View
215
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Used Fuel Projections and Considerations
John KesslerManager, Used Fuel and HLW Management Program, jkessler@epri.com
Nuclear Infrastructure Council Sustainable Fuel Cycle Meeting9 June 2010
2© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Outline
• Why we got to where we are
• Utility issues related to wet and dry storage
• Commercial used fuel inventories: present and future projections
• Extended storage R&D
3© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Back-end of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Original Plan (before ~ 1976)
Nuclear Power Plant
Reprocessing Plant Geologic Repository
Re-
fab
rica
te/R
ecyc
le
Vitrified Waste
4© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Key Developments in the 70’s in the U.S.
• Sharp increase in reprocessing costs
• India’s nuclear bomb test
• US decision to forego reprocessing and Pu recycle
Result: a “once-through” fuel cycle
5© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Once-through Fuel Cycle
Wet Storage
TransportationUsed Fuel
Offsite Storage
Geologic Medium
10 CFR 72
10 CFR 71
10 CFR 60/6310 CFR 50
Utility Licensees
U.S. DOE
Dry Interim Storage
?
6© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Current Situation
• No disposal
• No reprocessing
• No fast reactors
• Spent fuel pools are filling up
• No centralized interim storage
• Transportation not available for all used fuel types
•Therefore, nowhere for fuel to go
7© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Industry Reaction to the Need for Prolonged On-Site Storage
• Add more storage cells in the spent fuel pools (“reracking”)
• Move used fuel from pools into dry storage• Extract more energy per assembly (higher “burnups”)• Attempt to build a centralized interim storage site• Work on regulatory permission to transport high burnup
used fuel• Extend the life of existing dry storage systems
• After January 31, 1998: damages lawsuits against DOE for failure to start picking up used fuel– Money coming from DOJ Judgment Fund
8© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Centralized Interim Storage Example (Private Fuel Storage Facility, Goshute Indian Reservation, State of Utah)
• Developed by a utility consortium, 40,000 MTU capacity• 2005: NRC approval for construction, 40-year life• Artist’s conception of site below:
A: rail line (52 km) B: cask transfer buildingC: concrete pads D: concrete cask production
9© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Used Fuel Wet and Dry Storage Technology is Mature (Used Fuel Pool with Dry Storage Cask: Surry - Final TN-32 Loading)
10© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
On-Site Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems
11© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Dry Storage Casks at Connecticut Yankee
12© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Surry ISFSI - Pad 1
13© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Surry ISFSI - Pad 2
14© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Surry ISFSI - Pad 3
15© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Transportation Systems
16© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Industry Trend from “Storage-Only” to “Dual Purpose Canisters”
1986 to 1999 Storage - only dry storage systems loaded
2000 to 2009 Dual-purpose Canisters loaded
2009 +
Dual Purpose: storage and transportation (requires two separate licenses)
Multi-Purpose: storage, transportation, disposal (requires three licenses – none exist yet)
17© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Historical and Projected Used Fuel “Burnup” (megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium, MWD/MTU)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
2039
2041
2043
2045
2047
2049
Year
Ave
rag
e B
urn
up
(M
WD
/MT
U)
PWR Avg Burnup BWR Avg Burnup
Burnup range from the 60s to the 80s
“hig
h” b
urnu
p
No
tran
spor
tatio
n lic
ense
s
18© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Inventory of Used Nuclear Fuel is Measured Several Different Ways
• Number of assemblies
– More in a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) than a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)
• Metric tons of uranium (MTU)
– Similar MTUs in both BWRs and PWRs
• Number of dry storage casks
– Move to larger capacity casks (cheaper per assembly)
• Dry storage: 7 (1980s) to >60 assemblies per cask today
– Still transportable by rail
19© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Used Commercial Fuel Inventories (as of 12/31/09)
• National totals:
– Wet storage: 169,696 assemblies at >50 reactor sites
– Dry storage: 1,232 casks, 51,585 assemblies in 32 states
• Top six states (casks/assemblies in dry storage)
– Illinois
– Pennsylvania
– South Carolina
– Virginia
– Georgia
– CaliforniaData courtesy of ACI Nuclear Energy Solutions
20© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2054
Dry Storage Cumulative Pool Inventory
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL (Metric Tons Uranium)
Projected spent fuel and dry storage inventories after 2007 were projected by Energy Resources International, Inc. using its SPNTFUEL model.
