eurovoc_concepts:
Joint Research Centre
Netherlands
committee report
nuclear reactor
radioactive waste
storage of waste

text: KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN # ft ft ft ^ f t* Brüssel, den 14. 04. 1997 KOM(97) 150 endg. BERICHT DER KOMMISSION AN DEN RAT UND DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT über die Rahmenbedingungen für die Stillegung des Hochflußreaktors (HFR) Petten Der Rat hat am 27. Juni 1996 gemäß Artikel 7 Euratom-Vertrag das von der Gemeinsamen Forschungsstelle für die Europäische Atomgemeinschaft durchzuführende zusätzliche Forschungsprogramm (1996-1999) festgelegt. Aus diesem Anlaß wurde folgende Erklärung in das Protokoll des Rates aufgenommen: "Der Rat nimmt folgendes zur Kenntnis: in Die Kommission wird weiterhin Rückstellungen für die Stillegung vornehmen, wie sie dies bereits für Bestrahlungsdienstleistungen getan hat. Derartige Rückstellungen ergänzen die bisherigen Rückstellungen und werden zu gegebener Zeit verwendet. früheren Jahren bei der Festlegung der Gebühren Die Kommission wird darüber hinaus die Frage der Stillegung des HFR prüfen und dem Rat vor Ende 1996 einen entsprechenden Bericht vorlegen. " Die Kommission bittet den Rat und das Europäische Parlament, den beiliegenden Bericht zur Kenntnis zu nehmen 4- BERICHT DER KOMMISSION AN DEN RAT UND DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT über die Rahmenbedingungen für die Stillegung des Hochflußreaktors (HFR) Petten Einleitende Bemerkungen einer sowie rechtzeitigen Erneuerung Eine Stillegung des HFR steht in der Praxis bis auf weiteres nicht auf der Tagesordnung. Der Reaktor ist in sehr guter technischer Verfassung, was einer laufenden Modernisierung und Nachrüstung der wichtigsten Reaktorkomponenten zu verdanken ist. Hinsichtlich der Restlebensdauer des derzeitigen Reaktorbehälters, der 1984/85 ausgewechselt wurde, und dessen Auslegungslebensdauer insgesamt 30 Jahre beträgt, kann davon ausgegangen werden, daß der HFR wenigstens bis 2015 in Betrieb bleiben kann; die alle drei Jahre durchgeführten internen Inspektionen sind darauf ausgerichtet, dies zu bestätigen. Hinzu kommt, daß ein weiterer voll zugelassener, mit dem derzeitigen HFR-Behälter identischer Reaktorbehälter auf Lager ist und bei einem weiteren Reaktorbehälteraustausch eingesetzt werden könnte. Deshalb wird die Kommission um 2015 zwischen drei Optionen wählen können: Außerbetriebnahme des HFR und Einleitung seiner Stillegung; Bewertung der genauen Situation des Behälters und Entscheidung über eine Verlängerung der Nutzungsdauer des Reaktors mit dem derzeitigen Behälter; Bewertung der Situation des Behälters mit anschließendem Beschluß, ihn auszuwechseln. Die Tabellen 1 und 2 enthalten langfristig angelegte Zeitpläne für den Betrieb des HFR im Einklang mit der ersten und der dritten Option. Die Entscheidung für eine dieser Optionen erfordert eine gründliche Abstimmung mit den niederländischen Genehmigungsbehörden, mit den Mitgliedstaaten, die den HFR zu jener Zeit unterstützen, und den Kunden. Die Entscheidung erfolgt insbesondere auf der Grundlage einer wirtschaftlichen Bewertung der Lebensfähigkeit des Reaktors zu jener Zeit. Folglich ist die Frage nach einer eventuellen Stillegung des HFR voraussichtlich erst nach 2015 von Bedeutung; vielleicht stellt sie sich auch erst Mitte des kommenden Jahrhunderts. Trotzdem ist es möglich, auf Grund der Merkmale des HFR unabhängig vom Zeitpunkt der Entscheidung das Stillegungsverfahren zu beschreiben und die voraussichtlichen Kosten der Stillegung zu berechnen. In dem vorliegenden Arbeitspapier wird diese Frage behandelt; eine von Sachverständigen [d. h. der Firma DETEC, Deutschland] durchgeführte Überprüfung dieses Arbeitspapiers hat die Durchführbarkeit dieses Vorschlags sowie die ursprünglich angenommenen Schätzungen des Abfallvolumens bestätigt. (DETEC ist eine anerkannte, erfahrene Firma im Bereich der Stillegung und eine gemeinsame Tochter von SIEMENS und NUKEM). Die Stellungnahmen der Sachverständigen sind in diesen Bericht der Kommission aufgenommen worden. Trotzdem erschien es den Verfassern lohnenswert, ihm die englische Originalfassung des technischen Berichts der DETEC beizufügen. •1. 0. I. Umfang der Studie Diese Vorstudie beschreibt auf der Grundlage der Veröffentlichung "Safety in Decommissioning of Research Reactors", Safety Guide ["Zur Sicherheit bei der Stillegung von Forschungsreaktoren", Sicherheitstechnischer Leitfaden], Internationale Atomenergie- Organisation (IAEO), Safety Series Nr. 74, 1986, die wichtigsten Phasen einer Stillegung des HFR am Standort Petten. Sie enthält auch eine Darstellung der voraussichtlichen Phasen des Rückbaus und der Stillegung des HFR sowie eine grobe Schätzung des hiermit verbundenen Abfallvolumens und der zu erwartenden Kosten. IL Die Phasen der Stillegung Das Stillegungsverfahren beginnt mit der endgültigen Abschaltung des HFR und endet mit der Freigabe des Reaktorstandortes zur uneingeschränkten Nutzung. Dieses Verfahren wird in drei Phasen eingeteilt: Phase 1: Lagerung unter Überwachung Während und nach Ablauf dieser Phase ist eine fortlaufende Überwachung des Reaktors erforderlich. Zu den wichtigsten Aktivitäten zählen: - die Entfernung des Kernbrennstoffs; - die Entfernung des Kühlmittels sowie weiterer leicht entfernbarer kontaminierter oder schwach radioaktiver Materialien. Dies ist mit Hilfe der vor Ort vorhandenen Einrichtungen bei relativ niedrigen Kosten leicht möglich. Phase 2: Bedingte Nutzung des Standortes Infolge der Stillegungsaktivitäten können nach Abschluß dieser Phase Teile des Standortes mit Auflagen zur Nutzung freigegeben werden; die übrigen Teile des Reaktors und des Standortes unterliegen der Lagerung unter Überwachung. Zu den wichtigsten Aktivitäten zählen: - Dekontamination aller leicht dekontaminierten Bereiche - Physisches Versiegeln der übrigen radioaktiven Bereiche. Dies beinhaltet die Entfernung des Behälters sowie aller aktivierten oder hochgradig kontaminierten Teile im Umfeld des Behälters, im Wasserbecken (Strahlrohre), des Primärkreislaufs sowie die Entfernung aktivierter oder kontaminierter Teile der Beckenauskleidung und der Betonwände, ferner die Versiegelung derjenigen Teile, die noch immer radioaktiv sein könnten Alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen können - unter Einbeziehung des Energy Centrum Nederland (ECN) mit eigenem Personal und eigenem Know-how durchgeführt werden. Die Abfälle können zur niederländischen Entsorgungseinrichtung COVRA (Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval) gebracht werden, selbst wenn eine geringe Menge vor dem Transport zu COVRA vorübergehend in der ECN-Einrichtung für mittelaktiven Abfall zwischengelagert werden müßte. Phase 3: Uneingeschränkte Nutzung des Standortes In dieser Phase ist die Stillegung des Reaktors abgeschlossen. Alle radioaktiven Materialien, Geräte und Strukturen sind entweder dekontaminiert oder zur niederländischen Entsorgungseinrichtung COVRA gebracht worden. Anschließend wird eine abschließende Freigabemessung durchgeführt, um sicherzugehen, daß an dem zurückbleibt. Danach wird der Standort zur Standort keine Radioaktivität uneingeschränkten Nutzung freigegeben; weitere Überwachungsinspektionen oder Tests sind nicht erforderlich. Die Gebäude und der Standort werden aus der atomrechtlichen Bindung entlassen. Nach der Entlassung aus der atomrechtlichen Bindung kann eine Nutzung des Standortes zu beliebigen anderen Zwecken in Erwägung gezogen werden, so daß Einkünfte erzielt werden; falls nicht, werden die Kosten der Phase 3 der normalen Verwaltung gewöhnlicher Gebäude gleichgesetzt. Es wird vorgeschlagen, mit der Ausführung der Phase 3 unmittelbar nach Abschluß der Phase 2 zu beginnen. Aus den Empfehlungen von Sachverständigen geht hervor, daß die fortlaufende Stillegung bis hin zum Abschluß der Phase 3 gegenüber einem Szenario, in dem die Durchführung der Phase 3 im Anschluß an eine Wartezeit erfolgt, mit erheblichen Vorteilen verbunden ist. Stillegungskosten: Vorbereitung und Kontakte zu Genehmigungsbehörden: Vorbereitung und Durchführung der eigentlichen Arbeiten (gemäß dem laufenden ECN-Betriebsvertrag müssen die Kapazitäten für etwa 1,5 Jahre aufrechterhalten werden): Abfalltransport zu und Lagerung bei COVRA: Summe (grobe Schätzung): 2 Mio. ECU 14 Mio. ECU 9 Mio. ECU 25 Mio. ECU III. Reihenfolge der Stillegungsaktivitäten Die HFR-Stillegungsaktivitäten basieren auf den 1984/85 beim Auswechseln des Behälters gesammelten Erfahrungen. Damals wurde die gesamte Operation vom normalen Betriebs und Wartungspersonal durchgeführt - mit zusätzlicher Unterstützung der HFR-Nutzer und einem Workshop am Standort Auf der Grundlage des 1984 beim Auswechseln des Behälters gehandhabten Abfallaufkommens sieht das allgemeine Mehrphasenkonzept wie folgt aus: 0. Î. Entfernung der Brennelemente Die Brennelemente werden woanders Wiederaufarbeitungsanlage transportiert. sicher gelagert oder zu einer Entfernung aller Hilfseinrichtungen und -mechanismen, die sich in dem oder um den Behälter befinden Es wird dasselbe Abfallaufkommen wie beim Austausch des Behälters 1984 erwartet. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Zerstörende Entfernung von Strahlrohren und anderen "festen" Verbindungen mit dem Behälter (d. h. zusätzliche Sicherheitsstrukturen usw. ) Angesichts des verstärkten Einsatzes von Bolzen und Ringen aus rostfreiem Stahl werden von den Strahlrohren und anderen "festen" Stukturen (einige mit stärker mittelaktiven Teilen) etwa die gleichen Mengen wie zuvor anfallen. Da keine Federbälge mehr verwendet wurden, ist nur wenig Material aus rostfreiem Stahl vorhanden. Allerdings ist jetzt mehr Material vorhanden, dessen Dicke 3 cm übersteigt, und für das eine Spezial-Abfallbehandlung erforderlich ist. Entfernung des Behälters Vom eigentlichen Behälter wird weniger Material anfallen, das dafür desto dicker ist. Entfernung der aktiven Teile der Strahlrohre 11 und 12 sowie von Teilen der Beckenauskleidung mit lokaler Aktivierung Das Abfallaufkommen von den Strahlrohren 11 und 12 wird auf Grund einer vereinfachten Konstruktion reduziert; das Material für die Beckenauskleidung wird mit 10 % des Ganzen angesetzt. Entfernung des aktivierten Betons der Beckenwände um die Strahlrohröffnungen herum Hinsichtlich des aktivierten Betons der Beckenwände um die Strahlrohröffhungen herum wird von der Annahme ausgegangen, daß die "Eindringtiefe" um die Öffnungen herum durchschnittlich etwa 30 cm beträgt. Entfernung des kontaminierten Betons unterhalb der Becken-Bodenauskleidung Für den auf Grund eines bestehenden Lecks kontaminierten Beton unterhalb der Becken-Bodenauskleidung wird ebenfalls eine Dicke von 30 cm angenommen. Bei den vertikalen Wänden besteht nur beim Beton in der Nachbarschaft der Beckenschotten ein Verdacht auf Kontamination. Extensive Dekontamination aller Rohre des Primär- Beckenkühlkreislaufs Bei der Dekontamination der Rohre des Primär- sowie des Beckenkühlkreislaufs entsteht lediglich radioaktive Dekontaminationsflüssigkeit. Das Material selbst wird nicht aktiviert Dasselbe gilt für Abfuhrsysteme von kontaminierten Flüssigkeiten und Gasen. sowie des Entfernung aktivierter und oder kontaminierter Hilfseinrichtungen (Harze von Ionenaustauschern, Werkzeuge usw. ) und Standard-Versuchseinrichtungen In welchen Mengen Harze von Ionenaustauschern anfallen, ist gut bekannt; nach gründlicher Regeneration können die Harze als schwachaktive Abfälle eingestuft und entsprechend behandelt werden. Die Werkzeuge, Lagergestelle usw. werden nach der Dekontamination nur noch kleine Mengen schwachaktiven Materials aufweisen. Die Standard- Versuchseinrichtungen basieren auf der Situation von 1991. die Entfernung Schätzungen der für Allgemeine radiologische Kontrolle der übrigen Systemteile Es wird davon ausgegangen, daß bei der abschließenden radiologischen Kontrolle der Anlage nur geringe Mengen schwachaktiver Abfalle erfaßt werden. Standardabbau bis zu dem flir eine weitere Nutzung der Anlage erforderlichen Niveau Diese Operation betrifft nichtaktives Material. Tabelle 3 enthält eine Übersicht über die geschätzten Abfallmengen, aufgeteilt nach Kategorien. Die hoch- und mittelaktiven Abfälle können vorübergehend in der ECN- Einrichtung zwischengelagert werden. Für den Fall einer Verbringung nach und Lagerung bei COVRA Borsele kann die Tabelle 3 durch die Tabelle 4 ersetzt werden. Insgesamt wird mit einem Aufkommen von 5 m3, entsprechend 370 TBq (1. 000 Ci), hoch- bzw. mittelaktiven Abfallen sowie einem Aufkommen von 120 m3, entsprechend 5,9 TBq (16 Ci), schwachaktiven Abfallen gerechnet. Tab. 1: Langfristiger Zeitplan für den Betrieb des HFR (erste Option) Zeitraum: 1996 bis 2030 Jahre: 19. bis 20. •% bis W "10 '11 •12 '13 '14 •15 '16 '17 '18 bis '30 Pachtvertrag KEG / NI. Verbleibende Geltungsdauer des Pachtvertrags KEG / Nl, über den HFR und den Standort Petten l-ebensdauer des HI R-Hehâhers Voraussichtliche Restlebensdauer des HFR-Druckhehälters Nr. 2 Stillegung des HFR Vorbereitung Phasen 1 und 2 Phase 3 <?S Vorbereitung Zeitraum: 2031 bis 2065 Jahr: 20. '31 bis '61 Uneingeschränkte Nutzung des Standortes •62 •63 '64 '65 Pachtvertrag KEG / NL Erfüllung des Pachtvertrags KEG / NL Ober den HFR und den Standort Petten bis Ende der Geltungsdauer Stillegung des HFR Phase 3 Fortführung der uneingeschränkten Nutzung des Standortes Tab. 2: Langfristiger Zeitplan für den Betrieb des HFR (dritte Option) Zeitraum: 1996 bis 2030 Jahre. 19. bis 20. "96 bis '09 11 '12 13 '14 '15 '16 '17 bis 30 Pachtvertrag KEG NL Verbleibende Geltungsdauer des Pachtvertrags KEG / NL über den HFR und den Standort Petten Ubensdauerdes MFR-Hehllters Voraussichtliche Restlebensdauer des HFR-Druckbehältcrs Nr. 2 Voraussichtliche Lebensdauer des [bestehenden] HFR-Druckbehlhers Nr. 3 Austausch des HFR-Hehâïtcrs Vorbereitung Austausch -U Zeitraum: 2031 bis 2065 Jahre: 20. Vorbereitung •31 bis'43 '44 '45 •46 '47 •48 •49 '50 •51 bis'61 '62 '63 •64 '65 Pachtvertrag KEG / NL Erfüllung des Pachtvertrags KEG / NL über den HFR und den Standort Petten bis Ende der Geltungsdauer Lebensdauer des HFR-Behlhers Voraussichtliche Lebensdauer des HFR-Druckbehähers Nr. 3 (Fortsetzung) Stillegung des HFR Vorbereitung Phasen 1 und 2 Phase 3 Vorbereitung Uneingeschränkte Nutzung des Standortes Tabelle 3: (reschätztes Abfallaufkommen nach Kategorien und oder Zielorten Kategorie Hoch- bzw. mittelaktive Abfalle « M M M H H i ai Standard-Abfallgebinde (25 1) mit Fässer für Aluminium Edelstahl 180 20 kCi 1,0 Behälter und Hilfseinrichtungen um den Behälter Aktivierter Beton CK Kontaminierte Hilfseinrichtungen INSGESAMT 180 20 1,0 2001 200 220 130 550 6001 20 Ê-mamÊ—ÊamuÈmmÊ*——* 12 20 « • H M H i a M HM 1* Tabelle 4: Geschätzte Abfallmengen, die bei COVRA gelagert werden sollen Containervolumen Dosisäquivalent / h Behälter und Hiirscinrichliingcn um den Behälter Aktivierter Beton Kontaminierte Hilfseinrichtungen INSGESAMT LP Anzahl der Betoncontainer 20() 1 <2 mSv/h 200 150 150 500 >. 2 mSv/h <2. () mSv/h <2 mSv/h >2 mSv/h <2. 0 mSv/h 6001 100 100 100 100 DETEC Bericht Empfänger siehe Verteiler Titel: Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten (Summarizing Report) Revision stehe Revisionsubersicht ULS Blattzahl Ersteiler Datum Prüfer Erstausgabe 15 0 3, *>«y. übergeordnetes Dokument Projekt-Nr UVST ACK DN 1 5 4 0 09 DE140 Freigabe Projektierter. Datum RIX m f" Runge DNR 00062610 - 00 Funktion Komponente Baugruppe Bau EB Lfd. Nr. AG UA DETEC Interne Kennzeichnung: ; - n er r. umoe: 3025005 u BE Blatt Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Formblatt DE110. DOT / QM / 09. 94 A O Revisionsubersicht Blatt Beschreibung der Änderung a ll F i r st i s s ue RIX/Datum 0 0 / 2 9. 0 8. 96 DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 1 0 DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt Formblatt DE 102DOT / QM / 09. 94 Contents page Abstract 1 Scope 2 Assumptions 3 Review of technical concept 4 Review of costs 4. 1 Plausibility check 4. 2 Detailed evaluation 10 10 13 DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten i£ DNR 00062610 RIX 00 Blatt Formblatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 9- Abstract The intention of the expert review is to check the feasibility of the technical concept and the plausibility of the estimated costs. A comparison of HFR with 3 German research reactors actually in the state of decommissioning leads to the result that the cal culated amounts of waste and costs seem to be in a reasonable order of magnitude if one takes into account: the comparatively low residual radioactivity of the HFR the comparatively low estimated waste arisings low estimated decommissioning and temporary supervision costs. The results obtained by a plausibility check were subsequently confirmed by an independent detailed calculation. Total costs for decommissioning to free release (directly following stage 2) should therefore not exceed 25 MECU. Weighing the pros and cons for decommissioning as planned, it becomes apparent that there are hardly any pros left for a long time phase of supervision following stage 2. r. adioactive decay, the argument often used in favour of defer ring stage 3, is of no significant importance. A dormancy peri od cf several decades will not improve the contamination situa tion substantially and will therefore not lighten the dismant ling work decisively. Conversely, the advantages of immediate decommissioning to un restricted release of the controlled areas are obvious: • Auxiliary systems that will be needed for decommissioning are either still in operating condition or can be kept ope rational. Deferred dismantling would require new installa tions with all implications (such as licensing). DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 13 DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt Formblatt DE 103. DOT / QM / 09. 9^ Costs for sampling and waste management (decontamination, waste conditioning) can be kept low as long as neighbouring JRC still has appropriate facilities at its disposal. This might not be the case several decades after decommissioning to stage 2. The availability of experienced HFI^ staff and of personnel with specific HFR knowledge at -authorities and in industry. That knowledge is about to disappear gradually. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten ONR 00062610 RIX 00 Blatt Formblatt DE103. DOT / QM / Oö. f Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten i vy 1 Scope The Institute for Advanced Materials, HFR Unit, at Petten has prepared a preliminary study about the decommissioning of the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten. The study is based on IAEA Safety Series no. 74 „Safety in De commissioning of Research Reactors", Safety Guide, 1986. It estimates expected costs for reactor dismantling including amounts of waste and costs of waste disposal. It is the intention of the expert review to check the feasibi lity of the technical concept and the plausibility of the esti mated costs. 2 Assumptions The expert review is based upon the following assumptions: - decommissioning of HFR will be performed in accordance with IAEA Safety Series no. 74. after decontamination and dismantling of contaminated and activated areas and components the buildings will be re turned to the former owner for unrestricted site use. - ~ost dismantling work will be performed by the HFR operating staff. ail costs are calculated on 1996 price level. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt Formblatt DE 103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 1 J 3 Review of technical concept The IAEA Safety Series no. 74 recommends decommissioning by three stages: stage 1 includes the removal of fuel and all other removable contaminated and activated material like for example cooling water. stage 2 comprises decontamination and disassembly of such areas and components which can be quite easily trea ted and removed like the reactor vessel. In stage 2 it is intended to remove the main part of activity and to achieve unrestricted release conditi ons for large building areas. Those areas which can not easily be cleaned from activity will be sealed and will remain as restricted use areas for perhaps a long period of time. stage 3 finally will consist in removing all the remaining contamination and activation and will terminate the decommissioning by unrestricted release of the com plete facility. The HFR preliminary study strictly follows these recommendati ons. It must be mentioned that the IAEA Safety Series no. 74 is no binding regulation but a guide which explicitely admits depar tures from the recommended strategy. 3y the experience of decommissioning German research reactors e. g. AVR, FR-2 and MZFR) a 3-stage strategy guided by the gra- ae of technical complexity and by the radiological demands is a rTery reasonable approach to decommissioning. But we do not fol low the idea to keep the facility within stage 2 for perhaps DETEC of E x p e rt Review t he D r a ft JRC P e t t en Document on Decommissioning of HFR P e t t en Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 1£ DNR 00062610 RIX - 00 Blatt Formblatt DE103. DOT/QM/ 09. 