Assessment results in the INPRO area of infrastructure

INPRO has defined one basic principle (BP) in this area calling for a limitation of the effort necessary for establishing (and maintaining) an adequate infrastructure in a country that intends to install (or maintain) a nuclear energy system. This should be achieved by regional and international arrangements that should be made available to such countries. The corresponding INPRO user requirements (UR) have been specified to ensure that the various factors that need to be taken into account have been evaluated. The UR recognize the need for establishing and maintaining a national legal framework including international obligations, the need to define the necessary industrial and economic infrastructure for a nuclear power program, the need to lay out the appropriate measures to secure public acceptance, and the need to address the availability of adequate human resources. Contrary to all other INPRO areas that, in general, require the designer/developer of a nuclear energy system to perform some activities, in the area of infrastructure the INPRO requirements are directed primarily to the government, the operator of a nuclear facility, and to national industry.

4.2.1. Assessment of infrastructure in the Argentine study

Argentina has had a well established national nuclear infrastructure for a long time. The assessor [2] applied the INPRO methodology to check the adequacy of the national infrastructure with regard to the planned increase of nuclear power (see Section 3.1).

All INPRO criteria of user requirement UR1 (legal and institutional framework) and UR2 (industrial and economic infrastructure) were found to be completely fulfilled. During assessment of infrastructure UR3 (public acceptance) the need for continued and even increased effort was emphasized to maintain public acceptance especially by public information. There are, however, programs initiated to address the issue of communication with the public. In regard to UR4 (human resources) the assessor indicated the need for improvement of the perceived prospects for a professional career in the nuclear field, something that should be achievable in time.

4.2.2. Assessment of infrastructure in the Armenian study

The assessor [3] looked at all INPRO requirements in this area and concluded that the existing and being developed infrastructure is adequate to handle the planned nuclear power program (see Section 3.2) of replacing the existing unit by a larger unit around 2025 and that it covers the associated nuclear waste facilities.

4.2.3. Assessment of infrastructure in the Ukrainian study

The assessor evaluated in a first step all options of the three components of the national nuclear energy system, i.e. the front end, the power generation part and the backend of the nuclear fuel cycle (NFC).

Assessment of infrastructure of the front end of the NFC

Three types of facilities of the front end were assessed in detail using the INPRO methodology: uranium mining/milling, and fuel fabrication starting from imported enriched UF₆ or from imported pellets. Of these three facilities the mining/milling facility (extraction and processing of U-ore) fulfilled 85% of all INPRO criteria. The national facilities for fuel fabrication fulfilled only about 38% and 46% of all INPRO criteria, the better one being the fuel element fabrication facility working with imported pellets (fuel assembly fabrication).

The main gaps in fulfilling the INPRO requirements for the two fuel fabrication facilities were found in the area of availability of financing (UR2), policy of information to the public to achieve and maintain public acceptance (UR3), and the availability of personnel to operate these new facilities (UR4). For the mining and milling facilities some gaps in the area of public information and public participation (UR3) were acknowledged. An overview of the assessment results of these three national nuclear facilities for each INPRO user requirement is shown in the following Figure 4.2.

The assessment results of these facilities were combined into the three options of the front end of the fuel cycle with the maturity level of infrastructure for each facility taken into account.

Front End Option-1 (includes fuel fabrication starting from imported enriched UF₆) achieves the lowest score in regard to infrastructure, followed by the Front End Option-2 (includes fuel fabrication with imported pellets). Front End Option-3 (fuel leasing) becomes by far the best option, but again due to the treatment of facilities located outside the country, namely assuming highest possible maturity and complete fulfillment of all INPRO requirements for non national facilities.

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

UR1

UR2

UR3 UR4

extraction and processing of U-ore fuel pellets fabrication

fuel assemblies fabrication

Figure 4.2. Normalized results of the assessment of infrastructure of the front end facilities of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system.

Assessment of infrastructure of the power generation

All four types of reactors considered in the Ukrainian study, i.e. WWER-1000/V-392B, WWER-1000/AES2006, EPR and AP1000 were assessed using the INPRO methodology. The highest total score was achieved for the WWER-1000/V-392B reactor (about 85% of all INPRO criteria fulfilled), followed by WWER-1000/AES2006 (69%) and finally the EPR and the AP1000 with an identical score of 53%. Primarily, non agreements with INPRO criteria were identified for all designs in the area of financing and cost benefit analyses (UR2), and for EPR and AP1000 especially in the area of the support structure needed (UR2) and the availability of human resources for operation (UR4) as shown in the following Figure 4.3.

