the major impact on human health, the environment and the management of land, water and other resources that the activity or measure is likely to have;
• a description of possible alternative sites and alternative designs, together with a statement of the reasons why a specific alternative was chosen as well as a description of the consequences if the activity or measure is not imple- mented; and
• a
171
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.5.1.3 The licensing procedure
Three different permits/licences are required for a nuclear facility: a permit under the Environmental Code (1998:808) a licence under the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities (1984:3), and a building permit under the Planning and Building Act (2010:900). Licensing under the Environmental Code and the Act on Nuclear
Activities occur in parallel. The applications under both laws must include an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared according to the rules in Chapter 6 of the Environmental Code. The same EIS is thus used in both applications. Separate EISs are prepared for the encapsulation plant and the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel.
According to Chapter 17 of the Environmental Code, the Government shall, after preparation by the Environmental Court, examine the permissibility of the activity. After SSM’s preparation of the matter, the Government shall also exa- mine permit applications under the Act on Nuclear Activities. If the Government finds that the construction and operation of the facility is permissible according to the Environmental Code and grants a permit/licence under the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities, it remains for the Environmental Court to grant a permit/ licence and stipulate conditions in accordance with the Environmental Code.
G.5.2 Measures taken by the license holders
General
In March 2011 SKB applied for the permits needed for the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Swedish Act on Nuclear Activities. The
Purpose
The main purposes of the safety assessment project
• To assess the safety, as defined in applicable Swedish regula- tions, of the proposed
• To provide feedback to design development, to SKB’s RD&D- programme, to detailed site investigations and to future safety assessment projects.
An important step leading up to the present report was the preparation of the SR- Can safety assessment report, published in November 2006. The
Summary of results
The central conclusion of the safety assessment
This conclusion is reached because the favourable properties of the Forsmark site ensure the required
172
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
facility. In particular, the copper canisters with their cast iron inserts have been de- monstrated to provide a sufficient resistance to the mechanical and chemical loads to which they may be subjected in the disposal facility environment.
The conclusion is underpinned by:
• The reliance of the
(copper and bentonite clay) for the engineered barriers that are sufficiently durable in the disposal facility environment to provide the barrier longevity required for safety.
• The understanding, through decades of research at SKB and in international collaboration, of the phenomena that affect
• The understanding of the characteristics of the site through several years of
• The detailed specifications of the engineered parts of the disposal facility and the demonstration of how components fulfilling the specifications are to be produced in a quality assured manner, thereby providing a quality assured initial state for the safety assessment.
The detailed analyses demonstrate that canister failures in a one million year per- spective are rare. Even with a number of pessimistic assumptions regarding detri- mental phenomena affecting the buffer and the canister, they would be sufficiently rare that their cautiously modeled
Future development of the disposal facility programme
The design and safety evaluation of a disposal facility concept for geological dis- posal like the
SKB has conducted research and development of the
SKB has established a technically feasible reference design and layout of the
173
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
adapted to an industrialised process designed to fulfil specific requirements on quality, cost and efficiency need still be developed. The layout needs to be adap- ted to the local conditions found when constructing the disposal facility at depth. These, potentially more optimal solutions, should result in at least the same level of safety as the current reference design being assessed in
Another characteristic of the present situation is that the
Measures taken for environmental impact statement (EIS) are described in section H.3.2.
G.5.3 Regulatory control
The safety case as a basis for licensing and nuclear supervision.
The safety level to be attained and maintained by the licensee of a nuclear facility is defined in the licensing process.
The licence to build, possess and operate the facility is granted by the Govern- ment. This government licensing decision is applied for and granted early in the design process. These licence conditions requires that a preliminary safety report
(PSAR) be submitted and approved by the regulatory body before major construc- tion activities are started. A renewed safety report (SAR) and operational limits and conditions (OLC) should also be submitted and approved by the regulatory body before trial operation commences and a supplemented SAR should be sub- mitted and approved by the regulatory body before routine operation commences . For a disposal facility, the safety assessment should comprise features, events and processes that can lead to the dispersion of radioactive substances after closure, as described in section H.5.1.1. Such a safety assessment shall be made before dispo- sal facility construction, and before operation and before closure.
The PSAR, SAR and OLC documents are reviewed by the regulatory autho- rities, to ensure compliance with fundamental safety principles and criteria. Ba- sed on this licensing procedure, and on approval by the regulatory authorities, the SAR and OLC documents becomes the legally binding documents regulating technical configuration and operating limits and conditions, often referred to as ”the safety case”. This ”safety case” may be regarded as defining the minimum safety level that the licensee is legally committed to maintain as a condition for a permit to operate the facility. Hence, the safety case also provides the basis for regulatory supervision.
Additional licence conditions can be prescribed by the regulatory authority over time, based on national and international operating experience and new re- search results.
174
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
Preliminary long term safety analysis for a spent fuel disposal facility
The regulatory authorities reviewed the SKB safety assessment
It should be noted that site suitability issues, formal compliance evaluation or other issues linked to the consideration of a license have not been addressed in this review. The authorities’ review is mainly based on peer reviews by international experts organised within three groups focussing on safety assessment methodo- logy, the representation of the engineered barrier system in the safety assessment, and the handling of site specific information, respectively.
Moreover, independent modeling activities, detailed expert reviews as well as a review of quality assurance issues provided additional input to the authorities’ review. The main findings of the review are:
• SKB’s safety assessment methodology is overall in accordance with applica- ble regulations, but part of the methodology needs to be further developed for the licence application.
• SKB’s quality assurance of
• The knowledge base needs to be strengthened for a few critical processes, such as buffer erosion, with potentially large impact on the calculated risk
• The link between assumed initial properties of disposal facility components and quality routines of manufacturing, testing and operation need to be strengthened before the licence application.
• There is a need for a more elaborate reporting on the potential for early relea- ses from the disposal facility.
G.5.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations ofArticle 8
175
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.6 Article 9: OPERATION OF FACILITIES
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that:
(i)the licence to operate a spent fuel management facility is based upon appropriate assessments as specified in Article 8 and is conditional on the completion of a commissioning programme demonstrating that the facility, as constructed, is consistent with design and safety requirements;
(ii)operational limits and conditions derived from tests, operational experience and the assessments, as specified in Article 8, are defined and revised as necessary;
(iii)operation, maintenance, monitoring, inspection and testing of a spent fuel management facility are conducted in accordance with established procedures;
(iv)engineering and technical support in all
(v)incidents significant to safety are reported in a timely manner by the holder of the licence to the regulatory body;
(vi)programmes to collect and analyse relevant operating experi- ence are established and that the results are acted upon, where appropriate;
(vii)decommissioning plans for a spent fuel management facility are prepared and updated, as necessary, using information obtained during the operating lifetime of that facility, and are reviewed by the regulatory body.
G.6.1 Regulatory requirements
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) contain legally binding requirements relevant for all the obligations of Article 16. These requirements are summarised below.
G.6.1.1 Initial authorisation
As mentioned in section H.5, a preliminary comprehensive safety report is requi- red before the construction of a spent nuclear facility. A complete safety report, which also takes into account the results from commissioning tests, is required before the facility is taken into operation.
G.6.1.2 Operational limits and conditions(OLC’s)
Documented
176
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
containing the necessary operational limits and conditions, as further specified in a separate appendix to the regulations. The OLCs shall together with the operating procedures ensure that the conditions postulated in the safety report are maintai- ned during the operation of the facility. The OLC’s shall be subjected to a twofold safety review by the licensee and submitted to the regulatory authority for appro- val. The licensee shall notify regulatory authority about any changes, after they have been subjected to a
G.6.1.3 Established procedures
Suitable, verified and documented procedures are required for all operational sta- tes including accidents. The procedures for operability verification and procedu- res used in other operational states than normal operation shall be subjected to a twofold safety review by the licensee. Procedures for maintenance important for safety are also covered by the requirement. Maintenance programmes shall be documented. Inspection and testing of mechanical components shall be carried out according to qualified methods and verified procedures.
G.6.1.4 Engineering and technical support
The licensee shall ensure that adequate personnel is available with the necessary competence and suitability needed for those tasks which are important for safety, and also ensure that this is
G.6.1.5 Reporting of incidents in a timely manner
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) contains one chapter about reporting requirements and an annex specifying these requirements for various types of events. The following is a brief summary:
• Reporting without delay: emergency alarm events and events and conditions in category 1 (see below).
• Reporting within 16 hours: INES events at level 2 or higher.
• Reporting within 7 days: a comprehensive investigation report about alarm events or events and conditions in category 1.
• Reporting within 30 days: a comprehensive investigation report of events and conditions in category 2.
In addition, there are requirements on daily reporting of the operational state, and the occurrence of any abnormal events or disturbances, and requirements on a comprehensive annual report summarising all experience important for the safety of the plant. Specifications are given about the contents of the different reports and further interpretation of the reporting requirements is given in the general recommendations.
In one of the basic paragraphs of SSMFS 2008:1, requirements are given on
177
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
actions to be taken by the licensee in cases of deficiencies in barriers or in the
In appendix 1 of the regulations, events and conditions are specified which require different responses, depending on the category of events they belong to.
Three categories are defined:
Category 1
Severe deficiency observed in one or more barriers or in the
Category 2
Deficiency observed in one barrier or in the
Category 3
Temporary deficiency in the
G.6.1.6 Programmes to collect and analyse operating experience
The licensee shall ensure that experience from its own facilities and from similar activities in other relevant facilities is continuously analysed, used and commu- nicated to the personnel concerned (SSMFS 2008:1). It is further required that all events and conditions which are detected and which are important to safety are investigated in a systematic manner, in order to determine sequences and causes, as well as to establish the measures needed in order to restore the safety margins and to prevent recurrence.
The results of the investigations shall be disseminated within the organisation and shall contribute to the development of safety at the facility. In accordance with
SSMFS 2008:1 it is the responsibility of the licensee, as long as the disposal faci- lity is in operation, to continuously keep informed of the conditions of importance to the assessment of disposal facility safety, also after closure.
G.6.1.7 Decommissioning plans
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) a chapter on decommissioning has been added with requirements on:
• A preliminary plan for the future decommissioning of the facility to be com- piled as before construction of a facility.
• The decommissioning plan to be supplemented and incorporated into the facility’s safety report before the dismantling of the facility may be initiated
178
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
• A decommissioning plan and a specific operational safety assessment to be done as soon as a decision has been taken on final closure of a facility.
The plan should include measures, which must be implemented to ensure the safe containment of the generated nuclear waste.
G.6.2 Measures taken by the license holders
The general safety regulations (SSMFS 2008:1) contain legally binding require- ments relevant for all obligations of Article 9. These requirements are summarized below.
G.6.2.1 Initial authorisation
No spent nuclear facility has been commissioned since 1985 when the central interim storage for spent fuel (Clab) was taken into operation. The application procedure for the extension works to increase the storage capacity from 5 000 to 8 000 tons of uranium, was the first time the modernized legislative and regulatory system was implemented.
Although neither the Environmental Code, the SSM regulations 2008:1 and
2008:21, nor the Radiation Protection Act had been issued at the time for the appli- cation, the formal procedure to initiate the project was run according to procedures later established by the issuance of those documents, as described in sections E.2
(Legislative and regulatory framework), E.3 (Regulatory Body) and G.3 (Siting of proposed facilities).
The siting processes for the encapsulation plant, and the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel, were initiated in accordance with the procedures outlined in this document. The procedure is described in detail in section G.3.2.
G.6.2.2 Operational limits and conditions(OLC’s)
The operational limits and conditions for nuclear facilities are described in the operational limits and conditions (OLC), a document, which is considered to be one of the cornerstones in the governing and regulation of the operation of the
Swedish nuclear activities. Every OLC is
The original OLC for each facility is derived from the safety analyses in the
SAR, in which the behavior of the facility is described. Correction and updating takes place, when new and better knowledge is available, either from research, tests or operational experience. Suggestions for changes in OLC are reviewed ca- refully from the safety point of view at different levels in the operating organiza- tion and are finally approved by the regulatory body, before they are included in the document.
