Full
report : https://lnkd.in/euD-fHb
Other informations of interest
https://twitter.com/AStrochnis/status/1376834141384290304?s=09 ;https://nitter.tedomum.net/grunblatt/status/1376681091386445826#m
https://nitter.tedomum.net/fmbreon/status/1375744595980644352#m
Context : European taxonomy, Green
deal, Nuclear waste, the DNSH Citeria, the TEG group, the JRC group
Inclusion
or exclusion of nuclear energy in the EU taxonomy was a debated subject
throughout the negotiations on the Taxonomy Regulation. While there are
indirect references in the regulation to the issue of nuclear energy (including
on radioactive waste), co-legislators ultimately left the assessment of nuclear
energy to the Commission as part of its work on the delegated acts establishing
the technical screening criteria.
The
Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (TEG), which was tasked with
advising the Commission on the technical screening criteria for the climate
change mitigation and adaptation objectives, did not provide a conclusive
recommendation on nuclear energy and indicated that a further assessment of the
‘do no significant harm’ aspects of nuclear energy was necessary.
As
the in-house science and knowledge service of the Commission with extensive
technical expertise on nuclear energy and technology, the JRC was invited to carry
out such analysis and to draft a technical assessment report on the ‘do no
significant harm’ (DNSH) aspects of nuclear energy including aspects related to
the long-term management of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear
fuel, consistent with the specifications of Articles 17 and 19 of the Taxonomy
Regulation.
Conclusion of of the TEG group : No problem for climate mitigation, data lacking on DNSH aspects
Nuclear energy generation has near to zero greenhouse gas emissions in
the energy generation phase and can be a contributor to climate mitigation
objectives. Consideration of nuclear
energy by the TEG from a climate mitigation perspective was therefore warranted….
The proposed Taxonomy regulation
and thus TEG’s methodology for including activities in the Taxonomy explicitly
includes two equally important aspects, Substantial Contribution to one
environmental objective and Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) to the other
environmental objective…
Scientific, peer-reviewed
evidence of the risk of significant harm to pollution and biodiversity
objectives arising from the nuclear value chain was received and considered by
the TEG. Evidence regarding advanced risk management procedures and regulations
to limit harm to environmental objectives was also received. This included evidence of multiple
engineered safeguards, designed to reduce the risks. Despite this evidence, there are still empirical data gaps on key
DNSH issues.
For example, regarding the
long-term management of High-Level Waste (HLW), there is an international
consensus that a safe, long-term technical solution is needed to solve the
present unsustainable situation. A combination of temporary storage plus
permanent disposal in geological formation is the most promising, with some
countries are leading the way in implementing those solutions. Yet nowhere in
the world has a viable, safe and long-term underground repository been
established. It was therefore infeasible for the TEG to undertake a robust DNSH
assessment as no permanent, operational disposal site for HLW exists yet from
which long-term empirical, in-situ data and evidence to inform such an
evaluation for nuclear energy….
Given these limitations, it was
not possible for TEG, nor its members, to conclude that the nuclear energy
value chain does not cause significant harm to other environmental objectives
on the time scales in question. The TEG
has therefore not recommended the inclusion of nuclear energy in the Taxonomy
at this stage. Further, the TEG
recommends that more extensive technical work is undertaken on the DNSH aspects
of nuclear energy in future and by a group with in-depth technical expertise on
nuclear life cycle technologies and the existing and potential environmental
impacts across all objectives
Comment : Exclusion of the
taxonomy would deprive all nuclear project and companies of access to privileged
green funding (and also companies working as providers of nuclear companies
would be deprived of green financial label). Given the fact that capital cost is
a most important part of the cost of new nuclear eg 66% in Hinkley Point), this
would really hampers the financing of nuclear project.
Main conclusions of the JRC Group
Conclusion 1) The analyses did not reveal any science-based
evidence that nuclear energy does more
harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production
technologies already included in the Taxonomy as activities supporting
climate change mitigation…
Conclusion 2 ) Presently, there
is broad scientific and technical consensus that disposal of high-level,
long-lived radioactive waste in deep geologic formations is, at the state of
today’s knowledge, considered as an appropriate and safe means of isolating it
from the biosphere for very long time scales….Similarly, carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) technology is based on the long-term disposal of waste in
geological facilities and it has been included in the taxonomy and received a
positive assessment. The Taxonomy Expert Group therefore considers that the
challenges of safe long-term disposal of CO2 in geological facilities, which
are similar to the challenges facing disposal of high-level radioactive waste,
can be adequately managed.
