DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix a of Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Lev

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix a of Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Lev Appendix A Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A. Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials ................................................................................................................................. A-1 A.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Inventory Data Summary .................................................................................................... A-2 A.1.1.1 Sources ......................................................................................................................... A-2 A.1.1.2 Present Storage and Generation Status ........................................................................ A-4 A.1.1.3 Final Waste Form ......................................................................................................... A-6 A.1.1.4 Waste Characteristics ................................................................................................... A-6 A.1.1.4.1 Mass and Volume ................................................................................................. A-6 A.1.1.4.2 Radionuclide Inventories ...................................................................................... A-8 A.1.1.4.3 Chemical Composition ......................................................................................... A-9 A.1.1.4.4 Thermal Output .................................................................................................... A-9 A.1.1.4.5 Canister Data ...................................................................................................... A-10 A.2 Materials................................................................................................................................. A-11 A.2.1 Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel ....................................................................................... A-11 A.2.1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ A-11 A.2.1.2 Sources ....................................................................................................................... A-11 A.2.1.3 Present Status ............................................................................................................. A-11 A.2.1.4 Final Spent Nuclear Fuel Form .................................................................................. A-13 A.2.1.5 Spent Nuclear Fuel Characteristics ............................................................................ A-13 A.2.1.5.1 Mass and Volume ............................................................................................... A-14 A.2.1.5.2 Amount and Nature of Radioactivity ................................................................. A-14 A.2.1.5.3 Chemical Composition ....................................................................................... A-20 A.2.1.5.4 Thermal Output .................................................................................................. A-20 A.2.1.5.5 Physical Parameters ............................................................................................ A-21 A.2.2 DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel ................................................................................................... A-21 A.2.2.1 Background ................................................................................................................ A-21 A.2.2.2 Sources ....................................................................................................................... A-25 A.2.2.3 Present Storage and Generation Status ...................................................................... A-26 A.2.2.4 Final Spent Nuclear Fuel Form .................................................................................. A-27 A.2.2.5 Spent Nuclear Fuel Characteristics ............................................................................ A-28 A.2.2.5.1 Mass and Volume ............................................................................................... A-28 A.2.2.5.2 Amount and Nature of Radioactivity ................................................................. A-28 A.2.2.5.3 Chemical Composition ....................................................................................... A-28 A.2.2.5.4 Thermal Output .................................................................................................. A-33 A.2.2.5.5 Quantity of Spent Nuclear Fuel Per Canister ..................................................... A-33 A.2.2.5.6 Spent Nuclear Fuel Canister Parameters ............................................................ A-33 A.2.3 High-Level Radioactive Waste.......................................................................................... A-36 A.2.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................ A-36 A.2.3.2 Sources ....................................................................................................................... A-37 A.2.3.2.1 Hanford Site........................................................................................................ A-37 A.2.3.2.2 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory ............................. A-38 A.2.3.2.3 Savannah River Site ........................................................................................... A-38 A.2.3.2.4 West Valley Demonstration Project.................................................................... A-38 A.2.3.3 Present Status ............................................................................................................. A-38 A-iii Inventory and Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Other Materials Section Page A.2.3.3.1 Hanford Site........................................................................................................ A-38 A.2.3.3.2 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory ............................. A-38 A.2.3.3.3 Savannah River Site ........................................................................................... A-39 A.2.3.3.4 West Valley Demonstration Project.................................................................... A-39 A.2.3.4 Final Waste Form ....................................................................................................... A-39 A.2.3.5 Waste Characteristics ................................................................................................. A-39 A.2.3.5.1 Mass and Volume ............................................................................................... A-39 A.2.3.5.2 Amount and Nature of Radioactivity ................................................................. A-40 A.2.3.5.3 Chemical Composition ....................................................................................... A-43 A.2.3.5.4 Thermal Output .................................................................................................. A-46 A.2.3.5.5 Quantity of Waste Per Canister .......................................................................... A-48 A.2.3.5.6 High-Level Radioactive Waste Canister Parameters .......................................... A-48 A.2.3.5.7 Nonstandard Packages ........................................................................................ A-49 A.2.4 Surplus Weapons-Usable Plutonium ................................................................................. A-50 A.2.4.1 Background ................................................................................................................ A-50 A.2.4.2 Sources ....................................................................................................................... A-51 A.2.4.3 Present Storage and Generation Status ...................................................................... A-51 A.2.4.4 Final Waste Form ....................................................................................................... A-51 A.2.4.5 Material Characteristics ............................................................................................. A-51 A.2.4.5.1 Mixed-Oxide Fuel .............................................................................................. A-51 A.2.4.5.2 Immobilized Plutonium ...................................................................................... A-53 A.2.5 Commercial Greater-Than-Class-C Low-Level Waste ..................................................... A-57 A.2.5.1 Background ................................................................................................................ A-57 A.2.5.2 Sources ....................................................................................................................... A-58 A.2.5.3 Present Status ............................................................................................................. A-58 A.2.5.4 Final Waste Form ....................................................................................................... A-59 A.2.5.5 Waste Characteristics ................................................................................................. A-59 A.2.6
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Materials and Fuels Testing Techniques in the Advanced Test Reactor – from Simple to Complex
    Materials and Fuels Testing Techniques in the Advanced Test Reactor – From Simple to Complex Raymond V. Furstenau 1), Frederick W. Ingram 2), John E. Brasier 2), Mark B. Hendrickson 2) 1) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy, USA 2) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, USA ABSTRACT The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) is the third generation of test reactors built at the Test Reactor Area (TRA), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), to study the effects of intense neutron and gamma radiation on reactor materials and fuels. ATR has a maximum power of 250MW and can provide maximum thermal neutron fluxes of 1E15 neutrons per square centimeter per second. This allows considerable acceleration of accumulated neutron fluence to materials and fuels over what would be seen in a typical power reactor. Since power operation of the ATR began in 1969, numerous testing methods have been developed to take advantage of the capabilities of the ATR. The wide range of experiment facilities in the ATR and the unique ability to vary the neutron flux in different areas of the core allow numerous experiment conditions to co-exist during the same reactor operating cycle. Simple experiments may involve a non- instrumented sealed capsule containing test specimens with no real-time monitoring and control capabilities. The Irradiation Test Vehicle, installed in 1999, is the newest testing apparatus in the ATR that accommodates up to fifteen separate tests, each with its own temperature control and monitoring capabilities as well as neutron spectral tailoring capability. More sophisticated testing facilities include pressurized water loops that have continuous chemistry, pressure, temperature, and flow control as well as numerous test specimen monitoring capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site
