1. Sheet 0 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Task 1.5.4 Containment Assessment IP-EUROTRANS DOMAIN 1 Design WP 1.5 Safety Assessment of the Transmutation System Design IP-EUROTRANS DOMAIN 1 Design WP 1.5 Safety Assessment of the Transmutation System Design

2. Sheet 1 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Fission product confinement and control Protection against external events Biological shielding Containment System Safety Functions

3. Sheet 2 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Limitation of radionuclide releases Fission and spallation product removal mechanisms Containment isolation Leak tightness Containment integrity Structural behaviour Energy management system Fission product confinement and control

4. Sheet 3 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Representative events selection DBC/DEC –Definition of mass/energy releases –Source term definition Definition of fuel damage extension Dose calculation. Different hypothesis Comparison with acceptance criteria Containment integrity requirements Containment Requirements

5. Sheet 4 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid DBC –Primary HX tube ruptures –Secondary coolant pipe breaks –Cover gas system pipe break DEC –Fuel sub-assembly blockage Representative events

6. Sheet 5 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid DBC conditions DBC FUEL DAMAGE SOURCE TERMMASS/ENERGY RELEASE DBC1No fuel damageNormal operationN/A DBC2No fuel damageNormal operationLimited (Small leakages) DBC3 No fuel damage except test pins Normal operation + test pinsLarge leakages/HX tube ruptures DBC4 Localised damage Extension of damage to be defined ¿10%?Total SCS dumping

7. Sheet 6 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid DEC conditions DEC FUEL DAMAGE SOURCE TERMMASS/ENERGY RELEASE Complex sequences Localised damage Extension of damage to be defined ¿10%? No DEC associated to significant mass and energy releases to the containment Severe accidents Core damage/coolable inside vesselCore damage No DEC associated to significant mass and energy releases to the containment

8. Sheet 7 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Relevant conclussions oHigh mass/energy release events not associated to DEC sequences oThis allows to considering requirements for pressure relief separately from confinement requirements oContainment pressure relief system through a filtered venting system oDose calculations to show compliance with acceptance criteria

9. Sheet 8 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid 10 % FUEL RODS FAILED (0.1 % during Normal Operation) EXCLUSION AREA BOUNDARY (EAB): 1000 m SOURCE TERM extrapolated from Superphenix MOX fuel LEAK RATE from containment: 1 % volume/day Acceptance criterion: DBC4  50 mSv (consequences have to be assessed for a long period – 50 years) Dose assessment

10. Sheet 9 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Some credits that may be considered: 1.Po WALL DEPOSITION 2.Po TRAPPING (FILTERING SYSTEM) 3.Po NON-VOLATILITY (% Po non-evaporated) 4.I RELEASE-TO-CONTAINMENT FRACTION 5.Cs DEPOSITION, FILTERING OR ANY OTHER WAY OF REMOVAL Credits

11. Sheet 10 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Credit Case 011b22b3 Po trapping (%)000000 Po wall deposition (%)000000 Po non-volatility (%)025 90 I fraction release110,51 Cs deposition (%)0000025

12. Sheet 11 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Inhalation Dose D im (t)=A'(t)·FDC·  /Q(t) Calculation equations Immersion Dose D ih (t)=A'(t)·FDT·  /Q(t)·BR D(t): Dose after a given time t, [Sv] A’(t): Activity released from containment at a given time t, [Bq] FDC/FDT: Dose conversion factor for each radionuclide  /Q(t): Offsite atmospheric dispersion factor, [s/m 3 ] BR: Breathing rate, [m 3 /s]

13. Sheet 12 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Results Isotope Dose after 1yr (mSv) Case 0Case 1Case 1bCase 2Case 2bCase 3 Po-210 35,843,62 1,98 I 6,50 1,096,501,09 Others* 16,24 3,11 TOTAL 58,5826,3620,9524,7219,316,18 * Mostly due to Cs

14. Sheet 13 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Dose time-evolution for assessed cases

15. Sheet 14 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid  Dose gets Safety Principles Limit for category 4 events (50 mSv) after 20 days in case 0  This limit has not been reached for any other cases during the 1st year Preliminary conclusions

16. Sheet 15 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Update source term (which has been extrapolated from Superphenix reactor) in order to obtain more realistic results Further considerations about Po and Hg should be taken into account regarding chemical toxicity that have not been considered in these radiological dose calculations Objectives

17. Sheet 16 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Subtasks definition Source Term Behaviour Subtask 1.5.4.2a Bounding definition of potential releases to the containment and its behaviour on the basis of the different source term information available from Work Package 1.5.3 and the above analyses Subtask 1.5.4.2b Fission products and Polonium transport mechanism will also be evaluated. Subtask 1.5.4.2c The potential dose to the operators and the environment from the above source terms will be calculated. Subtask 1.5.4.2d Recommendations, if required, for radioactive and fission product removal will be analysed.

