French “Cycle Impact” approach

Technical Meeting IAEA

Integrated approaches to the back end of the fuel cycle

July, 17th – 19th 2018

France

Sophie Missirian Patrick Devin Jean-Michel Hoorelbeke

2French “Cycle Impact” approach

Table of contents

1. French ”Cycle Impact” context

2. Instruction of the “Cycle Impact” file

3. Advisory Committee of experts

4. Scenarios studied in the “Cycle Impact” file

5. French fuel cycle

1. French Nuclear Power Plants fleet (EDF)

2. Front End in France: Conversion (Orano Malvési and Tricastin) and chemistry (Orano Tricastin)

3. Front End in France: Enrichment (Orano Tricastin)

4. Front End in France: Fuel manufacture (Framatome)

5. Back End: Reprocessing La Hague Plant (Orano Cycle)

6. Back End: MOX manufacture (Orano MELOX)

7. Logistics in France: logistics services (Orano TNI)

8. Waste management: CSA disposal and CIGEO project (Andra)

6. Conclusion

3French “Cycle Impact” approach

French ”Cycle Impact” context

• Initiative from the French Nuclear Safety Authority’s (ASN)

• Actors: EDF, in collaboration with its industrial French partners Orano (ex AREVA) and Andra

• Objectives:

• Demonstrate that the choices made by industrial stakeholders do not create unacceptable consequences regarding the entire French fuel cycle in the mid-term

• Give ASN an overview of future regulatory requests to be examined

• Scope of the study: NPPs, front-end and back-end facilities, interim storage and logistics in France

2000 file 2007 file 2016 file

- Time frame:

2000-2010 period

- Focus on fuel

management

impact on fuel

cycle operations

- Time frame:

2007-2017 period

- Focus on fuel

management

impacts on fuel

cycle facilities,

NPPs and waste

management

- Time frame: 2015-

2030 and forecasts

until 2040

- Broader scope:

hazard analysis, fuel

from non-PWR

reactors

4French “Cycle Impact” approach

Instruction of the 2016 “Cycle Impact” file

06/2016: “Cycle Impact” file delivered to ASN

11/2016: request of the ASN that the French technical

support organization (IRSN) assess the file

2016-2018: 1 year and half

of instruction for ~100

questions to the industrial stakeholders

05/2018: expert report from IRSN subjected to a peer review by the Advisory

Committee of experts (GP) for laboratories and plants

06/2018: Opinion of the GP on the “Cycle Impact” file 2016

By the end of the year 2018, letter to be sent by ASN with actions to be performed by the industrial stakeholders

5French “Cycle Impact” approach

Advisory Committee of experts

The Advisory Committee of experts of laboratories and plants is composed of 32 members:

• Experts of the field

• Including experts from waste, nuclear reactors and transports advisory committees

• Including NGOs

• Appointed by ASN for 4 years

6French “Cycle Impact” approach

Scenarios studied in the “Cycle Impact” file

2 scenarios were studied: French recycling strategy and low variation of NPP fleet

Two additional variations with decreasing nuclear production were also studied.

These scenarios led to forecast:

1. The fresh fuel to manufacture and to transport,

2. The spent fuel to discharge, to transport, to storage in pools and to reprocess,

3. The reusable materials from reprocessing to transport, to recycle, to transform and to storage,

4. The waste management to transport, to storage and to dispose.

7French “Cycle Impact” approach

French fuel cycle

8French “Cycle Impact” approach

French Nuclear Power Plants fleet

58 NPPs in operation for 63 GWe3 different types of fuels and 5 different fuel managementsHypothesis for nuclear production: 420 TWh/year

NPP power

Number of NPP per site NPP NPPs NPPs NPPs

(EPR in construction)

0

5

10

15

20

25

PWR 900 MW

ENU

PWR 900 MW

ERU

PWR 900 MW

MOX

PWR 1300 MW

ENU

PWR 1450 MW

ENU

64

24

20

4

9

Front end in France

Conversion

French “Cycle Impact” approach

Malvési, ComurheX II plantPurification and Transformation

from Yellow cake(uranium concentrated) to UF4

Tricastin, ComurheX II plantTransformationfrom UF4 to UF6

Questions during instruction were about transports, ramp up CXII facility, uranium interim storage capacity

=> No identified difficulty for French Nuclear Cycle even when taking into account Orano’s foreign customers

La Hague T5

NU

Chemistry

GB II

UF6Depleted

(ta i l )