CUMULATIVE US COMMERCIAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL INVENTORY (1986 to 2055)
Dec 2009: ~ 13,400 MTU in dry storage 50,000 MTU in pool storage
2055 ~ 70,200 MTU in dry storage 63,000 MTU in pool storage
By 2055: >485,000 assemblies (per ACI Nuclear Energy Solutions)
21© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISFSI: Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
22© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Potential Additional Used Fuel in a “Renaissance”
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090
Year
To
tal C
SN
F (
MT
U)
TotalInventory(existingplants only,60-year life)
Revised totalCSNF fromexpandednuclear (add1000 Mwe/yrfrom 2015 to2075)
Revised totalCSNF fromexpandednuclear(increase 3%per yearstarting in2015)
Current Yucca Mountain legal limit (63,000 MTU)
23© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Yucca Mountain Technical Capacity is Much Higher Than the Legal Limit
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090
Year
To
tal C
SN
F (
MT
U)
TotalInventory(existingplants only,60-year life)
Revised totalCSNF fromexpandednuclear (add1000 Mwe/yrfrom 2015 to2075)
Revised totalCSNF fromexpandednuclear(increase 3%per yearstarting in2015)
EPRI’s projected technical capacity range
(~260,000-570,000 MTU, 4 to 9 times current legal limit)
Current legal limit (63,000 MTU)
24© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Newest Storage Project: Extended Storage
• “Extended”: >>60 years
• Initial dry storage license periods: 20 years
– Was supposed to be long enough
• Existing EPRI work leads to licenses extended to 60 years
• But:
– Cancellation of Yucca Mountain?
• New disposal program could take decades
– New plants’ contracts with DOE: start taking spent fuel 20 years after plant shutdown
• means 80 to 100+ years
• Extended storage is not just a US problem
25© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Functions of a Dry Cask Storage System that Must be Maintained
• NUREG-1536 (NRC, 1997) identifies the functions important to safety that the dry cask systems must maintain:
– thermal performance
– radiological protection
– confinement
– sub-criticality
– retrievability
• Can the existing and future dry cask systems maintain these functions for decades to come?
26© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Temperature-related Dry Storage System Degradation Mechanisms
• Fuel cladding creep caused by increased cladding ductility and increased stress – Due to higher temperatures causing higher pressures inside the
cladding
• Hydride reorientation in the spent fuel cladding
• Corrosion
• Degradation of neutron shielding
• Concrete dry-out and cracking
27© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Changes as the System gets Older and Cooler
•Mostly good things
– Reduced metal creep rates
– Reduced corrosion rates
– Reduced gamma and neutron radiation
•Potential negatives (mostly related to cladding)
– Additional hydride precipitation
– Decreased cladding ductility
• Potentially more susceptible to breakage during storage and transportation
28© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Aging Management Options
• “Initial” activities
– Additional analyses of degradation mechanisms for longer periods
– Enhanced monitoring and inspection
• “Eventually” (more costly, higher worker dose)
– Canning
– Repackaging
– Over-packaging
• When is “eventually”?
29© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI Initiated a Joint Effort in a November 2009 Workshop
• Attendees:
– EPRI
– NRC: SFST, RES, NRR
– DOE: NE, EM, RW
– Utilities
– Storage system vendors
– NEI
– NWTRB
• Title: Extended Storage Collaboration Program
– EPRI will be lead organization
– US and international participation
30© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Purpose of the Program
• Evaluate what we already know– Existing analyses: how far out in time?– Existing data– Existing operational issues (e.g., loading, monitoring,
testing)• Identify the open items for even longer storage (gap
analysis)• Suggestions for what needs to be done (and how, if
possible)• Form a standing group to continue pursuing additional,
appropriate R&D
31© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conclusion: Industry Will do What is Necessary to Keep Plants Running
• Continue cranking out dry storage systems as a stop-gap measure– Industry has not (yet) been successful completing a
centralized storage facility– Will get harder and harder to continue adding to the on-
site storage inventory• Space, dose, public concern limitations• Shutdown plants: all that is left is the fuel
• Ensure wet and dry storage systems maintain their safety functions
• Without an active disposal program, it becomes more difficult to address the “what about the waste?” concern
32© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
Recommended