Advanced Fuel Cycles andWaste Management
Jean-Marc Cavedon
Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland
Chairman of the ad-hoc Expert group
OECD NEA, 9th IEM on Actinide and Fission Partitioning andTransmutation, Nîmes, France, 25-29 September 2006

Framework¾ OECD/NEA study, approved by its Committees¾ Carried out by an ad hoc Expert Group

12 Countries

2 International
Organisations

Belgium

Rep. of Korea

Finland

RussiaIAEA

FranceSpain

Germany

Switzerland

EuropeanCommission

Italy

UnitedKingdom

Japan

United States
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-2

244 pages total
1 executive
summary
18 tables
57 figures
12 appendicesOECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-3

Main objectives¾ Analyse advanced fuel cycle schemes from theperspective of their impact on waste repository demandand specification, building on previous NEA studies onpartitioning and transmutation (P&T)¾ Assess the performance of selected repository
concepts using source terms for waste arising fromselected advanced fuel cycle schemes¾ Identify new options for waste management anddisposal
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-4

Complete Fuel cycles include all waste

HLW, ILW, LLW
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-5

Scope• 13 fuel cycle schemes within 3 families to illustrate differences
between various technologies and levels of recycling capability• Current industrial technology and extension (open cycle + 3 schemes)• Partially closed fuel cycle (3 schemes + 1 variant)• Fully closed (3 schemes + 2 variants)• 3 waste categories, according to IAEA Recommendations:• HLW (deep geological)• LILW-LL (geological)• LILW-SL (surface or sub-surface)• 4 performance and capacity assessments for repository
concepts in••••claygranitesalttuff
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-6

Fuel Cycle Schemes
Current
Industrial
Technologyand Extension
1aOpen cycle

1bPu monorecycle
in PWR

1c

Pu and Np
monorecycle inPWR

1d DUPIC in PWR +CANDUPartially-Closed
Fuel Cycle

2aPu multirecycle
in PWR
2b Pu and Am
multirecycle inPWR
2c Pu and Am
multirecycle inPWR+FR
2cV Am storage

Fully-Closed
Fuel Cycle

3aTRU multirecycle
in FR
3b
All actinide burnt
in double strata
with ADS
3bV No FR
3cAll actinide
recycled in FR
3cV1 GCFR
3cV2 LMFR

Recycling Capability
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-7

Scheme 1b Pu monorecycle in PWR

U enr.
FP, MA89%

UOX fuel

PUREX

PWR

HLW
ILWPu

LLW

U depl.
11%

MOX fuel

PWROECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

Directdisposal

CavedonCavedon-8

Scheme 2a Pu multirecycle in PWR
U enr.

HLW
72 %UOX fuelILW

PWR

LLW
28 %MOX -EU fuel

PWR

FP , MAPUREXH M losses

PuOECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-9

Scheme 3cv1 all An recycled in GCFR

U depl.

FP, HM losses
100%Carbide fuelFRPYRO

HLW
ILW
LLW

All actinides

OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-10

Repository Performance Assessments¾Studies restricted to impact on normal operation:
9 FP migration dominates normal operation scenarios;
9 Actinide intake dominates accidental and intrusion scenarios;
9 Possibly loss of one major barrier (case of salt).

¾

Based on publicly available repository performance assessments and on
participant contributions:
9 Granite study done by Spain – ENRESA;
9 Granite study done by Japan – JNC;
9 Clay study done by Belgium – SCK.CEN;
9 Salt study done by Germany – GRS;
9 Tuff study done by United States – ANL within AFCI.

