DOCSLIB.ORG

REGULATION of ADVANCED SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 16 RECYCLE FACILITIES 17 18 19 20 ACNW&M White Paper 21 22 23 24 25 26 Prepared by 27 28 A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REGULATION of ADVANCED SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 16 RECYCLE FACILITIES 17 18 19 20 ACNW&M White Paper 21 22 23 24 25 26 Prepared by 27 28 A DRAFT REPORT FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW i 1 2 3 4 5 EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 BACKGROUND, STATUS, AND ISSUES RELATED TO THE 15 REGULATION OF ADVANCED SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 16 RECYCLE FACILITIES 17 18 19 20 ACNW&M White Paper 21 22 23 24 25 26 Prepared by 27 28 A. G. Croff, R .G. Wymer, H. J. Larson, L. T. Tavlarides, J. H. Flack 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 June 26, 2007 37 DRAFT REPORT FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW ii 38 39 CONTENTS 40 41 42 LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................... viii 43 44 SUMMARY................................................................. xi 45 46 I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................1 47 48 II. RECYCLE FACILITY FEEDSTOCK: SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL DESIGNS........3 49 A. Overview of generic fuel cycles.......................................3 50 1. Uranium-Plutonium Fuel Cycle.................................3 51 2. Thorium-Uranium Fuel Cycle..................................3 52 B. Fuel Designs......................................................3 53 1. PWR......................................................3 54 2. BWR .....................................................5 55 3. Fast Reactor ................................................7 56 a. Oxide...............................................7 57 b. Carbide..............................................7 58 c. U/Pu/Zr .............................................8 59 d. Nitride ..............................................8 60 4. HTGR....................................................10 61 5. Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) ...................................10 62 63 III. OVERVIEW OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RECYCLE ........................11 64 A. Reprocessing Programs and Evaluations...............................11 65 1. U.S. Defense ..............................................11 66 a. Reprocessing for Weapons Plutonium Recovery.............11 67 i. Bismuth Phosphate Process.......................12 68 ii. Redox (Hexone)................................12 69 iii. PUREX ......................................12 70 b. U.S. Naval Fuel Reprocessing...........................23 71 2. U.S. Commercial...........................................23 72 a. Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS - West Valley Plant) ...........23 73 b. GE Morris, Il Plant ...................................23 74 c. Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant ...........................24 75 3. International...............................................24 76 a. France..............................................26 77 b. United Kingdom......................................27 78 c. Japan ..............................................27 79 d. Russia..............................................27 80 e. India...............................................28 81 f. China ..............................................28 82 g. South Korea.........................................28 83 4. Consolidated Fuel Reprocessing Program........................29 84 5. International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) ..............29 85 a. Content of the Study ..................................30 86 b. Principle Conclusions .................................30 87 B. Refabrication ....................................................30 88 1. Fuel Refabrication Technology ................................30 89 2. MOX Fuel Fabrication Facilities ...............................33 DRAFT REPORT FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW iii 90 3. HTGR Fuel Fabrication......................................34 91 92 IV. RECYCLE FACILITY SITING AND DESIGN ...............................41 93 A. Site selection ....................................................41 94 B. Design and Construction ...........................................42 95 1. Design ...................................................42 96 2. Construction...............................................44 97 3. Equipment Modules .........................................49 98 a. Spent Fuel Receiving And Storage .......................49 99 b. Main Process Cells....................................49 100 c. Waste Solidification Plant..............................51 101 d. Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Plant ...................51 102 e. Plutonium Product Facility .............................51 103 f. Auxiliary Process Systems and Service Areas ...............52 104 i. Ventilation System ..............................52 105 ii. Electrical Power................................52 106 iii. Fire Protection System ...........................53 107 iv. Hot and Cold Laboratory Area.....................53 108 g. Control Room Area...................................53 109 h. Liquid Waste Storage Areas ............................53 110 i. Solid Waste Storage...................................56 111 4. Criticality Control Factors ....................................56 112 a. Physical and chemical nature............................56 113 b. Mass...............................................56 114 c. Purity..............................................56 115 d. Geometry...........................................56 116 C. Operator Licensing and Training.....................................56 117 1. Experience at NFS..........................................57 118 2. Experience at the MFRP .....................................58 119 3. Experience at BNFP.........................................58 120 4. Typical Reprocessing Plant Operator Training Program.............59 121 D. Needed Improvements.............................................59 122 1. Improved Processes.........................................59 123 2. Improved Equipment........................................60 124 3. Security and Safeguards......................................60 125 4. Detectors .................................................60 126 5. Material Accountability ......................................61 127 128 V. OVERVIEW OF ADVANCE SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RECYCLE INITIATIVES . 