Michel Debes: la gestione del combustibile esaurito e dei rifiuti radioattivi dal punto di vista dell’operatore di centrali nucleari

La gestione del combustibile esaurito e dei rifiuti radioattivi dal punto di vista dell’operatore di centrali nucleari

Forum Nucleare Italiano

Roma, giovedi 10 marzo 2011

Michel DebesEDF - Generation and Engineering [email protected]

La gestione del combustibile esaurito e dei rifiuti radioattivi dal punto di vista dell’operatore di centrali nucleari

Forum Nucleare Italiano

Roma, giovedi 10 marzo 2011

Michel DebesEDF - Generation and Engineering [email protected]

1

58 PWR (Pressurized Water Reactors) on 19 sites: 63 GW

Three standardized series: => a major safety and economic benefit 900 MW: 34 units, 31 GW 1300 MW: 20 units, 26 GW1500 MW (N4): 4 units, 6 GW

An experience as architect engineer and operator of the French nuclear fleet unique in the world safety and transparency as a major priority average operation time: 24 years (11 to 33 years) Experience feedback: ~ 1400 reactor yearsPeriodical 10 years safety reassessment process

==> Long term operation: goal up to 60 years Decommissioning program: 9 reactors (6GGR, HWGCR Brennilis, Creys Malville, Chooz A)

EDF Nuclear facilities in France

Rythme de construction du parc nucléaire actuel d’EDF

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

MW

900 MW

1300 MW

1400 MW

Rythme de construction du parc nucléaire actuel d’EDF

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

MW

900 MW

1300 MW

1400 MW

Gravelines

Chooz

Cattenom

Fessenheim

Bugey

St Alban

Cruas

Tricastin

PenlyPaluelFlamanville

St Laurent Dampierre

BellevilleChinon

Civaux

Blayais

Golfech

900 MW 1 300 MW 1 500 MW

Nogent Seine

Gravelines

Chooz

Cattenom

Fessenheim

Bugey

St Alban

Cruas

Tricastin

PenlyPaluelFlamanville

St Laurent Dampierre

BellevilleChinon

Civaux

Blayais

Golfech

900 MW 1 300 MW 1 500 MW

Nogent Seine

All rights Reserved.2 EDF – ROME- FNI- 10 03 2011

European Nuclear Generation FleetEuropean Nuclear Generation Fleet

EDF generation (average 2006-2009): 472 TWh, Total EDF capacity 96 GW: Nuclear 63 GW (65%), hydro 20 GW (21%), fossil 13.6 GW (14%)

413 TWh nuclear (87.5 %), 42 TWh hydro (9 %), 17 TWh fossil (3.5%)

=> A highly competitive generation mix

Total generation in France (average 2006-2009): 543 TWh nuclear 77%; hydro 11%; fossil 10%; renewable: 2% export: 51 TWh; net consumption in France: 452 TWh

A clean low carbon energy mix, 95% CO2 free Nuclear: 4 g/kwh; EDF France 40 g/kWh; EU average: 400 g/kwh

EDF share in nuclear generation in Europe: EDF Energy in UK: 8.7 GW nuclear, 54 TWh (2009)

314 322350 342

358375 376 368 375

392 401417 421 427 429 428 418 418

390408

050

100150200250300350400450500

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Nuclear Generation TWhe

3 All rights Reserved.EDF – ROME- FNI- 10 03 2011

Safety indicators unplanned automatic trip: < 1 /unit/year Nine level 0 events (reported to ASN), One level 1 event /unit/year

Radiological protection ALARA progress, average collective dosimetry: 0.7 Man-Sv per reactor/yr

International assessments and peer reviews IAEA Osart, WANO peer reviews (2 to 3 per year)

International controls Safeguards, material accounting…

Internal control structures General Inspectorate for Nuclear Safety at EDF Presidency Nuclear Inspectorate at Nuclear Generation Division Safety Quality Mission at each plant

==> Under the control of Nuclear Safety Authority (June 13, 2006 Act on nuclear safety and transparency )

Safety: a priority at all levels

154

10

2.44

0.69

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Number of workers between 16 and 20 mSv/yr

Average collective dosimetry per reactor (Man.Sv/year)

0.71

1.74

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Number of unplanned reactor trip per 7000h criticality

Number of INES level 1 events per unit / yr

1.17

2.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009


EDF strategy for sustainable nuclear generationKey Progress and Challenges Remain an industry standard worldwide

- Nuclear safety and safety culture as a first priority at all levels- Competitiveness, availability and operational performances

Plant Long Term Operation management

- Periodical Safety Reassessment: goal up to 60 years

Fuel cycle efficiency, reprocessing / recycling and waste management - A major asset for sustainable nuclear energy

Succeed in the EPR Flamanville-3 and EPR Penly-3 construction project

- public debate and acceptance - safety, quality, schedule, cost, etc.