The fact that OLC is reviewed and revised regularly has contributed to making it a living document. It is also part of the quality and management system and used frequently in particular by the operations staff. An essential part of OLC is the general clause that says that ”...should any doubt appear about the interpretation of the text, the general purpose of OLC shall be guiding. This means that the facility in all indefinite situations shall be maintained or brought respectively to a safe state.” Other parts of OLC are the descriptive background to the document. The background description is important for preserving and transferred to new staff the knowledge and experience of those who participated in the original production of
179
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
OLC. Modified and maintained equipment must pass an operability test, to verify that the equipment fulfills specified operational requirements before being accep- ted for continuous operation.
G.6.2.3 Established procedures
All activities that directly affect the operation of the facility are governed by pro- cedures of different kinds covering normal operation, emergency operation and functional tests. Maintenance activities according to an approved maintenance programme are also to a great extent accomplished according to procedures, ho- wever, not always as detailed as the operating procedures, in which activities are described in sequences step by step. Signing off the completion of steps carried out in the procedures is mandatory in most cases, in order to confirm the comple- tion and facilitate verification.
The development of procedures follows specified directives, which include the reviewing of the documents, normally, by more than one person other than the author, before being approved by the operations manager or someone else at the corresponding level. The same applies for revising procedures. Revising procedu- res is to be carried out continuously, in particular maintenance procedures, when new experience is obtained. Emergency procedures have been developed in order to deal with anticipated operational events.
G.6.2.4 Engineering and technical support
The principles for staffing are reported in section F.2 (Human and financial re- sources).
Competence that might not be completely available within the own organisation at all plants is for instance expertise and resources for materials and chemistry assessments, radiation shielding and environmental consequence calculations, ex- pertise and resources for software for safety applications and also process control and measurement techniques. In particular the IT functions have normally been outsourced, but are still available
G.6.2.5 Reporting of incidents in a timely manner
Incidents significant to safety are reported according to the
The other type of LER, called RO (Reportable Occurrence), is used for less severe events. This type of event is mentioned in the daily report, which is sent to the regulatory bodies, followed up by a preliminary report within seven days and
180
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
a final report within 30 days. The reports are reviewed at different levels within the operating organization and approved by the operations or production manager before submittal.
The front of the standardized report form describes the event in general: iden- tification number, title, reference to OLC, date of discovery and length of time un- til corrective actions were completed, conditions at the time of occurrence, system consequences, a contact person at the plant and activities affected by the event.
On the reverse side of the document a description of the event is given. The fol- lowing titles are used:
• event course and operational consequence;
• safety significance;
• direct and root causes;
• planned/decided measures; and
• lessons learned by the event
If the description of the event is extensive additional pages may be attached to the form. Reports are also required in accordance with OLC when the permitted levels of activity release from the facility are exceeded, or in the event of unusually high radiation exposure to individuals. These types of
G.6.2.6 Programmes to collect and analyse operating experience
The objective of the analysis and feedback programme concerning operating ex- perience is to learn from their own and others’experience and thus prevent recur- rences of events, particularly those that might affect the safety of the facility. The operating experience
G.6.2.7 Decommissioning plans
Decommissioning of a nuclear facility shall be described in a plan in which the degree of detail in the account increases as the time for decommissioning ap- proaches. A preliminary decommissioning plan shall be supplemented and kept
All licensees for the for the Swedish NPP`s , with the exception of Barsebäck, are in the process of updating their decommissioning plans. An overall decommis- sioning plan for the units in Barsebäck has been submitted to, and approved of, by the regulatory authorities. A revised version is under way and is planned to be submitted during 2012.
SKB is the licensee for Clab and will likewise be the licensee for the integrated fa- cility called Clink when the addition containing the planned encapsulation plant is finished. The decommissioning plan for Clink is preliminary and conforms to the
181
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
requirements made by the regulatory authorities on SKB for the coming licensing of the addition containing the encapsulation plant.
A preliminary decommissioning plan has been prepared for the Spent Fuel Dis- posal facility and will be included in the applications under the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and under the Environmental
Code for the
G.6.3 Regulatory control
G.6.3.1 Initial authorisation
The regulatory control is achieved through the procedures described in sections E.2.3.1 (Licensing) and E.2.3.3 (Institutional control, regulatory inspection and reporting).
G.6.3.2 Operational limits and conditions
SSM reviews applications for changes in OLC, and for exemptions from OLC.
Based on the application and information provided by the licensees, and the as- sociated safety analyses, assessments are made about how the proposed changes or exemptions contribute to the risk profile of the facility.
G.6.3.3 Procedures
Operational and maintenance procedures are normally not reviewed by SSM. Only in connection with event investigations would SSM ask for a procedure to be submitted for review. In the frame of quality assurance inspections or review of quality audits made by the licensees (see section F.3) have SSM looked into the routines used for updating procedures.
G.6.3.4 Engineering and technical support
SSM has not so far specifically inspected the engineering and technical support available at the facilities. In connection with other inspections and reviews, the staffing situation has occasionally been commented upon.
G.6.3.5 Incident reporting
Licensee event reports are reviewed upon arrival by the responsible site inspec- tor, who asks the facility for clarification if necessary. As a routine all LERs are screened once a week by a standing group of inspectors and specialists in order to assess the event, the analysis and the measures taken by the licensees. If there has been any regulatory concerns the issue is brought up at a management meeting and a decision made about any further measures to be taken by SSM.
182
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.6.3.6 Experience feedback analysis
The regulatory control is achieved through the procedures described in section
E.2.3.3 (Institutional control, regulatory inspection and reporting). The experience feed back programme is followed- up by the regulator in connection with event investigations and in connection with other inspections and reviews.
G.6.3.7 Decommissioning plans
The decommissioning plans (see section H.6.1.8) must be submitted to SSM for approval before the decommissioning and dismantling activities may be started.
G.6.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations ofArticle 9.
183
Section G – Safety of Spent Fuel Management
G.7 Article 10: DISPOSAL OF SPENT FUEL
If, pursuant to its own legislative and regulatory framework, a Contracting Party has designated spent fuel for disposal, the disposal of such spent fuel shall be in accordance with the obligations of Chapter 3 relating to the disposal of radioactive waste.
G.7.1 Regulatory requirements
According to the Act on Nuclear Activities the following definitions apply:
• spent nuclear fuel which has not been disposed of in a disposal facility is defined as nuclear material; and
• spent nuclear fuel which has been disposed of in a disposal facility is defined as nuclear waste.
Reprocessing is not part of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle in Sweden, as de- scribed in section C, and the policy and practices for management of spent nuclear fuel is direct disposal, as described in section B.
It is also clearly stated in the general obligations in the Act on Nuclear Activities (10 §) that the holder of a licence for nuclear activities shall be responsible for ensuring that all measures are taken needed for:
• maintaining safety, with reference to the nature of the activities and the man- ner in which they are conducted; and
• ensuring the safe handling and disposal of nuclear waste arising from the activities or nuclear material arising therein that is not reused.
G.7.2 Measures taken by the license holders
The practical implication is that spent fuel is in practice treated as high level radioactive waste.
G.7.3 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations ofArticle 10.
184
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.1 Article 11: GENERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that at all stages of radioactive waste management individuals, soc ety and the environment are adequately protected against radiolog cal and other hazards. In so doing, each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to:
(i) ensure that criticality and removal of residual heat generated during radioactive waste management are adequately addressed;
(ii) ensure that the generation of radioactive waste is kept to the minimum practicable;
(iii) take into account interdependencies among the different steps in radioactive waste management;
(iv) provide for effective protection of individuals, society and the environment, by applying at the national level suitable pro- tective methods as approved by the regulatory body, in the framework of its national legislation which has due regard to internationally endorsed criteria and standards;
(v) take into account the biological, chemical and other hazards that may be associated with radioactive waste management;
(vi) strive to avoid actions that impose reasonably predictable im- pacts on future generations greater than those permitted for the current generation;
(viii)aim to avoid imposing undue burdens on future generations.
Summary of developments since the last national report
• SKB submitted in January 2011 the most recent cost calculations under the Act (2006:647) on Financial Measures for the Management of Residual Pro- ducts from Nuclear Activities. SSM will send a proposal on the size of fees and guarantees for the nuclear power plant licensees to the Government in
October 2011.
• SKB submitted in September 2010 the
H.1.1 Regulatory requirements
H.1.1.1 The general obligations of
As accounted for in section E.2.2.1, the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities (1984:3) requires that the holder of a licence for the operation of a nuclear power reactor shall – in
185
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
programme shall be submitted to the Government, or an authority assigned by the Government, for evaluation.
Also, as accounted for in section E.2.2.5, the Financing Act (2006:647) re- quires the licensees to submit, every three years, estimates of all future costs for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, and decom- missioning. The licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall base costs estimates on 40 years of operation with a minimum remaining operating time of 6 years. The licensee of nuclear facilities other than nuclear power reactors shall base cost es- timates and the buildup of adequate financial resources on the expected remaining period of operation.
H.1.1.2 Basic provisions and license obligations
Basic safety provisions are stipulated in the Act on Nuclear Activities (1984:3). The requirements are further clarified in the general safety regulations SSMFS 2008:1. In the regulations it is stated that, in order to ensure adequate protection at all stages of spent fuel management, the licensee shall:
1. establish documented guidelines for how safety shall be maintained at the facility as well as ensure that the personnel performing duties which are im- portant to safety are well acquainted with the guidelines;
2. ensure that the activities carried out at the facility are controlled and develo- ped with the support of a quality system which covers those activities which are of importance for safety;
3. ensure that decisions on
for safety as well as ensure that this is documented;
5. ensure that responsibilities and authority are defined and documented with respect to personnel carrying out work which is important to safety;
6. ensure that the personnel is provided with the necessary conditions to work in a safe manner;
7. ensure that experience from the facility’s own and from similar activities is continuously utilised and communicated to the personnel concerned; and
8. ensure that safety, through these and other measures, is maintained and conti- nuously developed.
186
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
In the Radiation Protection Act (1988:220) it is stipulated that radioactive waste shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory from a radiation protection point of view. More detailed requirements on the handling of radioac- tive waste and nuclear waste at nuclear facilities are stipulated in SSMFS 2008:22. The regulations put requirements on waste management plans and registration of waste and reporting to the SSM. At the facility a register shall be kept over waste that without further treatment is to be transferred to disposal in Sweden or is in- tended to be temporarily stored for more than two years. The register shall be subdivided into items such as packages, components, containers or other units corresponding to the handling of the waste.
For each item the register shall contain information on: 1. identity;
2. the origin of the waste or what part or parts of the facility it comes from; 3. the treatment of the waste and its physical and chemical form;
4. the amount of waste;
5. the nuclide specific content of radioactive substances and a date of reference; 6. the level of external radiation at a specified distance and date;
7. the storage position; and
8. the date of treatment (for waste intended to be temporarily stored for more than two years the date for intended treatment shall be recorded).
A report concerning the past calendar year shall be sent to SSM. The report shall comprise a summary of:
1. which amount of waste that has arisen or by other means has been brought to the facility;
2. waste that has been registered according to section 6;
3. waste that has been transferred to disposal or has been transported away from the facility;
4. waste that at the turn of the year exists at the facility and information on its position; and
5. experiences of the handling of the waste and a
There are also regulations on the protection of human health and the environment in connection with the final management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste (SSMFS 2008:37). The purpose of these regulations is to limit the harmful effects on human health and the environment in connection with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Discharges to air and water from a facility to the surrounding environment are regulated in SSMFS 2008:23 (see section F.4.1.2).