Finland, Sweden and France are
in an advanced stage of implementation of their national deep geological
disposal facilities, which are expected to start operation within the present
decade…
Specific Focus on Nuclear wastes Deep repositories
The fundamental safety objective
applicable to all facilities and activities handling radioactive materials is
to protect the people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing
radiation. Thus, the basic and foremost goal of radioactive waste management is
to ensure that the radioactive waste materials are contained and sequestered
from the biosphere throughout all stages of waste management
For high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel, there is a broad
consensus amongst the scientific, technological and regulatory communities that
final disposal in deep geological repositories is the most effective and safest
feasible solution which can ensure that no significant harm is caused to human
life and the environment for the required timespan. The final disposal of
spent fuel and radioactive waste in a repository foresees its emplacement in a
multi-barrier (engineered and natural) system in a stable geologic formation
several hundred metres below ground level. The specific configuration of the
repository depends on the characteristics and radioactivity content of the
waste. The multi-barrier configuration of the repository prevents radioactive
species from reaching the biosphere over the time span required. In the absence
of releases of radioactive species to the accessible biosphere, there is
neither radiological pollution nor degradation of healthy ecosystems, including
water and marine environments…
The safety of deep geological
repositories during operation includes active monitoring and control. The
long-term safety of radioactive waste in the geological repository, especially
after its closure, must not depend on any institutional control and must be
based on inherent passive features. Passive features include engineered and
natural barriers that do not require continuous supplies to active systems
(e.g. electricity), periodic maintenance, replacement of parts, or permanent
surveillance. In the case of a deep geological repository for final disposal of
spent fuel and high-level waste, the structures of the facility and the natural
media must perform their containment functions without external interventions
for as long as necessary.
The implementation of a deep
geological repository to ensure that radioactive waste does not harm the public
and the environment is a stepwise process, which includes a combination of
technical solutions and a strong administrative, legal and regulatory
framework. Each step is taken based on a documented decision-making process, in
which relevant scientific and technical state of the art, operational
experience, social aspects and updates in the legal and regulatory framework
are incorporated… With the partial exception of the so-called natural analogues
(i.e. sites where natural nuclear reactors occurred billions of years ago),
there is no empirical evidence generated by a radioactive waste disposal
facility that has gone through the pre-operational, operational, and
post-closure stages for the entire timeframe foreseen (up to a hundred thousand
years or more for a deep geological repository). For this reason the safety of
the disposal during the post-closure phase is demonstrated by a robust and
reliable process which confirms that dose or risk to the public are kept below
the established limits under all circumstances during the time scales of
interest and in the absence of direct human monitoring and control…
A variety of tools and
approaches is used to provide scientific evidence in support to safe disposal
of radioactive waste. Representative waste forms, including real spent fuel and
vitrified high-level waste, are studied in hot laboratory facilities to
determine the relevant properties and behaviour of the waste exposed to
combinations of simulated environmental features. Tailor-made analogues are
used to investigate single effects and reactions. The study of natural
analogues can yield very valuable information, for example, on the migration of
radionuclides across a geological formation. Experiments carried out in
underground research laboratories allow acquiring knowledge and data on the
properties of the host rock and their impact in the migration of radionuclides.
All the experimental data and knowledge are used to develop and validate models
using state of the art codes. Modelling is extensively used to understand
behaviours and trends observed experimentally and to obtain prediction
capabilities for complex systems.
The final disposal of spent fuel
and HLW in a deep geological repository foresees its emplacement in a
multibarrier (engineered and natural) system in a stable geologic formation
several hundred metres below ground level. The multi-barrier configuration of
the repository prevents radioactive species from reaching the biosphere over
the time span required to fulfil the strict dose limits imposed by the relevant
regulations. The individual properties and the combined behaviour of the
barrier materials and of the repository environment contribute to delay, block
and minimize the release of radionuclides from the waste package, to delay the transport
across the engineered barriers, and eventually to reduce and further delay the
migration through the geological media (natural barriers). Therefore, all
stages of radioactive waste management, including final disposal, do not cause
radiological pollution and do not degrade healthy ecosystems, including water
and marine environments. The avoidance of significant harm to humans and to the
environment is ultimately ensured by the compliance with the regulatory limits
set for the radioactivity dose contribution to the nonprofessionally exposed
population, which is a pre-condition for the authorization and licensing of any
radioactive waste management facility
- The protective function of the
final repository against harm caused by radiations is set by relevant
regulations. For instance, the time scale for the safety assessment of the
Swedish final repository for spent nuclear fuel should cover a period of one
million years after closure. The risk criterion set by SSM in Sweden in
simplified terms says that people in the
vicinity of the repository may not be exposed to greater risks than the
equivalent of one-hundredth of the natural background radiation in Sweden today.
