Environmental Impact of Stressors (Sustainability Assessment)

From INPRO Wiki
Revision as of 10:31, 30 July 2020 by SHIROKIYD (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search 
INPRO basic principle in the area of environmental impact of stressors: The expected adverse environmental

effects of an NES should be well within the performance envelope of current NESs delivering similar energy products.

Contents

Introduction

Objective

This volume of the updated INPRO Manual provides guidance to the assessor of an NES (or a facility thereof) that is planned to be installed, describing how to apply the INPRO methodology in the area of environmental impact of stressors. The INPRO assessment should either confirm the fulfilment of all INPRO methodology environmental CRs, or identify gaps (non-compliance with the INPRO methodology CRs) requiring corrective actions (including research, development and demonstration (RD&D)) to achieve long term sustainability of the NES assessed. The INPRO assessor (or team of assessors) is assumed to be knowledgeable in the area of environmental impact of stressors and/or may be using the support of qualified national or international organizations (e.g. the IAEA) with relevant experience.
Two general types of INPRO assessor can be distinguished: a nuclear technology holder (i.e. designer, developer or supplier of nuclear technology) and a (potential) user of such technology. The role of the latter type of assessor, i.e. a technology user, is primarily to check, in a simplified manner, whether the designer (supplier) has appropriately taken into account the environmental aspects in the design as defined by the INPRO methodology. A technology user is assumed to be primarily interested in proven technology to be installed in his or her country in the near future. A designer (developer) performing an INPRO assessment can use this current publication to check whether the (innovative) design under development, which is expected to comply with the existing IAEA safety standards, meets the INPRO methodology environmental requirements for the assessment of sustainability of NES, and can additionally initiate modifications during early design stages, if necessary, to improve the environmental performance of the design.
In INPRO sustainability assessment, the term ‘technology user’ does not refer to an independent national nuclear regulatory authority. INPRO sustainability assessment is most often part of strategic nuclear energy planning. Typically, this planning activity is performed by national energy ministries, utilities (government or privately held) and/or their various technical support organizations. In INPRO terminology, the ‘technology user’ is either the country (in a generic sense) or, more specifically, the owner and/or operator of the technology. The ‘technology holder or designer’ is the engineering company (government or privately held) that holds the intellectual property rights on the technology. When discussing the specific context where trade agreements between countries restrict or control transfers and uses of technology, the INPRO use of the term ‘technology holder’ may also refer to the government under which the technology is ‘flagged’.
An assessor in a country embarking on a nuclear power programme has several options when using the INPRO methodology that depend on the stage of the programme (see the introductory manual of the updated INPRO methodology).
Every nuclear facility needs an EIA in order to be licensed and to become operational. The INPRO environmental assessment is not intended to substitute this licensing activity, but should rather demonstrate that the NES assessed is sustainable in the long term with regard to its environmental impact. Application of the INPRO methodology cannot substitute fulfilment of any of the existing national requirements in this area. However, INPRO CR determined in this publication follow the requirements of the IAEA safety standards, in particular, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 3, Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards [2].

Scope

Environmental impact from NES involves two large groups of factors. One group impacting the environment comprises the consumption of non-renewable resources including both fissile/fertile materials necessary to produce nuclear fuel and other materials (e.g. zirconium). All these factors and consumption of electricity necessary to construct, operate and occasionally decommission NES installations are considered in the INPRO methodology manual on environmental impact from depletion of resources [3].
Another group comprises radiological, chemical, thermal and other stressors which NESs release into environment. This group also includes water intake because this factor can be important for biota even when this water is returned to the environment in a clean form (e.g. as steam from nuclear power plant cooling towers). All these factors are considered in this INPRO methodology manual on environmental impact of stressors.
The INPRO methodology in the area of environmental impact of stressors covers only normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences of NES facilities. Consequences of potential accidents are discussed in the INPRO methodology manuals in the areas of safety of reactors and safety of the nuclear fuel cycle. Guidance provided here, describing good practices, represents expert opinion but does not constitute recommendations made on the basis of a consensus of Member States

Structure

In Section 2, general features of an environmental assessment are presented.
In Section 3, an overview of information that must be available to an INPRO assessor to perform the environmental assessment is provided.
In Section 4, the background of the INPRO methodology BP for environmental impact of stressors, and the corresponding URs and CRs, consisting of INs and ALs, are presented. At the CR level, guidance is provided on how to determine the values of the INs and ALs.
Appendix I provides general information on types of stressor and separate, illustrative lists of stressors (in the form of tables) for all facilities of an NES based on uranium and mixed oxide (MOX) fuel (as an example). This appendix could be used by an INPRO assessor as a starting point to generate input for the BP evaluation.
Appendix II presents simplified environmental analysis methods of how to calculate the impact of radiological stressors, i.e. the dose on humans and non-human biota (plants and animals). It also briefly discusses the calculation of the impacts of chemical stressors on humans and non-human biota.
Appendix III illustrates the concepts for optimization of the management options for reduction of the environmental impact of nuclear facilities.
Appendix IV provides basic information on the concept of collective dose, which is used in the INPRO assessment method described in this publication.
Table 1 provides an overview of the BP, URs and CR in the INPRO methodology area of environmental impact of stressors.

Table 1. Overview of basic principle, user requirements and criteria in the INPRO methodology area of environmental impact of stressors
INPRO basic principle the area of environmental impact of stressors (acceptability of expected adverse environmental effects): The expected adverse environmental effects of an NES should be well within the performance envelope of current NESs delivering similar energy products.
INPRO user requirements Criteria Indicator (IN) and Acceptance Limit (AL)
UR1: Controllability of environmental stressors:
The environmental stressors from each facility of an NES over the complete life cycle should be controllable to levels meeting or below current standards 		CR1.1: Radiation exposure of the public IN1.1: Dose to the public
AL1.1: Lower than the dose constraint
CR1.2: Radiation exposure of non-human species IN1.2: Doses to the reference biota species
AL1.2: Lower than international recommendations
CR1.3: Impacts of chemicals and other non-radiation environmental stressors IN1.3: Levels of chemicals and other stressors
AL1.3: Lower than national environmental safety standard levels
UR2: Reduction of total environmental impact of emitted radioactivity:

Total radiotoxicity of radionuclides discharged by the NES assessed should be lower than that of any current NES delivering similar energy products

CR2.1: Reduction of environmental impact of radiation IN2.1: Total radiotoxicity of radionuclides emitted to the environment from the NES assessed (RT)
AL2.1: RT is lower than the radiotoxicity of stressors emitted to the environment from a current NES delivering similar energy products
UR3: Optimization of the measures to reduce environmental impact:

The measures applied to reduce adverse environmental impact attributable to an NES should be optimized

CR3.1: Optimization of the measures to reduce environmental impact IN3.1: Measures to reduce environmental impact of the NES
AL3.1: Measures are optimized

Concept of sustainable development and its relationship with the area of environmental impact of stressors of the INPRO methodology

The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development Report [4] (often known as the Brundtland Report), entitled Our Common Future, defines sustainable development as: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (see chapter 2, para. 1 [4]). This definition contains within it two key concepts:

“

  • the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
  • the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”

