DOCSLIB.ORG

The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cov-Safety Nuclear FuelCyc 3588 10/10/05 16:04 Page 1 Nuclear Safety The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY Nuclear Safety The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Third edition © OECD 2005 NEA No. 3588 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. * * * This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when Japan became its first non-European full member. NEA membership today consists of 28 OECD member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities also takes part in the work of the Agency. The mission of the NEA is: to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development. Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field. © OECD 2005 No reproduction, copy, transmission or translation of this publication may be made without written permission. Applications should be sent to OECD Publishing: [email protected] or by fax (+33-1) 45 24 13 91. Permission to photocopy a portion of this work should be addressed to the Centre Français d’exploitation du droit de Copie, 20 rue des Grands Augustins, 75006 Paris, France ([email protected]). FOREWORD The present edition of The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle has been prepared by the Working Group on Operating Experience (WGOE) Subgroup on Fuel Cycle Safety (FCS) under the auspices of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI). The main mission of WGOE/FCS is to advance the understanding of licensing systems, safety philosophy and safety standards for nuclear fuel cycle facilities in NEA member countries. In pursuing this goal, the group exchanges information, identifies critical safety issues and indicates areas where further research or analysis is needed, while periodically reviewing and prioritising fuel cycle safety issues. The original publication was issued in 1981. Member countries undertook to revise and update the report and a new edition was published in 1993. The current edition represents the most up-to-date analysis of the safety aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, and replaces the two previous editions. DISCLAIMER: The reader is cautioned that should there be any discrepancies between the English and French versions of this publication, the English takes precedence as the original text. The NEA Secretariat wishes to acknowledge the specific services of Dr. Denwood Ross and Mr. Jacques Simonnet who, as expert consultants, provided much of the in-depth technical analysis provided throughout the report as well as many hours of their time editing and compiling the final report. The following WGOE/FCS members also provided meaningful input to various chapters of the report as well as their valuable time at meetings to review and improve the overall contents of the report: Jean-Paul Minon, ONDRAF/NIRAS, Belgium Jafir Jaferi, CNSC, Canada Dorothée Conte, DGSNR, France Gérard Fraize, IRSN, France Sachio Fujine, JAERI, Japan Masashi Kanamori, JNC, Japan Shingo Matsuoka, JNFL, Japan Yoshinori Ueda, JNES, Japan Martin Gaffney, BNFL, United Kingdom Peter Watson, NII, United Kingdom Robert Pierson, NRC, United States The experts listed below kindly made various written contributions, provided comments and assisted in the final edition of the report: Henri Drymael, AVN, Belgium Barclay Howden, CNSC, Canada Rick McCabe, CNSC, Canada Josef Belac, NRI, Czech Republic 3 Henri Pailleux, COGEMA, France Vincent Pertuis, DGSNR, France Jean-Luc Voitellier, MELOX, France Valéry Ziegler, retired, France Karl Gelpke, BfS, Germany Wolf-Juergen Weber, GRS, Germany Fancesco P. Michetti, APAT, Italy Hiroshi Tsuboi, NISA, Japan Young-Woo Lee, KAERI, Korea Consuelo Alejano Monge, CSN, Spain Jose Manuel Conde Lopez, CSN, Spain Andrew Buchan, BNFL, United Kingdom John Nobbs, BNFL, United Kingdom Guy Owen, UKAEA, United Kingdom Vanice Perin, NRC, United States Pierre Nocture, Observer, IAEA This report represents the views of the task force and does not necessarily reflect those of the OECD or its member countries. It is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ 3 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 10 List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. 12 Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................ 13 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 13 2. Executive summary.......................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 2. THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ............................................................................. 19 1. Nuclear fuel cycle activities............................................................................................. 19 2. Status of the various fuel cycle segments ........................................................................ 22 2.1 Uranium mining and milling.................................................................................. 22 2.2 Uranium refining and conversion.......................................................................... 26 2.3 Enrichment............................................................................................................. 29 2.4 Fuel manufacture................................................................................................... 32 2.5 Spent fuel storage................................................................................................... 39 2.6 Spent fuel reprocessing.......................................................................................... 40 2.7 Radioactive waste management............................................................................. 48 2.8 On-site interim storage of waste............................................................................ 52 2.9 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 56 2.10 Decommissioning................................................................................................... 57 3. References.......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • View Annual Report
    The Future is Nuclear 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Bridging the Gene Producing affordable, clean energy while achieving a sustainable balance between increasing electricity demand and environmental stewardship – this is the promise and potential of a future powered by nuclear energy. It’s why a new generation is opting for nuclear as a reliable and secure energy choice. Cameco is poised and ready to support the new generation. We are a company with the expertise and capacity to deliver the benefits of nuclear energy – starting right now. As the world’s largest uranium producer, Cameco already provides about 20% of global uranium production from the richest mines on the planet. We are also expanding our production by developing two new mines. The company is looking ration Gap to the long-term nuclear future, seeking new reserves OUR PROFILE through a global exploration program with emphasis Cameco, with its head office in in North America and Australia. In nuclear fuel Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, is the production, Cameco has 38% of the western world’s world’s largest uranium producer UF6 conversion capacity, and provides conversion as well as a significant supplier of services and fuel fabrication for Candu reactors. conversion services. The company’s Power production rounds out Cameco’s nuclear competitive position is based on its focus, with 1,000 MW of nuclear power in Ontario. controlling ownership of the world’s largest high-grade reserves and low- A new generation, attentive to the wisdom of cost operations. Cameco’s uranium scientists, environmentalists and consumers, products are used to generate clean understands the future is nuclear.
