Environmental safety №1-2010: Spent nuclear fuel management

8/9/2019 Environmental safety 1-2010: Spent nuclear fuel management

1/7

2

010

1

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT

DISCUSSION ON RADWASTE LAW

SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT IN RUSSIAN FEDERATION


2/7


3/7

- /THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF EXPERTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

/EXPERT'S FOREWORD

C The strategy in the feld o spent uel management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

:

HIGHLIGHT: SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT

Perspectives on spent uel management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Spent uel management in the Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

: Management o spent uel at Russian NPPs: problems and solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

- Krasnoyarsk Mining and Chemistry Plant uture cluster or managemento spent nuclear uel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

- : , , Experimental demonstration centre: objectives, technologies, prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

-1RT-1 technologies: prospects o advancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Spent uel rom research reactors removal or reprocessing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

French experience and perspectives with spent uel and radioactive waste management . . . . . . . . . 38

/TRANSPORTATION

: Spent uel air shipment: justifcation o saety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Spent uel transportation by sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

/RW MANAGEMENT

Discussion on radwaste legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

- - United inormational-analytical system o radiation-ecological saety o FSUE RosRAO . . . . . . . . . . 54

Installations or radwaste processing at russian acilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

: /TECHNOLOGIES: SNF

C Management o spent AMB uel: technology development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

/ Cover:

-

"Wet" storage acility or spent uel

at the Krasnoyarsk Mining and

Chemistry Plant

/ CONTENTS 1'2010

1 2010 , e-mail: [email protected] -, ./ : +7 (499) 128-0959, 128-8959, +7 (495) 720-9555e-mail: [email protected] www.atomic-energy.ru , . . : 2 000 . - .

. - .

ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 1 2010General Director, Editor-in-ChieAlena Yakovlevae-mail: [email protected] Elena Ter-Martirosova, Vera AntonyukDesigner Denis RomanovAdministratorArseniy OvcharenkoEditorial ofce tel./ax: +7 (499) 128-0959, 128-8959, +7 (495) 720-9555e-mail: [email protected] by Atomic relations Ltd.www.atomic-energy.ruRegistred in the RF Ministry o Press, Television,Radio and Mass Communication Media. Atomic relations Ltd.Printed by Nemetskaya abrica pechati Ltd. Circulation: 2 000 copies.The editorial ofce does not take responsobility or authenticity o promotionalmaterials. Editorial opinion may not coincide with opinion o authors o the publica-

tions.


4/71 2010

1'2010 / CONTENTS

Prospects or containerised storage o spent uel rom power-generation reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Gas-uoride technology a method o radwaste reduction during large-scalespent uel reprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

SNF removal rom Paks NPP: development o core technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

/PERSON

: Yuri DRAGUNOV:"Closed uel cycle is the uture o nuclear power" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

: / ECHNOLOGIES: NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

: Spent uel reprocessing: new requirements and innovative approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

CEXTM:

COEXTM

recycling plant: a new standard or an integrated plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 /RADIATION SAFETY

Clean-up o radioactive contamination spots in Podolsk district . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Radioecological saety at the Mayak plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Approaches to categorisation o ionising radiation sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

: /ECHNOLOGIES: RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Application o glass or immobilisation o radioactive waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Ultrasonic decontamination o spent uel baskets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Underground disposal o wastewater without a defnite aquiclude.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

/ MONITORING

Site-based monitoring o subsoil or choice o rehabilitation strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Surveys and creation o SFA management technologies or Andreyev Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

/DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT

Spent uel inspection on retrieval rom storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

/POINT OF VIEW

"Nuclear Nostradamus" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

/EXHIBITIONS AND CONFERENCES

2010Waste management conerence 2 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 0

Creation and prospects o oating NPPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142


5/75 1 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY

- THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF EXPERTS

( )

-

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

. ..

..

..

.. .. ..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..


6/76 1 2010

THE STRATEGY IN THE FIELD OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT

- . 94-95% , 1% 4-5% , 99% . - , -

, - .

, -, , - .

, - , . - , - ,

, - . - , - - , , -, - .

, - - ,

-1000. - , - , - . - .

. - - , , . 10-12 - ;

, - .

Spent nuclear fuel is an inevitable by-product of nuclearpower generation. On average, the spent fuel of thermal re-actors is 94-95% uranium, about 1% plutonium and 4-5%fission products, which account for up to 99% of radioactiv-ity of all materials in the nuclear power industry. The pres-ence of fissile uranium and plutonium isotopes necessitatespreclusion of the risk of chain reaction during managementof spent fuel, which represents a fundamental difference be-tween spent fuel and radioactive waste that is generated inthe military and civil nuclear applications.

