DOCSLIB.ORG

Trs, Spent MOX Fuel Assemblies from Fugen Were Reprocessed in the Tokai Reprocessing Plant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trs, Spent MOX Fuel Assemblies from Fugen Were Reprocessed in the Tokai Reprocessing Plant Technical Reports SeriEs No. 4I5 Status and Advances in MOX Fuel Technology INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 2003 STATUS AND ADVANCES IN MOX FUEL TECHNOLOGY The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN GHANA PAKISTAN ALBANIA GREECE PANAMA ALGERIA GUATEMALA PARAGUAY ANGOLA HAITI PERU ARGENTINA HOLY SEE PHILIPPINES ARMENIA HONDURAS POLAND AUSTRALIA HUNGARY PORTUGAL AUSTRIA ICELAND QATAR AZERBAIJAN INDIA REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA BANGLADESH INDONESIA ROMANIA BELARUS IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION BELGIUM IRAQ SAUDI ARABIA BENIN IRELAND SENEGAL BOLIVIA ISRAEL SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA ITALY SIERRA LEONE BOTSWANA JAMAICA SINGAPORE BRAZIL JAPAN SLOVAKIA BULGARIA JORDAN SLOVENIA BURKINA FASO KAZAKHSTAN SOUTH AFRICA CAMBODIA KENYA SPAIN CAMEROON KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA CANADA KUWAIT SUDAN CENTRAL AFRICAN LATVIA SWEDEN REPUBLIC LEBANON SWITZERLAND CHILE LIBERIA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC CHINA LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA TAJIKISTAN COLOMBIA LIECHTENSTEIN THAILAND COSTA RICA LITHUANIA THE FORMER YUGOSLAV CÔTE D’IVOIRE LUXEMBOURG REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA CROATIA MADAGASCAR TUNISIA CUBA MALAYSIA TURKEY CYPRUS MALI UGANDA CZECH REPUBLIC MALTA UKRAINE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC MARSHALL ISLANDS UNITED ARAB EMIRATES OF THE CONGO MAURITIUS UNITED KINGDOM OF DENMARK MEXICO GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONACO NORTHERN IRELAND ECUADOR MONGOLIA UNITED REPUBLIC EGYPT MOROCCO OF TANZANIA EL SALVADOR MYANMAR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ESTONIA NAMIBIA URUGUAY ETHIOPIA NETHERLANDS UZBEKISTAN FINLAND NEW ZEALAND VENEZUELA FRANCE NICARAGUA VIETNAM GABON NIGER YEMEN GEORGIA NIGERIA ZAMBIA GERMANY NORWAY 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. The Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’. © IAEA, 2003 Permission to reproduce or translate the information contained in this publication may be obtained by writing to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria. Printed by the IAEA in Austria May 2003 STI/DOC/010/415 TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No. 415 STATUS AND ADVANCES IN MOX FUEL TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA, 2003 IAEA Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Status and advances in MOX fuel technology. — Vienna : International Atomic Energy Agency, 2003. p. ; 24 cm. — (Technical reports series, ISSN 0074–1914 ; no. 415) STI/DOC/010/415 ISBN 92–0–103103–3 Includes bibliographical references. 1. Plutonium. 2. Nuclear fuels. 3. Spent reactor fuels. 4. Nuclear reactors. 5. Fast reactors. 6. Radioactive wastes. 7. Nuclear reactors — Decommissioning. 8. Hazardous wastes — Transportation. I. International Atomic Energy Agency. II. Series: Technical reports series (International Atomic Energy Agency) ; 415. IAEAL 03–00317 FOREWORD In May 1999, the IAEA, in cooperation with the OECD NEA, organized a Symposium on ‘MOX Fuel Cycle Technologies for Medium and Long Term Deployment’ in which more than 150 participants from 28 countries and four international organizations took part. In addition to dealing with current technologies for the MOX fuel cycle, the Symposium considered the future place of plutonium recycle. In this respect, it provided a comprehensive picture of the situation as of the end of December 1998. The Symposium was commended by the IAEA Board of Governors at their meeting in June 1999. It was proposed that a review be made of the status and development trends of advanced MOX fuel technologies based on the Symposium papers and on updates to account for developments since then. In addition, the long term initiatives which need to be put in place to ensure acceptance by the public of plutonium recycle, to offer a very long term environmentally friendly and sustainable energy supply, and at the same time ensure high security against proliferation, were to be examined. This report represents an overview of the worldwide state of plutonium fuel development as of December 2000 with an outline of future trends. The review was prepared by a group of experts in the field, under the chairmanship of H. Bairiot, and supported by information from specialists in plutonium fuel developments and related subjects that the IAEA engaged. Information on the present status of, and development trends