    [Show full text]
  • 1, 2002, Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, Arlington, Virginia
    Minutes for the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee Meeting September 30 to October 1, 2002, Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, Arlington, Virginia NERAC members present: John Ahearne Dale Klein (Monday only) Thomas Cochran Robert Long Joseph Comfort Warren F. Miller, Jr. Michael Corradini Sekazi Mtingwa Jose Luis Cortez Richard Reba (Monday only) Maureen Crandall (Monday afternoon Joy Rempe and Tuesday only) Allen Sessoms Allen Croff Daniel Sullivan James Duderstadt (Chair) John Taylor Marvin Fertel (Monday only) Neil Todreas Beverly Hartline Joan Woodard (Monday only) Andrew Klein NERAC members absent: Steve Fetter Lura Powell Leslie Hartz C. Bruce Tarter J. Bennett Johnston Ashok Thadani (ad hoc) Linda C. Knight Charles E. Till Benjamin F. Montoya Also present: Ralph Bennett, Director for Advanced Nuclear Energy, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory David Berg, Office of Environmental Management, DOE Nancy Carder, NERAC Staff Herbert Feinroth, President, Gamma Engineering Corp. John Gutteridge, University Programs, NE, USDOE Norton Haberman, Senior Technical Advisor, NE, USDOE Anthony Hechanova, Director, AAA University Participation Program, University of Nevada at Las Vegas R. Shane Johnson, Associate Director, Office of Technology and International Cooperation, NE, USDOE Silvia Jurisson, Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri, Columbia Owen Lowe, Associate Director, Office of Isotopes for Medicine and Science, NE, USDOE William Magwood, Director, NE, USDOE William Martin, Washington Policy Institute
    [Show full text]
  • Overview on RRSF Reprocessing, from Spent Fuel Transportation to Vitrified Residues Storage
    TH RERTR 2015 – 36 INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON REDUCED ENRICHMENT FOR RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS OCTOBER 11‐14, 2015 THE PLAZA HOTEL SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA Overview on RRSF reprocessing, from spent fuel transportation to vitrified residues storage J.F. VALERY, X. DOMINGO, P. LANDAU AREVA NC, 1 place Jean Millier, 92084 Paris La Défense Cedex – France M. LAUNEY, P. DESCHAMPS, C. PECHARD AREVA NC La Hague, 50440 Beaumont-Hague – France V. LALOY, M. KALIFA AREVA TN, 1 Rue des Hérons, 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux – France ABSTRACT AREVA has long experience in transportation and industrial-scale reprocessing of RR UAl spent fuel. Over 23 tons of RR UAl type fuels have been reprocessed at AREVA’s facilities in France, both in Marcoule and La Hague plants. Furthermore, More than 100 RR fuels transportations per year are carried out by AREVA (for fresh and spent fuels). Benefiting from its past experience, AREVA proposes to detail in pictures all the stages of a (Research Reactor Spent Fuel) RRSF reprocessing from its evacuation from reactor site to its corresponding post- reprocessing vitrified waste production and management. In order to comply with its customers growing needs in terms of RRSF management, AREVA is also developing new RRSF reprocessing capacities in the La Hague UP2-800 facility based on the same process principles. This new TCP facility is planned to reprocess several types of RRSF including both UAl and U3Si2 RRSF. 1. Introduction Reprocessing is one of the today-available options for managing back-end of Research Reactor fuel cycle. As described in figure 1 below, this solution offers to RR: - Non-proliferation: reducing 235U enrichment of RRSF from 20-93% to below 2%, - Final waste management optimization: standardizing final waste package and reducing volume and radio-toxicity, removing IAEA safeguards on final waste, - Sustainability of RRSF back-end management: long-lasting solution, re-use of valuable material for civilian purposes i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • + 2020 Annual Information Form
    Denison Mines Corp. 2020 Annual Information Form March 26, 2021 ABOUT THIS ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM This annual information form (“AIF”) is dated March 26, Table of Contents 2021. Unless stated otherwise, all of the information in this AIF is stated as at December 31, 2020. About this AIF .................................... 1 About Denison ................................... 6 This AIF has been prepared in accordance with Canadian Developments over the Last Three securities laws and contains information regarding Years ................................................. 8 Denison’s history, business, mineral reserves and The Uranium Industry ........................ 