Based on this definition of sustainable development, a three part test for any approach to sustainability and sustainable development was proposed within INPRO project: (i) current development should be fit for the purpose of meeting current needs with minimized environmental impacts and acceptable economics; (ii) current RD&D programmes should establish and maintain trends that lead to technological and institutional developments that serve as a platform for future generations to meet their needs; and (iii) the approach to meeting current needs should not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
At first reading, this definition may appear obvious, but when considering the complexities of implemented nuclear energy technology and systems, plus their many supporting institutions, meeting the three part test is not always straightforward because many approaches only meet one or perhaps two parts of the test in a given area, and may fail on the others.
The Brundtland Report overview (para. 61 [4]) of the topic of nuclear energy summarized that:

“After almost four decades of immense technological effort, nuclear energy has become widely used. During this period, however, the nature of its costs, risks, and benefits have become more evident and the subject of sharp controversy. Different countries world-wide take up different positions on the use of nuclear energy. The discussion in the Commission also reflected these different views and positions. Yet all agreed that the generation of nuclear power is only justifiable if there are solid solutions to the unsolved problems to which it gives rise. The highest priority should be accorded to research and development on environmentally sound and ecologically viable alternatives, as well as on means of increasing the safety of nuclear energy.”

The Brundtland Report presented its comments on nuclear energy in chapter 7, section III [4]. In the area of nuclear energy, the focus of sustainability and sustainable development is on solving certain well known problems (referred to here as ‘key issues’) of institutional and technological significance. Sustainable development implies progress and solutions in the key issue areas. Seven key issues are discussed (in this order):
(a) Proliferation risks;
(b) Economics;
(c) Health and environment risks;
(d) Nuclear accident risks;
(e) Radioactive waste disposal;
(f) Sufficiency of national and international institutions (with particular emphasis on intergenerational and transnational responsibilities);
(g) Public acceptability.
The INPRO methodology for the self-assessment of sustainability and sustainable development of an NES is based on the broad philosophical outlines of the Brundtland Report’s concept of sustainable development described above. Twenty-nine years have passed since the publication of the Brundtland Report, and 15 years have passed since the initial consultancies on development of the INPRO methodology in 2001. In the interim period of time, significant historical events have starkly highlighted certain key issues. However, the key issues for sustainable development of NESs have remained essentially unchanged over nearly three decades.
By far the most notable events in the period, which have a direct impact on nuclear energy sustainability, are related to non-proliferation, nuclear security, cost escalation of new construction and, most notably, the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011. The Fukushima Daiichi accident further clarified that nuclear safety is an issue of paramount importance for sustainability and that external hazards, associated with a particular site, could be responsible for a dramatic common cause failure involving multiple reactor units.
In each INPRO methodology manual, a key issue of NES sustainable development is examined. The structure of the methodology is a hierarchy of INPRO BPs, URs and CRs measuring whether the UR has been achieved. Under each BP, the CRs include measures that take into consideration the three part test based on Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainable development which was described above.
This INPRO Manual focuses on the key issue of environmental stressors (radioactive, chemical, heat and others) associated with NES development and deployment. It does not consider emissions of environmental stressors under accident conditions. The topics of radioactive and chemical emissions during accidents are covered under the INPRO areas of safety of reactors and fuel cycle facilities and are published in separate manuals.
In the broad sense of the full related technology chain, NESs are comparatively benign with respect to many stressor emissions when compared to available, baseload non-NESs. For example, because the waste products of nuclear fission are contained during all but severe nuclear accidents, releases of radiological species to the environment from operating nuclear reactors are typically extremely small — at least one and often two or more orders of magnitude below national regulatory limits and international standards [5]. In fact, radioactive emissions from coal fired thermal power plants are often higher than for nuclear reactors of comparable scale. This is because the coal and the resulting fly ash waste contain uranium and thorium oxides and radioactive progenies that are not fully captured by emission controls. Chemical stressor emissions from nuclear reactors are also very small, whereas chemical stressors (sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides (NOX), mercury, dioxins, volatile aromatic hydrocarbons, etc.) can be significant fugitive components of emissions from coal fired power plants. Although far cleaner than coal, natural gas fired plants contribute significant emissions of NOX and emissions of methane associated with fuel leaks. If carbon emissions are considered as an environmental stressor (an increasingly common position globally), nuclear power is benign and comparable to renewable energy power sources such as hydroelectricity.
Typically, the largest shares of radiological and chemical stressor emissions from NESs originate from mining, milling and spent fuel reprocessing fuel cycle facilities, as opposed to from nuclear reactors. One area where nuclear power has similar environmental stressor impacts to other fossil fuel generation technologies is waste heat rejection. More recently, advances such as supercritical coal and combined cycle natural gas plants have increased thermal efficiency and thereby reduced the waste heat impacts and cooling water use per unit of electricity produced by fossil fuel generation technology. However, if evaporative cooling towers are used, these impacts can often be mitigated in both nuclear and fossil fuel generation technologies. Next generation nuclear reactors also promise significant increases in thermal efficiency, and certain high temperature plant designs may allow practical air cooling.
This current INPRO Manual tests whether an NES is sustainable with respect to environmental stressors. In the case of each NES installation, radiation exposure of the public is compared to the dose constraints. Radiation exposure of non-human species is compared to the lowest values of international standards or national regulations (when available). The total radiotoxicity of emissions is also evaluated as a broad metric to consider the reduction of radiological impact on the environment. Moreover, the manual requests, in UR3, that evidence of optimization of measures to reduce environmental impact is provided. Suggested optimization approaches include best available techniques (BATs), best environmental practice (BEP), as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) or as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), with social and economic factors taken into account.
As previously mentioned, environmental stressor impacts tend to be primarily associated with certain fuel cycle facilities that are not broadly distributed. These facilities are often part of national economies of nuclear fuel suppliers and service States that provide fuels and services as an export to other national economies. In certain cases, it may be appropriate to parse available results of environmental assessments of these facilities to consider separately the fraction of stressor emissions associated with national nuclear power generation and of exported nuclear fuels and services. The INPRO CRs in this manual are set as total dose constraints and other types of recommended or required thresholds. The sustainability requirements in the INPRO area of environmental impact of stressors are fulfilled when all ALs are met, but it is also important to understand the balance of environmental impacts accepted in exchange for domestic power generation (a broad public good) and in exchange for exported nuclear fuel products and services (potentially a narrower or broader public good, depending upon the tax/tariff structures associated with the industry). Understanding this balance is a central question in cost–benefit analysis (CBA) regarding development of the national NES, which is discussed in the INPRO methodology area of infrastructure [6].
The NES is expected to meet the three part test based on the Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainable development if all ALs in all areas are met as outlined in the INPRO methodology.
Protection of the environment is a major consideration in the processes for approving industrial activities in many countries. The level of societal concern for the environment internationally is clearly indicated in several documents, in addition to the Brundtland Report [4], reflecting international consensus, notably the Rio Declaration on sustainable development [7], i.e. the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, the Statement on Sustainable Development of Forests, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Other related documents are the United Nations resolution on institutional arrangements for the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities [8], the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management [9], the IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety [10], the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention) [11], the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention) [12], the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic [13] and the European Commission recommendation on standardized information on radioactive airborne and liquid discharges into the environment from nuclear power reactors and reprocessing plants in normal operation [14].
Legacy of the past
In some cases, the legacy of the past may still burden the civil nuclear industry (e.g. Refs [15–20]). If the nuclear industry in general claims its sustainability, this should be achieved for all of its facilities to prevent objective criticism that may challenge the assertion (e.g. imported uranium used in a sustainable NES should come from a mining/milling operation that complies with environmental standards at the time that the uranium for the NES was extracted).

