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.