18. Sheet 17 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Subtasks definition Containment Requirements for the XT-ADS and EFIT Designs Subtask 1.5.4.3a Evaluation of containment function performance requirements for both designs, based on the data gathered from the above activities and WP 1.2 results Subtask 1.5.4.3b Evaluation of containment function taking into account the main features related to the following: Limitation of radionuclide releases (confinement function) Containment integrity Subtask 1.5.4.3c Evaluation of other features such as protection against external hazards, HVAC/Filtering requirements or biological shielding Subtask 1.5.4.3d Consideration of specific conditions that may be imposed on containment and confinement requirements

19. Sheet 18 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Subtask Responsibilities The Task Partners are: KTH, FZK and EA The following split of responsibilities for the elaboration of Task 1.5.4 deliverables is proposed: Subtask 1.5.4.1aFZK Subtask 1.5.4.1bKTH Subtask 1.5.4.1cKTH Subtask 1.5.4.1dEA Subtask 1.5.4.2aFZK/KTH Subtask 1.5.4.2bFZK/KTH Subtask 1.5.4.2cEA Subtask 1.5.4.3aEA Subtask 1.5.4.3bEA Subtask 1.5.4.3cEA Subtask 1.5.4.3d EA

20. Sheet 19 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid Budget The assigned total budget allocation for Task 1.5.4 is as follows: EA4 m/m FZK4 m/m KTH4 m/m

21. Sheet 20 November 13 th -14 th, 2007, Madrid CONTENTS 1.INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 2.INTERNATIONAL GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CONTAINMENT 3.GENERAL SAFETY CRITERIA. CONTAINMENT CRITERIA 3.1DEFENCE-IN-DEPTH 3.2SAFETY FUNCTIONS 3.3LINES OF DEFENCE (LOD) METHODOLOGY 4.GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE CONTAINMENT 4.1CONFINEMENT AND CONTROL OF RADIOACTIVE PRODUCTS 4.2PROTECTION AGAINST EXTERNAL EVENTS 4.3CONTAINMENT ACCESIBILITY 5.BARRIERS AGAINST THE RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVE PRODUCTS 5.1BARRIERS AGAINST THE RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVE PRODUCTS FROM THE FUEL 5.2BARRIERS AGAINST THE EMISSION OF RADIOACTIVE PRODUCTS FROM THE TARGET 6.DESIGN BASIS CONDITIONS. CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 6.1DESIGN BASIS CONDITIONS. LBE-COOLED XADS DESIGN 6.2DESIGN BASIS CONDITIONS. GAS-COOLED XADS DESIGN 7.DESIGN EXTENSION CONDITIONS. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE CONTAINMENT 7.1CONTAINMENT HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEMS 7.2LBE-COOLED XADS DESIGN 7.3GAS-COOLED XADS DESIGN 8.SUMMARY OF CONTAINMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 8.1CONTAINMENT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT 8.2CONTAINMENT HEAT REMOVAL 8.3CONTAINMENT LEAKTIGHTNESS 8.4STRUCTURAL DESIGN 8.5CONTAINMENT ISOLATION 8.6RADIATION PROTECTION 9.PENDING ITEMS 10.REFERENCES APPENDIX ATABLES APPENDIX BGENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CONTAINMENT IN AMERICAN, GERMAN, IAEA AND EUR STANDARDS B.1 CURRENT GERMAN CONTAINMENT FUNCTION-RELATED REGULATIONS B.2CURRENT USA CONTAINMENT FUNCTION-RELATED REGULATIONS B.3CURRENT EUROPEAN UNION REGULATORY CRITERIA B.4CURRENT INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA) CRITERIA B.5EUR CRITERIA RELATED TO CONTAINMENT FUNCTION B.6KEY CRITERIA