Solid Radioactive Waste Strategy Report.pdf - UK EPR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EPR UK N° NESH-G/2008/en/0123 REV. A PAGE 150 / 257 Locating an interim storage facility on each reactor site would minimise the risks associated with handling and transporting the spent fuel. However, a storage facility serving several reactor sites would require less plant and equipment overall. For the purpose of this study we have considered the design of facilities for a single unit and multi units. 9.4 Spent Fuel Disposal According to base case requirements, direct spent fuel disposal is the ultimate solution to be considered. Therefore, after on-site storage, spent fuel is evacuated to the disposal site where it will be buried in deep underground disposal. Whatever the previously described interim storage technology selected, key features are that: · They keep the fuel integrity by maintaining appropriate storage conditions (maintain inert atmosphere, maintain fuel temperature below acceptable limits); · They allow for interim store retrievability and the eventual loading in a flask for final transportation to the disposal site. (Note that use of the dual purpose cask avoids rehandling of spent fuel before ultimate transport). The generally agreed approach on safety of deep geological facilities relies on 3 barriers to prevent any impact on the environment. These are as follows: 1 The waste package. At the disposal site, an Encapsulation plant will be required to allow the spent fuel to be conditioned in canisters. Different configurations of canister are today envisaged in different countries. They differ depending on their requirements and characteristics. As an example, the SKB design (in Sweden) is based on a robust and thick canister made of stainlees steel and copper, to accommodate up to 4 fuel assemblies. In USA, a thinner canister, holding up to 21 Fuel Assemblies is foreseen. The main functions of this Encapsulation facility are similar to that of the receiving building of the interim store (Flask reception and unloading, conditioning of spent fuel in canisters). Differences are on the canister /package characteristics and the transfer to the Geological Disposal Facility. 2 The repository engineered barrier. The repository engineered barriers depend on design of the repository. Several approaches are possible (horizontal or vertical emplacements of packages, single package or groups of packages). A key aspect is related to the ability to retrieve or not the packages, at least during the operational phase which can last several decades. 3 The host rock. Characteristics of the host rock (granite, clay, …), the presence of water, acceptable heat load, etc generate constraints and requirements on the package criteria. A key driver of the overall repository design is the host rock maximum allowable temperature. Most of the disposal requirements are not yet known, but both UK EPR spent fuel characteristics and interim storage facility design do not compromise the disposability of spent fuel in the future. The following figures illustrate the currently envisaged disposal facilities in USA, Sweden and Finland and France.
EPR UK N° NESH-G/2008/en/0123 REV. A PAGE 151 / 257 Protection Spent Fuel HLW packages & spent fuel Arch Concrete base Rail Spent Fuel FIGURE 60: DISPOSAL CONCEPT IN USA (YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT)
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:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100: EPR UK N° NESH-G/2008/en/0123 REV.
Page 149: EPR UK N° NESH-G/2008/en/0123 REV.
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?