Note
to:
from:
cc
R. Andreani, M. Q. Tran
W. Gulden
S. Ciattaglia, D. Maisonnier, P. Sardain
Subject:
Radioactive Waste for Fusion Power Plants
21 Jan 2005

Radioactive Wastes for Fusion Power Plants are not “high activated materials” as
understood in the fission context (= wastes coming from fission spent fuel). In the
PPCS report /1/ this is correctly reflected by e.g. in Figure 12 of /1/ and by the
statement in chapter 6.3 “There is no permanent disposal waste (PDW) after 100
years, if complex recycling is implemented”.

The classification of wastes in NAW, SRM, CRM, PWD used inside PPCS (Table 4
of /1/) is a useful definition in approaching the problem of wastes. It is, however, not
connected straightforward with the real existing criteria or with repositories existing
or planned in any country.

In Europe there are various kinds of repositories with their own acceptance criteria
depending on the land burial and site characteristics. (Examples see Table1 below).
The two main categories are:
1. Shallow land burial (engineered or natural barrier-geological) for low and lowintermediate level radioactive wastes (as El Cabril in Spain, CSA in France or
SFR in Sweden)
2. Geological disposal for low-intermediate (as Konrad in Germany) or
intermediate-high level radioactive wastes (as Gorleben in Germany or SFL in
Sweden).

“No PWD” does not mean that all SRM or CRM would be accepted by shallow land
burial repositories. SRM/CRM may partly have to go (after 100 years) into shallow
or deep geological repositories for medium level wastes. Table 2 shows results for
PPCS Model A (/2/). => The statement in chapter 6.3 of /1/ “If there is no complex
recycling, shallow land burial will be adequate: there will be no need for geological
repository” is wrong.

Furthermore there is according to /2/ a need of detritiation of a few fusion
components (even after 100 years) before going to repositories for which the T limit
is above the acceptance limits (as the breeder blanket, the divertor and the HT).
Example: The Konrad repository could accept all fusion reactor wastes (of any
model) after 100 years only after this detritiation. Therefore chapter 6.2 of Annex 10
of /1/ should be modified accordingly.

Some attention needs to be devoted to the chemical toxicity of some metals (Lead,
Be, Cr, boron carbide).

There is a need of defining acceptance criteria for some fusion specific
radionuclides, which are not considered in existing (fission oriented) rad-waste
repositories or/and because of their specific characteristics (forms).
533563817, SC/WG, p. 1
Table 1. Characteristics of a few EU waste repositories /2/
Repository
Type of waste
Kind of Repository
El Cabril (Spain)
Low and Intermediate
Level
Low and Intermediate
Level
Low and Intermediate
Level with low heat
generation
Intermediate and High
Level
Low and Intermediate
Level
Shallow engineered
T limit
Bq/kg
1 E9
Shallow engineered
2 E8
Deep geological
1 E8
CSA (France)
Konrad (Germany)
Gorleben
(Germany)
SFR (Sweden)
Deep geological
Shallow geological
1 E8
Table 2. Masses of the material from the various regions of Model A after 100 years of
cooling. Acceptable masses estimated for the different repositories.
Category
PDW
Tonnes
CRM
Tonnes
SRM
Tonnes
NAW
Tonnes
Total
Tonnes
Ref /2/
0
1,54E4
8,79E4
5,97E4
1,63E5
% of total
0
9
54
37
100
Konrad
0
2,16E4
8,26E4
6,11E4
1,65E5
% of category
0
100
100
100
100
CSA/El Cabril
0
1,11E3
6,16E4
6,11E4
1,24E5
% of category
0
5
75
100
75
SFR
0
0
5,24E4
6,11E4
1,14E5
% of category
0
0
63
100
69
References
/1/
/2/
A Conceptual Study of Commercial Fusion Power Plants, Final Report of the
European Fusion Power Plant Conceptual Study (PPCS), September 15th, 2004,
EFDA-RP-RF-5.0.
Karin Brodén and Gunnar Olsson “Categorisation of activated material from
PPCS models and acceptability for final disposal”. Draft Final Report, Studvik
Radwaste AB, RW-04/16 Rev 1, Oct 2004.
533563817, SC/WG, p. 2