1. Optimisation of New Build Spent Fuel Management and Disposal Peter Haslam Public Policy Advisor Nuclear Industry Association 25 January 2011

2. Structure of Presentation Overview of Government Spent Fuel Management “base case” Outline of work carried out with NDA to identify opportunities and feasibility of optimising the “base case” Initial results of preliminary scoping studies with NDA

3. 60 years operation would generate a total of approximately 3,400 assemblies per EPR, including time for planned outages Each Spent Fuel Assembly contains approximately 530kg Uranium A Single EPR will produce approximately 1800tHM over 60 years of operation Spent Fuel Generation

4. RWMD assumptions related to New Build Spent Fuel Inventory RWMD will publish a Disposal System Safety Case. This will provide safety arguments supported by illustrative disposal concepts for three geological environments. The DSSC considers the MRWS Baseline Inventory and an upper inventory scenario which includes wastes and SF arising from a new nuclear build power programme The upper inventory scenario assumes construction of four AP1000 and four UK EPR corresponding to a generating capacity of 10 GW(e) which leads to an inventory of 13,000tHM of spent fuel (assumed 60 year operating lives) The illustrative disposal concepts assume use of high integrity disposal canisters (each holding four SFA) The DSSC recognises that the disposal concepts will not be chosen until future stages

5. The Spent Fuel Management Case Base Cooling in reactor fuel pool 2-10 yrs Transfer to on-site Spent Fuel Interim Storage Facility Store for around 100 years post discharge from reactor for temperatures to fall to meet GDF temperature constraints of bentonite buffer material Transfer to an encapsulation facility Encapsulation of long-stored fuel in KBS3 copper containers (maximum 4 fuel assemblies) Transfer to GDF for disposal (new-build emplacement after c.2130) Spent Fuel removed from reactor Assemblies transferred to reactor fuel pool Underwater storage of spent fuel in reactor fuel pool for initial cooling On-site Spent Fuel Interim Storage Facility Off-Site Geological Disposal Facility Spent FuelSpent Fuel Interim Storage Spent Fuel Transfer Spent Fuel EncapsulationFinal Disposal Reactor fuel pool Transfer of spent fuel to Interim Storage Facility Spent fuel encapsulation facility Encapsulation of spent fuel for disposal Initial Spent Fuel Cooling SFA loaded into transport flasks for transfer to encapsulation plant. Spent Fuel stored for period of up to 100years Transport to GDF

6. Optimisation of Base Case Current strategy safe, practical and deliverable Opportunities to optimise certain aspects –Storage periods –Storage Arrangements –Encapsulation facility/facilities –Optimisation of current reference disposal conceptual design –Consideration of other disposal concepts –ILW Management – Scheduling NDA RWMD was contracted by NIA to identify issues and options that could result in opportunities for optimisation

7. Working with NDA-RWMD RWMD has undertaken work commissioned and fully funded by the Nuclear Industry Association Scope: –Investigate the feasibility of and issues associated with storage and encapsulation plants for spent fuel –Investigate issues with alternative transport and disposal package types –Identify issues and options that could result in the optimisation of the GDF concept to meet the characteristics of both legacy and new build waste –Investigate the potential benefits of alternative disposal concepts

8. RWMD Report Published November 2010 NDA website http://www.nda.gov.uk/do cuments/upload/Geologic al-Disposal-Feasibility- studies-exploring- options-for-spent-fuel- from-new-nuclear-power- stations-November- 2010.pdfhttp://www.nda.gov.uk/do cuments/upload/Geologic al-Disposal-Feasibility- studies-exploring- options-for-spent-fuel- from-new-nuclear-power- stations-November- 2010.pdf

9. Spent Fuel Interim Storage period RWMD initial disposability assessment indicated cooling period of the order of 100 years required before disposal Based on temperature constraint on bentonite backfill New work indicates above ground storage period could be reduced to around 50 years by judicious mixing of long cooled and short cooled fuel Other feasible options which also permit earlier emplacement include: –Smaller diameter canisters with reduced heat load, or –Undertake research on the temperature limit in the bentonite buffer

10. Fuel Handling and Centralised Storage (1) Base case assumes one store per site and on- site storage post decommissioning until GDF is available and fuel is sufficiently cooled Advantages that each site manages its own waste Disadvantage in duplication of facilities each of which will require safety and security infrastructure Centralised storage could reduce overall costs and allow complete early clearance of multiple sites

11. Fuel Handling and Centralised Storage (2)

12. Encapsulation Encapsulation of spent fuel into form suitable for final disposal Base case assumes: –Use of copper canister concept –Packaging at reactor site with transport to GDF Encapsulation plant is complex and expensive facility Swedish concept assumes single encapsulation plant and centralised storage UK legacy fuel also requires encapsulation Opportunities to share facility between legacy and new build or between new build operators

13. Alternative Disposal Pakages Use of alternative containers in reference concept GDF Larger casks with more SFA = higher thermal loading Considers viability of a single Multi-Purpose Container (MPC) for storage – transport – disposal Could remove need for repackaging and additional handling of fuel Existing designs of MPC would require significant up rating and redesign of GDF infrastructure and handling systems Conceptually a smaller MPC could be designed for increased compatibility with geological disposal and UK transport infrastructure Further work needed to justify early sealing of SF in the container and ability to make future transport and disposal safety cases

14. Alternative Disposal Concepts Consideration of alternative disposal concepts In-tunnel Axial Concept – more suitable for larger containers as no rotation of container RWMD has identified practical options for emplacement of MPC type containers (e.g. NUMO (Japan) cavern system) –Suited to MPC package –Potential for earlier emplacement due to delayed buffer backfill

15. Next Steps NIA working group to consider scope of further research Engagement with Government where implications for Managing Radioactive Waste Safely process Operators to engage with local communities on site specific waste proposals for new nuclear power stations

16. www.niauk.org