94 some ten years, an idea which at least is implicitely included in this concept. By nearly all actual decommissioning projects it can be learned that direct and immediate dismantling is the most effective way. This can be supported by mainly two arguments: - until completion of stage 3 at least some auxiliary systems like ventilation and off-gas systems must be kept working. This will cause costs. - practical experience demonstrates the need for operating staff availability during all stages of decommissioning. Se veral decades after shut down it cannot be expected that ex perienced operating personnel from the facility will still be at hand. This situation will then also give rise to addi tional costs. Taking into account the development of waste disposal costs it must be an additional argument to complete the work as soon as possible - once the decision for final shut down has been ta ken. We therefore strongly recommend to perform the decommissioning stage-wise but without long interruptions between different stages. The decommissioning sequence described in chapter III of the HFR preliminary study seems to be reasonable but with one exception: decontamination of the primary system and pool coo ling system (item 7) should be performed right at the beginning of the decommissioning work. To be precise: decontamination should be foreseen directly after item 1. Decontamination of the primary and pool coolant loop system should be performed with Full System Chemical Decontamination (FSD). Highly efficient closed loop processes of this kind also DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt 8 Formblatt DE103. DOT/QM/09 9- 1} for aluminum are available. Such a process will decontaminate large system areas fairly down below the limit values for mate rial free release. Appropriate processes are available which are strongly waste minimizing. Ion exchange resins which contain the total amount of activity and of kations will be the only secondary waste re sulting from such processes. Decontamination chemicals are com pletely decomposed within the process and will not contribute to the waste volume. FSD will not only help to save dose rate during system dismant ling but will also help to save costs because the complete sy stem will be decontaminated in one single working operation and most of the material can afterwards be reused unrestrictedly. The application of FSD presupposes an intact system to be de contaminated which is an additional demand for performing this process at an early stage of decommissioning. After FSD of primary system and pool cooling loops the pool it self should be decontaminated by standard chemical spraying. We have based our cost review on a decontamination strategy just outlined above. DETEC Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Expert Review the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt Formblatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. & •1 l 4 Review of costs 4. 1 Plausibility check The preliminary study gives a rough estimate for HFR waste arisings and decommissioning costs. For an overall plausibility check it is helpful to compare data of HFR with corresponding data of other research reactors. For this comparison German re search reactors of different types were chosen. Their electric power is of the same order of magnitude like HFR and actually they are in the state of decommissioning. For these comparative reactors the decomissioning will also be terminated by unre stricted release of the controlled areas. Details are shown in the following Tables 1 and 2. The cost data of the reactors 'status: January 1995) are based upon a BMBF publication. In our opinion the data of waste amount and costs given in the Tables for HFR fit together with the 3 other projects in a reasonable manner if one takes into account: the comparatively low residual radioactivity of the HFR, which is due to the very compact design of the high flux reactor and the material aluminum (already experienced during the reac tor vessel dismantling campaign in 1984), the comparatively low estimated waste arising with decom missioning cf HFR, which is a direct consequence of the low residual radioactivity, the low estimated decommissioning costs, which are directly depending upon the low waste arisings, the assumed availability of the operating staff and again the low residual radioactivity which both contribute to low temporary supervision costs. DETEC Expert Review cf the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt 10 Formblatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 ^3 Table 1: Drawing up of relevant data of research reactors (DM/ECU = 1. 85) name/site/country: electric power (at operation): AVR Jülich (Germany) 15 MWe residual radioactivity: (after removal of nuclear fuel) 2. 6 E15 Bq estimated waste arisings for dispo sal: 668 Mg steel 2000 Mg concrete 1015 Mg other materials estimated decommissioning costs to stage 3: 193 MECU estimated temporary supervision costs in stage 1: 11 MECU/year name/site/country: electric power (at operation): FR-2 Karlsruhe (Germany) 44 MWe residual radioactivity: (after removal of nuclear fuel) 6. 5 E15 Bq estimated waste arisings for dispo sai 'without thermal column): 1200 Mg total estimated decommissioning costs to stage 3: 132 MECU estimated temporary supervision rosts in stage 2: 2. 4 MECU/year DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten SchutzvermerK nach DIN 34 beachten ^o DNR 00062610 Blatt RIX 00 11 Formblatt DE 103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 Table 2: Drawing up of relevant data of research reactors (DM/ECU = 1. 85) name/site/country: electric power (at operation): MZFR Karlsruhe (Germany) 58 MWe residual radioactivity: (after removal of nuclear fuel) 1 E17 Bq estimated waste arisings for dispo sal: 1580 Mg steel 1080 Mg concrete 100 Mg other materials estimated decommissioning costs to stage 3: 237 MECU estimated temporary supervision costs in stage 2: 4. 2 MECU/year name/site/country: electric power (at operation): HFR Petten (The Nether lands) 45 MWe residual radioactivity: (after removal of nuclear fuel) 3. 7 E13 Bq. estimated waste arisings for dispo sal (without thermal column): 4 Mg MAW 121 Mg LAW estimated decommissioning costs to stage 3 (without demolition of the buildings and other conventional systems;: 22 MECU (according 4. 2) estimated temporary supervision costs in stage 2: 0. 5 MECU/year DETEC Expert Review cf the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt 12 Formblatt DE103. DOT / OM / 09 9- Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten ?1 Therefore on this basis of direct comparison with other decom missioning projects the costs for HFR decommissioning given in the preliminary study seem to be quite plausible. 4. 2 Detailed evaluation Beside checking the costs by plausibility and comparison with other decommissioning projects costs can be proved by an inde pendent and more direct approach. This must include the consi deration of: extent of dismantling work duration of work amount of masses to be dismantled amount of waste arising material and mass specific dismantling costs planning and licensing extent of and techniques for decontamination handling and disposal of waste plant supervision, auxiliary systems standby, amount of personnel and operating staff. All these aspects were taken into consideration and were eva luated. Corresponding costs were then calculated on basis of existing knowledge and experience. Costs for the following activities are not considered here: Removal cf fuel from the reactor site Removal of contaminated coolants and other readily remo vable contaminated and activated materials. As already pointed cut above we assume that extensive use will oe made of chemical system decontamination and that such compo nents which are not decontaminated during system decontaminati on wiil be treated after dismantling. In our opinion a conse- DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten SchutzvermerK nacn DIN 34 beachten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt 13 Formblatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 9^ 2 Z. quent decontamination strategy can reduce the amount of waste expected in the preliminary study. In addition we presuppose that stage 3 will immediately follow stage 2 so that within a period of 5 years the reactor building will completely be cleared from all components and structures with residual radioactivity above authorized limits. At the end of this time the building will be released from atomic law. The costs thus derived are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Breakdown of costs (status: 01. 01. 1996) Activities System and single component decontamination Decontamination and release measurements of buildings Dismantling of medium activated/contaminated components and systems MECU 2. 0 1. 6 1. 4 Dismantling of low-contaminated components and 3. 9 syszens Operational costs and management Planning and licensing Disposal of waste Total 4. 1 2. 0 7. 0 22. 0 DETEC Expert Review cf the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt 14 Formblatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten <?3 Costs for planning and licensing were calculated on the basis of German conditions. With respect to HFR this assumption could therefore be a conservative one. We tried to recalculate the amount of waste, and we concluded that about 300 m3 of waste must be expected. Included in these 300 m3 are 1 - 2% of high/medium level waste,. mostly arising from activated material. The 300 m3 of low level waste were evaluated on the basis of enhanced decontamination work apply ing advanced decontamination technologies. Assuming that the complete waste volume will finally be dispo sed off at COVRA about 3. 5 MECU must be set aside for a direct disposal of waste. 3ased upon information we received from HFR most likely the me dium/high level waste will need preconditioning prior to be sent to COVRA. Preconditioning costs seem to be somewhat uncer tain and not well established for the time being. We expect to be on the safe side by assuming once again 3. 5 MECU for precon ditioning and intermediate storage. In sum 7. 0 MECU should therefore be sufficient to cover the waste disposal costs. 'Jp to the end of extended stage 2 (as defined above) overall costs of 22. 0 MECU must therefore be expected. Following our recommendation no temporary supervision costs will arise during stage 3. The assumptions of the preliminary study therefore seem to be formulated on a sound and solid basis. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt 15 Formblatt DE103. DOT/QM/ 09. 94 Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten ? Y ISSN 0254-1467 KOM(97) 150 endg. DOKUMENTE DE 12 15 14 05 Katalognummer : CB-CO-97-141-DE-C ISBN 92-78-18086-6 Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L-2985 Luxemburg *s


