Solid Radioactive Waste Strategy Report.pdf - UK EPR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EPR UK N° NESH-G/2008/en/0123 REV. A PAGE 134 / 257 9.3.1.1.3 Comparison of Dry and Underwater Unloading Technologies The principal distinguishing features of the two options are compared in the following table. TABLE 40: MAIN ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF UNLOADING OPTIONS Dry unloading Underwater unloading Safety and radiological issues Environmental issues Performance issues Height differences in the unloading sequence are smaller, leading to a reduced risk from dropped loads. Operator doses tend to be lower when operations are undertaken in an active cell. Dry unloading is a faster operation leading to a lower exposure time. "Dry" unloading does not entirely remove the need for water as there is still a need for sipping tests and for cooling/rinsing of the transport container. There is a reduced need for transport container decontamination, leading to a reduction in associated wastes. Transport container unloading is much quicker as there are fewer handling and decontamination operations. The need for additional decontamination and the generation of additional liquid waste will lead to increased operator doses. This option requires the use of large volumes of water leading to increased secondary waste management issues. The existing underwater facilities are more flexible and can handle a range of transport container types. Although this should not be a significant issue as transport containers should be of a single design. The need for an unloading pool and for effluent management facilities leads to increased financial burden for outlay and operations. Depending on specific requirements, either wet or dry unloading technology can be selected. For the purpose of this report, dry unloading is the selected option as it presents much smaller secondary waste arisings and the reduced exposure to operators. This solution also provides adequate flexibility and ease of handling of different spent fuel packages.
EPR UK N° NESH-G/2008/en/0123 REV. A PAGE 135 / 257 9.3.1.2 Overview of Spent Fuel Storage Technologies After the initial cooling phase an interim storage period is required before spent fuel can be disposed. This interim storage facility may be located on site as defined by the base case or off the reactor site, serving several nuclear power plants. The storage facility can involve either dry or wet technology, and will be designed to meet the following requirements: o o o o o To ensure safe operations (e.g. by preventing a criticality incident and maintaining effective containment); To provide radiological protection to public, workers and the environment at all times in compliance with dose limits and ensuring that all doses are As Low As Reasonably Practicable; To ensure thermal cooling to maintain spent fuel integrity; To facilitate fuel assembly monitoring and retrievability; To maintain spent fuel in a condition appropriate for final disposal. Five interim storage solutions (based on AREVA proven technologies) are discussed in detail below: · Underwater storage; · Dry storage in a metal flask; · Dry storage in concrete storage modules (e.g.Nuhoms); · Dry storage in TN NOVA (Nuhoms evolution); · Dry storage in a vault. Among these 5 options, one wet and two dry solutions have been identified and assessed for the UK EPR. They are described in chapter 13. 9.3.1.2.1 Spent fuel Underwater Storage Underwater Spent Fuel Storage in GÖSGEN A further example of spent fuel storage in a pool is the GÖSGEN facility located on the GÖSGEN nuclear power plant in Switzerland. This Wet Spent Fuel Storage Facility can accommodate both uranium and MOX Fuel assemblies and is an independent extension of the existing spent fuel storage reactor pool. One of the main characteristics of this new storage facility is the almost exclusive use of passive cooling for the pool, based on natural air convection, which means that no active components are implemented (such as pumps). In its final configuration, the wet storage facility accommodates up to 1000 irradiated fuel assemblies stored in racks. The facility consists of the storage building, an adjacent service structure and two cooling towers. The storage building houses the fuel assemblies storage pool and the cask pool: it is a cubical, steel reinforced concrete structure of 17 m X 35 m X 25 m total height.
Page 1 and 2:
A 2008-11-26 Sarah Greenwood Gary C
Page 3 and 4:
EPR UK N° NESH-G/2008/en/0123 REV.
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
10 13 16 19 22 46 49 EPR UK N° NES
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84: EPR UK N° NESH-G/2008/en/0123 REV.
Page 133: EPR UK N° NESH-G/2008/en/0123 REV.
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257:
show all

Solid Radioactive Waste Strategy Report.pdf - UK EPR

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?