Recommended Changeto ARIES Radwaste

Top-Level Requirement

Recommended Changeto ARIES Radwaste

Top-Level Requirement

L. El-GuebalyFusion Technology Institute

UW - Madison

ARIES-CS Project MeetingApril 27 - 28, 2006

UW

2

Objectives

• Revisit 1997 top-level requirements developed forARIES power plants.

• Recommend change to radwaste requirement based onmost recent waste management approach.

3

ARIES Power Plants Demonstrate AdequatePerformance in Several Safety Areas

Environmental impact:– Minimal radioactive releases# during normal and abnormal operations.– No high-level waste.– Low activation materials with strict impurity control fi minimal long-term environmental impact.

Occupational and public safety:– Low doses to workers and personnel during operation and maintenance activity

(< 2.5 mrem/h*).– No evacuation plan following abnormal events (early dose at site boundary < 1 rem*)

to avoid disturbing public daily life.– Public safety during normal operation (bio-dose << 2.5 mrem/h*) and following credible

accidents:• LOCA, LOFA, LOVA, and by-pass events.• External events (seismic, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc).

No energy and pressurization threats to confinement barriers (VV, cryostat, and bioshield):– Decay heat problem solved by design – Chemical energy controlled by design– Chemical reaction avoided – Overpressure protection system– No combustible gas generated – Rapid plasma shutdown.

______________________________* 1 rem = 10 m Sv# Such as T, volatile activated structure, corrosion products, and erosion dust. Or, from liquid and gas leaks.

4

ARIES Top-Level Requirements(Starlite report, 1997)

P 2-2: Fusion power in its present embodiments will result in a large, central-stationpower plant. At present, the investor-owned, public electric utilities best representthe customers for this type of power plant. To better understand the needs of thisclass of customer, the Starlite Project solicited several large public utilitiesand support industries to help define the requirements and goals for fusionpower. Several utilities and industries agreed to help establish and participate in aPower Plant Studies Utility Advisory Committee. This committee providedadvice to help formulate the mission and goals for fusion in general, and for afusion demo power plant in particular.

P 1-2: Based on interaction and advice from U.S. electric utilities and industry, a set ofcriteria for fusion power is derived. A similar set of criteria has been developedby the EPRI fusion working group. These criteria and associated top-levelrequirements and goals can be divided into three general categories:

1. Cost2. Safety and environmental features3. Reliability, maintainability, and availability.

5

ARIES Top-Level Requirements (Cont.)(Starlite report, 1997)

P 1-3:

• Must use technologies to be employed in commercial power plant• COE must be competitive (65-80 mills/kWh- $1992; 80-100 milsl/kWh- $2004)• No evacuation plan required for any credible accident: Total dose at site

boundary < 1 rem• Generate no radwaste greater than Class C• Must demonstrate public day-to-day activity is not disturbed• Must not expose workers to a higher risk than other power plants• Must demonstrate robotic maintenance of power core• Must demonstrate routine operation with less than 1/10 unscheduled shutdowns

per year including disruptions• Demonstrate a closed tritium fuel cycle• Must demonstrate operation at partial load conditions at 50%.

Safe

ty a

nd en

viro

nmen

tal f

eatu

res

6

Recent Trend in Waste Management• Options:

– Disposal in repositories – LLW (WDR < 1) or HLW (WDR > 1)– Recycling - reuse within nuclear facilities (dose < 3000 Sv/h)– Clearance – recycle slightly-irradiated components and release to commercial market, if CI < 1.

• Limited capacity of existing repositories and slim chance of building newrepositories call for new requirement that promotes recycling/clearance, avoidinggeological disposal fi No radwaste burden on future generation

• Recycling of liquids and solids may generate limited amount of radioactive wastethat needs special treatment.

Modify ARIES top-level requirement to reflect recent trend in radwaste management

7

Adopt MRCB Philosophy

M – minimize volume of active materials by designL. El-Guebaly, “Development of Waste Volume Minimization Schemes for ARIES Power Plants,” to be published.

