International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (Infce)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFCE International Nuclear Fuel INFCE/DEP/WG.6/'S M» Cycle 0 Evaluation RESPONSES TO TASK 1 QUESTIONNAIRE OF INFCE WORKING GROUP 6 SUPPLIED BY PARTICIPATING STATES March 1978 INPCE/GROUP VI - QUESTIONNAIRE COUNTRY: ARGENTINA 1. Nuclear power forecast (MWe) 1980 1990 2000 REF 1.000 HIGH 3.300 10.000 LOW 2.700 8.000 2. Spent fuel forecast (tons UO-) » 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 REF 780 2.360 HIGH 5.500 10.650 23.900 LOW 5.350 10.275 19.100 3. Pool reactor spare capacity (ton U02) (a) full core discharge 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 REF 250 400 HIGH 850 1.450 2.500 LOW 700 1.250 2.000 4. Under the fuel cycle conditions which you anticipate in your country what requirements have you identified for away-from- reactor (AFR) storage? To be considered after 1985. - 49 - 5. Current programme (a) At reactor storage Present Under Construction ton U0- years tons U02 years Atucha I 500 5 1.300 13 Embalse 1.500 10 (b) Away from reactor storage - national none (c) Away from reactor storage - Multinational Not envisaged by the time being 6. Spent fue) storage short-fall Not envisaged 7. Spent fuel future plans (a) At reactor storage All units will be required a minimun holding capacity, in site, equivalent to 10 years full power operation (80% load factor) plus full core discharge reserve. (b) Away from reactor storage The position will be reviewed after 1985. (c) Go/no-go decision factors The development of the overall energy programme, particular ly the hydrc-electric programme. The nuclear programme up to 1990 is already commited. New decisions are not spected before 1985. -50- 8. Spent fuel storage short-fall Not envisaged. 9. With respect to current programme (5) and future plans (7), identify spent fuel movement and AFR storage constraints. l.(c) - National policy 2.(b) - Regulations on radiological protection. - 51 - 125/11/5/2/6 IA 10/78 20 January 1978 Dear Sir, Further to your letter of 12 January 1978 concerning questionnaires distributed during the first meeting of INFCE Working Group VI we would like to advise the following. In reference to the questionnaire on spent fuel storage requirements, Australia has no plans at this tise for the introduction of nuclear power planta and therefore will have no requirecents for the storage of spent fuel from such reactors in the foreseeable future. For the second questionnaire, regarding participation in Working Group VI, the answers are as follows - • Participating Country - Australia Question 1. Not at this time. Question 2. (a) Calculation of international spent fuel generation from basic reactor data. (b) Analysis of data provided in response to requirements questionnaire. (c) Analysis of institutional matters. Question 3« Or D.B. Walker, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, 45 Beach Street, Coogee, 9.S.V. 2034 Australia. Telephone (2) 665 1221 Telex AA 20273* Tours sincerely, ^ (J.W.c; Cumes) Resident Representative Mr R.A. Estrada-Oyuela, Embassy of the Republic of Argentina, VIENNA. Austria Task 1 - March 1978 1NFCE OUESTIOMMAIRE - GROUP VI -I II I II ^. I ^—^— —I l.l-ll ■ III- II- .1 III -I—I.I ■ 1. Nuclear power forecast At this time the first nuclear power station is close to completion date. The quantity of produced electric energy will be approx. f*,2 x 109 kwh/a. Further use of nuclear energy in Austria at this time is not visualized. 2. Spent fuel generation by year After start up of the first austrian nuclear power plant the average amount of spent fuel elements will be approx. 22 t U/a. 3. Pool reactor spare capacity requirements The present storage pond provides for one core-discharge and one yearly discharge. An enlargement of this storage pond is planned, thereby the storage pond will have a capacity of approx. nine yearly dis charges plus one core discharge. '♦. Under the fuel cycle conditions which you anticipate In your country, what requirements have you identified for away-from- reactor (AFR) storage? Cn this subject a project for an external storage pond for spent fuel elements and a project for the final disposal of -53- radioactive waste has been developed. The capacity of the external storage pond is approx. 2900 fuel elements. Further to this the external storage pond (wet storage) can be adapted to dry-storage as required. The project for the final disposal of radioactive waste is adjustable to the various amounts of waste. The project of the external storage pond takes into account that a reprocessing contract would not be forthcoming for some time. Furthermore this storage pond ensures an alternative for storing . unreprocessed fuel elements returned from the reprocessing piant. The project for the final disposal of radioactive waste had been influenced on the one side to make provisions for taking back the high active level waste from the reprocessing plant and on the other side by the provisions for the final disposal of the Internal waste (LLW, MLW). 