Tricast in W

Transformation UF6todepleted

U3O8 stable

Tricastin TU5

Transformation NU

to Reprocessing

U3O8 stable

Interim

storageTricast in

or Bessines

Interim

storageTricast in

Reactor with flamesCX II

Malvési site

10

Front end in France

Enrichment

Gaseous diffusion until 2013

GBII centrifugation facility put in production progressively between 2010-2016

With 7.5 M SWU (Separated Work Unit) production by year

Enrichment natural uranium: U5 from 0,7% to 3 to 5 %

French “Cycle Impact” approach

Questions during instruction were about transports, uranium interim storage

capacity

=> No identified difficulty for French Nuclear Cycle even when taking into

account Orano’s foreign customer

GB II

48Y Cylinders

GB II enrichment plant

11

Front end in France

Fuel Manufacture

Conversion UF6 to UO2 and manufacturing UOX fuel

assembly

Questions during instruction were about transports,

possibility to manufacture ERU (Enriched

Reprocessing Uranium) and decontamination of UF6

cylinders associated

=> No difficulty was identified

French “Cycle Impact” approach

Framatome Romans site

12

Back End

Reprocessing La Hague Plant

Questions during instruction were about external and on-site

internal transports, spent fuel pools level of occupancy, waste

interim storage management pending implementation CIGEO

project, Operation issues, for instance what is the consequences if

a factory was stopped ?

=> No difficulty was identified

French “Cycle Impact” approach

Plutonium 1% Uranium 95%Fission

products 4%

Metallic structure

13

Back End

MELOX

MELOX plant manufacture MOX Fuel to

recycle Pu

Questions during instruction were about

transport, the evolution of the Pu isotopic

and the consequences for operation and

particularly for Radiation Protection, scrap

management

=> No difficulty was identified

French “Cycle Impact” approachBox with gloves

MELOX Process

14

Logistics in France

Logistics services

For each material, there is a specific packaging

which is approved by ASN.

Questions during instruction were about the

anticipation of the renewal of approval, the rate of

availability of packaging according to the transport

flows and according to the packaging fleet.

=> No difficulty was identified

French “Cycle Impact” approach

TN12/2 Packaging

Spent Fuel

TN GEMINI™ Packaging

Alpha Waste

MX8 Packaging

Fresh MOX

FCC3 Packaging

Fresh Fuel

FS47 Packaging

PuO2

Tank UF4

LR65 Tank NU

Petrol Cask

Yellow Cake

DV 70 Packaging

Depleted Uranium

30B Cylinder 30B in a

shell COG-OP-30B

UF648Y Cylinder

UF6

HERMES-MERCURE on-site internal

transport For CSD-C

NAVETTE Packaging on-site internal

transport for CSD-V

TN112 Packaging

Spent MOX

15

Waste Management

CSA Centre de stockage de l’Aube (LLW disposal)

• Total capacity: 1,000,000m3;

• 316,000m3 emplaced between 1992 and 2016;

• A wide range of types of waste packages can be accommodated;

• Mass Activity Limits are defined per waste package and per disposal cell consistently withSafety Case;

• 750TBq max for alpha emitters;

• Annual consumption of radiologicalcapacity and volume are carefully monitored.

French “Cycle Impact” approach

16

Waste Management

Cigéo Project (HLW + ILW geological disposal)

• Clay layer investigated in Meuse/Haute-Marne URL allowing high containment in the verylong term;

• Reference inventory: around 10,000m3 vitrified HLW; around 70,000m3 ILW

• Reversibility: Incremental development; Adaptability to potential policy changes (direct disposal of some SF…); Retrievability; Participation in decision making etc.

• Public Debate 2013/2014; Application scheduled 2019

• Operation will start with a Pilot Industrial Phase

Meuse/Haute-Marne URL

Access Ramps

ILW Disposal

Area

Shafts

-500mU/G

Facilities

HLW Disposal

Area

2030

2050

2080

Closure… 2150

1km

HLW

ILW

French “Cycle Impact” approach

17French “Cycle Impact” approach

Conclusion

• This exercise:

• Next steps following this “Impact Cycle” file:

• Six-monthly meetings with ASN to follow the commitments and actions of the industrial stakeholders

• The preparation of the next exercise: scope, time frame, scenarios hypotheses in relation with the energy policy

Is an opportunity to: Has however some limits:

Create a global vision of the French fuel cycle challenges in a collaborative framework of the actors of the fuel cycle, IRSN

and ASN

Time frame: scenarios hypotheses defined in 2015 for a presentation in GP in 2018

Consolidate an overview of the future French cycle taking into account past experience and identify constraints/requirements

and potential bottlenecks

Some redundancies with other French regulatory exercises (PNGMDR…)

Collect the opinion of an expert group on this exercise which can be used by ASN to give its position

Facilitate communication between reactor operators, fuel cycle actors, regulators, waste management organization