DOCSLIB.ORG

Management of Reprocessed Uranium Current Status and Future Prospects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management of Reprocessed Uranium Current Status and Future Prospects IAEA-TECDOC-1529 Management of Reprocessed Uranium Current Status and Future Prospects February 2007 IAEA-TECDOC-1529 Management of Reprocessed Uranium Current Status and Future Prospects February 2007 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria MANAGEMENT OF REPROCESSED URANIUM IAEA, VIENNA, 2007 IAEA-TECDOC-1529 ISBN 92–0–114506–3 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2007 Printed by the IAEA in Austria February 2007 FOREWORD The International Atomic Energy Agency is giving continuous attention to the collection, analysis and exchange of information on issues of back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, an important part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Reprocessing of spent fuel arising from nuclear power production is one of the strategies for the back end of the fuel cycle. As a major fraction of spent fuel is made up of uranium, chemical reprocessing of spent fuel would leave behind large quantities of separated uranium which is designated as reprocessed uranium (RepU). Reprocessing of spent fuel could form a crucial part of future fuel cycle methodologies, which currently aim to separate and recover plutonium and minor actinides. The use of reprocessed uranium (RepU) and plutonium reduces the overall environmental impact of the entire fuel cycle. Environmental considerations will be important in determining the future growth of nuclear energy. It should be emphasized that the recycling of fissile materials not only reduces the toxicity and volumes of waste from the back end of the fuel cycle; it also reduces requirements for fresh milling and mill tailings. In comparison, the method of direct disposal of spent fuel premeditates creation of larger capacity repositories for permanent disposal. The issue of recycle and reuse of valuable material is important for the nuclear fuel cycle in the context of sustainable growth of the nuclear energy. Recognizing the importance of this subject, the International Atomic Energy Agency initiated the preparation of this report to review and summarize information available on the management of reprocessed uranium. Reprocessed uranium has a potential value for recycling either directly or after appropriate treatment. This report analyses the existing options, approaches and developments in the management of reprocessed uranium. It encompasses the technical issues involved in managing reprocessed uranium such as RepU arisings, storage, chemical conversion, re- enrichment, fuel fabrication, transport, reactor irradiation, subsequent reprocessing and disposal options. This TECDOC was result of the endeavours of the experts who attended the two working group meetings. In addition, there were additional contributions from other experts (listed at the end of the publication). The contributions of all who brought valuable help in drafting and reviewing the report (also listed at the end of this publication) are greatly appreciated. The IAEA wishes to express its gratitude to A. Max (Germany) for chairing the group of consultants and for his special efforts in drafting this publication. The IAEA officers responsible for this publication were H.P. Nawada and C. Ganguly of the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology. EDITORIAL NOTE The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2. TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF REPROCESSED URANIUM ....................... 3 2.1. Isotopic composition of RepU............................................................................ 3 2.1.1. Description of uranium isotopes............................................................. 5 2.1.2. Typical RepU isotopic composition for irradiated fuel .......................... 9 2.1.3. Impact of cooling and storage time of spent fuel on RepU isotopic composition........................................................................................... 13 2.1.4. U isotope composition of irradiated fuels (5 years cooled).................. 16 2.2. Chemical impurities.......................................................................................... 17 2.3. Chemical form of the RepU.............................................................................. 18 2.4. Chemical additions to the RepU product.......................................................... 19 3. REPROCESSED URANIUM PRODUCTION: PAST, CURRENT AND FUTURE......................................................................................................................... 19 3.1. How is reprocessed uranium produced?........................................................... 19 3.2. Reprocessing facilities: Past, present and future .............................................. 20 3.2.1. Belgium................................................................................................. 20 3.2.2. China..................................................................................................... 20 3.2.3. France.................................................................................................... 20 3.2.4. Germany................................................................................................ 21 3.2.5. India ...................................................................................................... 21 3.2.6. Italy ....................................................................................................... 22 3.2.7. Japan ..................................................................................................... 22 3.2.8. Russian Federation................................................................................ 