title: GEMEINSAMER STANDPUNKT (EG) Nr. 23/97 vom Rat festgelegt am 14. April 1997 im Hinblick auf den Erlaß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. .../97 des Rates vom ... über den Ausbau der haushaltspolitischen Überwachung und der Überwachung und Koordinierung der Wirtschaftspolitiken

eurovoc_concepts:
Community budget
Economic and Monetary Union
coordination of EMU policies
economic convergence
economic policy
multilateral surveillance

formats: html pdfa1b print


title: Décision du Conseil du 14 avril 1997 portant nomination d'un membre titulaire et d'un membre suppléant du comité consultatif pour la formation dans le domaine des soins infirmiers

eurovoc_concepts:
advisory committee (EU)
alternate
appointment of staff
nursing care
nursing staff
vocational training


title: Nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 686/97, 14. aprill 1997, millega muudetakse määrust (EMÜ) nr 2847/93 ühise kalanduspoliitika suhtes rakendatava kontrollisüsteemi loomise kohta

eurovoc_concepts:
common fisheries policy
fishing area
fishing controls
fishing vessel
satellite
third country

formats: html pdf print

text: 150 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 31997R0686 19. 4. 1997 EUROOPA ÜHENDUSTE TEATAJA 04/3. kd L 102/1 NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS (EÜ) nr 686/97, 14. aprill 1997, millega muudetakse määrust (EMÜ) nr 2847/93 ühise kalanduspoliitika suhtes rakendatava kontrollisüsteemi loomise kohta EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU, võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut, eelkõige selle artiklit 43, võttes arvesse komisjoni ettepanekut, (1) võttes arvesse Euroopa Parlamendi arvamust (2) ning arvestades, et: teatavate ühenduse kalalaevaliikide satelliitsidel põhinev pidev jäl- gimine parandab püügikoormuse korraldust, järelevalvet tundli- kes piirkondades, püügipäevikute ristkontrolli ning järelevalvet lossimiste üle; laevaseiresüsteemi kohaldatakse kolmanda riigi vetes tegutsevate ühenduse kalalaevade suhtes ainult juhul, kui kõnealune kolmas riik või kõnealused kolmandad riigid on kohustunud kohaldama satelliitsidel põhinevat laevaseiresüsteemi ühenduse vetes tegutse- vate oma laevade suhtes; erandina on vaja vabastada satelliitsidel põhineva laevaseiresüs- teemi kohaldamise kohustusest teatavad ühenduse laevad, mis tegelevad üksnes rannalähedase ja lühiaegse kalapüügiga; kalavarusid on viimastel aastatel vähendatud liiga palju ning see- tõttu on olukorra parandamiseks vaja teha märkimisväärseid jõu- pingutusi seoses kalapüügi järelevalve ja kontrollimisega; satelliitsidel põhinev laevaseiresüsteem tagab, et lipuriik ja ranni- kuäärne liikmesriik saavad ühenduse laevadelt teabe kätte sama- aegselt; on vaja kasutusele võtta majanduslikult tasuvad meetmed ning satelliitsidel põhinevad laevaseiresüsteemid, et parandada püügi- koormusega seotud andmete kättesaadavust ja täpsust; on vaja ette näha satelliitsidel põhinevale laevaseiresüsteemile alternatiivsete süsteemide kasutamise võimalus; sellist võimalust taotlev liikmesriik peab tõestama, et alternatiivne süsteem on nii- sama tõhus nagu satelliitsidel põhinev laevaseiresüsteem, lähtudes määruse (EMÜ) nr 2847/93 (3) artiklist 3 võib nõukogu teha otsuse, et ühenduse kalalaevadel tuleb sisse seada pideva asu- kohaseire süsteem; ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA MÄÄRUSE: liikmesriikide poolt komisjoni 22. aprilli 1994. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 897/94 (mis näeb ette ühenduse kalalaevade pideva asu- kohaseirega seotud katseprojekte käsitleva nõukogu määruse (EMÜ) nr 2847/93 (4) üksikasjalikud rakenduseeskirjad) kohaselt elluviidud katseprojektide põhjal omandatud kogemused näita- vad, et kalalaevade asukoha määramiseks võib kasutada mitmeid satelliitsidel põhinevaid laevaseiresüsteeme; (1) EÜT C 209, 20. 7. 1996, lk 7. (2) EÜT C 20, 20. 1. 1997. (3) EÜT L 261, 20. 10. 1993, lk 1. Määrust on viimati muudetud määru- sega (EÜ) nr 2489/96 (EÜT L 338, 28. 12. 1996, lk 12). (4) EÜT L 104, 23. 4. 1994, lk 18. Määrust on muudetud määrusega (EÜ) nr 376/96 (EÜT L 51, 1. 3. 1996, lk 31). Artikkel 1 Määruse (EMÜ) nr 2847/93 artikkel 3 asendatakse järgmisega: “Artikkel 3 1. Iga liikmesriik seab ühenduse kalalaevade asukoha jälgimi- seks sisse satelliitsidel põhineva laevaseiresüsteemi, edaspidi VMS-süsteem. VMS-süsteemi kohaldatakse hiljemalt 30. juunist 1998 kõigi ühenduse kalalaevade suhtes, mille perpendikulaaridevaheline kaugus on üle 20 meetri või kogupikkus 24 meetrit ning mis kuuluvad ühte järgmistest kategooriatest: 04/3. kd ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 151 — laevad, mis tegutsevad avamerel, välja arvatud Vahemeri, vastuvõtmiseks kinnitatud raadiojaama kaudu või artiklis 19c nimetatud vahendite abil. — kolmandate riikide vetes tegutsevad laevad tingimusel, et lepingutes kolmanda riigiga või kolmandate riikidega on ette nähtud, et VMS-süsteemi kohaldatakse selle riigi või nende riikide laevadel, mis tegutsevad ühenduse vetes, — laevad, mis püüavad kala kalajahu ja -õli valmistamiseks. 2. VMS-süsteemi kohaldatakse hiljemalt 1. jaanuarist 2000 kõigi ühenduse kalalaevade suhtes, mille perpendikulaarideva- heline kaugus on üle 20 meetri või kogupikkus 24 meetrit, olenemata nende tegutsemispiirkonnast. Kolmanda riigi või kolmandate riikide vetes kalapüügiga tegelevate ühenduse kalalaevade suhtes kohaldatakse VMS-süsteemi siiski ainult juhul, kui kõnealune kolmas riik või kõnealused kolmandad riigid on võtnud kohustuse kohaldada VSM-süsteemi ühen- duse vetes tegutsevate oma laevade suhtes. 3. Olenemata lõigetest 1 ja 2, ei kohaldata VMS-süsteemi lae- vade suhtes, mis: a) tegelevad kalapüügiga üksnes 12 meremiili ulatuses lipu- liikmesriigi lähtejoonest või 6. Kaptenid nendel ühenduse kalalaevadel, mille suhtes kohal- datakse VMS-süsteemi, tagavad, et satelliitseireseadmed on alati täielikult töökorras ning lõikes 5 nimetatud teave edasta- takse. Edastamine toimub nõutava päevase sagedusega, et liik- mesriigile ja/või rannikuäärsele liikmesriigile oleks tagatud lae- vade tõhusa jälgimise võimalus. 7. Liikmesriigid asutavad ja hoiavad töös kalapüügi seirekes- kused, edaspidi seirekeskused, mis tegelevad kalapüügi ja püü- gikoormuse järelevalvega. Seirekeskused peavad olema tege- vusvalmis hiljemalt 30. juunil 1998. Konkreetse liikmesriigi seirekeskus tegeleb oma lipu all sõit- vate laevade seirega, olenemata vetest või sadamast, kus lae- vad asuvad, ning muude liikmesriikide lipu all sõitvate ühen- duse kalalaevade ning nende kolmandate riikide kalalaevade seirega, mille suhtes kohaldatakse VMS-süsteemi ning mis tegutsevad kõnealuse konkreetse liikmesriigi suveräänsete õiguste või jurisdiktsiooni all olevates vetes. 8. Iga lipuliikmesriik määrab seirekeskuse eest vastutavad pädevad asutused ning võtab kohased meetmed tagamaks, et seirekeskuses oleks nõuetekohane koosseis ning automaatset andmetöötlust ja elektroonilist andmeedastust võimaldav riist- ja tarkvara. Liikmesriigid näevad ette varu- ja taastemenetlu- sed süsteemi rikete korral. b) ei viibi merel kunagi üle 24 tunni, arvestades väljumisajast kuni sadamasse tagasipöördumiseni. Liikmesriikidel võib olla ühine seirekeskus. 4. Kui liikmesriik kehtestab VMS-süsteemi oma lipu all sõit- vate laevade suhtes, mis ei kuulu lõigete 1–3 reguleerimis- alasse, siis on kõnealustel laevadel õigus saada samasugust rahalist toetust nagu saavad laevad, mis kasutavad VMS- süsteemi lõigete 1 ja 2 kohaselt. 9. Lipuliikmesriik võtab vajalikud meetmed tagamaks, et tema VMS-süsteemiga kalalaevadelt saadud andmeid säilitatakse elektroonilisel kujul kolm aastat. 5. Liikmesriigid tagavad satelliitseireseadmete paigaldamise oma lipu all sõitvatele ühenduse laevadele, mille suhtes kohal- datakse VMS-süsteemi, ning seadmete täieliku töökorras ole- ku. Satelliitseireseade võimaldab kalalaeval oma geograafilise asukoha satelliidi abil samaaegselt teatavaks teha nii lipuliik- mesriigile kui asjaomasele rannikuäärsele liikmesriigile ning vajaduse korral edastada artiklis 19b nimetatud püügikoor- muse aruande. Vääramatu jõu korral tehakse asjakohane info teatavaks raadio teel ühenduse eeskirjade kohaselt sellise teabe Rannikuäärne liikmesriik võtab vajalikud meetmed tagamaks, et teise liikmesriigi lipu all sõitvatelt või kolmanda riigi kala- laevadelt, mille suhtes kohaldatakse VMS-süsteemi, saadud andmeid säilitatakse elektroonilisel kujul kolm aastat. Komisjonil on kõnealustele andmefailidele juurdepääs konk- reetse taotluse alusel. Kohaldatakse artikli 37 sätteid. 152 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 04/3. kd 10. Käesoleva artikli üksikasjalike rakenduseeskirjade üle otsustatakse artiklis 36 ettenähtud korras. natiivne süsteem peab olema niisama tõhus nagu VMS- süsteem ning seda kohaldatakse kedagi diskrimineerimata. ” taotluse põhjal ning Eelkõige võib komisjon liikmesriigi artiklis 36 ettenähtud korras teha otsuse VMS-süsteemile alter- natiivse süsteemi kohaldamise kohta, arvesse võttes pakutava seiresüsteemi tüüpi, kalalaeva või -laevade liiki, püügipiirkonda või -piirkondi, püütavaid liike ja kalastusretke kestust. Alter- Artikkel 2 Käesolev määrus jõustub seitsmendal päeval pärast selle avalda- mist Euroopa Ühenduste Teatajas. Käesolev määrus on tervikuna siduv ja vahetult kohaldatav kõikides liikmesriikides. Luxembourg, 14. aprill 1997 Nõukogu nimel eesistuja J. VAN AARTSEN