Taking into account the maturity level of these designs (0.6 for the AES2006, and 0.8 for all the others) and combining the four reactor types into the two options of a reactor fleet in the Ukrainian nuclear energy system (Generation 1 with AP1000, and Generation Option-2 with AESOption-2006 instead) no significant differences between the two options were identified.

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

1UR1

UR2

UR3 UR4

V392B

AES-2006 (NPP-2006) EPR-1500

AP1000

Figure 4.3. Normalized results of the assessment of infrastructure of the reactors considered for the future Ukrainian nuclear energy system.

Assessment of infrastructure of the back end of the NFC

The following elements of the back end of the fuel cycle were assessed separately: storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in three different types of containers, i.e. VCC (ventilated concrete cask), CASTOR and Holtec; and storage of high level waste (HLW) either in containers or in a near surface storage facility. The highest possible score (100%) was achieved for the VCC type container (for storage of SNF) and of the two systems considered for interim storage of HLW, the container system showed a higher score. Thus, for further evaluation, only the superior container option were taken into account. The CASTOR container primarily failed to fulfill INPRO criteria for financing, cost benefit studies (UR2), public information and acceptance (UR3); both CASTOR and Holtec failed in regard to safety culture (UR4). The near surface facility failed to fulfill INPRO criteria for establishment of knowledgeable government organizations (UR1) and for financing (UR2). For transportation of SNF or HLW the same score was assumed of fulfilling the infrastructure requirements as for storage of HLW. An overview of the assessment results of the elements of the back end for each INPRO user requirement is shown in the following Figure 4.4.

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

UR1

UR2

UR3 UR4

SNF storage VCC SNF storage CASTOR SNF storage HOLTEC HLW container storage HLW nearsurface storage

Figure 4.4. Normalized results of assessment of the infrastructure of the elements of the backend of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system.

For the defined four options (see Section 3.10) of the back end the following elements were considered: interim storage of SNF in the country (using the VCC container), reprocessing of SNF outside the country (with the highest possible score), interim storage of HLW in the country (using the container system), and transportation of SNF or HLW. Both Back End Option-1 (open fuel cycle) and 3 (fuel leasing) scored the best results, followed by Back End Option-2 (50 year storage of SNF in the country before transportation abroad for reprocessing) and finally Back End Option-4 (50 year storage of HLW in the country before disposal). The assessment result is influenced by the chosen maturity level of the facilities, i.e.

the highest level of maturity is assigned to reprocessing abroad.

Assessment of infrastructure of the variants of a complete Ukrainian nuclear energy system As outlined in Section 3.10, the different options of the front end, the power generation part and the back end of the Ukrainian fuel cycle were combined to fourteen variants of a possible future nuclear energy system in the Ukraine. The aggregated results for these variants are shown in the following Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5. Aggregated results of the infrastructure assessment of the 14 variants of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system [9].

As in the other INPRO areas for infrastructure the variants No.13 and 14 (both include fuel leasing) achieved the highest score. This is caused primarily by the treatment of facilities not located in the country, i.e. assigning the highest possible score to such facilities.

To illustrate the influence of taking into account directly the maturity level of elements of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system the following Figure 4.6 is presented.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

fe1 fe2 fe3 ge1 ge2 be1 be2 be3 be4

choices on the parts of INS

scores

net score score X maturity

front end choices

energy generation

choices

back end choices

Figure 4.6. Overview of assessment results of the Ukrainian nuclear energy system with and without consideration of the maturity level. (fe1=Front End Option-1, ge1=Generation Option-1, be1=Back End Option-1).

Variant of INS

4.2.4. Assessment of infrastructure for fast reactors with a closed fuel cycle in the Joint Study

The participating eight countries of the Joint Study [6], i.e. Canada, China, France, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and Ukraine all have a well established nuclear power program based on thermal reactors and some operate (or will operate soon) prototypes of fast reactors. To successfully operate their nuclear power programs each country has had an adequate infrastructure in place for a long time.

Six of these countries, i.e. China, France, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation performed an INPRO assessment of their national infrastructure using the INPRO methodology to check its adequacy also for operating a nuclear energy system with FR and CNFC. Each INPRO criteria was evaluated and full agreement with the acceptance limits was confirmed.

Nevertheless, infrastructure is a critical issue for a nuclear energy system with FR and a CNFC. The survey of the Joint Study has shown complementarity of national conditions that creates prerequisites for mutually beneficial long term collaboration. No single country, taken separately, disposes of the full set of factors favoring development of CNFC a and FR such as high energy demand, high level of nuclear technology and infrastructure maturity, high resources of nuclear fuel, etc. The Joint Study came to the conclusion that the assessed technology is most suitable for realization within a regional or multilateral approach. Such an approach will assure the availability of the corresponding front and backend of fuel cycle services to technology holder as well as to technology user countries within a global nuclear architecture.