SPECIAL REPORT | LEARNING FROM FISSION
V implications for decommissioning, radioactive waste management, and radioactive waste disposal associated with fusion energy. It noted: “In addition to tritium emissions and contaminated materials, there will be a need to manage radioactive materials and wastes produced by neutron activation, within regulatory controls, over the whole life cycle of a fusion reactor.” Finally, there is the assertion that fusion does not pose a risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Jassby points out that “the open or clandestine production of plutonium 239 is possible in a fusion reactor simply by placing natural or depleted uranium oxide at any location where neutrons of any energy are flying about”. Moreover, “a reactor fuelled with deuterium-tritium or deuterium-only will have an inventory of many kilograms of tritium, providing opportunities for diversion for use in nuclear weapons”.
Below: MAST Upgrade is a UK-backed spherical tokomak Photo credit: UK Atomic Energy Authority
Fusion learning from fission A growing realisation of these problems, especially since the construction of ITER began in 2005, has led to an understanding that, rather than viewing fission as a competitor or “poor relation”, the fusion community could learn a lot from the decades of experience accumulated during the development of the nuclear power industry. There are synergies that could benefit both communities and common problems which could be tackled together, especially with the design and development of Generation IV advanced reactors. Articles to this effect began to appear in journals such as
Fusion Science and Technology (2005 - Synergies Between Generation-IV and Advanced Fusion Power Plant Research Programs); Fusion Engineering and Design (2006 - Synergies between FNT developments and advanced nuclear fission technologies); and Revue Générale Nucléaire (2007 - Synergies between Fission and Fusion Nuclear Energy). All of
these noted the need to develop new materials, problems of safety and regulation. The IAEA has been at the forefront of encouraging
understanding of the synergies in technology development between nuclear fission and fusion for energy production, and on the long-term sustainability – including the handling of radioactive waste – and legal and institutional issues for fusion facilities. Early in 2022 (28 February – 3 March) a Kick-off Meeting
was held on the IAEA’s International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). A follow-up meeting took place in September. The overall objective of this inter-disciplinary study is
to support the fusion community in its effort to accelerate the development and implementation of fusion-based facilities and integrated fusion-fission systems within the next decades, with the early identification of possible gaps in long-term sustainability and needed capabilities utilising INPRO assessments and analyses. The scope of work includes: review and critical analysis of previous experience in the development of national legislation and infrastructure; engagement with pioneering new fusion concepts; identification of the key issues for further analysis from the perspective of the use of INPRO tools and national approaches; and identification of relevant policy choices on a global and regional level in different scenarios. An IAEA Nuclear Energy Series Technical report or an IAEA
TECDOC Series publication will be prepared in 2024 based on the results of the study. Achievement of the overall objective will be through cooperative work on cross cutting issues performed by the IAEA and INPRO member states along with inter-departmental IAEA cooperation. “What the INPRO study is doing is bringing together a lot of non-technical areas, learning from the experience of several of the nations that were represented,” Dr Sally Forbes from the UKAEA Culham Services Centre told NEI. “Because of the timeframe, with nuclear a lot of this work was done after the initial phases, whereas with fusion we are at a stage where we can learn now. Hopefully we can build a lot of these initial discussion into guidance to produce a common framework that can bring some harmonisation internationally at the beginning of the fusion journey rather than learning the lessons afterwards, as we did with nuclear.” For the nuclear industry, safety, security and safeguards
are very well-established processes, and IAEA guidance in these areas is accepted worldwide. However, Dr Forbes pointed out that fusion has a much lower radiological hazard profile “We probably don’t need the full-blown nuclear regulation legislation guidance for fusion,” she said, adding that regulation needs to be proportionate and enabling for a technology that generally has a lower hazard profile but is very innovative. “Obviously it takes lots of components from nuclear but a lot of it is innovative. We are looking at whether nuclear regulation is appropriate. I am sure we will borrow lots of things from it, but many fusion nations are looking at this and perhaps deciding that we need a specific framework for fusion regulation,” says Forbes. She noted, for example, that the UK government had
recently decided that fusion in the UK will be regulated as a radiological facility and not as a nuclear facility. “It still means we have to build guidance upwards,” she added, and this was part of the discussions at the INPRO meeting.
26 | April 2023 |
www.neimagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47