64 129 A. Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) ................................64 130 1. Separations................................................64 131 2. Fuels.....................................................64 132 3. Transmutation .............................................65 133 4. University Programs ........................................65 134 a. University Nuclear Infrastructure (UNI) ...................65 135 b. Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) Grants .....66 136 c. Other University Support Activities ......................66 137 B. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership...................................67 138 1. GNEP Goals...............................................67 139 2. GNEP Timetable – phased approach............................68 140 C. Russian “Equivalent” Proposal (Global Nuclear Infrastructure - GNI) ........68 141 D. Generation IV Nuclear Reactors .....................................69 DRAFT REPORT FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW iv 142 E. Nuclear Power 2010 ...............................................69 143 144 VI. ADVANCED FUEL REPROCESSING TECHNOLOGY .......................71 145 A. UREX Processes .................................................72 146 1. Description of the UREX +1a Flowsheet ........................79 147 a. Head End...........................................79 148 b. Central Unit Operations................................81 149 2. Assumptions for modeling the UREX +1a flowsheet...............82 150 a. Off-gas stream .......................................83 151 b. Technetium stream....................................83 152 c. Uranium product stream ...............................83 153 d. Solvent waste streams .................................84 154 e. Fission products stream ................................84 155 f. 137Cs/90Sr stream......................................84 156 g. Actinide Stream......................................84 157 3. Quantitative Discussion of UREX +1a Waste and Product Streams ....84 158 a. Volatiles in Waste ....................................86 159 b. Cladding + Tc .......................................86 160 c. Uranium Product .....................................86 161 d. TRU Product ........................................86 162 e. Cs/Sr Waste.........................................87 163 f. Fission Product Waste .................................87 164 4. Potentially Toxic and Reactive Materials ........................87 165 B. Pyroprocessing...................................................88 166 C. Reprocessing HTGR Fuels..........................................92 167 1. Flowsheets................................................92 168 2. Unusual Plant Features ......................................93 169 3. Reprocessing Wastes........................................93 170 D. French Proposals .................................................93 171 172 VII. ADVANCED FUEL REFABRICATION ....................................95 173 174 VIII. REGULATION AND LICENSING OF FUEL RECYCLE FACILITIES ...........96 175 A. Licensing – An historical perspective .................................96 176 1. Licensing experience at Nuclear Fuel Services....................96 177 2. Licensing experience at Barnwell ..............................96 178 B. Current licensing process and alternatives..............................97 179 1. Modify 10 CFR Part 50......................................97 180 2. Use 10 CFR Part 70.........................................98 181 3. License under 10 CFR Part 53 .................................98 182 4. Develop a new rule 10 CFR Part XX...........................99 183 5. Commission Order..........................................99
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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • A Review of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategies and the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Technologies
    energies Review A Review of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategies and the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Technologies Laura Rodríguez-Penalonga * ID and B. Yolanda Moratilla Soria ID Cátedra Rafael Mariño de Nuevas Tecnologías Energéticas, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 28015 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-91-542-2800 (ext. 2481) Received: 19 June 2017; Accepted: 6 August 2017; Published: 21 August 2017 Abstract: Nuclear power has been questioned almost since its beginnings and one of the major issues concerning its social acceptability around the world is nuclear waste management. In recent years, these issues have led to a rise in public opposition in some countries and, thus, nuclear energy has been facing even more challenges. However, continuous efforts in R&D (research and development) are resulting in new spent nuclear fuel (SNF) management technologies that might be the pathway towards helping the environment and the sustainability of nuclear energy. Thus, reprocessing and recycling of SNF could be one of the key points to improve the social acceptability of nuclear energy. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to review the state of the nuclear waste management technologies, its evolution through time and the future advanced techniques that are currently under research, in order to obtain a global vision of the nuclear fuel cycle strategies available, their advantages and disadvantages, and their expected evolution in the future. Keywords: nuclear energy; nuclear waste management; reprocessing; recycling 1. Introduction Nuclear energy is a mature technology that has been developing and improving since its beginnings in the 1940s. However, the fear of nuclear power has always existed and, for the last two decades, there has been a general discussion around the world about the future of nuclear power [1,2].
