10.07.2015 Views

Architecture and management of a geological repository - Andra

Architecture and management of a geological repository - Andra

Architecture and management of a geological repository - Andra

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

3 – High Level Long-Lived WasteResearch carried out at the CEA, especially on behalf <strong>of</strong> the French nuclear power programme, <strong>and</strong> theroutine operation <strong>and</strong> maintenance <strong>of</strong> its facilities, are other sectors that have produced a wide range <strong>of</strong>waste. Most <strong>of</strong> this waste, made up <strong>of</strong> intermediate-level solid <strong>and</strong> liquid effluent waste, has beenconditioned using immobilisation materials <strong>and</strong> packages <strong>of</strong> various types <strong>and</strong> geometry.Finally, activities linked to national defence produce intermediate-level technological waste.For the <strong>repository</strong> studies, the package inventory (in terms <strong>of</strong> type <strong>and</strong> quantity) includes all wastealready produced as well as waste that may be produced through operating existing nuclear facilities.With regard to future production, this implies the need to formulate waste production <strong>and</strong> conditioninghypotheses, especially concerning <strong>management</strong> <strong>of</strong> nuclear power plants.Currently 58 pressurised water reactors, commissioned between 1977 <strong>and</strong> 1999, are operated toproduce electricity. The tonnage <strong>of</strong> nuclear fuels removed from these reactors over their totaloperating period is estimated at 45,000 metric tons <strong>of</strong> heavy metal (tHM). This estimation is based ona combination <strong>of</strong> hypotheses concerning (i) the average lifetime <strong>of</strong> units (forty years), (ii) powerproduction (16,000 terawatt-hours total production), (iii) the gradual increase <strong>of</strong> the "burnup" ratio <strong>of</strong>fuels in the reactors 18 . The fuel types considered <strong>and</strong> the corresponding average burnup ratio is asfollows:- three generations <strong>of</strong> uranium oxide fuels: UOX1, UOX2, UOX3, irradiated respectively at33 gigawatt-days per metric ton <strong>of</strong> fuel (GWd/t), 45 GWd/t <strong>and</strong> 55 GWd/t, on average;- fuels containing recycled uranium (URE) irradiated on average at 45 GWd/t;- mixed uranium oxide <strong>and</strong> recycled plutonium oxide fuels (MOX) irradiated at 48 GWd/t onaverage.On this basis, four nuclear fuel <strong>management</strong> scenarios were selected for the studies. The principlebehind these scenarios is to include various possible industrial strategies without singling out any <strong>of</strong>them for special priority. This process makes it possible to consider a very wide range <strong>of</strong> waste types<strong>and</strong> examine the technical aspects <strong>of</strong> the various packages.The first three scenarios, designated as S1a, S1b <strong>and</strong> S1c, correspond to continued reprocessing <strong>of</strong>spent fuels removed from EDF reactors. Scenario S1a supposes that all these fuels (UOX, URE <strong>and</strong>MOX) are reprocessed. This scenario includes the hypothesis <strong>of</strong> incorporating fission productmixtures <strong>and</strong> minor actinides from UOX <strong>and</strong> MOX fuels in glass. Also, for study purposes, it isassumed that a very small part <strong>of</strong> the plutonium from reprocessed UOX fuels is incorporated in somepackages. This scenario therefore covers a variety <strong>of</strong> vitrified C package typologies. In scenarios S1b<strong>and</strong> S1c, MOX fuels are not reprocessed, allowing the hypothesis <strong>of</strong> their direct disposal to beexplored. Scenarios S1b <strong>and</strong> S1c have been separated in order to study, in scenario S1b, the possibility<strong>of</strong> increasing the waste concentration in glass, compared with the packages currently produced; thisgreater concentration would result in a slightly greater release <strong>of</strong> heat from the packages. Finally, afourth scenario, designated as S2, which supposes that reprocessing is stopped, is used for theexploratory study <strong>of</strong> direct disposal <strong>of</strong> UOX <strong>and</strong> URE fuels, as well as the MOX fuels considered inscenarios S1b <strong>and</strong> S1c. In this scenario the fuels are considered to be waste, which, we should recall, isnot the case at present.To be able to estimate the quantity <strong>of</strong> waste produced, scenarios S1a, S1b <strong>and</strong> S1c are based on thefollowing distribution <strong>of</strong> various types <strong>of</strong> fuels removed from existing reactors: 8,000 tHM <strong>of</strong> UOX1(33 GWd/t), 20,500 tHM <strong>of</strong> UOX2 (45 GWd/t), 13,000 tHM <strong>of</strong> UOX3 (55 GWd/t), 800 tHM <strong>of</strong> URE(45 GWd/t) <strong>and</strong> 2,700 tHM <strong>of</strong> MOX (48 GWd/t). In scenarios S1b <strong>and</strong> S1c, the direct disposal studyconcerns all the 2,700 tHM <strong>of</strong> spent MOX fuels.18The burnup <strong>of</strong> a nuclear fuel assembly expresses the energy produced in the reactor by the fissile material that it contains (uranium oxideor mixture <strong>of</strong> uranium <strong>and</strong> plutonium oxides)DOSSIER 2005 ARGILE -ARCHITECTURE AND MANAGEMENT OF A GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL SYSTEM75/495

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!