In addition there are requirements concerning the
As presented in section E.2.2.3 regulations concerning clearance of nuclear and
187
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.1.1.3 Criticality and removal of residual heat
The revised general safety regulations (SSMFS 2008:1) state that radiological ac- cidents shall be prevented by the design, construction, operation, monitoring and maintenance of a facility. It follows that a criticality analysis as well as an analysis of heat generation and removal of residual heat must be included in the safety report supporting the licence application for any nuclear facility.
The licence application for Clab included a criticality analysis as well as an analysis of heat generation. A
H.1.1.4 Interdependencies in waste management and minimisation of radioactive waste
The fact that the
•
2008:1 and SSMFS 2008:22).
• Measures for the safe
• If such waste is generated that does not conform to the specifications in the safety report, measures for the safe handling of this particular waste shall be documented and SSM notified before any measures are taken. The documen- tation is subject to a twofold safety review by the licensee before notification (SSMFS 2008:1).
• Plans shall be established for the handling and disposal of all waste that exists at the facility arises at the facility or in other ways is brought to the facility.
The plans shall include e.g. amounts of different categories of waste, estima- ted nuclide specific content and sorting, treatment and interim storage of the waste. The plans shall be reported to the authorities before the waste is gene- rated (SSMFS 2008:22).
• The possibility that radiation doses to personnel can increase when releases to the environment are limited shall be taken into account during optimisation, as shall the consequences of other waste management alternatives (SSMFS 2008:23).
• Human health and the environment shall be protected from detrimental effects of ionising radiation, during the time when various stages of the final manage- ment of spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste are being implemented as well as in the future (SSMFS 2008:37).
188
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.1.1.5 Protection of individuals, society and the environment
General radiation protection provisions are described in section F.4.1.
SSM has particularly addressed radiation protection of the public and the envi- ronment in connection with radioactive waste management in three different re- gulations (SSMFS 2008:37, 2008:21 and 2008:22, see E.2.2.3). In summary it is required that:
• a disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste shall be designed so that the annual risk of harmful effects after closure does not exceed
• the final management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste shall be imple- mented so that biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological resources are protected: and
• human health and the environment shall be protected during the operation of a nuclear facility as well as in the future.
H.1.1.6 Biological, chemical and other hazards
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be submitted together with an application for a licence according to the Act on Nuclear Activities and the Ra- diation Protection Act, as accounted for in section E.2. It is stated in the general considerations in the Environmental Code that due consideration shall be taken to possible effects from chemical, biological and other hazards. It follows that che- mical, biological and other hazards during the operation of a nuclear facility must be addressed in the EIS.
As stated in H.1.1.2 SSM requires that
(e.g. package or component) include information on, among other things, the tre- atment and the physical and chemical form of the waste.
The question of chemical and biological hazards with regard to the
Only packages approved by SSM have been allowed to be transported to a disposal facility. For this approval, the waste must comply with the conditions stated in the safety report of the disposal facility. Furthermore, the licensee has to submit documentation showing that due regard has been taken to all relevant aspects, including biological, chemical and other hazards with regard to the long- term performance of the disposal facility.
H.1.1.7 Strive to avoid actions that impose impacts on future generations
One purpose of SSMFS 2008:22 is to limit the harmful effects of radiation from the waste today and in the future. In SSMFS 2008:23 it is also stated that human health and the environment shall be protected from the harmful effects of ionising radiation during the operation of a nuclear facility as well as in the future. SSMFS 2008:37 has general requirements stipulating that human health and the environ- ment shall be protected from detrimental effects of ionising radiation, during the time when various stages of the final management of spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste are being implemented as well as in the future. All these regulations strive
189
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
to avoid actions that impose reasonably predictable impacts on future generations greater than those permitted for the current generation.
H.1.1.8 Aim to avoid imposing burdens in future generations
As described in section E.2 the practices for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste are governed by principles adopted by the Swedish Parliament. The first governing principle reads ”The expenses for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste are to be covered by revenues from the production of en- ergy that has resulted in these expenses.” The second principle reads ”The reactor owners are to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.”
The key words (underlined) imply that burden on future generations should be avoided, especially with regard to the fundamental aspects of safety and costs.The key words also imply that action should be taken without postponement, i.e. the generation that has benefited from the nuclear power generation should also deal with the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
Thus, the holder of a licence to operate a nuclear facility is primarily respon- sible for the safe handling and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, as well as decommissioning and dismantling the facility.
H.1.2 Measures taken by the license holder
H.1.2.1 The general obligations of
Cost calculations
Cost calculations have since the beginning of the 1980’s been submitted by the li-
RD&D Programme 2010
The nuclear industry, through its
190
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.1.2.2 Basic provisions and license obligations
The measures taken by the licensees regarding general safety requirements are to be found in sections H.3.2, H.4.2, H.5.2 and H.6.2.
H.1.3 Regulatory control
H.1.3.1 The general obligations of
Nuclear waste fees and guarantees for 2010 and 2011
SSM reviewed the cost calculations and submitted a statement with suggestion for the size of fees and guarantees to the Government in October, 2009. The Govern- ment decided in December 2009 on the size of fees and guarantees for 2010 and 2011. SSM is currently reviewing the most recently submitted cost calculations to determine and suggest to the Government the size of fees and guarantees for 2012 through 2014.
Evaluation of the RD&D Programme 2010
SKB submitted in September 2010 the
• The account for the ongoing site investigations and other preparatory work to support a license application for the extension of the disposal facility for
SSM therefore recommended the Government to require SKB to conduct con- sultations with SSM, in order to be appropriately informed about the regula- tory requirements on contents and quality of the collection of arguments and evidence (“Safety Case”) in support of the application, planned to be submit- ted in 2013.
• SKB should, in close cooperation with the nuclear power reactor operators, further detail and develop the planning for decommissioning of the reactors as well as the assessments of different categories of waste expected to be gene- rated during decommissioning.
• SKB should in the next
H.1.3.2 Basic provisions and license obligations
Regulatory control of measures taken by the licensees regarding general safety requirements are to be found in sections H.3.3, H.4.3, H.5.3 and H.6.3.
H.1.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 11.
191
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.2 Article 12: EXISTING FACILITIES AND PAST PRACTICES
Each Contracting Party shall in due course take the appropriate steps to review:
(i) the safety of any radioactive waste management facility existing at the time the Convention enters into force for that Contracting Party and to ensure that, if necessary,
all reasonably practicable improvements are made to upgrade the safety of such a facility;
(ii) the results of past practices in order to determine whether any intervention is needed for reasons of radiation protection bear- ing in mind that the reduction in detriment resulting from the reduction in dose should be sufficient to justify the harm and the costs, including the social costs, of the intervention.
H.2.1 Regulatory requirements
H.2.1.1 Existing facilities
By the time the Joint Convention entered into force for Sweden the situation as regards safety of radioactive waste management facilities was satisfactory.
The elements of the Joint Convention are since long implemented as require- ments in the legal and regulatory framework and implemented in the management of radioactive waste. Dedicated inspection and review activities carried out in the early 2000’s confirmed that the licensee’s activities were in conformance with the legal and regulatory requirements. This conclusion has been reaffirmed during subsequent inspection and review activities.
H.2.1.2 Past practices
As described in the introduction, section A.5.2.7, a special fee is levied on the nuclear power utilities in accordance with a special law, the StudsvikAct, to cover expenses for managing nuclear waste from old experimental facilities, in parti- cular the facilities at Studsvik, the Ågesta reactor and the uranium mine in Ran- stad. The special fee is the same for all four nuclear power utilities, currently SEK 0.003 per
192
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.2.2 Measures taken by the license holders
H.2.2.2 Past practices
The four utilities operating nuclear power reactors in Sweden formed a special company,AB SVAFO (Sydkraft,Vattenfall, Forsmark och OKG) to deal with their responsibilities according to the Studsvik Act (See E.2.2.6). AB SVAFO was for- merly owned by Studsvik Nuclear AB but was in March 2009 acquired by the nuclear power producers in Sweden (Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB, Ringhals AB, Barsebäck Kraft AB and OKG AB).
According to estimates, SEK 1.8 billion (equivalent to approx. € 120 million) will be needed up to the year 2045 to meet the expenses for these activities. The activities performed by AB SVAFO are closely monitored by SSM.
H.2.3 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 12.
193
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.3 Article 13: SITING OF PROPOSED FACILITIES
1.Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that procedures are established and implemented for a proposed radioactive waste management facility
(v)to evaluate all relevant
(vi)to evaluate the likely safety impact of such a facility on individuals, society and the environment;
(vii)to make information on the safety of such a facility available to members of the public;
(viii)to consult Contracting Parties in the vicinity of such a facil- ity, insofar as they are likely to be affected by that facility, and provide them, upon their request, with general data relating to the facility to enable them to evaluate the likely safety impact of the facility upon their territory.
2.In so doing, each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that such facilities shall not have unacceptable effects on other Contracting Parties by being sited in accordance with the general safety requirements of Article 11.
H.3.1 Regulatory requirements
H.3.1.1 Assessment of safety and environmental impact
According to the Act on Nuclear Activities a licence is required to construct, pos- sess and operate any nuclear facility. A licence application must contain an EIA.
The procedures for carrying out the EIA, as well as its contents, are specified in the Environmental Code (see section E.2.2.4). The licensing procedure is described in section E.2.3.1. The EIA must contain the following elements:
• Adescription of the activity or measure with details of its location, design and scope.
• A description of the measures being planned with a view to avoiding, mitiga- ting or remedying adverse effects.
• The information needed to establish and assess the main impacts on human health, the environment and management of land, water and other resources that the activity or measure is likely to have.
• A description of possible alternative sites and alternative designs, together with a statement of the reasons why a specific alternative was chosen and a description of the consequences if the activity or measure is not implemented.
• A
194
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
In addition to the EIA the preliminary safety report for a proposed spent fuel ma- nagement facility is of key importance for licence application. Requirements on the content of the safety report are given in the general regulations concerning safety in certain nuclear facilities (SSMFS 2008:1), and include for example:
• A description of how the site and its surroundings, from the standpoint of safety, can affect the facility.
• A description of the design basis, including the requirements that have determi- ned the design and construction of the facility. Descriptions of facilities for the handling of spent fuel or nuclear waste shall contain requirements that are deter- mined by the description of safety in the particular disposal facility after closure.
• A description of measures taken to ensure adequate protection of workers, the public and the environment from radiation, as required by the Radiation
Protection Act and regulations promulgated according to that act.
As described in section E.2.2.1 the operators of nuclear power plants must jointly perform a comprehensive
H.3.1.2 Public information and involvement
There are several procedures that serve the purpose to involve the public in the siting of new spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste facilities. As mentioned above, an EIA must be performed for any new nuclear facility. Swedish legislation em- phasizes the role of the public and other stakeholders in the EIA. The developer must initiate early (long before a licence application is submitted) consultations with those parties that might be affected by a new facility.
Parties that must be consulted include:
• municipalities that may host the facility;
• regulatory authorities, primarily SSM and CountyAdministrative Boards;
• national environmental organisations;
• local interest groups; and
• affected individuals, e.g. those living close to a proposed location.
The County Administration Boards have an important function besides participa- ting in the consultations. They are requested to assist the developer in identifying stakeholders and to facilitate consultations and an exchange of information.
Furthermore, the circulation of the nuclear power plants’joint R&D program- me for comments provides a broad range of concerned parties with information regarding new facilities as well as a possibility to state opinions.
According to the Act (1992:1537) and Ordinance (1981:671) on the Finan- cing of Future Expenses for Spent Nuclear Fuel etc., the municipalities that might host a spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste facility, including a disposal facility, are reimbursed for their own information to the public. Municipalities have been reimbursed for their information activities since the
195
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
the Parliament approved a new regulation in the FinancingAct, which made it pos- sible for
H.3.1.3 Consulting contracting parties
The Environmental Code specifies that if another country is likely to be affected, the responsible authority as designated by the Government shall inform the com- petent authority in that country about the planned activity. The country concerned, and the citizens, who may be affected, should be given the opportunity to take part in the consultation procedure. The Government has designated the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to be responsible for this task. Such informa- tion shall also be supplied when another country, which is likely to be exposed to a significant environmental impact, so requests.