24 3.2.9. United Kingdom ................................................................................... 25 3.2.10. United States of America...................................................................... 27 3.3. Inventories by countries and potential disposition path ................................... 27 3.4. Future spent fuel arising ................................................................................... 27 4. MANAGEMENT OF REPROCESSED URANIUM..................................................... 28 4.1. Management options and associated technical issues: Past, current status, and future trends ............................................................................................... 28 4.1.1. Storage .................................................................................................. 28 4.1.2. Recycling .............................................................................................. 28 4.2. Reactor management issues.............................................................................. 36 4.2.1. Experience with enriched RepU Fuel in LWRs.................................... 36 4.2.2. Selected reactor management issues for heavy water reactors ............. 40 4.2.3. Reactor management issues for RBMKs .............................................. 41 4.2.4. RepU from British Magnox reactors recycled into British AGRs........ 41 4.2.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 42 4.3. RepU management facilities by country .......................................................... 42 4.3.1. Germany................................................................................................ 42 4.3.2. France.................................................................................................... 42 4.3.3. Japan ..................................................................................................... 47 4.3.4 Kazakhstan............................................................................................ 48 4.3.5. Netherlands ........................................................................................... 48 4.3.6. Russian Federation................................................................................ 49 4.3.7. United Kingdom ................................................................................... 52 4.3.8. United States of America...................................................................... 52 4.4. Recycling programs by country........................................................................ 52 4.4.1. Belgium................................................................................................. 54 4.4.2. China..................................................................................................... 55 4.4.3. France.................................................................................................... 55 4.4.4. Germany................................................................................................ 57 4.4.5. India ...................................................................................................... 61 4.4.6. Japan ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Depleted Uranium Technical Brief
    Disclaimer - For assistance accessing this document or additional information,please contact [email protected]. Depleted Uranium Technical Brief United States Office of Air and Radiation EPA-402-R-06-011 Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 December 2006 Depleted Uranium Technical Brief EPA 402-R-06-011 December 2006 Project Officer Brian Littleton U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Radiation Protection Division ii iii FOREWARD The Depleted Uranium Technical Brief is designed to convey available information and knowledge about depleted uranium to EPA Remedial Project Managers, On-Scene Coordinators, contractors, and other Agency managers involved with the remediation of sites contaminated with this material. It addresses relative questions regarding the chemical and radiological health concerns involved with depleted uranium in the environment. This technical brief was developed to address the common misconception that depleted uranium represents only a radiological health hazard. It provides accepted data and references to additional sources for both the radiological and chemical characteristics, health risk as well as references for both the monitoring and measurement and applicable treatment techniques for depleted uranium. Please Note: This document has been changed from the original publication dated December 2006. This version corrects references in Appendix 1 that improperly identified the content of Appendix 3 and Appendix 4. The document also clarifies the content of Appendix 4. iv Acknowledgments This technical bulletin is based, in part, on an engineering bulletin that was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), with the assistance of Trinity Engineering Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Spent Fuel Reprocessing