¾

Selected Schemes : 1a, 1b, 2a, 3cv1.
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-11

Selected indicators¾ Natural uranium consumption¾ TRU loss/transfer to waste¾ Activity of HLW after 1000 years¾ Decay heat of HLW after 50 years¾ Decay heat of HLW after 200 years¾ Volume of conditioned HLW, incl. spent fuel
¾ Maximum dose from HLW disposal in granite¾ Maximum dose from HLW disposal in clay
¾ Maximum dose from HLW disposal in tuff
¾ Fuel cycle cost
¾ Total cost of generating electricity

OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-12

Natural uranium consumption
per unit of electricity generated(normalised to scheme 1a)1b1c1d2a2b2cV

3a3b3bV

3cV1

3cV20.89

0.90

0.59

0.87

0.99

0.44

0.63

0.65

0.76

0.004

0.036

Schemes 3cV1 and 3cV2 operate with depleted uranium

OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-13

Transuranics losses to waste
35
Decay storage
30

HLW from reprocessing

TRU to waste (kg/TWhe)SF, irradiated targets
25

20
100 x
100 x

15

100 x

100 x
100 x

10

50
1a1b1c1d2a2b2c2cV

3a3b3bV

3cV1 3cV2

Fuel cycle scheme
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-14

Decay heat per scheme (normalised to 1a)1.E+01

Decay heat relative to Scheme 1a50 a

200 a

1'000 a1.E+00

1.E-01

1.E-02

1.E-031b1c1d2a2b2c2cV

3aOECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

Fuel cycle scheme

3b3bV

3cV1 3cV2
CavedonCavedon-15

Volumes of conditioned HLWper unit of electricity generated
Normalised to Scheme 1a

1.2
10.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
01a1b1c1d2a2b2c2cv13aOECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

3b3bv1 3cv1 3cv2

CavedonCavedon-16

Dose rates for schemes 1b, 2a, 3cv1 in an
unsaturated tuff repository
11a1b2aNormalized Dose Rate, Total

0.1

0.01
3c variant
0.001

0.00010.0000102000004000006000008000001000000

Time, years
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-17

Indicators for illustrative schemes
Total Cost
10
Fuel Cycle Cost
1

NB:
UraniumCloser to theConsumption
centreis better!

0.1

max. dose(tuff)

TRU Loss
0.01

0.001
Activity(after 1000 yrs)

max. dose(clay)

1a
Decay Heat
(after 50yrs)

max. dose(granite)

1b2a
3cV1

Decay Heat
(afterOECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes,29200yrs)
sept. 2006

HLW Volume (+SF)

CavedonCavedon-18

Complementarities of conditioning,isolation and P&T
isolation
stability of geologicalhost formation
stability of
waste matrix

conditioning

tightness ofcanisterP&T ofActinides

storage
1E+1

1E+2

1E+3

1E+4

1E+5

1E+6

1E+7

1E+8

time (a)OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-19

Main Findings and Conclusions (1)¾ A variety of advanced fuel cycle schemes could be

implemented to contribute to a robust, effective
policy for resource saving and waste reduction¾ Conditioning, geological disposal and P&T arecomplementary options

OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-20

Main Findings & Conclusions (2)¾ Waste heat load and volume reductions aredriving factors for decreasing repository spacerequirements¾ Activity, maximum dose and cost are not driving

factors for policy making¾ Total electricity generation costs vary by lessthan 20% whatever the scheme
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-21

Main Findings & Conclusions (3)¾ In a sustainable development

perspective, full fast reactor (FR)schemes are by far the most efficient:
9 Environmental dimension: reduction of the uranium mining

requirements by a factor of 50 or more

9 Social dimension: reduction of waste volume by a factor of30

¾ Intermediate steps towards FR mixes

already improve some aspects ofsustainability
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-22

Acknowledgements¾ The writers’ coordination team :Timo Haapalehto

Christine Loaec

William Halsey

Jan Marivoet

Samantha KingPeter Wydler

Ludger Lambers

Alain Zaetta

Kwang-Seok Lee

Evelyne Bertel¾ All experts and co-workers
33 names (see list in full document)

OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes, 29 sept. 2006

CavedonCavedon-23

Summary of the study
Total Cost
10
Fuel Cycle Cost
1NB:
UraniumCloser to theConsumption
centreis better!

0.1

max. dose(tuff)TRU Loss
0.01

0.001
Activity(after 1000 yrs)

max. dose(clay)

1amax. dose(granite)

Decay Heat(after 50yrs)

1b
2a
3cV1

Decay HeatHLW Volume (+SF)
OECD NEA, 9th IEMPT, Nîmes,29200yrs)
sept. 2006
(afterCavedonCavedon-24