General features of an environmental assessment

This section provides some general background information on environmental issues, particularly on the environmental impact of stressors caused by an NES.

Concept of sustainable development

The concept of sustainability can be considered from several related, but different, points of view: social, economic, environmental and institutional. This publication deals with the environmental dimension of sustainability by considering stressors providing adverse impact to the environment.
Protection of the environment is a major consideration in the processes for approving industrial activities in many countries. The level of international societal concern for the environment is clearly indicated in publications reflecting international consensus, notably the Brundtland Report [4], the Rio Declaration on sustainable development [7] and the Joint Safety Convention of the IAEA [9].
The common basic idea in these publications is that the present generation should not compromise the ability of future generations to fulfil their needs and should leave them with a healthy environment. Nuclear power should support sustainable development by providing much needed energy with relatively low burdens on the atmosphere, water, land and resource use. Improvement of the technology should include improvement of its environmental aspects to a degree that is consistent with importance to society and with the potential environmental performance of competing technologies.

Interfaces of a nuclear energy system with the environment

An example of the different components or facilities of a complete NES is presented in Fig. 1, starting with mining and processing, through to the final disposal of nuclear waste.

FIG. 1. Interfaces of a nuclear energy system with the environment[1].

An NES has several interfaces with the environment and other industries. From the environment, non-renewable resources such as fissile and fertile materials, e.g. uranium and thorium (orange arrow in Fig. 1), are removed and used in the NES, together with other non-renewable materials such as zirconium (bright yellow arrow in Fig. 1). On the other hand, the NES releases some stressors, e.g. radioactive nuclides, that have an adverse impact on the environment (pale yellow arrow in Fig. 1). In addition to these environmental effects, an NES is exchanging with other industries energy and industrial materials required for the installation, operation and finally decommissioning of the nuclear facilities (blue arrow in Fig. 1).

Performance of an environmental analysis

Figure 2 provides a general overview of how to perform an environmental impact analysis in steps.

FIG. 2. Flow chart of an environmental stressor analysis (adapted from Ref.[1]).

Starting from the definition of sources, i.e. the facilities of the NES, the stressors from the sources are identified, the pathways of the stressors to the receptors analysed, leading to the end point of the environmental analysis, i.e. the impact/effect of the stressors on the recipients. As shown in Fig. 2, Stressors of NES facilities include radioactive and non-radioactive chemical toxic emissions, heat discharges, noise, impacts on some non-renewable resources, and water and land use, all with potentially adverse environmental effects, which may occur on a local, regional or even global scale.
The actual environmental effects attributable to stressors may differ significantly with geographical location and other site specific and project specific factors of the NES facilities. However, all things being equal, the lower the level (magnitude) of a stressor, the lower will be the resultant environmental effect. Moreover, the stressors, as opposed to environmental pathways and receptors, are more under the control of the designers of the NES.
Comparison between nuclear and non-nuclear energy systems
The results of sustainability assessment of NESs in the area of environmental impact of stressors can be used in comparison with other non-nuclear energy systems only when they both have been analysed to a similar depth. For example, some environmental stressors (e.g. greenhouse gases) that may be negligible in an NES need to be kept in the list of stressors, enabling a comparison between different sources of power generation.

Types of stressor in a nuclear energy system

Any energy system will inevitably introduce stressors to the environment, such as release of radionuclides or non-radioactive chemicals, and depletion of resources, with potentially adverse environmental effects (or impacts) on a local, regional or even global scale.
The environment is considered to be composed of interacting systems, which, in turn, comprise biological elements, i.e. fauna and flora, and physical elements, i.e. atmosphere, land, water and resources (e.g. used for energy production). Impacts are considered to be those effects that alter the existing environment, either temporarily or permanently.
The adverse environmental impacts usually covered in an EIA as part of the site licensing process include health effects on people and non-human species. Both radiological and non-radiological (chemical) health effects are considered. Trade-offs and synergies among the effects from different energy system components and different environmental stressors are also considered, if possible.
Radionuclides discharged by an NES are stressors that are specific to (but not exclusive to) nuclear power; in many cases, the public concerns on NES safety are related to the release of radionuclides into the environment. At the same time, there are many other stressors such as toxic chemicals (e.g. acid mine drainage from waste rock), heat rejections from once through cooling systems, land use, etc., that, in specific cases, might have a greater negative impact than radionuclides released into the environment.

Regulatory standards for radiological stressors

For planned exposure situations, which is the case for the environmental INPRO assessments, exposures and risks are subject to control to ensure that the specified dose limits for occupational exposure and those for public exposure are not exceeded, and optimization is applied to attain the desired level of protection and safety. Paragraph 1.22 of GSR Part 3 [2] recommends that dose constraints are to be used “for optimization of protection and safety, the intended outcome of which is that all exposures are controlled to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable, economic, societal and environmental factors being taken into account”. It is further clarified that [2]:

“Dose constraints are set separately for each source under control and they serve as boundary conditions in

defining the range of options for the purposes of optimization of protection and safety. Dose constraints are not dose limits: exceeding a dose constraint does not represent non-compliance with regulatory requirements,

but it could result in follow-up actions.”

Although the dose limits, expressed as an annual effective dose to the representative person, are generally set at the level of 1 mSv, dose constraints are quite different in different countries (see Table 12, in Appendix II). It should be emphasized that there are no constraints for the release of individual radionuclides. There is also no international recommendation on the limits for concentrations of radionuclides in the environment. On the other hand, there are so called reference (or authorized discharge limits [22]) levels for radionuclide discharges into the environment. These reference levels are facility and site specific, and are the result of environmental analyses with the objective to identify, with sufficient conservatism, allowable emission rates of radionuclides, so as to not exceed dose limits.
Primarily, the effective dose to human population/non-human species can be considered as an indicator of environmental impact of radiation release. Ambient radionuclide concentrations in terms of both individual radionuclides and total alpha, beta or gamma activity can also be chosen to characterize radionuclides as a stressor specific to nuclear power (see Table 2).
During normal operation of NES facilities, only small amounts of radioactive materials are released into the environment, resulting in minor radiological impacts on the general public and the environment, i.e. the regulatory limits are met with high margins [5].