title: Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 686/97 z dne 14. aprila 1997 o spremembah Uredbe (EGS) št. 2847/93 o oblikovanju nadzornega sistema na področju skupne ribiške politike

text: 150 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 04/Zv. 3 31997R0686 19. 4. 1997 URADNI LIST EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI L 102/1 UREDBA SVETA (ES) št. 686/97 z dne 14. aprila 1997 o spremembah Uredbe (EGS) št. 2847/93 o oblikovanju nadzornega sistema na področju skupne ribiške politike SVET EVROPSKE UNIJE JE ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, zlasti člena 43 Pogodbe, ker se satelitski sistem za spremljanje plovil nanaša na ribiška plo- vila Skupnosti, ki delujejo v vodah držav nečlanic, samo v pri- meru, če so zadevna država članica ali države članice sprejele obveznost, da satelitski sistem za spremljanje plovil uporabljajo za svoja plovila, ki delujejo v vodah Skupnosti; ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije (1), ob upoštevanju mnenja Evropskega parlamenta (2), ker je ustrezno, da se iz obveznosti uporabe satelitskega sistema za spremljanje plovil izvzame določena plovila Skupnosti, ki delu- jejo izključno v okviru obalnih ribištev in ribištev malega dosega; ker je bilo v zadnjih letih izkoriščanje ribjih staležev preveliko in je zato, da bi popravili to situacijo, potrebno precejšnje prizade- vanje za spremljanje in nadzorovanje ribolovnega delovanja; ker satelitski sistem za spremljanje plovil zagotavlja, da država zastave in obalna država članica istočasno prejmeta sporočila plo- vil Skupnosti; ker je treba uporabiti stroškovno učinkovite ukrepe in izboljšati dostopnost in točnost podatkov o ribolovnem naporu, kot na pri- mer z uvedbo satelitskih sistemov za spremljanje plovil; ker lahko Svet v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2847/93 (3) odloči, da se za ribiška plovila Skupnosti vzpostavi sistem za stalno spremljanje položaja; ker so izkušnje, pridobljene pri uporabi pilotnih projektov, ki so jih izvajale države članice v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 897/94 z dne 22. aprila 1994 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2847/93 v zvezi s pilotnimi pro- jekti za stalno spremljanje položaja ribiških plovil Skupnosti (4), pokazale, da se za določitev položaja ribiških plovil lahko uporablja več satelitskih sistemov za spremljanje položaja; ker bo stalno satelitsko spremljanje določenih kategorij ribiških plovil Skupnosti izboljšalo upravljanje ribolovnega napora, nad- zorovanje občutljivih območij, preverjanje ladijskih dnevnikov in spremljanje iztovarjanja; (1) UL C 209, 20. 7. 1996, str. 7. (2) UL C 20, 20. 1. 1997. (3) UL L 261, 20. 10. 1993, p. 1. Uredba, kot je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 2489/96 (UL L 338, 28. 12. 1996, str. 12). (4) UL L 104, 23. 4. 1994, str. 18. Uredba, kot je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 376/96 (UL L 51, 1. 3. 1996, str. 31). ker je ustrezno, da se predvidi možnost alternativnih sistemov za spremljanje plovil; ker mora država članica, ki zaprosi za to mož- nost, dokazati, da je alternativni sistem ravno tako učinkovit kot satelitski sistem za spremljanje plovil, SPREJEL NASLEDNJO UREDBO: Člen 1 Člen 3 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2847/93 se nadomesti z naslednjim: „Člen 3 1. Vsaka država članica vzpostavi satelitski sistem za sprem- ljanje plovil, v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚SSP‘, za spremljanje polo- žaja ribiških plovil Skupnosti. SSP se začne uporabljati najkasneje 30. junija 1998 za vsa ribiška plovila Skupnosti, ki presegajo dolžino 20 metrov med navpičnicama ali 24 metrov celotne dolžine in spadajo v kate- rokoli izmed naslednjih kategorij: 04/Zv. 3 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 151 — plovila, ki delujejo na odprtem morju, razen v Sredozem- skem morju, — plovila, ki delujejo v vodah držav nečlanic, pod pogojem, da je bila v pogodbah z zadevno državo nečlanico ali drža- vami nečlanicami predvidena uporaba sistema SSP za plo- vila te države ali držav, ki delujejo v vodah Skupnosti. — plovila, ki lovijo ribe za pridobivanje ribje moke in olja. 6. Kapitani ribiških plovil Skupnosti, za katera se uporablja SSP, zagotovijo, da so satelitske sledilne naprave vedno popol- noma pripravljene za delovanje in da se sporočajo informacije iz odstavka 5. Prenos se opravi glede na zahtevano dnevno pogostnost, da bi zagotovili, da lahko država članica ladijske zastave in/ali obalna država članica uspešno spremljata plovila. 7. Države članice ustanovijo in vodijo centre za spremljanje ribolova, v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚CSR‘, ki spremljajo ribolovno delovanje in ribolovni napor. CSR začne delovati najkasneje 30. junija 1998. 2. SSP se začne uporabljati najkasneje 1. januarja 2000 za vsa ribiška plovila Skupnosti, ki presegajo dolžino 20 metrov med navpičnicama ali 24 metrov skupne dolžine, povsod, kjer ta delujejo. Za ribiška plovila Skupnosti, ki delujejo v vodah države nečlanice ali držav nečlanic, se sistem SSP uporablja le, če so ta država nečlanica ali države nečlanice sprejele obvez- nost uporabe sistema SSP za svoja plovila, ki delujejo v vodah Skupnosti. CSR posamezne države članice spremlja ribiška plovila, ki plu- jejo pod njeno zastavo, ne glede na to, v katerih vodah delu- jejo ali v katerem pristanišču se nahajajo, kot tudi ribiška plo- vila Skupnosti, ki plujejo pod zastavo drugih držav članic, ter ribiška plovila držav nečlanic, ki delujejo v vodah pod suvere- nostjo ali pristojnostjo te določene države članice in za katere se uporablja SSP. 3. Ne glede na določbe odstavkov 1 in 2 zgoraj se SSP ne uporablja za plovila: (a) ki delujejo izključno znotraj 12 navtičnih milj od temeljne črte države članice pod katere zastavo plujejo; ali 8. Vsaka država članica ladijske zastave imenuje pristojne oblasti, odgovorne za CSR, in sprejme ustrezne ukrepe, s kate- rimi zagotovi, da ima CSR ustrezne kadrovske vire in je oprem- ljen z računalniško strojno in programsko opremo, ki omo- goča avtomatsko obdelavo in elektronski prenos podatkov. Države članice zagotovijo varnostne in obnovitvene postopke za primer napake v sistemu. (b) ki od odhoda do vrnitve v pristanišče na morju nikoli ne preživijo več kot 24 ur. Države članice lahko upravljajo skupni CSR. 4. Če država članica uvede SSP za plovila, ki plujejo pod njeno zastavo in ne spadajo v okvir odstavkov od 1 do 3, bodo ta plovila upravičena do enake finančne podpore, kot velja za plovila, ki uporabljajo SSP v skladu z odstavkoma 1 in 2. 5. Države članice zagotovijo, da se satelitske sledilne naprave namestijo na ribiška plovila Skupnosti, ki plujejo pod njihovo zastavo in za katera velja SSP. Satelitska sledilna naprava ribi- škemu plovilu omogoči, da zadevni državi ladijske zastave in obalni državi članici prek satelita sporoči svoj zemljepisni položaj in, kadar je to primerno, posreduje poročila o ribolov- nem naporu iz člena 19b. V primeru višje sile se pomembne informacije sporoči po radiu prek radijske postaje, odobrene v skladu s predpisi Skupnosti za sprejem takih informacij, ali prek sredstev, določenih v členu 19c. 9. Država članica ladijske zastave sprejme potrebne ukrepe, da bi zagotovila, da se podatke, ki jih prejme od svojih ribiških plovil, za katere se uporablja SSP, zabeleži v računalniško ber- ljivi obliki za obdobje treh let. Obalna država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe, da bi zagoto- vila, da se podatke, ki jih prejme od ribiškega plovila, ki pluje pod zastavo druge države članice ali države nečlanice, za katere se uporablja SSP, zabeleži v računalniško berljivi obliki za obdobje treh let. Komisija ima dostop do teh računalniških datotek na podlagi posebnega zahtevka. Uporabljajo se določbe člena 37. 152 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 04/Zv. 3 10. Podrobne predpise za izpolnjevanje tega člena se določi v skladu s postopkom iz člena 36. potovanj. Alternativni sistem mora biti tako učinkovit kot SSP, njegova uporaba pa mora biti nepristranska. “ Na podlagi uporabe sistema s strani članice in v skladu z določbami člena 36 Komisija lahko odloči, da se uporablja alternativni sistem, pri čemer upošteva vrsto sistema za sprem- ljanje položaja, vrsto ribiškega plovila ali plovil, območje ali območja, v katerih se ribari, ciljne vrste in trajanje ribolovnih Člen 2 Ta uredba začne veljati sedmi dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evrop- skih skupnosti. Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah. V Luxembourgu, 14. aprila 1997 Za Svet Predsednik J. VAN AARTSEN


title: ΚΑΝΟΝΙΣΜΟΣ (ΕΚ) αριθ. 640/97 ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ της 14ης Απριλίου 1997 για τον κλείσιμο διαγωνισμού σχετικά με τη χορήγηση σιτηρών ως επισιτιστική βοήθεια