H.3.2 measures taken by the license holders
H.3.2.1 General
All planned spent fuel and nuclear waste facilities, including repositories, will be sited, constructed and operated by SKB. The supporting
• The
• Consultations and an EIA for the planned encapsulation facility (Clink) and the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel began formally in 2002, but in prac- tice started in the
H.3.2.2 Consultations and environmental impact statement
Early consultations have been carried out for both the encapsulation plant and the disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel, in both Oskarshamn and Forsmark.
Extended consultations began during 2003 with the county administrative board, other government agencies, the municipalities, the citizens and the organi- zations that are likely to be affected. The consultations were coordinated for the encapsulation plant and disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel. The consultations related to location, scope, design and environmental impact of the activity or mea- sure and the content and structure of the environmental impact statement.
The extended consultations initially mainly dealt with the scope of EIA. Pre- liminary scoping reports were prepared as a basis for discussion. Viewpoints and proposals that emerged during the consultations were taken into account in the planning of the continued EIA process.
In the subsequent investigation phase, results from investigations and studies as well as proposals for facility design were presented at the consultation mee- tings, and the participants were given an opportunity to state their views.
196
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
In May 2010, the consultations were concluded. All questions and viewpoints thathavebeenstatedintheconclusions,togetherwithSKBsanswersandcomments, are reported in its whole in the compiled documentation from the conclusions.
A preliminary version of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the whole disposal system, including the spent fuel disposal facility in Forsmark, has been presented within the framework of the EIA consultations. In addition to the formal consultations, extensive information activities have been aimed at munici- palities, organizations and the public.
The last facility that will be built in the LILW programme is the disposal faci- lity for
H.3.3 Regulatory control
SSM reviews SKB’s R&D programme and circulates it for comments to a num- ber of concerned organisations (e.g. universities, government agencies, NGOs and municipalities that might host a spent nuclear fuel facility). When the review is completed the R&D programme together with SSM’s recommendations are sent to the Government for its decision.
SSM have regular consultations with SKB regarding progress in the siting of the planned facilities.
SSM is consulted regarding the EIA. The concerned County Administrative Boards are also consulted regarding the EIA and thus exercise some regulatory control, however not in the fields of nuclear safety and radiation protection.
H.3.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 13
197
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.4 Article 14: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that:
(i) the design and construction of a radioactive waste management facility provide for suitable measures to limit possible radiologi- cal impacts on individuals, society and the environment, includ- ing those from discharges or uncontrolled releases;
(ii)at the design stage, conceptual plans and, as necessary, techni- cal provisions for the decommissioning of a radioactive waste management facility other than a disposal facility are taken into account;
(iii) at the design stage, technical provisions for the closure of a disposal facility are prepared;
(iv) the technologies incorporated in the design and construction of a radioactive waste management facility are supported by experience, testing or analysis.
H.4.1 Regulatory requirements
The general safety regulations (SSMFS 2008:1) apply to the operation of all types of nuclear installations, including facilities for treatment, storage and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
H.4.1.1 Suitable measures to limit radiological impact
The requirements for limiting the possible radiological impact on individuals, so- ciety and the environment, including those from discharges or uncontrolled relea- ses, are founded upon the basic provisions stipulated in the Act on Nuclear Acti- vities (1984:3). This is clarified further in the general safety regulations (SSMFS 2008:1) in which it is stated that nuclear accidents shall be prevented through a basic
• ensuring that the design, construction, operation, monitoring and maintenance of a facility is such that abnormal events, incidents and accidents are prevented;
• ensuring that multiple devices and measures exist to protect the integrity of the barriers and, if the integrity should be breached, to mitigate the ensuing consequences; and
• ensuring that any release of radioactive substances, which may still occur as a result of abnormal events, incidents and accidents, is prevented or, if this is not possible, controlled and mitigated through devices and prepared measures.
H.4.1.2 Conceptual plans and provisions for decommissioning
TheAct on NuclearActivities states that the holder of a licence for nuclear activi-
198
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
ties is responsible for ensuring that all necessary measures are taken to ensure the safe handling and disposal of nuclear waste, or nuclear material that is not reused, as well as the safe decommissioning and the dismantling of facilities.
Chapter 9 of the general regulations concerning safety in nuclear installations (SSMFS 2008:1) contains requirements on decommissioning plan and a specific operational safety assessment to be carried out as soon as a decision has been ta- ken on final closure of a disposal facility.
The regulations on planning before and during decommissioning of nuclear facilities (SSMFS 2008:19) comprises requirements for decommissioning with re- spect to documentation, alternative actions and waste management with regards to radiation protection.
H.4.1.3 Technology provisions for closure of repositories
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) stipulate that analyses of conditions that are of importance for the safety of a fa- cility shall be carried out before a facility is constructed and taken into operation.
This is further specified in the regulations concerning safety in connection with the disposal of nuclear material and nuclear waste (SSMFS 2008:21) where it is stipulated that for repositories, the safety assessments shall also comprise features, events and processes that can lead to the dispersion of radioactive substances after closure. Such safety analyses shall be made before the commencement of disposal facility construction, operation and closure.
H.4.1.4 Technology supported by experience
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) specify requirements regarding design and construction. It is stated that the design of the facility, with adaptation to the specific conditions of each facility, shall:
• be able to withstand component and system failures;
• have reliability and operational stability;
• be able to withstand such events or conditions which can affect the safety function of the barriers or
• have maintainability, controllability and testability of inherent parts as long as these parts are used for their intended purposes.
Additional requirements related to design and construction are:
• The design principles and design solutions shall be tested under conditions corresponding to those that can occur during the intended application in a facility. If this is not possible or reasonable, they must have been subjected to the necessary testing or evaluation related to safety.
• The design solutions shall be adapted to the personnel’s ability to manage the facility, in a safe manner, under normal conditions as well as during abnormal events, incidents and accidents that might occur.
• Building components, devices, components and systems shall be designed, manufactured, installed, controlled and tested in accordance with require- ments that are adapted for their importance for safety.
199
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.4.2 Measures taken by the license holders
H.4.2.1 Suitable measures to limit radiological impact
The safety philosophy applied in the design of all Swedish nuclear facilities is based on the principles of defense in depth and of multiple barriers to prevent the release of radioactive material to the environment. They are all designed to fulfill the intention of the requirements in the General Design Criteria. The foundation of the safety principle on the defense in depth is emphasized and made clearer through the implementation of that principle in the general regulations concerning safety in nuclear installations (SSMFS 2008:1).
H.4.2.2 Conceptual plans and provisions for decommissioning
Decommissioning plans have been developed by SKB, as part of the basis for the annual cost calculations (see section E.2.2.5).
H.4.2.3 Technology provisions for closure of repositories
Technical provisions for the closure of the disposal facility for operational waste (SFR) have been part of the safety assessment performed before SFR was con- structed. An updated safety analysis was reviewed before the facility was taken into operation.
H.4.2.4 Technology supported by experience
The principle of proven technology is broadly accepted and implemented in the design and construction procedures for Swedish nuclear facilities. The use of properly environmentally qualified equipment ensures functioning of safety- related systems and components under emergency conditions. A comprehensive programme for environmental qualification has been carried out. No major new steps are envisaged in addition to the previous programme, although research and development continues. In the modernization work, the specification of all new installations is carefully checked with respect to environmental requirements.
H.4.3 Regulatory control.
During the licensing process the PSAR, SAR and OLC documents are reviewed by the regulatory
authorities to ensure compliance with fundamental safety principles and criteria. A prerequisite for obtaining a licence is that the regulatory review concludes that the facility is designed according to the provisions in the general regulations concer- ning safety in nuclear installations (SSMFS 2008:1).
H.4.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 14.
200
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.5 Article 15: ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY OF FACILITIES
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that:
(i) before construction of a radioactive waste management facility, a systematic safety assessment and an environmental assess- ment appropriate to the hazard presented by the facility and covering its operating lifetime shall be carried out;
(ii) in addition, before construction of a disposal facility, a system- atic safety assessment and an environmental assessment for the period following closure shall be carried out and the results evaluated against the criteria established by the regulatory body;
(iii) before the operation of a radioactive waste management facility, updated and detailed versions of the safety assessment and of the environmental assessment shall be prepared when deemed necessary to complement the assessments referred to in paragraph (i).
H.5.1 Regulatory requirements
H.5.1.1 Assessment of safety
Requirements on the safety assessment, safety review and reporting are listed in the general regulations concerning safety in nuclear installations (SSMFS 2008:1). Many of these requirements are not new but were posed earlier as licensing con- ditions for facilities licensed before the regulations came into force. Some of the requirements are, however, more comprehensive compared to earlier conditions, and some are new.
The legally binding requirements regarding safety assessments are summarised in the following points:
• A comprehensive safety analysis shall be performed before a facility is con- structed and before it is taken into operation. The analysis shall subsequently be kept
• A preliminary safety report shall be prepared before a facility may be con- structed. The safety report shall be updated before trial operation of the faci- lity may be started. . The safety reports shall contain information as specified in the regulations The safety report shall be supplemented before the facility is taken into routine operation. The safety report shall subsequently be kept
201
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
The general safety regulations SSMFS 2008:1, apply to the operation of all types of nuclear installations, including facilities for treatment, storage and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste.The basic provisions regarding safety assessment and review and can be summarised in the following points:
Safety Analysis
Analyses of conditions that are of importance for the safety of a facility shall be carried out before a facility is constructed and taken into operation. The analyses shall subsequently be kept
Safety Report
A preliminary safety report shall be prepared before a facility may be constructed.
The safety report shall be updated before trial operation of the facility may be star- ted. The safety report shall be supplemented before the facility is taken into routi- ne operation. The safety report shall subsequently be kept
Safety Review
A safety review shall determine or check that the applicable safety related aspects of a specific issue have been taken into account and that SSMFS 2008:1 appropri- ate
Safety Programme
After it is taken into operation, the safety of a facility shall be continuously ana- lysed and assessed in a systematic manner. Any need for improvement regarding safety measures, engineering or organisational issues, which arise as a result of such analyses and assessments, shall be documented in a safety programme. The safety programme shall be updated on an annual basis.
202
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
Periodic Safety Review of Facilities
At least once every ten years, a new, integrated analysis and assessment of the safety of a facility shall be performed. The analyses and assessments, as well as the measures proposed on the basis of these shall be documented and submitted to SSM. In the most recent update of the general regulations, the requirements on Periodic Safety Review (PSR) have been made more stringent in order to use these reviews for assessment of time limited licensing conditions. This means that the Swedish approach to PSR becomes more in line with the European approach, where PSR is often used in the
Modifications
Asafety review shall be performed for engineering or organisational modifications to a facility, which can affect the conditions specified in the safety report as well as essential modifications to the report. Before the modifications may be included in the report, SSM shall be notified and the Inspectorate can decide that additional or other requirements or conditions shall apply with respect to the modifications.
Post Closure Safety
Additional requirements concerning the
The safety assessment shall cover as long a time as barrier functions are required, but at least ten thousand years.
H.5.1.2 Environmental assessment
The Act on Nuclear activities also states that an EIA (Environmental Impact As- sessment) must be carried out for all licensing cases, and that the Environmental Code regulates the way in which the EIA shall be carried out as well as the contents of the documentation in the EIS. Requirements on environmental assessment are laid down in the Environmental Code (1998:808) as described in Section E.2.2.4.
The purpose of an EIA is to establish and describe the direct and indirect impact of a planned activity or measure as listed below. Another purpose is to enable an overall assessment to be made of this impact on human health and the environ- ment. An environmental impact statement shall contain the following information:
• Adescription of the activity or measure with details of its location, design and scope.