    PNNL-13909 Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site A Ten-Year Trend Report 1991 Through 2000 B. G. Fritz G. W. Patton May 2002 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 This document was printed on recycled paper. (8/00) PNNL-13909 Radionuclide Concentrations in Air on the Hanford Site A Ten-Year Trend Report 1991 through 2000 B. G. Fritz G. W. Patton May 2002 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Summary This report describes the air pathway effects of Hanford Site operations from 1991 through 2000 on local air quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation
    Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues that Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation Technical Issues That Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste A Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy September 2019 This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Jean M. Bahr, Ph.D., Chair University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Steven M. Becker, Ph.D. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia Susan L. Brantley, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania Allen G. Croff, Nuclear Engineer, M.B.A. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Efi Foufoula-Georgiou, Ph.D. University of California Irvine, Irvine, California Tissa Illangasekare, Ph.D., P.E. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado Kenneth Lee Peddicord, Ph.D., P.E. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Paul J. Turinsky, Ph.D. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Mary Lou Zoback, Ph.D. Stanford University, Stanford, California Note: Dr. Linda Nozick of Cornell University served as a Board member from July 28, 2011, to May 9, 2019. During that time, Dr. Nozick provided valuable contributions to this report. iii This page intentionally left blank. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Staff Executive Staff Nigel Mote Executive Director Neysa Slater-Chandler Director of Administration Senior Professional Staff* Bret W.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural and Dynamical Trends in Alkali-Metal
    Article pubs.acs.org/JPCC Structural and Dynamical Trends in Alkali-Metal Silanides Characterized by Neutron-Scattering Methods † ‡ † § ∥ † ∥ Wan Si Tang,*, , Mirjana Dimitrievska,*, , Jean-Noel̈ Chotard, Wei Zhou, Raphael̈ Janot, ⊥ † Alexander V. Skripov, and Terrence J. Udovic † NIST Center for Neutron Research, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-6102, United States ‡ Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742-2115, United States § National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado 80401, United States ∥ Laboratoire de Reactivité ́et Chimie des Solides (LRCS), UMR 7314 CNRS, Universitéde Picardie Jules Verne, 33 rue Saint-Leu, 80039 Amiens Cedex, France ⊥ Institute of Metal Physics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg 620990, Russia *S Supporting Information ABSTRACT: Structural, vibrational, and dynamical properties of the mono- and mixed-alkali silanides (MSiH3, where M = K, Rb, Cs, K0.5Rb0.5,K0.5Cs0.5, and Rb0.5Cs0.5) were investigated by various neutron experiments, including neutron powder diffraction (NPD), neutron vibrational spectroscopy (NVS), neutron- scattering fixed-window scans (FWSs), and quasielastic neutron scattering (QENS) measurements. Structural characterization showed that the mixed compounds exhibit disordered (α) and ordered (β) phases for temperatures above and below about 200− 250 K, respectively, in agreement with their monoalkali correspondents. Vibrational and dynamical properties are strongly influenced by the cation environment; in particular, there is a red shift in the band energies of the librational and bending modes with increasing lattice size as a result of changes in the bond lengths and force constants. Additionally, slightly broader spectral features are observed in the case of the mixed compounds, indicating the presence of structural disorder caused by the random distribution of the alkali-metal cations within the lattice.
    [Show full text]
  • Doping Effects on Transition-Metal Silicides: Crystal Structures and Physical Properties of Aluminium Doped Rhenium Silicide
    BearWorks MSU Graduate Theses Summer 2020 Doping Effects on Transition-Metal Silicides: Crystal Structures and Physical Properties of Aluminium Doped Rhenium Silicide Victoria DeCocq Missouri State University, [email protected] As with any intellectual project, the content and views expressed in this thesis may be considered objectionable by some readers. However, this student-scholar’s work has been judged to have academic value by the student’s thesis committee members trained in the discipline. The content and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student-scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. Follow this and additional works at: https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the Inorganic Chemistry Commons, and the Materials Chemistry Commons Recommended Citation DeCocq, Victoria, "Doping Effects on Transition-Metal Silicides: Crystal Structures and Physical Properties of Aluminium Doped Rhenium Silicide" (2020). MSU Graduate Theses. 3563. https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3563 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The work contained in it may be protected by copyright and require permission of the copyright holder for reuse or redistribution. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOPING EFFECTS ON TRANSITION-METAL SILICIDES: CRYSTAL STRUCTURES AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF ALUMINIUM DOPED RHENIUM SILICIDE A Master’s Thesis
