논문 상세보기
Benefit Analysis for Melting of Metallic Intermediate Level Waste
p.285
The treatment of radioactive waste by melting has been mainly discussed with low-level waste (LLW). Considering that a large amount of waste in RV or RVI is intermediate-level waste (ILW), however, it is necessary to examine the possibility of treatment by melting of ILW. Different from LLW, melting of ILW with a high content of long-lived nuclides would lead to no free releasee, but has advantages in volume reduction, homogenization, and delay of release. In this paper, the possibility of melting as an alternative technology for the treatment of ILW in the future is reviewed by analyzing the benefits generated by melting ILW in the following aspects: 1) Similar to melting techniques of LLW, them of ILW are mostly based on well-known techniques, but it is necessary to review the feasibility of performing operations such as removal of solidified melt using remote equipment in abnormal situations such as loss of electricity. 2) It is necessary to specify radiation limits for the melting operation unless the ILW melting operation technique can guarantee that the risk of abnormal occurrence is very low. The main quantified radiation parameter is the ingot dose rate, which of 10 mSv/h is considered more reasonable. 3) Although the treatment of ILW by melting leads to a reduction in volume, the main characteristics of the waste still remain, and no waste can be disposed of for free release. Thus, the main potential benefits are improved long-term safety and reduced waste volume. 4) Reducing the surface-to-volume ratio of the molten material could reduce the amount of corrosive material per unit time and, consequently, increase long-term safety. Its effect on long-term safety is difficult to quantify precisely as it depends on several factors, such as the geometry of the original component or whether radionuclides were distributed on the surface of the original component or the induced radioactivity. 5) The volume reduction of ILW is estimated to be reduced by about 1/4 compared to the generated amount when assuming a disposal volume reduction factor of 3 and considering the dose reduction due to radioactive decay after long-term storage, however, due to the lack of knowledge about non-hazardous facility alternatives, it is difficult to evaluate cost-benefit. This is heavily influenced by both the final volume reduction and the potential to reduce the complexity of the repository’s technical barriers.