• A description of the measures being planned with a view to avoiding, mitiga- ting or remedying adverse effects, for example action to prevent the activity or measure leading to an infringement of an environmental quality standard.
• The information that is needed to establish and assess the major impact on human health, the environment and the management of land, water and other resources that the activity or measure is likely to have.
203
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
•A description of possible alternative sites and alternative designs, together with a statement of the reasons why a specific alternative was chosen as well as a description of the consequences if the activity or measure is not imple- mented.
•A
H.5.1.3 The licensing procedure
Three different permits/licences are required for a nuclear facility: a permit under the Environmental Code (1998:808), a licence under the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities (1984:3), and a building permit under the Planning and Building Act (2010:900). Licensing under the Environmental Code and the Act on Nuclear Ac- tivities occur in parallel. The applications under both laws must include an envi- ronmental impact statement (EIS) prepared according to the rules in Chapter 6 of the Environmental Code. The same EIS is thus used in both applications.
According to Chapter 17 of the Environmental Code, the Government shall, after preparation by the Environmental Court, examine the permissibility of the activity. After SSM’s preparation of the matter, the Government shall also exa- mine permit applications under the Act on Nuclear Activities. If the Govern ment finds that the construction and operation of the facility is permissible according to the Environmental Code and grants a permit/licence under the Act on Nuclear Activities, it remains for the Environmental Court to grant a permit/licence and stipulate conditions in accordance with the Environmental Code.
H.5.2 Measures taken by the license holders
SKB submitted an updated safety assessment for the disposal facility for opera- tional waste (SFR) in 2001. The regulatory review was finalised late 2003 and resulted in requirements on SKB to perform and submit complementary analyses. An updated SAR was submitted to the regulatory authorities in early 2008.
Site investigations for the extension of SFR, with test drilling and other investiga- tions of the rock with associated analyses, will be concluded during the first half of 2011. Preliminary assessments show that there are rock volumes in the investiga- tion area that are suitable for an extension of SFR.
According to the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities a government license is required to extend SFR. In the application, SKB will present the technical sup- porting material that is required to determine whether the existing and extended facility meets the requirement made under theAct (1984:3) on NuclearActivities. Apreliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) of operational safety and
When all necessary licenses have been obtained, the construction works may begin. SKB must consider the consequences of the conditions in the licenses be- fore the start of construction and adapt the planning accordingly.
When the facility has been built and processes function as intended, SKB will submit an application for a license to commence trial operation. The application
204
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
will contain a an updated safety analysis report (SAR) with updated assessments of
At the start of 2012, SKB plans to apply to French authorities for licensing of a transport cask (ATB 1T) for transport of BFA tanks containing
SKB plans to commence interim storage in SFR of
An account of different disposal facility concepts for SFL, including a qualitative assessment of their
Based on the results of the assessment of
SKB is carrying out
H.5.3 Regulatory control
The safety case as a basis for licensing and nuclear supervision
The safety level to be attained and maintained by the licensee of a nuclear facility is defined in the licensing process.
The licence to build, possess and operate the facility is granted by the Govern- ment. This government licensing decision is applied for and granted early in the design process. These licence conditions requires that a preliminary safety report (PSAR) be submitted and approved by the regulatory body before major construc- tion activities are started. A renewed safety report (SAR) and operational limits and conditions (OLC) should also be submitted and approved by the regulatory body before trial operation commences and a supplemented SAR should be sub- mitted and approved by the regulatory body before routine operation commences .
For a disposal facility, the safety assessment should comprise features, events and processes that can lead to the dispersion of radioactive substances after closure, as described in section H.5.1.1. Such a safety assessment shall be made before dispo- sal facility construction, and before operation and before closure.
The PSAR, SAR and OLC documents are reviewed by the regulatory autho- rities, to ensure compliance with fundamental safety principles and criteria. Ba- sed on this licensing procedure, and on approval by the regulatory authorities,
205
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
the SAR and OLC documents become the legally binding documents regulating technical configuration and operating limits and conditions, often referred to as ”the safety case”. This ”safety case” may be regarded as defining the minimum safety level that the licensee is legally committed to maintain as a condition for a permit to operate the facility. Hence, the safety case also provides the basis for regulatory supervision.
Additional licence conditions can be prescribed by the regulatory authority over time, based on national and international operating experience and new re- search results.
H.5.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 15.
206
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.6 Article 16: OPERATION OF FACILITIES
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that:
(i) the licence to operate a radioactive waste management facility is based upon appropriate assessments as specified in Article 15 and is conditional on the completion of a commissioning programme demonstrating that the facility, as constructed, is consistent with design and safety requirements;
(ii) operational limits and conditions, derived from tests, opera- tional experience and the assessments as specified in Article 15 are defined and revised as necessary;
(iii) operation, maintenance, monitoring, inspection and testing of a radioactive waste management facility are conducted in accor- dance with established procedures. For a disposal facility the results thus obtained shall be used to verify and to review the validity of assumptions made and to update the assessments as specified in Article 15 for the period after closure;
(iv) engineering and technical support in all
(v) procedures for characterisation and segregation of radioactive waste are applied;
(vi) incidents significant to safety are reported in a timely manner by the holder of the licence to the regulatory body;
(vii) programmes to collect and analyse relevant operating experi- ence are established and that the results are acted upon, where appropriate;
(viii) decommissioning plans for a radioactive waste management facility other than a disposal facility are prepared and updated, as necessary, using information obtained during the operat- ing lifetime of that facility, and are reviewed by the regulatory body;
(ix) plans for the closure of a disposal facility are prepared and updated, as necessary, using information obtained during the operating lifetime of that facility and are reviewed by the regulatory body.
H.6.1 Regulatory requirements
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) contain legally binding requirements relevant for all the obligations of Article 16. These requirements are summarised below.
207
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.6.1.1 Initial authorisation
As mentioned in section H.5, a preliminary comprehensive safety report is requi- red before the construction of a spent nuclear facility. A complete safety report, which also takes into account the results from commissioning tests, is required before the facility is taken into operation.
H.6.1.2 Operational limits and conditions
Documented
H.6.1.3 Established procedures
Suitable, verified and documented procedures are required for all operational sta- tes including accidents. The procedures for operability verification and procedu- res used in other operational states than normal operation shall be subjected to a twofold safety review by the licensee. Procedures for maintenance important for safety are also covered by the requirement. Maintenance programmes shall be documented. Inspection and testing of mechanical components shall be carried out according to qualified methods and verified procedures.
H.6.1.4 Engineering and technical support
The licensee shall ensure that adequate personnel is available with the necessary competence and suitability needed for those tasks which are important for safety, and also ensure that this is
H.6.1.5 Procedure for characterisation and segregation of waste
All waste to be disposed of in SFR, which is described in detail in section D.1.4.3, must conform to predefined waste acceptance criteria. The characteristics of each waste type are documented in a Waste Type Description (WTD). The WTDs are prepared by the waste producer in close contact with the licence holder of SFR (SKB). The completed WTD is submitted to SSM for approval. SSM reviews the WTD and may issue specific conditions for the disposal of particular waste type. To ensure consistent and comparable WTDs, guidelines have been issued for the structure and content of the WTDs.
208
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
Waste to be disposed of in shallow land burial facilities are specified and des- cribed in the licences (see section D.1.4.4). The licensee must notify SSM at least 3 months in advance of each disposal campaign and must then provide informa- tion about each waste package.
H.6.1.6 Reporting of incidents in a timely manner
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) contains one chapter about reporting requirements and an annex specifying these requirements for various types of events. The following is a brief summary:
• Reporting without delay: emergency alarm events and events and conditions in category 1 (see below).
• Reporting within 16 hours: INES events at level 2 or higher.
• Reporting within 7 days: a comprehensive investigation report about alarm events or events and conditions in category 1.
• Reporting within 30 days: a comprehensive investigation report of events and conditions in category 2.
In addition, there are requirements on daily reporting of the operational state, and the occurrence of any abnormal events or disturbances, and requirements on a comprehensive annual report summarising all experience important for the safety of the plant. Specifications are given about the contents of the different reports and further interpretation of the reporting requirements is given in the general recom- mendations.
In one of the basic paragraphs of SSMFS 2008:1, requirements are given on actions to be taken by the licensee in cases of deficiencies in barriers or in the
In appendix 1 of the regulations, events and conditions are specified which require different responses, depending on the category of events they belong to.
Three categories are defined:
Category 1
Severe deficiency observed in one or more barriers or in the
Category 2
Deficiency observed in one barrier or in the
Category 3
Temporary deficiency in the
209
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
the licensee. The results of these reviews shall be submitted to SSM. Regarding category 3 events, there is no requirement to make a specific report to SSM. It is sufficient to make a compilation of these events in the annual report.
H.6.1.7 Programmes to collect and analyse operating experience
The licensee shall ensure that experience from its own facilities and from similar activities in other relevant facilities is continuously analysed, used and commu- nicated to the personnel concerned (SSMFS 2008:1). It is further required that all events and conditions which are detected and which are important to safety are investigated in a systematic manner, in order to determine sequences and causes, as well as to establish the measures needed in order to restore the safety margins and to prevent recurrence.
The results of the investigations shall be disseminated within the organisation and shall contribute to the development of safety at the facility. In accordance with
SSMFS 2008:1 it is the responsibility of the licensee, as long as the disposal faci- lity is in operation, to continuously keep informed of the conditions of importance to the assessment of disposal facility safety, also after closure.
H.6.1.8 Decommissioning plans
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) a chapter on decommissioning has been added with requirements on:
• A preliminary plan for the future decommissioning of the facility to be com- piled as before construction of a facility.
• The decommissioning plan to be supplemented and incorporated into the facility’s safety report before the dismantling of the facility may be initiated
• A decommissioning plan and a specific operational safety assessment to be done as soon as a decision has been taken on final closure of a facility.
The plan should include measures, which must be implemented to ensure the safe containment of the generated nuclear waste.
H.6.1.9 Plans for closure of disposal facility
Thegeneralregulationsconcerningsafetyinnuclearinstallations(SSMFS2008:1) states that a facility for the disposal of nuclear waste shall be designed so that the barriers can provide the required safety without monitoring or maintenance after the disposal facility is closed. The regulations concerning safety in connection with the disposal of nuclear material and nuclear waste (SSMFS 2008:21) specify that the safety assessments for a disposal facility shall also comprise features, events and processes which can lead to the dispersion of radioactive substances after closure, and that such analyses shall be made before disposal facility con- struction, before operation and before closure.
The safety assessment for a disposal facility shall cover as long a time barrier as functions are required, but at least ten thousand years. In addition the regula- tions specify that it is the responsibility of the licensee, as long as the disposal
210
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
facility is in operation, to continuously keep themselves informed of conditions of importance to the assessment of disposal facility safety, also after closure.
H.6.2 Measures taken by the license holders
No radioactive waste management facility has been commissioned since 1988 when the disposal facility for radioactive operational waste (SFR) was licensed for operation. As described in the introduction, two additional facilities need to be constructed and taken into operation: a disposal facility for
The general regulations concerning safety in nuclear installations (SSMFS 2008:1) contain legally binding requirements relevant for all obligations ofArticle 9. These requirements are summarised below.
H.6.2.1 Initial authorisation
According to current plans, SKB is to submit a licence application for a disposal facility for
Also according to current plans, the disposal facility for
H.6.2.2 Operational limits and conditions
The operational limits and conditions for nuclear facilities are described in the opera- tional limits and conditions (OLC), a document, which is considered to be one of the cornerstones in the governing and regulation of the Swedish nuclear activities. Every OLC is
The original OLC for each facility is derived from the safety analyses in the SAR, in which the behaviour of the facility is described. Corrections and updating takes place, when new and better knowledge is available, either from research, tests or operational experience. Suggestions for changes in OLC are reviewed carefully from the safety point of view at different levels in the operating organisation and are finally approved by the regulatory body, before they are included in the document.