    Spent Fuel Reprocessing Robert Jubin Oak Ridge National Laboratory Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is undertaken for several reasons. These include (1) recovery of the valuable fissile constituents (primarily 235U and plutonium) for subsequent reuse in recycle fuel; (2) reduction in the volume of high-level waste (HLW) that must be placed in a geologic repository; and (3) recovery of special isotopes. There are two broad approaches to reprocessing: aqueous and electrochemical. This portion of the course will only address the aqueous methods. Aqueous reprocessing involves the application of mechanical and chemical processing steps to separate, recover, purify, and convert the constituents in the used fuel for subsequent use or disposal. Other major support systems include chemical recycle and waste handling (solid, HLW, low-level liquid waste (LLLW), and gaseous waste). The primary steps are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Aqueous Reprocessing Block Diagram. Head-End Processes Mechanical Preparations The head end of a reprocessing plant is mechanically intensive. Fuel assemblies weighing ~0.5 MT must be moved from a storage facility, may undergo some degree of disassembly, and then be sheared or chopped and/or de-clad. The typical head-end process is shown in Figure 2. In the case of light water reactor (LWR) fuel assemblies, the end sections are removed and disposed of as waste. The fuel bundle containing the individual fuel pins can be further disassembled or sheared whole into segments that are suitable for subsequent processing. During shearing, some fraction of the radioactive gases and non- radioactive decay product gases will be released into the off-gas systems, which are designed to recover these and other emissions to meet regulatory release limits.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium 2001: Resources, Production and Demand
    A Joint Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency Uranium 2001: Resources, Production and Demand NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Reactors with Innovative Fuels
    Nuclear Science Advanced Reactors with Innovative Fuels Workshop Proceedings Villigen, Switzerland 21-23 October 1998 NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY OECD, 1999. Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE. All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction, lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material. All requests should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue AndrÂe-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. OECD PROCEEDINGS Proceedings of the Workshop on Advanced Reactors with Innovative Fuels hosted by Villigen, Switzerland 21-23 October 1998 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options
    Order Code RL34579 Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options July 11, 2008 Mark Holt Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options Summary Current U.S. nuclear energy policy focuses on the near-term construction of improved versions of existing nuclear power plants. All of today’s U.S. nuclear plants are light water reactors (LWRs), which are cooled by ordinary water. Under current policy, the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from LWRs is to be permanently disposed of in a deep underground repository. The Bush Administration is also promoting an aggressive U.S. effort to move beyond LWR technology into advanced reactors and fuel cycles. Specifically, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), under the Department of Energy (DOE) is developing advanced reprocessing (or recycling) technologies to extract plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel, as well as an advanced reactor that could fully destroy long-lived radioactive isotopes. DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative is developing other advanced reactor technologies that could be safer than LWRs and produce high-temperature heat to make hydrogen. DOE’s advanced nuclear technology programs date back to the early years of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1940s and 1950s. In particular, it was widely believed that breeder reactors — designed to produce maximum amounts of plutonium from natural uranium — would be necessary for providing sufficient fuel for a large commercial nuclear power industry. Early research was also conducted on a wide variety of other power reactor concepts, some of which are still under active consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy Data/Données Sur L'énergie Nucléaire 2017
    Nuclear Development Développement de l’énergie nucléaire 2017 Nuclear Energy Data Nuclear Energy Data D onnées sur l’énergie nucléaire 2017 2017 NEA Données sur l’énergie nucléaire Nuclear Development Développement de l’énergie nucléaire Nuclear Energy Data Données sur l’énergie nucléaire 2017 © OECD 2017 NEA No. 7365 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCE POUR L’ÉNERGIE NUCLÉAIRE ORGANISATION DE COOPÉRATION ET DE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUES STATLINKS This publication contains “StatLinks”. For each StatLink, the reader will find a URL which leads to the corresponding spreadsheet. These links work in the same way as an Internet link. Cette publication contient des « StatLinks ». Fonctionnant comme un lien internet, un StatLink fournit l’accès à la feuille de calcul correspondante. 2 NUCLEAR ENERGY DATA/DONNÉES SUR L’ÉNERGIE NUCLÉAIRE 2017, NEA No. 7365, © OECD 2017 OVERVIEW Overview The 2017 edition of Nuclear Energy Data contains official information provided by NEA and OECD member countries,1 including projections of total electrical and nuclear generating capacities along with fuel cycle requirements and capacities to 2035. Also included are short narrative country reports that give updates of the status, trends and issues in nuclear energy programmes. In 2016, nuclear power continued to supply significant amounts of low-carbon baseload electricity, despite strong competition from low-cost fossil fuels and subsidised renewable energy sources. Nuclear electricity generation Total electricity generation in NEA member countries declined slightly from 2015 to 2016 (1.5%) and electricity production at nuclear power plants (NPPs) decreased by 0.5% over the same period. In the OECD area, total electricity generation also declined from 2015 to 2016 (1.6%) and electricity production at nuclear power plants decreased by 0.6%.
