International Sf Presentation Mig


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • International Sf Presentation Mig

    1. 1. International Spent Fuel Management Study Options & Assessment Presented by : Dr P Gilchrist, NDA. ON BEHALF of NEXIA
    2. 2. International Spent Fuel Study <ul><li>CONTENTS </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction & Inventory </li></ul><ul><li>Scope of the Study </li></ul><ul><li>Selection </li></ul><ul><li>International Spent Fuel Management Approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment Criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Key Conclusions & Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Q & A </li></ul>
    3. 3. Introduction <ul><li>Background to the Study </li></ul>NDA seek a strategy for UK spent fuels and UK issues. Gain knowledge of international practices in a UK context. UK SF Inventory International SF Study UK SF Scenario Analysis DECISION MAKING INFORM INFORM
    4. 4. UK Spent Fuel Inventory Commercial ~ 90% Exotic ~ 10% 1 Irradiated HEU fuel (Exotic) Fuel Group 13 1 Carbide fuel containing plutonium (Exotic) Fuel Group 12 1 Irradiated Uranium carbide fuels (Exotic) Fuel Group 11 1 Unirradiated high Pu content FR MOX (Exotic) Fuel Group 10 1 Unirradiated low Pu content thermal MOX (Exotic) Fuel Group 9 1 Irradiated MOX (Exotic) Fuel Group 8 10 Irradiated oxide fuel as pieces / PIE debris (Exotic) Fuel Group 7 10 Irradiated oxide fuel as whole pins / assemblies (Exotic) Fuel Group 6 1 Irradiated metal fuel >~1%, <~6% U 235 (Exotic) Fuel Group 5 100 Irradiated metal fuel <~1% U 235 (Exotic) Fuel Group 4 1000 AGR Spent Fuel Fuel Group 3 1000 PWR Spent Fuel Fuel Group 2 1000 Bulk Metallic Spent Fuel Fuel Group 1 Order of Quantity (tHM)
    5. 5. Scope of the Study <ul><li>Management Approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Fixed Term Storage (up to 300 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Treatment * </li></ul><ul><li>Packaging for Disposal </li></ul><ul><li>Disposal </li></ul>*includes Engineered Wasteform, Fuel Conditioning & Recycle
    6. 6. Scope of the Study <ul><li>Study Assumptions </li></ul><ul><li>NO Preferences or Weighting </li></ul><ul><li>NO Ranking </li></ul><ul><li>NO Strategy comparisons (e.g. Dispose v Treat) </li></ul><ul><li>NO Scenario development </li></ul><ul><li>Exclude MOD owned material, waste Pu residues, separated Pu powder </li></ul>
    7. 7. Scope of the Study <ul><li>Process </li></ul><ul><li>3 Phases </li></ul><ul><li>Internal Expert Panels </li></ul><ul><li>plus BNFL Group Legal </li></ul><ul><li>External Peer Review (Battelle/PNNL, USA) </li></ul>
    8. 8. Selection of Options for Assessment <ul><li>Higher Maturity Options </li></ul>Storage 3 Treatment 22 Disposal 13 Packaging 11 Packaging 2 Storage 3 <ul><li>Commercial Technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Developed beyond Lab scale </li></ul><ul><li>Exception made for Disposal </li></ul><ul><li>13 Higher Maturity Options </li></ul>Disposal 3 Treatment 5 Over 50 Options 13 Options
    9. 9. International Storage Approaches <ul><li>Storage Examples </li></ul>USA Cask: Several Vault: Fort St Vrain 2.2tHM Vault: INL 22tHM JAPAN Cask: Several Pond: Tokai 474tHM GERMANY Cask: Gorleben 3800tHM Pond: Karlsruhe 55tHM <ul><li>Pond </li></ul><ul><li>Dry Cask </li></ul><ul><li>Dry Vault </li></ul><ul><li>Up to 50 years experience </li></ul>UK Pond: Sellafield 14,000tHM Vault: Wylfa 929tHM HUNGARY Vault: Paks 595tHM RUSSIA Pond: Novoronezh 600tHM FRANCE Pond: La Hague 14,500tHM Vault: Cascad 180tHM SWEDEN Pond: CLAB 9000tHM FINLAND Pond: Olkiluoto1270tHM
    10. 10. International Treatment Approaches <ul><li>Treatment Examples </li></ul>JAPAN PUREX 200tHM/y Molten Salts INDIA PUREX 275tHM/y FRANCE PUREX 2400tHM/y UREX UK PUREX 1350tHM/y Molten Salts Melting & Compact USA UREX Molten Salts Melting & Compact RUSSIA PUREX 400tHM/y Molten Salts <ul><li>PUREX </li></ul><ul><li>UREX </li></ul><ul><li>Molten Salts (Condition) </li></ul><ul><li>Molten Salts (Recycle) </li></ul><ul><li>Melting & Compaction </li></ul>
    11. 11. International Disposal Approaches <ul><li>Disposal Examples </li></ul>FINLAND Deep Geological UK Deep Geological Deep Boreholes USA Deep Geological Deep Boreholes SWEDEN Deep Geological Deep Boreholes SPAIN Deep Geological AUSTRALIA Deep Boreholes RUSSIA Deep Boreholes JAPAN Deep Geological <ul><li>Deep Geological </li></ul><ul><li>Deep Boreholes </li></ul><ul><li>Above Ground </li></ul><ul><li>No Operational Spent Fuel Disposal </li></ul>
    12. 12. International Packaging Approaches <ul><li>Packaging Examples </li></ul>FINLAND Overpack UK Overpack Cement Encapsulation USA Overpack SWEDEN Overpack <ul><li>Overpack </li></ul><ul><li>Cement Encapsulation </li></ul><ul><li>Many options for LLW, ILW and liquid HLW (excluded here) </li></ul>