17 resources, the regulatory environment in which Denison Mineral Resources and Reserves 24 does business, the risks that Denison faces and other Mineral Properties ............................. 27 important information for Shareholders. Athabasca Exploration: Sampling, Analysis and Data Verification ........... 102 This AIF incorporates by reference: Denison Operations ........................... 107 Manager of UPC ................................ 111 Denison’s management discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) for the year ended December 31, 2020, Denison Closed Mines Group ........... 112 Environmental, Health, Safety and Denison’s audited consolidated financial Sustainability Matters ........................ 112 statements for the year ended December 31, 2020, Government Regulation .................... 114 Risk Factors ...................................... 120 both of which
    [Show full text]
  • Ceramic Mineral Waste-Forms for Nuclear Waste Immobilization
    materials Review Ceramic Mineral Waste-Forms for Nuclear Waste Immobilization Albina I. Orlova 1 and Michael I. Ojovan 2,3,* 1 Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, 23 Gagarina av., 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation 2 Department of Radiochemistry, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia 3 Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 31 May 2019; Accepted: 12 August 2019; Published: 19 August 2019 Abstract: Crystalline ceramics are intensively investigated as effective materials in various nuclear energy applications, such as inert matrix and accident tolerant fuels and nuclear waste immobilization. This paper presents an analysis of the current status of work in this field of material sciences. We have considered inorganic materials characterized by different structures, including simple oxides with fluorite structure, complex oxides (pyrochlore, murataite, zirconolite, perovskite, hollandite, garnet, crichtonite, freudenbergite, and P-pollucite), simple silicates (zircon/thorite/coffinite, titanite (sphen), britholite), framework silicates (zeolite, pollucite, nepheline /leucite, sodalite, cancrinite, micas structures), phosphates (monazite, xenotime, apatite, kosnarite (NZP), langbeinite, thorium phosphate diphosphate, struvite, meta-ankoleite), and aluminates with a magnetoplumbite structure. These materials can contain in their composition various cations in different combinations and ratios: Li–Cs, Tl, Ag, Be–Ba, Pb, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Cd, B, Al, Fe, Ga, Sc, Cr, V, Sb, Nb, Ta, La, Ce, rare-earth elements (REEs), Si, Ti, Zr, Hf, Sn, Bi, Nb, Th, U, Np, Pu, Am and Cm. They can be prepared in the form of powders, including nano-powders, as well as in form of monolith (bulk) ceramics.
    [Show full text]
  • 20170828-Jason-Cameron-Nuclear-Infrastructure-Council-Eng.Pdf
    THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION PRESENTATION TO THE USNIC TRADE MISSION TO CANADA Jason Cameron, Vice-President Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission nuclearsafety.gc.ca August 28, 2017 – Ottawa, Ontario Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission • Regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment • Implements Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy • Disseminates objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public Canada’s nuclear watchdog We will never compromise safety! Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 2 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission • Established in May 2000, under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act • Replaced the Atomic Energy and Control Board (AECB) under the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act More than 70 years of ensuring nuclear safety Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 3 CNSC Regulates All Nuclear-Related Facilities and Activities • Uranium mines and mills • Uranium fuel fabrication and processing • Nuclear power plants • Nuclear substance processing • Industrial and medical applications • Nuclear research and educational activities • Transportation of nuclear substances • Nuclear security and safeguards • Export/import control • Waste management facilities …From cradle to grave Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 4 Independent Commission • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Government of Canada (the Crown) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part-time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • All presentations, including staff’s, are public • Decisions can only be reviewed by Federal Court Transparent, science-based decision-making Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 5 Our Commission Members Dr. Michael Binder President and Chief Executive Officer, CNSC (Term expires May 8, 2018) Dr.