The Finnish nuclear law states that a final repository under normal operations
may not cause a dose to the most exposed member of the public higher than 0.01 mSv/year
- there is worldwide scientific
consensus that disposal of spent fuel and HLW in stable geological formations
including multiple engineered and natural barriers containing the radioactive
waste is the most effective solution to achieve the required long term
isolation of radiotoxic substances. The consensus
among the experts extends to the conclusion that disposal in a deep geologic
repository is technically feasible and that sufficient confidence in the
overall safety of geological disposal of spent fuel and HLW has been reached to
begin implementation.
- A significant research effort
has been devoted to maximising the fraction of spent nuclear fuel that can be
recycled in nuclear reactors and reducing the long-term radiotoxicity of HLW to
be disposed of in the geological repository. Both aims are relevant to the
environmental objective "Transition to a circular economy, waste prevention
and recycling". Due to the fact
that fast reactors allow multiple (re)cycling of the fractions of fuel/waste
not consumed/burned, the final result of iterating this process would be an
almost complete use of the fuel and an increasingly reduced fraction of
long-lived species (mostly in terms of the minor actinides content) in the
irradiated fuel. Although essentially all steps of this process, also known
as partitioning and transmutation, have been demonstrated at laboratory scale,
the Technology Readiness Level is not yet corresponding to industrial maturity.
Comment : the problem of nuclear wastesand geological repositories has also been the topic of a very interesting NEA/OCDE report see https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2020/09/le-probleme-des-dechets-ultimes-du.html, https://www.oecd.org/publications/management-and-disposal-of-high-level-radioactive-waste-33f65af2-en.htm
Safety and health
Safety is ensured ! The
protection of people and the environment in countries with nuclear
installations relies on the existence of a solid regulatory framework that oversees
the safety and environmental impacts of these installations… The EU and its Member States have developed
and established a comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure the safety of
nuclear installations, in line with international requirements and
recommendations for enhancing regulatory systems for the control of nuclear
installations throughout their lifetime. As contracting parties to the
Convention on Nuclear Safety and to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent
Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, the EU and
its Member States commit to a set of obligations and safety on a global scale,
including those relating to their legislative and regulatory framework and
regulatory bodies….
Health and Security -Impact of ionizing radiation on human health and
the environment
According to the LCIA (Life
Cycle Impact Analysis) studies analysed in Chapter 3.4, the total impact on human
health of both the radiological and non-radiological emissions from the nuclear
energy chain are comparable with the human health impact from offshore wind
energy.
The average annual exposure to a
member of the public, due to effects attributable to nuclear energy based electricity
production is about 0.2 microsievert, which is ten thousand times less than the average annual dose due to the natural
background radiation.
The total impact on human health
of these radiological emissions, as well as other, non-radiological emissions
from the nuclear energy chain, are
comparable with the human health impact from offshore wind energy, according
to the LCIA …Natural background radiation is responsible for 2.4 mSv/year, or
around 78% of the total average annual effective dose to the public of 3.05
mSv/year…
Furthermore, the additional
effective doses to members of the public due to the nuclear energy lifecycle
are also extremely small when compared to the variations in natural background
radiation due to living in different geographic locations…The national averages
range from around 1.5 mSv in The Netherlands, to around 6.2 mSv in Finland, a
variation of almost 5 mSv/year….
After the Chernobyl accident, there
were focused international and national efforts to develop Gen III nuclear
power plants. These plants were designed according to extended requirements
related to severe accident prevention and mitigation, for example they ensure
the capability to mitigate the consequences of a severe degradation of the reactor
core, if such an event ever happens. The
main design objective was to ensure that even in the worst case, the impact of
any radioactive releases to the environment would be limited to within a few
kilometres of the site boundary. The deployment of various Gen III plant
designs started in the last 15 years worldwide and now practically only Gen III
reactors are constructed and commissioned.
These latest technology
developments are reflected in the very low fatality rate for the Gen III EPR
design10-10 fatalities/GWh,. The fatality rates characterizing state-of-the art
Gen III NPPs are the lowest of all the
electricity generation technologies.
Other environmental problematics DNSH and pollution : nuclear is better
In
accordance with article 17 of the Taxonomy Regulation, an economic activity
shall be considered to cause significant harm to pollution prevention and
control where:(i) that activity leads to
a significant increase in the emissions of pollutants into air, water or land,
as compared with the situation before the activity started..