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Reactor and Small Modular Reactor Licensing
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is managed and operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy. PNNL Points of Contact: Tara O’Neil Nuclear Regulatory Sub-Sector Manager [email protected] (541) 738-0362 PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL Bruce McDowell Advanced Reactors Program Manager [email protected] LABORATORY’S EXPERIENCE IN (509) 375-6668 ADVANCED REACTOR AND nuclearenergy.pnnl.gov PNNL-SA-138133 | September 2018 SMALL MODULAR REACTOR LICENSING INFRASTRUCTURE or more than 30 years, • Supported the development of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) High Priority Regulatory Topical the Nuclear Regulatory Reports related to NGNP Licensing (see SECY-10- 0034, Potential Policy, Licensing, And Key Technical Commission has reached Issues for Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Designs). out to Pacific Northwest National • Provided recommendations to NRC on modifications F of health physics codes for SMRs, and to update the Laboratory at critical stages of Gaseous And Liquid Effluent (GALE) codes. nuclear plant design for assistance • Supported development of American Nuclear Society (ANS) 53.1 Nuclear Safety Criteria and Safety Design in developing and applying new Process for Modular Helium-Cooled Reactor Plants, and ASME/ANS S1.4, Standard for Probabilistic Risk standards for safety reviews of Assessment for Advanced Non-Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants. new plant designs. • Prepared “High Temperature Gas Reactors: Assessment of Applicable Codes and Standards” (PNNL-20869, October 2011) in support of NRC’s Advanced
    [Show full text]
  • Fast-Spectrum Reactors Technology Assessment
    Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 4: Advancing Clean Electric Power Technologies Technology Assessments Advanced Plant Technologies Biopower Clean Power Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Value- Added Options Carbon Dioxide Capture for Natural Gas and Industrial Applications Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies Carbon Dioxide Storage Technologies Crosscutting Technologies in Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Fast-spectrum Reactors Geothermal Power High Temperature Reactors Hybrid Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems Hydropower Light Water Reactors Marine and Hydrokinetic Power Nuclear Fuel Cycles Solar Power Stationary Fuel Cells U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Brayton Cycle ENERGY Wind Power Clean Power Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Fast-spectrum Reactors Chapter 4: Technology Assessments Background and Current Status From the initial conception of nuclear energy, it was recognized that full realization of the energy content of uranium would require the development of fast reactors with associated nuclear fuel cycles.1 Thus, fast reactor technology was a key focus in early nuclear programs in the United States and abroad, with the first usable nuclear electricity generated by a fast reactor—Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I)—in 1951. Test and/or demonstration reactors were built and operated in the United States, France, Japan, United Kingdom, Russia, India, Germany, and China—totaling about 20 reactors with 400 operating years to date. These previous reactors and current projects are summarized in Table 4.H.1.2 Currently operating test reactors include BOR-60 (Russia), Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) (India), and China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) (China). The Russian BN-600 demonstration reactor has been operating as a power reactor since 1980.
    [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]
  • When Sex Offenders Leave Prison
    BECOMING SCROOGE AT HALE THEATRE UTES ESCAPE TO WIN 8TH 1 MAN’S 48-YEAR STRAIGHT AGAINST BYU JOURNEY TO STAR COUGARS JUMP OUT TO 20-POINT AS THE MISER IN ‘A LEAD BUT CAN’T HOLD OFF UTAH’S CHRISTMAS CAROL’ 2ND-HALF SURGE ARTS C1 SPORTS D1 SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2018 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH DESERETNEWS.COM When sex Unlocking science offenders in Idaho leave prison MOST AREN’TINCARCERATED FOR LIFE;WHAT UTAHIS DOING TO KEEPYOU SAFE BY PAT REAVY · DESERET NEWS UTAH STATE PRISON — The sex offender population at the Utah State Prison continues to grow at a staggering pace. In 1996, there were 248 sex offenders incarcerated by the Utah Department of Corrections. To - day, there are 10 times that num- ber, in the neighborhood of 2,500 at both the Point of the Mountain and the prison in Gunnison, mak- ing it by far the fastest-growing population at the prison. An additional 2,200 sex offend- ers are under the watch of Adult Probation and Parole. A Pew study in 2014 found that 31 percent of all inmates in Utah were serving time for