    [Show full text]
  • Jsc "Techsnabexport" Annual Report 2011 Contents 1.6.2
    ENTERPRISE OF THE STATE ATOMIC ENERGY CORPORATION ROSATOM jsc "TechsnabexporT" annual report 2011 Contents 1.6.2. Factors influencing the business strategy of INFORMATION ABOUT THE RePORT JSC "TECHSNABEXPORT" 26 AND ITS PREPARATION 4 1.6.3. Key instruments for achieving the strategic objectives of STATEMENT FROM JSC "TECHSNABEXPORT" JSC "TECHSNABEXPORT" 27 TOP MANAGEMENT 6 1.7. ANALYTICAL SUPPORT OF THE STATE ATOMIC ENERGY JSC "TECHSNABEXPORT" KEY CORPORATION ROSATOM PROJECTS 28 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 7 1.7.1. Development of international cooperation 28 KeY EVENTS OF THE rEPORTING PERIOD 8 1.7.2. Improving legislation and formation of modern international legal framework of cooperation 29 1. General information 10 1.7.3. Participation in international nuclear industry organisations 31 " " 1.1. INFORMATION ON 2. jSC TechsnabexporT management system 32 JSC "TECHSNABEXPORT" 12 1.1.1. Information on charter capital 12 2.1. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE 34 1.1.2. Information on shareholders 12 2.2. CORPORATE MANAGEMENT 36 1.1.3. Information on the auditor and registrar 12 2.2.1. Description of the corporate management system 36 1.1.4. Information on subsidiaries and affiliates as 2.2.2. Documents regulating the corporate management system 36 of 31 December 2011 13 2.2.3. Dividends 37 1.1.5. JSC "TECHSNABEXPORT" membership 2.2.4. Members of the Board of Directors 37 in professional organisations 2.2.5. Functions of the Board of Directors 40 and associations 13 2.2.6. Audit Commission members 40 1.1.6. Background 14 2.2.7. Functions of the Audit Commission and the Internal control and audit department 41 1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • JSC Techsnabexport
    I would like to bring to your kind attention the Public Annual Report 2012 Information on JSC Techsnabexport of JSC Techsnabexport, one of the oldest Russian foreign trade organizations, which celebrates its 50th anniversary in the year of publication of this Report. is fact was certainly taken into consideration while preparing the Report, that provides detailed Name of the Company in Russian Открытое внешнеэкономическое акционерное общество information on the Company’s operating and nancial performance for the year under «Техснабэкспорт» review and in a three-year period as well as the scope and geography of the Company’s business in a retrospective review. Name of the Company in English Joint Stock Company Techsnabexport Address by the Chairman of the Board of Directors JSC Techsnabexport Location and postal address 28, bldg 3 Ozerkovskaya nab., Moscow, 115184, Russia » PAGE 9 Corporate website http://www.tenex.ru E-mail [email protected] Telephone +7 (499) 949-2683, +7 (495) 545-0045 Annual Report Fax +7 (495) 951-1790, +7 (495) 953-0820 Primary State Registration Number 1027700018290, registered on 11 July 2002 with the Department of the Ministry of Taxes and Levies of Russia for Moscow JSC Techsnabexport 2012 License for Handling Nuclear Materials During No. GN-05-401-1638 of 16.03.2007 Transportation » PAGE 14 Subsidiaries and associates of JSC Techsnabexport Russian S&A Ownership (%) JSC SPb IZOTOP 100 JSC NPK Khimpromengineering 52,00533 JSC TENEX-Logistika 100 LLC Kraun 99,9998 LLC TENEX-Komplekt 99,9999 Foreign S&A Ownership (%) Internexco GmbH, Germany 100 TENEX-Korea Co., Ltd., Republic of Korea 100 TENEX-Japan Co., Japan 100 Tradewill Limited, UK 100 TENAM Corporation, USA 100 Information on the Report and Results of Activities in the Performance its Preparation Reporting Period Management Annual Report 2012 » PAGE 15 » PAGE 4 » PAGE 44 » PAGE 58 Annual Report JSC Techsnabexport 2012 Approved by the resolution of the sole shareholder on 28.06.2013 Preliminarily approved by the Board of Directors on 28.05.2013 General Director L.M.
    [Show full text]
  • MOX Fuel Program: Current Plans and Controversy
    MOX Fuel Program: Current Plans and Controversy The Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility at Savannah River, South Carolina is intended to manufacture nuclear fuel from surplus weapons-grade plutonium for use in commercial nuclear energy reactors. However, the project has faced serious delays and massive cost overruns – and currently has no customers for its proposed fuel. As a result, the President’s FY17 Budget Proposal requests $270 million to begin closing the project, while diluting the plutonium for transfer to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, a more cost-efficient option. What Is It? The MOX facility at Savannah River was designed to repurpose 3.5 tonnes of surplus weapons-grade plutonium yearly. This facility was intended to play a key role in the United States’ fulfillment of the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) between Russia and the U.S., which affirms each country’s commitment to dispose of 34 metric tonnes of plutonium, enough collectively for 17,000 nuclear weapons. Challenges: The MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility’s anticipated date of operation was 2007, with plutonium disposition set to end in 2020. Multiple delays in construction led to significant cost overruns, with beginning operations delayed until 2019. Initially valued at $2.898 billion (2016 dollars), the total cost of the project skyrocketed to $15.683 billion as a result of construction delays and program mismanagement. This estimate, however, assumes a steady rate of funding, and fluctuations in funding levels could exacerbate delays and cost overruns. Even if completed, the site currently boasts zero customers for MOX fuel.