    13. 13. Higher Maturity Options for Assessment <ul><li>Fixed Term Storage </li></ul><ul><li>Wet Pond Store </li></ul><ul><li>Dry Cask </li></ul><ul><li>Dry Vault </li></ul><ul><li>Treatment </li></ul><ul><li>Melting & Compaction </li></ul><ul><li>UREX and equivalent </li></ul><ul><li>PUREX </li></ul><ul><li>Molten Salts (Fuel Conditioning) </li></ul><ul><li>Molten Salts (Recycle) </li></ul><ul><li>Disposal </li></ul><ul><li>Deep Geological Disposal </li></ul><ul><li>Deep Borehole </li></ul><ul><li>Above Ground Disposal </li></ul><ul><li>Packaging for Disposal </li></ul><ul><li>Overpack </li></ul><ul><li>Cement Encapsulation </li></ul>
    14. 14. Assessment Criteria <ul><li>RISKS </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Risks </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Health and Safety Risk </li></ul><ul><li>Security and Safeguards </li></ul><ul><li>Foreclosure </li></ul><ul><li>STATUS </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Readiness Level </li></ul><ul><li>Time to UK Deployment </li></ul><ul><li>Alignment with International </li></ul><ul><li>Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>UK Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>LEGAL & REG </li></ul><ul><li>Regulator Acceptability </li></ul><ul><li>Public Acceptability </li></ul><ul><li>Planning Permission </li></ul><ul><li>Public Inquiry </li></ul><ul><li>Justification </li></ul><ul><li>Article 37 </li></ul><ul><li>Site Licence Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Discharge Authorisations </li></ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul><ul><li>ECONOMICS </li></ul><ul><li>Fixed Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Variable Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Throughput/Capacity </li></ul><ul><li>APPLICABILITY </li></ul><ul><li>Ease of Engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Complexity </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Viability </li></ul>
    15. 15. Main Conclusions <ul><li>For Storage </li></ul><ul><li>Stored to allow fuel to meet conditions or pending decision </li></ul><ul><li>Pond Storage is widely used BUT global trend towards dry storage </li></ul><ul><li>Experience up to 50 years, but over 300 years? </li></ul><ul><li>Metallic fuels present corrosion issues for all store types </li></ul><ul><li>Dry Casks judged to be least expensive option at low volume </li></ul><ul><li>Dry storage restricted for high burn-up fuels without pre-cooling </li></ul><ul><li>Drying of wet fuel achieved </li></ul><ul><li>Retrieval and future end state may impact choice </li></ul>
    16. 16. Main Conclusions <ul><li>For Treatment </li></ul><ul><li>3 Treatment types–Engineered Wasteform, Fuel Conditioning, Recycle </li></ul><ul><li>Only PUREX is established on industrial scale </li></ul><ul><li>Development of immature options focussed on Molten Salts and UREX </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel quantities/characteristics have significant impact on applicability </li></ul><ul><li>No single treatment stands out as a universal option for all UK fuel </li></ul><ul><li>At low throughput Molten salts judged to cost less than PUREX/UREX </li></ul><ul><li>Large throughput favours PUREX/UREX </li></ul>
    17. 17. Main Conclusions <ul><li>For Disposal </li></ul><ul><li>No operating Disposal facilities - earliest planned for 2017 (US) </li></ul><ul><li>Broad preference for Deep Geological Disposal </li></ul><ul><li>Deep Borehole judged next most mature </li></ul><ul><li>Above Ground Disposal has significant issues and least mature </li></ul><ul><li>Metal fuels perceived as more problematical for all options </li></ul><ul><li>Retrievability planned for by some countries </li></ul>
    18. 18. Main Conclusions <ul><li>For Packaging for Disposal </li></ul><ul><li>Linked to Disposal options </li></ul><ul><li>No commercial SF packaging facilities yet </li></ul><ul><li>Overpack is most advanced concept and widely accepted </li></ul><ul><li>Many overpack designs/materials – Copper, Steel, “exotic” Alloys, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Cement Encapsulation for Magnox in UK, but usually ILW </li></ul><ul><li>Metal fuels perceived as more problematical due to corrosion </li></ul>
    19. 19. Key Study Findings <ul><li>Key Findings </li></ul><ul><li>National Nuclear Power Policy has influence </li></ul><ul><li>3 Types of Worldwide policies: Recycle, Direct Disposal, Storage </li></ul><ul><li>Interim storage is required in any strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Only 4 management technologies are deployed industrially (e.g. PUREX, Pond Store, Dry Casks, Dry Vaults) </li></ul><ul><li>Only 8 emerging technologies developed beyond Lab Scale now </li></ul>
    20. 20. Key Study Findings <ul><li>Key Findings </li></ul><ul><li>Some UK Fuel has Acute and Chronic issues, impacting on timing </li></ul><ul><li>Deployment dependant on commitment, not just technical maturity </li></ul><ul><li>Potential impact from new build and policy of maximum recycle </li></ul><ul><li>Difficult to achieve single solution for whole range of fuels </li></ul>
    21. 21. International Spent Fuel Study ANY QUESTIONS?