in, MOX fuel technology in the areas of design, fabrication, performance, in-core fuel management, transportation, spent MOX fuel management, decommissioning, waste treatment, safeguards and alternative approaches for plutonium recycling is provided. The report concentrates on MOX fuel for thermal power reactors; however, specific aspects of fast reactor MOX fuel are also considered. The IAEA wishes particularly to thank D. Farrant for his patience and skills in preparing and correcting the many textual contributions and revisions. The IAEA officer responsible for the organization and compilation of this report was V. Onoufriev of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section, Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology. EDITORIAL NOTE Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained in this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsibility for consequences which may arise from its use. The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 1. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS . 7 1.1. Introduction . 7 1.2. Present status . 8 1.3. Medium and long term trends . 10 1.4. Nuclear fuel cycle back end choices . 11 2. PLUTONIUM FEED PRODUCTION, HANDLING AND STORAGE . 13 2.1. Introduction . 13 2.2. Plutonium feed production . 14 2.2.1. Precipitation of plutonium oxalate . 14 2.2.2. Thermal de-nitration methods . 16 2.2.3. Co-precipitation methods . 16 2.2.4. Gel precipitation methods . 17 2.2.5. Methods of conversion of plutonium metal to oxide . 18 2.2.6. Feed production finishing lines . 19 2.3. Handling and storage of plutonium dioxide powder . 19 2.3.1. Evolution of storage methodology . 20 2.3.2. Potential hazards associated with storage and handling . 20 2.3.3. Description of storage containers . 21 2.4. Longer term developments . 24 2.5. Conclusions . 24 3. MOX FUEL FABRICATION . 25 3.1 Present status . 25 3.1.1 Fabrication capacities . 25 3.1.2. Fabrication processes . 29 3.1.2.1. Powder processing routes . 29 3.1.2.2. Fabrication technology . 33 3.1.3. Fabrication records . 35 3.1.4. Fuel quality . 37 3.1.4.1. Homogeneity of plutonium distribution . 37 3.1.4.2. Uniformity of plutonium isotopic composition . 41 3.1.5. Scraps and wastes . 43 3.2. Issues and challenges . 44 3.3. Future developments . 45 3.4. Conclusions . 46 4. LWR FUEL ASSEMBLY DESIGN, IN-CORE FUEL MANAGEMENT AND LICENSING . 46 4.1. Status of experience . 46 4.2. Qualification of neutronic fuel assembly and core design methods . 46 4.3. Neutronic fuel assembly design . 48 4.3.1. General aspects and design targets . 48 4.3.2. MOX carrier material and plutonium composition . 51 4.3.2.1. Carrier material for plutonium . 51 4.3.2.2. Plutonium composition . 52 4.4. Neutronic core design . 53 4.4.1. Current status . 53 4.4.2. Current trends . 55 4.4.3. Reload strategies . 56 4.4.4. MOX impact on normal reactor operation . 56 4.4.4.1. PWRs . 56 4.4.4.2. BWRs . 57 4.4.5. MOX impact on transients . 57 4.4.5.1. Reactor kinetics . 57 4.4.5.2. Decay heat power . 57 4.4.5.3. Xenon/samarium . 58 4.4.5.4. PWRs . 58 4.4.5.5. BWRs . 58 4.5. Future developments . 59 4.6. Conclusions . 60 5. LWR MOX FUEL DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE . 60 5.1. Fuel design and safety related characteristics of MOX fuel . 60 5.2. MOX fuel performance: experiment and modelling . 61 5.2.1. Analytical and irradiation test programmes . 62 5.2.1.1. Belgium . 62 5.2.1.2. Canada . 63 5.2.1.3. Commission of the European Communities . 64 5.2.1.4. France . 64 5.2.1.5. Germany . 66 5.2.1.6. Japan . 68 5.2.1.7. The OECD Halden reactor project . 68 5.2.1.8. United Kingdom . 69 5.2.1.9. USA . 70 5.2.2. Commercial irradiation and surveillance programmes . 70 5.2.3. MOX fuel performance and modelling . 75 5.2.3.1. Radial power and burnup profiles . 75 5.2.3.2. Thermal properties . 76 5.2.3.3. Fission gas release and fuel microstructure . 77 5.2.3.4. Operational transient behaviour and fuel creep . 78 5.2.3.5. Helium generation and release . 78 5.2.3.6. Defective fuel rod behaviour . 79 5.3. Medium and long term developments . 79 5.4. Conclusions . 80 6. TRANSPORTATION . 81 6.1. Introduction . 81 6.2. Regulatory requirements . ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Uranium Dioxide Is Voluminous