    [Show full text]
  • Endless Trouble: Britain's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
    Endless Trouble Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) Martin Forwood, Gordon MacKerron and William Walker Research Report No. 19 International Panel on Fissile Materials Endless Trouble: Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) © 2019 International Panel on Fissile Materials This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License To view a copy of this license, visit ww.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 On the cover: the world map shows in highlight the United Kingdom, site of THORP Dedication For Martin Forwood (1940–2019) Distinguished colleague and dear friend Table of Contents About the IPFM 1 Introduction 2 THORP: An Operational History 4 THORP: A Political History 11 THORP: A Chronology 1974 to 2018 21 Endnotes 26 About the authors 29 About the IPFM The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) was founded in January 2006 and is an independent group of arms control and nonproliferation experts from both nuclear- weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states. The mission of the IPFM is to analyze the technical basis for practical and achievable pol- icy initiatives to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. These fissile materials are the key ingredients in nuclear weapons, and their control is critical to achieving nuclear disarmament, to halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to ensuring that terrorists do not acquire nuclear weapons. Both military and civilian stocks of fissile materials have to be addressed. The nuclear- weapon states still have enough fissile materials in their weapon stockpiles for tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. On the civilian side, enough plutonium has been sepa- rated to make a similarly large number of weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Background, Status and Issues Related to the Regulation of Advanced Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities
    NUREG-1909 Background, Status, and Issues Related to the Regulation of Advanced Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities ACNW&M White Paper Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials NUREG-1909 Background, Status, and Issues Related to the Regulation of Advanced Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities ACNW&M White Paper Manuscript Completed: May 2008 Date Published: June 2008 Prepared by A.G. Croff, R.G. Wymer, L.L. Tavlarides, J.H. Flack, H.G. Larson Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY ii ABSTRACT In February 2006, the Commission directed the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) to remain abreast of developments in the area of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, and to be ready to provide advice should the need arise. A white paper was prepared in response to that direction and focuses on three major areas: (1) historical approaches to development, design, and operation of spent nuclear fuel recycle facilities, (2) recent advances in spent nuclear fuel recycle technologies, and (3) technical and regulatory issues that will need to be addressed if advanced spent nuclear fuel recycle is to be implemented. This white paper was sent to the Commission by the ACNW&M as an attachment to a letter dated October 11, 2007 (ML072840119). In addition to being useful to the ACNW&M in advising the Commission, the authors believe that the white paper could be useful to a broad audience, including the NRC staff, the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, and other organizations interested in understanding the nuclear fuel cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B Differences Between Thermal and Radiation Properties of Mixed Oxide and Low-Enriched Uranium Radioactive Materials
    APPENDIX B DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THERMAL AND RADIATION PROPERTIES OF MIXED OXIDE AND LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS The contents considered in this Standard Review Plan (SRP) appendix are unirradiated mixed oxide (MOX) radioactive material (RAM), in the form of powder, pellets, fresh fuel rods, or fresh reactor fuel assemblies. Unirradiated MOX RAM will also be referred to in this appendix as MOX fresh fuel. This appendix summarizes the relative degree of differences between the thermal and radiation properties of the various MOX RAM contents relative to similar properties for analogous low-enriched uranium (LEU) RAM contents. MOX fresh fuel can be made with plutonium having various compositions of plutonium isotopes. The discussion in this appendix makes use of the 3013 Standard (DOE 2012), which specifies the typical grades of plutonium that are used to make the MOX fresh fuel. The actual plutonium compositions found in practice may not match these compositions exactly, but these grades can be considered typical for the purposes of this appendix. Table B–6 of the 3013 Standard gives weight percents for various plutonium isotopes in various grades of plutonium. They are reproduced in the following table (Table B–1) as representative values for typical grades of plutonium that might be used to fabricate MOX fresh fuel. Pure plutonium-239 has been included to contrast the effect of the other plutonium isotopes. Note that in addition to the isotopes identified in Table B–1, plutonium will contain plutonium-236 and americium-241 (from plutonium-241 decay). Initially, it is expected that MOX fresh fuel will be fabricated using weapons grade (WG) plutonium.
    [Show full text]