    [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]
  • Presentation to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities
    CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION nuclearsafety.gc.ca Michael Binder President and Chief Executive Officer Presentation to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities February 21, 2018 – Ottawa, Ontario nuclearsafety.gc.ca eDOCS: 5437640 The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Our Mandate Regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, and security and the environment Implements Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy Disseminates objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public We will never compromise safety 2 nuclearsafety.gc.ca The CNSC Regulates All Nuclear Facilities And Activities In Canada Uranium mines and mills Nuclear research and educational activities Uranium fuel fabrication and processing Transportation of nuclear substances Nuclear power plants Nuclear security and safeguards Nuclear substance processing Import and export controls Industrial and medical applications Waste management facilities 3 nuclearsafety.gc.ca CNSC Staff Located Across Canada Fiscal year 2017–18 Human resources: 857 full-time equivalents Financial resources: $148 million (~70% cost recovery; ~30% appropriation) Licensees: 1,700 Licences: 2,500 Headquarters (HQ) in Ottawa 4 site offices at power plants Saskatoon Calgary 1 site office at Chalk River 4 regional offices Chalk River HQ Point Lepreau Laval Bruce Darlington Mississauga Pickering 4 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Independent Commission • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Crown (duty to consult) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part-time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • Staff presentations in public • Decisions are reviewable by Federal Court Transparent, science-based decision making 5 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Commission Members Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Base Load Electricity in Ontario
    [Type text] Canadian Energy Research Institute Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Base Load Electricity Generation in Ontario Seyed Jazayeri Paul Kralovic Afshin Honarvar Abbas Naini Jon Rozhon Rami Shabaneh Thorn Walden Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Association October 2008 Relevant • Independent • Objective COMPARATIVE LIFE CYLE ASESSMENT (LCA) OF BASE LOAD ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN ONTARIO ii Canadian Energy Research Institute v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................IX LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................XI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................XIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. XV ES1.1 Background .........................................................................................................xv ES1.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................xv ES1.3 Methodology........................................................................................................xv ES1.4 The Process LCA ................................................................................................. xvi ES2 Power Generation in Canada ................................................................................ xvi ES3
    [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]
  • Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries
    Mycle Schneider Consulting Independent Analysis on Energy and Nuclear Policy 45, allée des deux cèdres Tél: 01 69 83 23 79 91210 Draveil (Paris) Fax: 01 69 40 98 75 France e-mail: [email protected] Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Paris, May 2009 This research was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org) V5 About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2000 he has been an advisor to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Since 2004 he has also been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes, France. In 2007 he was appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University, USA (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 Mycle Schneider was part of a consultants’ consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he was appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Mycle Schneider has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK and at the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrialization of a Small Sludge Retrieval System
    WM'05 Conference, February 27-March 3, 2005, Tucson, AZ WM - 5220 THE REPROCESSING PLANT OF THE FUTURE : A SINGLE EXTRACTION CYCLE P. Bretault, P. Houdin SGN, 1 rue des Hérons, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, 78 182 Saint Quentin-en-Yvelines, France JL. Emin COGEMA, 2 rue Paul Dautier, BP 4, 78141 Velizy-Villacoublay, Cedex, France P. Baron CEA Marcoule, BP 171, 30207 Bagnols-sur-Ceze, France ABSTRACT In France, COGEMA has been reprocessing spent nuclear fuel on an industrial scale for over 40 years, and has consistently worked to optimize facility design and operations. In COGEMA-La Hague’s UP3 reprocessing plant, to achieve the necessary decontamination needed to produce purified uranium and plutonium, five extraction cycles were implemented and used at start-up: first cycle for separation of fission products, uranium and plutonium, two uranium purification cycles and two plutonium purification cycle. By modifying processes at the design stage and making adjustments during operations, we saw that further decontamination of uranium could be achieved with only one cycle. Radiological specification of plutonium was also obtained at the end of the first plutonium purification cycle. These good performance levels were taken into account for the design of the UP2-800 plant where uranium is purified using a single cycle, and for the recent R4 facility which features only one plutonium purification cycle. Relevant information on extraction cycles in first-generation French reprocessing plants (UP1 and UP2-400) as well as design characteristics for the extraction cycles of reprocessing facilities currently operating at the COGEMA-La Hague plant is given. Experience shows that we can obtain adequate performance levels using only three cycles.
    [Show full text]