CRESP Short Course Introduction to Nuclear Chemistry and Fuel Cycle Separations Vanderbilt University School of Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Nashville, TN December 16‐18, 2008 COURSE MONOGRAPH Speakers Affiliations Acknowledgements ORGANIZING COMMITTEE: Raymond G. Wymer, Chair, Vanderbilt University David S. Kosson, Vice‐Chair, Vanderbilt University Cynthia Atkins‐Duffin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory David DePaoli, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Kathryn Higley, Oregon State University Terry Todd, Idaho National Laboratory SPEAKERS: Cynthia Atkins‐Duffin, Lawrence Livermore Robert Jubin, Oak Ridge National Laboratory National Laboratory David S. Kosson, Vanderbilt University Allan Croff, ORNL, ret., and USNRC Jack Law, Idaho National Laboratory David DePaoli, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Frank L. Parker, Vanderbilt University B. John Garrick, NWTRB Chairman Robert Sindelar, Savannah River National Mark Gilbertson, Department of Energy Laboratory Mike Goff, Idaho National Laboratory Lawrence Tavlarides, Syracuse University Clarence Hardy, Nuclear Fuel Australia, Ltd John Vienna, Pacific Northwest National Kathryn Higley, Oregon State University Laboratory Gordon Jarvinen, Los Alamos National Laboratory Raymond G. Wymer, Chair, Vanderbilt University STAFF: Lisa Bliss, Assistant Director CRESP III Randi Hall, Administrative Assistant Kevin Brown, Senior Research Scientist This course is based on work supported by the U. S. Department of Energy, under Cooperative Agreement Number DE‐FC01‐06EW07053 entitled ‘The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation III’ awarded to Vanderbilt University. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Energy or Vanderbilt University. This course is also partially supported by Nuclear Education Grant Program from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Disclaimer: This course was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. 2 About CRESP CRESP Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation III Co-Principal Investigators: David S. Kosson, Ph.D. [email protected] 615-322-1064 Charles W. Powers, Ph.D. [email protected] 201-214-4937 About CRESP The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation CRESP III is primarily a five year (2006 - 2011) Department of Energy cooperative agreement awarded to Vanderbilt University. The multi-university consortium is working to advance cost-effective, risk-based cleanup of the nation's nuclear weapons production facility sites and cost effective, risk-based management of potential future nuclear sites and wastes. CRESP III Mission The mission of CRESP III is to advance cost-effective, risk-based cleanup of the nation's nuclear weapons production facility sites and cost effective, risk-based management of potential future nuclear sites and wastes. This will be accomplished by seeking to improve the scientific and technical basis for environmental management decisions by the Department of Energy and other public entities and by fostering public participation in that search. Scope The CRESP III projects help define and assess the technical and regulatory scope and approaches useful for the nation as it strives to undertake its cleanup and stewardship responsibilities in a protective and cost-effective manner at contaminated sites, and plan and manage potential future nuclear sites and wastes. The project effort focuses on supporting independent and collaborative research, reviews, methods, data gathering and stakeholder participation needed for effective evaluation and communication of DOE related health, environmental and other risks. The effort seeks responsively to address on important cleanup-related challenges at the sites, on the end states which cleanups seek to achieve, and planning and management challenges for potential future nuclear sites and wastes. CRESP III is committed to accomplishing these outcomes by: o performing targeted studies on specific risk related issues important to the long-term management of environmental problems; o contributing to risk evaluation and assessment, or to the development of related methodologies, relevant to risk issues at a number of DOE sites; o focusing on the collection and analysis of data needed for effective risk evaluation, and on the definition and assessment of relevant technical and regulatory approaches valuable in resolving risk-related issues; o providing an independent mechanism to support the assessment of DOE'S needs for research, to critique current research, and to develop data relevant to the concerns of the public, to support planning and to be responsive to evolving regulatory commitments; and o supporting efforts to improve working relationships and communications with the public and stakeholders at sites and across the DOE complex. The CRESP Membership The CRESP III consortium member universities, led by Vanderbilt, now include Howard University, New York University School of Law, Oregon State University, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, University of Arizona, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Washington. 3 Table of Contents Spent Nuclear Reactor Fuel Reprocessing: Past, Present, and Future page 5 Management of Nuclear Waste page 19 An Overview of the Nuclear Separations Course Presentations page 41 Mining, Milling, Conversion and Enrichment of Uranium Ores page 70 Nuclear Radiation page 90 Reactors and Fuels page 115 Spent Fuel Reprocessing page 127 Non‐Aqueous Processes page 149 Precipitation and Crystallization Processes page 158 Complexation Reactions in Nuclear Separations page 172 Liquid‐Liquid Extraction Equipment page 182 Waste Forms for an Advanced Fuel Cycle page 196 Environmental Transport page 220 Modeling and Simulation of Nuclear Fuel Recycling Systems page 238 Sol‐Gel Synthesized Sorbent Development and Analysis for Column Separations page 253 Quantifying the Risk of Nuclear Fuel Recycling Facilities page 280 Nuclear Nonproliferation page 298 4 Spent Nuclear Reactor Fuel Reprocessing: Past, Present, and Future Raymond G. Wymer Vanderbilt University 5 Why Should We Care About Reprocessing? Today’s technologically advanced world is absolutely dependent on available, abundant, environmentally acceptable and affordable energy. Nearly all of today’s major sources of energy are based on fossil fuels that are either becoming environmentally unacceptable because of solid and gaseous waste products, will become depleted in the foreseeable future, or are vulnerable to adverse manipulation, both in price and availability. Energy sources such as sunlight and wind can and will make a worthwhile contribution to the energy supply mix, but they will not by themselves adequately address the problems just noted. Another major energy source has already being added to the list of viable energy sources: nuclear energy. The use of nuclear must be increased if the serious problems noted above are to be minimized or avoided entirely. Nuclear energy is not without its drawbacks, most notably the radioactive wastes that attend nuclear energy production. There is as yet nowhere in the world a licensed and operating high- level radioactive waste repository for the spent fuel wastes from nuclear power reactors. This true whether the wastes are intact spent nuclear reactor fuel elements or are wastes from spent nuclear reactor fuel reprocessing. However, progress is being made in several countries to establish geologic repositories for High-level radioactive wastes. A repository already exists in the U.S. for alpha wastes. In addition to the radioactive wastes there are other very serious potential drawbacks to obtaining energy from nuclear power reactors as exemplified by the catastrophic Chernobyl reactor accident in Russia and the relatively benign Three-Mile Island Reactor accident in the U.S. Major advances have been made in nuclear power reactor design in recent years that significantly reduce the likelihood of recurrence of such accidents, and reactor licensing requirements that militate against such accidents have become more stringent. In any case, the need for the energy that can be obtained from fissioning the atom must be balanced against the dangers inherent in its use. The national and international consequences of an inadequate energy supply are simply unacceptable; safe and affordable nuclear energy is subject to continuing technological advances and improvements that make its production both acceptably safe and reliable. As informed citizens it is incumbent on us to understand the pros and cons of