The fact that OLC is reviewed and revised regularly has contributed to making it a living document. It is also part of the quality and management system and used frequently in particular by the operations staff. An essential part of OLC is the general clause that says ”...should any doubt appear about the interpretation of the text, the general purpose of OLC shall be guiding. This means that the facility
211
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
in all indefinite situations shall be maintained or brought respectively to a safe state.”. Other parts of OLC are the description of the background to the docu- ment. The background description is important for preserving and transferring to new staff the knowledge and experience of those who participated in the original production of OLC. Modified and maintained equipment must pass an operability test to verify that the equipment fulfills specified operational requirements before being accepted for continuous operation.
H.6.2.3 Established procedures
All activities that directly affect the operation of the facility are governed by pro- cedures of different kinds covering normal operation, emergency operation and functional tests. Maintenance activities according to an approved maintenance programme are also to a great extent accomplished according to procedures, ho- wever, not always as detailed as the operating procedures, in which activities are described in sequence, step by step. Signing off of the completion of steps carried out in the procedures is mandatory in most cases, in order to confirm the comple- tion and facilitate verification.
The operating personnel are deeply involved in the production and revision of operating procedures. The development of procedures follows specified direc- tives, which include the reviewing of the documents, normally, by more than one person other than the author, before being approved by the operations manager or someone else at the corresponding level. The same applies for the revision of procedures. The revision of procedures is to be carried out continuously, when new experience is obtained particularly in the case of maintenance procedures.
Emergency procedures have been developed in order to deal with anticipated ope- rational occurrences.
H.6.2.4 Engineering and technical support
The principles for staffing are reported in section F.2 (Human and financial resour- ces). Competence that might not be completely available within the own organisa- tion at all plants is for instance expertise and resources for materials and chemistry assessments, radiation shielding and environmental consequence calculations, ex- pertise and resources for software for safety applications and also process control and measurement techniques. In particular the IT functions have normally been outsourced, but are still available
H.6.2.5 Procedure for characterisation and segregation of waste
The responsibility for the collection, segregation, characterisation, treatment and conditioning of radioactive waste rests with the waste producer. The waste pro- ducers have therefore implemented routines for ensuring that the waste complies with the predefined WTDs or with the licence conditions for the shallow land burial facilities (see section H.6.1.5).
212
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.6.2.6 Incident reporting
Incidents significant to safety are reported according to the
The other type of LER, called RO (Reportable Occurrence), is used for less se- vere events. This type of event is mentioned in the daily report, which is sent to the regulatory bodies, followed up by a preliminary report within seven days and a final report within 30 days.The reports are reviewed at different levels within the operating organisation and approved by the operations or production manager before submittal.
The front of the standardised report form describes the event in general: iden- tification number, title, reference to OLC, date of discovery and length of time until corrective actions were completed, conditions at the time it occurred, system consequences, a contact person at the plant and activities affected by the event.
On the reverse side of the document a description of the event is given. The fol- lowing titles are used:
• Event course and operational consequence;
• Safety significance;
• Direct and root causes;
• Planned/decided measures; and
• Lessons learned by the event.
If the description of the event is extensive additional pages may be attached to the form. Reports are also required in accordance with OLC when the permitted levels of activity release from the facility are exceeded or in the event of unusually high radiation exposure to individuals. These types of
H.6.2.7 Operating experience analysis and feedback
The objective of the analysis and feedback programme concerning operating ex- perience is to learn from their own and others’experience and thus prevent recur- rences of events, particularly those that might affect the safety of the facility. The operating experience
H.6.2.8 Decommissioning plans
As described in section H.6.1.8, the general regulations concerning safety in nu- clear installations (SSMFS 2008:1) comprises requirements for the preparation of decommissioning plans for all nuclear facilities. So far only generic and general
213
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
decommissioning plans have been prepared as part of the basis for the nuclear power utilities’ cost estimates for dismantling and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste (see section H.4.2.2).
H.6.2.9 Plans for closure of disposal facility
The closure of repositories will not take place for at least
H.6.3 Regulatory control
H.6.3.1 Initial authorisation
The regulatory control is achieved through the procedures described in sections E.2.3.1 (Licensing) and E.2.3.3 (Institutional control, regulatory inspection and reporting).
H.6.3.2 Operational limits and conditions
SSM reviews applications for changes in OLC, and for exemptions from OLC. Based on the application and information provided by the licensees, and the as- sociated safety analyses, assessments are made about how the proposed changes or exemptions contribute to the risk profile of the facility.
A few years ago, the regulatorinspected the training and retraining in OLC of operational, maintenance and technical support personnel. Included in the in- spection was how documentation was used and kept up to date. The regulatory authority concluded that the use of OLC was well understood and the training of operational personnel was well organised. However, it was found that the training could be improved for other groups who come into contact with the requirements of OLC, for instance personnel in the maintenance and chemical departments. It was also concluded that updating OLC was sometimes slow, due to limited staff resources and that consultants were often used for this important task.
H.6.3.3 Procedures
Operational and maintenance procedures are normally not reviewed by SSM. Only in connection with event investigations would SSM ask for a procedure to be submitted for review. In the frame of quality assurance inspections or review of quality audits made by the licensees (see section F.3) have SSM looked into the routines used for updating procedures.
H.6.3.4 Engineering and technical support
SSM has not so far specifically inspected the engineering and technical support available at the facilities. In connection with other inspections and reviews, the staffing situation has occasionally been commented upon.
214
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.6.3.5 Characterisation and segregation of waste
As described in section H.6.1.5 all waste types must be approved by the regulatory function before disposal. Compliance with regulations is verified by inspections both at the waste producer and the operator of the disposal facility, e.g. SFR or shallow land burial facilities. The inspections cover e.g. administrative routines, documentation, equipment, and radiological measurements.
H.6.3.6 Incident reporting
Licensee event reports are reviewed upon arrival by the responsible site inspec- tor, who asks the facility for clarification if necessary. As a routine all LERs are screened once a week by a standing group of inspectors and specialists in order to assess the event, the analysis and the measures taken by the licensees. If there has been any regulatory concerns the issue is brought up at a management meeting and a decision made about any further measures to be taken by SSM.
H.6.3.7 Experience feedback analysis
The regulatory control is achieved through the procedures described in section E.2.3.3 (Institutional control, regulatory inspection and reporting). The regulator has also in connection with event investigations and in connection with other in- spections and reviews, followed up the experience feed back programme.
H.6.3.8 Decommissioning plans
The decommissioning plans (see section H.6.1.8) must be submitted to SSM for approval before the decommissioning and dismantling activities may be started.
H.6.3.9 Plans for closure of disposal facility
As described in section H.6.2.9 the closure of repositories is still an R&D issue and SKB has thus not yet presented any definite plans. It is however part of SKB’s RD&D programme which is subject to regulatory review every third year. The
H.6.4 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 16.
215
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
H.7 Article 17: INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES AFTER CLOSURE
Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that after closure of a disposal facility:
(i) records of the location, design and inventory of that facility required by the regulatory body are preserved;
(ii) active or passive institutional controls such as monitoring or ac- cess restrictions are carried out, if required; and
(iii) if, during any period of active institutional control, an un- planned release of radioactive materials into the environment is detected, intervention measures are implemented, if necessary.
H.7.1 Records keeping
Generally, the implementing organisations are responsible for the development and management of records. Nevertheless, R&D is being carried out on these sub- jects. The regulations on filing at nuclear plants (SSMFS 2008:38) contains re- quirements for record management, under which specified documents concerning location, design and inventory of waste are required to be kept in archives, for more than 100 years. Relevant records will be transferred to national and regional official archives when facilities are decommissioned or closed. The authority’s documents are regularly transferred to national archives as regulated in the Act on Archives (1990:7) and regulations issued by the National Archives of Sweden. This mechanism has been in place since 1618.
H.7.2 Measures taken by the license holders
The R&D activities performed by SKB as a basis for the design work on reposi- tories is based on that the design shall be such that the safety of a closed disposal facility is not dependent on surveillance or monitoring, but that some institutional controls can be assumed to exist even after closure, for example safeguards.
H.7.3 Institutional control
Requirements for institutional control after closure are not established or for- mally decided. The general regulations concerning safety in nuclear installations (SSMFS 2008:1) stipulate that a facility for the disposal of nuclear waste shall be designed so that the barriers provide the required safety without monitoring or maintenance after the disposal facility is closed. This is further specified in the regulations concerning safety in connection with the disposal of nuclear material and nuclear waste (SSMFS 2008:21) in which it is stipulated that safety after clo- sure of a disposal facility shall be maintained through a system of passive barriers. Also the regulations on the protection of human health and the environment in connection with the final management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste (SSMFS 2008:37) require that the
216
Section H – Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
The four shallow land burial facilities for
In the case of SFR, relevant authorities have not yet decided what measures for institutional control, either active or passive, will apply
In the case of the four shallow land burial facilities for
Exempt waste may be deposited on municipal disposal sites, and will be sub- ject to institutional control as decided by county or municipal authorities.
According to the regulations on the protection of human health and the envi- ronment from discharges of radioactive substances from certain nuclear facilities
(SSMFS 2008:23), the holder of a licence shall conduct environmental monito- ring. All discharges from facilities for the storage or disposal of radioactive waste shall be monitored by nuclide specific measuring programmes.
H.7.4 Intervention measures
As described above, the regulations (SSMFS 2008:1, 2008:21) stipulate that a facility for disposal of nuclear waste shall be designed so that safety after closure of a disposal facility is provided by a system of passive barriers. Prior to the dis- posal facility closure, the final safety assessment must be renewed and approved by the regulatory authority. If the regulatory authority approves the closure of the disposal facility the licence holder may be relieved from his responsibilities and obligations. Thus, if intervention measures are needed, it will be the responsibility of the State.
H.7.5 Conclusion
Sweden complies with the obligations of Article 17.
217
This page is intentionally left blank
Section I – Transboundary Movement
I.1 Article 27: TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT
1. Each Contracting Party involved in transboundary movement shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that such movement is undertaken in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Convention and relevant binding international instruments.
In so doing:
(i) a Contracting Party which is a State of origin shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that transboundary move- ment is authorized and takes place only with the prior notification and consent of the State of destination;
(ii) transboundary movement through States of transit shall be subject to those international obligations which are relevant to the particular modes of transport utilized;
(iii) a Contracting Party which is a State of destination shall consent to a transboundary movement only if it has the administrative and technical capacity, as well as the regu- latory structure, needed to manage the spent fuel or the radioactive waste in a manner consistent with this Conven- tion;
(iv) a Contracting Party which is a State of origin shall autho- rize a transboundary movement only if it can satisfy itself in accordance with the consent of the State of destination that the requirements of subparagraph (iii) are met prior to transboundary movement;
(v) a Contracting Party which is a State of origin shall take the appropriate steps to permit
2. A Contracting Party shall not licence the shipment of its spent fuel or radioactive waste to a destination south of latitude 60 degrees South for storage or disposal.
3. Nothing in this Convention prejudices or affects:
(i) the exercise, by ships and aircraft of all States, of mari- time, river and air navigation rights and freedoms, as provided for in international law;
(ii) rights of a Contracting Party to which radioactive waste is exported for processing to return, or provide for the return of, the radioactive waste and other products after treatment to the State of origin;
(iii) the right of a Contracting Party to export its spent fuel for reprocessing;
(iv) rights of a Contracting Party to which spent fuel is exported for reprocessing to return, or provide for the return of, radioactive waste and other products resulting from reprocessing operations to the State of origin.
219
Section I – Transboundary Movement
I.1.1 Regulatory requirement
There are four different Acts that must be considered in order to obtain a complete picture of the Swedish regulatory requirements regarding transboundary move- ment of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste:
• the Radiation ProtectionAct (1988:293);
• the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities;
• Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009; and
• theAct (2000:1064) on Control of Export of
Assistance.