Table 2. Overview of stressors for evaluating nuclear energy system facilities
Stressors Parameters characterizing stressors Units Models
Radionuclides Total alpha/beta activity in the environments of interest Bq/m3 Ref. [23]/National models
Radionuclide activity concentrations in some appropriate media Bq/m3 Ref. [23]/National models
Annual effective dose to the population mSv/a Ref. [23]/National models
Doses to reference biota species mGy/a ERICA, RESRAD-Biota models [24]
Toxic chemicals Heavy metals kg/m3 National models
Organic compounds kg/m3 National models
Land commitment Land temporally committed m2/tU (or GW(e)) None
Land permanently committed m2/tU (or GW(e)) None
Particulates Concentration of particulates released by facility into the air g/m3 National models
Heat Heat rejected by a facility per year MW(th)/a National models
Solids Concentration of solids dissolved in effluents g/m3 National models
Concentration solids suspended in water g/m3 National models

Regulatory standards for chemical stressors

In most countries, there are no regulatory limits (standards) for the emission of toxic chemicals into the environment. On the other hand, in most countries there are limits of toxic substances related to their ambient concentrations. Based on such considerations, environmental authorities of some countries establish reference levels for the emission rates of different chemicals, which are evaluated based on analysis of pollutant dispersion using environment models (computer codes).

Examples of stressors

Table 2 presents the NES stressors, the parameters characterizing the stressors that are limited by regulatory requirements and the available analytical models to calculate the impact of stressors.

Necessary INPUT for an INPRO assessment in the area of environmental impact of stressors

This section defines the necessary input and its sources for assessment of an NES in the INPRO methodology area of environmental impact of stressors.

Specification of the nuclear energy system

A prerequisite for INPRO assessment is the specification of the NES (see the introductory manual of the updated INPRO methodology) to be assessed. The NES is to be defined by the INPRO assessor. For an environmental assessment, in principle, the following aspects should be covered in the specification of the NES:
(a) The complete NES should be considered, covering the entire front end of the fuel cycle, the energy conversion unit (reactor) and the entire back end. For all nuclear facilities, the complete lifetime should be covered, i.e. construction, operation and decommissioning.
(b) A global approach should be used, i.e. no geographical boundaries should be introduced that limit the environmental assessment.
(c) If necessary, environmental burdens may be divided into national (or regional) and those occurring outside the country (or regional) borders if such information would be required by stakeholders.
Thus, by meeting the above defined requirements, the general underlying principle of assessing the entirety of environmental impacts would not be violated.
However, in general, cut-offs, i.e. selection of specific facilities of an NES, will be required in an INPRO assessment. Such an approach is recommended for nuclear technology users and specifically in the case when a State is embarking on a nuclear power programme, i.e. in such a country that the INPRO assessment in the area of environment may consider only the first nuclear power plant and related waste management facilities, assuming that in the later stages of the nuclear power programme, when more experience is accrued in the country, the scope of further INPRO assessments will be expanded.
A nuclear technology developer may focus the environmental assessment (analysis) on the design of the nuclear facility under development.

Information on environmental stressors

An INPRO assessor should have access to relevant design information, i.e. a list of all stressors together with their levels (e.g. emission rates of radionuclides and chemical toxins, size of land use, etc.), of all NES facilities to be assessed. This information should be available in design reports. The assessor should further have access to information on the environmental characteristics of the sites planned for the NES facilities to be assessed. This information should be available from the responsible government organization or utility.
An INPRO assessor should also have access to the same relevant design information of facilities of an existing NES that are comparable to the NES facilities to be assessed. Such facilities are called comparable current facilities in this publication. A comparable current facility means an operating facility of a given type which is located on a site with environmental characteristics that are comparable to the NES facility assessed and licensed according to the requirements comparable to the NES facility assessed. For such a comparable current facility, a complete list of all its stressors and their licensed levels, e.g. emission rates of radionuclides and toxic chemicals, should be available to the INPRO assessor from the potential supplier. The assessor should also have access to important environmental characteristics, e.g. wind pattern, population density, etc., and the regulatory requirements applied for such current facilities. The assessor should further have access to and knowledge of the environmental standards of the country (or region) where the NES is (planned) to be installed. The national standards should be available from the responsible government organization (e.g. via its web site). The same information is needed for the comparable current facilities (if such an approach is planned to be used in the assessment).
The INPRO assessor should also have information to compare the radiotoxicity of release of all radionuclides of the NES assessed with a current NES delivering similar energy products. For the purpose of the INPRO assessment, the total radiotoxicity of an NES is defined through dose conversion factors for collective dose per unit of release, as presented in Ref. [23].
Finally, the INPRO assessor should also have to consider the evidence, e.g. in the form of a written argument to be provided by the potential supplier, to verify that an optimization procedure such as ALARP has been performed during the design of all NES facilities to be assessed.

Other sources of INPUT

The INPRO assessor should contact the government organization responsible for environmental aspects to receive information on the status of EIA studies related to nuclear facilities to be installed in the country as part of the planned NES. If such studies already exist, most of the necessary input for an INPRO assessment should be documented in them.
If a State is embarking on a nuclear power programme and using the IAEA service Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review, applying the IAEA milestones approach of Ref. [25], the INPRO assessor should contact the nuclear energy programme implementing organization responsible for this activity to exchange information and assure coordination of this effort with the INPRO assessment.

INPRO basic principle, user requirements and criteria in the area of environmental impact of stressors

This section presents the BP, the URs and the CRs in the INPRO methodology area of environmental impact of stressors.

INPRO basic principle: acceptability of expected adverse environmental effects

INPRO basic principle in the area of environmental impact of stressors: The expected adverse environmental effects of an NES should be well within the performance envelope of current NESs delivering similar energy products.
Adverse environmental effects may arise from any facility and life cycle stage of an NES. Moreover, the design and operation of one facility of an NES can have a major influence on the environmental effects of other facilities. Therefore, in principle, the environmental performance of a proposed NES should be evaluated as an integrated whole (see the footnote on the scope of the INPRO assessment in the area of environmental impact of stressors).
The BP expresses an expectation that the environmental performance of the NES assessed will be better than that of a current NES, which is an existing NES comprising facilities of the latest design that is licensed and operating at the time that the INPRO assessment is performed. A current NES may or may not comply with the current standards, depending on whether the current standards are different from those that were applied when the current NES was implemented. However, as further clarified through the first user requirement, UR1, the BP requiring that adverse environmental effects of an NES “should be well within” the performance envelope of current NES implies, among others, that the expected adverse environmental effects of an NES assessed should be within the current regulatory standards. Current standards are those prevailing at the time of the INPRO assessment, and are normally met by recently licensed facilities. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate to use an environmental standard that is expected to apply when the NES will be implemented.
Figure 3 provides some clarification of the BP. Each stressor caused either by an NES to be assessed — called an “innovative nuclear energy system” in the figure — or by a current NES chosen for comparison, is represented by a vector whose length is proportional to the level of the stressor, e.g. the release rate of a radioactive nuclide. The radius of the circle passing along the vector represents the environmental standard for that stressor. In this way, each stressor can be represented relative to its standard, and all standards will lie on the circumference (red circle in Fig. 3). The number of stressors illustrated is arbitrary, and the relative magnitude of vectors representing different stressors has no specific meaning.
Stressors arising from the current NES are shown as blue arrows, and their magnitudes (levels) are denoted by LCNS-i.
The green arrows represent the stressors arising from an (innovative) NES to be assessed, and their magnitudes (levels) are denoted by LNES-i. The BP assumes that each of the NES environmental stressors must be located inside the red circle (i.e. must meet its standard) representing the current standards.