R – recycleL. El-Guebaly, P. Wilson, D. Henderson, A. Varuttamaseni, and the ARIES Team, “Recycling of IFE Target Materials versus One-Shot Use Scenario: Key Issues

and Preferred Option,” University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute Report, UWFDM-1183 (November 2002).L. El-Guebaly, P. Wilson, M. Sawan, D. Henderson, and A. Varuttamaseni, “Radiological Impact of IFE Target and RTL Recycling Option: A comparative

Study,” University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute Report, UWFDM-1227 (July 2004).L. El-Guebaly, P. Wilson, D. Henderson, and A. Varuttamaseni, “Feasibility of Target Materials Recycling as Waste Management Alternative,” Fusion Science &

Technology, 46, No. 3, 506-518 (2004).L. El-Guebaly, P. Wilson, M. Sawan, D. Henderson, and A. Varuttamaseni, “Recycling Issues Facing Target and RTL Materials of Inertial Fusion Designs,”

Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research, Section A, 544, 104-110 (2005).L. El-Guebaly, P. Wilson, M.E. Sawan, “Recycling and Clearance of the Slightly Activated RTLs of the 2005 Z-Pinch Design,” University of Wisconsin Fusion

Technology Institute Report, UWFDM-1284 (October 2005). Available at: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1284.pdfM. Zucchetti, L. El-Guebaly, R. Forrest, T. Marshall, N. Taylor, K. Tobita, “The Feasibility of Recycling and Clearance of Active Materials from Fusion Power

Plants,” Submitted to ICFRM-12 conference at Santa Barbara (Dec 4-9, 2005).L. El-Guebaly, “Evaluation of Disposal, Recycling, and Clearance Scenarios for Managing ARIES Radwaste after Plant Decommissioning,” 8th IAEA TM on

Fusion Power Plant Safety (July 10-13, 2006, Vienna, Austria).

C – clear slightly-irradiated materialsL. El-Guebaly, D. Henderson, A. Abdou, and P. Wilson, “Clearance Issues for Advanced Fusion Power Plants”, Fusion Technology, 39, No. 2, 986-990 (2001).L. El-Guebaly, P. Wilson, and D. Paige, “Status of US, EU, and IAEA Clearance Standards and Estimates of Fusion Radwaste Classifications,” University of

Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute Report, UWFDM-1231 (December 2004).L. El-Guebaly, P. Wilson, and D. Paige, “Evolution of Clearance Standards and Implications for Radwaste Management of Fusion Power Plants,” Journal of

Fusion Science & Technology, 49, 62-73 (2006).L. El-Guebaly, R. Forrest, T. Marshall, N. Taylor, K. Tobita, M. Zucchetti, “Current Challenges Facing Recycling and Clearance of Fusion Radioactive

Materials,” University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute Report, UWFDM-1285 (Nov 2005). Available at: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1285.pdfL. El-Guebaly, R. Pampin (UK), and M. Zucchetti (Italy), “Clearance Considerations for Slightly-Irradiated Components of Fusion Power Plants,” 8th IAEA TM

on Fusion Power Plant Safety (July 10-13, 2006, Vienna, Austria).

B – burn long-lived radionuclides in fusion devicesL.A. El-Guebaly, “Need for Special Burning Module in Fusion Devices to Transmute Fusion High-Level Waste,” University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology

Institute Report, UWFDM-1155 (June 2002).L. El-Guebaly, “Managing Fusion High Level Waste – a Strategy for Burning the Long-Lived Products in Fusion Devices,” Fusion Engineering and Design, 81

(2006) 1321-1326.

8

ARIES Project Committed toWaste Minimization

Tokamak waste volumehalved over 10 y study period

Stellarator waste volumemore than halved over

25 y study period

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Bla

nke

t/S

hie

ld/V

acu

um

Ves

sel/M

agn

et/S

tru

ctu

re

Vo

lum

e (1

03 m3 )

ARIES – I1990

III1991

II1992

IV1992

RS1996

ST1999

AT2000

SiCSiC

SiC

V V

FS

FS(D-

3He)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Bla

nke

t/S

hie

ld/V

acu

um

Ves

sel/M

agn

et/S

tru

ctu

re

Vo

lum

e (1

03 m3 )

UWTOR-M24 m1982

SPPS14 m1994

ARIES-CS 8.25 m

2006

V FS

FS

ARIES-CS 7.5 m2006

FS

9

ARIES-CS Waste Classificationfor Geological Disposal

Class C Class A Clear?