Sweden has implemented Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom of 20 Novem- ber 2006 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel in the national legislation, i.e the Radiation Protection Act and the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities.
In summary, and as specified in the Radiation Protection Act, a licence to export spent nuclear fuel or radioactive waste from Sweden cannot be granted if the de- stination is:
i. south of latitude 60 degrees south;
ii. a State party to the Fourth
iii. a State that has forbidden the import of spent nuclear fuel or radioactive waste; or iv. a State that, in the opinion of the responsible Swedish authorities, does not have the technical, legal or administrative resources to manage the spent nu- clear fuel or administrative resources to manage the spent nuclear fuel or ra-
dioactive waste safely.
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority has the jurisdiction to decide on the ex- port of nuclear material and nuclear equipment as defined in the Annex 1, Cate- gory 0 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5May 2009. Export cases that are of a principle importance can be decided by the Government. An applica- tion for the export of spent fuel of Swedish origin must incude an assurance that the material will be returned to Sweden if it cannot be taken care of as planned.
SSM Regulations and general Advice on control of Nuclear Material etc. (SSMFS 2008:3) contains stringent national requirements in the field of nuclear
I.1.2 Regulatory control
Sweden follows the administrative procedures set forth in the Directive 2006/117/
Euratom in order to ensure that states of destination and states of transit have the opportunity to give their prior consent, and are notified as is stated in the directive.
I.1.3 Experience of transboundary movements
Studsvik Nuclear AB carries out volume reduction of radioactive waste on a com- mercial basis, by incineration of combustible waste and melting of scrap metal. The activities are to a certain extent based on services to companies abroad, and
220
Section I – Transboundary Movement
Studsvik imports radioactive waste and scrap metal for the purpose of volume reduction. The remaining radioactive waste is
I.1.4 Conclusion
The Swedish party complies with article 27.
221
This page is intentionally left blank
Section J – Disused Sealed Sources
J.1Article 28: DISUSED SEALED SOURCES
1.Each Contracting Party shall, in the framework of its national law, take the appropriate steps to ensure that the possession, remanufacturing or disposal of disused sealed sources takes place in a safe manner.
2.A Contracting Party shall allow for
Radiation Protection Act
All handling of disused sealed sources is covered by the Radiation Protection Act (1988:220). According to the Act, anyone that has conducted activities involving sealed sources has to ensure the safe management and disposal of the disused sea- led sources, which also includes securing that there are financial resources secured for the handling and disposal of the disused sealed sources. The Radiation Protec- tion Act allows the
Regulations
Detailed requirements on the handling of disused sealed sources are found in the following regulations issued by the SSM.
•Regulations on the Control of HighActivity Sealed Sources (SSMFS 2008:9) stipulate that high activity sources for which no further use is foreseen must be sent either to the supplier, to the manufacturer or to an approved facility for waste management within six months. The holder must notify the SSM which keeps a register.
•Regulations on Radiation Therapy (SSMFS 2008:33) stipulate that in the case of the purchase of radioactive sources or equipment, which contains such sources, a plan shall be drawn up for the future handling of radioactive waste.
•Regulations on Accelerators and Sealed Sources (SSMFS 2008:27) stipulate that the
•Regulations on the Use of Equipment in Industry Containing Sealed Sour- ces or
•Regulations on Smoke Detectors for Domestic Use Containing Radioactive Sources (SSMFS 2008:47) stipulate that the units are collected and sent for dismantling.
•Regulations on Smoke Detectors for Industrial Use Containing Radioactive Sources (SSMFS 2008:47) stipulate that the disused units should be taken care of as radioactive waste and returned to the supplier or manufacturer.
223
Section J – Disused Sealed Sources
•Regulations on Import, Export and Reporting on Radioactive Substances (SSMFS 2008:10) stipulate that to import or export disused sealed sources a license is needed and the import/export must be reported to the competent authorities.
In addition to the regulations, the SSM also can issue license conditions that concern the management of disused sealed sources.
Producer’s Responsibility Ordinances
Two ordinances establish producer’s responsibility for disused sealed sources: the Ordinance on Producer’s Responsibility for Electrical and Electronic Equipment (2005:209) and the Ordinance on Producer’s Responsibility for Certain Radioac- tive Products and Orphan Sources (2007:193). In effect, the
J.1.2 Disused sealed sources and radioactive waste from medi-
cal use, research and industry
The licensee report to the SSM when a practice involving sources ceases (de- licensing) or when the holder of a particular source have transferred the ownership of the source to another licensee, sent it back to the manufacturer/producer or have scrapped the source (sent it for waste treatment). Table J1 shows the data for registration and
It can be noted that about 3 to 4 % of the sources are
224
Section J – Disused Sealed Sources
|
Registred sealed sources equipment |
|
|
|
Deregistred sealed sources equipment |
||||
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
Nuklid |
Noof sources |
Nuclide |
Noof Sources |
|
Nuclide |
Noof Sources |
Nuclide |
Noof sources |
|
43 |
|
81 |
|
12 |
17 |
||||
6 |
|
11 |
|
1 |
1 |
||||
1 |
|
4 |
|
14 |
1 |
||||
1 |
|
18 |
|
1 |
1 |
||||
2 |
|
7 |
|
71 |
62 |
||||
3 |
|
2 |
|
75 |
68 |
||||
29 |
|
304 |
|
12 |
8 |
||||
9 |
|
576 |
|
Fel |
6 |
Fel |
6 |
||
3 |
|
16 |
|
2 |
2 |
||||
5 |
Fel |
|
14 |
|
2 |
2 |
|||
381 |
|
3 |
|
5 |
22 |
||||
710 |
|
22 |
|
2 |
1 |
||||
2 |
|
5 |
|
13 |
6 |
||||
42 |
|
29 |
|
1 |
2 |
||||
Fel |
25 |
|
1 |
|
6 |
1 |
|||
14 |
|
1 |
|
Sum |
223 |
1 |
|||
2 |
|
17 |
|
|
|
1 |
|||
3 |
|
31 |
|
|
|
2 |
|||
56 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|||
1 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
Sum |
205 |
||
3 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
2 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
13 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
118 |
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
3 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
2 |
Sum |
|
1170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sum |
1491 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table J1: Registration and Deregistration of Radioactive Sources
Disused sealed sources to be disposed of are sent to Studsvik Nuclear AB (SNAB). SNAB is the only approved radioactive waste management facility in Sweden for handling radiation sources that need a license and currently receives approxima- tely a little more than 200 sealed sources per year. However, SNAB is not required to accept, handle or dispose of disused sealed sources. The company operates on a commercial basis. Hence, problems may arise if the holder of a sealed source cannot afford the cost for the handling at Studsvik, or if Studsvik refuses to handle a sealed source.
After treatment, the disused sealed sources are stored by SNAB, pending dis- posal in disposal facilities for either
(SFR) or long lived low- and intermediate level waste (SFL).
SNAB receives approximately a little more than 200 disused sealed sources per year. Table J2 shows the inventory of disused sealed sources stored by SNAB, and table J3 shows the inventory of radioactive waste from medical use, research and industry stored by SNAB. The tables comprise all disused sealed sources and all radioactive waste delivered to SNAB between
SNAB is currently compiling an inventory on all disused sealed sources and ra-
225
Section J – Disused Sealed Sources
dioactive waste from medical use, research and industry received between 1991
07 01 and 2005 12 31. This material has been conditioned together with nuclear waste and is now being stored in the interim storage facility for solid intermediate level waste, AM (see section D.1.4.2).
Nuclide |
No of sources |
Activity (Bq) |
Estimated volume |
Disposal |
|
|
|
(litres) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
504 000 |
2,02E+10 |
13 670 liter1 |
SFR |
|
383 290 |
2,19E+11 |
2 * |
SFL |
|
72 |
2,88E+11 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
2,06E+07 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
1,11E+07 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
1,86E+08 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1,11E+09 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
253 |
1,99E+10 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
210 |
4,12E+12 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
293 |
2,95E+12 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
7,59E+10 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
6,01E+12 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
1,19E+07 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
2,60E+07 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
2,73E+11 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
7,40E+05 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
7,40E+06 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
1,16E+10 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
1,52E+12 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
9,00E+08 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ra/Be |
1 |
3,70E+09 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
1,72E+11 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
2,50E+11 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
3,33E+05 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
0,16E+06 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
3,70E+06 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1Radiation sources from smoke alarms intended for households.
2Radiation sources from smoke alarms intended for the industry. * The estimated net volume is 3 736 litres, see also Table D12.
Table J2: Inventory of disused sealed sources stored by Studsvik Nuclear AB
226
Section J – Disused Sealed Sources
|
Nuclide |
No of waste |
Activity (Bq) |
Estimated volume |
Disposal |
|
|
consignments |
|
(litres) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
1,05E+10 |
* |
SFR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
4,80E+07 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
4,25E+08 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
1,01E+09 |
** |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
1,02E+08 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
1,19E+09 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
1,88E+07 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
8,69E+08 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2,00E+02 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
4,64E+07 |
** |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowed to decay |
|
58 |
1,02E+10 |
* |
to clearance levels |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
4,00E+04 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
8,80E+00 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
5,96E+09 |
* |
Sent for recycling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
2,20E+09 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
3,78E+08 |
** |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
1,35E+07 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124 |
5,17E+08 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
4,59E+09 |
** |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
2,25E+08 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
556 g |
2,29E+06 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
4,00E+02 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1885 g |
1,51E+08 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
790 107 g |
9,83E+09 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2,22E+05 |
* |
SFL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*The estimated net volume is 3 736 litres, see also Table D11.
**Treatment: incineration.
Table J3: Inventory of radioactive waste stored by Studsvik Nuclear AB
Orphan sources
This is made possible through a special governmental funding arrangement that allows the SSM to use up to EUR 100 000 per year to cover the costs for the mana- gement and final disposal of orphan sources but also radioactive
227
Section J – Disused Sealed Sources
J.1.3 Regulatory control
At research centers and hospitals inspections are planned and performed by SSM at regular intervals. The whole practice is inspected, also the routines for treatment of waste and the interim storage rooms for radioactive waste and sealed sour- ces. Inspections at industries are infrequent due to the large number of facilities.
The handling of disused sealed sources and
J.1.4 Conclusion
The Swedish Party complies with the obligations of Article 28. There is however ongoing work to improve administrative matters concerning the handling and dis- posal of disused sealed sources in a manner that is satisfactory from a radiation protection point of view.
228
Section K – Planned Activities to Improve Safety
K.1 Review of the license application for an encapsulation plant
SKB submitted a license application under the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities for an encapsulation plant in November 2006. Extensive supplementary material was submitted in November 2009. The regulatory review of the application will be
K.2 Review of the license application for disposal of spent nuclear fuel
SKB submitted a license application under the Act (1984:3) on Nuclear Activities to establish a disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel at Forsmark, in the minuci- pality of Östhammar, 16 March, 2011. The regulatory review of the application will be
The licensing procedure is presented in section E.2.3.1.
K.3 License application for a disposal facility for decommissioning waste
SKB has initiated the consultation process to site a disposal facility for short- lived low and intermediate level decommissioning waste. The plan is extend the existing disposal facility for
K.4 Development of waste acceptance criteria for
Disposal of
K.5 Effects from the Fukushima accident
The TEPCO Fukushima NPP nuclear accident has led to renewed risk and safety assessments in EU member states with nuclear power programmes. On May 12, 2011 the Swedish Government tasked SSM with carrying out a Swedish review, among other things entailing:
• To give a comprehensive, integrated report on the “stress tests” of concerned
Swedish nuclear facilities which shall be conducted on the basis of the agreed common requirements within EU (as decided by the European Council on March 25, 2011 and to be conducted as approved by the European Nuclear Safety Regulator’s Group on May 25 ).
• To report on the measures/actions which the nuclear industry has taken as a result of the “stress tests” until autumn 2012.
229
Section K – Planned Activities to Improve Safety
• Make an assessment of the effectiveness of the measures/actions which the industry has taken at that point.