FIG. 3. Environmental performance envelopes of a current nuclear energy system (blue) and an innovative nuclear energy system (green) to be assessed [1]. CNS — current nuclear energy system; NES — nuclear energy system.

The level of stressors of a current NES may or may not be entirely inside this red circle, depending on whether the current standards are different from those that were applied when the current NES was implemented, as illustrated by LCNS-4.
As shown in the figure, some stressors arising from an (innovative) NES to be assessed may have a lower magnitude (LNES-2, LNES-4, LNES-5) than the current NES, while some of them may be higher (LNES-1) or the same (LNES-6, LNES-7). In the (innovative) NES to be assessed, some stressors from the current NES may be eliminated (one is illustrated by LNES-3), while some new stressors (one is illustrated by LNES-8) may occur. Note that neither the magnitudes of the blue or green areas nor the angles at which the vectors are drawn represent any real quantity, they are for visualization only.
When all stressors are considered, the performance envelope of an (innovative) NES to be assessed (green area) should be within the performance envelope of the current NES (blue area).
In case one (or more than one) of the stressors of the (innovative) NES to be assessed compares unfavourably with the corresponding stressor of the current NES, multivariate analysis might be a possible tool to determine the degree to which the NES to be assessed is within the current NES environmental performance envelope. An alternative approach would be to express the level of all stressors commensurately so that they may be accumulated into a single ‘figure of merit’. Both methods would introduce subjective judgements, but both methods would also be useful for comparisons of one NES to be assessed to another.
When stressor levels, e.g. dose to the population or ambient concentrations of chemicals, are used as part of a comparison between different NESs, it is important to normalize the stressor levels to per unit energy values. Summarizing the statements above, the BP requires that the spectrum of environmental burdens of an (innovative) NES to be assessed remains within the performance envelope of the current NES (see Fig. 3). Thus, operating technology systems will not be substituted by others that are performing worse, but by technologies that tend to reduce environmental damages instead. The INPRO methodology has defined three user requirements UR1, UR2 and UR3 for the BP.

User requirement UR1: controllability of environmental stressors

User requirement UR1: The environmental stressors from each facility of an NES over the complete life cycle should be controllable to levels meeting or below current standards.
As stated previously, any energy system will inevitably introduce stressors to the environment, such as emission of radionuclides or non-radioactive (toxic) chemicals into the air and water, land use and depletion of non-renewable resources, with potentially adverse environmental effects on a local, regional or even global scale. UR1 asks that a designer (supplier) of an NES (or a facility thereof) provides controllability of all stressors throughout the system. Controllability can be achieved by provision of appropriate systems (e.g. filters to reduce emissions) and monitoring equipment (e.g. instrumentation and control equipment to measure release rates) [26, 27]. The operators of proposed nuclear facilities and processes will be responsible for controlling (and documenting) the level of stressors during the lifetime of each facility of the NES.
All stressors of an NES facility should be controllable to levels meeting or below current regulatory standards, i.e. those prevailing at the time the proposed NES is being assessed. In the following, guidance is provided to the INPRO assessor on how to perform an assessment of CRs related to UR1, assuming the INPRO assessor is a nuclear technology user planning to install, in their country, nuclear facilities supplied by a nuclear technology holder.
If an EIA has already been performed for the NES facilities to be assessed and accepted by the authority in the country as part of the site licensing process, CRs related to UR1 should be automatically met, i.e. no further application of the INPRO methodology should be needed; however, the INPRO assessor should review the corresponding reports and confirm that the EIA was performed with due consideration of international guidance documents (e.g. Refs [28, 29]) and agreements (e.g. Refs [11–13]), and document a summary of the results of this EIA in the assessment report.
As a guiding objective for the protection of the environment, theoretically, consideration should be given to the widest possible spectrum of stressors. However, for practical reasons, the degree of inclusion of different stressors in an INPRO assessment has to be limited.
The first step of determining the level of stressors of an NES facility is to produce a list of all relevant stressors. For facilities of the front and back end stages of current NESs, an IAEA publication issued in 1996 presents an overview of major stressors, e.g. heavy metal intrusion into surface water and groundwater from mill tailings and conversion sludge, and mitigation thereof by, for example, effluent treatment [30]. More recent results of the studies, focused on specific details or new technologies, can be found in the proceedings of conferences or scientific publications (see Refs [31, 32]).
In Appendix I, examples are provided to the INPRO assessor on which stressors to focus, in the form of tables that list the important stressors of the facilities of an NES consisting of a water cooled reactor using uranium oxide (UOX) and MOX fuel. Appendix I also presents brief descriptions of the processes in the individual nuclear fuel cycle facilities.
Three types of stressor are covered by UR1 and defined in the tables of Appendix I, namely:

  • Exposure of the public from radionuclides released to air and/or water (CR1.1);
  • Radiation exposure of biota species (CR1.2);
  • Other stressors such as ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals to air and/or water, land use, waste heat rejected, dust, etc. (CR1.3).

The media, i.e. water and/or air, and soil, that the stressors are impacting on are listed in the tables of Appendix I.
Use of a simplified environmental analysis
If an EIA has not yet been performed for the NES facilities to be assessed, it has not yet been accepted by the regulatory authority or the radiation exposure data of the facility assessed are not available, the INPRO assessor is offered an option to continue the environmental evaluation of the NES by trying to perform a simplified (conservative) environmental analysis, as presented in Appendix II, to confirm whether the NES facilities to be assessed will meet national regulatory standards at their planned site.
Use of a comparable current facility
In some particular situations, the simplified environmental analysis may be avoided for the purpose of INPRO assessment, even if the EIA has not yet been completed, assuming that the INPRO assessor considers an NES facility to be based on proven technology. Proven nuclear technology requires that a reference facility — called a comparable current facility — exists that is licensed based on an EIA and that is in operation. The environmental behaviour of such a comparable current facility in comparison to the NES facility to be assessed can be used in the INPRO assessment.
UR1 is satisfied if, in all NES facilities, the levels of all important stressors (listed in Appendix I) are equal or lower than those of comparable current facilities and, additionally, the NES facility satisfies all of the following conditions:

  • In the NES facilities assessed, no new stressors should appear.
  • The environmental characteristics of the NES facility sites should be comparable to the ones of current comparable facilities.
  • Comparable regulatory standards should have been (or will be) applied to both the current facilities and the NES facilities to be assessed.

To confirm the existence of a current comparable facility, the INPRO assessor should compare the environmental characteristics of the planned site of the NES facilities with a site of current facilities. Important environmental characteristics include, for emissions, the stack height of the plant, the hydrological conditions (e.g. release into a river, a lake or the ocean), geology (type of soil, aquifers, etc.), meteorology (e.g. wind patterns), human population distribution around the plant, food chains, endangered species, etc. In principle, all (potential) sites of nuclear installations have different environmental characteristics. However, if important environmental characteristics of different sites are comparable, the levels of stressors of facilities located at different sites can be compared, too. A judgement on the comparability of two sites of nuclear facilities has to be performed by an expert in the area of EIAs.
The INPRO assessor should perform (with support from an expert in environmental analyses) a comparison of the regulatory requirements used for licensing of the current facilities and the ones applicable for the NES facilities to be installed in the country.
If these additional conditions regarding new stressors, comparable environmental characteristics and regulatory standards are not met, then the proposed approach of using the comparison against comparable current facility is not applicable.
UR1 explicitly requires to be applied to each facility of the proposed NES, over its complete life cycle (with the exception of potential accidents and their consequences). The INPRO methodology has defined three CRs for UR1, as presented in Table 1.