    r>r 19 i o% ORNL-4755 UC-25 - Metals, Ceramics, and Materials s <-;. CONVERSIOH OF V&&4VWA NITRATE TO i aRAMlC-OR^Dt OXIDE>fs6t THE U&HT W4TBT J- -« .•'--• "" * -„ -' r J* - J * \ ^ --; f % ;~, <r- 4>- >» N< DMSICH0F DAfE -,i M\OH CAR6IDE COft^0tATtOR. U.S. ATOMIC *N**0T COMMAS»OIV 9>f & ^ima®tf»T^^*tB iwww® 1 PH^sarf in «*£ Uf9t«t Stress e* America. A vatfatt» from ---Sri*; -3K- >f ~ - - i ,43^>*£«* «^ ixn^ar»# ac «*, mts&mf of work {passaged b? tfw Lhnw XtitNr tfgr *}~ti$*i $**m «ar t!» untod Soto* Aflymic ^ «^ awy ^ iftw^r itT»i&y*OT« nor mf sd ihev canifiesscs.. ^iU- >*• ^H^ **•-» *-*• V .24, i *~ eta* -4-T" * iL - - IBS kfiE- r-„- 2 • «. "« J" '»' i - ^r'-s^j. •NOTICt ORNL-4755 Contract No. W-7405-eng-26 METAI5 AND CERAMICS DIVISION CONVERSION OF URANIUM NITRATE TO CERAMIC-GRADE OXIDE FOR THE LIGHT WATER ESEEDER REACTOR: PROCESS DEVELOPMENT J. M. Leitnaker M. L. Smith C. M. Fitzpatrick APRIL 1972 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATIOJN for the U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION W5TWBUTI0N OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UftUMflli iii CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Previous Investigations - 3 Stabilisation 4 Behavior of IXfe in Dry Air or Oxygen at Lev Tenpera&ures . 5 Behavior of UCfe in Dry Air or Oxygen at High Temperatures . 5 Behavior of DC^ in Hoist Air 7 Stabilisation of UO2 by Control of Surface Area 7 Stabilization by Addition of Moisture 11 Stabilization of UO2 with Dry Ice 12 Mechanical Stabilization of UO2 13 Reduction of Uranate to UO2 14 General Process Description .
    [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]
  • MOX Fuel Program: Current Plans and Controversy
    MOX Fuel Program: Current Plans and Controversy The Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility at Savannah River, South Carolina is intended to manufacture nuclear fuel from surplus weapons-grade plutonium for use in commercial nuclear energy reactors. However, the project has faced serious delays and massive cost overruns – and currently has no customers for its proposed fuel. As a result, the President’s FY17 Budget Proposal requests $270 million to begin closing the project, while diluting the plutonium for transfer to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, a more cost-efficient option. What Is It? The MOX facility at Savannah River was designed to repurpose 3.5 tonnes of surplus weapons-grade plutonium yearly. This facility was intended to play a key role in the United States’ fulfillment of the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) between Russia and the U.S., which affirms each country’s commitment to dispose of 34 metric tonnes of plutonium, enough collectively for 17,000 nuclear weapons. Challenges: The MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility’s anticipated date of operation was 2007, with plutonium disposition set to end in 2020. Multiple delays in construction led to significant cost overruns, with beginning operations delayed until 2019. Initially valued at $2.898 billion (2016 dollars), the total cost of the project skyrocketed to $15.683 billion as a result of construction delays and program mismanagement. This estimate, however, assumes a steady rate of funding, and fluctuations in funding levels could exacerbate delays and cost overruns. Even if completed, the site currently boasts zero customers for MOX fuel.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Luminescence 210 (2019) 425–434
    Journal of Luminescence 210 (2019) 425–434 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Luminescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jlumin Insight into the effect of A-site cations on structural and optical properties of T RE2Hf2O7:U nanoparticles ∗ Maya Abdoua, Santosh K. Guptaa,b, Jose P. Zunigaa, Yuanbing Maoa,c, a Department of Chemistry, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 1201 West University Drive, Edinburg, TX, 78539, USA b Radiochemistry Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, 400085, India c School of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 1201 West University Drive, Edinburg, TX, 78539, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: A2B2O7 type pyrochlores have been recently proposed as a potential nuclear waste host due to their many Uranium interesting properties. To assess and understand the performance of these compounds as nuclear waste hosts, the Pyrochlore speciation and structural investigations on actinide-doped RE2Hf2O7 are needed since both are imperative from Phase-transition their application perspective. In this work, we investigated the effect of uranium doping at different con- Luminescence centrations in the range of 0–10% on the structural and optical properties of RE Hf O :U (RE = Y, Gd, Nd, and Cotunnite 2 2 7 Lu) nanoparticles (NPs). The Y2Hf2O7 NPs exist in slightly disordered pyrochlore structure and the extent of disordering increases as a function of uranium doping while the structure reaches a cotunnite phase at 10.0% doping level. The Nd2Hf2O7 NPs also exist in a distorted pyrochlore structure and their distortion increases with increasing uranium doping inducing a phase transition into a disordered fluorite structure at 10.0% uranium doping.