In this edition of our magazine our esteemed readers willfind a selection of interesting and highly relevant publica-

tions that cover the entire range of spent fuel managementoperations that are on-going in Russia.

Prejudice and fear that are often observed in the presscoverage of the spent nuclear fuel management subject areunderstandable. The high levels of and neutron radiationemitted by spent fuel require reliable barriers to be put inplace to protect personnel and the public from dangerousexposure, while the amounts of toxic radionuclides con-tained in a single tonne of spent fuel from a nuclear stationcould theoretically 'poison' billions of cubic metres of cleanwater. It is also quite fair for the public to be concerned overthe fact that the number of spent fuel assemblies dischargedfrom the NPP reactors keeps growing, and investment is

needed to build new storage facilities, make transport casks,reprocessing plants and train highly professional staff.

On the other hand, spent fuel is exceptionally compact just a single trainload with eight transport casks is suf-ficient to remove all spent fuel generated over one full yearof operation of two VVER-1000 units. Every year in Russiadozens of transports take place to carry spent fuel from nu-clear power stations, research and icebreaker reactors, dis-mantled and operational nuclear submarines. And over theentire history of spent fuel transports in the nuclear fieldthere have been no instances of incidents or accidents.

Spent fuel can for many years be safely stored in 'wet'storage facilities. Correct design solutions assure that the

fuel assemblies retain their integrity and are appropriatelycooled, that protection against radiation is provided, andsafety of personnel and the environment is assured. The


7/77 1 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY

EXPERT'S FOREWORD

- , - (),

. - , , ,. - , . (, , , ) - - .

20 . , ,

, - , . , - - . -, - , - - . , -: -

-800 , ,-600.

, - ? - . , - . , -, (CANDU), DUPIC-, - -

CANDU.

, , - 20-25 ! - - - .

,

past 10-12 years saw extensive rise in the number of "dry"storage facilities: this technology envisages for the fuel as-semblies to be placed inside sealed casks or special cham-bers, with cooling provided by an inert gas.

The strategy of the Rosatom Corporation in the field ofspent fuel management is for the fuel to be radiochemically

reprocessed to utilise the energy-producing potential ofuranium as much as possible, as well as provide the plutoni-um loadings for the future generation of fast-neutron reac-tors, and minimise the amount and volume of waste that isproduced. Our approach is shared by the United Kingdom,France, Japan, and India. China so far does not have civilreprocessing facilities, but also intends on closing its nu-clear fuel cycle. A number of countries (Sweden, Finland,Canada, and the Czech Republic) have opted for direct dis-posal of spent fuel in geological repositories, which corre-sponds to the open nuclear cycle.

Nearly 20 years ago, the United States declared their re-fusal from further advancement of the spent fuel reprocessing

technologies. Now that the new president announced closureof the geological isolation project in Nevada, the Americannuclear power industry found itself in a technological andpolitical deadlock, and power-producing companies are win-ning their claims against the Department of Energy over spentfuel that failed to be removed from the plant sites. At the sametime, spent fuel was chosen in the USA as the safest and mostprotected form for disposal of the excessive amounts of mili-tary plutonium. It will be recovered as mixed-oxide (MOX)uranium-plutonium fuel and loaded into NPP reactor cores,with the format of spent MOX fuel assemblies assuring long-term effective radiation shielding of the residual plutoniumas well as its nonproliferation. The Rosatom Corporation has

chosen a similar approach, only different in the type of reactor:fuel made using excessive plutonium will be loaded into fastreactors of the BN-800 series and, possibly, BN-600 series.

What can be done to reduce the risks associated with theever-increasing amounts of spent fuel in our storage facilities?There is the French experience of large-scale reprocessing ofuranium fuel and production of MOX fuel using the recoveredplutonium as energy source. By delaying by several decadesthe reprocessing of MOX assemblies, French companies arereducing the amount of spent fuel to be stored by a factor ofseven or eight. In Korea, where both light-water and heavy-water (CANDU) reactors are in operation, work is under wayto develop the DUPIC-process, enabling the post-burning of

spent light-water fuel material in new CANDU assemblies.Development of new nuclear technologies in Russia

based on fast-neutron reactors will enable reprocessingof all existing stocks of spent VVER and RBMK fuel andusing the recovered plutonium in the cores of new fast-neutron reactors, while reducing the amount of secondaryspent fuel by a factor of 20-25! Only after the resolution ofthe current issue with existing amounts of spent light-waterreactor fuel and the available stocks of plutonium will thetransition to the next phase begin, which will be the closingof the nuclear fuel cycle using fast-neutron reactors.

Evgeniy KUDRYAVTSEV,

Director, Development office "System for management ofspent nuclear fuel and decomissioning of nuclear and radiation-

hazardeous objects" of the State Corporation "Rosatom"

Documents

Environmental safety №1-2010: Spent nuclear fuel management