Criterion CR1.1: Radiation exposure of the public

ᅠIndicator IN1.1: Dose to the publicᅠ

Dose to a representative person is considered as IN1.1. Depending on the status of the assessed NES deployment, this information may be directly available from the design or licensing documents of the NES to be assessed. If these data cannot be found, a simplified environmental analysis (see Appendix II) should be performed by the assessor. Alternatively, a comparison with a current comparable facility (when applicable) can be used, as described earlier.

ᅠAcceptance limit AL1.1 for dose to the publicᅠ

Based on GSR Part 3 [2], regulatory authorities should define dose constraints as outlined in detail in IAEA Safety Standards Series No. WS-G-2.3, Regulatory Control of Radioactive Discharges to the Environment [33]. A dose constraint should be set up by the regulatory authority for a single facility on a given site, taking into account local conditions that are relevant for radiological impact on humans. More details on dose constraints are given in Appendix II.
The INPRO methodology recommends using dose constraints established by a national regulatory body for an NES facility as an AL for the assessment of radiation exposure of the public. For the cases when dose constraints are not defined by a national regulatory body, the INPRO methodology recommends using the following values as ALs, which represent minimum constraints for a single source (facility) used in current practices by different Member States:

  • Limit of 0.08 mSv/a for nuclear power reactors;
  • Limit of 0.2 mSv/a for all other nuclear facilities of the NES assessed.

Use of a current comparable facility
For the case of an INPRO assessment of CR1.1 by comparison of stressors from NES facilities assessed against stressors from comparable current facilities, as described earlier, the INPRO methodology proposes to use the licensed levels of stressors (also called reference levels) of a selected comparable current facility as AL1.1 for the NES facility to be assessed.
This means, for radioactive discharges of an NES facility to be assessed, that licensed levels of stressors of a current comparable nuclear facility licensed in the country of its location by the responsible regulatory authority can be used as AL1.1 for the NES facility assessed.
This proposed approach is only applicable if, for both the comparable current facility and the facility to be assessed, the environmental characteristics of the plant and the site and the regulatory environmental requirements are sufficiently similar. A sufficient similarity is necessary because, in particular, the licensed levels of stressors of a nuclear facility depend on the environmental characteristics of its site and the applicable regulatory standards. Additionally, the NES facility to be assessed should not show a higher level of a stressor and no additional stressor in comparison to the current facility.
Thus, the INPRO assessor should check whether there are any new stressors or higher levels of stressors in the assessed NES facilities that do not occur in current facilities. However, in an NES facility of proven technology (usually offered by a technology holder to a technology user), no new or higher levels of stressors are expected in comparison to a current facility.

Criterion CR1.2: Radiation exposure of non-human species

ᅠIndicator IN1.2: Doses to the reference biota speciesᅠ

Current international trends in radiation protection show an increasing awareness of the vulnerability of the environment. These trends also indicate the need to be able to demonstrate (rather than to assume) that the environment is protected against the effects of industrial pollutants, including radionuclides, in a wider range of environmental situations, irrespective of any human connection. The system of protection and safety required by GSR Part 3 [2] provides a basis for protection from the harmful effects of radiation of both the public and the environment. This procedure is usually accomplished by means of an environmental assessment that identifies the target(s), defines the appropriate criteria for protection and assesses the impacts on biota.
Methods and criteria for such assessments are being developed and will continue to evolve. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) [34] effectively extended the system of protection to address protection of the environment, including flora and fauna, more explicitly. These recommendations explore the objectives of environmental protection and explain the basis for the proposed reference animals and plants (RAP), which is a small set of hypothetical entities that are representative of animals and plants present in different environments (terrestrial, freshwater and marine) and which form the basis of a structured approach to the assessment of exposures to, and effects of, ionizing radiation [35–37]. Therefore, doses to the reference organisms are considered as IN1.2. These doses can be estimated by the assessor using a simplified approach, as presented in Appendix II, when necessary.

ᅠAcceptance limit AL1.2 for doses to the reference biota speciesᅠ

In the scientific annexes to the 1996 and 2008 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reports [38, 39], published data on the exposures and effects on non-human biota have been evaluated. It has been found that “chronic dose rates of less than 100 μGy·h−1 (2.4 mGy·d−1) to the most highly exposed individuals would be unlikely to have significant effects on most terrestrial communities” and “that maximum dose rates of 400 μGy·h−1 (10 mGy·d−1) to a small proportion of the individuals in aquatic populations of organisms would not have any detrimental effects at the population level”. These values are in agreement with those reported elsewhere [40, 41], and reflect an international consensus on doses which could be considered as acceptable for biota species.
The ICRP defined a set of dose reference values (derived consideration reference levels, DCRLs) that are specific to each of the different RAPs [35]. A DCRL can be considered as a band of dose rates, spanning one order of magnitude, within which there is some chance of causing deleterious effects in individuals of a given RAP category arising from exposure to ionizing radiation. The presented data demonstrate that no radiation effects or very low probability effects can be observed for aquatic and terrestrial species at the level of 0.1–1.0 mGy/d. Noting the similarity of these data, the level of 1.0 mGy/d can be used as an AL for non-human biota.
Based on the data on projected ambient concentrations of main dose forming radionuclides in the major environmental compartments such as air, soil and water, the INPRO assessor should perform (with support from an expert in environmental analyses) assessments of the doses to the RAPs. Methods and models for such assessments are freely available, and can be downloaded from appropriate web sites (see Appendix II). The IAEA model [23] presented in Appendix II can be used for calculation of the ambient concentrations of radionuclides, if these data are unavailable at the time of assessments.
Alternatively, a comparison of stressors from the NES facilities assessed against stressors from current facilities (when applicable) can be used, as described earlier.

Criterion CR1.3: Impacts of chemicals and other non-radiation environmental stressors

ᅠIndicator IN1.3: Levels of chemicals and other stressorsᅠ

Radiological impacts in a particular environment constitute only one type of impact, and, in most cases, may not be the dominant impact of a particular facility or activity. Furthermore, the assessment of impacts on the environment needs to be viewed in an integrated manner with other features of the protection and safety system in order to establish the requirements applicable to a particular source. As there are complex interrelations, the approach to the protection of people and the environment is not limited to the prevention of radiological effects on humans and on other species. An integrated perspective has to be adopted to ensure the sustainability, now and in the future, of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism, and of the use of natural resources.
Levels of the chemical stressors (e.g. concentrations at the receiving environment and/or doses) which can be released from every facility of a given NES are to be defined according to the national regulatory requirements.
The (normalized) level of the stressor land use is to be defined in m2 per throughput (tU) of the facility or electricity generated in a year (GW·a) and/or in a shorter period such as a day. Waste heat rejected (from the power plant) to air and/or water is to be defined in energy released to the media (MW·h) per electricity generated by the NES in a year (GW·a) and/or in a shorter period.

