Multipurpose Concrete Storage Systems in a Post Fukushima Environment

Presentation to: ATOMECO 2011 NAC International Business Confidential

Elmer Dyke, Senior Vice President NAC International 01 November 2011

Moscow

NAC International Is a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of USEC Inc., a Leading Supplier of Enriched Uranium Fuel for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants

NAC Organization and Experience

Norcross Tokyo London Moscow

Consulting

Transportation Services

Projects/Engineering

Recognized Authority on Nuclear Fuel Cycle Nuclear Fuel Database Management

More than 3,600 Cask Movements Over 6 Million Miles Cask Services at Sites

Numerous Spent Fuel Technologies Licensed More than 300 Storage and Transport Systems Delivered

Over Forty Years of Nuclear System and Service Solutions Experience

2

MCS Concept Development in U.S.

DOE Secretary of Energy (Admiral Watkins) endorsed Universal Container System (UCS), December 1992 Virginia Electric Power Company was major participant in DOEs decision UCS concept: spent fuel containment system is separate from protective overpacks for storage, transport, disposal Each overpack design focused on its one function, rather than having one design for 2 or 3 functions U.S. utilities endorsed UCS concept, but the name was changed to multipurpose canister system (MCS) by DOE By 1996, dry storage solicitations from utilities requested only (with few exceptions) MCS technology from bidders

MPC Dry Storage Technology

U.S. has deployed large variety of dry spent fuel storage technologies These systems fall into two categories Storage only Dual purpose (storage and transport) or multipurpose (storage, transport, and intent for use in disposal) Two major technology choices: metal casks and concrete multipurpose canister systems (MCS) U.S. has moved dramatically towards MCS technology over last 15 20 years

MCS Storage System Concept

Storage system composed of canister and cask Many systems per customer or site Also have a transport cask and a disposal overpack Concrete Cask Canister One transfer cask per site or customer Transfer Cask

MCS Operations: Loading and Handling for On-Site Storage

1 5 Move MPC transfer device
to prep area. W eld MPC shield plug. D rain, dry, inert MPC. W eld MPC structural closure. Install transfer device closure. D econ transfer device.

MPC W et Transfer Device

Fuel loading pool

Fuel loading pool

Fuel loading pool MPC Shield Plug

Transfer Device
Storage Cask

6 7 Storage Cask Storage Cask

Install cask closure. Move to storage area.

8 Vertical Storage Area

MCS Operations: Loading and Handling for On-Site Storage

Photo Summary of Selected NAC Customers

NAC Dry Storage System Experience: Totals

449 Ordered 296 Delivered 255 Loaded

Increasing Demand for MPC Dry Storage Technology

Global demand growth for spent fuel storage technology due to: Plant decommissioning efforts Increased SNF discharges Delay in final geological disposition options Accelerated move to dry storage systems to reduce pool thermal loadings (Post-Fukushima Considerations) Comparative MPC Dry Cask life cycle costs and other advantages

MCS Advantages
MCS technology gives utilities more flexibility for large uncertainties about storage duration, storage location, transport, or disposal MCS has storage containment, most of thermal, and criticality control functions in one element (the canister) Shielding, some thermal, and physical protection functions are provided by overpacks MCS approach: canister is contained waste form, not individual fuel assemblies; allows easier movement of waste form, no matter what must be done with spent fuel in future MCS has advantages when utilities must consider future uncertainties about spent fuel storage, transport, reprocessing, or disposal

10

MCS Advantages, ctd

Advantages for U.S. Utilities MCS provides maximum flexibility, minimum facility needs for utility to safely store spent fuel for normal, off-normal, and accident conditions Handling system allows easy canister transfer from wet storage to dry storage, and from dry storage to transport cask without pool Canister problems: closure lid weld repair does not require a pool Other canister failures: use secondary canister with closure lid, without need for pool Canister transferred into new secondary canister Closure lid welded on secondary canister, then secondary canister backfilled and sealed Secondary canister returned to dry storage or transported Canister and handling system allow damaged/aging storage overpack to be replaced without need for a pool
11

MCS Advantages, ctd

Concrete storage overpack makes good choice: Natural circulation canister cooling also keeps concrete cool Concrete (especially high density or reinforced) with metal liner offers excellent shielding and protection Concrete can be maintained and repaired for designs with accessible concrete allows 100 year design life If needed, concrete replacement overpacks are inexpensive For uncertain spent fuel transport, MCS allows significantly fewer transport casks and use of newer transport casks for safety assurance; dual purpose casks may be very old at time of transport

12

MCS Acceptance
U.S. utilities very strong advocates of concrete MCS NAC believes this support principally driven by: large uncertainties about spent fuel disposition extensive flexibility provided by the designs low cost for large storage volume and flexibility away-from-pool alternative in response to Fukushima Concrete MCS technology makes good sense when uncertainty about spent fuel disposition is high Expanding capabilities of concrete MCS to give utilities even more flexibility at lower cost per assembly was one objective for NACs MAGNASTOR development

13

Concrete MCS Safety

More than 1,100 concrete MCS licensed and deployed in U.S. No industrial safety issues No nuclear safety issues No observed structural material degradation In U.S., casks are designed to proven standards and rigorously licensed/inspected by USNRC 10CFR72 for storage
Licensed for 20 40 years, with provision for additional 20 40 year license renewals Design life is 50 years for NAC systems

10CFR71 for transport

Licensed for 5 years (renewable for 5 year increments)

US regulations are similar to IAEA standards, with a few exceptions

.

14

MCS Storage Efficiency

Primary consideration in storage efficiency is the required cask spacing or pitch, and the cask storage capacity Required storage pitch for metal casks depends on heat load, since heat transfer to environment is via conduction and radiation Storage pitch for concrete MCS is generally independent of heat load and comparable to metal cask storage pitch Areal Storage Density (ASD, fuel assemblies per pitch area) is the appropriate measure of storage efficiency

15

Comparative Advantages: MCS vs. Metal Cask

Legend
+s show technology relative advantage: + = small

Feature
Fuel capacity Areal fuel storage density Storage dose rates Operational dose per system Ease of handling Closure seal & monitoring Schedule/ease of fabrication Cost

Metal Dual Purpose Cask

Concrete MCS ++
+ +

+ + = medium

+++

= large

++
+

+++ +++
16

Post-Fukushima Considerations and Lessons Learned

Greater demand for SNF storage systems, especially for passively cooled systems Need to consider public opinion and concerns and ensure lessons learned are being incorporated in nuclear operations Some concern in overcrowded SNF pools may require accelerated transfer to away-from-reactor storage. Prudent transition to away-from reactor storage needs to consider nuclear safety, personnel dose and safety, and technical specification limits of the design Location of SNF pools and on-site storage Consideration for passively cooled storage solutions Improving spent fuel storage risk profile by reducing heat loads in pools may enhance public perception of spent fuel storage strategies.

17

Post-Fukushima Considerations and Lessons Learned

ctd

Moving hotter fuel (<4kW) to dry storage may result in very high dose considerations and technical specification challenges. Important to note that depending on reactor type and operation, about 65% of total spent fuel pool heat-load generated from fuel assemblies <4Yrs cooled 80% of assemblies --- 35% heat load 20% of assemblies --- 65% heat load

For recently discharged fuel <5yrs, safer storage location may be the spent fuel pool. Removal of fuel with >5years provides significant improved risk profile and greater flexibility for fuel that should remain in the pool (<5 years) A balanced approach using both wet/pool storage and passively cooled dry storage offers the best solution

18