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Feedback Ventional Enriched FA
    Background › Starting in 2009, Framatome has been supplying Size- › Totally Framatome has delivered more than 1000 FAs to well B* with fuel assemblies (FAs) with Enriched Re- Sizewell B, approximately half of them containing ERU. processed Uranium (ERU). The enrichment process of the reprocessed uranium is completed in Russia with an objective of minimizing even › Reprocessed uranium is understood as a secondary uranium isotopes such as 232U and 236U. The even isoto- uranium supply pes do not contribute to fi ssion; they are considered – by direct enrichment services to be an absorber and therefore, their presence needs to be minimized, which improves overall fuel utilization. – by blending with other feed material of a higher The low residual fraction of these parasitic isotopes is enrichment compensated by having slightly higher enrichment of 235U – by a combination of both to achieve equivalent reactivity to conventional enriched Enriched uranium.1,2 Reprocessed Uranium Neutronic Design › T he neutronic design of ERU FAs is designed for having the same reactivity characteristic as the equivalent con- Operational Feedback ventional enriched FA. This is achieved by the compen- sation of the 236U and other isotopes content through higher 235U enrichment (see fi g. 1 and 2). › Figure 2 shows the kinf versus the FA burn up of up to 80 MWd/kgU. Since the kinf values are very similar for ENU (enriched natural uranium) and ERU (enriched re- Fig. 2 Fig. 1 k comparison of ENU and ERU fuel versus processed uranium) fuel, the delta is shown as well in inf 235U compensation burn up – for neutronic FA design, upper the lower section.
    [Show full text]
  • Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel
    Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen independent consultant member of the Nuclear Consulting Group November 2019 [email protected] Note In this document the references are coded by Q-numbers (e.g. Q6). Each reference has a unique number in this coding system, which is consistently used throughout all publications by the author. In the list at the back of the document the references are sorted by Q-number. The resulting sequence is not necessarily the same order in which the references appear in the text. reprocessing20191107 1 Contents Roots of reprocessing Once-through and closed-cycle systems Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel Reprocessing and the Second Law Separation Purification Reprocessed uranium Plutonium Neptunium-237 Americium MOX fuel in LWRs Destruction of HEU and Pu: burning the Cold War legacy Uranium-plutonium breeder systems Reprocessing of FBR fuel Thorium for fission power Uranium-233 Molten-salt reactor Partitioning and transmutation Nuclear terrorism Vitrification Discharges Entropy generation by reprocessing Concluding notes References TABLES Table 1 Reprocessing plants world-wide Table 2 Discharges of radionuclides in the liquid and gaseous effluents of a reprocessing plant Table 3 Discharge limits of reprocessing plants to the sea Table 4 Discharge limits of reprocessing plants at La Hague FIGURES Figure 1 Mass composition of fresh and spent nuclear fuel Figure 2 Mass flows of reprocessing Figure 3 Outline of plutonium recycling in LWRs Figure 4 Outline of uranium-plutonium breeder cycle Figure 5 Principle of a partitioning and transmutation system Figure 6 Redistribution of the radioactive contents of spent fuel by reprocessing Figure 7 Symbolic representation of the entropy production by reprocessing reprocessing20191107 2 Roots of reprocessing Reprocessing technology has been developed during the late 1940s and during the Cold War to recover plutonium from spent fuel from special military reactors for the production of nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • IAEA Nuclear Energy Series Use of Reprocessed Uranium
    IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-4.4 Basic Use of Reprocessed Principles Uranium: Challenges and Options Objectives Guides Technical Reports INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA ISBN 978–92–0–106409–7 ISSN 1995–7807 P1411_cover.indd 1 2009-12-23 09:13:14 IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation. Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more detailed, information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series. The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows: NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive waste management and decommissioning.
    [Show full text]
  • Curium in Space
    ROBIN JOHANSSON Curium in Space KTH Royal Institute of Technology Master Thesis 2013-05-05 Abstract New technology has shown the possibility to use a miniature satellite in conjunction with an electric driven engine to make a spiral trajectory into space from a low earth orbit. This report has done an investigation of the new technique to produce power sources replacing solar panels which cannot be used in missions out in deep space. It is in essence an alternative use of curium among the many proposals on how to handle the intermediate stored used nuclear fuel or once through nuclear fuel as some people prefer to call it. The idea of sending radioactive used nuclear fuel into outer space has been considered before. There was a proposal, for example, to load a space shuttle with radioactive material. This could have serious consequences to the nearby population in the event of a major malfunction to the shuttle. The improvement to this old idea is to use a small satellite with only a fraction of the spent fuel. With this method and other technological advances, it is possible to further reduce the risk of contamination in the event of a crash. This report has looked into the nuclear energy production of Sweden and the current production of transuranium elements (Pu, Np, Am and Cm). The report has also focused on the curium (Cm) part of the transuranium elements, which is the most difficult to recycle in a fast neutron spectra. The physical property of curium reduces many of the safety parameters in the reactor as it is easily transmutated into californium, which is a high neutron emitter.