ᅠAcceptance limit AL1.3 for levels of chemicals and other stressorsᅠ

For toxic chemicals, the national licensing requirements should be used as AL1.3. For the other stressors listed in Appendix I, national licensing requirements, e.g. the (normalized) amount of heat rejected to the ultimate heat sink such as a river or ocean, should be used as AL1.3.
Alternatively, a comparison of chemical and other stressors from NES facilities assessed against stressors from comparable current facilities (when applicable) can be used, as described earlier.

Final assessment of UR1: Controllability of environmental stressors

The tables in Appendix I can be used by the INPRO assessor to check whether all important stressors of NES facilities have been considered by the designer.
The acceptance limits AL1.1–AL1.3 of CR1.1–CR1.3 are met if, in all NES facilities, the levels of all important stressors (listed in Appendix I) are in compliance with existing national or international standards.

User requirement UR2: reduction of total environmental impact of emitted radioactivity

User requirement UR2: Total radiotoxicity of radionuclides discharged by the NES assessed should be lower than that of a current NES delivering similar energy products.
Radiation tends to be considered as a stressor that is specific to nuclear power, and the concerns of the ecological safety of the nuclear industry are frequently related to the release of radionuclides into the environment. As different radionuclides released by nuclear facilities, including waste management facilities, differ in terms of producing detrimental health or environmental effects, the INPRO methodology suggests using the concept of radiotoxicity to balance the effects of different radionuclides and to combine them in a single integral parameter. In its simplest interpretation, radiotoxicity can be defined as the ability of incorporated radionuclides to cause harmful health effects [42]. This simple definition gives a clear understanding of the basic approach; however, it cannot be directly applied to the emitted radioactivity, as it does not consider the transport of radionuclides between the emitter and receptors.
In order to take into account environmental pathways, the INPRO approach is based on application of dose conversion factors for collective dose per unit activity discharged. The approach considers the discharge of radionuclides into the atmosphere, freshwater bodies and marine water, thus covering some differences in locations of nuclear facilities. Hence, radiotoxicity is defined in this publication as an activity of a radionuclide in a release multiplied by a parameter reflecting a measure of hazard from a given radionuclide.
Although the dose conversion factors (or collective effective dose commitments per unit activity discharged) are lump parameters, they are based on comprehensive calculations where many environmental transfer parameters and reference input data for such assessments are included. In particular, the data provided in Ref. [23] are given for both a simple generic model, which can be used to estimate collective doses for the transfer of radionuclides in the environment originally developed by UNSCEAR [43], and more complex models, which consider some site specific factors. To provide comparable bases for assessment of new NESs, generic global parameter values are used with these models.
For atmospheric releases, three exposure pathways are considered: inhalation, ingestion of terrestrial foods and external radiation from deposited material. A population density is required in this calculation of collective dose; for the purposes of calculating screening values, a population density of 35 people per km2 is used [23]. This represents a global average; considerably higher densities can be found in some countries, while lower densities can be found in others. The foods considered are: grains, green vegetables and fruit, root vegetables, milk and meat. Global average yields of particular foods are also required and are taken from the compilation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). These are the collective effective dose commitment values calculated using the effective dose coefficients given in Ref. [23]. In most cases, the values are of the same order as, or in the range of, the collective doses obtained from the more complex models, and are also presented in annex VII of Ref. [23].
For releases of radionuclides in liquid form, their dispersion and subsequent transfer to humans will vary considerably depending on the characteristics of the receiving water body. Although, the general model is used, account is also taken of the transfer of radionuclides to sediments through the use of the sediment distribution coefficient Kd. The exposure pathways considered are the consumption of drinking water and aquatic foods.
UR2 explicitly requires to be applied to each facility of the proposed NES, over its complete life cycle, and to consider the total environmental impact from discharged radioactivity.
The INPRO methodology has defined one CR for UR2, which is presented in Table 1.

Criterion CR2.1: Reduction of environmental impact of radiation

ᅠIndicator IN2.1: Total radiotoxicity of radionuclides emitted to the environment from the nuclear energy system assessedᅠ

For the purposes of the INPRO assessments, the radiotoxicity Rki,j is defined as the integral activity (Ai,j, in units of Bq) of radionuclide (i) discharged per GW∙a for each type of release (j) from a given facility (k) multiplied by the corresponding dose conversion factor for collective dose (DCFi,j , in man Sv/Bq), as given in Ref. [23]:

; (1)

It must be realized that the concept and product of the radiotoxicity assessment used in UR2 (CR2.1) are different from those required in UR1 (CR1.1). Annual effective dose is used for assessment of the compliance with radiation safety standards for the public exposure (UR1). Dose conversion factors for the collective effective dose commitment used for assessments of radiotoxicity are integrated to infinity, providing an IN of the total impact of the discharge of radionuclides to the environment within UR2.
Index j corresponds to the discharge of radionuclides from the facility k to the air, freshwater and marine waters, respectively. Then, the radiotoxicity of the release of any facility k is given by:

; (2)

where Nj is the number of radionuclides released to environment j. Then, the total radiotoxicity of the release from the proposed NES (RT) can be calculated by:

; (3)

where M is the number of nuclear facilities that constitute the NES. If only one new facility (e.g. a new nuclear power plant) is added to an existing NES, the comparison of radiotoxicity should be done only between newly introduced and former elements of the NESs, as the radiotoxicity of the remainder of the NES remains the same.
The collective dose conversion factors given in Ref. [23] were obtained using the effective dose coefficients for calculation of the effective doses suggested in Ref. [23] for screening purposes. The advantage of such an approach is that the parameters for simplified dose analysis recommended by UR1 are based on the same data as for UR2 and do not require the use of input other than from Ref. [23]. Another general advantage of this approach is the possibility of explicit summing of the radiotoxicity values calculated for different components of the NES, which could enable direct comparisons of NESs.

ᅠAcceptance limit AL2.1 for total radiotoxicity of radionuclides emitted to the environment from the nuclear energy system assessedᅠ

Total radiotoxicity is an integral parameter, and should be calculated based on the releases of all facilities constituting the NES, i.e. environmental analysis should be performed at the whole NES level. The acceptance limit AL2.1 of CR2.1 is met if the total radiotoxicity evaluated for the proposed NES is lower than that of any current NES which provides the same energy products.
In the case of a positive INPRO assessment of CR1.1 by using the method of comparison of stressors from comparable current facilities against stressors from NES facilities assessed (given that all necessary conditions are fulfilled, as described earlier), CR2.1 will be fulfilled automatically.