SSM has close contact with STUK, Finland and other European authorities wor- king with the “stress tests” in order to harmonize the procedures. The network set up by the Western European Regulators’ Association (WENRA), where all Euro- pean countries with nuclear power are members, is also important in this regard. The Swedish safety assessments include SKB and the interim storage for spent nuclear fuel at Clab at Oskarshamn.
K.6 Updated decommissioning plans
The decommissioning plans for the Swedish nuclear power plants will be updated and further detailed during the reporting period. This will give a better basis for planning, estimation of waste volumes and cost calculation.
230
List of abbreviations
ALARA |
As Low As Reasonable Achievable (a principle applied in radiation protection) |
ABT 1T |
Waste container for transportation of |
ACL |
The Central Active Laboratory |
AFS |
The Swedish work environment authority regulations |
AM |
Interim storage for low and intermediate waste (Studsvik site) |
AS |
Waste storage facility (Studsvik site) |
ASAR |
As operated Safety Analysis Report |
AT |
Storage facility for solid intermediate waste (Studsvik site) |
AU |
Storage facility for radioactive waste (Studsvik site) |
AV |
Swedish work environment authority |
BAT |
Best Available Technique |
BFA |
Rock Cavern for Waste (Oskarshamn site) |
BKAB |
Barsebäck Kraft AB |
BLA |
Rock vault for concrete tanks (part of SFR facility) |
BMA |
Rock vault for intermediate level waste (part of SFR facility) |
BNFL |
British nuclear Fuel Ltd |
BSS |
Basic Safety Standards |
BTF |
Rock vault for low level waste (part of SFR facility) |
BWR |
Boiling Water Reactor |
CHP |
Combined Heat and Power |
Clab |
Centralt Lager för Använt Bränsle (Central interim Storage for Spent Fuel) |
Clink |
Integrated central interim storage facility and encapsulation plant |
COGEMA |
Compagnie Général de Matières Nucléaires |
CONVEX |
IAEA Convention Exercises |
CTH |
Chalmers Tekniska Högskola (Chalmers institute of Tecnology) |
DG |
Director General |
ECURIE |
European Community Urgent Radiological Information Exchange |
EIA |
Environmental Impact Assessment |
EIS |
Environmental Impact Statement |
ENSREG |
European Nuclear Safety Regulators’ Group |
EU |
European Union |
FA |
Storage facility (Studsvik site) |
FEP |
Feature, Event and Process |
FKA |
Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB |
Treatment facility for radioactive |
|
GDC |
General Design Criteria |
HA |
Incineration facility (Studsvik site) |
HCL |
Hot cell laboratory (Studsvik site) |
HELCOM |
The Helsinki Commission |
HERCA |
Heads of European Radiation Control Authorities |
HM |
Treatment facility for intermediate level waste (Studsvik site) |
HRL |
Hard Rock Laboratory |
231
List of abbreviations
IAEA |
International Atomic Energy Agency |
ICRP |
International Commission on Radiation Protection |
ID |
Evaporation facility (Studsvik site) |
Implementing geological disposal of radioactive waste technology platform |
|
INES |
International Nuclear Event Scale |
INEX |
OECD/NEA International Nuclear Emergency Exercises |
INRA |
International Nuclear Regulators’ Association |
IRRS |
Integrated Regulatory Review Service |
ISO |
International Standard Organisation |
KBM |
Swedish emergengy management agency |
Proposed method for disposal of spent nuclear fuel |
|
KSU |
KärnkraftSäkerhet och utbildning AB (the Swedish nuclear Training and Safety Center) |
KTH |
Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (Royal institute of Technology) |
LER |
Licensee Event Report |
LILW |
Low and Intermediate Level Waste |
LLW |
Low Level Waste |
MOX |
Mixed oxide fuel |
MSB |
Swedish civil contingencies agency |
MTO |
Interaction between |
NEA |
Nuclear Energy Agency within the OECD |
NGO |
|
NKS |
Nordisk kärnsäkerhetsforskning (Nordic Nuclear Safety Research) |
NORM |
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials |
NPP |
Nuclear Power Plant (including all nuclear power units at one site) |
Nuclear and Radiological Medical Expert Group |
|
OECD |
Organisation for Economic |
OKG |
Oskarshamns Kraftgrupp AB |
OLC |
Operational Limits and Conditions |
OSPAR |
Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the |
PHWR |
Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor |
PSAR |
Preliminary Safety Analysis Report/ Preliminary Safety Report |
PSR |
Periodic Safety Review |
PWR |
Pressurized Water Reactor |
QA |
Quality Assurance |
R&D |
Research and Development |
Treatment facility for radioactive |
|
RAB |
Ringhals AB |
RASK |
SSM methodology for rapid response inspections |
RD&D |
Research, Development and Demonstration |
RO |
Reportable Occurrence |
SAKAB |
Company managing |
232
List of abbreviations
SAR |
Safety Analysis Report/ Safety Report |
SFL |
Disposal facility for |
SFR |
Disposal facility for |
SFS |
Swedish Code of Statutes |
SKB |
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co |
SKI |
Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate |
SMA |
The melting facility (Studsvik site) |
SMHI |
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute |
SNAB |
Studsvik Nuclear AB |
SoS |
Swedish National Board of Health |
SOU |
State Official Report |
The |
|
SRV |
Swedish Rescue Services Agency |
SSI |
Swedish Radiation Protection Institute |
SSM |
Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten (Swedish Radiation Safety Authority) |
SSMFS |
SSM Code of Regulations |
STUK |
Finnish Nuclear and Radiation Safety Authority |
TS |
The tank and silo facility (Studsvik site) |
TSO |
Technical Support Organistation |
UA |
Waste storage facility (Studsvik site) |
WENRA |
Western European Nuclear Regulators Association |
VLLW |
Very Low Level Waste |
WTD |
Waste Type Description |
233
Departementsserien 2011
Kronologisk förteckning
1.Olovlig fotografering. Ju.
2.Avskaffande av den obligatoriska byggfels- försäkringen. M.
3.Högre utbildning i utvecklingssamarbetet En analys av högre utbildning inom ramen för svenskt utvecklingssamarbete och politiken för global utveckling. UD.
4.Behandling av personuppgifter vid Inspektio- nen för socialförsäkringen, m.m. S.
5.Barns rätt till vård och sociala insatser stärks. Ju.
6.Ökad konkurrens på det uppdragsarkeo- logiska området – vissa ändringar i kultur- minneslagen. Ku.
7.Sekretess för finansiella företag. Fi.
8.Hotelltjänster. Ju.
9.Förbättringar inom familjepolitiken. S.
10.Preskription av rätt till försäkringsersättning m.m. Ju.
11.Enklare avbetalningsköp. Ju.
12.Genomförande av EU:s direktiv om skydd av djur som används för vetenskapliga ändamål. L.
13.Upphävande av lagen om exploaterings- samverkan. S.
14.Synnerligen ömmande omständigheter och verkställighetshinder
– en kartläggning av tillämpningen. Ju.
15.Utbyte av uppgifter ur kriminalregister mellan EU:s medlemsstater. Ju.
16.Kustbevakningsdatalag. Fö.
17.Sveriges företagande och konkurrenskraft
– Internationell benchmarking. N.
18.Översyn av sjukförsäkringen – förslag till förbättringar. S.
19.Komplettering av kollektivtrafiklagen. N.
20.En reformerad yrkestrafiklagstiftning. N.
21.Vissa lagändringar i fråga om riktade emissioner av aktier. Ju.
22.Anmälningsskyldighet vid utstationering samt förtydligande avseende missbruk av visstidsanställningar enligt anställnings skyddslagen. A.
23.Uppdaterade högkostnadsskydd
–öppen hälso- och sjukvård samt läkemedel.
S.
24.Bättre tillgång till kommunala föreskrifter. Fi.
25.Godkännande av Europeiska rådets beslut om ändring av artikel 136 i
–stabilitetsmekanism för euroländer. SB.
26.Domarnomineringar till internationella domstolar. UD.
27.Brottsbekämpande myndigheters tillgång till informationssystemet för viseringar (VIS). Ju.
28.EU:s gränskodex. Ju.
29.Översyn av myndighetsstrukturen
för
30.Genomförande av ändringsdirektiv 2010/84/EU avseende säkerhetsövervakning av läkemedel. S.
31.Vissa förenklingar i det arbetsmarknads- politiska regelverket m.m. A.
32.Genomförandet av
33.Rätten att få åldras tillsammans – en fråga om skälighet, värdighet och välbefinnande
iäldreomsorgen. S.
34.Översyn av den statliga ersättningen till kommuner för mottagande av ensam- kommande barn. Ju.
35.Sweden’s fourth national report under the Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and the safety of radioactive waste management.
Swedish implementation of the obligations of the Joint Convention. M.
Departementsserien 2011
Systematisk förteckning
Statsrådsberedningen
Godkännande av Europeiska rådets beslut om ändring av artikel 136 i
– stabilitetsmekanism för euroländer. [25]
Justitiedepartementet
Olovlig fotografering. [1]
Barns rätt till vård och sociala insatser stärks.[5] Hotelltjänster. [8]
Preskription av rätt till försäkringsersättning m.m. [10]
Enklare avbetalningsköp. [11]
Synnerligen ömmande omständigheter och verkställighetshinder
– en kartläggning av tillämpningen. [14]
Utbyte av uppgifter ur kriminalregister mellan EU:s medlemsstater. [15]
Vissa lagändringar i fråga om riktade emissioner av aktier. [21]
Brottsbekämpande myndigheters tillgång till in- formationssystemet för viseringar (VIS). [27]
EU:s gränskodex. [28]
Översyn av den statliga ersättningen till kommuner för mottagande av ensam- kommande barn. [34]
Utrikesdepartementet
Högre utbildning i utvecklingssamarbetet
En analys av högre utbildning inom ramen för svenskt utvecklingssamarbete och politiken för global utveckling. [3]
Domarnomineringar till internationella domstolar. [26]
Översyn av myndighetsstrukturen för
Försvarsdepartementet
Kustbevakningsdatalag. [16]
Socialdepartementet
Behandling av personuppgifter vid Inspektionen för socialförsäkringen, m.m. [4]
Förbättringar inom familjepolitiken. [9]
Upphävande av lagen om exploaterings- samverkan. [13]
Översyn av sjukförsäkringen – förslag till förbättringar. [18]
Uppdaterade högkostnadsskydd
– öppen hälso- och sjukvård samt läkemedel. [23]
Genomförande av ändringsdirektiv 2010/84/EU avseende säkerhetsövervakning av läkemedel. [30]
Genomförandet av
Rätten att få åldras tillsammans – en fråga om skälighet, värdighet och välbefinnande i äldreomsorgen. [33]
Finansdepartementet
Sekretess för finansiella företag. [7]
Bättre tillgång till kommunala föreskrifter. [24]
Landsbygdsdepartementet
Genomförande av EU:s direktiv om skydd av djur som används för vetenskapliga ändamål. [12]
Miljödepartementet
Avskaffande av den obligatoriska byggfelsförsäk- ringen. [2]
Sweden’s fourth national report under the Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and the safety of radioactive waste management.
Swedish implementation of the obligations of the Joint Convention. [35]
Näringsdepartementet
Sveriges företagande och konkurrenskraft
– Internationell benchmarking. [17] Komplettering av kollektivtrafiklagen. [19] En reformerad yrkestrafiklagstiftning. [20]
Kulturdepartementet
Ökad konkurrens på det uppdragsarkeologiska området – vissa ändringar i kulturminnes- lagen. [6]
Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet
Anmälningsskyldighet vid utstationering samt förtydligande avseende missbruk av visstids- anställningar enligt anställningsskyddslagen. [22]
Vissa förenklingar i det arbetsmarknadspolitiska regelverket m.m. [31]
This page is intentionally left blank
106 47 Stockholm Tel
ISBN