Become a major actor in the international renaissance of the nuclear industry

- international cooperation - New Nuclear Build projects: China, UK, USA, Italy, Poland, RSA …

Developing the skills and competences needed to achieve these objectives

All rights Reserved.EDF – ROME- FNI- 10 03 20115

South AfricaNuclear prospects



Spreading area for molten core

Dedicated severe accident

residual heat removal system

Redundancy

4 trainsFor main

safety systems

Double wall containment with ventilation et filtration

In-containment

Water Storage

Catalytic H2 Recombiners

Molten corium

Recovery area

Main Safety Engineered systemsDepressurisation

systemSpreading area for

molten core

Dedicated severe accident

residual heat removal system

Redundancy

4 trainsFor main

safety systems

Double wall containment with ventilation et filtration

In-containment

Water Storage

Catalytic H2 Recombiners

Molten corium

Recovery area

Main Safety Engineered systemsDepressurisation

system

Site selection: October 2004 First concrete: end of 2007 99% contracted Reactor building erection in progress Electro-mechanical work Start of electric generation: 2014

EPR : Building in Progress at Flamanville-3 studies for Penly-3 (public debate completed in 2010) An evolutionary and proven design, embedding improvements resulting from experience feedback and French German cooperation over more than 10 years

On going safety analysis process with ASN:e.g.: demonstration for I&C and human machine interface All rights Reserved.EDF – ROME- FNI- 10 03 20118


The EPR and quantities of radioactive waste The EPR and quantities of radioactive waste

EDF – ROME- FNI- 10 03 2011

Taking the latest generation of EPR-type power plants as a reference model, such plants produce approximately 12 billion kWh in a year, equal to around 4 % of consumption of electricity in Italy.

To generate this amount of power, annual production of operational waste is around 80 m3 of low and medium level waste (short lived). Additionally, 25 metric tons of spent fuel (heavy metal) would be produced, which would result approximately in:

around 60 m3 of packaged high level waste (long lived), assuming that the fuel is not reprocessed and considered as waste (i.e. packaged spent fuel, volume varies depending on packaging mode for disposal);

or 5 m3 for high level waste (long lived) in vitrified fission products in standard canisters and 4 m3 for medium level waste (long lived, compacted fuel structure in standard canisters), which amount to a total of 9 m3 assuming that the fuel is reprocessed.

All rights Reserved.10

Radioactive waste management in FranceRadioactive waste management in France

Radioactive waste quantities are known and classified

National inventory issued by ANDRA : waste half-life, activity level, location, etc.

Waste management route depends heavily on radioactive half-life waste, e.g. surface repositories are suited for short half-life waste

Radioactive waste is conditioned, possibly after some treatment

Packaging ensures containment of radioactivity

Treatment may be necessary for packaging or to reduce waste volume for disposal

Once packaged, each category of radioactive waste will be disposed of in specific repositories

As first step, radioactive waste may be stored, e.g., when the repository is still under development or when long-term storage is necessary to manage waste heat decay


Waste management in practiceWaste management in practice

1. Short-lived waste : a complete management route including disposal• Volume = 90%; activity < 1%• Origin: nuclear reactor, fuel cycle facilities operation and dismantling

2. Long-lived waste: long-term storage; disposal under development• Volume = 10% ; activity > 99%• Origin: spent nuclear fuel

• Sorted

• Conditioned

• Stored in two operating surface repositories

• Fuel reprocessing

• Waste conditioning

• Packaged waste storage possible for ~ 100 years

EDF – ROME- FNI- 10 03 2011 All rights Reserved.12

Ensuring a safe and long lasting confinement of high level waste by vitrification in inert glass canisters, for optimized storage and disposal in a reduced volume, optimized packages, no fissile material (no safeguard) reduced volume (150 to 200 m3/year for 430 TWh) and heat load HLW passive storage (> 60yrs): 1 ha for 40 yrs EDF NPPs operation =>

Reducing the quantity of stored spent fuel, 430 TWh / year => 1200 t spent fuel / year ( 45 GWd/t) 8 UO2 spent fuel (4 t) result in 1 MOX fuel and 1 REPU fuel

Recycling of plutonium and uranium, getting back energy output 1050 t/yr UO2 spent fuel reprocessing => 120 t/yr MOX, 80 t/year Repu fuelMOX fuel recycling (22 units; 30% core): 43 TWh/yr; Pu flux adequacyREPU fuel recycling (4 units; 100% core): 26 TWh/yr;

Maintaining the possibility in the far future to fully use the uranium resource

storage of MOX spent fuel, reduced volume, full safeguards reuse of MOX spent fuel (5% Pu) to start future GEN IV fast reactors and U-Pu closed fuel cycle

