French future case: D&D of a PWR Main areas of questions Focus on Rip & Ship?

Transcription

1 French future case: D&D of a PWR Main areas of questions Focus on Rip & Ship?

2 French energy policy Goal: reduce the nuclear part from 80% to 50% (2025)

3 French NPP in operations Standard: 58 PWR reactors (Westinghouse Design) D&D Fessenheim starting at the end 2018 or the beginning 2019?

4 Main PWR D&D options Questions Answers 1- Decontamination, 2- Interns dismantling 3- Vessel 4- Waste management ( Rip & Ship ) 5- Support system (Cold and Dark)

5 Some cost datas Traditionnal investigation: OECD report Importance of the critical path For the Planning : cost of one year on critical path During dismantling phase, 1 year costs about 30 M 7 M running costs 5 M purchases (maintenance, keeping, ). 17 M taxes Sum about 2.5 M / critical month

6 International Feedback Principales centrales étrangères «visitées» Obrigheim, Greifswald, Stade, Wurgassen, Mulheim, Karlich, Germany Doel Belgium Sellafield UK Connecticut Yankee (CY), Maine Yankee (MY), Rancho Seco, San Onofre (SONGS), Yankee Rowe, Zion USA Réunion SFEN/92 du 19 février 2013 Gérard LAURENT

7 1- Decontamination issues Technical Options Complete decontamination FSD (and connected systems)? No FSD Decontamination? FSD Decontamination without vessel? FSD Decontamination without SG? Targeted Decontamination on some components? Decontamination during transition between operating and dismantling? Decontamination under dismantling decret? Only SG Decontamination for very low level disposal?

8 Décontamination Global FSD decontamination including primary loop, vessel and SG but connected circuits too (CVCS and RHRS) (RCV, RRA). Main interests: to decrease doses and to minimise waste classification. This operation could be done during transition time.

9 2- Main components (SG) Technical Options SG decontaminated in one size for transport to disposal? SG decontaminated for standardised cask? SG in one size for transport to disposal? SG no decontaminated for standardised cask? SG released during transition (operating vs dismantling)? SG released during dismantling?

10 The «SG case» SG removal is on critical D&D path. About 6 years after final shutdown for the 3 first, interest to do the removal of the 3 following SG just after. Activity levels (2019): from 0,6 TBq to 1TBq (in eq Co60). Avoid new intermediate storage construction (cost from 1,5 to 4 Meuros vs containment design choice). Removal give space for working area in RB: Interest to free existing intermediate storage SG building before.

11 SG SG choice for waste management (dismantling SG and used SG coming from operations and already stored on NPP site) : Future standardised dismantling : Investigate for an industrial treatment file for SG. Upstream: one piece removal included used SG already stored on site. If not possible: cutting in Reactor Building or in Turbine Building following by a release in standardised cask.

12 3- Vessel internals treatment Technical Options Internals released during transition? Internals released as soon as D&D decree emitted? Internes released as soon as intermediate storage available? Internals cutting in air? Internals cutting under water? Internals putting in final storage cask? Internals putting in cask for intermediate storage?

13 Internals cutting : Wait for thermal decrease before central intermediate storage (about 10 years) Internals Lone choice: cutting underwater (mechanical, laser, thermal?). Have an IS storage on site before central IS and final disposal?

14 Vessel Technical Options One size released? Vessel in standardised casks? Cutting in air? Cutting under water?

15 Zion feedback: Good sounds about air but need more studies for adaptability for european cases (containment rules). Vessel dismantling Stay with underwater dismantling as reference case. Study a cutting in small pieces for traditionnal cask uses or in multi blocks. One piece removal seems difficult for european countries.

16 4- Shutdown sequences Technical Options Shutdown in progress? Shutdown following by Cold & Dark situation? In all cases: change Zone limit optimisation for dismantling

17 Support Fonctions «Cold & Dark»: best solution. If not possible: need to upgrade the existing systems. Retirement following the end of use.

18 Choices for wastes treatment: Rip& Ship or not? Main components (LL, ML) Monobloc LLW Cutting RB : motors, pumps, RHRS, motors FPS Working area In the building WMF on site WMF off site BW : motors, pumps SIS, CSS Filters SIS CSS RB: Vessel head / RHRS exchangers / CVCS exchangers NAB : CVCS exchangers / CCS exchangers / Demin LWTS, BRS, CVCS SG Auxiliary building : motors, pumps, CVCS, CCS FB: RCSF exchanger / CSS exchanger

19 Possible choices VLLW and LLW to cut Working area In the building On waste management facility on site On waste management facility off site - Tracability - Transport to cutting area - Handling (cutting and final conditionning) - Container fleet (internal use) - Internal movements Idem + - Regulatory control to move off building - Transport to WMF - Container fleet (external-on siteuse) - Responsability transfert Idem + - Conditionning in containers for road /rail shipment - Transport on road/rail to WMF off site

20 Conclusion: 2 PWR reactors site case: For «small» pieces (hoses, valves, cables, supports) treatment outside working area drive to more constraints (controls, treacability, handling means) cutting times are not time consuming and it is easy to sort them: Better to conditionnate them on working area, For main components (CCV, RHRS, CSS exchangers etc ), treatment is complex: Do that outside the working area, For SG: Start an industrial file for treatment.

21 Thanks a lot for your attention and