Used Fuel Projections and Considerations John Kessler Manager, Used Fuel and HLW Management Program, [email protected] Nuclear Infrastructure Council Sustainable

Used Fuel Projections and Considerations

John KesslerManager, Used Fuel and HLW Management Program, [email protected]

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


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


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


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

?


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


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


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


Used Fuel Wet and Dry Storage Technology is Mature (Used Fuel Pool with Dry Storage Cask: Surry - Final TN-32 Loading)


On-Site Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems


Dry Storage Casks at Connecticut Yankee


Surry ISFSI - Pad 1


Surry ISFSI - Pad 2


Surry ISFSI - Pad 3


Transportation Systems


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)


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


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


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


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)


ISFSI: Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation


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)


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)


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


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?


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


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


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”?


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


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


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


Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity

Documents

Used Fuel Projections and Considerations John Kessler Manager, Used Fuel and HLW Management Program, [email protected] Nuclear Infrastructure Council Sustainable