In summary, there is no evidence
that nuclear energy does more harm to the transition to a circular economy,
including waste prevention and recycling, than other energy technologies
included in the Taxonomy.
Average
lifecycle GHG emissions determined for electricity production from nuclear
energy arecomparable to the values characteristic to hydropower and wind
Nuclear energy has very low NOx
(nitrous oxides), SO2 (sulphur dioxide), PM (particulate matter) and NMVOC
(non-methane volatile organic compounds) emissions, the values are comparable
to the emissions of solar PV and wind
If other
impact categories are considered (e.g. acidification and eutrophication potentials),
then nuclear energy is again comparable to solar PV and wind ; The same is true
for freshwater and marine eco-toxicity; ozone depletion and POCP (photochemical
oxidant creation potential
However, with regard to
radioactive wastes specifically, clearly nuclear energy produces larger
quantities than other generation technologies. For Radioactive waste and its management –see previous
section
water consumption : “While water consumption is very low for once-through
cooling, technologies using recirculation cooling, evaporative cooling towers
or pond cooling usually consume a significant amount of water to compensate for
losses due to evaporation. Water consumption characterizing these cooling
technologies remains comparable to concentrating solar power and coal, for both
recirculation and pond cooling
General Conclusion
It can therefore be concluded
that all potentially harmful impacts of the various nuclear energy lifecycle
phases on human health and the environment can be duly prevented or avoided.
The nuclear energy-based electricity production and the associated activities
in the whole nuclear fuel cycle (e.g. uranium mining, nuclear fuel fabrication,
etc.) do not represent significant harm to any of the TEG objectives, provided
that all specific industrial activities involved fulfil the related Technical
Screening Criteria.
…The nuclear energy-based electricity generation can be considered as an
activity significantly contributing to the climate change mitigation objective.
Other associated industrial activities in the nuclear fuel cycle (uranium
mining & milling, fabrication of nuclear fuel, reprocessing of spent
nuclear fuel, final disposal of high-level radioactive waste, etc.) can be
treated as activities enabling the safe and sustainable utilization of nuclear
energy.
Other considerations
:
Influence of mining : If the
whole nuclear life cycle is considered, then uranium mining has large
contribution 32%) to the total GHG emission and dominates the following
impacts: SOx 88%, NOx 78%, water pollution 91% and land use 68%. Mining is
almost exclusively 99% responsible for
the potential eco-toxicity and human toxicity impacts and also dominates the
acidification, 82%), ozone creation 86% and eutrofication 53%) potentials. Mining does not have
significant share in the water consumption, water withdrawal and production of
technological waste impacts….Due to the emission of radon, uranium mining is
responsible for about 55% of the total gaseous radioactive emissions during the
total nuclear lifecycle?
“The final part listed
industrial processes and best practices which are regularly used to eliminate
or mitigate the potentially harmful impacts of uranium mining and milling. It is demonstrated by the best available
technologies of today that by the application of adequate practices the impacts
can be controlled and their magnitude can be kept well below the applicable
regulatory limits.”
Influence of enrichment : In
general the enrichment phase has moderate contribution to the various impact
indicators and it is not adominant contributor to any impact indicator …If the
whole nuclear lifecycle is considered, then enrichment has negligible
contribution ( <1%) to the water pollution, land use, water withdrawal,
eco-toxicity and human toxicity. It has some contribution to the SOx 3% and NOx emission 4%, water consumption, 2%
, technological waste 2%, acidification potential 4%, It has larger than 210%
cotribition only to the total GHG emission GNH relase 12%) and the eutrophication potential 18%).
Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel : Commercial scale reprocessing
of spent nuclear fuel for civil purposes is now a mature technology that has
been practised for several decades….. In the light of the above analysis it can
be concluded that industrial activities associated with reprocessing of spent
nuclear fuel do not represent significant harm to human health or to the
environment. They do not represent significant harm to any of the TEG
objectives, provided that the associated industrial activities satisfy
appropriate Technical Screening Criteria
Operation of power plants : Provided
that nuclear power plants are built, operated and decommissioned within the
limits set by existing regulations, they do not pose a significant harm to any
of the TEG objectives. In the light of the above analysis it can be
concluded that NPP operation activities do not represent unavertable harm to
human health or to the environment. They do not represent significant harm to
any of the TEG objectives, provided that the associated industrial activities
satisfy appropriate Technical Screening Criteria.
Final repository : No radiologically relevant release or impact to
the public is expected during the construction and the operation of the final
repository.
Impact of severe accidents :