FW/Blkt/BW √

Shield/Manifolds √

VV √

Magnets:WP √External structure √Inter-coil structure √

Cryostat √ √

Confinement Building √ √

ARIES-CSComponents

Class ARepository

Class CRepository

5 m belowground surface

~500 m belowground surface

TemporaryStorage

≈

10

Only Cryostat and Confinement Building canbe Cleared in < 100 y after Decommissioning

10-2

100

102

104

106

108

1010

1012

100 102 104 106 108 1010

US

Cle

aran

ce In

dex

Time after Shutdown (s)

1d1y

Inter-Coil Structure

Limit100y

FW

Vacuum Vessel

Cryostat

Steel of Building

Concrete of Bldg10-2

100

102

104

106

108

1010

1012

100 102 104 106 108 1010

IAE

A C

lear

ance

Ind

ex

Time after Shutdown (s)

1d 1y

Inter-Coil Structure

Limit100y

FW

Vacuum Vessel

Cryostat

Steel of Building

Concrete of Bldg

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Vo

lum

e (1

03 m3 )

FW/Blkt/BW

Shld/Mnfld

VV

Actual VolumesNot Compacted

No Replacements

Magnets/Structure

Cryostat

RecycleB/S/VV/M

(23%)

Clear Building & Cryostat

(77%)

11

All ARIES-CS Components can be RecycledUsing Advanced and Conventional Equipments

• Advanced equipment that handles 3000 Sv/h can recycle FW/blanket/BW,shield/manifolds, and VV in ~2 y after decommissioning.

• Conventional equipment can recycle magnet and cryostat shortly after shutdown.

• Hands-on recycling is feasible for confinement building in < 1 y.

10-8

10-6

10-4

10-2

100

102

104

106

100 102 104 106 108 1010

Rec

yclin

g D

ose

Rat

e (S

v/h

)

Time After Shutdown (s)

Advanced RH Limit

Conservative RH Limit

Hands-on Limit1y1d

FWSiC

Shield

Inter-Coil StructureSteel of Building

Concrete

VV

12

Recommended Waste Management Schemethat Promotes Recycling & Clearance

Original ComponentsOne Set ofReplaceableComponents

Ore Mines& Mills

Ore Mines& Mills

RecyclingFacility

TemporaryStorage

Final Inspectionand Testing

Replaceable Components(@ 3.3 FPY)

CommercialMarket

CommercialMarket

Blanket & DivertorFabrication and

Assembly

CI > 1

Fresh Supply(as needed)

MaterialSegregation

NuclearIndustry

NuclearIndustry

ExtractedRadionuclides(to be Burned)

Permanent Components @ EOL

SlightlyRadioactiveMaterials(CI < 1)

Fusion DevicesFusion Devices

After Decommissioning

During Operation

13

Burn Long-Lived Radioisotopes in SpecialModule to Avoid Deep Geological Burial

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Bu

rn-u

p F

rac

tio

n (

%)

Irradiation Time (y)

Nb-94

3 MW/m2

Bi-208

Ni-63

Tc-99

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

94N

b B

urn

-up

Fra

ctio

n (

%)

Irradiation Time (y)

3 MW/m2

5 MW/m2

10 MW/m2

94Nb

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Bu

rn-u

p F

rac

tio

n (

%)

Irradiation Time (y)

94Nb

94Nb+Be

94Nb+Be

3 MW/m2

10 MW/m2

94Nb + Be

High NWL and Beenhance burn-up process

14

Recommended Change to ARIESRadwaste Top-Level Requirement

• Current:Generate no radwaste greater than Class C

• Recommended:Avoid geological burial, promote recycling/clearance, and minimizevolume of active materials

• Recommended requirement helps earn public acceptance as governmentagencies and public ask for energy sources that:

– are safe– generate little or no waste– do not deplete natural resources– have minimal environmental impact.