5. Current prograrme (existing; building under construction; and conmitted) spent fuel disposition facilities by year: 5.1 At reactor storage The storage pond available at this tlrne has a capacity of approx. 650 fuel elements; this corresponds to \,V* core discharges. The planned compact storage will have a capacity of approx. 1560 fuel elements; this corresponds to 3,2 core discharges. Planned enlargement costs will be approx. 3 Mlo US i. - 54 - 5.2 Away from reactor storage - national (In-country) At this present time, no permission has been granted for the site for the external storage pond. The capacity of the external storage pond will be for approx. 2900 fuel elements; this corresponds to approx. 6 core discharges. Construction costs will be approx. 125 Mlo US S and for the operation costs approx. 2,5 Mio US S/a. Safety and environmental aspects have been integrated in the planning. 5.3 Storage site suitability The basic design criteria as far as site is concerned were chosen to be the same as for the nuclear power plant. 5.*» General description of transportation system: The International guidelines for transportation of radioactive material will be followed, i.e. RID, ADR, IAEA .... 5.5 Safeguard considerations The safeguard descriptions wfli be based on the valid lAEA-guidelines. 5.6 Physical protection The reccfimendations of IAEA concerning the physical protection (Inf. clrc. 225/corr) have been taken Into account. -55- 6. Away from reactor storage - (multi-national arrangements) In spite of contacts with various countries, no satisfactory answers can be given at this time on these questions. -56- S.C.K./C.E.N. Mol. 07/03/76 L.H.M.A. TEC/39.3601/B/04/AC0/fq BELGIUM INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE EVALUATION (INFCE) Technical Co-ordinating Comnittee - Group VI "Spent Fuel Storage" Questionnaire 1. Nuclear power forecast •* by year la) Reference (b) Low (c) High 1983 (a) Ref. 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1984 1985 Total quantity 2000ITWe 2000HWP 3000MWe 3000MWe 4000riw"e 4000MWe 5000NWe (b) idem ' (c) 2. Spent fuel generation - by year (a) associated with reference forecast (b) associated with any high probability variance (high or low) 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1966 55 ton 55 ton 55 ton 74 ton 74 ton 95 ton 115 ton 3. Pool reactor spare capacity requirements, by reactor type ; ex. gr. 900 MWe (a) full core discharge (b) one normal discharge fc) discussion of possible changes in requirements a. ?0 Ton b. 23 Ton c. is sufficient for the moment/ if agreements are signed with the reprocessing plants. - 60 - 4. Under the fuel cycle conditions which you anticipate In your country what requirements have you identified for away-from-reactor (AFR) storage ? These requirements would be governed by plans (timing, capacities, usage, duration) for reprocessing recovery, interim storage or final disposal of fuel elements. It would be helful if response would include a brief discussion of the factors that have influenced planning. New away-from-reactor (AFRJ storage will be made at the reprocessing plant. Dimension not Known yet. 5. Current programme (existing i building under construction j and committed) spent fuel disposition facilities by year : (a) At reactor storage, by' reactor type (1) Capacity and usage by year (2) Programme to increase storage capacity (3) Costs, terms or conditions (non-proprietary information) 1. Generally speaking, a fourth of the capacity is used per year of the full capacity (empty) of the storage tanks. 2. Parallel with the growth of the nuclear power reactor capability, a linear growth of the on-site, spent fuel storage is planned. A spent fuel capability storage tank per reactor is planned which is always much larger than the fuel-load of the reactor. 3. Costs are not available. (b) Away from reactor storage - national (in-country) (1) Location(s) (2) Storage description : la) capacity and usage, by year (b) facility lifetime(s) (c) significant maintenance operation (d) cost (operation and construction) (e) safety and environmental protection The industrial away-from-reactor storage tank facilities are only planned at the reprocessing plant. The detailed description can net be given as the decision to study the new facilities are not yet taken. - 61 - (3) Storage site suitability. Give basis of determination The existence of the EUROCHEMIC PLANT at DESSEL (near MOD {4] General description of transportation system : (a) casks (b) vehicles (c) routes, restrictions (d) handling equipment (e) carriers/suppliers Cf) shipping duration (g) cost (construction and operational} non proprietory information a. Different casks are used provided by firms such as Transnucleaire, Transnuble and others. b. The vehicles are trucks c. Certain routes are used determined by restrictions such as weight limits at bridges and height of viaducts.