User requirement UR3: optimization of the measures to reduce environmental impact

After confirming that UR1 and UR2 are fulfilled, the next step of an INPRO assessment is to check whether the NES facility design has been adjusted by the designer (supplier) to provide optimized protection of the environment.
GSR Part 3 [2] is based on the ten fundamental safety principles stated in IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SF-1, Fundamental Safety Principles [44]. Fundamental Safety Principle No. 5 of SF-1 [44] requires optimization of protection and states that “Protection must be optimized to provide the highest level of safety that can reasonably be achieved.” More specifically, para. 3.24 of GSR Part 3 [2] requires:

“For occupational exposure and public exposure*, registrants and licensees shall ensure that all relevant

factors are taken into account in a coherent way in the optimization of protection and safety to contribute to achieving the following objectives:
(a) To determine measures for protection and safety that are optimized for the prevailing circumstances, with account taken of the available options for protection and safety as well as the nature, likelihood and magnitude of exposures;
(b) To establish criteria, on the basis of the results of the optimization, for the restriction of the likelihood and magnitudes of exposures by means of measures for preventing accidents and for mitigating the consequences of those that do occur.”

“* Requirements for the optimization of medical exposure are specified in paras 3.162–3.177.”

Therefore, the INPRO methodology UR3 in the area of environmental stressors reads as follows.

User requirement UR3: The measures applied to reduce adverse environmental impact attributable to an NES should be optimized.
It is suggested that the principle of pollution prevention [45] should be applied for this purpose by the designer, i.e. reduction of the amount and level of the stressor produced in the NES is the most favoured means of reducing potential environmental impacts.
As stated earlier, the NES to be assessed should be held to higher environmental standards than a current NES. Therefore, UR3:

  • Applies the philosophy of achieving the best environmental performance reasonably practicable for an NES facility to be assessed;
  • Covers all adverse environmental effects, not only the radiological effects on humans;
  • Continues to recognize that costs incurred to enhance environmental performance should not be greatly disproportionate to the achieved benefit.

The INPRO methodology has defined one CR for UR3, which is presented in Table 1.

Criterion CR3.1: Optimization of the measures to reduce environmental impact

ᅠIndicator IN3.1: Measures to reduce environmental impact of the nuclear energy systemᅠ

There are several options available to the INPRO assessor on how to confirm whether the measures to decrease the environmental impact of stressors of an NES facility are optimized. This INPRO Manual is not intended to provide any specific recommendations or indicate preferences on which optimization concept and approach should be used for such a purpose, and relies instead on regional or national expertise in this area. Possible options demonstrating optimization of the measures decreasing environmental impact are the BATs, the BEP or the best available technology not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC) concepts. Other techniques such as the ALARA or ALARP concepts can also be used by the designer of an NES facility to demonstrate that measures to provide a reduction of the environmental impacts are optimized depending on the requirements of national regulations and experience.
The application of the BAT and the BEP concepts to optimizing the environmental impact of nuclear facilities has been promoted by the commitments related to the limitation of environmental impact from the nuclear sector. Within the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic [13], contracting parties are requested to apply these concepts, where appropriate, to prevent and minimize contamination of the marine environment. Similar statements have been made by the EU directive on industrial emissions [46].
BAT means the preferred technique for a particular activity, selected from among others after taking into account several factors. Thus, the BAT is not a specific level of treatment, but is the conclusion of a selection process in which several alternatives are evaluated. The BAT selection process means the evaluation of candidate alternative techniques in order to select the BAT after considering: technology; economics; age of equipment and facilities involved; processes employed; engineering aspects of the application of various types of control technique; process changes; other environmental impacts (including energy requirements); safety considerations; and policy considerations. Overall, the BAT may be explained as follows [46]:

  • ‘Best’, in relation to techniques, means the most effective technique in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole;
  • ‘Available’, meaning those techniques developed on a scale that allows implementation in the relevant class of activity under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or not the techniques are used or produced within the State, as long as they are reasonably accessible to the person carrying out the activity;
  • ‘Techniques’, including the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built, managed, maintained, operated and decommissioned.

The relationship and differences between the BEP and BATNEEC concepts can be summarized as follows [47]. BATNEEC is construed to mean the provision and proper maintenance, operation, use and supervision of facilities which are the most suitable for the purposes. The manner in which this is to be achieved is wide ranging, but with the overall objective that BATNEEC will be used to limit, abate or reduce an emission from an activity. The focus is on defined activities, though also addressing areas such as treatment of waste. BEP is more comprehensive, addressing the entire product life cycle through a combination of practices. These practices may involve producers, importers, distributors, commercial users and the general public, as well as those engaged in the collection, recovery or disposal of the substance when it enters the waste stream [47]. Detailed introductory information on the BAT and BEP methods and an example of application are provided in Appendix III.
ALARA is an approach used for radiation protection to manage and control exposures (both individual and collective to the work force and to the general public) and releases of radioactive material to the environment so that the levels are as low as reasonable, taking into account social, technical, economic, practical and public policy considerations.
The ALARA concept was first described in an ICRP publication in 1973 [48]. Updates have been given by the ICRP in 1977 [49] and in 2006 [50]. In the latest report, the ICRP focuses more on expanding the optimization process, reflecting the increased role of individual equity, safety culture, stakeholder involvement in addressing receptor scenarios, site specific evaluation of exposure, intergenerational equity and many other aspects. The ICRP reports provide a comprehensive list of factors that should be considered for optimization.
Although there is limited guidance on how to apply ALARA principles to the performance assessment process, the ALARA process is described in some regulating documents, such as the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulation 10 CFR 20 [51]. The definitions usually indicate that exposures should be controlled so that releases of radioactive material to the environment are as low as reasonable, taking into account social, technical, economic, practical and public policy considerations. It is also noted that ALARA does not imply a certain dose limit or dose constraint, but that ALARA is a process which has the objective of attaining doses as far below the applicable limit of this part as is reasonably achievable.
The ALARP concept states that a risk has be reduced to a level that is “as low as reasonably practicable, social and economic factors taken into account”. It is a general concept for risk reduction applied in several countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom (e.g. [52–54]). Other Member States do not use ALARP on a regular basis; instead, standards and good engineering practices are adhered to, and legislation tends to require absolute levels of safety. The term ALARA is used interchangeably with ALARP in the United States of America, almost exclusively in the field of radiation protection. The ALARA principle is conceptually similar to ALARP, but does not involve a region of broad acceptability. An example describing application of the ALARP concept is given below and detailed in Appendix III.
The basic approach using the ALARP concept is that the NES is designed according to modern engineering principles. Then, the design should be reviewed to verify that the risk to the environment is ALARP. The ALARP technique includes an evaluation of both the cost and benefit of reducing the level of significant environmental stressors. The evaluation should lead to either a reduction of stressors or rejection of a possible reduction on the grounds that the cost of the reduction would significantly outweigh the benefit. This evaluation has to be performed by the designer (supplier), and the results of that process should be available to the INPRO assessor.

ᅠAcceptance limit AL3.1 for optimization of the measures to reduce environmental impactᅠ

The Aacceptance limit L3.1 of CR3.1 is met if evidence is available to the INPRO assessor that at least one of the possible optimization approaches was duly applied by the designer of the NES facility assessed.

Appendixes

  • ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named r21
    • Retrieved from "http://inpro-dev.westeurope.cloudapp.azure.com/wiki/index.php?title=Environmental_Impact_of_Stressors_(Sustainability_Assessment)&oldid=383"