The reprocessing recycling strategy


Short lived Long lived

VLLW

Very Low Level Waste

Very Low Level Waste:subsurface

LILW

Low to Intermediate Level Waste

LILW short lived: subsurface Graphite

LILW long lived

HLW

High Level Waste

High Level Waste

Deep repository (=> 2025)

(vitrified canisters HLW)

Half-life : 30 years

Waste disposal routes


Deep geological disposal in FranceDeep geological disposal in France

Late 1980’s Insufficient public acceptance lead to a moratorium on site selection for high-level

waste disposal in a deep geological formation

1991 Act: Research for 15 years Three options for HLW long-term management:

separation/transmutation

Long-term storage

Deep geological disposal

Underground laboratory implemented in 1999 in the east of France

Independent national scientific committee oversees the research

Concludes that deep geological disposal is feasible on the basis of ANDRA research

2005: Public debate Deep geological disposal: under certain conditions

2006 Act: Framework for implementing deep geological disposal


The legislative framework: 2006 Planning ActThe legislative framework: 2006 Planning Act

Set a framework for implementation of deep geological disposal Decision in 2015 on the basis of a detailed study on a selected site

Operational in 2025

Disposal will have to be reversible for at least 100 years, under conditions to be defined in 2015

Reinforce evaluation and information about research and studies

Foster economical development for areas around the laboratory and the deep geological disposal facility

Secure financing of long-term waste management and decommissioning Nuclear operators have to constitute specific assets allocated exclusively with

respect to long-term waste management and decommissioning liabilities

Control by Public Authorities

EDF – ROME- FNI- 10 03 2011 All rights Reserved.

16

Spent Fuel Interim Storage – The Technology OptionsSpent Fuel Interim Storage – The Technology Options

Interim Storage

Wet StorageDry Storage

Canisters VaultMetal Casks

There are a range of technologies available, some with many years of accumulated operating experience worldwide


Wet pool storage- a proven solution - flexibility for accommodation of long term fuel evolution (burn up, cooling time..)

17

Widespread use of both wet and dry storageWidespread use of both wet and dry storage

BELGIUMPool (Tihange)Casks (Doel)

FRANCEPool (La Hague)

USAboth technologies mainly dry cask

out of reactor

SWEDENPool (CLAB)

FINLANDPool (Olkiluoto, Loviisa)

GERMANYCasks (Gorleben)

Casks (Ahaus)

JAPANPool (Rokkasho Mura)

Casks (Mutsu)

HUNGARYVault (Paks)

CHINAPool

SWITZERLANDCasks

Pool (Gösgen)


Five key points for waste management Five key points for waste management

1. Waste management is a key issue for sustainable nuclear development and operation; it is a long process and thus should be carried out as soon as possible. A national plan for waste and spent fuel management should be elaborated in association with all stakeholders involved.

2. A waste management plan should be set up within the nuclear legislative / regulatory framework, featuring:• Waste classification

• Waste management routes for each kind of waste (short / long-lived) Waste repository development is a key issue, for both long and short-lived wastes

• Long-term liabilities financing

• Site selection process, with appropriate measures regarding involved communities

3. For waste from plant operation and decommissioning, by far the largest amount, surface repository is a rather simple technical solution already in operation with a truly satisfactory feedback.

4. For high level waste and spent fuel (if considered as waste), deep geological disposal is considered the best solution and will be necessary in the very long term. However, in the meantime, long-term storage should be implemented, while keeping the reprocessing option open.


5th point: Consistency between organizational and financial responsibilities5th point: Consistency between organizational and financial responsibilities

Nuclear operator bears it waste liabilities, as part of its industrial responsibility

- The operator must provide funding for all costs of decommissioning and end of the fuel cycle, including risk remuneration.

Financial and operational responsibilities must go hand in hand

- If the operator has to pay without control over the services provided, he would loose the necessary balance between costs and quality-level of safety.

- E.g.: An independent entity that provides interim storage or underground storage must be financially responsible; the funds transferred by the operators to this entity would include the appropriate risk premium.

- Similarly, the operator cannot just be subject to the management of the dedicated asset fully outsourced; it must be consulted on the level of risk management and associated allocations.


Nuclear development projects have a major role to play for security of supply and long-term competitiveness

Nuclear energy represents one of the clean energy sources, mature and able to fulfill industrial needs

Safety, environmental protection and waste management issues must be taken into account from the very beginning

Industrial solutions do exist for safe long-term management of spent fuel and waste

Following the principle of waste producer responsibility, the cost for managing nuclear waste is provisioned from the start

Conclusion


Grazie milleGrazie mille

for your attentionfor your attention

and for your questions…and for your questions…


22

Documents

Michel Debes: la gestione del combustibile esaurito e dei rifiuti radioattivi dal punto di vista dell’operatore di centrali nucleari