DOE OSTI2015
Direct disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in dual-purpose canisters (DPCs) could avoid the cost and complexity of re-packaging spent fuel into smaller purpose-built containers, avoid disposing of the DPC hulls as low-level waste, and potentially decrease worker dose. Technical objectives for disposal are: 1) safety of workers and the public, 2) engineering feasibility; 3) thermal management; and 4) criticality control after permanent closure of a repository. The postclosure safety case for DPC direct disposal would resemble that for any repository-waste isolation would be enhanced by choosing host geology in which radionuclide transport is diffusion dominated, and for which transport properties and pathways are insensitive to the expected temperature history. Containment functions would be assigned to the disposal overpack, and published data show that suitable materials exist for most possible disposal environments. Earlier studies showed that DPC-based waste packages would be only slightly larger and heavier than those proposed for a repository in volcanic tuff. Engineered solutions are available for transporting and emplacing them underground, although some could be the largest of their kind. The cost of DPC direct disposal in various geologic settings has been compared to options involving a change to loading standardized multi-purpose canisters, or continuing to load DPCs and re-packaging all of them for disposal. In general DPC direct disposal would cost tens of billions of dollars less, in packaging and disposal costs. Calculations for emplacement in hard rock and sedimentary rock show that host rock peak temperature targets of 100 to 200 deg.C could be met by managing fuel age and burnup, with repository closure at up to 150 years from reactor discharge. For disposal in salt, DPC-based waste packages could be emplaced at only 50 to 100 years from discharge, depending on burnup. Sedimentary media such as shales pose special challenges especially if they have low thermal conductivity. If backfill is used around DPC-based packages its peak temperature could be 150 to 200 deg.C. Without flooding of waste packages with ground water, criticality can never occur. However, some small number of disposal overpacks could fail within the postclosure performance period due to corrosion or disruptive events. Once flooded, the aluminum-based neutron absorber materials used in most DPCs would readily degrade. Analysis has shown that even without neutron absorbers, virtually all DPCs could be subcritical if flooded with chloride brines such as would occur in a salt repository. The licensing basis for existing DPCs involves criticality analysis that may be conservative compared to fuel that is actually loaded, and the difference provides uncredited reactivity margin. Uncredited margin can offset increases in reactivity associated with flooding and basket degradation. For flooding with fresh water, with loss of neutron absorbers, many DPCs have been shown to be subcritical using uncredited margin. Significantly fewer are subcritical if the fuel basket also degrades. Thus, the materials of DPC basket construction (e.g., aluminum or carbon steel) could be deleterious if they fully corrode, along with the neutron absorbers, during the performance period. Logistical simulations are used to better understand the relationship between the needed DPC decay storage time for disposal, and the timing of future events such as the repository opening date, or a transition to loading multi-purpose (disposable) canisters at nuclear power plants. Results show that the maximum benefit from implementing a new canister design, with respect to shortening the cooling time for all SNF including that in DPCs, is associated with the earliest repository start date. As time passes more of the total SNF inventory will be in DPCs such that the value of a transition to multi-purpose canisters will decline, and the remaining options are DPC direct disposal and re-packaging in purpose-designed disposal canisters. Fuel age at emplacement is of interest to evaluate potential impacts from future changes in the fuel management system that could place fuel age limits on dry storage or transportation. The minimum fuel age at emplacement (best-case) is obtained by re-packaging all DPCs into smaller canisters for disposal, thus drastically decreasing the needed decay storage time for any geologic disposal setting. If the industry transitions to smaller, multi-purpose canisters, and without re-packaging, the fuel age at emplacement would be comparable to the best case if: 1) the emplacement power limit is high enough, or 2) both the transition and the repository start date occur early (e.g., 2036 was analyzed). Technical feasibility evaluation continues to show that direct disposal could be safe and cost effective, for some DPCs and in some geologic settings. Direct disposal of a substantial fraction of existing DPCs, limited mainly by thermal management, uncredited criticality margin, materials of DPC basket construction, and the salinity of ground water in the disposal environment, could be part of the overall waste management system. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