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
cereals
food aid
third country


title: REGLAMENTO (CE) N° 643/97 DE LA COMISIÓN de 14 de abril de 1997 por el que se establecen valores globales de importación para la determinación del precio de entrada de determinadas frutas y hortalizas

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
export refund
olive oil


title: KOMMISSIONENS FORORDNING (EF) Nr. 644/97 af 14. april 1997 om ændring af eksportrestitutionerne for korn, mel, grove gryn og fine gryn af hvede eller rug

eurovoc_concepts:
cereals
export
export refund
maize


title: 97/251/EC: Commission Decision of 14 April 1997 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain types of electronic microcircuits known as EPROMs (erasable programmable read only memories) originating in Japan and repealing the anti- dumping measures imposed on such imports

eurovoc_concepts:
Japan
anti-dumping duty
anti-dumping legislation
import
microelectronics


title: REGLAMENTO (CE) N° 640/97 DE LA COMISIÓN de 14 de abril de 1997 por el que se cierra una licitación relativa al suministro de cereales en concepto de ayuda alimentaria


title: REGOLAMENTO (CE) N. 643/97 DELLA COMMISSIONE del 14 aprile 1997 recante fissazione dei valori forfettari all'importazione ai fini della determinazione del prezzo di entrata di alcuni ortofrutticoli