    [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]
  • Revision 1 Manuscript Submitted To
    This is a preprint, the final version is subject to change, of the American Mineralogist (MSA) Cite as Authors (Year) Title. American Mineralogist, in press. (DOI will not work until issue is live.) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2138/am.2013.4295 10/3 1 Revision 1 2 3 Manuscript submitted to the Special Section: 4 "Mineralogy and the Nuclear Industry: Actinides in 5 Geology, Energy, and the Environment" 6 7 8 9 10 Evidence for nanocrystals of vorlanite, a rare uranate mineral, in the Nopal I low- 11 temperature uranium deposit (Sierra Peña Blanca, Mexico) 12 Guillaume Othmane,1,* Thierry Allard,1 Nicolas Menguy,1 Guillaume Morin,1 Imène Esteve,1 13 Mostafa Fayek,2 and Georges Calas1 14 15 1 Institut de Minéralogie et de Physique des Milieux Condensés (IMPMC), UMR 7590 16 CNRS-UPMC/Paris VI-IRD, Case 115, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France 17 18 2 Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2 19 20 * E-mail: [email protected] 21 1 Always consult and cite the final, published document. See http://www.minsocam.org or GeoscienceWorld This is a preprint, the final version is subject to change, of the American Mineralogist (MSA) Cite as Authors (Year) Title. American Mineralogist, in press. (DOI will not work until issue is live.) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2138/am.2013.4295 10/3 22 ABSTRACT 23 The occurence of vorlanite, cubic CaUO4, is reported in the Nopal I uranium deposit 24 (Sierra Peña Blanca, Mexico). This is the first time this rare calcium uranate has been found 25 displaying a cubic morphology, in agreement with its crystal structure.
    [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]
  • Appendix B Differences Between Thermal and Radiation Properties of Mixed Oxide and Low-Enriched Uranium Radioactive Materials
    APPENDIX B DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THERMAL AND RADIATION PROPERTIES OF MIXED OXIDE AND LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS The contents considered in this Standard Review Plan (SRP) appendix are unirradiated mixed oxide (MOX) radioactive material (RAM), in the form of powder, pellets, fresh fuel rods, or fresh reactor fuel assemblies. Unirradiated MOX RAM will also be referred to in this appendix as MOX fresh fuel. This appendix summarizes the relative degree of differences between the thermal and radiation properties of the various MOX RAM contents relative to similar properties for analogous low-enriched uranium (LEU) RAM contents. MOX fresh fuel can be made with plutonium having various compositions of plutonium isotopes. The discussion in this appendix makes use of the 3013 Standard (DOE 2012), which specifies the typical grades of plutonium that are used to make the MOX fresh fuel. The actual plutonium compositions found in practice may not match these compositions exactly, but these grades can be considered typical for the purposes of this appendix. Table B–6 of the 3013 Standard gives weight percents for various plutonium isotopes in various grades of plutonium. They are reproduced in the following table (Table B–1) as representative values for typical grades of plutonium that might be used to fabricate MOX fresh fuel. Pure plutonium-239 has been included to contrast the effect of the other plutonium isotopes. Note that in addition to the isotopes identified in Table B–1, plutonium will contain plutonium-236 and americium-241 (from plutonium-241 decay). Initially, it is expected that MOX fresh fuel will be fabricated using weapons grade (WG) plutonium.
    [Show full text]
  • Framatome ANP MOX Fuel Design
    BAW-10238(NP) Revision 0 43-10238NP-00 MOX Fuel Design Report March 2002 Framatome ANP, Inc. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report Disclaimer Important Notice Regarding the Contents and Use of This Document Please Read Carefully This technical report was derived through research and development programs sponsored by Framatome ANP, Inc. It is being submitted by Framatome ANP, Inc. to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of a technical contribution to facilitate safety analyses by licensees of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which utilize Framatome ANP, Inc. fabricated reload fuel or technical services provided by Framatome ANP, Inc. for light water power reactors and it is true and correct to the best of Framatome ANP, Inc.'s knowledge, information, and belief. The information contained herein may be used by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its review of this report and, under the terms of the respective agreements, by licensees or applicants before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which are customers of Framatome ANP, Inc. in their demonstration of compliance with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations. Framatome ANP, Inc.'s warranties and representations concerning the subject matter of this document are those set forth in the agreement between Framatome ANP, Inc. and the Customer pursuant to which this document is issued. Accordingly, except as otherwise expressly provided in such agreement, neither Framatome ANP, Inc. nor any person acting on its behalf: a. makes any warranty, or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this document will not infringe privately owned rights; or b.
    [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]