a sex offense — far more than in 2004. KORT DUCE, IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY According to a Utah Sentencing Rows of concentrated solar arrays dot the landscape at Tooele Army Depot in the military’s quest to become more Commission report, the percent- self-sustaining from the traditional power grid. The Idaho National Laboratory works with the military in this endeavor. age of inmates in prison for sex offenses grew to nearly 34 percent in 2016 to over 35 percent in WHY UTAHNS SHOULD CARE ABOUT MYSTERIES Idaho National Laboratory WILLNUCLEAR POWERPOWER 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    United States Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory ICERR Description 1. General Presentation of Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has established a designation for an International Centre based on Research Reactors (ICERR). The intention of this designation is to provide a vehicle for IAEA member-states to access international research reactor and ancillary nuclear research and development infrastructure. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has made a commitment to world leadership in the development of advanced nuclear energy, science, and technology. To this end, DOE has established programs and initiatives to enhance this leadership role. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL), along with its partner laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is leading these initiatives for DOE. Both INL and ORNL have a decades-long and storied history that supports nuclear research, development, and deployment both nationally and internationally. Both have a history of safe and efficient nuclear operations and have a demonstrated a track record of international collaboration and cooperation. 2. Short descriptions of facilities included in the U.S. ICERR designation INL’s Advanced Test Reactor (ATR): The Advanced Test Reactor supports nuclear science and engineering missions for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy research and development programs, Naval Reactors, universities, as well as other government and industry- sponsored commercial and international research. It is the only U.S. research reactor capable of providing large-volume, high-flux neutron irradiation in a prototypical (e.g. pressure, temperature and chemistry) environment. ATR makes it possible to study the effects of intense neutron and gamma radiation on reactor fuels and materials in a much shorter time frame, permitting accelerated research efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Oxide Aerosol Transport in Porous Graphite
    PNNL-21014 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Uranium Oxide Aerosol Transport in Porous Graphite J Blanchard C Brown DC Gerlach C Lovin RD Scheele CH Delegard ML Stewart A Zelenyuk BD Reid EC Buck PA Gauglitz BJ Riley LM Bagaasen CA Burns January 2012 PNNL-XXXXX PNNL-21014 Uranium Oxide Aerosol Transport in Porous Graphite J Blanchard C Brown DC Gerlach C Lovin RD Scheele CH Delegard ML Stewart A Zelenyuk BD Reid EC Buck PA Gauglitz BJ Riley LM Bagaasen CA Burns January 2012 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 PNNL-21014 Summary Conditions exist in carbon dioxide (CO2) gas-cooled, graphite moderated reactors that might allow for gaseous transport of uranium oxide (UO2) particles into the graphite moderator. The transport of UO2 in the reactor coolant system, and subsequent deposition of this material in the graphite, is of interest due to the potential to influence the application of the Graphite Isotope Ratio Method (GIRM). GIRM was developed to validate the declared operation of graphite moderated reactors. Uranium impurities in nuclear grade graphite are one of several possible indicator elements that can be used for a GIRM assessment. During fuel failures, uranium metal in the fuel is exposed to the CO2 coolant and oxidizes as either UO2 or U3O8. Measurements in adjacent fuel channels indicate that CO2 coolant readily flows through the porous graphite moderator blocks. Therefore, the potential exists for the coolant gas to transport UO2 particles, as an aerosol, into the porous graphite, thereby invalidating uranium as an indicator element.
    [Show full text]
  • Beryllium – a Unique Material in Nuclear Applications
    INEEL/CON-04-01869 PREPRINT Beryllium – A Unique Material In Nuclear Applications T. A. Tomberlin November 15, 2004 36th International SAMPE Technical Conference This is a preprint of a paper intended for publication in a journal or proceedings. Since changes may be made before publication, this preprint should not be cited or reproduced without permission of the author. This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the U.S. Government or the sponsoring agency. BERYLLIUM – A UNIQUE MATERIAL IN NUCLEAR APPLICATIONS T. A. Tomberlin Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory P.O. Box 1625 2525 North Fremont Ave. Idaho Falls, ID 83415 E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Beryllium, due to its unique combination of structural, chemical, atomic number, and neutron absorption cross section characteristics, has been used successfully as a neutron reflector for three generations of nuclear test reactors at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), the largest test reactor in the world, has utilized five successive beryllium neutron reflectors and is scheduled for continued operation with a sixth beryllium reflector.
    [Show full text]