text: COMMISSIONE DELLE COMUNITÀ EUROPEE Bruxelles, 14. 04. 1997 COM(97)150def. RELAZIONE DELLA COMMISSIONE AL CONSIGLIO E AL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO in merito alle condizioni nelle quali sarebbe opportuno effettuare lo smantellamento del reattore ad alto flusso (HFR) di Petten Il 27 giugno 1996 il Consiglio ha adottato il "programma complementare di ricerca che sarà eseguito dal Centro comune di ricerca per la Comunità europea dell'energia atomica (1996-1999)", ai sensi dell'articolo 7 del trattato Euratom. In occasione di tale adozione la seguente dichiarazione è stata inserita nel processo verbale del Consiglio: " Il Consiglio prende atto che: nel fissare le tariffe per i servizi di irradiazione, la Commissione continuerà a provvedere alla costituzione di un fondo per lo smantellamento, come ha fatto negli anni precedenti. Tale fondo sarà aggiunto a quello già previsto e sarà utilizzato a tempo debito. La Commissione esaminerà inoltre il problema dello smantellamento dell'HFR e presenterà al Consiglio una relazione in merito entro la fine del 1996. " La Commissione invita il Consiglio e il Parlamento a prendere conoscenza della relazione allegata alla presente. 4- RELAZIONE DELLA COMMISSIONE AL CONSIGLIO E AL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO in merito alle condizioni nelle quali sarebbe opportuno effettuare lo smantellamento del reattore ad alto flusso (HFR) di Petten Nota introduttiva Lo smantellamento del reattore ad alto flusso (High Flux Reactor-HFR) non è una questione pratica di particolare urgenza: le condizioni tecniche del reattore sono infatti molto buone, grazie al miglioramento costante e al rinnovo tempestivo dei suoi componenti principali. L'attuale contenitore del reattore, installato in sostituzione del precedente nel 1984/85 e progettato per un ciclo di vita utile di 30 anni, ha una durata residua che consentirà il funzionamento dell'HFR fino al 2015 ed anche oltre, come confermano le ispezioni triennali di servizio. E inoltre disponibile un altro contenitore di reattore, debitamente autorizzato, identico a quello attuale e pronto per essere utilizzato in una eventuale altra operazione di sostituzione del contenitore. Nel 2015 circa la Commissione potrà pertanto scegliere tra tre alternative. arrestare il funzionamento dell'HFR e proporne lo smantellamento; valutare esattamente le condizioni del contenitore e disporre la proroga del ciclo di vita del reattore con l'attuale contenitore; sulla base dei risultati della valutazione delle condizioni del contenitore, disporne la sostituzione. Le tabelle 1 e 2 riportano i programmi operativi HFR nel lungo periodo, corrispondenti alla prima e alla terza alternativa La scelta tra queste alternative necessiterà un'approfondita concertazione tra le autorità olandesi responsabili dell'autorizzazione, gli Stati membri che sosterranno l'HFR in quel periodo e l'utenza La decisione sarà presa soprattutto sulla base di una valutazione economica dell'efficienza del reattore in quel momento. In teoria dunque, la questione dello smantellamento dell'HFR diverrebbe pertinente soltanto dopo il 2015 e potrebbe anche non manifestarsi prima della metà del prossimo secolo Tuttavia, a prescindere dal momento in cui verrà presa una decisione, le caratteristiche del reattore consentono di descrivere il processo di smantellamento e di valutarne il costo. Il presente documento tratta questi aspetti ed è stato esaminato da esperti [i. e. DETEC, Germania], i quali hanno confermato la fattibilità della proposta ivi descritta e le stime relative alle quantità di residui ipotizzate in origine. (La DETEC, società affiliata della SIEMENS e della NUKEM, gode di comprovata reputazione ed esperienza nel settore dello smantellamento) Le analisi degli esperti figurano nella relazione della Commissione. Si è ritenuto opportuno, tuttavia, allegare la versione originale inglese della relazione DETEC. 4. «x I. Portata dello studio Il presente studio preliminare definisce le fasi principali dello smantellamento dell'HFR di Petten, sulla base delle "Safety Series n. 74" dell'Agenzia internazionale per l'energia atomica (AIE A), "Safety in Decommissioning of Research Reactors"(Sicurezza dello smantellamento dei reattori di ricerca), Safety Guide del 1986. Oltre alla descrizione delle fasi previste per la disattivazione e lo smantellamento dell'HFR, lo studio riporta anche un calcolo approssimato dei costi e delle quantità di residui che l'operazione comporta. n. Fasi di smantellamento Il processo di smantellamento si intende avviato con la chiusura definitiva del reattore HFR ed ultimato con il rilascio del sito per uso senza restrizioni. Il processo si articola in tre fasi: Fase 1 - Stoccaggio con sorveglianza Durante e dopo questa fase è necessaria una continua sorveglianza del reattore. Le attività principali includono: rimozione del combustibile; rimozione dei refrigeranti e di altro materiale attivato o leggermente radioattivo facilmente rimovibile, mediante strutture già esistenti in loco ad un costo ragionevolmente contenuto. Fase 2 - Uso del sito con restrizioni Come conseguenza delle attività di smantellamento, a completamento di questa fase, alcune parti del sito possono essere rilasciate per un uso con restrizioni, mentre le parti rimanenti del reattore e del sito sono oggetto di stoccaggio con sorveglianza. Le attività principali comprendono: - decontaminazione di tutte le parti che possono facilmente essere decontaminate, - isolamento delle parti rimanenti contenenti radioattività. Ciò comporterebbe la rimozione del contenitore e di tutti i componenti attivati o altamente contaminati attorno al contenitore e nella piscina (tubi del fascio), nonché la rimozione del circuito primario e delle parti attivate o contaminate del rivestimento della piscina e delle pareti in calcestruzzo, oltre all'isolamento di tutte le parti che potrebbero ancora contenere attività. Tutte le azioni necessarie possono essere eseguite dalla manodopera e dai tecnici della società (ivi compreso l'Energy Centrum Nederland - ECN). I residui sarebbero gestiti dal centro di smaltimento olandese COVRA (Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval), anche se una piccola parte dovrà essere temporaneamente immagazzinata presso l'impianto di residui di media attività delI'ECN prima di essere inviata al COVRA. Fase S - Uso del sito senza restrizioni In questa fase, lo smantellamento del reattore è stato ultimato. Tutti i materiali radioattivi, le attrezzature e le strutture sono state decontaminate o trasferite al centro di smaltimento olandese COVRA. Successivamente, viene effettuato un rilevamento finale delle radiazioni per garantire che non rimanga radioattività residua nel sito. Quest'ultimo è dichiarato libero per qualsiasi uso senza restrizioni e non sono necessarie ulteriori ispezioni di controllo o prove. Gli edifici e il sito sono svincolati dagli obblighi delle normative nucleari. Una volta svincolati dalle normative nucleari, il sito e gli edifici possono essere destinati a qualsiasi altra attività e dare origine a reddito. Ove ciò non si verifichi, i costi relativi alla fase 3 saranno assimilati alla normale gestione di edifici comuni. È auspicabile procedere all'esecuzione della fase 3 subito dopo il completamento della fase 2. Secondo il parere degli esperti, lo smantellamento ininterrotto fino al completamento della fase 3 presenta vantaggi significativi rispetto alla possibilità di iniziare la fase 3 dopo un periodo di attesa. Costi dello smantellamento: preparazione e contatti con le autorità di autorizzazione: preparazione ed esecuzione dei lavori effettivi (la capacità dell'attuale contratto operativo ECN deve essere mantenuta per circa 1,5 anni): smaltimento e trasferimento dei residui al COVRA Totale (calcolo approssimato) III. Sequenza delle attività di smantellamento 2 Mio di ECU 14 Mio di ECU 9 Mio di ECU 25 Mio di ECU Le attività di smantellamento dell'HFR sono basate sull'esperienza acquisita durante la sostituzione del contenitore nel 1984/85. In quell'occasione, l'intera operazione è stata eseguita dalla squadra addetta alle operazioni ordinarie e di manutenzione, con l'aiuto degli utenti dell'HFR e dell'officina del sito. Sulla base delle quantità di residui trattati durante la sostituzione del contenitore nel 1984, la sequenza delle attività previste è la seguente: 0. /. Rimozione degli elementi di combustibile Gli elementi di combustibile vengono immagazzinati altrove in condizioni di sicurezza o spediti ad un centro di ritrattamento. Rimozione di tutte le attrezzature e dei meccanismi ausiliari dall'interno e dalle zone circostanti il contenitore Si prevede che attrezzature ausiliarie molto simili daranno origine alla stessa quantità di residui 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Demolizione dei tubi del fascio e degli altri collegamenti "fìssi" al contenitore (es. strutture di contenimento, ecc. ) Quantità uguali saranno originate dai tubi del fascio e da altre strutture "fisse" con alcune parti più medio-attive, a causa del maggior utilizzo di bulloni ed anelli in acciaio inossidabile. La quantità di materiale in acciaio inossidabile è molto ridotta a causa dell'assenza di capsule barometriche. Tuttavia, si riscontrano attualmente con maggior frequenza materiali con uno spessore superiore ai 3 cm che richiedono un trattamento particolare come residui. Rimozione del contenitore La quantità dei materiali prodotti dal contenitore sarà inferiore, ma di spessore superiore. Rimozione delle parti attive dei tubi 11 e 12 del fascio e delle parti radioattive del rivestimento della piscina La quantità di residui originati dai tubi 11 e 12 del fascio è ridotta, grazie ad una costruzione semplificata; il materiale del rivestimento della piscina è stimato al 10% del totale. Rimozione del calcestruzzo attivato delle pareti della piscina attorno alle aperture dei tubi del fascio Per il calcestruzzo attivato attorno alle aperture dei tubi di fascio si prevede una "profondità di penetrazione" media di circa 30 cm attorno alle aperture. Rimozione del calcestruzzo contaminato sotto il rivestimento del fondo della piscina A causa di una perdita, anche per il calcestruzzo contaminato sotto il rivestimento del fondo della piscina, è previsto uno spessore di 30 cm. Per le pareti verticali, solo il calcestruzzo nelle vicinanze delle saracinesche della piscina è ritenuto sospetto. Decontaminazione totale del complesso di tubazioni del sistema primario e di raffreddamento della piscina La decontaminazione del sistema primario e del complesso di tubazioni della piscina produrrà soltanto fluidi radioattivi di decontaminazione. Il materiale in sé non é attivato Lo stesso dicasi per i sistemi ausiliari, ad es. quelli per il drenaggio caldo e tiepido Rimozione delle attrezzature ausiliarie attivate eo contaminate (resine a scambio ionico, attrezzi, ecc. ) e delle strutture sperimentali standard La quantità delle resine a scambio ionico è ben nota e, previo un processo di accurata rigenerazione, esse possono essere trattate come residui a bassa attività. Attrezzi, ripiani per la conservazione, ecc. forniranno solo quantità minime di materiale leggermente attivato dopo la decontaminazione. Per la rimozione delle strutture sperimentali standard, i calcoli previsionali sono basati sulla situazione del 1991. 9. Rilevamento radiologico generale delle parti rimanenti del sistema Si prevede che il rilevamento radiologico finale del sito rivelerà solo quantità minime di residui a basso livello di radioattività. 10. Demolizione standard ai livelli necessari per il successivo uso del sito Questa operazione riguarda il materiale non attivato. La tabella 3 riporta le quantità stimate di residui suddivisi per categoria. I residui altamente e mediamente attivi possono essere temporaneamente immagazzinati presso il centro di smaltimento residui ECN. In caso di trasporto o immagazzinamento presso il centro COVRA di Borsele, la tabella 3 può essere tradotta in tabella 4. Globalmente, si prevede un volume di residui a media-alta attività di 5 m3 e 370 TBq (1 000 Ci) e residui a bassa attività di 120 m3 e 5,9 TBq (16 Ci). Tab 1: Programma operativo HFR nel lungo periodo (prima alternativa) Periodo, dal 1996 al 2010 Anni dal 19. al 20 dal '% al '09 '10 '11 '12 •13 '14 '15 '16 '17 dal'18 al'30 Contratto di leasing CEC / NL Durata rimanente dell'attuale contratto di leasing CEC / NL relativo all'HFR e al sito di Petten Ciclo di vita del contenitore HFR Prevista durata di \ ita residua del contenitore sotto pressione HFR n. 2 Smantellamento dell'HFR Preparazione Fasi 1 e 2 Fase 3 <r> Periodo: dal 2031 al 2065 Anni: dal 20. dal'31 al '61 Prepara/ione Uso incondizionato del sito •62 '63 '64 '65 Contratto di leasing CEC / NL Proroga della durata rimanente dell'attuale contratto di leasing CEC / NL relativo all'HFR e al sito di I Petten Smantellamento dell'HFR Fase 3 Uso senza restrizioni del sito Tab. 2: Programma operativo HFR nel lungo periodo (terza alternativa) Periodo: dal 1996 al 2030 Anni: dal 19. al 20. dal '96 al '09 'IO '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 d a r i 7 a l ' 30 Contratto di leasing CEC / NL Durata rimanente dell'attuale contratto di leasing CEC / NL relativo all'HFR e al sito di Petten Ciclo di vita del contenitore HFR Prevista durata di vita residua del contenitore sotto pressione HFR n. 2 Durata prevista del contenitore sotto pressione HFR n. 3 [esistente] Smantellamento dell'HFR Preparazione Sostituzione Periodo: dal 2031 al 2065 Anni: dal 20. Preparazione dal'31 al'43 '44 •45 '46 •47 •48 '49 '50 dal'51ar61 '62 '63 •64 '65 -y Contratto di leasing CEC / NL Proroga della durata rimanente dell'attuale contratto di leasing CEC / NL relativo all'HFR e al sito di Petten Ciclo di vita del contenitore HFR Proroga della durata prevista del contenitore sotto in pressione HFR n. 3 Smantellamento dell'HFR Preparazione Fasi 1 e 2 Fase 3 Preparazione Uso senza restrizioni del sito Tabella 3: Ouantìtà previste di residui suddivise per categoria e a destinazione 1 Categoria Residui a media/alta radioattività S Casse standard (251) per residui contenenti Alluminio Acciaio Contenitore e attrezzature ausiliarie attorno al contenitore 180 20 KCi 1. 0 Calcestruzzo attivato °<ì | Attrezzature ausiliarie I contaminate fusti di 6001 20 2001 200 220 130 Ci 12 2 2 I TOTALE 180 20 1,0 550 20 16 M. , Tabella 4: Quantità previste di residui da immagazzinare presso il centro COVRA Numero di container di calcestruzzo Volume del container Dose equivalente / ora 200 1 600 1 <2 mSv/ora >. 2 mSv/ora <2. 0 mSv/ora <2 mSv/ora >. 2 mSv/ora <2. 0 mSv/ora Contenitore e attrezzature ausiliarie attorno al contenitore Calcestruzzo attivato attrezzature ausiliarie contaminate u? TOTALE 200 150 150 500 100 100 100 100 DETEC Berìcht Empfânger siehe Verteiler Titel: Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten (Summarizing Report) Revision swhe RevtstonsUbersicht Erstausgabe ULS Blattzahl Erstetter Datum PrOfer Fretçabe ProfsktMMtar — Datum R!X 15 *"TTtjnge f <^ hâÇ. pé Obcrgeordnetes Dokument Projekt-Nr. UVST ACK DN 154009 DEI 40 DMR 00062610 -00 Funkbon Komponente Baugruppe Bau EB Lfd. Nr AG UA DETEC Interne Kannzeichnung: i - r a er r,umr>er: ; 9025005 U BE Btatt Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Fonnbiatt 0E110. DOT / QM / 09. 94 A O Revisionsûbersicht Bum Beschreibung der Anderung a ll F i r st issue rax/Datum 00/29. 08. 96 DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt Fortnbttt DE 102. DOT / QM / 09. 9 Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 baachten 1 0 Contents page Abstract 1 Scope 2 Assumptions 3 Review of technical concept 4 Review of costs 4. 1 Plausibility check 4. 