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2011 the Following States Are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency
    Atoms for Peace Atoms for Peace 11-17411_NTR_cover.indd 1 2011-09-05 15:14:02 NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 2011 The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN GHANA NORWAY ALBANIA GREECE OMAN ALGERIA GUATEMALA PAKISTAN ANGOLA HAITI PALAU ARGENTINA HOLY SEE PANAMA ARMENIA HONDURAS PARAGUAY AUSTRALIA HUNGARY PERU AUSTRIA ICELAND PHILIPPINES AZERBAIJAN INDIA POLAND BAHRAIN INDONESIA PORTUGAL BANGLADESH IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF QATAR BELARUS IRAQ REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA BELGIUM IRELAND ROMANIA BELIZE ISRAEL RUSSIAN FEDERATION BENIN ITALY BOLIVIA JAMAICA SAUDI ARABIA BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA JAPAN SENEGAL BOTSWANA JORDAN SERBIA BRAZIL KAZAKHSTAN SEYCHELLES BULGARIA KENYA SIERRA LEONE BURKINA FASO KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE BURUNDI KUWAIT SLOVAKIA CAMBODIA KYRGYZSTAN SLOVENIA CAMEROON LATVIA SOUTH AFRICA CANADA LEBANON SPAIN CENTRAL AFRICAN LESOTHO SRI LANKA REPUBLIC LIBERIA SUDAN CHAD LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA SWEDEN CHILE LIECHTENSTEIN SWITZERLAND CHINA LITHUANIA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC COLOMBIA LUXEMBOURG TAJIKISTAN CONGO MADAGASCAR THAILAND COSTA RICA MALAWI THE FORMER YUGOSLAV CÔTE D’IVOIRE MALAYSIA REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA CROATIA MALI TUNISIA CUBA MALTA TURKEY CYPRUS MARSHALL ISLANDS UGANDA CZECH REPUBLIC MAURITANIA UKRAINE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC MAURITIUS UNITED ARAB EMIRATES OF THE CONGO MEXICO DENMARK MONACO UNITED KINGDOM OF DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONGOLIA GREAT BRITAIN AND ECUADOR MONTENEGRO NORTHERN IRELAND EGYPT MOROCCO UNITED REPUBLIC EL SALVADOR MOZAMBIQUE OF TANZANIA ERITREA MYANMAR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ESTONIA NAMIBIA URUGUAY ETHIOPIA NEPAL UZBEKISTAN FINLAND NETHERLANDS VENEZUELA FRANCE NEW ZEALAND VIETNAM GABON NICARAGUA YEMEN GEORGIA NIGER ZAMBIA GERMANY NIGERIA ZIMBABWE The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957.
    [Show full text]
  • Isotopic Denaturing of Iran's 5% UF6 Stockpile with Reprocessed
    A Crazy idea? Isotopic Denaturing of Iran’s 5% UF6 Stockpile with Reprocessed Uranium. Dalnoki-Veress, PhD March 5 2015 ABSTRACT The most challenging problem in the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 is dealing with the scope of the enrichment program envisaged by Iran. Iran has stated that it requires enough enrichment capacity to be able to provide fuel for the Bushehr reactor requiring at least 100,000 SWU/year, which is an order of magnitude more capacity than Iran currently has installed. However, the P5+1 are likely to insist on an annual production limit a factor of 20 times less. Another challenge is the quantity of low enriched UF6 that currently exists in Iran’s stockpile or may be produced in the future, which could be re-enriched to weapons grade in a breakout scenario. We propose the possibility of denaturing low enriched UF6 (such as the near 5% material) with foreign (Russian) reprocessed uranium (RepU) in order to decrease the risk of the current and future stockpiles of enriched UF6. In a first step, 7952.9 kg of near-5% UF6 is blended down to 3% using 6950 kg natural uranium. In a second step the material is blended with 17% RepUF6 (with >4.9 ppm U-232) to bring the material back up to 5% U-235 enriched material. This material is significantly less attractive for use in a nuclear weapon if further enriched to weapons grade. 1 The reason for this is that U-232 present in reprocessed uranium is enriched along with the U-235 increasing the number of neutrons both through spontaneous fission but also due to the (α,n) reaction on light element contaminants in the material.
    [Show full text]