2 Detailed evaluation 10 10 13 DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach OIN 34 baachten "£ DNR 00062610 RIX 00 Blatt Formatait DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 Abstract The intention of the expert review is to check the feasibility of the technical concept and the plausibility of the estimated costs. A comparison of HFR with 3 German research reactors actually in the state of decommissioning leads to the result that the cal culated amounts of waste and costs seem to be in a reasonable order of magnitude if one takes into account: the comparatively low residual radioactivity of the HFR the comparatively low estimated waste arisings low estimated decommissioning and temporary supervision costs. The results obtained by a plausibility check were subsequently confirmed by an independent detailed calculation. Total costs for decommissioning to free release (directly following stage 2) should therefore not exceed 25 MECU. Weighing the pros and cons for decommissioning as planned, it becomes apparent that there are hardly any pros left for a long -ime phase of supervision following stage 2. Radioactive decay, the argument often used in favour of defer ring stage 3, is of no significant importance. A dormancy peri od of several decades will not improve the contamination situa tion substantially and will therefore not lighten the dismant ling work decisively. Conversely, the advantages of immediate decommissioning to un restricted release of the controlled areas are obvious: • Auxiliary systems that will be needed for decommissioning are either still in operating condition or can be kept ope rational. Deferred dismantling would require new installa tions with all implications (such as licensing). TCP Expert Review of the. Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 bwchtsn 4 J DNR 00062610 RIX - 00 Blatt FormbtattDE103. DOT/Qy/Oft! Costs for sampling and waste management (decontamination, waste conditioning) can be kept low as long as neighbouring JRC still has appropriate facilities at its disposal. This might not be the case several decades after decommissioning to stage 2. The availability of experienced HFR, staff and of personnel with specific HFR knowledge at authorities and in industry. That knowledge is about to disappear gradually. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten *H DNR 00062610 RIX - 00 Blatt Forrnbiatt DE 103. DOT / QM / 09. 9 1 Scope The Institute for Advanced Materials, HFR Unit, at Petten has prepared a preliminary study about the decommissioning of the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten. The study is based on IAEA Safety Series nò. 74 „Safety in De commissioning of Research Reactors", Safety Guide, 1986. It estimates expected costs for reactor dismantling including amounts of waste and costs of waste disposal. It is the intention of the expert review to check the feasibi lity of the technical concept and the plausibility of the esti mated costs. 2 Assumptions The expert review is based upon the following assumptions: - decommissioning of HFR will be performed in accordance with IAEA Safety Series no. 74. after decontamination and dismantling of contaminated and activated areas and components the buildings will be re turned to the former owner for unrestricted site use. most dismantling work will be performed by the HFR operating staff, ail costs are calculated on 1996 price level. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 baacnten DNR 00062610 RIX - 00 Blatt Formatait DE 103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 1 S 3 Review of technical concept The IAEA Safety Series no. 74 recommends decommissioning by three stages: stage 1 includes the removal of fuel and all other removable contaminated and activated material like for example cooling water. stage 2 comprises decontamination and disassembly of such areas and components which can be quite easily trea ted and removed like the reactor vessel. In stage 2 it is intended to remove the main part of activity and to achieve unrestricted release conditi ons for large building areas. Those areas which can not easily be cleaned from activity will be sealed and will remain as restricted use areas for perhaps a long period of time. stage 3 finally will consist in removing all the remaining contamination and activation and will terminate the decommissioning by unrestricted release of the com plete facility. The HFR preliminary study strictly follows these recommendati ons. It must be mentioned that the IAEA Safety Series no. 74 is no binding regulation but a guide which explicitely admits depar tures from the recommended strategy. 3y the experience of decommissioning German research reactors e. g. AVR, FR-2 and MZFR) a 3-stage strategy guided by the gra- ae of technical complexity and by the radiological demands is a "ery reasonable approach to decommissioning. But we do not fol low the idea to keep the facility within stage 2 for perhaps DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten some ten years, an idea which at least is implicitely included in this concept. By nearly all actual decommissioning projects it can be learned that direct and immediate dismantling is the most effective way. This can be supported by mainly two arguments: - until completion of stage 3 at least some auxiliary systems like ventilation and off-gas systems must be kept working. This will cause costs. - practical experience demonstrates the need for operating staff availability during all stages of decommissioning. Se veral decades after shut down it cannot be expected that ex perienced operating personnel from the facility will still be at hand. This situation will then also give rise to addi tional costs. Taking into account the development of waste disposal costs it must be an additional argument to complete the work as soon as possible - once the decision for final shut down has been ta ken. We therefore strongly recommend to perform the decommissioning stage-wise but without long interruptions between different stages. The decommissioning sequence described in chapter III of the HFR preliminary study seems to be reasonable but with one exception: decontamination of the primary system and pool coo ling system (item 7) should be performed right at the beginning of the decommissioning work. To be precise: decontamination should be foreseen directly after item 1. Decontamination of the primary and pool coolant loop system should be performed with Full System Chemical Decontamination (FSD). Highly efficient closed loop processes of this kind also DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 baachten DNR 00062610 R1X - 00 Blatt 8 FormbtattDE103. DOT/QM/09) 1Ï for aluminum are available. Such a process will decontaminate large system areas fairly down below the limit values for mate rial free release. Appropriate processes are available which are strongly waste minimizing. Ion exchange resins which contain the total amount of activity and of kations will be the only secondary waste re sulting from such processes. Decontamination chemicals are com pletely decomposed within the process and will not contribute to the waste volume. FSD will not only help to save dose rate during system dismant ling but will also help to save costs because the complete sy stem will be decontaminated in one single working operation and most of the material can afterwards be reused unrestrictedly. The application of FSD presupposes an intact system to be de contaminated which is an additional demand for performing this process at an early stage of decommissioning. After FSD of primary system and pool cooling loops the pool it self should be decontaminated by standard chemical spraying. We have based our cost review on a decontamination strategy just outlined above. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten DNR 00062610 R1X - 00 Blatt FormbiattDE103. DOT/QM/09. 94 \ % 4 Review of costs 4. 1 Plausibility check The preliminary study gives a rough estimate for HFR waste arisings and decommissioning costs. For an overall plausibility check it is helpful to compare data of HFR with corresponding data of other research reactors. For this comparison German re search reactors of different types were chosen. Their electric power is of the same order of magnitude like HFR and actually they are in the state of decommissioning. For these comparative reactors the decomissioning will also be terminated by unre stricted release of the controlled areas. Details are shown in the following Tables 1 and 2. The cost data of the reactors (status: January 1995) are based upon a BMBF publication. In our opinion the data of waste amount and costs given in the Tables for HFR fit together with the 3 other projects in a reasonable manner if one takes into account: the comparatively low residual radioactivity of the HFR, which is due to the very compact design of the high flux reactor and the material aluminum (already experienced during the reac tor vessel dismantling campaign in 1984), the comparatively low estimated waste arising with decom- ' missioning of HFR, which is a direct consequence of the low residual radioactivity, the low estimated decommissioning costs, which are directly depending upon the low waste arisings, the assumed availability of the operating staff and again the low residual radioactivity which both contribute to low temporary supervision costs. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR 00062610 RIX - 00 Blatt 10 Formbiatt DE 103. DOT / QM / 09. fe Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beeenten 13 Table 1: Drawing up of relevant data of research reactors (DM/ECU =1. 85) name/site/country: electric power (at operation): AVR Julien (Germany) 15 MWe residual radioactivity: (after removal of nuclear fuel) 2. 6 E15 Bq estimated waste arisings for dispo sal: 668 Mg steel 2000 Mg concrete 1015 Mg other materials estimated decommissioning costs to stage 3: 193 MECU estimated temporary supervision costs in stage 1: 11 MECU/year name/site/country: electric power (at operation): FR-2 Karlsruhe (Germany] 44 MWe residual radioactivity: (after removal of nuclear fuel) 6. 5 E15 Bq estimated waste arisings for dispo sai 'without thermal column): 1200 Mg total estimated decommissioning costs to stage 3: 132 MECU estimated temporary supervision costs in stage 2: 2. 4 MECU/year DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 baachten £o ONR 00062610 Blatt RIX 00 11 Formbtatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 Table 2: Drawing up of relevant data of research reactors (DM/ECU • 1. 85) name/site/country: electric power (at operation): M2FR Karlsruhe (Germany) 58 MWe residual radioactivity: (after removal of nuclear fuel) 1 E17 Bq estimated waste arisings for dispo sal: 1580 Mg steel 1080 Mg concrete 100 Mg other materials estimated decommissioning costs to stage 3: 237 MECU estimated temporary supervision costs in stage 2: 4. 2 MECU/year name/site/country: electric power (at operation): HFR Petten (The Nether lands) 45 MWe residual radioactivity: (after removal of nuclear fuel) 3. 7 E13 Bq. estimated waste arisings for dispo sal (without thermal column): 4 Mg MAW 121 Mg LAW estimated decommissioning costs to stage 3 (without demolition of the buildings and other conventional systems): 22 MECU (according 4. 2) estimated temporary supervision costs in stage 2: 0. 5 MECU/year DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 baachten DNR 00062610 Blatt RIX 00 12 Formblatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09& 2-1 Therefore on this basis of direct comparison with other decom missioning projects the costs for HFR decommissioning given in the preliminary study seem to be quite plausible. 4. 2 Detailed evaluation Beside checking the costs by plausibility and comparison with other decommissioning projects costs can be proved by an inde pendent and more direct approach. This must include the consi deration of: extent of dismantling work duration of work amount of masses to be dismantled amount of waste arising material and mass specific dismantling costs planning and licensing extent of and techniques for decontamination handling and disposal of waste plant supervision, auxiliary systems standby, amount of personnel and operating staff. All these aspects were taken into consideration and were eva luated. Corresponding costs were then calculated on basis of existing knowledge and experience. Costs for the following activities are not considered here: Removal of fuel from the reactor site Removal of contaminated coolants and other readily remo vable contaminated and activated materials. As already pointed cut above we assume that extensive use will be made of chemical system decontamination and that such compo nents which are not decontaminated during system decontaminati on will be treated after dismantling. In our opinion a conse- DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 baachten DNR 00062610 R1X - 00 Blatt 13 Formbiatt DEI 03. DOT / QM / 09. 94 quent decontamination strategy can reduce the amount of waste expected in the preliminary study. In addition we presuppose that stage 3 will immediately follow stage 2 so that within a period of 5 years the reactor building will completely be cleared from all components and structures with residual radioactivity above authorized limits. At the end of this time the building will be released from atomic law. The costs thus derived are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Breakdown of costs (status: 01. 01. 1996) Activities System and single component decontamination Decontamination and release measurements of buildings Dismantling of medium activated/contaminated components and systems MECU 2. 0 1. 6 1. 4 Dismantling of low-contaminated components and 3. 9 systems Operational costs and management Planning and licensing Disposal of waste Total 4. 1 2. 0 7. 0 22. 0 DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR 00062610 RIX - 00 Blatt 14 Forrnbiatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 9* Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 baacnten <?3 Costs for planning and licensing were calculated on the basis of German conditions. With respect to HFR this assumption could therefore be a conservative one. We tried to recalculate the amount of waste, and we concluded that about 300 m3 of waste must be expected. Included in these 300 m3 are 1 - 2% of high/medium level waste,. mostly arising from activated material. The 300 m3 of low level waste were evaluated on the basis of enhanced decontamination work apply ing advanced decontamination technologies. Assuming that the complete waste volume will finally be dispo sed off at COVRA about 3. 5 MECU must be set aside for a direct disposal of waste. 3ased upon information we received from HFR most likely the me dium/high level waste will need preconditioning prior to be sent to COVRA. Preconditioning costs seem to be somewhat uncer tain and not well established for the time being. We expect to be on the safe side by assuming once again 3. 5 MECU for precon ditioning and intermediate storage. In sum 7. 0 MECU should therefore be sufficient to cover the waste disposal costs. "Jp to the end of extended stage 2 (as defined above) overall costs of 22. 0 MECU must therefore be expected. Following our recommendation no temporary supervision costs will arise during stage 3. The assumptions of the preliminary study therefore seem to be formulated on a sound and solid basis. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 baachten DNR 00062610 RIX - 00 Blatt 15 FornibtBttDE103. DOT/QM/09. 94 ISSN 0254-1505 COM(97) 150 def. DOCUMENTI IT 12 15 14 05 N. di catalogo : CB-CO-97-141-IT-C ISBN 92-78-18090-4 Ufficio delle pubblicazioni ufficiali delle Comunità europee L-2985 Lussemburgo z r


title: 97/253/EY, Euratom: Neuvoston päätös, tehty 14 päivänä huhtikuuta 1997, talous- ja sosiaalikomitean jäsenen nimeämisestä

eurovoc_concepts:
European Economic and Social Committee
France
appointment of staff